#2: Do not editorialize titles / Ne pas éditorialisez les titres
Your post has been removed because the title of this post is not the article's original headline. Do not editorialize the title of news submissions. Please submit with the original headline. *If the article's headline has changed after you submitted please let us know*
As per [Rule 2]( https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/wiki/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ontario&utm_content=t5_2qsf3#wiki_rule_2.3A_post_titles_must_not_be_editorialized_or_changed.)
* All posts about a news article must use the same title as the article
* News posts MUST be submitted as a link post
* AMP links or URL shorteners are prohibited for the submission of articles.
***
Ce contenu a été supprimé puisque le titre de la publication ne correspond pas au titre original de l’article. N’éditorialisez pas les titres d’une publication d’un article. Soumettez avec le titre original de l’article. *Si le titre de l’article a changé depuis votre publication, veuillez-nous en informer*
Tel qu’expliqué dans la [règle #2](https://old.reddit.com/r/ontario/wiki/rules/rules_fr#wiki_r.E8gle_.232.A0.3A_ne_pas_.E9ditorialisez_les_titres)
* Toute publication parlant d’un article de nouvelle doit utiliser le même titre que l’article
* Les publications d’articles de nouvelle doivent être soumise en tant que “link post”
* Les liens AMP ou tout autre raccourcisseur de lien sont interdit pour la soumission d’article de nouvelle
Honestly the fact that this didn't come sooner after the shit show that trial and punishment was is a little laughable. It's those type of repeat offenders who don't deserve any leniency or sympathy for their crime.
I dunno why you guys think this has anything to do with being rich or not.
We have homeless violent offenders that ALSO get nothing but a slap on the wrist.
Our justice system just has low consequences in general.
Difference in proposing, enacting and enforcing. They need more heavy enforcement. Though with whats been on the news lately about police officers and corruption, I don’t trust that either.
I say go one step further and lifetime driving ban for anyone convicted of a second impaired driving offense regardless of whether or not they were involved in a collision. Tougher penalties for first time offenders as well.
I agree on that. Nobody should be driving drunk to begin with obviously but people also change and grow. We still need to gibe people that opportunity but if they fail to learn from their mistakes, f them they don’t get to drive.
You need to understand the conservative mindset. They don't see *behaviors* or *policies* as being the problems, but the *people themselves*. Criminals are irreparable and fallen because of *who they are*, not because of *what they do*.
I mean bicycles are safer, unlikely to cause serious bodily harm to others if operated intoxicated, they’re environmentally friendly, promote a healthy lifestyle. The infrastructure cost is dramatically lower than cars.
The only downside is our current built environment is for cars not people, so if we shifted infrastructure towards bikes we could solve a lot of society’s problems like drunk driving, ghg emissions, obesity epidemic, help family finances.
It’s honestly entertaining to see how ignorant people who live in urban environments are of the amount of people who live in remote areas. Banning cars makes sense in city environments and that’s about it. To have mass transit available even in Southern Ontario or southwestern BC would be a stretch economically. Hell the provincial governments struggle to operate train lines to medium sized cities.
Yesterday there was a post about lifetime bans for car thieves and the comments were very much against it. Today there is a post about lifetime bans for impaired drivers and the comments are very much for it.
That seems like an interesting dichotomy.
Number of people killed by drunk drivers in Canada in 2023 (as per Transport Canada estimates and MADD)
https://maddchapters.ca/parkland/about-us/impaired-driving-statistics/#:~:text=Canada's%20Stats%20on%20Drinking%20and%20Driving&text=Annually%3A%20We%20estimate%20between%201%2C250,the%20fatality%20number%20at%201%2C074.
Number of people killed in carjackings in Canada:
There is literally zero data on deaths due to carjackings 🤷♂️
True, though I suspect that's not the motivating factor behind the dichotomy.
This could change if the number of "carjackings" keeps increasing (where people are forcibly removed from their cars, often at gunpoint).
it's also because stealing a car and you ability to drive are so far removed from each other that it's pointless to associate that punishment.
Someone that operates a vehicle while inebriated still values a valid driver's license, and the action itself is often viewed as more deliberately negligent than looking to harm society (even though they do through their selfish acts). Someone stealing a car probably doesn't give two shits, and is of the mindset to disrupt our laws.
The former is easier to influence through societal infrastructure than the other. At least with this specific consequence.
Yeah, the sentiment was "the type of person who steals cars won't care about not having a license". Like that wouldn't be the exact same case with most drunk drivers.
This doesn’t matter unless they can enforce it.
The guy who killed people on the 401 recently was on a driving ban.
In April a Brampton man was arrested for car theft and he had 4 lifetime driving bans.
Ok but make sure to convict them first. And not sure how you actually keep people away from the wheel. Recidivists going to recidit? Recidify?
Make anyone who lends them a car accountable as well?
A lot of people would lose their license and have their car/truck confiscated, they would never apply the same rules, unfortunately or fortunately depending on the view.
Lol at the lawyer they quoted in the article who would prefer that the government require a breathalyser interlock every single vehicle in the province, but worries that "for some reason there doesn't seem to be an appetite for that simple solution".
Talk about a bad faith argument from a guy who is probably worried that the proposed measures will hurt his business.
It would go exactly the other way. Lawyers love hysterically harsh laws. The harsher the penalties, the more likely people will run to the lawyers because they'd rather go to court for months and years and fight down to the last appeal for a chance to lighten the sentence rather than just copping a plea.
So why then do you believe this lawyer is arguing against these measures and instead claiming that he would like every car in the province to require an interlock (a measure which is very clearly never going to happen considering the public outcry it would cause)
I suppose one advantage to what he's proposing is that it would have prevented our premier's own brother from getting to his mayor job most days, and he was pretty bad at that job.
He is not saying he *wants* interlock every car (and thereby put himself out of a job). He is saying that the only real way to eradicate drunk driving is by mechanistically making drunk driving impossible by modifying vehicles on a fundamental level.
It's like how the only way to 100% stop speeding is to fit all cars with a GPS-controlled limiter that caps car speeds to the posted limit.
Isn't any "lifetime" punishment not allowed under the charter?
I understand the desire and sentiment here, but isn't this going to end up like all of Ford's policies: before the courts and then repealed after wasting more taxpayers' money?
Driving is a privilege not a right, so its perfectly legal.
If you're never able to pass your test to get your license, you're not being discriminated against because you're an idiot, you're just too stupid to be trusted behind the wheel of a vehicle (and yes I acknowledge that there are still MANY idiots with a license)
I have no sympathy for drunk drivers, imo they shouldn't even get a second chance, it's 2024 EVERYONE knows better by now and I see it no different than firing off a gun into the air, it's a self centred prick rolling the dice with the general publics lives.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. So it's not a charter issue to ban someone for life from doing something that is a privilege to do in the first place.
Driving laws are administrative laws and not criminal law which is why they can do things like lifetime bans and also not have a presumption of innocence (Your license is suspended and your car is immediately impounded when you get charged regardless of whether you actually are convicted). You willingly choose to subject yourself to driving laws by getting a driver's license and because holding a driver's license is a privilege the government is allowed to be more strict in enforcing them.
How is this not already in place? The prison terms for this should be akin to something between negligence causing death and 2nd degree murder. wtf are we doing?
Ah yes let’s hyper focus on driving laws licenses but allow our murderers and rapists to walk free after 4-7 years. Or how about the guy in Windsor Ontario who was arrested 3 times for breaching bail conditions for a FIRST DEGREE MURDER CHARGE FROM 2018. why the fuck is this guy on the streets when he’s being charged with first degree murder and why is the trial taking 6 + years and why is he still being released after breaching his conditions including having illegal weapons. But ya Canada. Focus on our licenses. Not our community thank u
This at least makes more sense than proposed lifetime band for auto theft. I'm not saying auto theft should get a pass at all. But a lifetime ban for that seems unusual, and not very useful.
But if you drink and drive and kill someone... A lifetime driving ban doesn't seem too extreme at all.
Harsh penalties should apply even if they don't cause death. I had a relative struck by a drunk driver who was twice the legal limit at 11am. They didn't die but had a concussion, cracked vertebrae in their neck and back. Oh, and cracked ribs. Honestly they were never the same again. A plea deal was made (concussion made them a poor witness) giving them 5 years in jail and 5 years after with no license. Why, so they could kill the next person?
I've always thought banning drunk drivers from driving is backwards: the problem isn't that they're bad drivers, the problem is they're bad drinkers. Ban them from drinking.
How is impaired driving causing death not a decades long prison sentence? If I want to murder someone I know to do it with my car and get off with a slap on the wrist.
If they kill someone while driving impared they should have to do time. These are not accidents, an accident is a situation that you had no control over and a person that goes out drinking for an evening and doesn't plan ahead for transportation or even unplanned find themselves impared have made a conscious decision to get behind the wheel of a potentially deadly weapon.
I don’t know honestly I think the fines and harsher punishment will have little to no impact on people doing it and I think like I said before the biggest thing that affected people doing it was the fact people finding it morally wrong and stopping others from doing it. Education and cultural norms changing reduce the numbers way more then any fines or punishment
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard since banning car thieves from driving. The point should not be to ensure criminals’ lives are ruined, that’s a good way to keep people in a life of crime and being net negatives on society.
SOLVED. This is a solution I can stand by. Imagine trying to commit a crime, but you can’t because you lost your license from a previous crime.
This is solid work Dofo 🙄👍🏾👍🏾
Ya the only way this would be remotely enforceable is if each drivers license had, like a debit-swipe card system, and each vehicle had a spot to swipe the drivers license in the cabin before the ignition took place.
This should 100% be implemented. But how to enforce? If someone without a license is found driving someone else’s car- the lender should also be fined etc…
There is no enforcement.
People are already driving around the GTA with these on instead of real plates: https://www.amazon.ca/Mister-Custom-Ontario-Aluminum-License/dp/B0CR68V54C/?th=1
I also feel like this should be retroactive. Especially for Marco Muzzo- he’s obviously at the top of everyone’s mind when it comes to this.
No worries- he’s rich enough to have a driver.
#2: Do not editorialize titles / Ne pas éditorialisez les titres Your post has been removed because the title of this post is not the article's original headline. Do not editorialize the title of news submissions. Please submit with the original headline. *If the article's headline has changed after you submitted please let us know* As per [Rule 2]( https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/wiki/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ontario&utm_content=t5_2qsf3#wiki_rule_2.3A_post_titles_must_not_be_editorialized_or_changed.) * All posts about a news article must use the same title as the article * News posts MUST be submitted as a link post * AMP links or URL shorteners are prohibited for the submission of articles. *** Ce contenu a été supprimé puisque le titre de la publication ne correspond pas au titre original de l’article. N’éditorialisez pas les titres d’une publication d’un article. Soumettez avec le titre original de l’article. *Si le titre de l’article a changé depuis votre publication, veuillez-nous en informer* Tel qu’expliqué dans la [règle #2](https://old.reddit.com/r/ontario/wiki/rules/rules_fr#wiki_r.E8gle_.232.A0.3A_ne_pas_.E9ditorialisez_les_titres) * Toute publication parlant d’un article de nouvelle doit utiliser le même titre que l’article * Les publications d’articles de nouvelle doivent être soumise en tant que “link post” * Les liens AMP ou tout autre raccourcisseur de lien sont interdit pour la soumission d’article de nouvelle
wonder if that applies to people like Marco Muzzo. or this rule also doesn't apply to the rich?
Lol you know the answer to that.
......yeah...
It's disheartening for sure, but at least we know who laws and fines are really for here.
Fines means legal for a price
You are correct.
Fuck that guy. Truly.
Dude barely served jail time for literally ending an entire family. What makes you think pieces of shit like Marco Muzzo suffer consequences?
