I respectfully disagree. People that cannot bring up the discipline to drive sober and keep their attention on the road, even if their jobs would depend on it, shouldn’t have the privilege of being allowed to operate a machine that can easily kill when making a mistake or misjudgment.
You spectacularly missed the point of DUI law. Society couldn’t give two shits if someone is drinking themselves to an early grave. It’s when they endanger other people that it becomes an issue. That’s why it’s driving under the influence, not existing.
Many countries will judge a DUI induced kill a murder, because the person who chooses to drink and drive knows that killing someone is a probable outcome and chose to do it anyway.
Agreed, and I respectfully disagree with everyone else replying to you.
Relying on your car for your job is a much wider criterion than driving as your job. In car-centric places like the US (outside of the big cities) that’s probably 99% of the population. Couple that with the piss poor social safety net and losing your license literally means starvation.
This still doesn’t mean I endorse or agree with people driving distracted in any way. If revoking someone’s license meant removing them from the road but not destroying their life, I would do that in a heartbeat.
Instantaneous, lifelong driving bans for any driver who is found to be texting or intoxicated behind the wheel.
I respectfully disagree. People, who depend on cars for their job would lose the license and their job, making them drink more.
I respectfully disagree. People that cannot bring up the discipline to drive sober and keep their attention on the road, even if their jobs would depend on it, shouldn’t have the privilege of being allowed to operate a machine that can easily kill when making a mistake or misjudgment.
Respectfully, so what? If you drive for your livelihood then it’s your own damn fault if you get banned from it for doing something illegal.
You spectacularly missed the point of DUI law. Society couldn’t give two shits if someone is drinking themselves to an early grave. It’s when they endanger other people that it becomes an issue. That’s why it’s driving under the influence, not existing.
Many countries will judge a DUI induced kill a murder, because the person who chooses to drink and drive knows that killing someone is a probable outcome and chose to do it anyway.
Agreed, and I respectfully disagree with everyone else replying to you.
Relying on your car for your job is a much wider criterion than driving as your job. In car-centric places like the US (outside of the big cities) that’s probably 99% of the population. Couple that with the piss poor social safety net and losing your license literally means starvation.
This still doesn’t mean I endorse or agree with people driving distracted in any way. If revoking someone’s license meant removing them from the road but not destroying their life, I would do that in a heartbeat.
Realistically, they still drive. They just don’t have insurance so the second person they hit is fucked.