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?