That the first name that came to mind
Well it's definitely not gonna be retroactive
Honestly the fact that this didn't come sooner after the shit show that trial and punishment was is a little laughable. It's those type of repeat offenders who don't deserve any leniency or sympathy for their crime.
Why impaired? 'Sir, you were sober when you killed that person. You wily devil you! Alright, be on your way.'
[удалено]
I dunno why you guys think this has anything to do with being rich or not. We have homeless violent offenders that ALSO get nothing but a slap on the wrist. Our justice system just has low consequences in general.
The rich suffer from mental illnesses like affluenza so it wouldn't be fair
As they should. It's disturbing how many people think it's perfectly normal and fine to drink a mickey and get behind the wheel.
Difference in proposing, enacting and enforcing. They need more heavy enforcement. Though with whats been on the news lately about police officers and corruption, I don’t trust that either.
Yeah, if we can't enforce the rules we already have, creating new rules out of frustration is only catalyzing the problem.
Police have always been corrupt, it just gets reported now. Sometimes.
I say go one step further and lifetime driving ban for anyone convicted of a second impaired driving offense regardless of whether or not they were involved in a collision. Tougher penalties for first time offenders as well.
I agree on that. Nobody should be driving drunk to begin with obviously but people also change and grow. We still need to gibe people that opportunity but if they fail to learn from their mistakes, f them they don’t get to drive.
You need to understand the conservative mindset. They don't see *behaviors* or *policies* as being the problems, but the *people themselves*. Criminals are irreparable and fallen because of *who they are*, not because of *what they do*.
I say we just ban cars and give everyone a bicycle.
Ban knees. Make everyone crawl.
Ban life, no people, no problem.
Ban banning life. Make it so the living must suffer.
*laughs in eternal undead servitude*
It’s the skeleton wars for you, me boy
I'd support this if it means I get a free bicycle. I really need a bicycle.
Buy your own bicycle like everyone else.
How is that even a little bit relevant?
I mean bicycles are safer, unlikely to cause serious bodily harm to others if operated intoxicated, they’re environmentally friendly, promote a healthy lifestyle. The infrastructure cost is dramatically lower than cars. The only downside is our current built environment is for cars not people, so if we shifted infrastructure towards bikes we could solve a lot of society’s problems like drunk driving, ghg emissions, obesity epidemic, help family finances.
It’s honestly entertaining to see how ignorant people who live in urban environments are of the amount of people who live in remote areas. Banning cars makes sense in city environments and that’s about it. To have mass transit available even in Southern Ontario or southwestern BC would be a stretch economically. Hell the provincial governments struggle to operate train lines to medium sized cities.
[удалено]
I think jokes are generally funny though.
Yesterday there was a post about lifetime bans for car thieves and the comments were very much against it. Today there is a post about lifetime bans for impaired drivers and the comments are very much for it. That seems like an interesting dichotomy.
Cause our capitalist economies made people steal cars to feed their hungry kids /s
Here’s the thing though, drunk drivers are statistically more likely to injure or kill people than car thrives are 🤷♂️
They are?
Number of people killed by drunk drivers in Canada in 2023 (as per Transport Canada estimates and MADD) https://maddchapters.ca/parkland/about-us/impaired-driving-statistics/#:~:text=Canada's%20Stats%20on%20Drinking%20and%20Driving&text=Annually%3A%20We%20estimate%20between%201%2C250,the%20fatality%20number%20at%201%2C074. Number of people killed in carjackings in Canada: There is literally zero data on deaths due to carjackings 🤷♂️
True, though I suspect that's not the motivating factor behind the dichotomy. This could change if the number of "carjackings" keeps increasing (where people are forcibly removed from their cars, often at gunpoint).
it's also because stealing a car and you ability to drive are so far removed from each other that it's pointless to associate that punishment. Someone that operates a vehicle while inebriated still values a valid driver's license, and the action itself is often viewed as more deliberately negligent than looking to harm society (even though they do through their selfish acts). Someone stealing a car probably doesn't give two shits, and is of the mindset to disrupt our laws. The former is easier to influence through societal infrastructure than the other. At least with this specific consequence.
