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.

 

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"

 

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

 

I wonder this alot 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.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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....

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

Please clarify.

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")

 

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.

 

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