
Drive drunk twice in Quebec, get ignition breathalyzer for life - hckr_nj
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/drunk-driving-twice-quebec-breathalyzer-for-life-1.5369145
======
jrockway
> People can also help by double-checking anybody's licence before lending
> them their car, said Theresa-Anne Kramer, a spokesperson for MADD Montreal.

> The SAAQ says visually checking a driver's licence may not be enough, as a
> hard copy does not always provide up-to-date information. The agency reminds
> people that their car could be impounded for 30 days or more if the driver
> breaks the law.

> For a fee of $1.75, the SAAQ will verify a licence through its website.

> "That would be a wise thing to always do whenever you lend your car, even to
> your best friend," said Kramer.

> "That person might have kept it secret that they have an alcohol interlock
> in their own vehicle. Family members might not be aware of it. Friends might
> not be aware of it."

They want you to pay $1.75 for a single query against a database? That makes
AWS prices look cheap.

~~~
spangry
I hate it when governments do this, and they seem to do it a lot. The socially
optimal price is the marginal cost of providing the service. In this case, the
marginal cost is essentially 0 so the search should be free. They're leaving
welfare gains on the table by setting such a ridiculous price.

~~~
3fe9a03ccd14ca5
Unfortunately, this is one of the most effective methods of discouraging
wanton scraping.

I’m not sure about the laws in Canada, but aren’t these convictions public
domain? Presumably someone could just scrape _that_ and build a free API?

~~~
LorenPechtel
A simple, pretty much unscrapable system: App on your phone that you use to
take a picture of the license. The system returns the current status.

~~~
Mo3
That is far from unscrapable. Could probably be done within hours with the
Android emulator.

~~~
LorenPechtel
If you had a picture of the license you could certainly scrape it--but then
you're doing it legitimately anyway, no need to scrape. Without a picture of
the license it's not going to return anything but an error.

------
duithrowaway
I was arrested for DUI several years ago. There were many penalties, all
justly deserved, and the whole ordeal took hundreds of hours and over $10K to
resolve. I am fortunate to be able to afford this, but not everyone can.

I fully understand why many people have zero sympathy for DUI offenders. I
certainly expect none. But I'd like to shed some light on the fundamental
cause: alcoholism. The average DUI offender has driven drunk over 80 times
before their arrest.

When sober, I know as anyone else what a bad idea it is to get behind the
wheel. The problem is, it is darned hard to avoid taking that first drink.
Then the second. Alcohol is everywhere. And when you are drunk enough, you
don't care how bad the criminal penalties might be.

Deterrence is not enough. And out of all the treatment programs, financial
cost, etc, the only thing that was really helpful in curbing my alcohol use,
strangely enough, was the interlock.

Addicts don't think ahead. But sober addicts can, albeit with difficulty.
Sober addicts know that if they have an interlock, and if they take that first
drink, they won't be able to drive, and they'll be stuck. So they might not
take that first drink. My pattern of drinking was to stay late at work, drink
there, then drive home. With the interlock, that meant sleeping in my office,
not an attractive proposition. Sometimes I did take that first drink, and did
sleep in my office. Or I took a Lyft. But at least I wasn't on the road.

So I think interlocks are good. The technical issues raised here about them
are real, though. It bricked my car for weeks, once. Also, the one I had not
only had you breathe to start the car, but randomly while driving, and there
was a time limit. This could lead to very dangerous situations where I was
trying to negotiate difficult traffic and blow in the damned thing
simultaneously. Not good design for something intended to improve traffic
safety.

~~~
RickJWagner
"There but for the grace of God go I."

I fully understand your post. I wish I could say I never had the good sense to
drive impaired, but it's not true. Thankfully, I've been sober a few decades
now.

Your story reached me.. Thanks for posting.

~~~
duithrowaway
I saw below that you lost a brother to a drunk driving accident. I have
hesitated for days about replying. I don't know which side of it he was on,
but I know it could have been me who did that. I haven't hurt anyone, but I
could have. I am so very sorry for your loss.

------
macintux
A friend of mine had one in her car. It was a major pain, frequently drained
the battery and/or had to be reset to function, which she had to call someone
to do and hope she got a response.

While I have no sympathy for drunk drivers, this technological solution is
sufficiently unreliable to be dubious.