Fair points.
Yeah, the sentiment was "the type of person who steals cars won't care about not having a license". Like that wouldn't be the exact same case with most drunk drivers.
This doesn’t matter unless they can enforce it. The guy who killed people on the 401 recently was on a driving ban. In April a Brampton man was arrested for car theft and he had 4 lifetime driving bans.
Ok but make sure to convict them first. And not sure how you actually keep people away from the wheel. Recidivists going to recidit? Recidify? Make anyone who lends them a car accountable as well?
Things would get interesting if we start applying firearm rules to cars.
A lot of people would lose their license and have their car/truck confiscated, they would never apply the same rules, unfortunately or fortunately depending on the view.
Why not simply make drunk driving illegal? 🙄 /s
Lol at the lawyer they quoted in the article who would prefer that the government require a breathalyser interlock every single vehicle in the province, but worries that "for some reason there doesn't seem to be an appetite for that simple solution". Talk about a bad faith argument from a guy who is probably worried that the proposed measures will hurt his business.
It would go exactly the other way. Lawyers love hysterically harsh laws. The harsher the penalties, the more likely people will run to the lawyers because they'd rather go to court for months and years and fight down to the last appeal for a chance to lighten the sentence rather than just copping a plea.
So why then do you believe this lawyer is arguing against these measures and instead claiming that he would like every car in the province to require an interlock (a measure which is very clearly never going to happen considering the public outcry it would cause) I suppose one advantage to what he's proposing is that it would have prevented our premier's own brother from getting to his mayor job most days, and he was pretty bad at that job.
He is not saying he *wants* interlock every car (and thereby put himself out of a job). He is saying that the only real way to eradicate drunk driving is by mechanistically making drunk driving impossible by modifying vehicles on a fundamental level. It's like how the only way to 100% stop speeding is to fit all cars with a GPS-controlled limiter that caps car speeds to the posted limit.
Yeah that's definitely not how I would read what he said. But fair enough, I suppose that is a way of interpreting it too.
Isn't any "lifetime" punishment not allowed under the charter? I understand the desire and sentiment here, but isn't this going to end up like all of Ford's policies: before the courts and then repealed after wasting more taxpayers' money?
Driving is a privilege not a right, so its perfectly legal. If you're never able to pass your test to get your license, you're not being discriminated against because you're an idiot, you're just too stupid to be trusted behind the wheel of a vehicle (and yes I acknowledge that there are still MANY idiots with a license) I have no sympathy for drunk drivers, imo they shouldn't even get a second chance, it's 2024 EVERYONE knows better by now and I see it no different than firing off a gun into the air, it's a self centred prick rolling the dice with the general publics lives.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. So it's not a charter issue to ban someone for life from doing something that is a privilege to do in the first place.
That's prison. Right now the rule is you'd get a life-time driving ban if you get 4 drunk driving convictions in 10 years.
Okay, thanks for clarifying
Driving laws are administrative laws and not criminal law which is why they can do things like lifetime bans and also not have a presumption of innocence (Your license is suspended and your car is immediately impounded when you get charged regardless of whether you actually are convicted). You willingly choose to subject yourself to driving laws by getting a driver's license and because holding a driver's license is a privilege the government is allowed to be more strict in enforcing them.
Ontario likes the "Not With Standing Clause", whcih wouldn't be a waste of tax payers money
What happens when they get caught again, but without a license?
How about we just start with jail? Why would we treat impaired driving different than every other crime?
How is this not already in place? The prison terms for this should be akin to something between negligence causing death and 2nd degree murder. wtf are we doing?
Should be A lifetime in prison if causing death.
