drink driving question?

MrsDrink

Any wrote: »

The thing is, I agree and disagree.
All for innocent until proven guilty, but if you are drunk driving you are drunk and guilty and they can tell within hours, the waiting for the court date and ban is only waiting for the length/level of punishment.

But in the example you provided unless you saw the person driving whilst under the influence you are going off hearsay. He *may* not have been.

Personally I would rather some people 'got away' with carrying on driving between being caught and being punished, than the alternative of living in a society where the accused has to prove their innocent. (It's harder to prove you didn't do something than it is to prove you did. And I'm not just talking drink driving I'm talking illegal acts in general.)

nmlc

Evening

Just reading all of these with interest - if someone is caught drink driving whilst in a works vehicle, and they are arrested and then bailed the works vehicle insurers are likely to have a clause in their policy which states they will not cover anyone that has been stopped/prosecuted for drink driving - and most car insurers are the same if you check the small print - therefore if you drive whilst waiting to go to court you can be deemed to be driving with no insurance. Obviously this is more clear cut if you blo way over the legal limit, not so much so if it's around the legal limit and its questionable.

nmlcx

Cornucopia

Err... no. You can legally drive up to the point of being banned & insurers recognise this.

For company vehicles, the situation is more complicated since there can be vicarious liability (ie. the company can be liable if there is an accident). For that reason, employers might suspend someone from driving for work whilst a conviction is pending.

Any

MrsDrink wrote: »

But in the example you provided unless you saw the person driving whilst under the influence you are going off hearsay. He *may* not have been.

Personally I would rather some people 'got away' with carrying on driving between being caught and being punished, than the alternative of living in a society where the accused has to prove their innocent. (It's harder to prove you didn't do something than it is to prove you did. And I'm not just talking drink driving I'm talking illegal acts in general.)

Sorry? What example? The driver working for our company?
The police knew very well he was drunk driving.
We didn't. And that's why under current legislation he could carry on and make a person disabled for life.

That is what I am saying-they know! They tested you. He only waited for the lenght of the ban.

But that is current legislation. Nothing I can do about that.
But I can still have an opinion.

MrsDrink

Any wrote: »

This is some time ago, but we had a guy who caused an accident whilst drunk driving and police would not tell us anything. No matter that it was OUR vehicle, and he was supposed to be working when it happened.

He was happily driving until they took his driving licence off him, even though we tried to find out what happened and we took him off the road, we were then advised that we have no reason for suspension until we have SOMETHING to work with.

Which police would not provide us with until he was convinced.

Very frustrating, trust me. Especially because in those few months he managed to cause another accident, where people were hurt!!

Sorry - I read the bit in bold as you suspected he'd been drink driving before he was convicted not after. My mistake.

MrsDrink

Any wrote: »

Sorry? What example? The driver working for our company?
The police knew very well he was drunk driving.
We didn't. And that's why under current legislation he could carry on and make a person disabled for life.

That is what I am saying-they know! They tested you. He only waited for the lenght of the ban.

But that is current legislation. Nothing I can do about that.
But I can still have an opinion.

I'm not denying that is !!!! - but the alternate of guilty unless proven innocent in my opinion would be worse over all. There would be far too many innocent people being convicted for things they had not done just because they couldn't prove without reasonable doubt that they had not done it.

What would be better if is the time from being caught in the act to being convicted is shortened.

alwayspuzzled

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

The OP raised some procedural questions and also indicated that s/he was aware that this friend did drive after drinking but apparently does nothing to report it...

I responded to those issues giving generic responses regarding process following testing positive. I also said it made me angry that someone (the OP) might know someone is driving under the influence yet not reporting it.



I didn't suggest anyone had disagreed with me - my points were directed at the OP and no-one else.

That is not a rant - it is a response.

Thankyou to everyone who has answered regarding the process. Although as I suspected his reasons are invalid it would appear he was not arrested as he has no paperwork I presume the daughter is for some reason lying.

Tiddywinks, Im sorry this has made you so angry, I can assure you I in no way agree with drink driving, however I have to admit it never occurred to me to phone the police and say I've found out someone was drink driving 2 days ago please go and arrest them.

To all who suggested telling his boss - he already knows.

sweaty_betty

Cornucopia wrote: »

Err... no. You can legally drive up to the point of being banned & insurers recognise this.

Hmm... there may be exceptions to this. I know someone who had a bad car accident and was held responsible and charged with dangerous driving. He was eventually convicted at crown court (and banned from driving), but prior to that ( about 4 weeks earlier) was initially sent to magistrates court, where they took his license off him. So his license was taken from him before he was convicted/banned.

Janepig

sweaty_betty wrote: »

Hmm... there may be exceptions to this. I know someone who had a bad car accident and was held responsible and charged with dangerous driving. He was eventually convicted at crown court (and banned from driving), but prior to that ( about 4 weeks earlier) was initially sent to magistrates court, where they took his license off him. So his license was taken from him before he was convicted/banned.

I would imagine that he pleaded guilty at the Magistrates Court and was committed to Crown for sentence in this instance (or something similar). They can then give you an "interim disqualification" and that comes off your eventual ban. Or what they might have done is put him on a bail condition not to drive. Which, thinking about it, seems the most likely thing to have happened with such a serious charge.

Jx

sweaty_betty

Janepig wrote: »

I would imagine that he pleaded guilty at the Magistrates Court and was committed to Crown for sentence in this instance (or something similar). They can then give you an "interim disqualification" and that comes off your eventual ban. Or what they might have done is put him on a bail condition not to drive. Which, thinking about it, seems the most likely thing to have happened with such a serious charge.

Jx

Ah, that would make sense.