Here's one to chew the fat over. I run a site in the highlands. Because of the right to roam act we now have to insure our mower 3rd party under the road traffic act. Why? Because, according to our insurers, as anyone has a right to enter our land, it is now by law classed as a public highway. Therefore all laws relating to a public highway apply to our land. This being the case I ask: if someone in a motor home on a licensed campsite takes an alcoholic drink can he be charged with being drunk in charge?
Motor homes, the right to roam in Scotland and drunk in charge!
- Thread starter Colin_374329018
- Start date
Colin
Good point how about me if while i am sitting outside my caravan with my car keys in my pocket in glen nevis. Drinking a couple of bears . Would the same aply to me.
tash
Good point how about me if while i am sitting outside my caravan with my car keys in my pocket in glen nevis. Drinking a couple of bears . Would the same aply to me.
tash
Our village is close to three motorways.We get lorries parking up for the night and their drivers often go to the pub for a few pots.They then walk back down the road,unlock the cab,climb in and go to sleep - parked on the highway.
Same sort of thing I suppose. Is it illegal? No idea.
Dave
Same sort of thing I suppose. Is it illegal? No idea.
Dave
Technically, Dave, yes.
As they are `in charge` of the vehicle, which is I gather a specific offence.
In fact, I`m surprised they aren`t being done left, right and centre, as it`s a safer `collar` than some drunken thugs smashing up a car (or another person), and its still a `solved crime`.
As they are `in charge` of the vehicle, which is I gather a specific offence.
In fact, I`m surprised they aren`t being done left, right and centre, as it`s a safer `collar` than some drunken thugs smashing up a car (or another person), and its still a `solved crime`.
Tash. I do not think it would apply to those of us in caravans as we are no more in charge of our cars than we would be at home. It might be different if the car was still attached to the van.
Hi Dave
Yes what you describe is illegal and I know that for a fact as an ex lorry driver. This is exactly why I asked the original question. If we were parked on private ground we were OK, on the highway the police could test us at any time. I/we need to clarrify what the situation is before someone loses their licence over this.
The "right to roam" was introduced by act of parliament in England and Wales - I thought it was always permitted in Scotland because the laws on trespass are different.
I'll tell you why they're not being done,Angus.
'Cos cameras can't breathalise people and we only see police when they're belting through on the way to the motorway.
But that's another gripe altogether isn't it.
Dave
'Cos cameras can't breathalise people and we only see police when they're belting through on the way to the motorway.
But that's another gripe altogether isn't it.
Dave
The right to roam is not in itself the problem. Where this is now a problem is Parliament have deemed all land, where the public are allowed to be, as "public highway". By this definition all land in Scotland is public highway. Therefore if you have had a drink you can be tested - and remember a police officer has the right to ask you to produce a licence, and if while asking you to produce a licence he believes he smells alcohol on your breath he has a duty to breathalyse you. This is potentially serious and we need an answer. I would ask at my local bear cave but I don't want to give then ideas (or disturb them from their donuts)
In a local case a young student was asked to work late and run the bar at a local sports centre. Having been bought two or three drinks he decided the wise move was to walk home rather than risk driving his car.
After the centre closed he moved his car within the private sports centre car park at around midnight so that his car would be safer locked up under security cameras veiw.
A passing Police car pulled into the centre as they saw a moving car in the closed centre that had just been locked up, breathalyzed he was locked up for the night and ended up with a fine and years ban.
The sites entance had no barrier and was judged as being left open to the public so he was found guilty. If the site had a barrier he would have been found innocent as public access was controlled.
After the centre closed he moved his car within the private sports centre car park at around midnight so that his car would be safer locked up under security cameras veiw.
A passing Police car pulled into the centre as they saw a moving car in the closed centre that had just been locked up, breathalyzed he was locked up for the night and ended up with a fine and years ban.
The sites entance had no barrier and was judged as being left open to the public so he was found guilty. If the site had a barrier he would have been found innocent as public access was controlled.
Technically whilst with your vehicle you are in charge of it and if over the prescribed limit are committing an offence.However there is a defence to this if you can show that there was no liklihood of you driving the vehicle whilst you were over the limit I wpould suggest that whilst camping this defence would cover you.With regard to driving the vehicle I would consider that the caravan site would be considered a public place as even with the gates shut members of the public can walk about to the facilities
I raised this very point years ago on Usenet, when I owned a motor caravan.
