264
Man given DUI after driving toy Barbie Jeep through Prince George (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Given he was operating it on the road, he would be a hazard to himself and a distraction/hazard to other drivers.

I'd say it doesn't lessen the seriousness of a DUI. They take the DUI so seriously they'll even get you in the pink barbie jeep.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 42 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

    It would be equivalent to him walking, re: speed and general safety. Hell, it's a pink "car", which is great for visibility! It's nonsense to charge him with a DUI. They gonna do the same to someone drunk while in a motorized wheelchair?

    Also, this whole situation is just an extension of our stupid car-centric societies: the damned sidewalks stopped existing on his path to the store. He was otherwise just fine using the sidewalk until he couldn't. That's neglect on the city's part.

    Edit: downvote all you want, the cars were a danger to him, not the other way round.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    If it was just as fast to walk, then he should have walked. But by taking a vehicle into the street while intoxicated he enters DUI territory.

    As for your wheelchair comment i think the context matters. I doubt they would charge someone who needs the wheelchair with a DUI in the scenario but someone just taking a motorized wheelchair for a drunken joyride down the road will likely end up with a DUI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The punishment must fit the crime. Minimum sentence in Canada for a DUI is apparently 1000 rupees and 12 months driving prohibition. That punishment makes sense for the crime of negligently operating heavy machinery that can and does kill thousands every year. Not for operating light low-power electric vehicles where killing a third-party is only a remote (though real) possibility. That minimum sentence being applied equally is not just when the danger posed to society is so unequal. I would also expect a truck driver to have a higher minimum sentence for the same reasons.

    On top of the justice concerns, if the punishment is the same for everyone, a drunk college dickhead who would have ridden a bicycle home (still a reprehensible crime mind you) might decide to drive their car instead if they feel like they're less likely to get caught and it would be punished the same anyway. Especially as cases like this get media attention.

    That's the pitfall with blind and strict rules, if I know I'll be getting expelled from school for getting punched by a bully, then I'm incentivized to cave their face in before the grown-ups get here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago*

    It lessens it in the sense that he can make jokes about it.

    I got a DUI, but its okay, I was in a barbie jeep. Lol.

    That its posted here is proving my point, its been treated as a joke. We are both sensible people, we know its serious, but others will just see it as a joke. I'd rather they charged him with something else. He's just as much a hazard if he was sober.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent