I had two pints with a meal the other night, then went back to the lorry and to bed. As this would make me over the limit, how would I stand ( or fall hic 
) on the offence of… being in charge of a vehicle while above the legal limit or unfit through drink. I had no intention of driving and the keys were not in the ignition.
Many threads on this issue. As you had no intention of driving, I think you are fine as you have your tacho records to corroborate your side of it.
As above - also, 2 pints with your dinner may not have put you over the legal limit.
Do people seriously worry like this? I wouldn’t think twice about going into my house, caravan, a camper or my truck after a few beers.
trubster:
Many threads on this issue. As you had no intention of driving, I think you are fine as you have your tacho records to corroborate your side of it.
Thanks for that, I thought it would be OK. I have done this before on a few occasions, and when I get back to the lorry I don’t sit in the drivers side, always stay in the passenger side or in the bunk.
waynedl:
As above - also, 2 pints with your dinner may not have put you over the legal limit.Do people seriously worry like this? I wouldn’t think twice about going into my house, caravan, a camper or my truck after a few beers.
I know what you mean, just that I knew a guy a few years back, that had a few pints and slept in the back of his car, the old bill found him asleep the keys were in his pocket, and the done him for it. He lost his licence.
Been to many reports of wagon drivers seen having a few beers and getting into cab. Usually parked up on likes of a regular parking layby or service area. Common sense comes into play, given that’s his bed for the night. Car drivers are usually regarded differently, dependent on circumstances, but as with most things, another cop might give a different reply.
More to do with the law than common sense, TBH - Section 5(2) Road Traffic Act 1988:
“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.” Subsection (1)(b) being “Drunk in charge of a motor vehicle”.
So a truck driver starting a 9 (or 11) hour daily rest, bedding down for the night in his bunk with the curtains pulled etc is in a different position from a legal POV to the driver crashed out on the back seat in an unheated car. Although if push came to shove, the onus is on the driver to prove there was no likelihood of him driving, rather than on the prosecution to show otherwise.
If you get in the drivers side and the curtains are open, Then plod will go into his usual the law is the law state of mind. They can’t think for themselves nowadays.
If you close the curtains before going to the pub, Then re enter the cab from the passenger side. There shouldn’t be an issue.
It’s only the UK that makes an issue with drunk in charge or driving a vehicle on private land whilst over the limit.
But it’s got to be better than Bulgaria during communist rule. Death by firing squad for a second drink drive offence.
Roymondo:
More to do with the law than common sense, TBH - Section 5(2) Road Traffic Act 1988:“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.” Subsection (1)(b) being “Drunk in charge of a motor vehicle”.
So a truck driver starting a 9 (or 11) hour daily rest, bedding down for the night in his bunk with the curtains pulled etc is in a different position from a legal POV to the driver crashed out on the back seat in an unheated car. Although if push came to shove, the onus is on the driver to prove there was no likelihood of him driving, rather than on the prosecution to show otherwise.
Ahh, so that’s how innocent until proven guilty works…
I watched a traffic cop program a few weeks ago. They had a report of someone coming out of a pub that was expected to drive away whilst ■■■■■■■
The police set up a sting a mile or two down the road. The copper was so proud of himself making the roads safer.
Wouldn’t it have been better to go to the pub car park to stop the bloke from driving away?
More a case of browny points than road safety.
They do like to set people up. Even on camera.
fullist.co.uk/2014/02/police-off … -protests/
I remember reading this case a few years back.
A guy drove some distance to visit his girlfriend. They went out for the evening and had quite a lot to drink, then they had a big argument and she kicked him out. Drunk, and with nowhere else to go, he settled down in the back of his car.
Along comes plod, wakes him up, breathalysers him, and arrests him for being drunk in charge of a car.
When it goes to court, he pleads that he had no intention of driving, and was only sleeping in the car because he had nowhere else to go. The magistrate took the view that it was likely that when he woke up, he would start driving, and would still be drunk. He lost his licence, as well as his girlfriend.
