That’s good to hear. I now know that you can see where i am coming from.
mickyblue:
commonrail:
RoadsRat:
commonrail:
You still have’nt explained my scenarioI asked you a question and I got a smart arse reply.
No you did’nt…the copper at the scene said it was pointless doing a roadside test as I was obviously drunk.
I blew in the machine at the station,but I was drunk,so I can’t remember the reading…and it was over 15 years ago.Stand to be corrected, but they arrested you for being unfit Section 4 RTA?
no idea what section it was…i was ■■■■■■■■■ the drivers seat,with the engine running.
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
If you’re parked up during the course of a night or weekend out then it’s obvious that doesn’t fit the description of being ‘in charge of a vehicle’.In this case it seems that the driver admitted to not being parked up during the course of a long rest period with the resulting implications regarding the intention/possibility of driving while under the influence of alcohol and the law could prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the case.Hence the driver’s admission of guilt instead of going to court and telling the court that he was not guilty because he was parked up with no possibility of driving the truck before he was clear of the effects of alcohol.Simples.
Your in that vehicle and your in charge of it. If your not, you better find a hotel room!
If that’s the deciding factor then there’s probably loads of motor home users who maybe drink enough to put them over the limit while parked up for a day or two who’ll need to get rid of them and either change them for a caravan or use a hotel instead.
In a vehicle constructed to be slept in, for example a camper van, “the test” is - are the keys in the ignition ? If the keys are in the ignition, then the vehicle is ready to be driven. This has been “the test” for well over 30 years.
That leaves you wide open to a drunk in charge, if you are drunk.
Yes, I know we all leave the keys in the ignition, it’s the safest place to leave them.
If your doors are locked and your curtains drawn, your ignition cannot be seen, so how is the police officer going to be able to tell one way or the other.
If I’m asleep and get woken by someone banging on my cab door, I pull my curtain back just enough to look out, not enough for anyone to be able to see in.
Simon:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
If you’re parked up during the course of a night or weekend out then it’s obvious that doesn’t fit the description of being ‘in charge of a vehicle’.In this case it seems that the driver admitted to not being parked up during the course of a long rest period with the resulting implications regarding the intention/possibility of driving while under the influence of alcohol and the law could prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the case.Hence the driver’s admission of guilt instead of going to court and telling the court that he was not guilty because he was parked up with no possibility of driving the truck before he was clear of the effects of alcohol.Simples.
Your in that vehicle and your in charge of it. If your not, you better find a hotel room!
If that’s the deciding factor then there’s probably loads of motor home users who maybe drink enough to put them over the limit while parked up for a day or two who’ll need to get rid of them and either change them for a caravan or use a hotel instead.
In a vehicle constructed to be slept in, for example a camper van, “the test” is - are the keys in the ignition ? If the keys are in the ignition, then the vehicle is ready to be driven. This has been “the test” for well over 30 years.
That leaves you wide open to a drunk in charge, if you are drunk.
Yes, I know we all leave the keys in the ignition, it’s the safest place to leave them.
If your doors are locked and your curtains drawn, your ignition cannot be seen, so how is the police officer going to be able to tell one way or the other.
If I’m asleep and get woken by someone banging on my cab door, I pull my curtain back just enough to look out, not enough for anyone to be able to see in.
+1
Simon:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
If you’re parked up during the course of a night or weekend out then it’s obvious that doesn’t fit the description of being ‘in charge of a vehicle’.In this case it seems that the driver admitted to not being parked up during the course of a long rest period with the resulting implications regarding the intention/possibility of driving while under the influence of alcohol and the law could prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the case.Hence the driver’s admission of guilt instead of going to court and telling the court that he was not guilty because he was parked up with no possibility of driving the truck before he was clear of the effects of alcohol.Simples.
Your in that vehicle and your in charge of it. If your not, you better find a hotel room!
If that’s the deciding factor then there’s probably loads of motor home users who maybe drink enough to put them over the limit while parked up for a day or two who’ll need to get rid of them and either change them for a caravan or use a hotel instead.
