On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:43:42 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
Post by Percival P. Cassidy Post by Tony Cooper Post by Peter T. Daniels Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden Post by Peter T. Daniels Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden Post by charles Post by Peter T. Daniels Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden Post by Peter T. Daniels Post by Peter Moylan
Did DJ Kim really not get any answers twenty years ago?
There were six messages in the thread before today's revival, but
since the reviver is not a Google Groups user,
I guess you didn't look at the full headers?
No, of course I didn't.
But, yet one more time, the fact that GG appears somewhere in the chain
of devices by which a drive-by posts a message in a newsgroup does not
make them a Google Groups user.
If you drive a car, do you necessarily grasp how the differential works?
If you learn to drive a car you don't call it "car mechanics"; similarly,
if you arec being taught how to use "MSWord" that's "Office Practice" not
Yes. I find PTD's argument very strange. If I don't know how a
differential works (and I don't) then I can't say that I use my car to
go to work, even if I do it every day?
Perhaps you could attempt rebutting what I wrote, rather than charles's
That's what I was doing. I had formulated it before I read Charles's sequitur.
If I'm arrested for stealing a bicycle, I can't get away with arguing
that I'm not a bicycle user because I've never ridden a bicycle before,
don't know how to ride one and was only using it to transport some
groceries. I'm sure that prosecutor would say that at the moment of
wheeling it along the road I was a bicycle user.
I sure wouldn't. You'd be a bicycle thief, and if you were lucky you might
get a classic Italian film made about you, but a user? never riding it?
only wheeling it? Certainly not. Nor would you be being prosecuted for
being a bicycle user, so your protest would be ruled irrelevant and the
jury told to disregard it.
And yet you can be arrested for drunk driving in most states when
sitting behind the wheel of parked car when under the influence.
Many years ago I heard of a case in the UK where a man who had had too
much to drink was asleep in the back of the car, being driven home by
his chauffeur. He was found guilty of being "drunk in charge of a motor
vehicle" (which was the name of the offence at the time; maybe it has
changed by now) because the chauffeur was his employee, and therefore
he, the drunk owner, was "in charge of" the vehicle.
The offence is "Drunk in Charge of a vehicle", in brief the initialism
There are separate laws for Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
This is from a law firm in Northern Ireland:
Six myths about drink driving in NI
Myth 6: I was only sitting in the car
There is a specific offence of “being in charge” of a motor vehicle.
For this offence you do not have to be driving the vehicle. It can
be extremely risky for example for someone to sit in their vehicle
with the keys in their possession waiting on a lift or for a taxi to
If a Court were to find an “intention to drive” this could lead to a
conviction and possible disqualification from driving.
To me, that means that if a chauffeur is driving the car the owner is
not "in possession of the key" and cannot be seen to have an "intention
to drive" so is not legally "in charge" of the car.
In this description from a firm of lawyers in England I have marked **
those parts which suggest strongly that if the car is being driven by a
chauffeur it is the chauffeur who is legally "in charge" of the car, not
the intoxicated owner in the back seat:
Drunk in Charge of a Motor Vehicle
Is it ever a good idea to sleep in your car having had too much to
Most people are fully aware that it is a criminal offence to drive a
vehicle after having consumed so much alcohol that they exceed the
prescribed limit, but it is also an offence to be in charge of a
vehicle whilst drunk or unfit through drugs.
Motorists who are sleeping, or sitting in their vehicle have found
themselves facing serious charges despite the fact that they have
not actually driven or attempted to drive a vehicle. Although a
Drunk in Charge allegation is not as serious as Drink Driving, if
found guilty you will not only be in receipt of a criminal record
but it will also cause serious implications on your ability to drive
as the court could impose:
How is “in charge” defined?
There is no definition of “in charge” and the courts have been keen
to avoid an all-embracing test.
In determining if a person is in charge the court will consider:
Whether he was in the vehicle, if so where, or how far he was
What he was doing at the time;
** Whether he was in possession of the key for the ignition;
** Whether there was any evidence of an intention to take some form
** of control of the vehicle;
Whether any person was in or near the vehicle and if so the
particulars of that person.
You could also be prosecuted if you are found in the passenger seat
or the back seats. You do not have to be sitting in the driver’s
seat to be considered “in charge”.
However those that own or lawfully are in possession of the vehicle
or have recently driven it are deemed to remain in charge unless it
can be shown:
** that they had put the vehicle into someone else’s charge
** or can establish that they had ceased to be in control AND there
** was no realistic prospect of resuming control whilst unfit.
Are there defences available?
The law states that someone cannot be convicted of an “in charge”
** offence if they can prove there was no intention and / or likelihood
** of the vehicle being driven whilst the driver was over the
** prescribed limit.
Unlike many other offences, with the offence of being drunk in
charge, the accused must prove that they did not have any intention
to drive the vehicle. The prosecution is not required to prove that
the accused was likely to drive whilst unfit or over the limit.
** A defence is available if it can be shown that there was no
** likelihood of driving whilst over the prescribed limit and doing
this should be established by expert scientific evidence or
** compelling circumstantial evidence. These defences are known as
 I'm using "chauffeur" to include anyone driving the car with the
owner's authorisation, not necessarily an employee.
Peter Duncanson, UK