Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 176–180 | Cite as

The Early Effects of Ontario’s Administrative Driver’s Licence Suspension Law on Driver Fatalities with a BAC > 80 mg%

  • Robert E. Mann
  • Reginald G. Smart
  • Gina Stoduto
  • Douglas Beirness
  • Robert Lamble
  • Evelyn Vingilis


Background: On November 29, 1996, Ontario introduced an Administrative Driver’s Licence Suspension (ADLS) law, which required that anyone charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over the legal limit of 80 mg% or failing to provide a breath sample would have their licence suspended for a period of 90 days at the time the charge was laid. This study evaluates the early effects of Ontario’s ADLS law on alcohol-involved driver fatalities.

Methods: Interrupted time series analysis with ARIMA modelling was applied to the monthly proportion of drivers killed in Ontario with a BAC over 80 mg% for the period Jan. 1, 1988 to Dec. 31, 1997.

Results: A significant intervention effect was found, with ADLS being associated with an estimated reduction of 17.3% in the proportion of fatally injured drivers who were over the legal limit.

Conclusion: These data provide an early indication that the law resulted in some success in reducing alcohol-related driver fatalities.


Contexte: Le 29 novembre 1996, l’Ontario déposait une réglementation sur la suspension administrative des permis de conduire aux termes de laquelle toute personne conduisant un véhicule automobile alors que son alcoolémie dépasse la limite légale de 80 mg/100 ml ou refusant de fournir un échantillon d’haleine perdait son permis de conduire pour une durée de 90 jours, dès son inculpation. Cette étude évalue les premières répercussions de la réglementation ontarienne sur la proportion d’accidents mortels liés à l’alcool.

Méthode: Une analyse interrompue des séries chronologiques à l’aide du modèle ARMMI a été appliquée à la proportion mensuelle de conducteurs ayant été tués en Ontario entre le 1er janvier 1988 et le 31 décembre 1997 et dont l’alcoolémie dépassait 80 mg/100 ml.

Résultats: Les chercheurs ont constaté que la réglementation avait un |effet significatif, car elle était associée à une réduction approximative de 17,3% des décès parmi les conducteurs ayant une alcoolémie supérieure à la limite légale.

Conclusion: Ces données préliminaires indiquent donc que la suspension administrative des permis de conduire peut réduire, dans une certaine mesure, le nombre d’accidents mortels reliés à l’alcool.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Transport Canada. Statistical data. Ottawa: Transport Canada; 2000. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xie X, Rehm J, Single E, Robson L. The Economic Costs of Alcohol, Tobacco and Illicit Drug Abuse in Ontario: 1992. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Single E, Robson L, Rehm J, Xie X. Morbidity and mortality attributable to alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use in Canada. Am J Public Health 1999;89:385–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Cancer Institute of Canada. Canadian Cancer Statistics 1991. Toronto: National Cancer Institute of Canada, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canadian Medical Association. Substance Abuse and Driving: A CMA Review. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ontario Medical Association. An OMA Position Paper on Drinking and Driving. Toronto: Ontario Medical Association, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    MADD Canada. Rating the Provinces: The 2000 Report Card. Mississauga: Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mann RE, Vingilis ER, Gavin D, Adlaf E, Anglin L. Sentence severity and the drinking driver: Relationships with traffic safety outcome. Accid Anal Prev 1991;23:483–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Homel R. Policing and Punishing the Drinking Driver: A Study of General and Specific Deterrence. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ross HL. Law, science and accidents: The British Road Safety Act of 1967. J Legal Stud 1973;2: 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vingilis ER. A new look at deterrence. In: Wilson RJ, Mann RE (Eds.), Drinking and Driving: Advances in Research and Prevention. New York: Guilford Press, 1990;99–115.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen JE, de Guia NA, Ashley MJ, Ferrence R, Studlar DT, Northrup DA. Predictors of Canadian legislators’ support for public health policy interventions. Can J Public Health 2001;92:188–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Edwards G, Anderson P, Babor TF, Casswell S, Ferrence R, Giesbrecht N, et al. Alcohol Policy and the Public Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vingilis E, Blefgen H, Lei H, Sykora K, Mann RE. An evaluation of the deterrent impact of Ontario’s 12-hour licence suspension law. Accid Anal Prev 1988;20:9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Homel R. Random breath testing and random stopping programs in Australia. In: Wilson RJ, Mann RE (Eds.), Drinking and Driving: Advances in Research and Prevention. New York: Guilford Press, 1990;159–202.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mann RE, Macdonald S, Stoduto G, Bondy S, Jonah B, Shaikh A. The effects of introducing or lowering legal per se blood alcohol limits for driving: an international review. Accid Anal Prev 2001;33:569–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Williams A, Weinberg K, Fields M. The effectiveness of administrative suspension laws. Alc Drugs Driving 1991;7:55–62.Google Scholar
  18. 26.
    Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967.Google Scholar
  19. 27.
    Rossi PH, Freeman HE. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 28.
    Cook TD, Campbell DT. Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.Google Scholar
  21. 18.
    Ross HL. Administrative Revocation for Drunk Drivers: Options and Choices in Three States. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 19.
    Zador PL, Lund AK, Fields M, Weinberg K. Fatal crash involvement and laws against alcohol-impaired driving. J Public Health Pol 1989;10:467–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 20.
    Beirness DJ, Simpson HM, Mayhew DR, Jonah B. The impact of administrative licence suspension and vehicle impoundment for DWI in Manitoba. In: Mercier-Guyon C (Ed.), Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety — T’97. Annecy, France: Centre d’Études et de Recherche en Médecine du Traffic, 1997;919–25.Google Scholar
  24. 21.
    Gibbs JP. Crime, Punishment and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier, 1975.Google Scholar
  25. 22.
    Vingilis E, Salutin L. A prevention programme for drinking driving. Accid Anal Prev 1980;12:267–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 23.
    Mann RE, Smart RG, Stoduto G, Adlaf EM, Vingilis E, Beirness D, Lamble R. Changing drinking-and-driving behaviour: The effects of Ontario’s administrative driver’s licence suspension law. CMAJ 2000;162:1141–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 24.
    Box GEP, Jenkins GM. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1976.Google Scholar
  28. 25.
    Box GEP, Tiao GC. Intervention analysis with applications to economic and environmental problems. J Amer Stat Assoc 1975;70:70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Skog OJ. Testing causal hypotheses about correlated trends: Pitfalls and remedies. Contemp Drug Prob 1988;15:565–606.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Norström T. Deriving relative risks from aggregate data. J Epidemiol Community Health 1988;42:333–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert E. Mann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Reginald G. Smart
    • 1
  • Gina Stoduto
    • 1
  • Douglas Beirness
    • 3
  • Robert Lamble
    • 4
  • Evelyn Vingilis
    • 5
  1. 1.Prevention and Health Policy Research DepartmentCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoCanada
  3. 3.Traffic Injury Research FoundationOttawaCanada
  4. 4.Road Safety Program Office, Road User Safety BranchOntario Ministry of TransportationDownsviewCanada
  5. 5.Population and Community Health Unit, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations