Drink drivers face car crushing

Derek · 07-12-2009, 09:23

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...6908-21878719/

Quote:

BOOZED-UP drivers could have their cars crushed or sold by the courts in a major festive blitz.

Deterrent or going too far?

It will only be used where they have a previous conviction or pending case for drink driving so they can't use the excuse of it being a one-off error in judgement.

Russ · 07-12-2009, 09:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

It will only be used where they have a previous conviction or pending case for drink driving so they can't use the excuse of it being a one-off error in judgement.

On that basis I agree, although "one-off errors of judgement" can still lead to death.

Derek · 07-12-2009, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

On that basis I agree, although "one-off errors of judgement" can still lead to death.

Yep which is why in comparison to other crimes the sentencing for drink/drug driving is so harsh.

Mandatory 12 month ban + fine. No soft-touches, probation or second chances there.

Russ · 07-12-2009, 09:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Yep which is why in comparison to other crimes the sentencing for drink/drug driving is so harsh.

Mandatory 12 month ban + fine. No soft-touches, probation or second chances there.

But haven't there been cases where someone has moved their car forward a few feet so they're not blocking someone and they've been done for that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm against drink driving as it's totally irresponsible but shouldn't there be slight scope for discretion in cases like that?

07-12-2009, 09:36

how many drink drivers plead not guilty?

I do think its a good idea myself but I think repeat offenders should perhaps lose their car without provision though.

Derek · 07-12-2009, 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

But haven't there been cases where someone has moved their car forward a few feet so they're not blocking someone and they've been done for that?

There has been, and also times when they aren't in the car but still deemed to be in charge.

Not everyone gets charged in situations like that and there still can be exemptions. I know of one person who got 11 penalty points instead of a ban.

Russ · 07-12-2009, 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

There has been, and also times when they aren't in the car but still deemed to be in charge.

Not everyone gets charged in situations like that and there still can be exemptions. I know of one person who got 11 penalty points instead of a ban.

Ah right so there have been times when the police/CPS have not gone ahead with a prosecution? That's good I suppose but the reasons for it must be very stringent. Excuses such as "I felt fine" or "I only drove to the end of the street" or even "there was no-one else to drive the car" should never be accepted.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 ----------

edit: hang on, not in the car but still be deemed in charge of it? How does that work?

Derek · 07-12-2009, 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by zing

how many drink drivers plead not guilty?

Most of them, till they get to court and realise the Police haven't made a mess of the paperwork and they are going to get banned. They then change their pleas to guilty and get the discount on sentencing for doing so.

---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

Ah right so there have been times when the police/CPS have not gone ahead with a prosecution? That's good I suppose but the reasons for it must be very stringent.

Without getting too much into it there are still some times discretion is used. It is pretty rare, Drink driving is one of the things most cops go out of their way to do someone for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

edit: hang on, not in the car but still be deemed in charge of it? How does that work?

You can be 'in charge' of a vehicle in a variety of ways. Say you are a cop on patrol in an isolated area and see a car parked up. You speak to the driver and he's stinking of drink but there is nothing in the car and no-one has seen him drive there.

You can't do him with drink driving so he is done with being drunk in charge.

Its also used for cases when someone is about to get in a car after leaving a pub, if they drive off and hit someone or get involved in a pursuit everyone would be lining up to have a go at the Police for letting them drive so when they get into the car with keys in hand they get lifted.

Russ · 07-12-2009, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Without getting too much into it there are still some times discretion is used. It is pretty rare, Drink driving is one of the things most cops go out of their way to do someone for.

Wouldn't expect you to have given much away but if you guys go the extra mile for drink-drivers then good on you

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

You can be 'in charge' of a vehicle in a variety of ways. Say you are a cop on patrol in an isolated area and see a car parked up. You speak to the driver and he's stinking of drink but there is nothing in the car and no-one has seen him drive there.

You can't do him with drink driving so he is done with being drunk in charge.

Its also used for cases when someone is about to get in a car after leaving a pub, if they drive off and hit someone or get involved in a pursuit everyone would be lining up to have a go at the Police for letting them drive so when they get into the car with keys in hand they get lifted.

Common sense then

Assuming the law with this is the same north of the border, say I've had a drink and am probably over the limit. I walk back to my car but I intend to sleep in there and not actually drive it. On another assumption that by the time I wake up I'm under the limit - what then? Would I get arrested for simply staggering back to my car with keys in hand?

Derek · 07-12-2009, 10:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

Would I get arrested for simply staggering back to my car with keys in hand?

Probably unless you can prove you were not intending to drive.

SMG · 07-12-2009, 12:52

I would agree that habitual drink drivers should have the car seized & crushed. One off offence, no.

I would also go as far as to say that any habitual offender, tax, insurance, MoT, the car should be crushed.

We need to get tough on these people. They have no thought for others, & they do not care what laws they break.

07-12-2009, 13:46

the way i see it is if someone can have their car crushed for unpaid road tax or no insurance,which does happen and the law considers a lesser crime than drink driving then why not crush the car ,i do accept that their might be reasons not to crush the car ,if for example the car is used by other members of the family

Gary L · 07-12-2009, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Probably unless you can prove you were not intending to drive.

Which would really be impossible to do and be accepted if you have the keys on you. if you were to say I was just going to sleep in it hofficer till the morning. you would still be in charge of the vehicle if you had the keys.

Taf · 07-12-2009, 14:31

There will be a lot of pedestrian Polish men then.....

Derek · 07-12-2009, 14:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

Which would really be impossible to do and be accepted if you have the keys on you. if you were to say I was just going to sleep in it hofficer till the morning. you would still be in charge of the vehicle if you had the keys.

Its tough to prove but not impossible. I've seen someone get off on a drunk in charge prosecution after giving a laughable explanation that was accepted by the Sheriff.