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

Originally Posted by specialone

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.

I think he tried the last one. He was issued with a fixed penalty notice and tbh, just couldn't justify the time off work to try and fight it.

[Biker Biggles]

The phone thing is probably another example of a good law that goes too far.Like drink driving most of us agree using the phone while driving should be illegal,but the legislators just cant resist the temptation to go beyond that line.

There is no fecking way while I have breathe left in my body would I accept that ticket, I'd have to fight it, its just wrong.

I see at least 10 people a day on a mobile phone driving without hands free, so a responsible person pulls over to take a call and gets a ticket, the law is BS if that's true.

Originally Posted by specialone

There is no fecking way while I have breathe left in my body would I accept that ticket, I'd have to fight it, its just wrong.

I see at least 10 people a day on a mobile phone driving without hands free, so a responsible person pulls over to take a call and gets a ticket, the law is BS if that's true.

I'm with you. But I'm not self employed and have a very understanding employer.

Our resident experts here seem very pragmatic, but a few weeks ago, that Kris guy from the BT (?) adverts was woken by a copper who wanted to breathalise him (he'd got back to the train car park in the middle of nowhere I believe so slept in the car). He refused, knowing full well he'd fail so he was then presecuted for refusing to supply a breath sample and banned. What he should have done is taken the breathaliser and then argued in court that he wasn't going anywhere, primarily due to being asleep.
One just has to hope you get one of the coppers who think like the forum coppers.

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

The phone thing is probably another example of a good law that goes too far.Like drink driving most of us agree using the phone while driving should be illegal,but the legislators just cant resist the temptation to go beyond that line.

No it's not, it's an example of a miscarriage of justice. There is no way that a person parked in a lay-by using their mobile phone is guilty of an offence, even if they are sat in the drivers seat with the engine running. The legislation is very specific, they have to be "driving". Being in a traffic jam that is stop start and using the phone during a stopped moment has been held to be driving, quite rightly, but once you park you cease to do so. Getting back on topic why do you think we have an offence of "in charge" in the first place. The person in the lab-by is most definitely in charge, but not driving.

There's either more to that story that you're not being told, or he was very badly dealt with.

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by Tommy H

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.

Another one where the burden of proof is on the defendant is Insurance. You have to prove you have it, the police don't have to prove you don't. Makes sense really.

Hmmmm, this is a huge grey area. With respect to the police here, any law that is purely at the digression of the officer isn't a law.

In law, you should be either guilty or not guilty. You did something or you didn't.

Certainly not being "Likely" to do something or that you "Might". That's future crime.

Arrest me now because I'm (most) likely to speed in the very near future. I'm also likely to break several other (black and white) laws.

As to how I would write this law: I'd use the delete button. Because there are several other laws that could cover the vast majority of cases where this "crime" could be covered. Drunk and disorderly being the prime example.

... and I'm damn sure I'd be very guilty of being drunk and disorderly if someone charged me with Being drunk in charge of a vehicle. I'd go bloody ballistic.


C

Originally Posted by Berlin

Hmmmm, this is a huge grey area. With respect to the police here, any law that is purely at the digression of the officer isn't a law.

In law, you should be either guilty or not guilty. You did something or you didn't.

Certainly not being "Likely" to do something or that you "Might". That's future crime.

Arrest me now because I'm (most) likely to speed in the very near future. I'm also likely to break several other (black and white) laws.

As to how I would write this law: I'd use the delete button. Because there are several other laws that could cover the vast majority of cases where this "crime" could be covered. Drunk and disorderly being the prime example.

... and I'm damn sure I'd be very guilty of being drunk and disorderly if someone charged me with Being drunk in charge of a vehicle. I'd go bloody ballistic.


C

But really there isn't a "might" or "likely" about it. You are either drunk in charge of the vehicle or your not. We don't prosecute for you "might" be drunk in charge of the vehicle or you are "likely" to drive the vehicle whilst drunk.

Whether people like it or not, it is an offence to be in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle whilst you are drunk. And it has been the case for a long time. You lot on here are generally sensible people, alas, there are many people in the world who would sleep in drivers seat for and hour and then drive off blootered, crashing into someone. Best advice, of you're sleeping in the vehicle when drunk, put the keys in the boot (if you're in the car).

For what it's worth, we generally don't waste our time booking people for this unless they are sitting in drivers seat, slumped at wheel with keys either in ignition or in footwell (cos they are too drunk to get them in). I once had a case where the guy thought he had the keys in, was slumped, forehead on steering wheel, horn blaring, begin sick all over himself. Yes he was booked, and convicted. Do you really want a guy like that to be allowed to be in charge of a piece of kit that has the potential to cause fatal accidents?

I have personal experience of the lorry driver scenario at the RED LION on the A45. Being woken up at 2:00am while parked in the layby and breathalised,fortunately we had prior knowledge of this sort of thing happening and used to swap keys so that you did not have the keys for your vehicle.Undeterred the police still arrested us and took us into Northampton where after a lot of heated debate we were eventually returned to our vehicles about 3 hours later.I realise this was on the public highway as against private property but any private property that has access by other members of the public falls under the same ruling as public highway.
In short if you are over the limit and have the keys in ,or on you in the vehicle you can be done

We eventually used to leave the keys with the publican and collect them at breakfast time