overheard conversation

[TTwiggy]

There were two middle-aged guys talking to each other on my tube the other day, and as we were crammed in together, and they weren't being exactly quiet, I couldn't help but overhear. They were talking about driving bans they'd both had as 'younger men', and I thought the stories might make interesting reading on here. So, with apologies to the chaps who I 'evesdropped', and with the caveat that they could have been making it all up, what do you think of these two stories?...

situation1 - The first guy owned a powerful bike, that he enjoyed hooning on by the sounds of things. One day, he's clocked at an average 105mph, with acceleration up to 145mph at one point. It goes to court, he pleads guilty with the mitigation that a lengthy ban would make it impossible to see his son (seperated from mother), and claimed (falsley) that he'd since sold the bike. Result: 56 day ban, fine, no points.

situation2 - the other chap goes out for a beer after work that becomes a session. In his own words he's 'too p*ssed to walk' so he sleeps in his car (back seat). He's awoken by a Bib tapping on the window, and because the keys are in his pocket, he's done for drink driving. Goes to court, he was very over the limit, pleads guilty (on advice) but claims he had no intention of ever driving (indeed claims he would be unable to). Result: 18 month ban, fine, and has to attend a course on the dangers of drink driving

so, both fair? one fair but not another, or both unfair? What think ye?...

[supermono]

I've always thought it unfair if you're in the back of the car and not driving being done for drunk driving. That's a bit like walking past tesco and being done for shoplifting.

SM

[L14MNV]

You're prosecuted for being "drunk whilst in charge of a motor vehicle" which isn’t the same as "drink driving".

I believe the subject has to prove he/she wasn't likely to drive and think the sentence/punishment is similar than that to drink driving...but not sure?

[TripleS]

L14MNV said:

You're prosecuted for being "drunk whilst in charge of a motor vehicle" which isn’t the same as "drink driving".

I believe the subject has to prove he/she wasn't likely to drive and think the sentence/punishment is similar than that to drink driving...but not sure?

Even so, I agree with SM and I think the law is too heavy handed in this case. It almost makes one think it would be better to try to drive home carefully, rather than sleep in the back of the car, as the latter is surely the more responsible thing to do. Is the law being an ass again? I believe so.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[L14MNV]

TripleS said:

L14MNV said:

You're prosecuted for being "drunk whilst in charge of a motor vehicle" which isn’t the same as "drink driving".

I believe the subject has to prove he/she wasn't likely to drive and think the sentence/punishment is similar than that to drink driving...but not sure?

Even so, I agree with SM and I think the law is too heavy handed in this case. It almost makes one think it would be better to try to drive home carefully, rather than sleep in the back of the car, as the latter is surely the more responsible thing to do. Is the law being an ass again? I believe so.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Agreed -

I think Officers should have discretion when met with this example.

The fact he/she has chosen to go to sleep in his/her car, opposed to risking the drive home should be rewarded and not punished.

From memory, it’s difficult to prove that the driver had just driven or was likely to drive the car.

Best bet is to hide the keys on one of the wheels and go to sleep inside. Theoretically you’re “not in charge” or capable of driving.

[Jasandjules]

I can't help but think that if someone is drunk in control of a vehicle then it really has to be moving for that to stick... AT least, that is how it should be IMHO. If said person is caught starting the engine etc.. or making some effort to drive then it's a fair a cop, BUT sleeping in the back? He'd need some seriously long arms and legs for that to work..

[tommundy]

L14MNV said:

You're prosecuted for being "drunk whilst in charge of a motor vehicle" which isn’t the same as "drink driving".

I believe the subject has to prove he/she wasn't likely to drive and think the sentence/punishment is similar than that to drink driving...but not sure?

I had a night in my car after a beer turned into a dozen, a few months ago. I deadlocked the car, put the keys in the glove box and slept on the back seats. I thought that was the best way to do it, can't think of any other way that would be possible.

[AJS-]

If you get completely wasted in your house, and your car is parked on the street, you are still drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. Can you walk past it? Walk past it but not with the keys in your pockets? Can you get your CDs out?

A very stupid law, and IMO a stupid policeman.

145mph is a pretty high speed. 56 day ban and no points is probably as good as you can expect.

[drivenmad]

legistlation says that he would be classed as being drunk and in charge of the vehicle on the basis that he has the keys in his possesion and is in a position to use them to start and drive the vehicle (whether he intended to or not different matter)
Driving is identified as being in control of the speed and direction of the vehicle..so even if the car had no engine (I know hard to believe)and he was in it but it was capable of being steered and braking...he gets done!

I have however heard of a situation where people have got round this...actually a friendclaimed this happend to him and his friend....

