Intoxicated in charge of a vehicle

Peregrinus

marieholmfan wrote: »

If I have a blow up bed and blankets in the back of a car and sleep in it can I be done. I actually do this a couple of times a year and the places are semi public.

How can I avoid this - If myself and a friend go surfing can we give each other the keys of our cars/van are we in the clear.

If you're each sleeping in your own vehicle, and you each have keys to the other vehicle but not to the one you're sleeping in, you're fine.

28064212

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you're each sleeping in your own vehicle, and you each have keys to the other vehicle but not to the one you're sleeping in, you're fine.

Fine might be overstating it. If the two cars are parked beside each other, the practical difference between that situation and your keys being in the boot is fairly negligible. Both are a better defence than having your keys on you, but I'd be looking for a better solution

L1011

Leave the actual keys with the bar staff in a friendly pub and get yourself a beach/swimming/surfing key (every manufacturer has a different name for this)?

Basically its a plastic keyblade that can open the doors, sometimes the fuel cap but NOT start the engine. Except weirdly new VW ones can start the engine, so be careful there. Inert metal keys are also available for makes that don't have these; again they can't start the engine as they don't have a transponder in them

If its an old or Japanese import vehicle with no immobiliser/transponder setup, you're out of luck - if this would even be a convincing argument to begin with!

marieholmfan

L1011 wrote: »

Leave the actual keys with the bar staff in a friendly pub and get yourself a beach/swimming/surfing key (every manufacturer has a different name for this)?

Basically its a plastic keyblade that can open the doors, sometimes the fuel cap but NOT start the engine. Except weirdly new VW ones can start the engine, so be careful there. Inert metal keys are also available for makes that don't have these; again they can't start the engine as they don't have a transponder in them

If its an old or Japanese import vehicle with no immobiliser/transponder setup, you're out of luck - if this would even be a convincing argument to begin with!

I have one of those keys already.
So basically it's obvious enough; you have to make it well nigh impossible; fair enough.

By the way I'm not looking for an excuse to give the Garda ;

Itsh not da key , da key of thish car ,
itsh the key of hish van

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you're each sleeping in your own vehicle, and you each have keys to the other vehicle but not to the one you're sleeping in, you're fine.

not according to the Supreme Court. If you have an intention to drive your own vehicle when you get your keys back, then you are caught.

srfc d16

Pronto63 wrote: »

He was 3 times over the limit. Unlikely to be sober in the morning.

This is slightly off topic but what constitutes 3 times the limit?
If the limit is a glass of beer would someone having 2 or 3 pints be considered 3 times the limit? I freely admit I have never understood the x times the limit equation so I would appreciate a pointer here.
I could be completely wrong on what 3 times the limit means but I would expect someone that had 3 pints of beer to be under the limit the following day.

28064212

srfc d16 wrote: »

This is slightly off topic but what constitutes 3 times the limit?
If the limit is a glass of beer would someone having 2 or 3 pints be considered 3 times the limit? I freely admit I have never understood the x times the limit equation so I would appreciate a pointer here.
I could be completely wrong on what 3 times the limit means but I would expect someone that had 3 pints of beer to be under the limit the following day.

A glass is half a pint. Generally speaking, one standard drink is a glass of beer, a small glass of wine, or a single measure of spirits. An average body can process approximately one standard drink an hour. If you had three pints (6 standard drinks), 6 hours is a decent guess at how long it would take to be alcohol-free.

However, it's just a guess. The legal limits don't take any of that into consideration:

The legal limits for fully licenced drivers in Category B are:
50 milligrammes (mg) of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood
67 milligrammes (mg) of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine or
22 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath

If you're over those, it's not a defence to say it was more than 6 hours since you had 6 standard drinks. The one hour guideline can be affected by lots of things, like weight, gender, personal metabolism, food consumption.

srfc d16

28064212 wrote: »

A glass is half a pint. Generally speaking, one standard drink is a glass of beer, a small glass of wine, or a single measure of spirits. An average body can process approximately one standard drink an hour. If you had three pints (6 standard drinks), 6 hours is a decent guess at how long it would take to be alcohol-free.

However, it's just a guess. The legal limits don't take any of that into consideration:If you're over those, it's not a defence to say it was more than 6 hours since you had 6 standard drinks. The one hour guideline can be affected by lots of things, like weight, gender, personal metabolism, food consumption.

I understand that a glass is half a pint.
I am just trying to understand what volume of alcohol equates to being 3 times over the limit. I appreciate that it will vary depending on the person. Again I could be incorrect but I believed that the limit is one glass (for the average person) what amount is 3 times the limit?

Claw Hammer

srfc d16 wrote: »

This is slightly off topic but what constitutes 3 times the limit?
If the limit is a glass of beer would someone having 2 or 3 pints be considered 3 times the limit? I freely admit I have never understood the x times the limit equation so I would appreciate a pointer here.
I could be completely wrong on what 3 times the limit means but I would expect someone that had 3 pints of beer to be under the limit the following day.

The limit is measured by blood alcohol content or presumed blood alcohol content. It has nothing to of with quantities of any type of drink. Body weight is the biggest single factor in how much alcohol it would take to reach the limit . thereafter it is down to metabolism. There are tables used in America showing the progress of the blood alcohol ration over time as it can be a defence, in some states, to show that at the time of driving the alcohol level was below the limit and only rose above it after the arrest.

doiredoire

What about sleeping in a camper van in a public place with a few drinks on you?

28064212

srfc d16 wrote: »

I understand that a glass is half a pint.
I am just trying to understand what volume of alcohol equates to being 3 times over the limit. I appreciate that it will vary depending on the person. Again I could be incorrect but I believed that the limit is one glass (for the average person) what amount is 3 times the limit?

It's a direct correlation between alcohol consumed and blood-alcohol level, so if one glass put you at the limit, 3 glasses would put you at three times the limit, assuming no other variables (e.g. this would assume the 3 glasses were consumed in the same time-frame as the single glass)

Claw Hammer

doiredoire wrote: »

What about sleeping camper vans in a public place with a few drinks on you?

Drunk in charge. Prepare for court. it would be cheaper to stay in a hotel that pay for a drink driving defence.

AlfaZen

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Drunk in charge. Prepare for court. it would be cheaper to stay in a hotel that pay for a drink driving defence.

What about the case of a lorry driver who has just completed a delivery. He is away from home and his next pick-up is not until the following night. He goes for dinner and has a few beers/wine. He goes back to his cab for the night over the limit but not due to drive for next 15/20 hours?

marieholmfan

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Drunk in charge. Prepare for court. it would be cheaper to stay in a hotel that pay for a drink driving defence.

I'm thinking that , might be more comfortable as well. But sleeping in the van is part of the crack.

Claw Hammer

AlfaZen wrote: »

What about the case of a lorry driver who has just completed a delivery. He is away from home and his next pick-up is not until the following night. He goes for dinner and has a few beers/wine. He goes back to his cab for the night over the limit but not due to drive for next 15/20 hours?

He is committing the offence of being drunk in charge.

Claw Hammer

marieholmfan wrote: »

I'm thinking that , might be more comfortable as well. But sleeping in the van is part of the crack.

Park the van in a private place.

marieholmfan

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Park the van in a private place.

They aren't beside the beach and then I really would end up drink driving.

The obvious alternative is to camp but that seems more obnoxious.

Air BnB

Padre_Pio

doiredoire wrote: »

What about sleeping camper vans in a public place with a few drinks on you?

As far as I'm aware, a camper or mobile caravan (not a van with a mattress in it, or a day van) is classed as mobile accommodation when it's parked.

Open to contradiction though.

Queasy Tadpole

I've read this thread and it is mind blowing.

Numerous times myself and the wife have gone car camping all over the country. Drunk as skunks sleeping away in the back of the car that's set up for car camping.

You're telling me if the Gardai were to have walked by, seen us asleep in the back and woke me up I could have been done for drink driving?!

Drunkenly asleep in a sleeping bag in the back of the car with zero intention of driving?

Padre_Pio

Queasy Tadpole wrote: »

I've read this thread and it is mind blowing.

Dems the rules unfortunately.

Makes no sense to me.

ghost of ireland past

Is it a defence to a Section 11 charge, intent to drive, to say that you were actually committing a Section 10 offence, actually driving, or attempting to drive?

I have looked and I can't find anything that allows a section 11 offence to be changed to a section 10 offence during the trial, and I have seen that in some other laws. Double Jeopary would prevent a second trial on the same set of circumstances wouldn't it?



Here's an interesting situation.
A person is very slowly driving down the road when drunk. They fall asleep while driving and the car gently comes to a standstill. The engine may keep running or it may not. A guard comes along five mintues later.
Is the offence a Section 10 offence, attempting to drive, or is it a Section 11 offence, in charge while having an intent to drive?

If you were charged with Section 11 you could argue that you were actually committing a section 10 offence, attempting to drive, and your attempt to drive was so poor that you were actually asleep. This is supported by the fact that you were successfully driving immediately before you fell asleep. You would have been driving but for the fact you were asleep and so you were attempting to drive, and you were only frustrated in that attempt by being asleep. Therefore, the offence is section 10, even if it looks like section 11. How can a guard tell the difference?