~~~
dstaley
I had a friend who had an interlock device; it was so unreliable, and
triggered so many false positives that his sentence was extended because the
DMV thought he was regularly driving drunk. What's worse is that when the
device had a positive reading, he'd blow again, and it was negative. This was
accurately recorded, and yet the DMV wouldn't recognize the impossibility of
going from incredibly drunk to stone cold sober in the span of three minutes.

While I support the idea itself, the technology is incredibly unreliable, and
since it only affects "criminals", there's no public demand for them to
improve.

~~~
purple_ducks
> yet the DMV wouldn't recognize the impossibility of going from incredibly
> drunk to stone cold sober in the span of three minutes.

or maybe they recognised he could go and get someone else to blow in it?

~~~
setr
If it happens repeatedly in the records, you'd either expect him to learn (and
see the get the person first), or you'd need to start looking at the thing
that can't learn :-)

------
gexla
This is a life sentence which could impact your ability to support yourself. I
imagine this could result in quite an impact on getting any job which requires
driving. You should have options for getting this thing removed at some point.

~~~
rhacker
I imagine this is for your personal car. A company car would probably not have
this. Though, I would hope that companies that are paying you to specifically
drive would skip the 2x DUI people.

~~~
walrus01
it seems that a workaround for this for a somewhat wealthy or privileged
repeat drunk driver would be to form a corporation, buy a vehicle, put some
company stickers on the car, get company vehicle insurance. I'm sure you could
pay a web developer a few hundred bucks to create a plausible looking company
web page, register domain for it, set up email, have a whole set of
letterheads for communicating with the relevant government authorities.

~~~
obituary_latte
Except, if I’m reading correctly, the restriction is on the offenders license
and they are prohibited from driving any vehicle that does not have the
lockout device.

------
jasoneckert
30 years ago, Quebec was the province where "nobody cared how drunk you were
as long as you stayed on your side of the road." It looks like that caught up
to them, and is causing enough problems to warrant this new law.

~~~
arcticbull
True, but also, the dangers are _somewhat_ overstated. A BAC of 0.10 (3-4
drinks in an hour for the average American, so, a lot) [1] makes you 7X more
likely to be involved in a fatal accident. Sounds like a lot, right? The risk
of being involved in a fatal accident is baseline 10.7 per 100,000 per year.
That 0.01% per year. So, if you spent the entire year with a BAC of 0.1,
commuting normally, you'd have a 0.07% per year risk of dying. That's still
three 9's of, uh, up-time.

Should you do it? No. Knocking back a couple beers and driving isn't the
equivalent of walking off a sheer rock face though.

The only thing that's caught up with Quebec is their puritanical tendencies,
see: the CAQ being elected.

[1] [https://www.alcohol.org/bac-calculator/](https://www.alcohol.org/bac-
calculator/)

[2] [https://www.verywellmind.com/drunk-driving-the-
dangers-63002](https://www.verywellmind.com/drunk-driving-the-dangers-63002)

[3] [https://www.cars.com/articles/are-the-odds-ever-in-your-
favo...](https://www.cars.com/articles/are-the-odds-ever-in-your-favor-car-
crashes-versus-other-fatalities-1420682154567/)

~~~
fredophile
Your second link mentions that alcohol is a factor in 1/3 of fatal traffic
accidents and that traffic accidents are the leading killer of adults under
25. I think dropping the leading killer of young adults would be worthwhile.

Your third link says accidents will be the cause of death for 1 in 77 people
and compared it to 1 in 276 people dying of skin cancer. Does this mean I
shouldn't bother wearing sunscreen?

~~~
raverbashing
> I think dropping the leading killer of young adults would be worthwhile.

That's statistical feel-good thinking

Young adults don't usually die of natural causes

Impaired driving, while it is certainly a concern, gets too much "think of the
children/puritanical" influence.

How many people are impaired by lack of sleep? By texting? By lack of or
confusing road signs? And while all of those are addressed more or less, none
of them are tackled as punitively as DUI.

(And of course different BACs have very different effects, or even the same
BAC can affect people differently)

~~~
arcticbull
I’d love numbers on how many are killed or injured by amber alerts. My phone
goes off as though the Russians just launched the Nukes for an incident half a
state away, and while driving it’s kinda terrifying.

------
bsder
> Quebec's Ministry of Transport says from 2013 to 2017, alcohol-related
> crashes killed an average of 100 people annually. That's on top of the
> approximately 220 serious injuries and 1,800 minor injuries.

Given these numbers, you can keep cranking the knobs but is that really going
to be an effective use of money?

At this point, it looks like the only people left are the really hard cases.
And they probably need medical and mental health care more than jail.

Whenever I have contact with DUI stuff in the US, about 1/3 are young, idiotic
dipshits who did something egregiously stupid and dangerous and wind up on the
straight and narrow after being punished. The other 2/3 are so clearly repeat,
hardcore alcoholics that desperately need some form of treatment and are so
bad that I wonder how they can even _function_.

