1Despite the differences in legal drinking and driving ages, different cultures with respect to drinking, licencing procedures, etc., a comparison between the drinking-driving behaviours of Canadians and French reveals both similarities and différences. For example, males were more likely to drink, to crash and to die of liver cirrhosis when compared to females in both countries, but both males and females were more likely to drink, crash, and die of liver cirrhosis in France than in Canada. Comparisons of roadside survey data of drinking-driving behaviour, however, do not reflect the extreme cross-cultural differences in drinking and crashes. These data imply cultural differences in drinking patterns whereby the French engage in greater frequency but perhaps lower quantity per sitting than Canadians.

2Canada owes its beginning and much of its early history to France. In the last century, Canada bas evolved to reflect different cultures, to become, as the official government term States, « a cultural mosaic ». France has also evolved culturally in the last century, although not to the degree of Canada. Thus, to talk about Canada or France as single comparable entities is really impossible because not only are there cultural, economic, geographie variations between these two countries, but there are great variations within each of the countries. These variations between and within Canada and France of course have an impact on both drinking and driving. Thus, the comparisons can only be viewed as crude measures, as suggestions of similarities and differences. Furthermore, since much of the data that I am about to présent were not gathered using the same methodology, questions, sampling framework, etc., I can only paint a sketchy picture, with broad brush strokes. A more exacting image of the differences and similarities between France and Canada will have to await cross-cultural studies carried out within and between the two countries.

3However, despite these limitations, we can still engage in some broad comparisons and offer some interesting spéculations. Table 1 présents population, size and densities of both countries. The estimates for Canada are somewhat misleading as most of the population of Canada lives within 400 kilometers of the U. S. border. That said, it is still clear that there are more people on less land in France. Therefore traffic density should be greater. Greater traffic density normally means, among other things, more crashes. Table 2 shows the total number of motor vehicle deaths per million population and per million motor vehicles. Within Europe, France’s crash rates sit somewhat in the middle, but are much higher than Canada. If we look at total fatal motor vehicle traffic crashes per 100,000 population by gender for both Canada and France we note both similarities and différences between the two countries (World Health Organization, 1993) (Table 3). First, in both countries males are more likely to fatally crash than females. However, 25 % more males fatally crash in France than in Canada. This may partly also explain the larger population differential between the genders in France when compared to Canada.

4Another factor adds to this equation – and that is drinking. France and Canada have rather different drinking historiés. Alcoholic beverages arrived in Canada with the first settlers and traders. Not only was alcohol used for personal enjoyment, but spirits became a popular medium of exchange in trading with the native population for furs, a practice which led to the passing of the first restrictive alcohol legislation in Canada. The first Canadian distillery appeared in 1769 in Quebec City. Home brewing of beer was carried out by the Colonists early in Canada’s history, but soon in 1668, Canada’s first commercial brewery was built to promote temperance, reduce exports of imported beverages and use the readily available grains of the New World (Brazeau and Burr, 1992).

5France, on the other hand, for generations has been a wine drinking country, although this was not always the case. Before 58 A. D. when Cæsar conquered Gaul and incorporated it into the Roman Empire, people of the region of France drank beer. The Gallic national drink before the Roman conquest was beer, known as Cervoise, which according to legend, was protected by the Gallic god Sucellus. Cæsar introduced Roman wine to Gaul. However, Gallic superior agricultural skills soon produced local vineyards and eventually the wine trade between Rome and Gaul operated in favour of the Gauls (Brazeau and Burr, 1992).

6The following data reflect these historical and cultural differences in drinking patterns, styles and consequences. First, when one examines chronic liver disease and cirrhosis deaths duc to alcohol, in both countries, it is clear that France has much higher levels of alcohol-related liver disease deaths -more than double the Canadian rate (WHO, 1993) (Table 4). Per capita statistics also reveal large differences, not only in overall consumption, but also in type of beverage consumed. The 1990 figures of total per capita consumption for France was 13.2 litres of pure alcohol, while for Canada the number was 7.1 litres (Table 5). Also note the major differences in type of beverage consumed. Beer is the beverage of choice in Canada (Figure 1), whereas, not surprisingly, wine is the beverage of choice in France (Figure 2). Thus, the more than double per capita rate of alcohol-related liver disease in France can be explained to a great extent by the almost double per capita consumption of alcohol. However, trend data for both countries indicate major réductions in the last 30 years of per capita consumption and in tandem, liver cirrhosis deaths (Figure 3).

7Cultural differences are also reflected in the drinking patterns of youth in both France and Canada. In Canada, it is illegal for young people under the age of 18 or 19, (depending on the province), to purchase and consume alcohol of any kind (be it wine, beer or spirits). The purchase of any alcohol in most provinces can occur only in provincially run alcohol monopolies and prices are strictly regulated. Beer and wine are not available in grocery shops in most provinces (except Quebec and a few other exceptions). In Fance the régulations governing legal drinking age were modified in January 1991. The law forbids the purchase and on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages to any one under 16 unless accompanied by a parent or guardian over 17 years. Unaccompanied persons between 14-16 years can legally consume alcohol with less than 1.2 % alcohol by volume. Thus, the control of all alcoholic beverages is tighter in Canada than in France.

