Special reasons - needs more thought.
Discussion
Sheepshanks said:
Story just on our local (north west) news about a woman who asked not to be banned for drink driving as her drive is too long to walk up.
Didn't work, though, did it? Two year ban.Sheepshanks said:
Also she can't do community service as she's never worked.
Didn't work, though, did it? Twelve month community order, 15 rehabilitation days.And nearly £1,300 in fine and costs.
Her lawyer said:
...she would have to make some lifestyle changes to go about her day-to-day life.
Like not getting pissed before getting in her G-class? Poor lamb.esxste said:
Grief is a terrible thing, and really f**ks people up. I hope the judge considered this mitigating factor very heavily.
2 year ban seems a little excessive, given the circumstances.
It's protecting her from herself getting a manslaughter charge and protecting innocent people going about their business on the roads. 2 year ban seems a little excessive, given the circumstances.
Sympathy of course, but it's probably good for her to have a few years walking up the long drive to reflect and dealing with the grief without putting anyone else at risk.
Riley Blue said:
andy_s said:
She looks like a complete alchofrolic.
Husband who did everything for her died, how would you feel in that situation?When I read this in the paper yesterday it got me thinking.
We all know that supermarket car parks (for example) are privately owned by the supermarket (or land managemrnt co, etc) however as the public have access to them you have to comply with motoring laws when driving in the car park. So following on from that, a lot of privately owned farm (or big house) tracks have public footpaths along them.
As the public now have access to a private track does the owner of the private track still have to comply with all the motoring laws?
And what about if the track is a byway, I know that to drive along a byway the car (and presumably the driver) must be road legal, but what if you own the track? And what about if the public footpath crosses the private track? Could you drive on your own private road upto the point where the footpath crosses it or could you just ignore the footpath?
I've no idea if any of these situations apply in this case but, like I said, just got me wondering.
We all know that supermarket car parks (for example) are privately owned by the supermarket (or land managemrnt co, etc) however as the public have access to them you have to comply with motoring laws when driving in the car park. So following on from that, a lot of privately owned farm (or big house) tracks have public footpaths along them.
As the public now have access to a private track does the owner of the private track still have to comply with all the motoring laws?
And what about if the track is a byway, I know that to drive along a byway the car (and presumably the driver) must be road legal, but what if you own the track? And what about if the public footpath crosses the private track? Could you drive on your own private road upto the point where the footpath crosses it or could you just ignore the footpath?
I've no idea if any of these situations apply in this case but, like I said, just got me wondering.
andy_s said:
Sympathy of course, but it's probably good for her to have a few years walking up the long drive to reflect and dealing with the grief without putting anyone else at risk.
Without wanting to sound all OoohJeremy-class-warrior about this, I can't see affording taxis being a great problem. Flogging the G-class alone will probably go a reasonable way to covering two years of taxi bills, while still leaving enough for a Golf.If she's hitting the bottle that hard, and can't possibly be expected to walk a few hundred metres, then she may not actually last until the return of her licence.
BTW, a quick google finds out that other articles report that she was stopped at 9am. The attendant at a petrol station refused to sell her more booze because she was too pissed, then called plod after watching her drive off around an A-road roundabout at walking pace... She was slumped in her seat, incoherent, smeared in makeup, and claimed she'd only just decked two half-bottles after getting out of the shop, then thrown them away... https://goo.gl/maps/2QENiLPWZjR2
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/great...
andy_s said:
Riley Blue said:
andy_s said:
She looks like a complete alchofrolic.
Husband who did everything for her died, how would you feel in that situation?No sympathy for drink driving but can understand why she may have been drunk/hung over.
I think the ban length is harsh tbh and would have thought 12mths ban would be apt. the rest is fine.
from article:
"I buried my husband on Wednesday 15th November and the months leading up to it were terrible. He did everything, and then when he died I had to take over. I had never paid a bill in my life.
“I was just so distraught. I have never and will never drive after having a drink. I know it was wrong to have a drink in the car but I was desperate to get rid of the pain I was feeling."
kered. What message does that send?NGee said:
When I read this in the paper yesterday it got me thinking.
We all know that supermarket car parks (for example) are privately owned by the supermarket (or land managemrnt co, etc) however as the public have access to them you have to comply with motoring laws when driving in the car park. So following on from that, a lot of privately owned farm (or big house) tracks have public footpaths along them.
As the public now have access to a private track does the owner of the private track still have to comply with all the motoring laws?
And what about if the track is a byway, I know that to drive along a byway the car (and presumably the driver) must be road legal, but what if you own the track? And what about if the public footpath crosses the private track? Could you drive on your own private road upto the point where the footpath crosses it or could you just ignore the footpath?
