morcus
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 04:10 PM |
|
|
I only read upto half way through page two so apologies if this has already been said but the very fact that the police requested he moves his lorry
brings up a salient point, he couldn't because he'd been drinking. If your vehicle is on the road (And in this case I'd consider a
layby to be on the road, you shouldn't be in it drunk and I personally don't think you should be drinking if your driving a lorry the next
day.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 04:28 PM |
|
|
Folks - a number of the anti police comments aren't really fair. The officers 'on the road / street' are doing what the senior
officers / policy makers say. You can't have a go at them for that.
Does seem very unfair on the driver from how its described. Is that definately what happened? I'm curious if he was asked to move it, moved it
and then the police realised he'd been drinking and did him - still unfair but he did drive under the influence (although if woken at 1am and
asked to move 5m by the police i doubt i'd click that i may be over limit if i'd had two pints a couple of hours earlier).
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 04:49 PM |
|
|
Taking this off on a tangent ......... something i've often idly wondered ..........
if i down two pints in 20 seconds whilst sat in my car. I then start the car and drive 1 mile down the road at 30 mph. The police then stop me.
I'd be under the limit as the alcohol wouldn't have got into my bloodstream - except i couldn't take a breathaliser as i'd
drank too recently. If i then went to the police station - would the blood test clear me?
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 04:53 PM |
|
|
Probably not... the whole DD procedure is one almighty faff and takes a fair bit of time.
By the time you've been arrested, taken to the station, refused the breath sample, then agreed to blood, and then had to wait for the doctor to
arrive to take the blood, then there's every chance it's settled well into your 'system'.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 05:15 PM |
|
|
As is always the case with these things, we don't know the full story as we weren't there. Also, the account being given here is not one
of a witness - it's hearsay that's originated from a bloke who could be on the verge of losing his livelihood. It's worth noting
that sometimes people do tell porkies when they are in a bit of a pickle!
Anyway... as I've read it - the lorry was not in a lorry park, or in an industrial estate car-park off the beaten track... it's on the
PUBLIC HIGHWAY (a lay-by forms part of the legal-definition of a road). Discretion is unlikely to be shown here as you simply can't be p*ssed
up whilst the whacking great motor you're 'in charge' of is sharing the same space as other road users who are whizzing by.
You're on the road so you have to be responsible for your lorry... how can you do that if you're drunk?
Also, we don't know how drunk this guy was... I would have some sympathies if he was marginally over the limit, but what if he was completely
and utterly hammered - we don't know!
Where was the restaurant in relation to the lorry? Was it right next to the lay-by, or was it miles back down the road... is it obvious that
he's stopped at the restaurant, had a drink, got back in the lorry, driven a few miles down the road and then stopped for as kip? We
don't know!
Is he an arse? Did he wind up the cops who dealt with him and subsequently bring some heat on himself? We don't know!
I've obviously put a different slant on something that I didn't see and I'm stereotyping the driver as being an idiotic
argumentative lying drunken menace. Just playing devils-advocate as it seems that some are quick to label the police officers as over-zealous
jobsworth mini-Hitlers... when (again) we don't know!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 05:24 PM |
|
|
I really don't believe the policeman's boss was telling him to wake up drivers in sleeper compartments and nicking them. It's more
likely the policeman's boss was telling him to nick as many drunk drivers as possible and Mr Plod doesn't know a) where to draw the line
b) any common sense.
By extrapolation if I had this in my garage
and I was working on it after a few beers and had the keys to the (yet to be fitted ignition switch) in my pocket I could get done for
1) drunk in charge
2) no insurance
3) no MOT
4) unroadworthy vehicle (after all, looks at the thread on those non-existant tyres  )
5) not displaying a tax disc
Okay, that's extrapolation to the absurd but the point holds. At some level Mr Plod needed to show some bleeding common sense.
Also- how can you be in "drunk in charge" of a vehicle from a sleeper cab? Before Mr Plod told him to get into the driving seat he was not
in charge. Or to put in another way, if he was going down the road driving his vehicle from the luxury of the sleeper compartment he would get done
for not being in charge of his vehicle. If you can't be in charge of a vehicle from the sleeper cab you can't be drunk in charge of a
vehicle from the sleeper cab. QED
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 05:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
By extrapolation if I had this in my garage...
Sorry Ben, but that's just plain nonsense... your garage isn't a public place, so there would be no offence (even if your car was in full
working order).
