[98selitb]

With it being the office-party season and with a similar thread about using a hand-held device while stationary, I thought I'd ask this, which I've been thinking about for a while and meaning to ask about.

If you are found sleeping drunk in your car, even with the engine switched off, you may be prosecuted for being "in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle [when] unfit to do so through drink or drugs", pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Although there is a defence immediately below (stating that you're not guilty if there is no likelihood of you driving it while still in such state), I have found countless UK press articles and court texts about people being successfully prosecuted for this.

Penalty upon prosecution (DR50) is a mandatory 10 points on your licence, plus an possible jail sentence and/or 12-month driving ban.

Compare this punishment with CD40/50 - causing death by careless driving when unfit through drink/drugs, where the minimum sanction is only 3 points and the maximum 11 points, only 1 point more than the above!

Think about it - you go out, have some drinks, and realise you're unfit to drive home and don't have a reasonable alternative, except a taxi fare which could reach three figures. You could either (a) drive home regardless, risking your and other people's lives, or (b) sleep it off in your car where you left it. To me, not only is it silly that this is a crime, but it is punishing people who should be commended for taking the only sensible decision and not being tempted to drive while unfit to do so.

Also it seems ludicrous that the penalty code for actual drink driving is the same as the one for people found asleep in their car as they are fully aware that they can't drive it.

---

By the way I don't care about the "well you should have thought about it beforehand" moral high-ground brigade, we are all human beings and make mistakes. You can't change the past and once in that situation, you still have a choice whether or not to drive when unfit to do so, and I don't understand why making the sensible choice can get you in just as much trouble as making the bad choice.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

Compare this punishment with CD40/50 - causing death by careless driving when unfit through drink/drugs, where the minimum sanction is only 3 points and the maximum 11 points, only 1 point more than the above!

Eh?

According to my copy of the Highway Code, causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink/drugs means:

- Obligatory 2 years disqualification
- Unlimited fine
- Possible 14 years imprisonment

with points only in exceptional cases where a ban is not ordered. In all cases, an extended retest is also required.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by 98selitb

........By the way I don't care about the "well you should have thought about it beforehand" moral high-ground brigade, we are all human beings and make mistakes. You can't change the past and once in that situation, you still have a choice whether or not to drive when unfit to do so, and I don't understand why making the sensible choice can get you in just as much trouble as making the bad choice.

This last sentence bothers me. The short answer is that you should care. Once you drive to a venue in your car, you are already fully aware that you are under a legal obligation not to exceed the alcohol limit if you intend to drive again afterwards.
Regarding "sleeping it off in the car", I personally do not see a problem with that, providing that the car keys have been handed over to a responsible person for safe keeping. If you still have the keys, there is no certainty that you may later decide to drive whilst still under the influence of alcohol. Do not criticise the police for taking precautionary steps - their priority is the safety of the public at large, and not whether or not you might be inconvenienced.
My old dad had a saying, "Drink in - wits out".

[98selitb]

Apologises, my mistake Beelzebub. I got that from https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-en...penalty-points but that only mentions the codes and not the other consequences e.g. prison sentence.

Although that was a bit of a side-point from my argument/question as to why it is illegal to sleep in your car after a night out, when this is safer than driving it home.

[98selitb]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Do not criticise the police for taking precautionary steps - their priority is the safety of the public at large, and not whether or not you might be inconvenienced.

The point is, someone choosing to sleep it off in their car has shown that they have no intention of driving. They have realised that they have gone over the limit and are fully aware that they would be committing an extremely dangerous and illegal act to drive off. So they opt for the option of not doing this. Yes they shouldn't have got drunk in the first place but what's done is done, and when this happens you shouldn't be punished for taking the safe option and not driving.

---

My point about the unhelpful retrospective lecturing is that this forum is littered with inappropriate, patronising and pointless responses to people's dilemmas re. speeding tickets, mistakes, accidents, etc. When someone mentions a situation they have got into - perhaps of their own making - and are seeking advice to proceed, they are looking for just that - advice - not judgement or telling off like a naughty child.

