Getting hit by a car can be a death penalty, and drunk driving greatly increases the risk of causing an accident [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_under_the_influence#Ri...

I imagine this is for your personal car. A company car would probably not have this. Though, I would hope that companies that are paying you to specifically drive would skip the 2x DUI people.

I think it's a restriction on your license and applies to any car you drive. The company car won't have the device so the driver would not be able to legally drive it. This would be similar to how some locations make you do a road test with a standard transmission or you are only allowed to drive an automatic.

> I imagine this is for your personal car

The article states that you're not allowed to operate a car without one installed.

You don't want repeat offenders of drink driving getting into professional driving jobs though right?

I've done some pretty stupid shit carwise in my youth and lost a few licenses along the way.

Perhaps extrapolate your statement out to other forms of justice meted out by society and ask if you'd say the same about those crimes?

I'd certainly hope I could get a driving job today if worse came to worse. I did my time and certainly paid my dues. Technically it's been long enough that my crimes are wiped off the record and I can legally not mention them to workplaces/authorities.

It's very easy to demand heavy lifetime justice for everyone you don't sympathise with, a lot harder to make it fair and equitable to the longterm benefit of a society. I honestly don't understand how the US treats their convicted criminals, it's basically a life sentence in many respects.

You can drive drunk, get caught, get prosecuted and still get another chance.

Just can’t do it twice, I think that’s fair.

> Just can’t do it twice

As in you can't ever drive again afterwards? I'm fairly honest here about my own failures in life, by this judgement do you think I should never be able to drive a car ever again? Most of my life has been living in places with absolutely no public transport, how exactly do I go to work as a middle aged person having being deemed unworthy of 60 years of no license because of being a young idiot once upon a time? Please go down this path and say what should happen

Yes, it’s a hard place to be. Especially in rural areas, people use their cars to get around. That doesn’t mean that you have a right to drive, no matter the impacts on the people around you. If you’ve been convicted of drunk driving twice, you’ve already shown an ability to ignore the potentially deadly impacts of your actions on others. Being young doesn’t make those impacts any less severe for the victims.

1. You could move to a place with decent public transportation. 2. You could use ride-sharing services. 3. You could bicycle. 4. You could walk.

I am not trying to be snarky here, but absent living in rural environs, there are usually options for personal transport that do not require operating a motor vehicle. Again, it is a tradeoff society makes between personal liberties, i.e. the privilege to drive versus public safety. And different jurisdictions may have differing standards on where that line is drawn.

You can drive, you just can't drive professionally. Getting to work is not driving professionally.

Yes, I think society is too easy on people in general and yes, if you drive drunk or while texting once, you should lose your license for a year and get 14 days in jail, do it twice and lose your license for 10 years and 6 months in jail, kill someone drunk or texting and get life in prison without the possibility of parole.

No, can't drive without an interlock device.

I think that's a fair compromise. But then again given physical access I do wonder about how many people have workarounds. Or like most things it prevents enough people to be effective enough. I bought a calibrated breathalyser because I simply can't afford to lose my Australian license, it's a really good investment, surprising how they aren't subsidised a little bit given the potential societal benefits.

I guess soon it wont matter. When robots take over most driving jobs...

Might not be a bad standard feature. We used to think seatbelts were stupid...

it seems that a workaround for this for a somewhat wealthy or privileged repeat drunk driver would be to form a corporation, buy a vehicle, put some company stickers on the car, get company vehicle insurance. I'm sure you could pay a web developer a few hundred bucks to create a plausible looking company web page, register domain for it, set up email, have a whole set of letterheads for communicating with the relevant government authorities.

Except, if I’m reading correctly, the restriction is on the offenders license and they are prohibited from driving any vehicle that does not have the lockout device.

This is very clever and made me laugh, but really, someone with two drunk driving offenses should just take the humble, honest, simpler path of being sober and blowing in the breath machine.

What about gig work, such as driving an Uber?

So could getting hit by a drunk driver.

There was a case with a 14 year old girl here in Denmark who got hit and murdered by an ex teacher of hers who was super drunk and crashed into her in an intersection -- the impact was so bad it basically blew the bike a part.

And it is the most stupid crime possible to commit, since the upside is so small and the downside so huge.

Personally I would support an instant death penalty for drunk driving if I didn't think it would be abused, so yeah I am okay with somebody not being able to support themselves after murdering a 14 year old girl. I hope the starve themselves to death on the street.

According to Wikipedia, the murder's typical sentence would be for 12 years. This suggests that your legal system believes people can chamge and have their rights restored.

[0] In Denmark manddrab (manslaughter) is the term used by the Danish penalty law to describe the act of intentionally killing another person. No distinction between manslaughter and murder exists. The penalty goes from a minimum of five years (six years in the case of regicide) to imprisonment for life. The standard punishment for manslaughter - i.e. where there are neither aggravating or mitigating circumstances - is 12 years imprisonment.

12 years for killing someone is a complete joke. Kill someone at 26 and get out at 38? Fuck that. Glad I don’t live there.

Then they should not have repeatedly broken the law.

I mean... If you have a history of multiple DUIs you're going to have an extremely difficult time getting a job that requires driving anyways.

Driving drunk is something we should have absolutely 0 tolerance for in 2019. It is nearly never mandatory, except possibly in a disaster, and should be punished according to the externalities it causes. In this case that is death, which is non-reversable.

I, for one, find this to be a barely passable minimum punishment for two DUIs

Single DUI should be a 2-3 year suspension of the licence. Second DUI should be a driving ban for life.

And for a province with a legal drinking age of 18, too. Seems onerous.

No! This is unforgivable \s

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trudeau-sparks-outrage-wit...

Why are you linking to Life Site News? That site is a joke and that article has nothing to do with this thread.

>That site is a joke

Might be (first source that popped up). Does it make it untrue?

The point is: One the one hand people are willing to forgive terrorists and reintegrate them into society, on the other hand you're forced to have a breathalyzer in your car for the rest of your life for drunk driving twice within ten years.