Silly question: How does drunk in charge of a vehicle work for a motorhome?

[MisterTommyH]

Aye, sounds like a different onus from different forced.

In RHs case it seems like innocent until proved guilty is not always the case.

I was under the impression that the burden of proof always lay with the prosecutor.

[Red Herring]

So if you were to write the legislation how would you word it?

From personal experience I've never had any difficulty applying common sense to scenarios as I've found them. If some bloke is found fast asleep in his car outside his home address because he's had a drunken row with his Mrs who has then called us out of spite then that is a whole different situation to someone sleeping it off on the hard shoulder of the motorway, both of which I have dealt with for real.

[MisterTommyH]

I'm not a legal bod so I wouldn't want to suggest how it should be written. But I honestly was under the impression that that was how the burden of proof worked.

A little shocked that there are situations where it is up to you to prove you didn't do something rather than the other way round.

[Red Herring]

Here you go, save you having to look it up......don't think you can ride your motorized skateboard either.....

1)A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.
(2)Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, a person who, when in charge of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] which is on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person shall be deemed not to have been in charge of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs.
(4)The court may, in determining whether there was such a likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (3) above, disregard any injury to him and any damage to the vehicle.
(5)For the purposes of this section, a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired.

Common sense is the way forward from stories I've heard over the years.

Example 1: A lorry driver parked in an overnight truck stop, asleep in the back of the cab in a sleeping bag. - Seems to me that he is clearly sleeping and thus would be ok.

Example 2: A guy is found asleep at the wheel of his vehicle in a pub car park with the keys in the ignition. - Did he just think "I'll sleep here rather than getting a taxi", or did he get in the car with the intention of driving off and fell asleep before he could move off? Either way, I would say that because he is in the driver's seat with the keys in the ignition; he is in control of the vehicle.

Only a mild derail, one of the electricians we use at work was done for using his mobile phone a couple of months back. He had pulled over into a lay-by before answering the call but he HADN'T turned the engine off. Seemed a bit harsh to us.

[Biker Biggles]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

So if you were to write the legislation how would you word it?

From personal experience I've never had any difficulty applying common sense to scenarios as I've found them. If some bloke is found fast asleep in his car outside his home address because he's had a drunken row with his Mrs who has then called us out of spite then that is a whole different situation to someone sleeping it off on the hard shoulder of the motorway, both of which I have dealt with for real.

To me those two are quite clear.The bloke outside his house after a row is'nt driving,has'nt driven in that state,and is making no attempt to drive.
He should not be in any jeopardy from the law,but he could be as the law now stands.
The bloke on the motorway is likely to have driven there in that state and if police enquiries showed that to be the case he could and should be done for it.
We too easily lose sight of the fact that the reason for the drink driving law is to bring to justice those who drink and drive,not those who we may think might drink and drive,who cant prove otherwise.

[MisterTommyH]

Originally Posted by DJFridge

Only a mild derail, one of the electricians we use at work was done for using his mobile phone a couple of months back. He had pulled over into a lay-by before answering the call but he HADN'T turned the engine off. Seemed a bit harsh to us.

How does that work with the stop-start on my car?

Originally Posted by DJFridge

Only a mild derail, one of the electricians we use at work was done for using his mobile phone a couple of months back. He had pulled over into a lay-by before answering the call but he HADN'T turned the engine off. Seemed a bit harsh to us.

I'm sorry mate, there's either more to this or his legal representative was very poor, you could argue many things here.

I wanted to maintain the air conditioning.
My battery is a bit iffy, so didn't want to turn off.
Only a quick call, didn't think it was worth it.
Etc etc.

Originally Posted by Tommy H

How does that work with the stop-start on my car?

Interesting thought. Keys in the ignition is probably the deciding factor. Which is ridiculous because I put the keys in as soon as I get in, to turn the radio on. If I then make a phone call, I'm guilty even though the engine is still cold (tell me if I'm wrong, all you law enforcement types)