[Snowball]

If you make statements that go against all the laws and common sense to driving, do not be surprised to get rebuffs. In the case of a drunk sleeping it off in a car, be practical. There is absolutely no guarantee that he will not try to drive when he wakes up still under the influence - the law has to foresee that possibility. A drunk driver will be fuddled and not thinking straight.
As I said, if he has left his car keys with a responsible person (or more likely that the keys have been taken from him), then it might be a different matter. But whose to decide?
Over the festive season we will be attending several family get-togethers. It will be either staying over or taking taxis. The sensible thing is to plan ahead for what you will be doing.

[Beelzebub]

The problem with sleeping it off comes when the (alleged) drunk decides he is now safe to driv, probably wrongly.

Every year a huge number of people are convicted of drunk driving on the "morning after", even when they've had a night's sleep at home and a full English breakfast.

[Snowball]

I sometimes wonder how much alcohol has been consumed to be over the limit the next day. In 2009, whilst on holiday, I had been drinking wine on the Saturday night, then early afternoon on the Sunday a hit-and-run driver slammed into me. I was breathalysed and the reading was zero.

[Santa]

The cops would have to demonstrate that there was a possibility/probability that you would drive whilst still drunk. They really don't like these hazy areas so will normally wait until the drunk person stumbling out of the pub door has actually started their engine. When you woke up in the morning, highly likely to be still over the limit, it would be no surprise to be pulled over by the first cop who spotted you.

Consider the driver of a camper van, who has a glass or two of wine before bed time; or the truck driver who has a couple of cans of lager before sleeping in his cab. They can both argue that they had no intention of driving so had not committed any offence.

[98selitb]

Originally Posted by Santa

Consider the driver of a camper van, who has a glass or two of wine before bed time; or the truck driver who has a couple of cans of lager before sleeping in his cab. They can both argue that they had no intention of driving so had not committed any offence.

Indeed, and so they should be perfectly allowed to do that and not drive afterwards. I just wonder how, and how often, the prosecution claim that there was likelihood/intention to drive off later, when there really wasn't. Would be interesting to know how many people are successfully acquitted using this clause.

[Santa]

Of course, if you were asleep in the driver's seat with the engine running to keep warm, you might have some difficulty convincing a magistrate.

[Spannerdemon]

By the way I don't care about the "well you should have thought about it beforehand" moral high-ground brigade, we are all human beings and make mistakes. You can't change the past.

No my friend..... But you can change the future.

I agree with Snowball. You SHOULD care. It's not a case of pontificating about your question, OR of taking any moral high ground. It's public safety that the police are concerned about.

Let me ask you this. For £50 you could go and book a B&B to sleep in after your binge. Safe and at no risk to anyone. Breakfast thrown in ( or even thrown up if you're that ******).

OR.. Take the risk, get caught sleeping in your car by an unsympathetic police crew, and you could.
1.Lose your licence
2. Lose your job as a result AND your income followed by the loss of your ability to pay your mortgage.
3. Go to prison
4. Get a Criminal Record
5. Have to pay MASSIVE fines and insurance costs.
6. End up in a cell or custody suite.
7. Feel like a complete ***************knowing the above.

And that's before you find out that these days, most decent drivers, including my wife and I, have ZERO tolerance to drink driving. I would report ANY driver I saw in that condition without a moments hesitation. Or any driver sleeping it off in a car.

You see.... You just might KILL somebody.
Somebody YOU love. YOUR FAMILY even.
OR WORSE...... MY family.

GET A CAB HOME. OR A B&B

It's NOT HOLIER THAN THOU to be a responsible driver.... Now is it?

Happy Christmas.

[Santa]

No one here is saying it's a good idea. We are discussing the legality, not the morality.

[alan1302]

Originally Posted by Spannerdemon

For £50 you could go and book a B&B to sleep in after your binge. Safe and at no risk to anyone. Breakfast thrown in ( or even thrown up if you're that ******)

But if you are just in your car and not driving what risk is there? You are just using your as a place to sleep.

[Spannerdemon]

Not commenting on the morality Santa.

Commenting on the consequences.
Most people 'get it'. Sadly, this guy doesn't.

