Saaamon:
Do you really deserve it back is the question.
always one!
i don’t know how much truth is in it, but.
i’ve been told that if you go on one of those drink awareness courses that allow you your licence back several months early, then you don’t have to see the traffic commissioner.
limeyphil:
i don’t know how much truth is in it, but.
i’ve been told that if you go on one of those drink awareness courses that allow you your licence back several months early, then you don’t have to see the traffic commissioner.
You can get it back early but still have to wait for the TCs’ decision.
it should be drink or drive end of, that way no one has the oh i thought i would be alright excuse. look at that goalkeeper killed 2 young boys paralysed the father served 3 years and is out now trying to earn a contract with swindon 
no one on here can say that is justice i know what my actions would be if this happened to me and my family 
as i have said before too many so called professional drivers have a look the other way attitude/someone else will deal with it 
It is a good job we have a fair judicial system in this country, either of 3 upstanding pillars or of 12 good men & true.
The Trucknet lynch mob are alive and well and should be used in the upcoming trial of the parents who fired their house in the hope of getting a larger one.
44 Tonne Ton:
limeyphil:
i don’t know how much truth is in it, but.
i’ve been told that if you go on one of those drink awareness courses that allow you your licence back several months early, then you don’t have to see the traffic commissioner.You can get it back early but still have to wait for the TCs’ decision.
Really■■? I know someone who did the awareness course and got 3 months off the ban and got all his intitlements back without a visit to the TC.
mrpj:
In charge of a motor vehicle would be enough, no need to actually be behind the wheel.
Technically a conviction is possible if your parked up in an overnight stop, have had a couple of pints and are asleep in your bunk as your still “in charge” of the vehicle…
triple-tango:
mrpj:
In charge of a motor vehicle would be enough, no need to actually be behind the wheel.Technically a conviction is possible if your parked up in an overnight stop, have had a couple of pints and are asleep in your bunk as your still “in charge” of the vehicle…
There is a very solid defence to such a charge though, if you can prove that there was no likelihood of you driving, for example because you had used up your maximum allowable working time for that day or were parked outside premises where you had a delivery for the following morning.
Thetaff:
44 Tonne Ton:
limeyphil:
i don’t know how much truth is in it, but.
i’ve been told that if you go on one of those drink awareness courses that allow you your licence back several months early, then you don’t have to see the traffic commissioner.You can get it back early but still have to wait for the TCs’ decision.
Really■■? I know someone who did the awareness course and got 3 months off the ban and got all his intitlements back without a visit to the TC.
Not necessarily a visit but you do have to gain their approval which might mean an appearance.
Harry Monk:
triple-tango:
mrpj:
In charge of a motor vehicle would be enough, no need to actually be behind the wheel.Technically a conviction is possible if your parked up in an overnight stop, have had a couple of pints and are asleep in your bunk as your still “in charge” of the vehicle…
There is a very solid defence to such a charge though, if you can prove that there was no likelihood of you driving, for example because you had used up your maximum allowable working time for that day or were parked outside premises where you had a delivery for the following morning.
Nah, I dissagree. Your still guilty of being “drunk In charge” of the vehicle.
triple-tango:
Nah, I dissagree. Your still guilty of being “drunk In charge” of the vehicle.
I’m not giving you my opinion, just telling you what the law is.
Case study
Our client was charged with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. Our client was taken to the station, breathalysed, and consequently charged to appear in front of the Magistrates Court.We were instructed by our client to defend his case on the basis that he was not guilty of the offence since he had no intention of driving the vehicle.
The circumstances were that our client was a passenger in the vehicle with his partner. The vehicle broke down. His partner moved seats and our client attempted to get the vehicle started. Whilst he was attempting to do this, two officers drove past and arrested him.
We were then instructed and we prepared a defence for our client on the basis that he had no intention to drive his motor vehicle. The only reason for him being in the driver seat was for the purpose of getting the vehicle started to allow for his partner to continue driving.
We interviewed his partner and prepared a strong case, and instructed specialist counsel to represent our client at trial. Our barrister cross-examined the police officers and showed that they had no idea of whether he was going to drive or not.
Result | Not Guilty — Defence costs reimbursed
Here’s the section used in the defence of that case.
Sec 5(2) offers a statutory defence for ‘In Charge’
5(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit .
And that’s why you can’t be prosecuted for drink driving if you have reasonable proof that you have parked up for the night.
Harry Monk:
And that’s why you can’t be prosecuted for drink driving if you have reasonable proof that you have parked up for the night.
I would agree with that although this “in charge of” in this thread was prompted by a driver who’d stopped his car, in that situation I maintain that he was correctly (if very unfairly) convicted.
triple-tango:
Harry Monk:
triple-tango:
mrpj:
In charge of a motor vehicle would be enough, no need to actually be behind the wheel.Technically a conviction is possible if your parked up in an overnight stop, have had a couple of pints and are asleep in your bunk as your still “in charge” of the vehicle…
There is a very solid defence to such a charge though, if you can prove that there was no likelihood of you driving, for example because you had used up your maximum allowable working time for that day or were parked outside premises where you had a delivery for the following morning.