8The drinking patterns and perceptions of alcohol between Canadian and French youth reflect these legislated control différences. Two secondary school surveys were compared, one conducted in France by Choquet (1989), and another conducted in Ontario by Smart and Adlaf (1987). Although the wording of the questions and break-down of data were different for the two studies, French students’ âges ranged from 15-18, the Ontario students’ ages ranged from about 13-18, both studies used randomized methods of sampling and self-administrated questionnaires of similar length and content. Both studies examined prevalence of alcohol consumption. In the French study, at least 8 % of the males and 5 % of the females reported daily drinking of an alcoholic beverage. In the Ontario study, .9 % of the males and . 1 % of the females reported daily drinking. Choquet (1989) further reports that at the age of 16, most young people, that is, 75 % of the males and 66 % of the females have tasted alcohol, and 33 % and 17 %, respectively, usually drink once or twice a week. By age 16 in Ontario, 87.1 % of the students reported alcohol use at least once during the prior year, although the frequency of drinking is much less. Of all the students surveyed, once a week drinking was reported by 9.3 % of the males and 6.8 % of the females. Needless to say, neither wine nor beer are commonly served in Canada with meals and these statistics reveal this cultural difference. The cultural differences in perceptions of alcoholic beverages is well articulated in Chatenet and Simonnet-Pervanchon’s (1987) study of youth carried out in a French driving school which stated: « There remains some uncertainty as to whether beer is an alcoholic drink, even amongst those aged over 18. Wine, beer and champagne are a spécial case: the very young do not know whether they are alcohol or not. » (P. 204) Although I have seen no data for Canada, I would think that it would be the rare youth who would not know that wine, beer and champagne are alcohol. Ail these beverages cannot be legally purchased in Canada by youths under 18-19 years of âge. Wines and beers are not differentiated from spirits for purchase. Our educational messages to youth and the general public are on the equivalency of absolute alcohol in our standard drinks. That is, our standard 12 oz. bottle of regular beer, standard 1.5 oz. drink of spirits and standard 5 oz. glass of regular wine all contain the same amount of absolute alcohol and therefore hâve the same impairing properties. There is a perception in Canada that a bottle of beer or glass of wine is less impairing than a shot of spirits, but because wine and beer are not typically available in stores other than provincial monopolies, I think that there would less confusion on the issue.

9Despite these general population and youth data suggesting overall greater alcohol consumption among the French than among Canadians, a similar trend is not identified with drinking driving behaviour. First, it is important to point out that the drinking-driving laws in Canada and France have a similar history. Prior to 1970, both France and Canada had drinking-driving législation which was based on evidence of impairment. Both Canada in 1969 and France in 1970 introduced a second type of law which set as the legal limit, .0,8 mg per 100 millilitres as evidentiary proof of impairment. In the late 1970’s and mid-1980’s both countries introduced additional législation to strengthen the deterrent aspects of the laws. In the mid-1980’s, both countries engaged in regional road-side surveys in order to determine the prevalence of drinking-driving on the roads. In 1985, INRETS conducted two régional roadside surveys, one in Haute-Garonne and another in Ille-et-Vilaine (Biecheler-Fretel and Filou, 1993; Filou, Khoudour and L’Hoste, 1987). In 1986, Transport Canada, in coopération with the provincial governments conducted surveys in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec (Interministerial Committee on Drinking-Driving, 1988; Stewart and Lawson, 1987). The survey times, days of week and sampling methods for the French and Canadian studies were not the same, but sufficient data were provided to allow for some rough comparisons. Unfortunately, I was not able to détermine the refusal rate for the French surveys. In the Ontario survey, 95.1 % of the randomly stopped drivers participated and provided a breath sample. In the Quebec survey the participation rate was 85.4 %. The Canadian surveys were conducted Wednesday through Saturday nights from 2100 – 0300 hours. The French surveys were conducted throughout the week and the time of day was divided into four periods (0900 to 1459, 1500 to 1859, 1900 to 2359, 2400 to 0400).

10The French study found that the largest concentration of drinking-drivers were found at night, especially between midnight and 0400. Alcohol levels above the legal limit were found in 4.1 % of drivers under 25 between 2400 and 0400 and 1.5 % of young drivers between 1900 and 2400. Furthermore, drivers 25 years and older were more likely to have positive blood alcohol concentrations and to be over .08 % than younger drivers.

11In Ontario, 3.4 % of the under 25 year old drivers were above the legal limit during the Wednesday to Saturday 2100 to 0300 hours. In Quebec, 2.6 % of the young drivers were over the legal limit, although this statistic must be tempered with the 15 % refusal rate of drivers. Similar to the French data, in both Ontario and Quebec, older drivers were more likely to have been drinking and to be over the legal limit.

