Drink drivers face car crushing - Page 3

Arthurgray50@blu · 07-12-2009, 22:48

I don't give a damn what anyone thinks, if you are drunk and YOU know you are and you get into a car, you deserve everything a court can throw at you, l have no sympathy for them if they get killed, l feel sorry for the people that get hurt in the process of the drunk driver.

We always hear of the do gooders who think they should get fined or banned from driving, IF you drive, you get the licence taken away for LIFE and you go to prison full stop. You sometimes you read where the person has been done before for the same offence, well if you take the licence away from the first time, they won't do it again.

Derek · 07-12-2009, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Whose onus is it to prove intent?

Intent doesn't come into it. It's not like differentiating between murder/manslaughter.

Being drunk in charge of a vehicle is a crime. All the prosecution have to prove is

A: You were drunk
B: You were in charge of a vehicle

If you can persuade the Magistrate/Sheriff you were not intending to drive they can clear you of it but the prosecution don't have to prove you were planning to drive.

Virtually all traffic offences are the same, the Police don't have to prove you were knowingly driving with a light out but can still do you for it.

Peter_ · 08-12-2009, 06:30

I think that if you caught by the Police under the influence of Drink or Drugs then your car should be crushed as you have absolutely no excuse as to why this should not happen.

I also believe that you cannot use the excuse that another member of the family relies on that car for other reasons as that is the responsibility of the driver and if you allowed this card to be played then most people would use it, and what then is the to stop the person who was drunk from getting back into that car.

I also think that the same should apply to mobile phone use as the present system does nothing to stop people using them while driving, but if your car was to be crushed you may think again.

blackthorn · 08-12-2009, 07:28

This drunk in charge scenario is very interesting. If someone could answer my query it would be great.
I am a once a year drinker ( I dont know why I bother at all really) and Sunday last was my once a year drink.
It was the works staff party and I was working all day Sunday, I arrive home at 6pm and because I knew I was going to have a drink I arrange for my daughter to take me in her car. She`s picking me up at 7 so a quick shower and change.
I pick up my keys and off I go. Now my house keys are on my car keys, so where do I stand when I arrived back at 12ish walking back btw and walking past my car parked on the road outside my house up to my front door.

**Chris** · 08-12-2009, 09:00

I would imagine you would be standing at a funny angle, if at all.

Seriously though, this clearly isn't the same as you coming out of a pub with your car keys and 'walking past' your car in the pub car park. If your car has been home all night and you have been out, you're hardly likely to be judged 'in charge of' the car just because you have to walk past it to get up your garden path.

danielf · 08-12-2009, 10:42

It still is a strange offence though. It does mean it would be ill-adviced to get something from your car when you're drunk and have no intention of driving it.

Welshchris · 08-12-2009, 10:59

What about Motocyclists? I know a family who had their 7 year old daughter killed by a drunk motocyclist. These should also be covered.

---------- Post added at 10:59 ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moldova

I think that if you caught by the Police under the influence of Drink or Drugs then your car should be crushed as you have absolutely no excuse as to why this should not happen.

I also believe that you cannot use the excuse that another member of the family relies on that car for other reasons as that is the responsibility of the driver and if you allowed this card to be played then most people would use it, and what then is the to stop the person who was drunk from getting back into that car.

I also think that the same should apply to mobile phone use as the present system does nothing to stop people using them while driving, but if your car was to be crushed you may think again.

I disagree with the part about if another member of the family uses it.
What if its a motobility car and the person that was driving wasnt their car and had taken it without the owners consent?

superbiatch · 08-12-2009, 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

It still is a strange offence though. It does mean it would be ill-adviced to get something from your car when you're drunk and have no intention of driving it.

The guy who I mentioned earlier on had the keys in his pocket and the engine was warm which was how the policeman arrested him, and then he admitted driving. I suppose it was a no-brainer really. But i have to say I didn't think he could be 'done' when he wasn't in the car, until this thread of course.

danielf · 08-12-2009, 11:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbiatch

The guy who I mentioned earlier on had the keys in his pocket and the engine was warm which was how the policeman arrested him, and then he admitted driving. I suppose it was a no-brainer really. But i have to say I didn't think he could be 'done' when he wasn't in the car, until this thread of course.

But that's different. The car had clearly been driven, and the owner was in possession of the keys and drunk, so it's highly likely that an offence has taken place(of course they still have to prove it was him that drove the car). That's rather different from me getting something from the glove compartment whilst drunk, and then having to prove I didn't intend to drive the car. Even if I walk to my car in the pub car park, I could just be walking there to get my laptop before I hop into a cab home. It just seems strange to me that the onus is on the driver to prove he/she didn't intend to drive.