Can a section 11 charge be changed to section 10 during the trial?

edit.
I might have the answer here. Does it depend on the position of the controls, is the car in gear, is the engine running etc?

Peregrinus

Queasy Tadpole wrote: »

I've read this thread and it is mind blowing.

Numerous times myself and the wife have gone car camping all over the country. Drunk as skunks sleeping away in the back of the car that's set up for car camping.

You're telling me if the Gardai were to have walked by, seen us asleep in the back and woke me up I could have been done for drink driving?!

No, not for drink driving. For being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle with intent to drive.

Queasy Tadpole wrote: »

Drunkenly asleep in a sleeping bag in the back of the car with zero intention of driving?

If you're in charge of a motor vehicle, and you're drunk, it's presumed that you intend to drive. (Why else have charge of a vehicle, if not to drive it?) You can rebut the presumption by showing that you didn't intend to drive - e.g. by having given the keys to your sober friend, or to the barman who has been serving you.

the_pen_turner

What happens if there are 2 peoe in the car.surely they both cant be in charge of the car

CalamariFritti

srfc d16 wrote: »

This is slightly off topic but what constitutes 3 times the limit?
If the limit is a glass of beer would someone having 2 or 3 pints be considered 3 times the limit? I freely admit I have never understood the x times the limit equation so I would appreciate a pointer here.
I could be completely wrong on what 3 times the limit means but I would expect someone that had 3 pints of beer to be under the limit the following day.

Its quite obvious I would have thought.

If the limit is 50 milligrammes (mg) of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood then three times the limit is 150mg.

Peregrinus

the_pen_turner wrote: »

What happens if there are 2 peoe in the car.surely they both cant be in charge of the car

Only one of them might be in possession of the keys. The other is not in charge of the car.

But if the keys are in the ignition, say, so that either of them could drive the car they, yeah, they are both in charge of it. You're "in charge" of a vehicle if you are in a position to operate it, or to allow/prevent its operation by others.

Basically, the thinking behind this offence is that a drunk person shouldn't have a motor car, just like a drunk person shouldn't have a chain saw. It doesn't really matter whether the chain saw is running or not.

Credit Checker Moose

It is a fascinating area of the law.

ghost of ireland past

A person cannot intend anything if they are asleep.

Is that sufficient to rebut the presumption (of intent to drive)?

It is quite philosophical but it is true to say that you cannot intend things when you are asleep, therefore, the presumption cannot stand, as it would be repugnant to common sense.


A person could be sleeping in their house, or on their lawn, and then they sleep walk to their car, while still asleep, and enter their car and continue sleeping. They have their keys with them. No offence has been committed here, as there has been no attempt to drive, nor has there been any intent to drive while in the car. However, the presumption would apparently be sufficient to find them guilty.
Does the presumption stand in these circumstances?



Can the guards argue that a person had the requisite intent to drive before they fell asleep?

ghost of ireland past

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

Is it a defence to a Section 11 charge, intent to drive, to say that you were actually committing a Section 10 offence, actually driving, or attempting to drive?

I have looked and I can't find anything that allows a section 11 offence to be changed to a section 10 offence during the trial, and I have seen that in some other laws. ...

I think the above is wrong now.

I was confused by the following, (in Section 11, of RTA 1994)

wrote:

A person charged with an offence under this section may, in lieu of being found guilty of that offence, be found guilty of an offence under section 49 of this Act.

I was confused by the reference to 'this Act'.

'This Act' as used in the quote above refers to the Road Traffic Act 1961, as the text I've quoted there is an amendment to the Act of 1961, and therefore the phrase, 'this Act' refers to the Act of 1961, and not to the Act which contains the phrase, which is the Act of 1994.


The actual sections in the original act are sections 49, and 50 that prevent driving under influence, and intending to drive under the influence.

Sections 10 and 11 in the Act of 1994 merely amend those sections 49 and 50 from the original act of 1961.


It could perhaps still be argued that people cannot have intentions when they are asleep, and that might rebut the presumption.

Effects

ghost of ireland past wrote: »

A person cannot intend anything if they are asleep.
Is that sufficient to rebut the presumption (of intent to drive)?

Sounds like a defence that Lionel Hutz would present.

ghost of ireland past

I believe you can successfully rebut the presumption that you were intending to do something by explaining that you were not conscious at the time, and consciousness is required for intentions, therefore you cannot have been intent on doing anything at the time in question, as you weren't conscious.

How would you argue against that?