Im parked up on a little industrial estate near hastings. Its a bit warm here so i am sitting on the grass having a cold beer from my fridge.
Now some dog walker who claims to have a lorry licence has told me i should be ashamed and he will be reporting me to my company.
So… am i a freak for having one or two cold tinnies occasionally? Or do any of the real lorry drivers (trampers obviously) do the same?
As some will ask. I told the bloke my name and offered to give him the transport managers personal number to call now. Then pointed out its got nothing to do with him.
He wasn’t called Jake was he?
It’s got eff all to do with him. Hopefully he’ll report you to the police, if they can turn up you can tell the copper that the dog walker offered you money for ■■■ and he got all upset when you told him to ■■■■ off!
No idea of his name.
When he said he was a fellow driver i got excited and thought he was going to tell me of a local gem pub or place to get breakfast. Instead i got an earful and threats to try and have me sacked.
worldsbestdriver:
Im parked up on a little industrial estate near hastings. Its a bit warm here so i am sitting on the grass having a cold beer from my fridge.
Now some dog walker who claims to have a lorry licence has told me i should be ashamed and he will be reporting me to my company.
So… am i a freak for having one or two cold tinnies occasionally? Or do any of the real lorry drivers (trampers obviously) do the same?
As some will ask. I told the bloke my name and offered to give him the transport managers personal number to call now. Then pointed out its got nothing to do with him.
Not a big drinker but I do enjoy a cold one now and again.
If anyone told me not to I’d tell them to fork off, I’ll do what I like.
Technically ‘‘drunk in charge of a motor vehicle’’…just saying
shullbit:
Technically ‘‘drunk in charge of a motor vehicle’’…just saying
But im not drunk… ive had two cans of san miguel and have cooked and eaten a large pasta meal.
I cant see how its any diffent to you having a couple of beers at home. You could just as easily open the front door and drive your car as i could decide to take my lorry for a spin in the middle of my daily rest.
If i was having just 9 off id not have anything. But im ourside my drop and they dont open til 10am tomorrow. So i have 16 hours off (unpaid but thats another story).
shullbit:
Technically ‘‘drunk in charge of a motor vehicle’’…just saying
2 cans of beer and he’s unlikely to be over the limit or not in control of his faculties or behaviour, so not “drunk” plus a tachograph legally not allowing him to drive for several hours.
Sure, some helmet of a copper could lift him but do you actually think that’s going to stand up in court?
The answer is no, it will not.
TheUncaringCowboy:
shullbit:
Technically ‘‘drunk in charge of a motor vehicle’’…just saying
2 cans of beer and he’s unlikely to be over the limit or not in control of his faculties or behaviour, so not “drunk” plus a tachograph legally not allowing him to drive for several hours.
Sure, some helmet of a copper could lift him but do you actually think that’s going to stand up in court?
The answer is no, it will not.
As i said…technically drunk in charge FACT!
shullbit:
TheUncaringCowboy:
shullbit:
Technically ‘‘drunk in charge of a motor vehicle’’…just saying
2 cans of beer and he’s unlikely to be over the limit or not in control of his faculties or behaviour, so not “drunk” plus a tachograph legally not allowing him to drive for several hours.
Sure, some helmet of a copper could lift him but do you actually think that’s going to stand up in court?
The answer is no, it will not.
As i said…technically drunk in charge FACT!
But it is not, technically or otherwise 
Typing “fact” in capital letters at the end of your sentence doesn’t make it any more truthful.
worldsbestdriver…
World’s worst wind up merchant.
It never happened.
TheUncaringCowboy:
shullbit:
TheUncaringCowboy:
shullbit:
Technically ‘‘drunk in charge of a motor vehicle’’…just saying
2 cans of beer and he’s unlikely to be over the limit or not in control of his faculties or behaviour, so not “drunk” plus a tachograph legally not allowing him to drive for several hours.
Sure, some helmet of a copper could lift him but do you actually think that’s going to stand up in court?
The answer is no, it will not.
As i said…technically drunk in charge FACT!
But it is not, technically or otherwise
Typing “fact” in capital letters at the end of your sentence doesn’t make it any more truthful.
Section 5(1)(b), Road Traffic Act 1988
It is an offence to be “in charge” of a motor vehicle while over the legal alcohol limit. For a conviction under this section it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that you were driving or attempting to drive. Rather, this offence can be committed where the vehicle is stationary and in circumstances where there is no immediate intention to drive. The offence usually arises when the police find someone sitting or sleeping within a parked vehicle after having consumed alcohol.
FACT
shullbit:
Section 5(1)(b), Road Traffic Act 1988
It is an offence to be “in charge” of a motor vehicle while over the legal alcohol limit. For a conviction under this section it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that you were driving or attempting to drive. Rather, this offence can be committed where the vehicle is stationary and in circumstances where there is no immediate intention to drive. The offence usually arises when the police find someone sitting or sleeping within a parked vehicle after having consumed alcohol.
