Not at all! While I have some problems with the impaired driving law, I’m firmly on side with it being a criminal offense. But my experience is that employers mostly ignore those convictions, suggesting that the statistics may not mean what we think.
In anticipation of the next question, my concerns with impaired driving legislation, enforcement, and punishment are:
Abstinence is the only reliable way to determine whether you meet the legal definition of impairment outside of actually getting pulled over. If abstinence is the objective, then that should be the law. If abstinence is not the objective, then there should be ready access to reliable tests ahead of time.
In the absence of actual property damage or injury, it should not result in incarceration. This follows my general objection to incarcerating those who have caused no concrete harm.
There needs to be supplementary legislation surrounding ownership of road legal vehicles so that someone other than the driver can be held responsible when a suspended driver is driving.
There needs to be due consideration given to the fact that it’s possible for an impaired driver to be involved in a crash without being any more responsible for that crash than an unimpaired driver would have been. That is, if I run a red light, hitting a vehicle operated by an impaired driver, that driver should not be assessed fault or denied access to my insurance.
In addition, there needs to be proper enforcement of all crimes. For example, many boating laws go unenforced because enforcement officers are reluctant to subject someone to criminal penalties for the infraction.
Are you implying that impaired driving shouldn’t count as a criminal offence?
Not at all! While I have some problems with the impaired driving law, I’m firmly on side with it being a criminal offense. But my experience is that employers mostly ignore those convictions, suggesting that the statistics may not mean what we think.
In anticipation of the next question, my concerns with impaired driving legislation, enforcement, and punishment are:
Abstinence is the only reliable way to determine whether you meet the legal definition of impairment outside of actually getting pulled over. If abstinence is the objective, then that should be the law. If abstinence is not the objective, then there should be ready access to reliable tests ahead of time.
In the absence of actual property damage or injury, it should not result in incarceration. This follows my general objection to incarcerating those who have caused no concrete harm.
There needs to be supplementary legislation surrounding ownership of road legal vehicles so that someone other than the driver can be held responsible when a suspended driver is driving.
There needs to be due consideration given to the fact that it’s possible for an impaired driver to be involved in a crash without being any more responsible for that crash than an unimpaired driver would have been. That is, if I run a red light, hitting a vehicle operated by an impaired driver, that driver should not be assessed fault or denied access to my insurance.
In addition, there needs to be proper enforcement of all crimes. For example, many boating laws go unenforced because enforcement officers are reluctant to subject someone to criminal penalties for the infraction.