In a vehicle constructed to be slept in, for example a camper van, “the test” is - are the keys in the ignition ? If the keys are in the ignition, then the vehicle is ready to be driven. This has been “the test” for well over 30 years.
That leaves you wide open to a drunk in charge, if you are drunk.
Yes, I know we all leave the keys in the ignition, it’s the safest place to leave them.
If your doors are locked and your curtains drawn, your ignition cannot be seen, so how is the police officer going to be able to tell one way or the other.
If I’m asleep and get woken by someone banging on my cab door, I pull my curtain back just enough to look out, not enough for anyone to be able to see in.
At last, someone with an understanding!
It only took 5 pages. 
RoadsRat:
Simon:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
If you’re parked up during the course of a night or weekend out then it’s obvious that doesn’t fit the description of being ‘in charge of a vehicle’.In this case it seems that the driver admitted to not being parked up during the course of a long rest period with the resulting implications regarding the intention/possibility of driving while under the influence of alcohol and the law could prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the case.Hence the driver’s admission of guilt instead of going to court and telling the court that he was not guilty because he was parked up with no possibility of driving the truck before he was clear of the effects of alcohol.Simples.
Your in that vehicle and your in charge of it. If your not, you better find a hotel room!
If that’s the deciding factor then there’s probably loads of motor home users who maybe drink enough to put them over the limit while parked up for a day or two who’ll need to get rid of them and either change them for a caravan or use a hotel instead.
In a vehicle constructed to be slept in, for example a camper van, “the test” is - are the keys in the ignition ? If the keys are in the ignition, then the vehicle is ready to be driven. This has been “the test” for well over 30 years.
That leaves you wide open to a drunk in charge, if you are drunk.
Yes, I know we all leave the keys in the ignition, it’s the safest place to leave them.
If your doors are locked and your curtains drawn, your ignition cannot be seen, so how is the police officer going to be able to tell one way or the other.
If I’m asleep and get woken by someone banging on my cab door, I pull my curtain back just enough to look out, not enough for anyone to be able to see in.At last, someone with an understanding!
It only took 5 pages.
Seems easy enough to understand to me.However someone who is under the influence of alcohol probably won’t remember to remove the keys before opening the door assuming the law is banging on the driver side door which they obviously would be. 
Which would probably explain why no one with any sense would risk drinking in the days of sleeper cabs without night heaters and in which we left the engine running to keep the heater working. 
Simon:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
If you’re parked up during the course of a night or weekend out then it’s obvious that doesn’t fit the description of being ‘in charge of a vehicle’.In this case it seems that the driver admitted to not being parked up during the course of a long rest period with the resulting implications regarding the intention/possibility of driving while under the influence of alcohol and the law could prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the case.Hence the driver’s admission of guilt instead of going to court and telling the court that he was not guilty because he was parked up with no possibility of driving the truck before he was clear of the effects of alcohol.Simples.
Your in that vehicle and your in charge of it. If your not, you better find a hotel room!
If that’s the deciding factor then there’s probably loads of motor home users who maybe drink enough to put them over the limit while parked up for a day or two who’ll need to get rid of them and either change them for a caravan or use a hotel instead.
In a vehicle constructed to be slept in, for example a camper van, “the test” is - are the keys in the ignition ? If the keys are in the ignition, then the vehicle is ready to be driven. This has been “the test” for well over 30 years.
That leaves you wide open to a drunk in charge, if you are drunk.
Yes, I know we all leave the keys in the ignition, it’s the safest place to leave them.
If your doors are locked and your curtains drawn, your ignition cannot be seen, so how is the police officer going to be able to tell one way or the other.
If I’m asleep and get woken by someone banging on my cab door, I pull my curtain back just enough to look out, not enough for anyone to be able to see in.
Thats not the point though, it shouldn’t have to be like that.
Why should you HAVE to remove the keys from the ignition. I just want a pair of coppers that have a bit of common sense and don’t have the blinkers on
“keys in ignition”
“keys in ignition”
“keys in ignition” mentality therefor you are a scummy drink driver.