~~~
cf498
> And they probably need medical and mental health care more than jail.

If they dont want help and keep repeating then the second is absolutely
needed. The problem isnt that they are addicts and self destructive, but that
they carelessly endanger other peoples lives. One would imagine what an
apocalyptic outcry it would be if any other drug, that large parts of society
consume daily, was found responsible for people starting to kill people in
their surroundings. Do you all remember the PCP scare? Or the Spice Horror
stories?

~~~
bsder
> If they dont want help and keep repeating then the second is absolutely
> needed.

Is there anything to suggest that they don't _want_ help or is it that they
can't _afford_ help?

Alcoholism is not easy to shake off for various physiological reasons (drying
out an alcoholic seems to damage your impulse control brain centers, for
example).

Consequently, treating alcoholism is rather expensive.

~~~
cf498
From my personal experience, not wanting help is rather common. Its a core
problem with most drugs and addicts. People have to want to get better or what
ever you are trying to help them will fail.

------
giantg2
There are companies creating blood alcohol detection devices that would be an
integral part of new vehicles. They can detect alcohol in the cabin air or
from the driver's finger. It's only a matter of time before they become
mandatory on all new cars, similar to airbags and TPMS.

The scary part is how inaccurate and secretive breathalyzers can be. You have
no right to cross examine the machine's software or anything. It's a magic
blackbox that is treated as irrefutable truth.

~~~
perl4ever
If something becomes universal, then any problem with false positives will be
exposed through large numbers, and be fixed.

Also, in the US, and I assume in Canada, standards for new cars have generally
not affected peoples' rights to continue owning and driving existing cars. If
new requirements are really onerous, it will increase the market for
previously produced cars, and then we can debate whether to force people to
upgrade or something.

------
manicdee
Welcome to this week’s episode of “attempting to solve social problems using
technological means.”

~~~
vkou
If you have a better mechanism for getting repeat drunk drivers to stop
driving drunk, do share.

So far, the world hasn't found one. A breathalyser is a pretty small price to
pay if you already have two DUIs.

Note that anyone who has been caught driving drunk twice has, statistically
speaking, probably been driving drunk a _lot_ more times than those two.

~~~
squiggleblaz
In most of North America the governments effectively require you to drive a
car through their town planning and public transport policies. This is not a
technical problem, and solving it would be more effective in solving the
social problems (and many others besides).

~~~
sudosysgen
I can't speak for the rest of Québec, but Montréal's public transit is pretty
good. You can definitely make it without a car there.

~~~
duckymcduckface
Rip Laval people

------
lopmotr
I think it's fantastic to be addressing crime with instant prevention rather
than deterrence. Many people don't have enough impulse control to follow the
law regardless of how harsh the penalties are. What they need is some kind of
full time supervisor like a breath interlock to stop them before they break
the law.

Actually, the whole justice system is based on a faulty idea that all humans
rationally evaluate the risk of getting caught. Some people will follow the
law regardless, some will decide what crime to commit by evaluating the risk,
and some will break the law regardless of the risk. That last category needs a
different system.

~~~
perl4ever
I question what "rationally evaluating the risk of getting caught" _means_ for
an individual.

If I'm an insurance company, or other entity dealing with large numbers of
"getting caught", then indeed, I can rationally determine that it will happen
x% of the time and plan accordingly.

