# Drinking and the Motorhome



## arvy (May 9, 2005)

Hope this is not to stupid a question, if my lovely wife and I are sat inside or outside the van on a site having a nice glass of wine can I be done for being in charge of the vehicle whilst under the influence? or am I on private property? what if I stop in a layby for the night and have a beer with my dinner! I`m in bed when plod knocks on van to check we are ok smells the drink what would he do? I would never contemplate drinking and driving, but this concerns me.


----------



## 88810 (May 9, 2005)

If you are on a site I think you should be fine. 

In a layby I would imagine it is different as it could be part of the highway.

Not a Policeman or Lawyer just guessing really.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Previously simply being in the vehicle with keys was enough for a conviction, being on private land was no excuse (still is not) 

I am not aware of any case bought against a motorhomer (camper) that as ever been bought ( for innocent enjoyment)

Now they have to prove likelyhood or intent.

In any event the police have not and do not target campers for drink driving ( they would if you were on the move !!)


----------



## 88781 (May 9, 2005)

Arvy if you're in your bed, then I'm sure it would be obvious the intention is not to drive the 'van, and I'm confident no court in this land would ever convict you of any DD offence, I'm also confident in saying that any police officer would not contemplate bringing a 'drunk in charge - attempting to drive' etc. given the circumstances you mentioned, however parking in a layby overnight can contravene some byelaws, resulting in you been moved on by the local constabulary...that's when the fun starts if you have had a drink! :roll: 

Regards M&D


----------



## Bazbro (May 9, 2005)

This has been aired before, Arvy.

Have a look at these:

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/posts576-0.html
http://www.motorhomefacts.com/posts1161-0.html
http://www.motorhomefacts.com/posts3283-0.html

Barry


----------



## BERTHA (May 21, 2005)

The main thing is if you are behind the wheel, regardless if your parked up for the night or not then you could be had for D/D

If you are illegally parked and sitting in the rear drinking then technically you would be had for illegal parking or cause an obstruction.
Of course, you would not dare to offer to move the MH as you will then be charged with the above and, Drinking and Driving

Even running the engine for power/heat while under the influence could still render you guilt of D/D

But I have never heard of a MHomer getting done for D/D while stopped


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Jess

If you had silver screens up (external) again would be indicative of not intending to move even with engine running (the onus is on them to prove likelyhood now, but I dont suggest pushing your luck!)

Expect the police to use their heads and be reasonable, in general you will find that to be the case.


----------



## 88905 (May 10, 2005)

GeorgeTelford said:


> Expect the police to use their heads and be reasonable, in general you will find that to be the case.


Wonder which planet that would be on then, George.

i reckon the only safe place is when you are parked up in a campsite.

nobby


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

My brother the plod says you can be done just for having the keys on you. 

If you are parked in a layby you could easily be done if you are over the limit. So best not to drink, or just have one if you must and stay legal.

In the real world the police need you to be in the drivers seat with the keys in the ignition so that it stands up in court. But that doesnt mean you can't be done staggering towards you vehicle with your keys in your hand.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Jonathon

They now have to prove intent to drive or that you have been driving, get your brother to check.

Serving Officer on another motorhome board, enquired and said they now look for intent and likelyhood.

Clutter out bed set up dishes in sink etc.

George


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

I just asked him again, having the keys in your hands is good enough. Just being in the vehicle shows "intent".

It is easier to get a conviction if the driver is actually in the driver seat. But being over the limit and in charge of the vehicle simply by sitting in it you are breaking the law.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 10, 2000)

So it appears that best advice is to make sure the keys are in the missus handbag. Sorted.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Jonathon

Your brother is wrong, in a car they could probably attempt a prosecution, in a motorhome simply being in the vehicle and drunk is NOT enough.

Their is a serving officer on the sbmcc (PC PLOD, he doesnt want to reveal his true Identity), who checked with the police legal eagles and they confirmed that it requires more than being drunk in the vehicle or even just having keys available.


George


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Here is one case highlighted by andysam

It has always seemed unfair that individuals simply ‘sleeping it off’ should be prosecuted for drink driving. And this month Peter Sheldrake, found over the drink-drive limit at the wheel of his parked van, won a High Court ruling last week that his subsequent conviction was in breach of his human rights. Sheldrake, who was found by police while asleep in his van with the doors locked, has won a test ruling that he could not be found ‘in charge’ while over the limit because there was no evidence that he intended to drive


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

George,

My brother and your Mr plod can argue this until the cows come back from the pub.