FACT
He isn’t over the limit. He has a tachograph showing that he legally cannot move the vehicle for another number of hours and his intention isn’t to move until 10am, provable by the place’s opening hours.
You can yell “fact” at the screen as much as you like, it doesn’t change you being wrong.
shullbit:
Technically ‘‘drunk in charge of a motor vehicle’’…just saying
Technically and also a fact you are a total bellend [emoji849]
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
TheUncaringCowboy:
shullbit:
Section 5(1)(b), Road Traffic Act 1988
It is an offence to be “in charge” of a motor vehicle while over the legal alcohol limit. For a conviction under this section it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that you were driving or attempting to drive. Rather, this offence can be committed where the vehicle is stationary and in circumstances where there is no immediate intention to drive. The offence usually arises when the police find someone sitting or sleeping within a parked vehicle after having consumed alcohol.
FACT
He isn’t over the limit. He has a tachograph showing that he legally cannot move the vehicle for another number of hours and his intention isn’t to move until 10am, provable by the place’s opening hours.
You can yell “fact” at the screen as much as you like, it doesn’t change you being wrong.
Reglardless of the original posters 2 cans(i am pretty sure he wasnt over the limit…unless it was special brew) IN GENERAL its technically drunk in charge the fact there is a tachograph does not prevent someone from deciding to drive the vehicle after one too many. ITS THE LAW there is no shame in admitting you are wrong, why can SOME people not accept facts when presented with them
shullbit:
TheUncaringCowboy:
shullbit:
Technically ‘‘drunk in charge of a motor vehicle’’…just saying
2 cans of beer and he’s unlikely to be over the limit or not in control of his faculties or behaviour, so not “drunk” plus a tachograph legally not allowing him to drive for several hours.
Sure, some helmet of a copper could lift him but do you actually think that’s going to stand up in court?
The answer is no, it will not.
As i said…technically drunk in charge FACT!
Hasn’t been specified whether keys are still in the ignition or not 
robroy:
yourhavingalarf:
worldsbestdriver…
World’s worst wind up merchant.
It never happened.
Yep.
Why would i lie about something as inane as a beer and a night out?
shullbit:
TheUncaringCowboy:
shullbit:
Section 5(1)(b), Road Traffic Act 1988
It is an offence to be “in charge” of a motor vehicle while over the legal alcohol limit. For a conviction under this section it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that you were driving or attempting to drive. Rather, this offence can be committed where the vehicle is stationary and in circumstances where there is no immediate intention to drive. The offence usually arises when the police find someone sitting or sleeping within a parked vehicle after having consumed alcohol.
FACT
He isn’t over the limit. He has a tachograph showing that he legally cannot move the vehicle for another number of hours and his intention isn’t to move until 10am, provable by the place’s opening hours.
You can yell “fact” at the screen as much as you like, it doesn’t change you being wrong.
Reglardless of the original posters 2 cans(i am pretty sure he wasnt over the limit…unless it was special brew) IN GENERAL its technically drunk in charge the fact there is a tachograph does not prevent someone from deciding to drive the vehicle after one too many. ITS THE LAW there is no shame in admitting you are wrong, why can SOME people not accept facts when presented with them
He isn’t drunk. You can’t be drunk in charge of anything if you aren’t drunk.
You don’t know very much about the law, even if you do type it in capital letters.
The keys dont need to be in the ignition.
Anyway no one would ever get arrested for it would they? 
worcesternews.co.uk/news/18 … tation-m5/
TheUncaringCowboy:
shullbit:
TheUncaringCowboy:
shullbit:
Section 5(1)(b), Road Traffic Act 1988
It is an offence to be “in charge” of a motor vehicle while over the legal alcohol limit. For a conviction under this section it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that you were driving or attempting to drive. Rather, this offence can be committed where the vehicle is stationary and in circumstances where there is no immediate intention to drive. The offence usually arises when the police find someone sitting or sleeping within a parked vehicle after having consumed alcohol.
FACT
He isn’t over the limit. He has a tachograph showing that he legally cannot move the vehicle for another number of hours and his intention isn’t to move until 10am, provable by the place’s opening hours.
You can yell “fact” at the screen as much as you like, it doesn’t change you being wrong.
Reglardless of the original posters 2 cans(i am pretty sure he wasnt over the limit…unless it was special brew) IN GENERAL its technically drunk in charge the fact there is a tachograph does not prevent someone from deciding to drive the vehicle after one too many. ITS THE LAW there is no shame in admitting you are wrong, why can SOME people not accept facts when presented with them
He isn’t drunk. You can’t be drunk in charge of anything if you aren’t drunk.
You don’t know very much about the law, even if you do type it in capital letters.
The OP may not be drunk. I am talking in general and IT IS THE LAW …PAL. If you have 10 cans in your lorry you can be charged with drunk in charge Its black and white