**Chris** · 08-12-2009, 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

But that's different. The car had clearly been driven, and the owner was in possession of the keys and drunk, so it's highly likely that an offence has taken place(of course they still have to prove it was him that drove the car).

But they don't have to prove the car was driven - that's what the offence of 'drunk in charge' is for. If they can prove that it was driven by him, then of course they could go for the full-blown drink driving ticket.

Quote:

It just seems strange to me that the onus is on the driver to prove he/she didn't intend to drive.

In court, it would still be for the prosecution to make a case, beyond reasonable doubt, that the man was 'in charge' of the car. They can't just get up in front of the judge and say 'he done it m'lud, and the Crown rests'. The burden of proof hasn't been turned on its head. But if the prosecution can do that, at that point the onus is on the defence to prove mitigating circumstances sufficient to avoid a guilty verdict.

danielf · 08-12-2009, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

But they don't have to prove the car was driven - that's what the offence of 'drunk in charge' is for. If they can prove that it was driven by him, then of course they could go for the full-blown drink driving ticket.

In the example above, there was witness testimony that the car had been driven. What wasn't (very) clear was if the car owner who was drunk was the one doing the driving.

Quote:

In court, it would still be for the prosecution to make a case, beyond reasonable doubt, that the man was 'in charge' of the car. They can't just get up in front of the judge and say 'he done it m'lud, and the Crown rests'. The burden of proof hasn't been turned on its head. But if the prosecution can do that, at that point the onus is on the defence to prove mitigating circumstances sufficient to avoid a guilty verdict.

That's not exactly what I read in Derek's posts:

Quote:

If you can persuade the Magistrate/Sheriff you were not intending to drive they can clear you of it but the prosecution don't have to prove you were planning to drive.

Quote:

In your example if you were in the house with your car keys in your pocket then its a jump to assume you'd be charged. If you were walking down the street towards the car with the keys in your hand then it's likely you'd be having a quick trip to the station.

I completely accept that a person found drunk behind the wheel of a car in the middle of nowhere can be deemed to have the intention of driving the car (even disregarding how he got there). But it seems to me that walking towards your car with the keys in hand is an altogether different case. There are a multitude of reasons why someone would want to get into the car without intending to drive it, so it would seem to me that the prosecution would have a rather weak case.

Arthurgray50@blu · 08-12-2009, 14:36

Put it this way, WHATEVER vehicle you drive, wether it is a car, van,lorry, pushbike (yes) or mobility vehicle, if you are under the influence of booze, and have keys for that vehicle or you are riding a bike, that is a killing machine. and you can do some damage with.

And the the 'keys' but, IF you are seen with keys trying to get ionto the vehicle or just sitting in the vehicle, that is it.
Year after year we hear that people are being killed or maimed by some stupid birk, who thinks he can get away with it, tough, if you drive whilst drunk that is it.

Flyboy · 08-12-2009, 17:41

No one is disputing that. The issue is, why should the burden of proof be on the accused, rather than the prosecution. If I have had a few drinks and walk to my car boot to get my coat, before I get into the taxi, or even to walk home, it is grossly unfair for me to be charged and prosecuted for being drunk in charge, when I had no intention whatsoever to get in to the driver's seat and drive away.

Peter_ · 08-12-2009, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welshchris

I disagree with the part about if another member of the family uses it.

Why not because I think the loss of the vehicle would bring home the enormity of the offence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welshchris

What if its a motobility car and the person that was driving wasnt their car and had taken it without the owners consent?

Then they would be done for theft of a motor vehicle as well.

Hom3r · 08-12-2009, 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Put it this way, WHATEVER vehicle you drive, wether it is a car, van,lorry, pushbike (yes) or mobility vehicle, if you are under the influence of booze, and have keys for that vehicle or you are riding a bike, that is a killing machine. and you can do some damage with.

And the the 'keys' but, IF you are seen with keys trying to get ionto the vehicle or just sitting in the vehicle, that is it.
Year after year we hear that people are being killed or maimed by some stupid birk, who thinks he can get away with it, tough, if you drive whilst drunk that is it.

I sorry but you talking carp.

If I go to a party to a place in the sticks and I am over the limit and unable to drive.

I have arranged for somebody to give me a lift home but they gone home and forgot me.

I'm standing by my car and its absoloutely chucking down, theres no one about and I cannot get a phone signal and it way to far to walk, I have three options:

1. Risk driving home (which I would never do.)

2. sleep on the back seat in the dry. (which according to you, I should have the book thrown at me.)

3. try and sleep on the floor in the heavy rain and risk drowning in the puddles.