Drink / Drive over the limit

Sorry, where is this motorhome?

I'm envisaging the vehicle parked up for the night, having been parked by a perfectly sober driver. Later in the evening the driver has a few drinks with dinner and is over the limit when he goes to bed.

If this is illegal, should it be? Even if it is, is it the sort of thing the police should be wasting five minutes on?
 
Last edited:
So by the fact I'm driving a Tesla Plaid that can do 0-60 in less than 2 seconds and nigh on 180 mph it's a fair assumption I'm going to do that driving through a 30 limit and should get a speeding ticket just in case?

Could this driver not wake up and feel a bit better and decide to continue on their way too?

I still feel the should be caught in the act, circumstantial evidence alone shouldn't be enough.

I really feel the law has got this wrong in a big way.

I think what I'm saying is that given the law as it is, sleeping drunk in a car seat, especially the driving seat, while fully clothed, is extremely unwise behaviour. Whether you intend to drive on or not, you're liable to be in trouble if the cops find you there. My interpretation of the law is that it was intended to cover this eventuality, on the assumption that someone in this situation may well decide to drive on. There is no corresponding law against driving a rocket sled that is capable of 180 mph.

However, when the law was drafted, were there even such things as campervans? What about someone on a caravanning holiday? The van is parked up and the car parked beside it, and the owner is asleep for the night in the van, in bed, in his or her jammies, after having had a few drinks. I think the law would regard that as being similar to someone in bed for the night in their own home with their car parked outside, which surely can't be within the scope of that legislation.

But then someone invented campervans. Now the caravan and the traction unit are the same vehicle. Does it come within the scope of the legislation if someone has parked up the campervan (in a proper parking place, not in the middle of the road where they might be hit by traffic!) and is in just the same position? If it does, should it?

You say, maybe the person who is asleep in an actual bed in their actual pyjamas might suddenly wake while still under the influence and decide to continue his journey in the middle of the night, but that's wildly improbable compared to the scenario of someone fully clothed asleep in the driver's (or even passenger) seat of a car.

I'm intrigued by the middle course where someone is sleeping on an airbed in a sleeping bad in the back of a car, maybe only undressed as far as underwear. I still think it would be nuts to prosecute in such a situation, but would they?

I'm inclined to agree with you that there should be evidence that the person actually drove the car while under the influence. Either caught in the act, or found in such a position that the overwhelming probability is that they drove to that position while drunk, rather than parking up and drinking after parking. So what is the actual utility of the "drunk in charge" law? What were the legislators intending to achieve?
 
Campervans predate drink driving laws in the UK by decades.

While this law seems to bother some people, police constables are well-trained to tell the difference between someone who is likely to be pretending they have no intention of driving to evade the law, then breaking it as soon as the police are out of sight, and someone sleeping in a campervan.

Any constable who made a habit of visiting camp sites knocking up sleeping campers to breathalyse them would soon be getting a very serious talking-to by their sergeant.
 
I wondered about the dates. So, were the people who drafted the law thinking about campervans when they did it? It seems to leave a lot of discretion in the hands of the police, which isn't always desirable.
 
Well, the police can't convict anyone - they can just report people for suspected offences.

They won't waste their time pursuing anything if there's little or no chance of getting a conviction - response officers are run off their feet to start with.
 
I agree , its within the police officers discretion, but....... imagine the trouble he/she would be in if they let you off with verbal, then a hour later their colleagues are picking you out of a hedge. Just to cover their own backsides it would be easier to nick you and let the courts decide. And of course doing a couple of hours easy paperwork with not much comeback is better than having to turn up to massive fight outside a nightclub.
 
I don't know what was in the minds of those drafting the laws, but my guess is they were trying to close loopholes.
 

I agree , its within the police officers discretion, but....... imagine the trouble he/she would be in if they let you off with verbal, then a hour later their colleagues are picking you out of a hedge. Just to cover their own backsides it would be easier to nick you and let the courts decide. And of course doing a couple of hours easy paperwork with not much comeback is better than having to turn up to massive fight outside a nightclub.

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense.
 
Imagine sleeping in an EV, turned on with the heater running even if in a sleeping bag!
 
Agree, if you are parked up on an official campsite, otherwise.......

If you're parked up anywhere reasonable, and in your bed asleep in your jammies, what possible reason could anyone have for imagining you might take off drunk-driving an hour later? Any more so than if you were in your own bed at home. Or indeed in your bed in a tow-caravan with your car parked beside it.

And if you're parked somewhere illegal, then you deserve to be done for that.
 
I wondered about the dates. So, were the people who drafted the law thinking about campervans when they did it? It seems to leave a lot of discretion in the hands of the police, which isn't always desirable.
You should check out the laws regarding bows(archery) that’s really outdated.
 
English men and boys must practice the long bow skills, daily and if you come across a Scotsman in London it’s ok to shoot him but not on a Sunday I read some of the very strange laws from the medieval times some as far as I can see haven’t been repealed?
 
English men and boys must practice the long bow skills, daily and if you come across a Scotsman in London it’s ok to shoot him but not on a Sunday I read some of the very strange laws from the medieval times some as far as I can see haven’t been repealed?
Phew T5 11/08 ????????
 
English men and boys must practice the long bow skills, daily and if you come across a Scotsman in London it’s ok to shoot him but not on a Sunday I read some of the very strange laws from the medieval times some as far as I can see haven’t been repealed?

So far as I know, that's myth.
 
A little bit of research resulted in:-

Currently Active Laws
If you are Scottish, it’s best to avoid visiting Carlisle

In Carlisle, any Scot found wandering around may be whipped or jailed. This probably dates back to 1157, when King Malcolm IV of Scotland surrendered his lands granted to the Scots in 1136 following the Scots invasion of Cumbria led by King David I. In the period directly after this, many Cumbrian castles were fortified as a precaution, so it seems likely that this law is linked to the 12th century battles.


Odd Laws now Repealed

In York, it was legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls on any day except a Sunday, but only if he was carrying a bow and arrow

This is most likely to have been a city ordinance, possibly dating back to the Robert the Bruce’s attempted invasion of York in the Middle Ages. That has since been replaced by criminal law and the ECHR. Therefore, any killings of bow-carrying Scotsmen within the city walls is plain old murder – which carries a life sentence.

Every Englishman from the ages of 17 to 69 was required to keep and practice with a longbow

This was repealed under the Betting and Gaming Act of 1960, which abolished mandatory practice. This is remarkable given that the last recorded use of a longbow used for military purposes in England was in 1642. Until firearms became widely used, longbows were key in providing military support due to the long distance range of the weapon. Longbow archers were pivotal in the English victory over the French at the Battle of Agincourt. As it took years of regular practice for an archer to become skilled with the longbow, all men between the ages of 17 and 69 were compelled to practice their archery skills, so that the King could rely on a steady stream of skilled and proficient archers, ready for war. To ensure that men weren’t distracted by other sports, King Edward I banned all other sports on a Sunday and Edward IV banned an early form of cricket as it was interfering with regular archery practice.
 
I believe all these ideas of old laws not repealed are myths, though admittedly my source is the TV programme QI.

Apparently, new laws made since automatically repeal the old laws by implication even if it's not specifically stated, and none of them are actually still in force.
 
Support us by becoming a Premium Member

Latest MG EVs video

MG Hybrid+ EVs OVER-REVVING & more owner feedback
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom