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!
As a fact, being drunk in charge, only would stand up if he has 35.0001 mg of alcohol whilst being breath tested, then once going back to the nick on the Main Evidential breathalyser and taking the lower of the two, to get a conviction if he is over the limit, however, he has a reasonable excuse by law stating he won’t be driving, ie on daily rest, so proving beyond reasonable doubt he was intending to drive, if you have 25 years of policing experience, then you will know doing a roadside BT, and actually getting him back to the nick if he is over the prescribed drink drive limit then, it will more than likeLy, be reduced to an amount where he would pass on he EBM back at the station. Please explain under the RTA, how he is drunk in charge of said vehicle if he is under the prescribed legal limit.
I think that you are mixing up who said what here Discoman. Shullbit was arguing that he’d be liable to a charge of drunk in charge, Monkey 241 on the other hand was arguing against him and explained that he had 20 odd years of police experience.
Can’t believe I’ve just defended a man who going by his username used to wear a red beret!
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!
As a fact, being drunk in charge, only would stand up if he has 35.0001 mg of alcohol whilst being breath tested, then once going back to the nick on the Main Evidential breathalyser and taking the lower of the two, to get a conviction if he is over the limit, however, he has a reasonable excuse by law stating he won’t be driving, ie on daily rest, so proving beyond reasonable doubt he was intending to drive, if you have 25 years of policing experience, then you will know doing a roadside BT, and actually getting him back to the nick if he is over the prescribed drink drive limit then, it will more than likeLy, be reduced to an amount where he would pass on he EBM back at the station. Please explain under the RTA, how he is drunk in charge of said vehicle if he is under the prescribed legal limit.
I think that you are mixing up who said what here Discoman. Shullbit was arguing that he’d be liable to a charge of drunk in charge, Monkey 241 on the other hand was arguing against him and explained that he had 20 odd years of police experience.
Can’t believe I’ve just defended a man who going by his username used to wear a red beret!
Wheel Nut:
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.
Wheel Nut:
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.
Irrelevant. He’s in charge of the vehicle.
Road Traffic Act 1988.
“A person shall be deemed not to have been in charge of a [ mechanically propelled vehicle] if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs”.
Wheel Nut:
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.
Irrelevant. He’s in charge of the vehicle.
He could still be charged…although unlikely given a valid defence.
Defence. There is a statutory defence to this charge if a defendant can prove that there was no likelihood of them driving the vehicle while being in charge of it while unfit through drink or drugs. If they can prove there was no likelihood of them driving the vehicle then they cannot be convicted of this offence.
“A person shall be deemed not to have been in charge of a [ mechanically propelled vehicle] if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs”.
It’s as illogical as saying found asleep in the bunk or drinking coffee on daily rest while in charge of a vehicle.
Quantity is another matter.Over the limit at the beginning of a daily rest period doesn’t automatically mean under the limit at the end of it when you could be deemed as intending to drive it.
If you can’t prove that or if they can show that it’s unlikely that you’d be under the limit by the end of the end of the rest period then all bets are off.
Realistically you wouldn’t want to drink much if any over the driving limit during a daily rest period.While in Scotland best just drink water or Becks Blue.
I seem to remember(!) prosecutions of ‘drivers’ sleeping it off in the back seat of a car? I guess that was the early days, and why this defence was introduced?
.
Would someone be liable to prosecution if breathalysed in a pub car park? In that case, although not on the public highway, if in the driving seat, they have an intention of doing so. Better to stop them first rather than wait until they drive off, isn’t it?
.
I daresay someone here will know the law, and many will have opinions.
Technically a pub carpark is usually considered fair game IF the public have access. Its slightly more variable than that…but carparks have also been used as a defence.
I always told my lads if they suspected someone was pished to intervene before they got in a car and give some advice…
It’s a whole world of crap if they allow the car to move and it escalates into a chase or it wipes someone out.
Sleeping it off can be fair game too…since if you’re that drunk there is no way of telling when you wake up if you’re fit to drive.
Franglais:
I seem to remember(!) prosecutions of ‘drivers’ sleeping it off in the back seat of a car? I guess that was the early days, and why this defence was introduced?
.
Would someone be liable to prosecution if breathalysed in a pub car park? In that case, although not on the public highway, if in the driving seat, they have an intention of doing so. Better to stop them first rather than wait until they drive off, isn’t it?
.
I daresay someone here will know the law, and many will have opinions.
It’s for the defence to prove that there was no possibility of the driver driving the vehicle, not for the prosecution to prove that there was. Normally this would be difficult but in the OPs case, with a tachograph indicating that the driver was several hours into what was obviously a daily rest period, and in possession of paperwork showing that he was due to load/unload at the premises outside which he was parked the following day, this wouldn’t be so much of a problem.
There are a lot of facts and technically but in REALITY, the bloke has has a couple of beers sat by his lorry, in FACT he has done nothing wrong TECHNICALLY
Guys, justa heads up here. The drink drive laws are different in Scotland . You could have a couple of shandies in Carlisle and be fit to drive. Do that at Lockerbie and you could fail the breath test. The limit is a good deal lower North of the border, as is the speed limit on single carriageways.
Do you think anyone really cares, He supposed to have 2 cans of lager with a meal…now that’s really going to put you over the limit I don’t recommend it, but by law you probably still fit to drive. So what is the problem! Think like some others on here, there’s a bit of fishing going on
Sorry that was out of order and i didnt mean to caude offence.
I like to go at my own pace and relax and enjoy the job. Some folk enjoy running around fast and getting the hours in.
What i meant was drivers who enjoy the job and see it as both a way to make money and to have some fun. But i genuonely didnt mean to put anyone else down.
Im in no position to judge either. Todat i tipped in hastings. Ran over to canterbury to be loaded. Tip in oxford and now in a truck stop in bristol waiting to get to the docks tomorrow. Talk abour being run ragged.
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.
If you are near Hastings you are probably very close to me, had I seen this earlier I would have joined you for the odd tinnie or 2. Sadly some folks that should know better are just interfering busybodys and have no clue what night out drivers do!
I often used to question why truckstops have bars, I have had many nights out in Junction 29 back in the days when they had “entertainment” and seen many drivers maybe a little over the limit when heading back to the cab to sleep it off, but 8 hours or more later they were well under the limit and very capable of driving safely. Clearly the police had no concerns with trucks leaving the next morning as I never saw any driver being checked.
One of my other regular nights out was the truckstop on the A5 South of Luton (Sorry but I cannot remember what its called, I retired 14 years ago!) but there was a pub just up the road that had “entertainment” and the was full for drivers almost every night!
I don’t recommend it, but by law you probably still fit to drive. So what is the problem! Think like some others on here, there’s a bit of fishing going on 