The consensus was that you could be charged with being in charge of a motor vehicle if over the limit in a motor home parked on any site to which the public have access.
Then, it was an impossible scenario - today, as Officialdom constantly seeks new ways to persecute UK citizens (or, at least, the indigenous ones) it's not quite so far fetched.
Be as drunk as you like in your caravan, but don't retain possession of the car keys, or go anywhere near the car - even placing a hand on it when over the limit could be an offence.
What a shame we live in a country where these things are at least technically possible. The government will not rest until each and every citizen has been DNA'd, tagged, and photographed.
Eventually, for those who selfishly refuse to commit even a minor infringement of the law, taking your place on the database will become compulsory "If you've nothing to hide, why do you object?"
The terror is only just around the corner.
The consensus was that you could be charged with being in charge of a motor vehicle if over the limit in a motor home parked on any site to which the public have access.
Then, it was an impossible scenario - today, as Officialdom constantly seeks new ways to persecute UK citizens (or, at least, the indigenous ones) it's not quite so far fetched.
Be as drunk as you like in your caravan, but don't retain possession of the car keys, or go anywhere near the car - even placing a hand on it when over the limit could be an offence.
What a shame we live in a country where these things are at least technically possible. The government will not rest until each and every citizen has been DNA'd, tagged, and photographed.
Eventually, for those who selfishly refuse to commit even a minor infringement of the law, taking your place on the database will become compulsory "If you've nothing to hide, why do you object?"
The terror is only just around the corner.
I remember, many years ago I was on jury service, and the case we tried was a drunk in charge of a vehicle.
The driver had been to a night club and been drinking a lot. When he returned to his car, he decided he was too drunk to drive so he got on the back seat and slept there. Some time later he was spotted by the police, arrested etc. It was stated in his defence that the engine was stone cold, so had not moved.
We found him not guilty. Lesson I learned then was never even sit in a car if over the limit.
The driver had been to a night club and been drinking a lot. When he returned to his car, he decided he was too drunk to drive so he got on the back seat and slept there. Some time later he was spotted by the police, arrested etc. It was stated in his defence that the engine was stone cold, so had not moved.
We found him not guilty. Lesson I learned then was never even sit in a car if over the limit.
Sidney - the innocent have nothing to fear from their DNA being on a database - only those with something to hide, does that include you?
I'm not innocent and doubt that you are RogerL or that most of the people in the country are innocent on every count.
That includes the Police, law makers and clergy. Over a few weeks here I've seen police driving using mobile phones.
Smoking in there works vehicle.
Litter dropping in a lay_by and motorway service area.
Breaking speed limits for no apparent reason.
Saint Euro and Saint Roger, I know not and think not
Questioning those that make and propose laws and data bases is your right especially when those proposing them make up their own rules and rules re expenses, pay and second home payments.
That includes the Police, law makers and clergy. Over a few weeks here I've seen police driving using mobile phones.
Smoking in there works vehicle.
Litter dropping in a lay_by and motorway service area.
Breaking speed limits for no apparent reason.
Saint Euro and Saint Roger, I know not and think not
Questioning those that make and propose laws and data bases is your right especially when those proposing them make up their own rules and rules re expenses, pay and second home payments.
Hi Margaret
What a shame your pleasure in the original caravan proved a disaster. I hope that Swift and your dealer thorough QA your replacement caravan giving you years of trouble free service. It's just your story has a touch of de ja vu to that of Jo-anne's.
I am sure you will thoroughly check everything at the time of collection!
Does anyone know where these rejected caravans end up?
Cheers
Alan
What a shame your pleasure in the original caravan proved a disaster. I hope that Swift and your dealer thorough QA your replacement caravan giving you years of trouble free service. It's just your story has a touch of de ja vu to that of Jo-anne's.
I am sure you will thoroughly check everything at the time of collection!
Does anyone know where these rejected caravans end up?
Cheers
Alan
Sidney - the innocent have nothing to fear from their DNA being on a database - only those with something to hide, does that include you?⇦br/>
Me? - I'm as guilty as sin of just about everything - ask Mrs Sid if you don't believe me....
