Re: "Impaired driving regulation unfair," Sept. 6.
The writer complains of the essential unfairness of having a licence suspended, merely for being drunk - blowing over .08. Would it be better, then, to allow a person to continue to drive, until he or she collides with another car, possibly kills other people, and causes upwards of $50,000 worth of damage, then wait a year or two for the matter to come before the courts?
I think not.
Driving is a privilege, not a right, earned on competence and held on good behaviour. If I am so foolish as to drive when impaired - to forget or discount the rights of others around me - then I am not behaving well. I should not continue to hold this licence.
In short, this is a fairer, more appropriate way to deal with the matter than to have it drag on for months or years before any form of "punishment" can be inflicted, now well divorced from the actions that caused it. This is immediate, on discovery of the infraction, it is proportionate. Potentially, it saves the precious time of our courts for more serious matters, allowing them to come to trial in a timely fashion.
If I'm drunk, I should not be on the road. If I'm foolish enough to try to be there, under those conditions, I deserve what happens to me. If I cannot accept that, I am not mature enough to handle the responsibility of being a driver. I should never have had that licence in the first place.
John A. Laidlaw
Victoria
