Cycling UK Forum

Bonefishblues wrote:Good lord...

https://twitter.com/dorsetpolice/status ... 1512220672

EDIT. N.B. This isn't a thread that I started, despite this apparently being the first post. It was split off by the mods from another thread. I don't mind, but I wouldn't like others to think I started a thread just to crow about helping to get a drunk driver convicted. END EDIT.

Fast, for a drunken driver.

In the past, when I used to do a lot of driving late on weekend nights, I assumed that one sign of a drunk driver was very slow driving. On several occasions I'd call it in to the police, and follow the car, if asked, till they arrived.

I don't know what my total count for getting drunk drivers prosecuted was, but at least one, as I had to give a statement to get that one up from "drunk in charge" (when the police saw him) to "drunken driving" (when I did). He was driving slowly and wandering. Mind, that wasn't at night, it was at 12:00 on a weekday lunchtime. Pillock.

Local to me - does seem lenient as a young lady was killed by a disqualified driver but at least there is a custodial sentence

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55361818#:~:text=An%20unlicensed%20and%20uninsured%20lorry,in%20Derby%20on%2021%20January.&text=Wyatt%20was%20sentenced%20to%20three%20years%20and%20nine%20months%20in%20prison.

I'm astonished that the legal process allows offenders such as this to ever be allowed to drive again.

fastpedaller wrote:I'm astonished that the legal process allows offenders such as this to ever be allowed to drive again.

Usually I'd disagree with that as time served etc,etc.but

In addition to his sentence, the 65-year-old was disqualified from driving for five years and four months and will have to take an extended test before he can drive again.

As he had his licence revoked due to bad eyesight/diabetes will this 'extended' test allow him back behind the wheel of a car or include HGVs?
There's an HGV firm local to us and the majority of their drivers are 65+ and a couple are pushing 80.Total madness to allow anyone that old take charge of a 40T+ vehicle!

Ride-sleep-repeat wrote:As he had his licence revoked due to bad eyesight/diabetes will this 'extended' test allow him back behind the wheel of a car or include HGVs?
There's an HGV firm local to us and the majority of their drivers are 65+ and a couple are pushing 80.Total madness to allow anyone that old take charge of a 40T+ vehicle!

It's usual that the sight loss due to diabetes cannot be regained. A friend of ours suffered from this and with the latest techniques the medics have been able to help her a little - she was at the stage where she was unable to use escalators in shops, and she's now a lot better, but certainly will never be able to drive again, which she'd given up several years ago. I hope they test this guys eyes properly, and preferably don't allow him to drive again - and check that he isn't driving!

mikeymo wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:Good lord...

https://twitter.com/dorsetpolice/status ... 1512220672

Fast, for a drunken driver.

In the past, when I used to do a lot of driving late on weekend nights, I assumed that one sign of a drunk driver was very slow driving. On several occasions I'd call it in to the police, and follow the car, if asked, till they arrived.

I don't know what my total count for getting drunk drivers prosecuted was, but at least one, as I had to give a statement to get that one up from "drunk in charge" (when the police saw him) to "drunken driving" (when I did). He was driving slowly and wandering. Mind, that wasn't at night, it was at 12:00 on a weekday lunchtime. Pillock.

At the risk of taking this completely off-topic, I don't think that there's any typical speed for people driving over the drink/drive limit, although there may be a tendency to slowth (?) with increasing intoxication.

I once had a case in what I take to be your neck-of-the-woods when I was a patrol sergeant at Chapeltown which dates it to 1977/78. If it's not before your time it may be one to add to your tally.

I was driving up Harrogate Road when I was flashed down by somebody driving the other way. He told me there was a drunk driving an 1800 very slowly further up the road. A couple of minutes start can make somebody walking hard to catch so I set off in "pursuit," looking for what I took to be an Issigonis Maxi. A bit further along - near what used to be the Joker pub - I saw a car being driven very slowly, but it was one of those wedge-shaped monstrosities -an Austin Princess. (?) Keeping an open mind before the phrase was popularised, I tucked in behind my man and signalled (blue light and flashing headlights) to stop. We then had a bit of pantomime driving round side streets at walking speed. After a few minutes of that he stopped and fell out of the car. He was so drunk that he still thought he was in his own car in the back of mine and he kept querying why he hadn't cleaned the windows properly.

When I went round to check his name and address etc it turned out that he was a window cleaner and his wife explained she had told him earlier that she had terminal cancer. She had died before the case came to court. In those days, we always attended court in cases punishable with imprisonment to give antecedents. He was unrepresented and I was mitigating on his behalf. There's so often an an explanation, although not a defence.

thirdcrank wrote:

mikeymo wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:Good lord...

https://twitter.com/dorsetpolice/status ... 1512220672

Fast, for a drunken driver.

In the past, when I used to do a lot of driving late on weekend nights, I assumed that one sign of a drunk driver was very slow driving. On several occasions I'd call it in to the police, and follow the car, if asked, till they arrived.

I don't know what my total count for getting drunk drivers prosecuted was, but at least one, as I had to give a statement to get that one up from "drunk in charge" (when the police saw him) to "drunken driving" (when I did). He was driving slowly and wandering. Mind, that wasn't at night, it was at 12:00 on a weekday lunchtime. Pillock.

At the risk of taking this completely off-topic, I don't think that there's any typical speed for people driving over the drink/drive limit, although there may be a tendency to slowth (?) with increasing intoxication.

I once had a case in what I take to be your neck-of-the-woods when I was a patrol sergeant at Chapeltown which dates it to 1977/78. If it's not before your time it may be one to add to your tally.

I was driving up Harrogate Road when I was flashed down by somebody driving the other way. He told me there was a drunk driving an 1800 very slowly further up the road. A couple of minutes start can make somebody walking hard to catch so I set off in "pursuit," looking for what I took to be an Issigonis Maxi. A bit further along - near what used to be the Joker pub - I saw a car being driven very slowly, but it was one of those wedge-shaped monstrosities -an Austin Princess. (?) Keeping an open mind before the phrase was popularised, I tucked in behind my man and signalled (blue light and flashing headlights) to stop. We then had a bit of pantomime driving round side streets at walking speed. After a few minutes of that he stopped and fell out of the car. He was so drunk that he still thought he was in his own car in the back of mine and he kept querying why he hadn't cleaned the windows properly.

When I went round to check his name and address etc it turned out that he was a window cleaner and his wife explained she had told him earlier that she had terminal cancer. She had died before the case came to court. In those days, we always attended court in cases punishable with imprisonment to give antecedents. He was unrepresented and I was mitigating on his behalf. There's so often an an explanation, although not a defence.

When the officer came round to take the statement for "mine" I asked - "this isn't his first time, is it?". She said - "no, it's not". So no defence there, and hopefully a harsher sentence.

For anybody who's missed the point, "driving or attempting to drive" in this connection has a max of 6 mos impt+ mandatory disqualification, where for "in charge" it's only 3 mos + discretionary disqualification.

Beyond that, with driving or attempting, the defences are narrow. For in charge, it's a defence to prove there was no likelihood they would drive until they were no longer over the limit/ driving was impaired. Going back to Barbara Castle, this was said to intended to encourage people to sleep it off, rather than think they had nothing to lose by driving. Whatever the intention, the result has been a coach and horses sized loophole in the law ever since.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/5

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2

thirdcrank wrote:For anybody who's missed the point, "driving or attempting to drive" in this connection has a max of 6 mos impt+ mandatory disqualification, where for "in charge" it's only 3 mos + discretionary disqualification.

Beyond that, with driving or attempting, the defences are narrow. For in charge, it's a defence to prove there was no likelihood they would drive until they were no longer over the limit/ driving was impaired. Going back to Barbara Castle, this was said to intended to encourage people to sleep it off, rather than think they had nothing to lose by driving. Whatever the intention, the result has been a coach and horses sized loophole in the law ever since.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/5

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2

(Or "Babs" as we called her.)

The chap I followed had just pulled round a corner into some garages when the police car arrived. They were probably 10 seconds too late. That's why they needed a statement from me.

Topic split - by request

Thanks to Graham. I thought this offshoot was important in itself but it was getting away from r2's intention when he started the thread nearly a decade ago.

First, my applause to mikeymo for being prepared to "get involved." A lot of people who a critical of different aspects of enforcement forget to mention that they weren't prepared to do give evidence.

Obviously, somebody can only be convicted on the evidence so if nobody is prepared to testify that they saw somebody driving, then in the absence of any other compelling evidence, that's the end of that.

In mikeymo's case, the driver might also have had the defence of being unlikely to drive, when the police found them "in charge."

It's worth remembering that attitudes to drink/driving have changed fundamentally since the passing of the Road Safety Act 1967. In those days, even many professional people thought it was ok and drivers who would otherwise have been fined for being "drunk and incapable" were acquitted of drunken driving on the flimsiest of defences.

The local training here in Leeds suggested that the reason for the defence to the "in charge" offence was so that if somebody tumbled out of a pub into their car, then this defence would encourage them to sleep it off in their car, rather than drive home. IMO, one obvious flaw in that line is that if they were well over the limit leaving the pub, there was no guarantee or likelihood they would be below the limit by the time they decided to drive after only a few hours in their car.

Anyway, I've no access to Hansard or the like but I think some of this is based on the concept of "in charge" meaning "being responsible for," dating back to the days of horse-drawn transport: the coachman didn't absolve himself of that responsibility just by walking away from the gee-gees. In the 1960s there was still a view in many quarters that a driver was responsible for their car parked on a road all the time it was there. I fancy that the legislators were wary of situation where somebody who really had no intention of driving and who had been at the sherbet at home, might get a police visit on a separate matter but the conversation would turn to "Is that car on the road yours, Sir? If so blow in this."

mikeymo wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:Good lord...

https://twitter.com/dorsetpolice/status ... 1512220672

Fast, for a drunken driver.

In the past, when I used to do a lot of driving late on weekend nights, I assumed that one sign of a drunk driver was very slow driving. On several occasions I'd call it in to the police, and follow the car, if asked, till they arrived.

I don't know what my total count for getting drunk drivers prosecuted was, but at least one, as I had to give a statement to get that one up from "drunk in charge" (when the police saw him) to "drunken driving" (when I did). He was driving slowly and wandering. Mind, that wasn't at night, it was at 12:00 on a weekday lunchtime. Pillock.

The first reply is gobsmacking - criticising the road layout......