Did same thing four of them went out got blitzed...way to blitzed to drive - decided to sleep it off. Went for sleep. Were woken by BIB with tap tap on windpow........much slurringness of speech explaining that they were sleeping in the back of their cars to avoid drink driving etc etc BIB ask to see contents of their pockets ..pockets get emptied..out comes carkeys....BIB eyes light up and immediately launch into section 6 procedure "being the person in charge of this vehicle I have reasonable cause to suspect that the proportion of alcohol blah blah blah"
right down to the blow here.....

"Nah" say my mate BIB explains refusal consequences...."NAH" says my mates mate from other car.

BIB getting very excited..going for double tops here..shouts for another unit thinking of glory of TWO Drunk in charge from one place.

Now my mate and his pal are by all accounts playing it dead cool...had enough drink to be drunk...but not enough to be stupid and hence the sleep it off routine..but they were smarter than most (one even claimed to have used the phrase "please dont hit me again"...when asked if he wished to reply to a caution and charge previously!..it was for speeding)

Both continue to refuse breath test and BIB decides "refusal" = "arrest"
tells both that they are being arrested shouts it in that he has two in custody for failing to provide.

2nd unit arrives... at which point my mate and his friend polietly ask the BIB to explain (in front of his collegues who have now arrived) exactly what they have done wrong and why they are being arrested....

So he does so with great gusto..Drunk, Sleeping in car, possesion of car keys, position to start and drive vehicle, capable of controling speed and direction of vehicle, requirement to provide on that basis , their refusal, their subsequent arrest......"can it be any clearer" asks BIB.

"Just one point" my mate adds.."yes" says BIB

Just exactly how was "I" going to start my Volkswagen with a set of Vauxhall keys and how was he (his pal) going to start his Vauxhall with the keys to my golf? (they had swapped them over prior to going for a Kip)

And since My keys dont fit his car how was I supposed to get the steering lock off to steer it never mind start it?

And since I couldnt do either of these and neither could he (pointing to his mate who was in the company of teh 2nd unit who had seized the keys in his possesion)...and both vehicles were at least X meters apart just explain to me again why you are arresting us for failing to provide a breath specimin that we aren't legally required to provide since we werent in charge of a car which we were capable of driving as you have described????????

One very confused BIB slowly took the information in as they 2nd unit asked for my mate to confirm what he had said.

They then checked the keys with the relevant vehicles and found that indeed they were opposites.

With no likelihood of either vehicle being started with the keys in the possesion of the persons in the vehicles, the steering lock in place and incapable of being removed with the keys present, the guys sleeping in the back and not being in a position to control the vehicle the BIB had to concede that there was no requirment for them to provide a specimen and therefore no grounds for arrest for refusal.................

Doesnt happen often..but it does happen............

[tommundy]

Yellabowley said:

Sounds like an urban myth to me.

Which part?

Yellabowley said:

And the important point that too many people forget is that driving is not a right. It is a privelege. The law is there to protect everyone. If the law stated that you had to hop three times before entering a vehicle then you'd have to do it. When you pass your test and buy a car you have to accept the law regardless of how ridiculous you think it is.

hear hear.

[GPSHead]

Yellabowley said:

Drunk in charge is a very useful piece of legislation. My mate decided to sleep in his car after a heavy session. Two hours later he decided it was too cold and drove home. He totalled a pedestrian island and wrote his car off. Luckily for him it was 4am and no-one was on the island. If the police had found him asleep in his car it would all have been prevented using drunk in charge.

Wouldn't banning alcohol and/or driving have prevented it as well?

Yellabowley said:

And the important point that too many people forget is that driving is not a right. It is a privelege. The law is there to protect everyone. If the law stated that you had to hop three times before entering a vehicle then you'd have to do it. When you pass your test and buy a car you have to accept the law regardless of how ridiculous you think it is.

No law should exist unless it's in the public interest, whether or not it's motoring-related. And I think driving is an entitlement rather than a privilege. It's anyone's right to drive...once they've passed the test. It's only a privilege in as much as only over-17s (usually) can apply.

Also, you're right that someone who's passed their test should be aware of the drunk in charge offence. But don't forget that someone who's never driven in their life could fall foul as well. For example, sober driver and over-the-limit passenger who's never driven. Driver stops at shop and pops in, leaving the keys so that the over-the-limit passenger can listen to the radio. Passenger is now drunk in charge, and could be punished heavily for something which they don't even realise they're doing. Passenger could conceivably be a 14-year-old and driver could be their father. A perfectly innocent situation (except the underage drinking), a perfectly likely situation, and one where application of the drunk in charge law would be extremely harsh (although absolutely valid legally).

IMHO drunk in charge is a lazy way of administering justice. The burden of proof is too low and there is too much possibility of people who have nothing but good intentions being done. It wouldn't be so bad if BiB were always reasonable but, as we've heard, some of them just use the legislation to meet their targets when they know perfectly well that the person doesn't deserve it. It's fundamentally unfair and open to abuse, and it should be changed. I'm all for seeing zero tolerance towards drink driving, but as we're all too aware these days, criminalising people needlessly is not the way to improve things.