FarnboroughBoy11:
Simon:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
If you’re parked up during the course of a night or weekend out then it’s obvious that doesn’t fit the description of being ‘in charge of a vehicle’.In this case it seems that the driver admitted to not being parked up during the course of a long rest period with the resulting implications regarding the intention/possibility of driving while under the influence of alcohol and the law could prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the case.Hence the driver’s admission of guilt instead of going to court and telling the court that he was not guilty because he was parked up with no possibility of driving the truck before he was clear of the effects of alcohol.Simples.
Your in that vehicle and your in charge of it. If your not, you better find a hotel room!
If that’s the deciding factor then there’s probably loads of motor home users who maybe drink enough to put them over the limit while parked up for a day or two who’ll need to get rid of them and either change them for a caravan or use a hotel instead.
In a vehicle constructed to be slept in, for example a camper van, “the test” is - are the keys in the ignition ? If the keys are in the ignition, then the vehicle is ready to be driven. This has been “the test” for well over 30 years.
That leaves you wide open to a drunk in charge, if you are drunk.
Yes, I know we all leave the keys in the ignition, it’s the safest place to leave them.
If your doors are locked and your curtains drawn, your ignition cannot be seen, so how is the police officer going to be able to tell one way or the other.
If I’m asleep and get woken by someone banging on my cab door, I pull my curtain back just enough to look out, not enough for anyone to be able to see in.Thats not the point though, it shouldn’t have to be like that.
Why should you HAVE to remove the keys from the ignition. I just want a pair of coppers that have a bit of common sense and don’t have the blinkers on
“keys in ignition”
“keys in ignition”
“keys in ignition” mentality therefor you are a scummy drink driver.
You don’t HAVE to do anything you don’t want to do. Do as you please.
There is no “keys in the ignition” mentality. Never had been, never will be.
At the end of the day, the police are only evidence collectors. Whether you are prosecuted is a decision for the CPS/Procurator Fiscal to make.
Police officers have no interest in truck drivers having a few jars at the end of their shift.
The police may just be evidence gatherers. But it’s still a night in the cells and the possibility of someone losing his job, The operator has to get another driver arranged while you gather evidence, and then the arrested driver is bailed to appear at court 300 miles from home, all because a police officer can’t or won’t use discretion.
RoadsRat:
You don’t HAVE to do anything you don’t want to do. Do as you please.There is no “keys in the ignition” mentality. Never had been, never will be.
At the end of the day, the police are only evidence collectors. Whether you are prosecuted is a decision for the CPS/Procurator Fiscal to make.
Police officers have no interest in truck drivers having a few jars at the end of their shift.
There you go. Straight from the horses mouth methinks.
Carryfast:
RoadsRat:
Simon:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
If you’re parked up during the course of a night or weekend out then it’s obvious that doesn’t fit the description of being ‘in charge of a vehicle’.In this case it seems that the driver admitted to not being parked up during the course of a long rest period with the resulting implications regarding the intention/possibility of driving while under the influence of alcohol and the law could prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the case.Hence the driver’s admission of guilt instead of going to court and telling the court that he was not guilty because he was parked up with no possibility of driving the truck before he was clear of the effects of alcohol.Simples.
Your in that vehicle and your in charge of it. If your not, you better find a hotel room!
If that’s the deciding factor then there’s probably loads of motor home users who maybe drink enough to put them over the limit while parked up for a day or two who’ll need to get rid of them and either change them for a caravan or use a hotel instead.
In a vehicle constructed to be slept in, for example a camper van, “the test” is - are the keys in the ignition ? If the keys are in the ignition, then the vehicle is ready to be driven. This has been “the test” for well over 30 years.
That leaves you wide open to a drunk in charge, if you are drunk.
Yes, I know we all leave the keys in the ignition, it’s the safest place to leave them.
If your doors are locked and your curtains drawn, your ignition cannot be seen, so how is the police officer going to be able to tell one way or the other.