12Thus, despite the seeming difference in youth consumption frequency, there does not seem to be large differences in the percentage of legally impaired young drivers on the road, certainly not to the degree anticipated based on the self-reported frequency of drinking among French youth. The « folks » wisdom about France and Canada is that because of the popularity of wine and beer at mealtime, the French engage in more frequent drinking within the context of meals, that is, high frequency, low quantity per sitting. However, Canadians may be involved in lower frequency, but greater quantity at one sitting. This lack of major difference could also be mediated by the potentially higher driving exposure of Canadian youth. In Canada, young people can obtain their driver’s licence to drive a motor vehicle at the age of 16. Furthermore, a greater proportion of Canadian young people seem to hâve their driver’s licence when compared to French youth. Our study indicated that whereas only 39 % of surveyed Ontario secondary school students aged 16-17 years reported owning a driver’s licence, 81 % of 18-19 year old students reported owning one (Vingilis, De Genova, Adlaf, 1986). Yet a study by Barjonet and Cauzard (1987) conducted on a représentative sample of older French students and manual workers between 18-25, 74 % of the manual workers and 58 % of the students reported having a driver’s licence. However, without cross-cultural studies, we cannot assess the relationships among quantity-frequency of drinking, driving behaviour and drinking-driving behaviour. Nor can we déterminé the true similarities and differences between the two countries on the rates of drinking, driving and drinking-driving frequency and collisions.

13Yet, despite the potential différences in frequency of drinking among our youth, the individuals who seem to develop problems show striking similarity in both countries. Research carried out on both sides of the Atlantic (e.g. Barjonet and Cauzard, 1987; Beirness and Simpson, 1987, 1989; Bergeron and Joly, 1987; Biecheler-Fretel and Danech-Pajouh, 1987; Chatenet and Simonnet, 1987; Choquet, 1989; LaForest, 1987; Vingilis and Adlaf, 1990) consistently indicate evidence of what Jessor (1987) calls Problem-Behaviour Syndrome. Youth who abuse alcohol are also youth who engage in other deviant behaviours such as risky driving behaviours (speeding, drinking and driving), health compromising behaviours (poor eating habits, sleeping habits, illicit drug use, precocious sex, smoking). Jessor (1987) States that the explanation of adolescent problem behaviour, from a pychosocial perspective, rests upon the psychological, social and behavioural characteristics of the adolescent, the relevant dimensions of the larger social environment and the attributes of the situation in which the behaviour takes place. In theory, problem behaviour is defined as behaviour that departs from the norms – both legal and social – of larger society. For example, Choquet and Menke (1987) showed that a sample of French youth who were involved in trauma of any kind were more likely to be males, to drop out of school, to have higher consumption of medicine and medical care, to show depressive tendencies, suicidai idéation, insomnia, repeated drunkenness, heavy smoking and experimenting with illégal drugs. Similarly, two studies of Ontario students, one conducted by Beirness and Simpson (1989) and another by Vingilis and Adlaf (1990) obtained virtually identical findings. For Beirness and Simpson (1989), the motor vehicle crash involved group had higher scores on thrill and adventure seeking, more liberal attitudes toward alcohol, drank more and more often, were more likely to smoke, were less likely to wear seat belts, reported fewer hours of sleep each night. Vingilis and Adlaf (1990), using the provincial secondary school data set also found that youth who drank a lot and had problems because of drinking, also reported delinquent behaviour, illicit drug use and more collisions, drinking-driving behaviour and convictions. Bergeron and Joly’s (1987) study of Quebecois youth showed a virtually identical profile to the aforementioned studies. In addition, studies on both continents found that although youth drove less and drank and drove less, they were at greater risk for crash involvement (eg. Chatenet and Simonnet-Pervanchon, 1987; Simpson and Mayhew, 1991).

14To conclude, the comparisons show that although there seems to be differences in the overall prevalences of drinking, motor vehicle crashes and possibly drinking-driving behaviour, the patterns of problem behaviour seem to transcend cultural boundaries. Cross-cultural studies, using an Interactionist approach, which emphasizes the contributions of both person and the situation to behaviour could be very valuable in assessing problem etiology and the relative contributions of person-factors and situation-factors (Vingilis and Mann, 1986). In this way, we may better be able to reduce the public health problem created by drinking-driving behaviour, as appropriate countermeasures might be developed.

Table 3. Causes of Death/Causes de décès Motor Vehicle Crashes per 100,000 Population/ Accidents de véhicules à moteur sur la voie publique pour 100000 habitants

Table 4. Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis Deaths per 100,000 Population/ Maladies chroniques et cirrhose du foie pour 100000 habitants

Table 5. Per Capita Consumption of Absolute Alcohol in Litres Consommation moyenne individuelle de litres d’alcool pur

Figure 1. Canada Relative importance by sector (1961/62-1988/89) (Litres of pure alcohol per capita)

Figure 2. Relative importance by sector (1961-1989)) (Litres of pure alcohol per capita)

Figure 3. Canada Liver Cirrhosis Death per 100,000 Population

France. Liver Cirrhosis Death per 100,000 Population