Not a good day for him.
waynedl:
Ahh, so that’s how innocent until proven guilty works…
Where’s that LIKE button gone?
limeyphil:
I watched a traffic cop program a few weeks ago. They had a report of someone coming out of a pub that was expected to drive away whilst ■■■■■■■
The police set up a sting a mile or two down the road. The copper was so proud of himself making the roads safer.
Wouldn’t it have been better to go to the pub car park to stop the bloke from driving away?
More a case of browny points than road safety.They do like to set people up. Even on camera.
fullist.co.uk/2014/02/police-off … -protests/
Sounds like the one I watched at stupid ‘o’ clock this morning…‘Brit Cops Rapid Response’ I think. Big old lump of a bloke, blew ott at roadside, mid 40s iirc, back to the nick on the big machine, blew again and was low 50s…Dibble said as time goes by, the alcoholic level actually rises in the bloodstream
limeyphil:
I watched a traffic cop program a few weeks ago. They had a report of someone coming out of a pub that was expected to drive away whilst ■■■■■■■
The police set up a sting a mile or two down the road. The copper was so proud of himself making the roads safer.
Wouldn’t it have been better to go to the pub car park to stop the bloke from driving away?
More a case of browny points than road safety.They do like to set people up. Even on camera.
fullist.co.uk/2014/02/police-off … -protests/
Where would plod stand if he allowed drinking driver to drive knowing that he was probably over the limit and said driver kills someone before plod stops him/her. He would surely be as guilty as the driver by omission, i.e. he didn’t take appropriate action to prevent the offence.
The police won’t be held liable. They never are.
limeyphil:
It’s only the UK that makes an issue with drunk in charge or driving a vehicle on private land whilst over the limit.
But offences under Section 5 (1) Road Traffic Act 1988 (i.e. “drunk in charge”) are only committed if the vehicle is “on a road or other public place”…
Roymondo:
limeyphil:
It’s only the UK that makes an issue with drunk in charge or driving a vehicle on private land whilst over the limit.But offences under Section 5 (1) Road Traffic Act 1988 (i.e. “drunk in charge”) are only committed if the vehicle is “on a road or other public place”…
It’s the bit about what is classed as a public place. My driveway is private property in all cases except in a drunk in charge case. Most of the time the police use the wording of the law to its extremes, far from it’s intended purpose. Anything for a conviction, it has nothing to do with what’s right and wrong.
There was a thread recently about this asking about the distance from your vehicle you need to be. All this about not having the keys in the ignition or getting in the passenger side is nonsense.
The police and CPS would need to prove intent. If you have tachograph evidence that you’re having 11 off then having a couple of beers is fine. your defence is that you weren’t intending to drive anywhere, your charts would prove that.
Same goes for camper vans.
Cases of plod waiting half a mile from the pub as opposed to catching him getting in the car before he drives off are just plod making it easy for himself. Catching you in the act is easier than proving after the event that you intended to drive off.
Just because the keys are not on you doesn’t mean you’re not in charge of the vehicle. What if you were parked on a hill and took the hand brake off?
[/quote]
Ahh, so that’s how innocent until proven guilty works…
[/quote]
Drink drive legislation is designated as a ‘special power’ it is one of the few pieces of law whereby you are required to provide evidence that may incriminate yourself or be guilty of another offence. (blow into the machine / failure to provide)
Roymondo:
limeyphil:
It’s only the UK that makes an issue with drunk in charge or driving a vehicle on private land whilst over the limit.But offences under Section 5 (1) Road Traffic Act 1988 (i.e. “drunk in charge”) are only committed if the vehicle is “on a road or other public place”…
A public place is a place to which the public has access, the drive of your house is not deemed a public place as the public have no general right of access, a farmers field if used for a sunday car boot sale, despite being private property, can also be a public place while the boot sale is on.
As has been mentioned previously, this topic has been done to death on numerous other threads. we’re just raking up old coals here.