If I’m asleep and get woken by someone banging on my cab door, I pull my curtain back just enough to look out, not enough for anyone to be able to see in.At last, someone with an understanding!
It only took 5 pages.
Seems easy enough to understand to me.However someone who is under the influence of alcohol probably won’t remember to remove the keys before opening the door assuming the law is banging on the driver side door which they obviously would be.
Curryfart. I think this has been covered a number of times and i think you have posted 4 pages of the same post’s a number of times. I think your question has been answered a few pages back
RoadsRat:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Simon:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
If you’re parked up during the course of a night or weekend out then it’s obvious that doesn’t fit the description of being ‘in charge of a vehicle’.In this case it seems that the driver admitted to not being parked up during the course of a long rest period with the resulting implications regarding the intention/possibility of driving while under the influence of alcohol and the law could prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the case.Hence the driver’s admission of guilt instead of going to court and telling the court that he was not guilty because he was parked up with no possibility of driving the truck before he was clear of the effects of alcohol.Simples.
Your in that vehicle and your in charge of it. If your not, you better find a hotel room!
If that’s the deciding factor then there’s probably loads of motor home users who maybe drink enough to put them over the limit while parked up for a day or two who’ll need to get rid of them and either change them for a caravan or use a hotel instead.
In a vehicle constructed to be slept in, for example a camper van, “the test” is - are the keys in the ignition ? If the keys are in the ignition, then the vehicle is ready to be driven. This has been “the test” for well over 30 years.
That leaves you wide open to a drunk in charge, if you are drunk.
Yes, I know we all leave the keys in the ignition, it’s the safest place to leave them.
If your doors are locked and your curtains drawn, your ignition cannot be seen, so how is the police officer going to be able to tell one way or the other.
If I’m asleep and get woken by someone banging on my cab door, I pull my curtain back just enough to look out, not enough for anyone to be able to see in.Thats not the point though, it shouldn’t have to be like that.
Why should you HAVE to remove the keys from the ignition. I just want a pair of coppers that have a bit of common sense and don’t have the blinkers on
“keys in ignition”
“keys in ignition”
“keys in ignition” mentality therefor you are a scummy drink driver.You don’t HAVE to do anything you don’t want to do. Do as you please.
There is no “keys in the ignition” mentality. Never had been, never will be.
At the end of the day, the police are only evidence collectors. Whether you are prosecuted is a decision for the CPS/Procurator Fiscal to make.
Police officers have no interest in truck drivers having a few jars at the end of their shift.
That’s twice you stated that and still people won’t understand 
. Only time a copper will be interested in you if you have done something that caught his/her attention. Simples
The police have a hard job, i can not see a trucker trying to stop a suicidal bridge jumper, or have the tact and diplomacy to tell the parents that their child has died in a car crash.
Dealing with all the idiots that can not handle their drink on a weekend night, you do not see this madness in Europe.
They are the first on the scene at accidents and see all the guts and blood.
Fuel theft is an issue, but if they catch the thief who stole it , there is no proof it is your diesel stolen unless you have put a colour dye in the tank, or marker.
I had some bloke banging on my door while parked in a lay by near Oxford services, within minutes there was the force helicopter, the dog unit, and 4 traffic cars in attendance, as they were told by me i was being hijacked.
The chap banging the door was a foreign lad parked in front of me, his lorry, and mine, and his mate in front of him all had fuel stolen.
FarnboroughBoy11:
Simon:
Carryfast:
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
If you’re parked up during the course of a night or weekend out then it’s obvious that doesn’t fit the description of being ‘in charge of a vehicle’.In this case it seems that the driver admitted to not being parked up during the course of a long rest period with the resulting implications regarding the intention/possibility of driving while under the influence of alcohol and the law could prove beyond reasonable doubt that was the case.Hence the driver’s admission of guilt instead of going to court and telling the court that he was not guilty because he was parked up with no possibility of driving the truck before he was clear of the effects of alcohol.Simples.
Your in that vehicle and your in charge of it. If your not, you better find a hotel room!