[H_Kan]

The arguement that we must follow the law because it's the law and driving is a priveledge is a stupid one. This law is persecuting those who are trying to do the right thing and avoid drink driving, a friend and I went to a bhangra gig recently in East London which finished at 3am. We both live in W. London and we didn't want to stuck on the streets of East London till the tubes started running again. So my mate drove there, we had a few drinks then went and kipped in his car. He had his keyes in his pocket as it seemed the obvious place to put them. In the morning we went and had some brekkie and eventually went home around 10am. Some 8 hours after he last had a drink (bearing in mind he only had 4-5 beers.)

So it's pretty messed up that we could have probably got back ok by him drink driving, yet chose not to and could still have been done for this! Deffo won't be doing that again. The law cloaks it as being in charge, however it seems to me that they are actually trying to punish supposed intention.

Just because the law says x, doesn't mean it's morally right.

Edited by H_Kan on Friday 19th October 03:34

[vonhosen]

frazer guest said:

So, hypertheticly speaking. Lets say that I had gone out on a bender in London, but my car was parked in Sheffield. I'd taken the keys with me because there had been a few house break-ins round my neck of the woods, specificly to get hold of car keys.

If I got stopped and searched, could I be done, even if the car was 170 miles away?

You don't 'have' to have the keys with you.
For you to be in charge there has to be some close connection between you & the control of the vehicle.
That control may be evidenced in a variety of ways, including in it with they keys on your person, but it's not a pre-requisite that you have they keys on you in order for you to commit the offence.

[vonhosen]

H_Kan said:

The arguement that we must follow the law because it's the law and driving is a priveledge is a stupid one. This law is persecuting those who are trying to do the right thing and avoid drink driving, a friend and I went to a bhangra gig recently in East London which finished at 3am. We both live in W. London and we didn't want to stuck on the streets of East London till the tubes started running again. So my mate drove there, we had a few drinks then went and kipped in his car. He had his keyes in his pocket as it seemed the obvious place to put them. In the morning we went and had some brekkie and eventually went home around 10am. Some 8 hours after he last had a drink (bearing in mind he only had 4-5 beers.)

So it's pretty messed up that we could have probably got back ok by him drink driving, yet chose not to and could still have been done for this! Deffo won't be doing that again. The law cloaks it as being in charge, however it seems to me that they are actually trying to punish supposed intention.

Just because the law says x, doesn't mean it's morally right.

Edited by H_Kan on Friday 19th October 03:34

It's a preventative measure.

You don't want to have to wait until someone moves off before you can take action where you suspect they may drive. You've then potentially got a pursuit with a drunk driver.

It is very easy for an arrest in this situation, but not so easy for a charge & conviction. The CPS will not entertain a charge/trial, where the accused's statutory defence can't be negated. That is, the accused has a defence in law that if he can show there was no likelihood of him driving, he has committed no offence, but the prosecution have effectively taken on that burden. They won't go to trial where they don't believe they can show there was every likelihood that he would drive.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 19th October 07:16

[Hooli]

it seems a good law for prevention as VH states it. however it does seem from all the stories you hear that its not always administered in what could be a fair way.
i guess drunk in charge does count as a conviction? ideal for lazy plod (we all know there are some) who avoids the real work.

[Mr2Mike]

FishFace said:

Just because he said he didn't intend to drive didn't mean that's true.

The problem you've got is that lots of people sleep in the back of their car and indeed don't intend to drive. However, there are lots of people who do intend to drive or would easily change their mind given a situation i.e. a phone call given their state.

Another issue is a lot of people aren't going to be sober after a few hours' sleep. They will think they are due to being a lot more so than before they went to sleep, but they'll drive and still be over.

All of this still applies if you are lying in your own bed, ped as a fart, with the car keys next to you.

[TVR 3X]

So I go out for a few pints and catch the last bus home - but I am so bladdered that I fall asleep (out of sight of the driver).

The driver goes back to the depot and gets out of the bus with the engine running before finally parking up, the bus yard is also the car-park for the drivers - so the public often have access.

Am I drunk in charge of a bus?

Russ

[Bing o]

In this guys case, isn't it very possible that he would have woken up quite early and driven home to get ready for work, no doubt whilst possibly still under the influence?

Unlike being asleep in bed, where there are many possibilities, the ONLY option to him would be to drive home.

[mark69sheer]

I once went on a cornwall surf trip and converted my panel van with two camp beds into a pseudo camper van. i went on the lash every night with a mate and slept in the back of the van pissed and sometimes puking..

(must have been that kebab)

What would the law have said about that?

or undeed any other motorhome?

[FiveStar]

Surely if you wanted a kip after a few drinks all you have to do is make sure you park on private land??