Good job police

Dup · 11 Nov 2011 at 16:57

div0 said:
And yes you can get charged with drink driving without being caught driving at the time. I know someone who drove home from the pub, got home ok, but had the police turn up and breathalyse him and then charge him based on evidence that he was seen leaving the pub in his car.

I was caught in a similar situation (although a more emotional and violent, long story). I admitted it, was breathalysed at the station twice over the limit and was banned for 9 months (12 months but reduced with a course). They said I could have said I wasn't driving and the state of the witnesses could have meant I may have got away with it, but such is life. You do wrong, you take it on the chin and move on.

I am however still puzzled. If I had refused to give a sample of breath or blood, I would have been banned for 6 months for that offence instead like the story in the OP? Doesn't seem right.

Richie · 11 Nov 2011 at 17:04

steve1873 said:
HAVE!!! Sorry, but that really annoys me!

Then you will be one angry man reading this forum

I hope you don't mind people using the word "draw" when they mean drawer e.g. "top draw material" or "I keep it in my desk draw" :rolleyes:

Meridian · 11 Nov 2011 at 19:02

Dup said:
I am however still puzzled. If I had refused to give a sample of breath or blood, I would have been banned for 6 months for that offence instead like the story in the OP? Doesn't seem right.

The punishment for failing to provide is the same as you'd get for just being over the limit. If you are way over the limit it pays to fail to provide as the punishment will be lighter.

M

Scania · 11 Nov 2011 at 20:39

doofer said:
How does the 'Drunk In Charge' work on a Lorry Driver who is sleeping in his Cab, proper bunk in the back job, not a non-sleeper cabin who's Tacho has forced him into an overnight and there happens to be a Pub across the road... Or, say a proper Camper Van parked up for the night and the occupants are drinking/partying with no intention of driving, why is sleeping in a 'Car' any different?

I wonder this a lot myself, its a grey area imo.

Yes, you are in charge of the vehicle, I believe - but would not like to test the theory - that with an HGV, as long as you use the passenger door to enter & exit the vehicle and don't sit in the drivers seat, you are not technically incharge of the vehicle.

Given that I am off duty, and by law I cannot be in control of my vehicle as I am on my rest period (for a minimum of 9 to 11 hours) I don't think I can be viewed as in charge of the vehicle as such - I would appreciate Burnsey asking about with regard to this!

This is probably truckers tales talk, as I say, I don't get myself in the situation to test it, nor would I want to test it.

Telescopi said:
Is that in keeping with the spirit of the law?

Burnsy2023 said:
Police act on the letter of the law not the spirit. That's for judges and magistrates to interpret. This is to ensure consistency.

I would say not the spirit, others may differ....

Strife212 · 11 Nov 2011 at 20:45

Presumably if he had actually given the sample they would have charged him with being drunk in charge of a vehicle, otherwise, why ask him to provide a sample at all?

So he was doomed either way.

Robbo · 11 Nov 2011 at 20:49

Strife212 said:
Presumably if he had actually given the sample they would have charged him with being drunk in charge of a vehicle, otherwise, why ask him to provide a sample at all?

So he was doomed either way.

They wouldn't have necessarily charged him and even if they had, he would have had a good case for a defence.

So no, he wasn't 'doomed' at all.

Strife212 · 11 Nov 2011 at 20:51

Robbo said:
They wouldn't have necessarily charged him and even if they had, he would have had a good case for a defence.

So no, he wasn't 'doomed' at all.

I guess they just wanted the sample for a bit of a laugh?

True he could have defended himself though.

Robbo · 11 Nov 2011 at 20:53

Strife212 said:
I guess they just wanted the sample for a bit of a laugh?

True he could have defended himself though.

Probably to confirm he was over the limit and see how he responded before taking it any further.

asim18 · 12 Nov 2011 at 05:52

Feel sorry for him. Can totally understand why he didn't give a breath sample; as far as he was aware, he had done nothing wrong.

Lose-lose situation. Either arrested for providing a positive sample or arrested for failing to provide a sample.

Just another flaw in the legal system taken advantage of by an opportunistic copper.