If that’s the deciding factor then there’s probably loads of motor home users who maybe drink enough to put them over the limit while parked up for a day or two who’ll need to get rid of them and either change them for a caravan or use a hotel instead.
In a vehicle constructed to be slept in, for example a camper van, “the test” is - are the keys in the ignition ? If the keys are in the ignition, then the vehicle is ready to be driven. This has been “the test” for well over 30 years.
That leaves you wide open to a drunk in charge, if you are drunk.
Yes, I know we all leave the keys in the ignition, it’s the safest place to leave them.
If your doors are locked and your curtains drawn, your ignition cannot be seen, so how is the police officer going to be able to tell one way or the other.
If I’m asleep and get woken by someone banging on my cab door, I pull my curtain back just enough to look out, not enough for anyone to be able to see in.Thats not the point though, it shouldn’t have to be like that.
Why should you HAVE to remove the keys from the ignition. I just want a pair of coppers that have a bit of common sense and don’t have the blinkers on
“keys in ignition”
“keys in ignition”
“keys in ignition” mentality therefore you are a scummy drink driver.
I expect that what the pair of coppers want is a professional driver with enough common sense to not give them his head on a plate.
How difficult is it to understand that a line has to be drawn somewhere and that the line is “keys in the ignition” ?
Coppers have the discretion to use their common sense, but from your posts you fail the attitude test as well. That’s the point when the coppers step back, check where the line is drawn, and whether you’re over it or not.
Simple.
it`s got nothing to do with where the copper draws the line…cps are in charge.
commonrail:
it`s got nothing to do with where the copper draws the line…cps are in charge.
As I said last weekend, it is my understanding that this is where the line has been drawn, as explained to me over 30 years ago.
I didn’t state it as a fact, or that it was the police who drew that line.
The copper is the person on the scene, with the discretion on whether or not evidence needs to be gathered for presenting to the CPS.
I had assumed I was ‘talking’ to grown adults who wouldn’t need something so basic explaining to them.
Solly:
dts:
At Perth Sheriff Court, Mason, 66, admitted being drunk in charge of an articulated lorry on the A827 Ballinluig to Killin road on September 19, 2012…You can argue till the cows-come-home but because of his own admission to the charges…Case closed Your Honour’s.
@Simon. I agree. It was the above evidence that formed the basis of the case against the driver, and the outcome.
Solly:
Solly:
dts:
At Perth Sheriff Court, Mason, 66, admitted being drunk in charge of an articulated lorry on the A827 Ballinluig to Killin road on September 19, 2012…You can argue till the cows-come-home but because of his own admission to the charges…Case closed Your Honour’s.
@Simon. I agree. It was the above evidence that formed the basis of the case against the driver, and the outcome.
But there is always the possibility that he was ill advised by his brief, He may not have had a brief at all.
You may be given your rights, But the police often say things like, “The solicitor could be two or three hours and I’m sure you want to get it out of the way as soon as possible”. “An early guilty plea will go in your favour, We’ll speak to the judge on your behalf”.
Anyone is susceptible to suggestion.
dts:
…Solicitor David Holmes, defending, said Mason had formerly been an HGV driver and had been semi-retired at the time of the incident. Mr Holmes said he had been driving the cement lorry as a favour for a friend…
I don’t have a problem with your point of view Phil which I agree may well be correct. I’ve based my view partly on the above, but mainly on his admission of guilt which would have been the clincher. I can’t see any solicitor arguing against that, can you?
Solly:
dts:
…Solicitor David Holmes, defending, said Mason had formerly been an HGV driver and had been semi-retired at the time of the incident. Mr Holmes said he had been driving the cement lorry as a favour for a friend…I don’t have a problem with your point of view Phil which I agree may well be correct. I’ve based my view partly on the above, but mainly on his admission of guilt which would have been the clincher. I can’t see any solicitor arguing against that, can you?
It looks like a brief that just spoke on the defendants behalf on the day of sentencing, But not on the day that he made his plea.