Drunken Skipper charge under the Road Traffic Act

[timbartlett]

The RTA was amended in 1991 to include Boats as MPVs and to extend the drink drive law to include public places.

I'm sorry if this comes across as argumentative, but what you have quoted appears to be one particular constabulary's interpretation of the law, paraphrased because they think we are too stupid to be able to understand the actual law as passed by Parliament -- and conveniently extending the police powers!

But I see nothing in the 1991 or 1988 Road Traffic Acts that extends the drink-drive laws to boats: the effect of the change you mention is that you can still be done for drink driving on roads or public places even if the vehicle is not "intended or adapted for use on roads" ... i.e. if it is an "off-road" vehicle (such as a tank!). Hovercraft are specifically mentioned, but not boats.

I cannot believe that even the police would be so stupid as to think that they can extend laws that apply to road vehicles to boats just because they feel like it: if that is the case, then anyone with a boat in any Suffolk marina should expect a NIP for failing to display a valid tax disc any time now!

Moreover, the excuse that is usually put forward by those who seek to extend the Railway and Transport Safety Act 2003 to include recreational craft is that there is no existing drink-boat legislation. Of course I know that the police and civil service have no compunction about lying when it suits them to do so, but I would have thought that this particular point would be so obvious (and so pointless) that they wouldn't bother to even try it on.

 

[tinkicker0]

Strikes me that they would not bother to introduce the new drink / helming laws if they could use other legislation already in place. Simply, they would merely state that the existing law would now be enforced from such and such a date, by plod and harbour master etc.

 

[DAKA]

I'm sorry if this comes across as argumentative, but what you have quoted appears to be one particular constabulary's interpretation of the law, paraphrased because they think we are too stupid to be able to understand the actual law as passed by Parliament -- and conveniently extending the police powers!

But I see nothing in the 1991 or 1988 Road Traffic Acts that extends the drink-drive laws to boats: the effect of the change you mention is that you can still be done for drink driving on roads or public places even if the vehicle is not "intended or adapted for use on roads" ... i.e. if it is an "off-road" vehicle (such as a tank!). Hovercraft are specifically mentioned, but not boats.

I cannot believe that even the police would be so stupid as to think that they can extend laws that apply to road vehicles to boats just because they feel like it: if that is the case, then anyone with a boat in any Suffolk marina should expect a NIP for failing to display a valid tax disc any time now!

Moreover, the excuse that is usually put forward by those who seek to extend the Railway and Transport Safety Act 2003 to include recreational craft is that there is no existing drink-boat legislation. Of course I know that the police and civil service have no compunction about lying when it suits them to do so, but I would have thought that this particular point would be so obvious (and so pointless) that they wouldn't bother to even try it on.

Quote from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910040_en_2

4 Driving under influence of drink or drugs

In section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in subsections (1), (2) and (3) for the words “motor vehicle” there shall be substituted the words “mechanically propelled vehicle”.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''end quote'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

It only covers section 4, which relates to an offence of driving while unfit to drive.

It does not include section 5 which has a specific limit 80mg of breath, therefore a breath test showing you are over the road driving limit will not be adequate evidence on its own to prosecute you for drink boating , there needs to be evidence that you are unfit to helm, shouting at sea cadets may or may not prove anything, it could be argued that the helmsman managed to avoid the police boat for half an hour in an attempt to prove he had control !

 

[oceanfroggie]

Don't see what the problem is! Car drivers, aircraft pilots, boat skippers shouldn't drink while in command of a vehicle, aircraft or vessel. Once moored or parked no prob!

 

[Searush]

Don't see what the problem is! Car drivers, aircraft pilots, boat skippers shouldn't drink while in command of a vehicle, aircraft or vessel. Once moored or parked no prob!

You are joking I trust!!!

1/ You cannot sleep off a skinfull in your car. if you have the keys in your pocket you are classed as "in control of the vehicle" and will be fined & banned.