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
MikeFellows
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 06:24 PM |
|
|
I agree with scootz to a point.
every job/business has its bad eggs the police included, I was burgled in November, accused of insurance fraud and never heard from them since, other
than to take a satisfaction survey, which i duly harsh and still never heard and as I said in my second post, a 17 year old friend got 6 points and
disqualified because a police officer lied and said he had seen him riding the scooter. when this was impossible as it didnt work.
the problem I have with the police (and all public sector workers )is 80% of them do the job as an easy way out, teachers for instance, finish uni
having done some pointless degree, don't know what to do and do a PGCE (or whatever its called nowadays). similar the police, anyone can go
have a go at the entrance test/exam and its an easy way out for many to get work.
its a shame as I imagine there are some damn good police officers out there (and teachers too), its just too many are poor at their job.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 06:26 PM |
|
|
And to put another slant on it... let's see it from the cop's point of view...
We'll assume (for the sake of argument) that everything is 'as described'. Trucker has stopped in a layby and hopped over the wall
into the nearby restaurant where he's had a couple of beers with his supper, then returned to the cab for a kip before starting again the next
morning. The police wake him up in the middle of the night to ask him to move to let another truck into the layby. Whilst talking to the officers
one of them gets a whiff of alcohol and subjects him to the breath-test procedure (which he fails).
First thing to be aware of is... the offence is complete. The officer does not have to prove that the trucker was going to drive.
Second thing... discretion is not allowed for any offence relating to drink-driving legislation. That's the way it's been for years!
The rules state that Mr Trucker should be reported and a court should decide on his guilt or innocence.
Anyway... the copper decides to be mr-nice-guy and goes out on a limb for this complete stranger. He tells to him to make sure he stays in his kip and
doesn't drive until the morning. He leaves the scene and an hour later another cop (for whatever reason) wakes up the driver to speak to him.
He also smells alcohol. The driver explains that it's ok, because PC 'X' has already spoken to him about it and that he knows he
just has to stay in the cab and not drive until sober. This other cop knows he is not allowed to exercise discretion for offences relating to drink
driving and arrests him. First cop is now in the sh*t for not doing his job properly. Would you take that risk for someone you didn't know?
Next scenario... nice cop lets the trucker off with it... blah blah blah. An hour later a passenger car being driven too fast slews off the
carriageway and slams into the back of the parked truck. The occupants die instantly and a major investigation begins. The officer in charge speaks
to the blameless trucker and smells alcohol on his breath. This can't be ignored (no discretion allowed), so he is breathalysed and fails the
test. He is arrested for being 'drunk in charge' but protests saying it's ok as he cleared it with PC 'X' a short while
ago and he said he could stay in the cab until he was sober in the morning... blah blah blah. PC 'X' is now embroiled in an investigation
where two people have died. PC 'X' is charged with dereliction of duty, he loses his job and faces the prospect of further court
punishment. He now has no income to support his wife and kids. Would you take that risk?
I wouldn't... I doubt any cop these days would!
[Edited on 9/3/11 by scootz]
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 06:33 PM |
|
|
And finally (I promise)...
Let me get this right... another lorry wants to get into the lay-by, but can't because the trucker-in-questions lorry isn't fully-in...
why isn't it fully in... ??? Most importantly - why didn't the two truckers just sort it out by themselves (knock knock... morning mate,
can you pull your wagon in a bit to let me in)? Job-done... simples!
Why have the Police had to get involved? Who called them, or pulled them over to assist?
There's more to this than meets the eye!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 06:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeFellows
the problem I have with the police (and all public sector workers )is 80% of them do the job as an easy way out, teachers for instance, finish uni
having done some pointless degree, don't know what to do and do a PGCE (or whatever its called nowadays). similar the police, anyone can go
have a go at the entrance test/exam and its an easy way out for many to get work.
its a shame as I imagine there are some damn good police officers out there (and teachers too), its just too many are poor at their job.
You need to imagine more!
I would say the vast majority of workers are good at their job. Public sector or otherwise, makes no odds.
I will agree that rubbish workers are hard to get rid of, but best not to assume too much about the rest of us 
[Edited on 9/3/11 by cliftyhanger]
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 06:47 PM |
|
|
Scott has it right there! and if i understand right from another thread, you used to be in the police?
anyway, he's right, why would the police have got involved? the other trucker wouldn't have called them for that, but of course, they
can't just wake him up and accuse him of being drunk, on these tv shows (road wars is a good one) they always stop them for a minor matter,
"just noticed your brake light is out. oh by the way i can smell alcohol on your breath, have you been drinking?" etc in this case,
"can you move forward to let another truck in, oh by the way..."
as a professional driver, he should know NOT to be drinking. no excuses. he can have his dinner, but stick to lemonades. he knows that, we all do
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 07:13 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
Scott has it right there! and if i understand right from another thread, you used to be in the police?
I was Blake, but rest-assured, I'm not one for blindly defending the police just because I used to be one. I'm often at the front of the
queue to hammer them when they get it wrong!
I just can't see the defence in this case... a trucker KNOWS he doesn't sleep in his cab on a public road after a drink.
