Drink drive limit on boats in uk

[ylop]

People in the UK have been done for drunk in charge of a motor vehicle even when found asleep in the back seat of a car, in the pub car park.

Yes, but there is a statutory defence to show that there was no likelihood of you driving whilst still over the limit!

With cars, drunk in charge is different from driving while drunk. One of my crew was asleep drunk in a layby, arrested. Duty solicitor told him say nothing. Twelve points, no loss of licence.

11 pts not 12.

 

[Refueler]

I was out in my son's rib on Brisbane River watching New Year fireworks. Police on PWCs were very busy breathalising the hundreds of anchored boats. I understand that losing your boat licence also can affect your driving licence.

That is serious possibility here in Latvia now ... AND depending on the amount over the limit - can lead to automatic 10days 'Instructional Time in designated Detention centre'.

We have another controversial penalty : In severe over the limit cases - car is confiscated and sent to Ukraine to act as hospital / services transport. Needless to say that very few of the 'good cars' actually make it there or to the job stated ... they seem to go missing 'on route' ......

 

[Refueler]

Yes, but there is a statutory defence to show that there was no likelihood of you driving whilst still over the limit!

11 pts not 12.

As I understood it - if the keys are with the person - then its Drunk in Charge ... if the keys are not there - then cannot be prosecuted as basically its taken as 'sleeping it off' !!

 

[ylop]

As I understood it - if the keys are with the person - then its Drunk in Charge ... if the keys are not there - then cannot be prosecuted as basically its taken as 'sleeping it off' !!

Its up to the court to determine on all the facts and circumstances of the case if someone was in charge or not - there are no absolute rules. The location of the keys is an important bit of information in assessing that, but its not always as clear cut as that (as an example you can have the keys but be 50 miles from the car; or I can have the keys in many modern cars but be in the passenger seat whilst someone else is actually driving). However if you do need to sleep in you car - don't put the keys in the ignition; don't sit in the drivers seat (and don't open the drivers door); put the keys somewhere you would need to get out the car to access easily (e.g. if sleeping in the back - the glove box); and tell other people what your plans are - a text message sent long before the cops appear is very useful to show your intent: make sure there's no prospect of driving again until definitely below the limit. e.g. "Tent destroyed in wind! Going to sleep in car - will climb Ben Lomond in morning, aiming to leave at 4pm - home for 7"; probably means you don't even go to the station to explain yourself.

 

[Refueler]

Its up to the court to determine on all the facts and circumstances of the case if someone was in charge or not - there are no absolute rules. The location of the keys is an important bit of information in assessing that, but its not always as clear cut as that (as an example you can have the keys but be 50 miles from the car; or I can have the keys in many modern cars but be in the passenger seat whilst someone else is actually driving). However if you do need to sleep in you car - don't put the keys in the ignition; don't sit in the drivers seat (and don't open the drivers door); put the keys somewhere you would need to get out the car to access easily (e.g. if sleeping in the back - the glove box); and tell other people what your plans are - a text message sent long before the cops appear is very useful to show your intent: make sure there's no prospect of driving again until definitely below the limit. e.g. "Tent destroyed in wind! Going to sleep in car - will climb Ben Lomond in morning, aiming to leave at 4pm - home for 7"; probably means you don't even go to the station to explain yourself.

All that after a few pints ??

 

[ylop]

All that after a few pints ??

The problem is people don't tend to sleep it off in the back of a car after "a few pints" they tend to do that after 10 - and they might be least capable of such "precautions" whilst a bit pissed!
In reality the question of whether you were or were not in charge of the vehicle is the same whether you've had 1 pint or 20. The statutory defence that there was no likelihood of you driving, places the burden of proof on you, the person who was in charge, to convince the court that you were not intending to drive and would be below the limit before you did so. Clearly if you are marginally over the limit when woken up and were sound asleep you've got good story. If you were well over the limit and don't have a clear, credible story on when you were planning to drive you'll be struggling.

 

[Bouba]

The problem is people don't tend to sleep it off in the back of a car after "a few pints" they tend to do that after 10 - and they might be least capable of such "precautions" whilst a bit pissed!
In reality the question of whether you were or were not in charge of the vehicle is the same whether you've had 1 pint or 20. The statutory defence that there was no likelihood of you driving, places the burden of proof on you, the person who was in charge, to convince the court that you were not intending to drive and would be below the limit before you did so. Clearly if you are marginally over the limit when woken up and were sound asleep you've got good story. If you were well over the limit and don't have a clear, credible story on when you were planning to drive you'll be struggling.

It’s a strange law...because it requires a person who is totally pizzed as a fart to give a credible explanation of their contingency plans after being suddenly woken by the police with a flashlight in the face. How many drunks could pass that test

 

[Refueler]

It’s a strange law...because it requires a person who is totally pizzed as a fart to give a credible explanation of their contingency plans after being suddenly woken by the police with a flashlight in the face. How many drunks could pass that test

Its a dubious scenario at best ... and really I don't know why I'm debating it !!

Reason I said about the keys ... was it happened to me in Plymouth ... at the Pub in Admirals Hard. I was well over and decided to kip in the car instead of risking drive back to residential block (I was Cadet in MN College). Pub landlord was 'friend' and kept the keys until we thought OK to drive.
Because of sitting in a car in a part of town for extended period that was shall we say known for 'characters' - a Constable tapped on window enquiring what was I doing there .... he smelt the drink and conversation changed ... I was capable enough to prove I did not have the keys and he wished me a good 'kip' and chuckling about 'clever bast***' .....

 

[ylop]

It’s a strange law...because it requires a person who is totally pizzed as a fart to give a credible explanation of their contingency plans after being suddenly woken by the police with a flashlight in the face. How many drunks could pass that test

Well the law wasn't designed for just that scenario it was designed for all the scenarios where in all likelihood you were going to drive over the limit but the cops didn't have evidence of driving, and rather than have them watch you for hours until you did make the next step, or encourage them to actually make a situation less safe by waiting for you to move the vehicle. But then of course the law writers recognised there would be scenarios where you may technically be in charge but have no intent on driving (e.g. if the car is parked outside your house and you go to retrieve something from the boot) so there should be a suitable defence. As is always the way with law where there's high stakes involved (driving licenses, livelihoods etc) case law then shapes the interpretation of that over the years. Refueler's approach of 1. Agreeing the plan with the landlord and 2. Giving the landlord the keys, is essentially the same sort of defence as I outlined a few posts ago - its a clear intent. Obviously if your plan was less well defined you may struggle to convince a court - but it may be that your intoxicated ramblings and what you say in court stack up and you too go free. The difference is that as Refueller discovered the clear intent is more likely to have you left to go back to sleep, whereas a less convincing story might be left for the magistrates to decide. As with all interactions with the cops - even when they are technically wrong, its often easier to cooperate than argue!

 

[Bouba]

Well the law wasn't designed for just that scenario it was designed for all the scenarios where in all likelihood you were going to drive over the limit but the cops didn't have evidence of driving, and rather than have them watch you for hours until you did make the next step, or encourage them to actually make a situation less safe by waiting for you to move the vehicle. But then of course the law writers recognised there would be scenarios where you may technically be in charge but have no intent on driving (e.g. if the car is parked outside your house and you go to retrieve something from the boot) so there should be a suitable defence. As is always the way with law where there's high stakes involved (driving licenses, livelihoods etc) case law then shapes the interpretation of that over the years. Refueler's approach of 1. Agreeing the plan with the landlord and 2. Giving the landlord the keys, is essentially the same sort of defence as I outlined a few posts ago - its a clear intent. Obviously if your plan was less well defined you may struggle to convince a court - but it may be that your intoxicated ramblings and what you say in court stack up and you too go free. The difference is that as Refueller discovered the clear intent is more likely to have you left to go back to sleep, whereas a less convincing story might be left for the magistrates to decide. As with all interactions with the cops - even when they are technically wrong, its often easier to cooperate than argue!

That’s the thing…if Refueler was really drunk he would never have remembered that he gave the keys to the landlord…he’d still be looking for them

 

[ylop]

That’s the thing…if Refueler was really drunk he would never have remembered that he gave the keys to the landlord…he’d still be looking for them

Here's a thought experiment...

if you are so drunk that you can't remember why you are not in charge of a vehicle, are you in fact in charge of that vehicle?

in Refueller's case possibly not because he had no means to start it (and similarly if you can't remember you put them in the glove comparment). But if the keys are in your pocket and you are so drunk you can't tell the cops when you expect to be sober - perhaps its just as well they take you to the station?

 

[Bouba]

Here's a thought experiment...

if you are so drunk that you can't remember why you are not in charge of a vehicle, are you in fact in charge of that vehicle?

in Refueller's case possibly not because he had no means to start it (and similarly if you can't remember you put them in the glove comparment). But if the keys are in your pocket and you are so drunk you can't tell the cops when you expect to be sober - perhaps its just as well they take you to the station?

Two points…how can I do an experiment if I am drunk
And being taken to a cell to sleep it off is good…being charged with drunk in charge of a motor vehicle is not so much

 

[Minerva]

Piers? Pah! If you are going to hit something how about the Ardnamurchan Peninsula? Officer drunk when ship ran aground in Ardnamurchan

What's the wold coming to when you can't even enjoy a pint of straight rum with your dinner eh?