An "interesting one". Failure to provide breath, not driving

[Efbe]

Haggleburyfinius said:

The real problem is lack of awareness about these laws and their intricacies.

quite

Holding people to laws they know nothing about is some stupid st

[carinaman]

Trax said:

No, the legislation is in place to stop drink driving. Its up to the officer seeing someone get a CD from a car to think, well, I can get that poor sod for being in charge, what a good end to my shift....

Common Sense versus Police Discretion?

They've usually got some highly unusual example or potential scenario of what could have happened if they get it wrong or seem to be acting unduly harshly.

And of course officers never act without impartiality or let their personal grudges get the better of them.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Trax said:

Its up to the officer seeing someone get a CD from a car to think, well, I can get that poor sod for being in charge, what a good end to my shift....

Or...I know that guy is a regular drink driver. I believe he's about to get in that car and drive off drunk. I'll stop him beforehand, and potentially save someone's life. Nice end to the shift. Except for having to work on late with no OT authorised, and land myself a ton of paperwork.

[anonymous-user]

Trax said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

HertsBiker said:

No wonder people dislike the police.

Fair point. As "the police" make up the legislation during briefing before the start of each shift....oh, hang on...

No, the legislation is in place to stop drink driving. Its up to the officer seeing someone get a CD from a car to think, well, I can get that poor sod for being in charge, what a good end to my shift....

Not really if the actual application of the legislation in a court doesn't support something like that. The idea there's some sinister motive to 'get someone' when the circumstances suggest there's no intent is wrong. If this weren't the case, there'd be loads of these coming through the doors. As it so happens, 'in-charge' is pretty rare.

Legislation requires a sensible application around the intent of why it was created. This occurs most of the time. No officer wants to take on paperwork for trivial matters.

Have a look at the licencing act. How many times have you broken this law? Probably a few. Do you worry about the police coming into a public house and applying it?

[tenpenceshort]

Efbe said:

Haggleburyfinius said:

The real problem is lack of awareness about these laws and their intricacies.

quite

Holding people to laws they know nothing about is some stupid st

The briefest of Google searches would get you to the road traffic act, which the government kindly publishes online.

If you choose to remain ignorant that is your own choice!

[Efbe]

tenpenceshort said:

Efbe said:

Haggleburyfinius said:

The real problem is lack of awareness about these laws and their intricacies.

quite

Holding people to laws they know nothing about is some stupid st

The briefest of Google searches would get you to the road traffic act, which the government kindly publishes online.

If you choose to remain ignorant that is your own choice!

Tenpence, with the greatest of respect, this is a bit daft.

How can you search for something you don't know exists?

My comment was simply referring to the fact that people can't follow a law if they don't know it exists. Yes you could ask people to read through all the acts in existance. reasonable; no.

[XCP]

Surely all drivers are aware that drink driving law exists.

[Mk3Spitfire]

XCP said:

Surely all drivers are aware that drink driving law exists.

I bet not all are aware of drunk in charge legislation though, and how far that can stretch.

[Efbe]

Mk3Spitfire said:

XCP said:

Surely all drivers are aware that drink driving law exists.

I bet not all are aware of drunk in charge legislation though, and how far that can stretch.

And ironically It isn't the drink driving law I am talking about.

It is the failure to provide.

Being in posession of your car keys and having been drinking even if not driving, and maybe not even in your car. And this carries the same or more punishment in law than drink driving?

[Snowboy]

Thinking about it; something is odd.

If you fail to provide you get arrested and taken to the station.
I think at that point you get a second chance to provide on the big machine.

Where was the sober driver mate at tbis point?
Why didn't he talk sense into his mate?
At the station, how drunk must you be to not take the second chance to provide once you've had a chance to calm down?

There's no mention of arrest in the story.

All seems odd.

[JG5]

Efbe said:

And ironically It isn't the drink driving law I am talking about.

It is the failure to provide.

Being in posession of your car keys and having been drinking even if not driving, and maybe not even in your car. And this carries the same or more punishment in law than drink driving?

They'll know at the time though when the officer warns them that failing to provide will lead to prosecution.

[agtlaw]

Snowboy said:

There's no mention of arrest in the story.

All seems odd.

I suggest you read it again. Especially the bit about being arrested and locked up overnight.

[Efbe]

JG5 said:

Efbe said:

And ironically It isn't the drink driving law I am talking about.

It is the failure to provide.

Being in posession of your car keys and having been drinking even if not driving, and maybe not even in your car. And this carries the same or more punishment in law than drink driving?

They'll know at the time though when the officer warns them that failing to provide will lead to prosecution.

No they won't, they will be blathered

[Snowboy]

agtlaw said:

Snowboy said:

There's no mention of arrest in the story.

All seems odd.

I suggest you read it again. Especially the bit about being arrested and locked up overnight.

Oops.

It still seems odd; but I guess it is a second hand one sided story.

[XCP]

Mk3Spitfire said:

XCP said:

Surely all drivers are aware that drink driving law exists.

I bet not all are aware of drunk in charge legislation though, and how far that can stretch.

Everyone knows Theft is an offence too. Very few people could explain the intricacies of 'appropriate' or 'property' though.

[LFAwhoosh]

Was popping out to retreive a brolly from my car boot at 3am as I had driven to a party and was walking home - and had this issue. Luckily I had earlier removed the fuel pump circuit breaker for security, and I was able to argue that I had no intention of driving a car which was impossible to start. I'm still slightly shocked at some of the examples here. If at night I would at least wait until the suspect had turned their headlights on to prove their intention to drive.

[DWS]

Slightly OT this one. What if I'm battered and Mrs DWS isn't we both approach the car, both having key less entry keys. Would I be technically in charge of the the vehicle?

[Mk3Spitfire]

XCP said:

Everyone knows Theft is an offence too. Very few people could explain the intricacies of 'appropriate' or 'property' though.

Not really sure of the relevance there. Appropriate and properly are criteria for theft.
Drunk in charge is a separate offence, and one which is clearly not as well known as drink drive outright.

[Efbe]

Mk3Spitfire said:

XCP said:

Everyone knows Theft is an offence too. Very few people could explain the intricacies of 'appropriate' or 'property' though.

Not really sure of the relevance there. Appropriate and properly are criteria for theft.
Drunk in charge is a separate offence, and one which is clearly not as well known as drink drive outright.

or more fittingly for this thread: failure to provide