I've no idea if any of these situations apply in this case but, like I said, just got me wondering.
HighwayWe all know that supermarket car parks (for example) are privately owned by the supermarket (or land managemrnt co, etc) however as the public have access to them you have to comply with motoring laws when driving in the car park. So following on from that, a lot of privately owned farm (or big house) tracks have public footpaths along them.
As the public now have access to a private track does the owner of the private track still have to comply with all the motoring laws?
And what about if the track is a byway, I know that to drive along a byway the car (and presumably the driver) must be road legal, but what if you own the track? And what about if the public footpath crosses the private track? Could you drive on your own private road upto the point where the footpath crosses it or could you just ignore the footpath?
I've no idea if any of these situations apply in this case but, like I said, just got me wondering.
The case of Suffolk County Council v Mason [1979] AC 705 has set down that a highway is anywhere that members of the public are afforded a right of way on foot, riding, accompanied by a beast of burden or with vehicles or cattle. Bridleways, footpaths and carriageways which are open to the public are 'highways'.
If any part of a vehicle is on a road, even where it is partly or mostly on some other private land, the vehicle is to be treated as being on a road - Randall v Motor Insurers' Bureau [1969]1 All ER 21
A highway, unlike a road, is covered by the RTA 1988 even where it is temporarily closed off - McCrone v J & L Rigby (Wigan) Ltd [1950] 50 LGR 115
Access to the Public
To fall within S192[1] RTA 1988 the road must be one to which the public have access. Whether or not the public have access to a road is a question of fact. If a member of the public has to over come some form of physical barrier or act in defiance of a prohibition then that will not be considered a road to which the public have access - Cox v White [1976] RTR 248
A sign on a private road which stated that 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' was held to be a sufficient prohibition to members of the public to exclude the location from S192 1988 - R v Beaumont [1964] Crim LR 665
A car park is not a road - Clarke v Kato [1998] 1 WLR 1647. However, it is a public place within S192 and so otherwise included.
HantsRat said:
NGee said:
When I read this in the paper yesterday it got me thinking.
We all know that supermarket car parks (for example) are privately owned by the supermarket (or land managemrnt co, etc) however as the public have access to them you have to comply with motoring laws when driving in the car park. So following on from that, a lot of privately owned farm (or big house) tracks have public footpaths along them.
As the public now have access to a private track does the owner of the private track still have to comply with all the motoring laws?
And what about if the track is a byway, I know that to drive along a byway the car (and presumably the driver) must be road legal, but what if you own the track? And what about if the public footpath crosses the private track? Could you drive on your own private road upto the point where the footpath crosses it or could you just ignore the footpath?
I've no idea if any of these situations apply in this case but, like I said, just got me wondering.
HighwayWe all know that supermarket car parks (for example) are privately owned by the supermarket (or land managemrnt co, etc) however as the public have access to them you have to comply with motoring laws when driving in the car park. So following on from that, a lot of privately owned farm (or big house) tracks have public footpaths along them.
As the public now have access to a private track does the owner of the private track still have to comply with all the motoring laws?
And what about if the track is a byway, I know that to drive along a byway the car (and presumably the driver) must be road legal, but what if you own the track? And what about if the public footpath crosses the private track? Could you drive on your own private road upto the point where the footpath crosses it or could you just ignore the footpath?
I've no idea if any of these situations apply in this case but, like I said, just got me wondering.
The case of Suffolk County Council v Mason [1979] AC 705 has set down that a highway is anywhere that members of the public are afforded a right of way on foot, riding, accompanied by a beast of burden or with vehicles or cattle. Bridleways, footpaths and carriageways which are open to the public are 'highways'.
If any part of a vehicle is on a road, even where it is partly or mostly on some other private land, the vehicle is to be treated as being on a road - Randall v Motor Insurers' Bureau [1969]1 All ER 21
A highway, unlike a road, is covered by the RTA 1988 even where it is temporarily closed off - McCrone v J & L Rigby (Wigan) Ltd [1950] 50 LGR 115
Access to the Public
To fall within S192[1] RTA 1988 the road must be one to which the public have access. Whether or not the public have access to a road is a question of fact. If a member of the public has to over come some form of physical barrier or act in defiance of a prohibition then that will not be considered a road to which the public have access - Cox v White [1976] RTR 248
A sign on a private road which stated that 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' was held to be a sufficient prohibition to members of the public to exclude the location from S192 1988 - R v Beaumont [1964] Crim LR 665
A car park is not a road - Clarke v Kato [1998] 1 WLR 1647. However, it is a public place within S192 and so otherwise included.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff