I think you may be bound by the client rules even if they seem a bit harsh, not aware of any specific regulations though. Perhaps some consultation with the client would be benificial

Sitesafe

section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 refers directly. He has been banned therefore if he drives it is without lawful authority as below:

34 Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle—
(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b) on any road being a footpath or bridleway,
he is guilty of an offence.

What it effectively means (following case law) is that if he is driving on land to which the public have access, he is committing an offence. If you have a secure site to which public do not have access he may be OK but also you should consult with insurers regarding their interpretation of client and other liabilities.

Cheers

Martin

Sitesafe

what type of vehicle is the person under discussion looking to drive or operate?

Martin

I might go for the middle ground ... it would be indeffensible if an accident happened and he was found to be under the influence again - but as Ray says, he is already being punished.

If I were the client's advisor I would insist on the following subject to the worker's agreement:

He would be allowed to drive on the basis that he takes a daily test for alcohol.
He agreed to further randoom checks at the end of shift.
He agreed to checks after reports of concern or unsafe behaviour being exhibited.

Perhaps after a while, it coule be relaxed to random checks.

The first instance of a check failing though would be gross misconduct and exclusion from site permanently.

**Warning** I have no idea whether this is falling into discrimination in the employment law world.

If the client says no then its no as its their site; same thing goes for the use of mobiles, radios etc

If the client is not bothered then risk assess [without hanging the person first] e.g. has the guy been unlucky or is he a regular drink driver etc, then go from there noting that many plant etc drivers do not hold a car etc driving licence in the first place! Also do we ask all staff on site as otherwise the person in question may have a claim for some sort of discrimination etc

Thanks Sitesafe. Not sure about excavators but certainly regarding wheeled dumper trucks, if he is intending to use a dumper truck on or near the public highway or other areas to which the public have access, need to be careful. Certainly cannot drive on the road in any such vehicle while under the ban.
I stand by what I said above Clairel as regards that, within specific use of specific machines - self propelled machines in C&G wording or mechanically powered vehicles intended or altered to be used on the public highway etc. - but I am happy to admit that I do not have the knowledge regarding plant. As with most posts, you don't get the full info immediately and make decisions on what you have got. Once the info is increased regarding the original question, it makes a difference sometimes, as here.

cheers

Martin

I didn't say he was an habitual drinker or an habitual drink driver. However, I would say on the balance of probabilities it wasn't the first time he had drunk alcohol and then driven. In my experience people either habitually break the law or they don't ever. It comes down to mentality. And considering drink affects our reactions does it make a difference how much over the limit he was? Does that count as unlucky catching him or actually a blessing? Has the arrest actually stpped a future fatality? Generally you get away with something once and you'll do it again and agian perhaps pushing the boudries a little bit more each time.

I always think what if it was my kid that was killed by a drink driver. Would I care if it was the only time he had drunk drive? Would it make a difference if he was just a little bit drunk? No. My child is dead. End of.

No excuses. No unlucky. Just wrong. He deserves the ban. If that affects his work. Tough. We all have to take the consequences of our actions.

Harsh sentiments in a harsh world.

1st thought
Its an easy decision for the Client.
The client has reason to believe that this man may drive mobile plant on site whilst under the infuence. A dangerous combination. A high risk of serious injury.
The client is taking the sensible course and eliminating that risk.

2nd thought
If an electrician, scaffolder etc did his job whist under the influence the risk of serious injury would be just as high as if they were mobile plant drivers.
What action might that client take if those trades had a drink driving offence. My guess is nothing

Steve

OK, this is my last word on the matter (as we are starting to go off topic a bit and Mr, Mrs or Ms Mod may intervene in a minute).

1. The initial poster stated banned for a drink driving offence - not offences

2. We do not know anything about the individual concerned nor the actual offence, and are making some wild assumptions and almost becoming vigilantes.

Let me try and put this in some perspective. I am aware of at least two instances where drivers have been to court for a drink driving offence. One a man and one a woman. In both examples thay were only just over the limit, but as this is an 'absolute' offence they were bound to be disqualified from driving.

In such cases persons found guilty, or pleading guilty, to drink driving may be offered a reduction in their disqualification if they agree to take a drink drive rehabilitation course. In both these cases the drivers were horrified by this and stated they they were not drink drivers and that such a course did not apply to them. By taking the course they would be admitting that they were drink drivers (which of course they were technically) but were adamant that they were not.

To reiterate, I do not condone drink driving and if there was evidence that an employee was an habitual offender I would certainly agree with the actions suggested elswhere in this thread. But please do not judge everybody the same, especially with the little information we have.


For those of you with company car drivers - do you still let them drive when they reach 6 or 12 penalty points. Judging by this post perhaps you would stop them after 3 points!!

Rant over and signing out of this thread!!

decimomal, I think it is a bit OTT to say we are becoming vigilante. I also don't think it is off topic at all.

Your friends may not think they are drink drivers but that is what they are.

All our bodies process alcohol at different rates and we all have different tolerances to alcohol. So even though one person may be only slightly over the limit they may actually have more impairment than someone else who is considerably over the limit. Unfortunately the problem with alcohol is that our perception of how impaired we are to drive is impaired by the alcohol. So we think we are ok to drive but actually we are not.

However, I think we have all agreed that, in response to the original question, there is nothing in the Regs (CDM for example) that mentions being banned from driving for alcohol affecting their right to drive plant on a private site. However, in these circumstances the client is perfectly within their rights to say otherwise. Their site, their rules.

What we are in disagreement on is whether the said person should be allowed to drive plant in the circumstances. That is the debate and as is usual in such debates there are opposing sides that won't meet in the middle. That's the beauty of a free society.