But if I'm an individual, and I don't have a way of significantly changing the
risk, then all I can do is make a binary decision - do the risky thing, or
don't. If the risk is small, then I'm probably going to do it. How is a person
"rationally" _supposed_ to react to, say, a risk going from 0.1% to 1%, when
the choice is only _do_ or _do not do_?

~~~
lopmotr
I'd guess a lot of those decisions are probably fairly insensitive to small
changes in the risk. But if, say, the sentence duration for murder was
gradually reduced towards 0 years, there'd have to be some kind of increase in
offending. Maybe not linear, but at some point, people are going to be angry
enough at their enemies to take the 1 year jail when they wouldn't take the 30
years.

But for drink driving, you typically do it many times without getting caught,
so you could respond to changed risk by changing how often you do it.

------
decebalus1
I see that the vibe in the comment section is that this is too harsh. In my
opinion, this is too lenient. If you repeatedly break the law DUI-wise, you
should have your license revoked.

The whole supporting yourself thing should already be a deterrent from
maneuvering a ton of metal at speed on public roads while impaired. Contrary
to popular belief, driving is not a right, it's a privilege and I firmly
believe that the state should take it away from you if you fuck it up. I don't
want to get into the whole gun debate but gun ownership (about which I have
mixed feelings) is a right, protected in the US by the constitution. However,
there are mechanisms in which a single mistake (unrelated to gun ownership or
operating a gun) will have the state take that right away from you.
Statistically speaking, based on the number of deaths, a car is more dangerous
than a gun. Why aren't we applying the same types of bans? Because Joe Bob
can't help himself to downing a couple of beers before driving, I need to
share the road with him because he 'must drive' in order to sustain himself?
Fuck Joe Bob. He can bike, take the bus or ride a cab.

If driving is essential for a person to be able to sustain themselves then it
should be regarded with a much higher attention in the first place, attention
which should warn you that drinking and driving is monumentally selfish and
dangerous, especially repeating it.

~~~
carlmr
>He can bike, take the bus or ride a cab.

Not in rural parts of the country. Before driving existed the US had much
better public transport. I think your argument holds water in Europe, but not
the US, where driving is essential for most people to survive.

I think this should be an argument for building public transport though, since
many people are excluded societally when they don't have a means of transport.

~~~
alkonaut
> Not in rural parts of the country.

Being able to support yourself might include having to move. Indeed it does
for most people at som point in their lives. Situations change. If you lose
your license because you do stupid things, you might just need to move
somewhere near a bus stop.

~~~
Jamwinner
A dui costs about 5 to 12k before lawyer fees. Not sure most people have tht
mu h lying around. Current dui laws effectively criminalize being poor. Then
you want them to pick up and move, with no car and no job? I get it, crime is
bad, but forcing them into destitution is no better.

~~~
alkonaut
Not sure how US legal system works, I’d lose my license if I’m repeatedly DUI
(0.02%). The first time there would be a fine and my license is temporarily
revoked. Unless I want to take it to a court I have no expenses other than the
fine.

Not sure why it’s to “criminalize being poor”. It’s criminal to drink and
drive.

I agree punishment shouldn’t be disproportionately affecting poor people but
really I don’t feel sorry for people who choose to drink and drive.

I think the more liberal alcohol limits is unfortunate because they can make
the crime seem like an accident (“I only drank a little”). A near zero limit
is much easier to comply with - if I drink at all I don’t drive until the
after on the following day.

As a final note: not living near public transport is a choice in the first
place. Not voting for politicians who prioritize public transport is another.

------
Causality1
Good. If I'm licensed to carry a handgun and one day get drunk and fire my gun
at a crowd without hitting anyone, how long should I have to wait before being
allowed to carry a gun in public again? Most people would say I should never
be trusted with lethal force again.

~~~
lopmotr
It's a false equivalence. We're much more tolerant of the dangers of driving
because of the positive value it brings. A gun is rarely essential for
somebody's work but driving often is. That's also why some countries ban guns
but allow cars despite cars killing far more people.

It can see unfair. There's a truck driver in my country who killed two people
with his truck on two separate occasions. Both his fault. But he'll still be
allowed to drive again after maybe a 6-12 month suspension.

The way I try to feel comfortable with such seeming injustice is to see road
accidents as random bad luck. So by using the road, you're playing Russian
roulette. You never know what might kill you or whose fault it might be,
including your own. Extreme punishment for the tiny subset of dangerous
drivers who make certain mistakes and happen to be unlucky enough to get
caught won't really make it much safer. People still risk their own lives
driving dangerously, after all, so even the death penalty for drink driving
won't stop people doing it.

~~~
squiggleblaz
I don't see why I should be at excess risk of dying because I tripped on my
shoelace or badly maintained road while walking to the shops. In particular, a
person walking to buy milk shouldn't be at excess risk of death even through
their own fault. If you hit your head when you fall and die from it, then that
happens. But if you survive the fall, another person going to pick up their
children from soccer shouldn't be excused from killing you just because it
happened on the road.

Using a road shouldn't be Russian roulette.

------
jv22222
I can imagine that some people might pay to have an ignition breathalyzer
added to their car!

If it actually worked, it could be like an insurance against their own worst
proclivities...

------
sebazzz
I wonder if drunk driving is simply a trait to which certain individuals are
more sensitive to. Just like some people always manage to show up late, no
matter how often you tell them to be on time.