I honestly tried my best to deal with everything I ever did without having to charge or lock someone up... but your hands are tied when it comes to
drink-driving legislation. There is no discretion because you cannot guarantee that the person you're giving a 'break' to
hasn't mowed down a pedestrian 10 miles back down the road, or that he will do as he's told and not drive off whilst still under the
influence. It's just not worth sacrificing your professional integrity (and possibly, job) for someone you don't know and who has
knowingly done something daft!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
robinj66
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 07:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kipper
A friend of mine who is a heavy goods driver was away from base and slept in the sleeper cab of his truck after a visit to a pub for a meal and a
couple of beers.
At one AM a policeman awoke him to move his truck to allow another truck to better fit in the layby he was parked in, smelt his breath and asked if he
had been drinking, breathalised him and arrested him for drunk in charge.
Question?if this is right can you get charged for drunk in charge if you are sleeping in a vehicle ,,,say a campervan or even a car after a few
drinks.
Denis.
Your mate is legally "in charge" in these circumstances and if he is over the legal alcohol limit (35 micrograms of alcohol in 100
millilitres of breath) then he is arrestable and potentially guilty of an offence.
However he has a statutory defence if he can show to the court, on the balance of probabilities, (show that it is more likely than not) that he was
not going (intending) to drive the vehicle until he was under the legal limit then he will be found Not Guilty. Whether this is feasible or not will
depend on issues such as what his breatj reading was, how long he had left on his tacho rest period and whether there was any pressing need for him to
deliver somwhere at a certain time.
He needs to see a criminal defence lawyer as it will usually need an expert instructed to calculate the rate of destruction of alcohol by his body.
BTW if the officer had instructed him to move the vehicle, knowing the driver was over the limit, then he would have been guity of drink driving but
would almost certainly have pleaded Special reasons to avoid any disqualification.
Disqualification is mandatory for drink driving (12 months minimum ban for a first offence) but is discretionary for drunk in charge.
HTH
Robin
|
|
|
A1
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 07:35 PM |
|
|
How is it a complete no-no for him to have a couple of hes driving the next day? hed be sober in the morning.
mr plod should have looked at his tacho and worked out from there that hed be sober by the time he is to drive the next day (assuming)
if he wasnt going to be sober when his rest is up, then the should tell him not to drive till x time, and make a note on the tacho.(?)
in this case, nobody starts thinking the cops are unfair and nobody can have a go at them. cause it would be good policing.
the way they did it, quite frankly its yet another mark against them in my humble opinion. (the others include unmarked cars and sneaky speeding
tactics)
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 07:42 PM |
|
|
Way too many assumptions being made in this thread, and way too much anti-plod prejudice! Thanks Scootz for applying some rational thought and putting
things in perspective  Unfortunately the simple answer to OP's question is 'yes'. Still, if the guy genuinely doesn't
deserve to be in trouble, I hope he gets off as lightly as possible.
|
|
|
Strontium Dog
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 08:23 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Liam
Way too many assumptions being made in this thread, and way too much anti-plod prejudice! Thanks Scootz for applying some rational thought and putting
things in perspective Unfortunately the simple answer to OP's question is 'yes'. Still, if the guy genuinely doesn't
deserve to be in trouble, I hope he gets off as lightly as possible.
Maybe there is so much anti police prejudice on this thread 'cause many of us are fed up with the way we are treated by them in the first place!
Just a thought!
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 08:52 PM |
|
|
Oh I'm sure you're right, and the reasons for it are unfortunately many, although personally I'm lucky enough to have never received
bad treatment from the police (even as a criminal ). I just thought there was a lot of jumping to conclusions without the facts, and maybe people
ought to try to be more rational - that's all
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 10:01 PM |
|
|
ive never met a bad cop either, and at least 3 times ive thought they were quite kind - even the bugger who nicked me was a nice chap!
But, i cant stand the concept of this law. If they arent happy with the amount of drink driving, they need to throw the book at those caught red
handed. And anyone who drives banned after being caught, needs to get royally shafted, not least for contempt of court. But trying to fiddle people
who havent actually driven isnt on.
That said, being pissed in your cab is asking for bother.
We once got away with it, as a bunch of sad kids, getting pissed in a mates car. Got rumbled even though we werent planning on driving off
(you'd never believe it really, but we werent), and copper was satisfied with a lecture and sending us off on foot.
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 10:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by BenB
By extrapolation if I had this in my garage...
Sorry Ben, but that's just plain nonsense... your garage isn't a public place, so there would be no offence (even if your car was in full
working order).
I know. I was being silly. Anyway, my car's finished My point was just how can you be in charge of a vehicle from a sleeper bunk from which
is it impossible to actually be in charge of the vehicle? If that's the law then it smacks of desperation. Having the keys on him means he has
the potential or capability of driving but the capability to commit a crime does not a crime make.... I have the potential to strangle random
strangers but I'd be a bit annoyed if I got nicked for murder every time I left the house on the basis that I could! I've seen the effect
of drink-driving and multiple RTAs and it ain't pretty (in fact it's devestating) IE I'm not condoning drink-driving, just
suggesting that sometimes the law goes way too far. You can't go around nicking people "just in case" they've commited a
crime. I'm not anti-police BTW, they have to work within the law. But sometimes they sure lack some common sense and in the good words of Mr
Bumble:
"If the law supposes that ... the law is a [sic] ass..."
|
|
|
SteveWalker
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 11:15 PM |
|
|
Your friend needs good legal advice. However, I'm sure I remember a similar case in the papers a few years ago. I'm pretty sure that the
driver was found not guilty because he was on a statutory rest period as proved by his tacho - something along those lines anyway.
|
|
|
Antnicuk
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 11:36 PM |
|
|
quote:
Maybe there is so much anti police prejudice on this thread 'cause many of us are fed up with the way we are treated by them in the first place!
Just a thought!
STOP SMOKING ILLEGAL DRUGS AND THEY MIGHT LEAVE YOU ALONE!
Also, no one has mentioned if the bloke was charged or not, there is a big difference between being arrested and ultimately being charged.
It also doesnt state if he did a road side breath test or not, if he was arrested for Drunk and incapable he wouldnt have had to take a road side
breath test, or of course he may have refused to take a road side breath test which is arrestable.
The copper could have been doing the driver a favour, if the driver was being honest and had only had a couple of pints with dinner, he is highly
unlikely to be over the limit. The copper arrests him knowing this, he is taken back to the police station, takes the evidential breath test
procedure (different to road side breath test) passes with flying colours, gets a meal and cup of tea, and gets his head down until the morning, gets
breakfast and is dusted down and released. The copper can rest assured knowing that he hasnt been bullshitted (lots of people lie to the police) let
the bloke carry on sleeping in his cab, having lied to the officer about when he would be driving, gets on the road, kills someone and the officer is
held responsible for it, which he would be. Everyone is a winner! except the police when a half cocked story like this gets plastered on the
forums............
Just as a side note, i dont agree with that particular law, but its come about from various case law, as drink drive legislation is the most tested
in UK law, in other words, there have been more attempts at gettig off drink drive than any other offences, which is why the procedures are so rigid,
case law has defined it to seal every little loop hole that people have found over time.
[Edited on 9-3-11 by Antnicuk]
600 BHP per ton, Stylus Brought back from the dead! Turbo Rotary Powered!
|
|
|
kipper
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 11:48 PM |
|
|
drunk in charge
Well I never thought my rant about my pal would set off such a big debate but I will try to fill in a few details.
His tacho showed he had been stopped for four hours prior to been woken by the police.
His lorry (artic) was fully in the lay by and another truck had pulled in behind but the rear of his truck was sticking out into the carridgeway which
is why the cop stopped to ask my mate to move up a bit.
My mate never got the opertunity to move the rig as he was asked to take a breath test. which led to his arrest.
The original concern about the second lorry sticking out into the carridgeway for disregarded.
After being charged and proccesed and being further tested he was released the following day he was allowed to drive the unit away,,,,,,,,,, more or
less when he would have woke up if nothing had happened.
In conclusion ............he is not a heavy drinker, just had a couple of beers with an evening meal. did nothing to endanger anyone, but was a victim
of an over reactive policeman.
Denis.
Where did that go?
<<<<
|
|
|
Antnicuk
|
| posted on 9/3/11 at 11:54 PM |
|
|
Thanks for filling in some gaps, it sounds like he wasnt charged, so my scenario above your post maybe quite accurate
600 BHP per ton, Stylus Brought back from the dead! Turbo Rotary Powered!
|
|
|
Strontium Dog
|
| posted on 10/3/11 at 08:31 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Antnicuk
Thanks for filling in some gaps, it sounds like he wasnt charged, so my scenario above your post maybe quite accurate
First, please don't shout your opinions at me, it's not like I value your comment in the slightest anyway!
The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and
fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world. "Carl Sagan" This guys opinion, for one, carries a little
weight though, you may have heard of him!
Second, and more on topic, you obviously don't know what you are talking about as the police would not be charging him, it is for the CPS to
decide on charges later. No surprise there after your previous comment. The fact he was allowed to leave and drive at his normal time of departure
shows that he was not still drunk at that time and that the whole thing is as ridiculous as most of us think it is! Even if CPS choose not to
charge him, he has been woken up before his shift so he will be tired at the wheel and dragged off to be processed at a police station. Lovely
experience for him. Perhaps the clever officer involved thought he might drive in his sleep?!
Common sense is the thing that is lacking here and is something we seem to have given up as a nation!
[Edited on 10/3/11 by Strontium Dog]
[Edited on 10/3/11 by Strontium Dog]
|
|
|