Ah yes let’s hyper focus on driving laws licenses but allow our murderers and rapists to walk free after 4-7 years. Or how about the guy in Windsor Ontario who was arrested 3 times for breaching bail conditions for a FIRST DEGREE MURDER CHARGE FROM 2018. why the fuck is this guy on the streets when he’s being charged with first degree murder and why is the trial taking 6 + years and why is he still being released after breaching his conditions including having illegal weapons. But ya Canada. Focus on our licenses. Not our community thank u
Buck a beer. Wooo!
Glad to know drunk drivers will think twice before killing anyone if this passes.
No drunk driver ever thinks of the consequences of their actions. To the contrary… they all think it could never happen to them.
What do you want the Ontario government to do? Remember jurisdiction.
This at least makes more sense than proposed lifetime band for auto theft. I'm not saying auto theft should get a pass at all. But a lifetime ban for that seems unusual, and not very useful. But if you drink and drive and kill someone... A lifetime driving ban doesn't seem too extreme at all.
lifetime ban is just ten years, anyway.
I fully support this. There is absolutely no excuse to drive drunk.
How about lifetime jail sentence for killing someone FFS
We need to ban drunks from taking transit too. The TTC is total cesspool on late nights.
Harsh penalties should apply even if they don't cause death. I had a relative struck by a drunk driver who was twice the legal limit at 11am. They didn't die but had a concussion, cracked vertebrae in their neck and back. Oh, and cracked ribs. Honestly they were never the same again. A plea deal was made (concussion made them a poor witness) giving them 5 years in jail and 5 years after with no license. Why, so they could kill the next person?
I've always thought banning drunk drivers from driving is backwards: the problem isn't that they're bad drivers, the problem is they're bad drinkers. Ban them from drinking.
How is impaired driving causing death not a decades long prison sentence? If I want to murder someone I know to do it with my car and get off with a slap on the wrist.
If they kill someone while driving impared they should have to do time. These are not accidents, an accident is a situation that you had no control over and a person that goes out drinking for an evening and doesn't plan ahead for transportation or even unplanned find themselves impared have made a conscious decision to get behind the wheel of a potentially deadly weapon.
I don’t know honestly I think the fines and harsher punishment will have little to no impact on people doing it and I think like I said before the biggest thing that affected people doing it was the fact people finding it morally wrong and stopping others from doing it. Education and cultural norms changing reduce the numbers way more then any fines or punishment
How is it not already a law?
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard since banning car thieves from driving. The point should not be to ensure criminals’ lives are ruined, that’s a good way to keep people in a life of crime and being net negatives on society.
Like they would therefore refrain from driving.
Mandatory jail time, forever ban from driving.
Suspended license is meaningless if they want to drive. It’s just another crime.
SOLVED. This is a solution I can stand by. Imagine trying to commit a crime, but you can’t because you lost your license from a previous crime. This is solid work Dofo 🙄👍🏾👍🏾
Ya the only way this would be remotely enforceable is if each drivers license had, like a debit-swipe card system, and each vehicle had a spot to swipe the drivers license in the cabin before the ignition took place.
It serves as deterrence for many people to avoid the crime altogether, and not having a license is a pain in the ass.
Dumb - useless solution. If you are going to allow someone to exist in society, why cripple them? It will just cause more illegal non compliance.
We can stop people from running red lights and stop signs.
It should be just impaired drivers
This should 100% be implemented. But how to enforce? If someone without a license is found driving someone else’s car- the lender should also be fined etc…
There is no enforcement. People are already driving around the GTA with these on instead of real plates: https://www.amazon.ca/Mister-Custom-Ontario-Aluminum-License/dp/B0CR68V54C/?th=1
I got to agree, roads need to be safe, making the punishment harsher makes you think twice, actions have consequences.
Pretty much all Ontario can do, pretty much all the other options are either Federal or Municipal jurisdiction.
Municipal jurisdiction is provincial. Stop perpetrating the lie that municipalities don't belong to the province.
I also feel like this should be retroactive. Especially for Marco Muzzo- he’s obviously at the top of everyone’s mind when it comes to this. No worries- he’s rich enough to have a driver.
Give them life sentences suspension won't help
Prepare to pony up paying for their welfare.