I'm not about to tell my brother he is wrong.


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

The master of a ship can be prosecuted for being unfit due to drink, even if he is tied up alongside in port. He is still "in charge" of the vessel.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

We were told when we hired a car in the States, to carry open bottles of drink in the boot because if they were found in the body of the car then you would be fined on the spot. Sealed bottles were no problem.

I wonder how RV users in the States get round this one ?

G.


----------



## spykal (May 9, 2005)

red_dragon_bus said:


> I'm not about to tell my brother he is wrong.


Why, is he bigger than you :?: :lol: :lol: :lol:

half a bottle of wine does'nt arf make me brave hic.....hic


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

spykal said:


> red_dragon_bus said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not about to tell my brother he is wrong.
> ...


Slightly :wink: He's got alot of mates with big sticks :lol:


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/crimedrinkdriving.htm


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 10, 2000)

red_dragon_bus said:


> The master of a ship can be prosecuted for being unfit due to drink, even if he is tied up alongside in port. He is still "in charge" of the vessel.


I've often wondered of the legalities when a whole warship has had its tot what the level on the breatherliser would be paticularly if washed down with a couple of cans.

Still, pissed or not, we seemed to do a good job.

I have to say I had an eye opener visit on a Yankee Doodle destroyer and most of the crew were openly smoking pot. And did you know that Yankee pilots are given speed to up their reactions in battle? Could account I suspect for them keep shooting down the wrong side.

Still, we can sleep easy at night now knowing that somewhere in the skies their are American pilots carrying nukes popped out on speed who are there to protect the land of the free.

Before anyone says the above is not true, may I refer you to the Canadians pilots that were shot down by the Yanks and all this came out in the enquiry.

Might be a tad of topic so back to m\homes.....

I rarely drink except on dinner out nights and then the missus drives so I should be safe from everything other than speeding.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Jonathon

You are not telling him he is wrong? Thats like the twig snapping in the forest does it make a sound if no-one is there to hear it?. Regardless of whethor you tell him the law as applied will not change. The only other thing is, is the law applied differently north of the border? 


In the case of a ships master, sorry but whats that got to do with anything?


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

> the law as applied


here we go again.....

Does the law state that you cannot be "in charge" of a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol?

The way the law is applied varies from officer to officer, police force to police force.

As for the ships master....

The master of a ship is "in charge" of his vessel whilst he is signed on the official log book. If the master is laid up in his bunk sleeping off a bottle of whisky and the port state come down to go over the ship then he could be prosecuted. He's not on the bridge "driving" the ship, but he is still "in charge".


----------



## arvy (May 9, 2005)

Thanks for your replys guys interesting reading, the thing is I dont drink much anyway so I dont expect the problem to arise, it was just something that came to mind whilst dreaming about our first trip out when we get the van at the end of May.
arvy.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Jonathon

Golf was banned by royal decree several hundred years ago, last time anyone looked it had not been repealed, so ask your brother to sort out that shower at St Andrews. The point is that Sheldrake sets precedent (and thats only one case) precedent is the law as applied. Fortunately your brother doesnt decide who is getting prosecuted so it doesnt matter what he thinks CPS down here and procreator fiscal up there? decide whethor a prosecution occurs.

Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions
Section 5(2) of the 1988 Act was plainly directed to a legitimate object: the prevention of death, injury and damage caused by unfit drivers. The offence under s 5(1) did not require proof that the defendant was likely to drive but the defendant was given the opportunity by s 5(2) to exonerate himself by showing there was no such
likelihood. The burden placed on the defendant could not be regarded as beyond reasonable limits or in any way arbitrary. It was not objectionable to criminalise a defendant's conduct in those circumstances without requiring a prosecutor to prove criminal intent. The imposition of a legal burden of proof on the defendant did not go beyond what was necessary. 

heres a crucial paragraph by Clarke LJ

If the accused satisfied the evidential burden, it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances were not such that there was no likelihood of his driving whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit.

and the relevent section from the Act

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the prescribed limit." 

ie bed out, pots in sink etc, screens up etc.