2/ If there are drink/boating laws then you will not be able to drink in harbour, marina or at anchor either. Simply because you will still be in charge of the boat - and may indeed need to move it at some point if the berth becomes untenable or is needed by someone else. At anchor one is likely to need to move due to change of weather or tide conditions.

3/ The third problem is who is "in command of a boat"? The owner, the navigator, the helmsman or the skipper? They could be all different people or just the one person. SWMBO is usually the one in charge of what our boat does, because, if she ain't happy, no-one will be!!

The whole thing is a complete nightmare & I for one do not wish to go there!!!

 

[mikefleetwood]

3/ The third problem is who is "in command of a boat"? The owner, the navigator, the helmsman or the skipper? They could be all different people or just the one person. SWMBO is usually the one in charge of what our boat does, because, if she ain't happy, no-one will be!!

Actually you've just highlighted the MAJOR difference between boating and driving! You could be "in command of the boat" and nowhere near any of it's controls. Just imagine sober SWMBO drives drunken you home, plod decides to breathalise YOU, dozing in the back, because you are "in command"

Having said that, it would seem sensible to have some responsible, sober, person "on watch" at all times - even at anchor/moored, just in case you have to move! Where you set the alcohol limit would be more tricky, as manouvering a boat is not as demanding of concentration and instant reaction as driving a car.

 

[tinkicker0]

Actually you've just highlighted the MAJOR difference between boating and driving! You could be "in command of the boat" and nowhere near any of it's controls. Just imagine sober SWMBO drives drunken you home, plod decides to breathalise YOU, dozing in the back, because you are "in command"

Having said that, it would seem sensible to have some responsible, sober, person "on watch" at all times - even at anchor/moored, just in case you have to move! Where you set the alcohol limit would be more tricky, as manouvering a boat is not as demanding of concentration and instant reaction as driving a car.

Drink Driving is an absolute offence, however absolute offences can have mitigating circumstances.

I remember reading, as part of a law module at college; a doctor was off duty, the doctor on duty became indisposed and an emergency call was redirected to the off duty doctor.
The doctor had got through a few bottles of wine, the call was a medical emergency and the doctor jumped in his car pissed.

He was pulled by the cops returning home and was summoned to court.

He walked away scot free because it was an emergency and he was taking action that could have saved lives and since he was off duty, he could not have expected to have to drive before supping his wine.

If you have to abandon a mooring because it posed a danger to vessel and crew, this could be viewed the same way.
Precident has already being set.

 

[timbartlett]

Quote from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910040_en_2

Yes, I see that. And I realise that the names given to legislation is sometimes (deliberately?) misleading. But I don't see why anyone is assuming that the word "vehicle" in a law called the Road Traffic Act relates to a vessel that is incapable of being operated on a road.
The fact that whoever composed the "interpretation" on Suffolk plod's website wasn't thinking about boats at the time he/she dashed off that particular piece of disinformation doesn't actually change the law!

 

[JKay]

Seems to be a yearly occurance!!!!

 

[DAKA]

Yes, I see that. And I realise that the names given to legislation is sometimes (deliberately?) misleading. But I don't see why anyone is assuming that the word "vehicle" in a law called the Road Traffic Act relates to a vessel that is incapable of being operated on a road.
The fact that whoever composed the "interpretation" on Suffolk plod's website wasn't thinking about boats at the time he/she dashed off that particular piece of disinformation doesn't actually change the law!

I could be wrong and I am not arguing, more trying to establish the facts........

Road has been extended to include public places, there was a case that went to appeal about 10 years ago and the court deemed an Airport runway as a public place, now you and I would be shot if we tried to walk across Heathrow runway but the courts say it is a public place under the highways definition.

 

[timbartlett]

I could be wrong and I am not arguing, more trying to establish the facts...

Same here! And I'm not suggesting that the sea is not a public place. This particular incident happenned on a river, which throws another spanner into the works, because most rivers do not have public access ... but that is a separate issue.
My concern is the definition of a "vehicle".
I know in some legislation (can't remember which, off the top of my head) it specifically says that "vessels are to be regarded as vehicles", but that is clearly a special case and I don't see anywhere in the RTA that says it applies to vessels.
And whilst the RTA does go to some trouble to explain the difference between a "motor vehicle" and a "mechanically propelled vehicle", I can't find anywhere that it actually defines a "vehicle".
Clearly there are some laws that apply to vehicles that cannot be applied to vessels (most of the construction and use regs, for a start!), and I have never yet heard of a car failing its MoT because it doesn't have the lights required for a vessel capable of more than 7 knots ... so there must be some sort of legal distinction between the two.

 

[DAKA]

Same here! And I'm not suggesting that the sea is not a public place. This particular incident happenned on a river, which throws another spanner into the works, because most rivers do not have public access ... but that is a separate issue.
My concern is the definition of a "vehicle".
I know in some legislation (can't remember which, off the top of my head) it specifically says that "vessels are to be regarded as vehicles", but that is clearly a special case and I don't see anywhere in the RTA that says it applies to vessels.
And whilst the RTA does go to some trouble to explain the difference between a "motor vehicle" and a "mechanically propelled vehicle", I can't find anywhere that it actually defines a "vehicle".
Clearly there are some laws that apply to vehicles that cannot be applied to vessels (most of the construction and use regs, for a start!), and I have never yet heard of a car failing its MoT because it doesn't have the lights required for a vessel capable of more than 7 knots ... so there must be some sort of legal distinction between the two.

It isn't at all clear !

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences/#definition

 

[Shannoner]

You are joking I trust!!!

1/ You cannot sleep off a skinfull in your car. if you have the keys in your pocket you are classed as "in control of the vehicle" and will be fined & banned.

I personally know two people who were prosecuted for the above. Sleeping it off in back seat of car with keys in pocket.

Out of Interest, you park your motor-home, have a nice dinner of spag bol and a bottle or two of some nice Italian red. Then off to bed to sleep it off. While in bed with the keys lying on the bedside table, are you "in control of the vehicle" as far as the RTA is concerned, and therefore liable to prosecution?
Not much difference from lying sleeping on the back seat of a Ford Mondeo or lying in a kingsize double bed in a Winnebago, or is there?

 

[Searush]

I personally know two people who were prosecuted for the above. Sleeping it off in back seat of car with keys in pocket.

Out of Interest, you park your motor-home, have a nice dinner of spag bol and a bottle or two of some nice Italian red. Then off to bed to sleep it off. While in bed with the keys lying on the bedside table, are you "in control of the vehicle" as far as the RTA is concerned, and therefore liable to prosecution?
Not much difference from lying sleeping on the back seat of a Ford Mondeo or lying in a kingsize double bed in a Winnebago, or is there?

Right, I think I can help with this. The key point is whether you are on a public highway or not (in the UK anyway!). So, if you were sleeping it off in a layby somewhere - yes, plod could & probably would nick you. If you are in a campsite, tho', you are on private property & probably safe from being nicked. Where this leaves someone sleeping it off on a private car park (lets say your golf or sailing club) might generate a decent living for a crafty solicitor. It has little to do with the type of vehicle - altho' a caravan might be acceptable as you are not "in" the driveable vehicle.

Rules are for the guidance of wise people, unfortunately it is Policemen, Lawyers, Magistrates & Judges that implement them!

 

[adey]

Out of Interest, you park your motor-home, have a nice dinner of spag bol and a bottle or two of some nice Italian red. Then off to bed to sleep it off. While in bed with the keys lying on the bedside table, are you "in control of the vehicle" as far as the RTA is concerned, and therefore liable to prosecution?

It's up to you to prove that there is no intention to drive; much easier to do with a motor home than a car. Guilty until proven innocent. As a matter of interest you are deemed to be in control of a vehicle if you are supervising a learner even though you may never touch the wheel, pedals or keys.

Back to the original point. It will be interesting to see the result of this case. The guy has been charged which means that the CPS deems a boat to come under the RTA. No precedent can be set but how will the outcome affect the rest of us?