[smudger]

When I was working up North one of the NDT blokes got drunk, at the firms Christmas party, and went to get his head down in one of the company vans........ .......... ........Plod came along woke him up, and charged him being drunk in charge of a vehicle, after he breathalised him. ............. ............He never had the keys of the van on him, and when it went to court, he was let off, becuse the fiscal couldnt charge him as he never had the keys to the van in his person?....... ................Plod was not happy about that, and stopped that same van several times over the next few weeks.

[Snowball]

The police have to consider all possibilities. Suppose they found a driver under the influence and sleeping it off in his car, and decided to leave him to it. Then later he awakes and, although still under the influence, drives off and kills someone. Imagine the public fury if it got out what had happened, and the position that police officer(s) would be in. Had they ensured he did not have the vehicle keys it might not be so bad, but they still have the risk that he has another set hidden away in the vehicle. In the interests of public safety, a police officer has no choice but to play it straight down the line.

[Santa]

Is that actually English?

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Santa

Is that actually English?

Acceptable if he's still sleeping it off, Santa!

[Snowball]

I did see a recent "Police Interceptors" programme on TV, where a drunk driver had thrown away his keys before being apprehended, and the police had to do a search and find the keys before they could charge him with the offence of drink driving.
This suggests to me that if the driver handed his keys to a third party for safekeeping, and then slept it off in his car until certain of being sober, an offence would not have been committed.

[ficklejade]

I got a warning a short while back! I was stranded (ferry broke down) and there was nowhere to stay in the wee ferry port, but the local hostelry said I could use their facilities overnight and I parked in their car park and dossed down after an excellent meal and yes, a couple of glasses of wine, in my sleeping bag in their car park with alarm set for 6.i5am so to get first ferry as we got the news that the ferry would run next morning. Unfortunately, the local polis was away and the replacement was not quite so familiar with the "normal" in such circumstances and it took a fair load of explanations to sort it out! There was no intention to drive but lesson noted by self and hostelry for latter to hold keys in such circumstances in future!

You can also be rudely awakened early afternoon from a nap. This happened to me again last year when, having left really early for a journey that I knew was going to be a trial (bear in mind, I am time limited by ferries) with roadworks and a detour because of a landslide, I was tired and needed a kip. I pulled over in a roadside cafe, picked up a sandwich and then set the alarm on my phone and closed my eyes. The cafe sold alcohol and someone (not the establishment but a customer) decided to interpret my fatigue ( a lot of yawning) as being drunk. It happened to be a Sunday and the road is very popular with bikers so lots of polis about. Negative breath test and my receipt that proved I'd not bought alcohol saved the day but not money. I had (and was lucky to do so) to get on an alternative ferry at considerably more expense. I still needed a kip because I was tired.

I totally agree with not drinking and driving but I object to being deemed guilty on a stranger's say so when parked on private property and, whilst innocent of what I was accused of, being put out of pocket.

[Snowball]

FJ, I think the police were totally out of order to challenge you on a private car park, unless the owners had complained of your presence. People DO take naps in their cars (M-way signs advise, "Tiredness can kill - take a break") for goodness sake, and it isn't an automatic reason for the police to assume a possible offence if the vehicle is parked safely off the public highway. Your situation was no different to that of parking and napping on a M-way service station. You do seem to have some right plods up your way!

[23dft]

Surely a police constable needs more than a yawning person in a car park to demand a breath test? Unless the customer who reported you embellished the story (say, she told the police that she'd seen you drinking).

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by Snowball

FJ, I think the police were totally out of order to challenge you on a private car park, unless the owners had complained of your presence. People DO take naps in their cars (M-way signs advise, "Tiredness can kill - take a break") for goodness sake, and it isn't an automatic reason for the police to assume a possible offence if the vehicle is parked safely off the public highway. Your situation was no different to that of parking and napping on a M-way service station. You do seem to have some right plods up your way!

On the contrary, the officer appears to have been well within his rights. The law applies in any public place (which usually includes car parks which are not physically barred) and only requires reasonable suspicion.

I'd suggest that finding someone asleep in a pub car park constitutes reasonable suspicion. It's surely much better for the occasional innocent person to suffer a bit of inconvenience than to risk letting a drunk driver onto the road.