The law is generally applied in a sensible manner.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

BTW after appeal he was found guilty because the evidence showed he was likely to drive ! thought I had better point this out now, the main thrust (point) of Quoting sheldrake is that it Highlights the need for the police to show intent, something which Jonathon and is brother say is not the case. But which the RTA 1988 and the Appeal court both contradict Jonathon and his brother who maintain merely having keys is enough.

George


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

> The point is that Sheldrake sets precedent (and thats only one case) precedent is the law as applied.


 :lol: :lol:

People have wriggled out of parking fines and speeding tickets, these cases don't open the flood gates to anyone and everyone getting away with it.

The fact that the person was charged in the first place proves that my brother is in fact correct. He would rightly arrest you if you were found to be in charge of your motorhome whilst over the drink drive limit. If you can then get a lawyer to get you off then that is brilliant. It doesnt alter the fact that it is an offence.

*Being in charge of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol (DR40)*


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

GeorgeTelford said:


> BTW after appeal he was found guilty because the evidence showed he was likely to drive ! thought I had better point this out now, the main thrust (point) of Quoting sheldrake is that it Highlights the need for the police to show intent, something which Jonathon and is brother say is not the case. But which the RTA 1988 and the Appeal court both contradict Jonathon and his brother who maintain merely having keys is enough.
> 
> George


You are having a laugh now George.

I walk towards my car with keys in my hand. My brother will wait until I get in and put the keys in the ignition, perhaps let me start the engine. That way he secures the conviction.

But he can stop me before I reach the car. There is _a chance _I may get away with it, if I go to court and fight it.

If you leave a pub with your car keys and walk towards your vehicle you can be charged. It may or may not stand up in court, it depends on the case. That is why the police will let you get in and start the engine. :wink:


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Jonathon

As I say the law is applied sensibly.

I am not getting embroiled in any silly games with you, your other post shows that you are only out to achieve an argument.

Night


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Note now Jonathon is deviating away from motorhomes, and now stating the obvious re cars as if it as any bearing on what we were talking about. 

Now we are going from pub to car and starting it?


----------



## BERTHA (May 21, 2005)

Its quite simple, An officer needs to prove that you were the driver or you are the one likely to drive a Vehicle while under the influence of Alcohol.

Even if the Vehicle is registered in your name does not imply you are going to or have driven the Vehicle.

However, if you are sitting in the drivers seat or, for that matter give the appearance of being prepared to drive, keys in hand, shoes on, coat on then one can suspect that you are ready to move or have moved the Vehicle and would make me very suspicious not least because of the strong smell of Alcohol so I am likely to become very concerned about your Intentions

So, park the MH legally, strip off, lock the keys away, put the SAS wheel lock on and enjoy yourself.


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

GeorgeTelford said:


> Note now Jonathon is deviating away from motorhomes, and now stating the obvious re cars as if it as any bearing on what we were talking about.
> 
> Now we are going from pub to car and starting it?


I've already stated this;

*Being in charge of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol (DR40)*

I was demonstrating intent can be walking towards a car (or any other vehicle) with the keys in your hand.

Car is easier to type than motorhome!

The police will let you start the vehicle before stopping you, that way they don't have to prove intent. As you are actually driving the vehicle then.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Jonathon

Walking towards a motorhome does not show intent to drive, its a vehicle to sleep in and that could easily be your intention.

So walking towards a motorhome with keys in hand and drunk fails to show intent. Get in go to sleep jobs a good'un

Even walking towards a car would not prove intent, and would be easy to prove otherwise. 

If before approaching the car you had already booked a taxi and were only going to collect briefcase from the boot (or whatever) again a prosecution would fail. Taxi bookings have to be logged for legal reasons.
Or if you had booked a B&B and were just fetching something from car.

As noted in the other thread you seem to be just out to cause trouble, which is a great shame


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

I'm not out to cause trouble. I just don't want to encourage people to do this and get done. I feel a certain amount of responsibility for others people. That is why I am opposing your opinion.


There is a difference between being arrested, charged and spending a night in a cell. And being prosecuted.

If you are found by a police officer staggering towards a vehicle (of any type) with your keys then that police officer can arrest you. Detain and charge you. Which is a bit of an inconvenience.

Months down the line, the case may be dropped for what ever reason, or you may be prosecuted, fined, points, lose licence etc etc.


In the case of a person in bed, in a motorhome, if the police attend the vehicle and find that the "driver" is drunk they are well within their rights to arrest and detain that person, as they may feel that person may decide to drive.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Jonathon

Again you putting the police down as stupid, have you any evidence of campers being arrested, charged, or generally messed around? NO I dont think so

Of the people here does anyone know of one case? 

The police dont generally waste your or their own time, in all the times this as been discussed on many different boards not one case of a motorhomer being done for Drunk in Charge PC PLod on other forum having (discounting the one dissenting brother of Jonathon, who it appears applies different rules to the rest)

You are not opposing my opinion Jonathon, you are disagreeing with the law, The police (except for your brother it seems) know that they need to prove intent, if the motorhome is not actually being driven. 

Its seems reality and the Law back what I say, or can you quote a single case were they have tried to prosecute a person in a stationery undriven motorhome ?


----------



## 88883 (May 10, 2005)

A ships master sleeping off drink, or actually drunk 'in charge' of a ship cannot be arrested.
It is possible he could be detained if he was on the bridge when the vessel was moving. To get caught, he would have to 'be reported' to the Port Authorities or perhaps the Pilot might realise and complain; although in reality, if there is a problem with the Captain, the Chief Officer will usually take over.
The only time it would become a major incident, would be if the vessel got into a 'bad' situation - collision or something like that.
Naturally, I'm not condoning drunk Captains, but can assure you, there is almost no 'policing' on ships, so most people wouldn't know if the Captain was drunk or not.
On a ship there are lots of other Officers that can 'con' the ship if necessary, in fact Captains have almost nothing to do with with the running of a ship; their job is really to oversee the vessel.
For example, 2nd Officers are responsible for ALL the navigation on a ship.
I am talking about Merchant Navy, not Royal. 
(although in the Royal Navy, the Captain does even less than the Merchant)

How do I know all this - I am an ex Merchant Navy Captain with 25 yrs experience.

Getting back to the subject of the forum, to my mind, it's obviously not a problem to be drunk in charge of a Motorhome, provided you weren't attempting to drive it, or sitting in the driving seat.
However, what does give me concern, is having a few drinks in the evening and leaving early in the morning, where one could still have too much alcohol in the system !

Chris


----------



## BERTHA (May 21, 2005)

I think Jonathan is giving you the facts, the possibilities whether a office does or does not like any other law is down to that officer.

I some countries the Police are less understanding the the British Police.

I believe Jonathan is quoting from experience and coupled with my own I think it might be useful if we are all careful, its not a big deal but of course when off site and staying in say a service station, lab or any public road then its different.

I have seen a number of emails on this site and I suspect that there are 11 or 2 either serving or retired Police Officers.

I would not expect a serving officer to give legal guidance on a site like this but a retired officer would be a useful friend to advise on things in and around MHoming ??

J


----------



## 89813 (May 1, 2005)

I just don’t think it’s worth the risk. All you need is a not very nice policeman and you could end up with a night in the sells. I was with a friend one day that was stopped by the police, they couldn’t find anything wrong with has very tatty car until they kicked the rear light in. I haven’t posted this to cause an argument its just my opinion.


----------



## arvy (May 9, 2005)

Once again thanks for all your replies, I did`nt intend the question to cause tension between some of the participants although it was an interesting debate and good reading, so maybe we should lay this one to rest. (for know)

arvy.


----------



## 88905 (May 10, 2005)

Johnathon
Don't you know you can't win as George is always right!!!!

nobby


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Nobby

Thanx for the support, but dont discourage Jonathon debate is good and we all learn.

Regards 

George


----------



## 88883 (May 10, 2005)

Hear, Hear, 

I agree, debate, argument and disagreement are very healthy, keep the brain stimulated, as long as it doesn't get personal.

Chris


----------



## 88883 (May 10, 2005)

Thanks

I love you as well

xxxxxx


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

GeorgeTelford said:


> Again you putting the police down as stupid, have you any evidence of campers being arrested, charged, or generally messed around? NO I dont think so


I am aware of a case where an HGV driver was stopped for the night in a layby, curtains closed etc etc. Obviously not going anywhere. The police attended the scene due to a complaint and the driver was detained and charged. He was found to be over the drink drive limit.

Please feel free to point out that a motorhome is not a goods vehicle. But the cab of an artic is used as living accommodation for the driver whilst away from base. The driver was tucked up for the night in his cab.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Jonathon

Quote

I am aware of a case where an HGV driver was stopped for the night in a layby, curtains closed etc etc. Obviously not going anywhere. The police attended the scene due to a complaint and the driver was detained and charged. He was found to be over the drink drive limit. 

Endquote

Could you make us aware of it? like ddp vs "name of defendant" or the case number, at the moment its more like hearsay ..........

All sounds very contrived, they attended due to a complaint? Snoring? 

Btw the cab of a vehicle is not classed as living accomodation at all, but as they say in Airplane "thats not important right now"............


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

> Btw the cab of a vehicle is not classed as living accomodation


Tell that to the truck drivers who spend most of the week away from home sleeping in the cab of their artic. :wink:

Sorry I can't quote the case number.


----------



## 88724 (May 9, 2005)

Hi Jonathon

Quote

"Sorry I can't quote the case number."

If I said I was surprised, I would be a lying son of a bitch, so I'd better not say it................

Any other clues? Where did you here about it? Pub? Policemans Ball? Masonic Lodge?

Rough Date? Location? anything?

We might have to direct the jury to ignore this as Hearsay


----------



## 88832 (May 9, 2005)

As a ex HGV driver, class 1(artics) for 18 years and spending many a night in my sleeper cab UK and Europe. I never had any problems with the police due to having a drink and sleeping in my cab, and some of the truck stops had licenced bars and live entertainment :lol: The police were/are aware of these places, the drivers are off duty and are using their trucks for living accommodation and common sense prevails, just as it does with motorcaravans. Stop trying to frighten people please, if you are obviously "NOT" intending to drive you are not breaking any laws, your vehicle is adapted to live in and you are having a drink in the living quarters! "My brother is a policeman" does not mean he is correct, they have been proved wrong on many occassions.


Crackpot.


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Hi George

Is it my imagination or are you getting a bit slow these days?

Take off your judges wig for a minute, put on your deerstalker and consider these clues as to the possible origins of said hearsay evidence:

Consider someone has a family member with a connection in law enforcement?
Consider said relative might sometimes be quoted as being a tad pedantic in his interpretation of the law?
Consider the driver in question was probably minding his own business, doing no harm (snoring in charge of a vehicle) but possibly TECHNICALLY in breach of DR40?
Consider where a "reasonable" copper might use some discretion - and a pedantic copper might not?

Do you have a suspect in your sights yet?

(Don't take offence Jonathan, just couldn't resist).

Keep up the good work fellas, I'm thoroughly enjoying the arguement (sorry - debate)!

By the way, my experience tells me that if you need to know anything about the law, the worst possible thing you can do is "ask a policeman". The job of the police is to apprehend suspected criminals, not to judge whether they are guilty or not (thank goodness).

Gaspode


----------



## 88765 (May 9, 2005)

A number of years ago we had to be witness for the police against a man who was seen staggering to his vehicle rotten drunk, he was arrested and and charged for intending to drive his vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
Think he got a short prison sentence, But it was a car and i think mh would be treated a little diffrently but i wouldnt chance it off a site!
(didnt want to go to court but were told we'd be charged for not turning up :x )


----------



## 89813 (May 1, 2005)

Again just my opinion. If you are parked up in a lay-by and you are in charge of a motorhome would it not be sensible for the driver to remain sober in case for some reason you have to move on. Example being threatened by yobs or being moved on by the police.


----------



## 93469 (May 1, 2005)

Back to the original post....

"what if I stop in a layby for the night and have a beer with my dinner! I`m in bed when plod knocks on van to check we are ok..."

New police scheme - safety checks for parked motorhomes :roll: (when did this start... thought they were to busy with speeders and paperwork )

Surely common sense has to work here?

If you are on private property there should be no issue. But if you are on the public highway for dinner and bed (????why :! why would you make a potentially illegal, trouble-inviting situation worse by intoxicating yourself? "A beer" might not put you over the limit - but why bother :?: My .02 - eliminate your concern (and enjoy your 'motorhoming experience' more) by not doing it.


----------



## 88808 (May 9, 2005)

GeorgeTelford said:


> Hi Jonathon
> 
> Quote
> 
> ...


 :lol: :lol:

No actually through the wonders of television, I managed to watch the whole thing on the telly.

The bottom line is this:

If you are found to be over the drink drive limit sleeping in a vehicle there is the potential for you to be arrested. Wether the police officer is being pedantic by applying the law, not for me to say?


----------



## 89813 (May 1, 2005)

arvy said:


> what if I stop in a layby for the night and have a beer with my dinner! I`m in bed when plod knocks on van to check we are ok smells the drink what would he do? I would never contemplate drinking and driving, but this concerns me.


It seems the only way to get to the truth on this is to try it! But I know I wouldn't!


----------



## Bazbro (May 9, 2005)

There is a big difference between 'arrest' and 'being convicted'.

If you are 'sailing close to the wind' by drinking while in charge of a motor vehicle, then you're trusting to the good sense of a Police Officer not to arrest you. While the vast majority of plod are decent, thoughtful people who have better things to do (trying to keep up with political diktats, etc) you could meet one of the 'one-per-centers' who would be only too happy to make an arrest. You then trust that the custody officer would see sense and release you, or failing that the CPS wouldn't pursue the matter. Your final recourse would be a plea of Not Guilty at Court to force Police evidence that you can then rebut.

It's really simple... if you're in charge of a m/vehicle, and you're in a public place, don't drink sufficiently to fail a breath test. Anything else is just trying to set up a defence to a potential arrest. You're unlikely to be arrested, but you may be.

Crackpot summed it up:


> The police were/are aware of these places, the drivers are off duty and are using their trucks for living accommodation and common sense prevails, just as it does with motorcaravans. Stop trying to frighten people please, if you are obviously "NOT" intending to drive you are not breaking any laws, your vehicle is adapted to live in and you are having a drink in the living quarters! "My brother is a policeman" does not mean he is correct, they have been proved wrong on many occassions.


Barry


----------



## BERTHA (May 21, 2005)

Before we start passing to much more judgement on the poor old police officer the law is the law and it is up to the police officer to judge whether your in breach or not.

But like life, nothing is ever black and white and therefore it is easy to mis-judge or complain about some action taken to enforce the law.

However, there is 2 things we must consider, 1) Policing and law in general is a reflection of the society we live in, therefore, society get the policing in deserves and 2) lets make sure that we help the poor old Police officer to make the right decisions for example; if stopping over on a public highway of any sort then make sure it is a place yo can park and stop overnight, make sure that you are not blocking other road users; make sure that if you have been drinking that you are not sitting in the drivers seat and that the keys for the MH are locked away in a cupboard.

Simple measures coupled with most police officers having more intelligence than I and a lot of other people I have met should mean that this whole subject with over 1000 viewers and 50+ comments is a complete waste of argument

J


----------



## 90172 (May 1, 2005)

a few years back when I was driving a taxi for a living i was on the rank at 6 30 am and a young lad came over from the police station where he had spent the night. he told me his story.
a row with the girlfriend and she had thrown him out. knowing he was over the limit he slept in the car. unfortunately it was parked in the road and he was rudely awakened by mr copper at 3 ish and breathalised. being over the limit he was arrested and taken to the station and went through the rest of the stuff. I saw him some time later and he told me a large fine and a ban was imposed.
no case number but then again I have no reason to disbelieve him.
the keys were in his pocket not the ignition and he had no intention of driving. but I do believe he was arrested and done.
this was mid 80's may be it has changed but it is a risk I don't take
roi


----------



## Bazbro (May 9, 2005)

I made the mistake of applying what I knew from the mid-80s to today's circumstances, and was disabused of my opinion by Andysam, who found, and quoted from, a recent Stated Case. Stated Cases have altered the law to a more sensible, kinder interpretation.

It still doesn't alter the fact that a Police Officer may be firmly of the opinion that you are about to drive, and may oblige you to give a positive breath test. From that point on you then have to fight your case, even if you're certain you will eventually win. Who wants all that hassle?

Be off a road before you drink enough to fail a breath test.

Barry


----------