Nah, I dissagree. Your still guilty of being “drunk In charge” of the vehicle.
You can, under certain circumstances, be caught actually driving whilst over the limit and successfully defend the charge…
tachograph:
I believe that the alcohol limit is too low and I’m not prepared to say otherwise just to pacify hysterical people who feel that their views must be right and anyone who disagrees with them must wrong, anyone who feels so strongly about the subject would do well to argue their case with facts rather than insults and hysteria.The simple fact is that most people who are killed or maimed on our roads are not victims of drink drivers, many are the victims of reckless or dangerous drivers yet we don’t see the same degree of outrage when a child is killed because some moron decided to drive in a reckless manner, well not unless the media decide to whip up a frenzy over it anyway
Personally I don’t think it’s too low and if anything I would consider lowering it. I don’t disagree that more people are killed by incompetent/reckless sober drivers than drunk ones but just because drinking and driving isn’t the biggest killer on the roads that doesn’t mean we should just ignore it and target the big one. At the end of the day raising the legal limit would cost lives, there is no doubt about that. There are people who even at the current limit aren’t safe to drive (I would probably include myself in that category) and if the limit was higher there would without question be more people on the road who aren’t safe (even though they are technically legal) and that would inevitably lead to more accidents and therefore more injuries and no doubt some of those would be fatal. It’s a no brainer to me. Anyone who is that addicted to alcohol that they’re incapable of refraining from it when they’re going to be driving should perhaps consider seeking professional help.
Paul
To drivers who lose their licence through drink driving or drug driving whatever the circumstance you deserve it and my honest opinion is that you should not get a licence back for at least ten years and should be a mandatory prison sentence for endangering life through total stupidity or selfish attitude there should be a zero tolerance on driving with alcohol on the breath or in the blood.
How to enforce it? do it yourselves through thought and consideration for your own, your families and the well being of every other road user
Abuse to this post bring it on
the one and only:
To drivers who lose their licence through drink driving or drug driving whatever the circumstance you deserve it and my honest opinion is that you should not get a licence back for at least ten years and should be a mandatory prison sentence for endangering life through total stupidity or selfish attitude there should be a zero tolerance on driving with alcohol on the breath or in the blood.
How to enforce it? do it yourselves through thought and consideration for your own, your families and the well being of every other road user
Exactly. Think about the children.
the one and only:
To drivers who lose their licence through drink driving or drug driving whatever the circumstance you deserve it and my honest opinion is that you should not get a licence back for at least ten years and should be a mandatory prison sentence for endangering life through total stupidity or selfish attitude there should be a zero tolerance on driving with alcohol on the breath or in the blood.
How to enforce it? do it yourselves through thought and consideration for your own, your families and the well being of every other road userAbuse to this post bring it on
Why would anyone want to be abusive over such an immature post 
ABOUT?
Helen Stevens:
We had a lad apply for a driving job at our place. He told us he had been in prison for causing death by dangerous driving. He had fallen asleep at the wheel. He had later been diagnosed with sleep aponea. Somebody will probably correct me, but my (limited) understanding is that this is where somebody stops breathing momentarily when they fall into a deeper sleep, and so the body half wakes up to jolt them into breathing again. The sufferer doesn’t necessarily know they’ve got the condition, they just feel very tired, even though they think they’ve had seven hours sleep. Ironically, I have read that it is apparently more common amongst professional drivers than amongst those with other jobs.Anyway, we heard the chap’s story, saw how remorseful he seemed, and heard that his condition was now all sorted out, he had been signed off by a doctor as OK to drive, and given his HGV licence back (at tribunal I think he said). He was desperate to work, said how grateful he would be for a chance to prove himself, and believe it or not he won us over. Afterall he didn’t have to tell us the story, though perhaps it would have come out when we looked into references.
Our insurance company wouldn’t even consider it. Wouldn’t even give us a price. Just a straight ‘No’. Does this encourage people with convictions of one type or another to lie though, and just not tell their potential employer, and hope they don’t get found out? What is the position then if they have an accident and the insurance company finds out after? Do they say that the employer (the innocent party in all this) has to cough up as the insurance is void due to non-disclosure? It would be interesting to get an insurance view on this sort of thing. (Sorry if you feel this is a little off topic).
You have a point though because some one will lie to be ab;e to get a job with a DD under his belt
Harry Monk:
triple-tango:
Result | Not Guilty — Defence costs reimbursedHere’s the section used in the defence of that case.
Sec 5(2) offers a statutory defence for ‘In Charge’
5(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit .
And that’s why you can’t be prosecuted for drink driving if you have reasonable proof that you have parked up for the night.
Depends where your parked up, as you can still be in charge of the Motor vehicle ( has to be a motor vehicle under that section ) even if your on the bunk.
Below is the definition of Section 5 RTA 1988
Driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit…
(1)If a person– .
(a)drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or .
(b)is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, .
after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit he is guilty of an offence.
(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit. .
(3)The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle. …
Now subsection 2 is for the courts to decide so it still means that you will be nicked and processed as normal, so is it worth it?