~~~
throwaway40324
Alcohol use, itself, does have traits that some are more sensitive to.
Alcoholism, though may be the case for many repeat offenders, and is a
disease, not really a trait, but a series of traits that are symptoms.

In general, impairment is a trait that does lead to bad decisions, like
driving under the influence.

~~~
harlanji
It’s incredibly hard to escape a poor childhood with few role models. In my
case 3 points made a line so I became an alcoholic. Family; friends esp. at
University (esp. esp. the Koreans); colleagues esp. when I arrived in Silicon
Valley. Drinking was how we hung out, bars and clubs were where we made rando
friends, loud parties were where we got wild, etc. In retrospect there were
plenty of non-drinking options under my nose, but we see what we pay attention
to.

Now since laying off drinking culture and focusing on health in 2012, I find
myself ostracized and slandered by my old drinking friends and colleagues
(look up scapegoat), and really completely alone in the world. I have become
homeless and am mercilessly bullied at each job because I lack social skills
of non-drinkers and am not likable to drinkers.

Everything is pushing me back to alcoholism. I have a bottle of wine in my bag
that I don’t drink... I’ve had like 5 drinks in 3 years. In 2013 I was accused
of DUI with 3 drinks in my system in 3 hours, and that has caused innumerable
problems in my life. It’s on my record as DUI even though it was charded as
“careless driving,” as there was no breathalyzer etc. No sympathy, no doubt
I’d had some drinks so whatever. After being accused of DUI the month before
moving back to SF I relapsed into heavy drinking with an old buddy for about a
year, and worse, due to existential despair over the implications if DUI. Then
I found out tons of people have them. Life is funny.

I’m more sober and healthy than I’ve been since 21 before I first drank, but I
spent Thanksgiving alone on the street in Palo Alto, with my regular bathrooms
closed and denied access to others. Sadly most people would slide back into
drinking in my situation; I dunno what I’d do without YouTube.

I know I drifted off. I see some harsh judgement here and it’s uncalled for.
Personally I think people should be able to demonstrate that they’ve been
habilitated and have their records wiped. Alcoholism is complex, and the last
thing that will help is imposing upon a life meant for growth. Dis-ease, to
make uneasy; disease, like alcoholism. Penalties only make things worse.
Revoke the license and treat the soul of the person and let them earn it back,
sure. Spending a little time homeless hasn’t hurt me (18 months), so nothing
in a treatment program should hurt anyone. The DUI popping up on background
checks certainly doesn’t make me eager to apply to jobs; it comes with very
harsh judgement; “rightly so,” my old self would say. No, permanent punishment
for symptoms are pretty much evil.

~~~
throwaway40324
Thanks for your words tonight. I've been in the same boat and that's why I
replied to the overly generalized, naive, parent comment. I hope you're okay.
I'm nowhere near SV, but reach out to someone local if you need. Maybe you
drink the wine, maybe you dont, but dont give up okay!

------
jrs235
What are they doing about people that text (or read their phone) and drive?

~~~
Waterluvian
I think almost all responses to drunk driving are weak, including this one.
But the response to distracted driving, especially with phones, is even
weaker.

If people stared getting banned for life from driving in a province/state,
either behavior would change pretty fast or at least we'd be rid of repeat
offenders.

~~~
rhinoceraptor
Driving while sleep deprived is also a huge problem, unfortunately it's much
harder to observe.

------
flyGuyOnTheSly
>Getting caught without an interlock device will lead to a three-month licence
suspension and a $1,500 fine, he said.

So you get caught violating the first punishment... and they simply slap you
with another punishment?

That's like suspending a kid for skipping school.

I would think jailtime should be in order in that situation.

~~~
squiggleblaz
Isn't jail time a punishment? Obviously driving in most of North America is a
governmentally enforced obligation, which is why durisdictions often permit
even those whose licence has been suspended to drive. I think it seems a fair
response.

------
paul7986
They need this for repeat text offenders.

Volvo has a camera system tech that either makes the car start beeping like
not wearing seatbelt and even pulls you over once the camera detects you
playing with your phone.

This would also be something parents and insurance companies would love.
Though I think insurance companies have this new docking system you get from
them.. dock your phone & keep it there while in motion and get a discount.

------
voodooranger
should read “get _caught_ driving drunk...”. i don’t know how many times you
have to drive drunk to get caught doing so but it could be a lot.

