So you can be jailed for being a passenger

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm

Worrying precedent, that.

 

What, that if you hand the keys of your car to a drunk you can be held
partly responsible for any deaths they cause? It's not a precedent
that worries me.

 

We covered this last week. Wake up, old man.

 

Not really.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Buzby

All the nay-sayers in this thread appear to be assuming that one can
tell if someone's over the limit by looking at them.

I don't.

I find it a worrying precedent.

 

He didn't have to tell by looking at her that she was over the limit. He
could tell because they'd been drinking together. Also, he wasn't convicted
because she was drunk, but because he'd failed to stop her driving
dangerously.

But the moral of the story has to revolve around the consequences of
trundling around in pikey shit like a Ford Fiesta.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, platypus

Personally, I don't track my fellow drinkers' intake. Unless it's Nige,
and there's likely to be a piss-taking opportunity in the offing.

Which he would do by... ?

"Slow down a bit luv, you're going a bit quick".

Yeah, that'd work, right enough.

You have the right of it.

 

Rubbish.

The couple had spent the day drinking at Nottingham racecourse. My
assumption is that the court established Nichols's knowledge of his
partner's incapacity before sending him down for five years.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Colin Irvine

She was 1.5 times the limit. Roughly a glass of wine.

 

'Specially when you realise he was convicted of not stopping her from
driving when he was over the limit himself, which would (to me) seem like
they expected him to make a decision while he was under the influence.

Now given that being over the limit reduces ones faculties to the point
where decisions can't be trusted, how can they then expect him to make a
decision that CAN be trusted?

I know... he's a motorist, the lowest form of life on the planet, so he must
be wrong no matter what the **** he does.

She's a definite two bagger though.

--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

He wasn't convicted of anything to do with her drinking. It was her driving
they took a dim view of and the fact that he didn't stop her. Not that he
let her drive in the first place.

--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

It's not a precedent though. I was in court a few years ago (1998
IIRC) and one of the cases in before me was for a young lad who'd let
his girlfriend drive his car back to her place (unaccompanied) after a
night out. She was uninsured and crashed and he got done for allowing
her to drive whilst uninsured. As I read it, the law says that the
person driving your car must be fit for purpose.

 

Or two. So at the time she eventually had her blood test she was
showing 4 to 5 glasses. Allow 1 to 2 hours between digesting last
drink and blood test means she had drunk in the range 5 to 7 glasses
of wine. A full bottle.

Are you saying he shouldn't have been given 5 years? If so, on what
basis, and what sentence or otherwise do you think would have been
appropriate?

 

Very strange, neither was convicted for DIC, but *both* were convicted
for causing death by dangerous driving.

 

Oh that's OK then. Would you like that defence extended more generally?
"Sorry I decided to drive down the motorway the wrong way, but I was a
bit pissed."


--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

I've not seen any reports detailed enough to enable that sort of
distinction to be made. Do you have a link?

 

www.bbc.co.uk

 

Such as, from TOG's original link, "The court heard that Nichols, who
owned the Jaguar and was the front-seat passenger, was convicted
because he had failed to stop her from driving dangerously."

I don't think that excludes what would have been the most effective
way of stopping her - not giving her the keys in the first place.

The two extreme scenarios seem to me to be -

1) He was pissed out of his brain and was pretty much unconscious
while she nicked his keys, bundled him into the car and drove off. I'd
hate to see him go to gaol for that.

2) He was only just over the limit, she was well over (and so more
dangerous on the roads than him), but she was bullied into driving
because she could afford to lose her licence and he couldn't. In that
case he's every bit as culpable as her.

The truth will be somewhere between the two. The court has established
it to a greater degree than we have. Hence I have no quarrel with the
court's decision.

 

AOL
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

 

It worries me for the same reason that the organ donor card opt-in thing
worries me. Something like this always seems to be the first small step
in a progression towards more inimical legislation.

But, hey-ho, I'm probably wrong, and in a few years' time I'm sure
there'll be no presumption that you did not do your best to prevent the
driver from driving dangerously.