Richie · 12 Nov 2011 at 10:21

R420LA6X2/4MNA said:
I wonder this a lot myself, its a grey area imo.

Yes, you are in charge of the vehicle, I believe - but would not like to test the theory - that with an HGV, as long as you use the passenger door to enter & exit the vehicle and don't sit in the drivers seat, you are not technically incharge of the vehicle.

Given that I am off duty, and by law I cannot be in control of my vehicle as I am on my rest period (for a minimum of 9 to 11 hours) I don't think I can be viewed as in charge of the vehicle as such - I would appreciate Burnsey asking about with regard to this!

Part of your "duty" while operating your HGV is that you have legally enforced rest periods therefore the law forces you to stop in locations where you may have to sleep/rest within the cab of your vehicle. The same is not true for car drivers as they are under no legal obligation to stop and "rest" after a certain time.

This is where the difference lies i.e. you cannot be held to break a law when another law places you in that position in the first place

Wicksta · 12 Nov 2011 at 10:31

asim18 said:
Feel sorry for him. Can totally understand why he didn't give a breath sample; as far as he was aware, he had done nothing wrong.

Lose-lose situation. Either arrested for providing a positive sample or arrested for failing to provide a sample.

Just another flaw in the legal system taken advantage of by an opportunistic copper.

Do you honestly think he was planning on having breakfast and lunch in the car before sobering up in the afternoon and driving home?

asim18 · 12 Nov 2011 at 11:18

Wicksta said:
Do you honestly think he was planning on having breakfast and lunch in the car before sobering up in the afternoon and driving home?

Wait...

So you're saying it's OK to ban this guy from driving just because he could have broken the law in the morning?

Okay then.

Also people are forgetting he was "found asleep", not "found poised and ready to go for a drink drive".

Also, I was watching Road Wars last night and they stopped a bloke driving erratically. He blew 34 and the limit was 35 IIRC and they let him off on the spot. Now something is seriously wrong when a person merely sleeping in his car is awoken by a bunch of cops with no way out.

Richie · 12 Nov 2011 at 11:26

asim18 said:
Wait...

So you're saying it's OK to ban this guy from driving just because he could have broken the law in the morning?

Okay then.

Nothing "could have" about it. He wasn't in a position that may have resulted in him breaking the law, he was in a position where he had already broken it....

Wicksta · 12 Nov 2011 at 11:33

asim18 said:
Wait...

So you're saying it's OK to ban this guy from driving just because he could have broken the law in the morning?

Nope, you fell right into the trap. He broke the law, you're right! So it's a fair cop then.

I did wonder if you would bite, I thought maybe I'd been too obvious.

asim18 · 12 Nov 2011 at 11:33

lol. Some people take the Law as gospel.

Wicksta · 12 Nov 2011 at 11:35

asim18 said:
lol. Some people take the Law as gospel.

lol you can try and spin what you just said, but you look a bit silly now.

[TW]Fox · 12 Nov 2011 at 11:35

asim18 said:
lol. Some people take the Law as gospel.

Thats kinda the point really, no? It isn't a set of guidelines we may choose to follow is it?

Which arguably a gospel is

asim18 · 12 Nov 2011 at 11:38

Wicksta said:
lol you can try and spin what you just said, but you look a bit silly now.

Please clarify.

[TW]Fox;20547594 said:
Thats kinda the point really, no? It isn't a set of guidelines we may choose to follow is it?

Which arguably a gospel is

I meant that there are flaws in the legal system. There are flaws in religion as well, but you know what I mean. ("Stop over analysing things")

Wizzfizz · 12 Nov 2011 at 11:40

[TW]Fox;20547594 said:
no? It isn't a set of guidelines we may choose to follow is it?

Of course it's a choice. It just means that you'll land in trouble if caught. An example for you is speeding, a large portion of motorists have done this some time in their motoring life, yet they shouldn't be doing it, so therefore, not following the law.

Cosimo · 12 Nov 2011 at 11:43

asim18 said:
I meant that there are flaws in the legal system. There are flaws in religion as well, but you know what I mean. ("Stop over analysing things")

So why didn't you say that in the first place?