However, it's terribly sad to see you supporting the establishment of Gulag UK - can you not appreciate that the freedoms and rights, that are now being taken away from us, are the fruits of centuries of struggle?
To me, one of the most chilling announcements in recent years was the establishment of a 'Justice Ministry', complete with its very own 'Minister Of Justice' It reminds one irresistibly of a shabby South American banana dictatorship - which is rather apt as the UK descends into violence, squalor, and totalitarian control.
Britons never needed a 'justice ministry' (sic) we had Magna Carta, the right a fair trial, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty - not to mention the refuge afforded to us by Habeas Corpus, where no man, great or small, rich or poor, could be detained for long without an opportunity to appear in open court to face his accusers (and to know *who* was accusing him!)
It's an entirely spurious argument to suggest that only the 'guilty' so not want to be on a DNA database. Slaves and dogs are catalouged and chipped, free men and women have no place on these abominable lists.
Me? - I'm as guilty as sin of just about everything - ask Mrs Sid if you don't believe me....
However, it's terribly sad to see you supporting the establishment of Gulag UK - can you not appreciate that the freedoms and rights, that are now being taken away from us, are the fruits of centuries of struggle?
To me, one of the most chilling announcements in recent years was the establishment of a 'Justice Ministry', complete with its very own 'Minister Of Justice' It reminds one irresistibly of a shabby South American banana dictatorship - which is rather apt as the UK descends into violence, squalor, and totalitarian control.
Britons never needed a 'justice ministry' (sic) we had Magna Carta, the right a fair trial, a presumption of innocence until proven guilty - not to mention the refuge afforded to us by Habeas Corpus, where no man, great or small, rich or poor, could be detained for long without an opportunity to appear in open court to face his accusers (and to know *who* was accusing him!)
It's an entirely spurious argument to suggest that only the 'guilty' so not want to be on a DNA database. Slaves and dogs are catalouged and chipped, free men and women have no place on these abominable lists.
Sidney........what a load of garbage.
DNA Science has come on leaps and bounds over the years and I wonder how many crimes have been solved......years later because of it..........
Have to agree with Alan......what have you got to hide ????
As for the "free men and women" bit......might it not be that DNA, Fingerprints etc would see them behind bars by now........but do you care.........not a lot, IMO.
DNA Science has come on leaps and bounds over the years and I wonder how many crimes have been solved......years later because of it..........
Have to agree with Alan......what have you got to hide ????
As for the "free men and women" bit......might it not be that DNA, Fingerprints etc would see them behind bars by now........but do you care.........not a lot, IMO.
You're very welcome to have half a dozen microchips stuck inside your head, if that's what you fancy.
But, at least, be kind enough to allow for the fact that some of us still consider ourselves to be human beings, and not dogs.
But, at least, be kind enough to allow for the fact that some of us still consider ourselves to be human beings, and not dogs.
Sidney has in the past had me rolling on the floor in laughter with his posts and I can hardly belive this but I agree with him 100% this time.
Free people, innocent until proven guilty do these things not have any meaning anymore.
On top of that my DNA is mine is part of me and I should be able to determine who has it.
However I do belive that if something like 40% of the population gave their DNA the rest of us would not have to as once you have a blood relative in the system it can give them a good indication of likely suspects.
Whilst I could never be described as a Liberal please also bear in mind that this information once in the public domain may not just be used for Police activaties.
I know they will give assurances just now but who's to say in 20years time this information might not be given out to life insurance companies.
It may also hurt a lot of other people when they realise that parents DNA does not quite match their own etc.
Like many things in life it is sold as one thing and used as another. (how many people have store loyalty cards).
Free people, innocent until proven guilty do these things not have any meaning anymore.
On top of that my DNA is mine is part of me and I should be able to determine who has it.
However I do belive that if something like 40% of the population gave their DNA the rest of us would not have to as once you have a blood relative in the system it can give them a good indication of likely suspects.
Whilst I could never be described as a Liberal please also bear in mind that this information once in the public domain may not just be used for Police activaties.
I know they will give assurances just now but who's to say in 20years time this information might not be given out to life insurance companies.
It may also hurt a lot of other people when they realise that parents DNA does not quite match their own etc.
Like many things in life it is sold as one thing and used as another. (how many people have store loyalty cards).
Anyone who is in a vehicle whilst drunk or intoxicated could be considered 'drunk in charge', however it is not that straight forward.
It is up to the police to establish the intent to drive whilst intoxicated part of the offence.
The drunk in charge offence is specifically intended to allow the police to arrest a person if the circumstances fit without allowing them to actually drive and possibly cause a fatality.
Consider.... as a police officer you are observing a pub, a man comes out of the bar staggering and is obviously intoxicated, after several fumbles he manages to unlock the car door and sit in the drivers door where he attempts to put the key in the ignition and start the engine. The police officer forms the opinion that, that person is trying to start the engine with the intention of driving.
It would be outrageous to allow that person to get the car started and drive heavily intoxicated, so the officer can prevent that by arresting the man for either drunk in charge, or possibly attempting to drive whilst intoxicated... depending on the exact circumstances.
If there is no intention to drive, then the court will draw a proper conclusion that the offence has not been made out, hence the person charged will not be convicted.
There are many mitigating circumstances and defences to drink drive offences, but people should not be concerned with being in a motorhome, HGV, or even a car and caravan combination whilst having had a drink if it is clear and obvious that there is no intention of driving whilst still intoxicated. Common sense should prevail is such circumstances.
Anyone who is in a vehicle whilst drunk or intoxicated could be considered 'drunk in charge', however it is not that straight forward.
It is up to the police to establish the intent to drive whilst intoxicated part of the offence.
The drunk in charge offence is specifically intended to allow the police to arrest a person if the circumstances fit without allowing them to actually drive and possibly cause a fatality.
Consider.... as a police officer you are observing a pub, a man comes out of the bar staggering and is obviously intoxicated, after several fumbles he manages to unlock the car door and sit in the drivers door where he attempts to put the key in the ignition and start the engine. The police officer forms the opinion that, that person is trying to start the engine with the intention of driving.
It would be outrageous to allow that person to get the car started and drive heavily intoxicated, so the officer can prevent that by arresting the man for either drunk in charge, or possibly attempting to drive whilst intoxicated... depending on the exact circumstances.
If there is no intention to drive, then the court will draw a proper conclusion that the offence has not been made out, hence the person charged will not be convicted.
There are many mitigating circumstances and defences to drink drive offences, but people should not be concerned with being in a motorhome, HGV, or even a car and caravan combination whilst having had a drink if it is clear and obvious that there is no intention of driving whilst still intoxicated. Common sense should prevail is such circumstances.
It is up to the police to establish the intent to drive whilst intoxicated part of the offence.
The drunk in charge offence is specifically intended to allow the police to arrest a person if the circumstances fit without allowing them to actually drive and possibly cause a fatality.
Consider.... as a police officer you are observing a pub, a man comes out of the bar staggering and is obviously intoxicated, after several fumbles he manages to unlock the car door and sit in the drivers door where he attempts to put the key in the ignition and start the engine. The police officer forms the opinion that, that person is trying to start the engine with the intention of driving.
It would be outrageous to allow that person to get the car started and drive heavily intoxicated, so the officer can prevent that by arresting the man for either drunk in charge, or possibly attempting to drive whilst intoxicated... depending on the exact circumstances.
If there is no intention to drive, then the court will draw a proper conclusion that the offence has not been made out, hence the person charged will not be convicted.
There are many mitigating circumstances and defences to drink drive offences, but people should not be concerned with being in a motorhome, HGV, or even a car and caravan combination whilst having had a drink if it is clear and obvious that there is no intention of driving whilst still intoxicated. Common sense should prevail is such circumstances.
Parksy
Moderator
Back in the day when I drove HGVs there were anecdotal tales that circulated in cafes and truck stops that the police would go round lorry parks etc late at night and threaten drivers who slept 'across the seats' ie not it a properly designed sleeper cab with arrest if they'd had a drink.
The tale went that drivers would be turned out into the night with nowhere to sleep. The lower promenade at Brighton was supposed to be a particular police target because it had become an unofficial lorry park after 6pm much to the chagrin of the local council.
The tale went that drivers would be turned out into the night with nowhere to sleep. The lower promenade at Brighton was supposed to be a particular police target because it had become an unofficial lorry park after 6pm much to the chagrin of the local council.
Facebook
Twitter