~~~
oh_sigh
You could get caught driving sober and be in for the same treat, depending on
the vagaries of the breathalyzer and your genetics

~~~
oliveshell
I’ve not heard of any breathalyzer false positives severe enough to warrant a
DUI arrest. Is this a thing?

Are you referring to the rare condition where brewers’ yeast colonizes
peoples’ gut and ferments carbohydrates into alcohol in vivo?

~~~
currymj
Disturbingly common, according to a NYT investigation. Moreover the machines
are often improperly calibrated, software is not available, etc.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-
br...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/business/drunk-driving-
breathalyzer.html)

~~~
6nf
In Australia all positive breath tests are immediately followed by an actual
blood sample test which is pretty reliable. I think its a good idea to double
check like this.

~~~
ajdlinux
At least in NSW/ACT, generally speaking, outside of police attendance at an
actual crash where someone has been injured, a roadside positive breath test
will be followed by an evidentiary breath test (typically taken at a police
station) and they are not required to do blood tests.

------
Wowfunhappy
From comments here, it sounds like this tech is too expensive and unreliable
to consider such a thing right now, but:

I wonder if some day, it would be a good idea to just put these in all cars?
Drunk driving is a common enough (and deadly enough) crime that it would
probably make everyone safer. And driving, of course, is a privilege, not a
right.

------
RickJWagner
Having lost a brother to a drunk driving accident, I fully support this idea.

The ramifications would be awesome. Reduced accidents, reduced fatalities,
maybe even reduced alcoholism.

Let's get this put in place in the states. Thanks, Canada!

------
thbr99
Hydro Québec & other Quebec govt entities will soon have the ability to
identify you as a "historic anglophone" for giving you services in English.
Everyone else will get govt services in French. CAQ govt. says it will
implement this people identification system as a part of Bill 101
enhancements.

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/english-
government-s...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/english-government-
services-quebec-1.5348007)

~~~
olalonde
Not saying I agree with it but Quebec's only official language is French so it
doesn't have to offer services in English at all. This is just a case of
granting special privileges to a certain group of people based on historical
factors, as is the case with indigenous peoples.

~~~
squiggleblaz
If that's the meaning of "official language", then it seems they're illiberal,
anti-democratic and unnecessary. I see no reason why the state shouldn't be
able to use any convenient language when dealing with the people who live
there.

Using the government's actions to define the natural rights of the
government's subjects against the government is a little backwards.

------
polski-g
If you get a DUI in America, you cannot enter Canada

~~~
arnmac
Had a coworker that found that out the hard way. Got a DUI and didn't tell
anyone. Then one day a few months later had a work trip in Canada. They
stopped him at customs in Canada and shipped him back. Company had to fly
someone else out there on short notice.

Still better than the coworker that flew to Canada on business and then while
on the trip his name got added to the "NO FLY" list. That was a fiasco.

~~~
perl4ever
A coworker of mine went to Pakistan and then was not allowed to come back for
quite a while. I don't know if it was the proverbial "no fly" list or
something else, but eventually he was allowed back.

I remember reading about someone who was denied entry to Canada because they
brought anti-depressants with them.

You have no rights traveling across borders, and it's not just US officials
that are arbitrary and unreasonable.

------
fenwick67
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

------
baby
Give mortal tool to people so they can misuse them, blame and punish them once
they misuse them.

------
ticktockten
This should be standard issue for cabs!

------
sysbin
Public transportation is good in Quebec. So much so that taking the license
away for life would likely be better and specifically when it comes to
residing in Quebec. Driving drunk is rarely a mistake and tremendously selfish
to others.

~~~
totony
Thats only true in Montreal and its close surroundings, a driver license is
required if you live pretty much anywhere else, since the suburban growth is
pretty high overall in Canada and public transport cant effectively keep up

~~~
monksy
Eh, it's ok. It closes at 1:30am. Also, it's a PITA to get to the airport.

~~~
totony
In montreal the metro closes at 1:30 but the stm is pretty good with the night
buses during the night, coverage is reduced tho

