Barry Pless has criticized the Canada Safety Council on several fronts, apparently unaware of the strong body of evidence supporting our stance in each case. I encourage readers to visit our Web site (www.safety-council.org) to see the breadth of safety issues that we address.
It is true that cell phones can be a dangerous distraction. However, the 1997 study1 had serious shortcomings. New research is available from organizations with recognized expertise in traffic safety; the methodology used in this research includes large, representative samples and control groups studied over significant periods of time.2 Current findings should not be dismissed if we truly wish to improve safety on our roads.
The Canada Safety Council fully recognizes that laws and regulations and their enforcement are critical to the prevention of deaths and injuries. The Hazardous Products Act, labour legislation, laws against impaired driving, laws making seat-belt use mandatory and many other regulations have played a major role in improving safety. Perhaps because of the success of these laws, more and stricter rules are demanded in the name of safety. However, it is counterproductive to have too many laws on the books if they cannot be enforced.
Before calling for new laws, it is important to consider the following questions. First, can the problem be addressed through existing laws? In the case of driver distractions and impaired driving, laws are already in place. Second, can the proposed legislation realistically be enforced? Resources for the enforcement of traffic laws, including those concerning impaired driving, are generally inadequate. Third, can nonregulatory approaches such as public education be used to address the issue?
I wrote my original letter to CMAJ not as an attack, but because I feel that it is vital that the members of the medical community and the safety movement work together to make Canada a safer place.3