what would your thought be if someone ( out of work hours) drove a company vehicle drunk and crashed it ending up in police custody. 

Not enough information to form a valid opinion.

Personally I have been put under significant managerial pressure "out of hours" (and not on any call rota) to attend a customers premises which was declined as I had consumed alcohol.

"out of hours" could include corporate entertaining with planned transport / accommodation / no alcohol consumption but can be impacted by domestic circumstances confusing plans and resulting in risky behaviour

alcohol consumption could also be a manifestation of poor mental health from job related stress

Only if they loose their driving licence could it impact the contract of employment - not everyone gets prosecuted or even a ban these days - so purely an HR issue.

To add to the comments already recieved - why were they driving the company vehicle?  All the vehicles we provide can only be driven on company buisness (we dont provide lease cars) so forget the drunk driving bit - if not on work duties it would be a disiplinary at least - and as round says HR not H&S.

As already stated, this is an HR issue not H&S.

Had a very similar issue a  few years ago in another organisation.

One of the regionale salesman was caught drink driving, (not while working), and subsequently disqualified from driving for 12 months.

HR deemed that the employee was unable to perform his duties and he was advised that there was no other work for him to perform, which made him un-employable as he couldn't fulfill his contract of employment. As this was the result of his own actions, he was dismissed.

Had a different issue with another employee at the same organisation, where they committed a crime, receiving a short custodial sentance. They were also dismissed on the basis that they couldn't fulfill his contract of employment.

Thanks Chris.

Wonder how many US law firms have dedicated "DUI" lawyers.

Imagine someone being hauled into Wetherfield (other options are available) nick and refusing the services of the duty solicitor and saying "No, I want to hire a DUI solicitor".

Bugger-I Just put link direct to a company website-I was looking for link to a media site but they all led to a YouTube clip from a BBC interview. Too long too boring.

I do not endorse this business.

Call a taxi?

Phone a friend.

Phone the family.

Ask a neighbour.

There are no excuses for being in control of a vehicle intoxicated - personally I would like to see this reclassified as attempted murder.

I once got a call from a manager about an emerging situation on a Sunday evening post dinner. Despite us both being "over the limit" to drive, and in reaction to my refusal to attend the site, he thought it acceptable to jump in a cab and attend a customer site - this was of course in the days before sites having drug & alcohol policies. It was also the day before I decided I would not be on call 24/7/365 for no extra money.

Is it really "often" the case that drunk driving results from needing to get a member of the family to hospital in a health emergency from a household in which there is neither a landline nor a working mobile phone and that is in such a remote location that not only are there no neighbours or nearby friends that can help, as well as no ambulances, but it is off the map as far as all taxi and similar services are concerned?

Do you have any stats on that?

Edited by user 17 June 2024 10:49:21(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

There is NO excuse - ever - for being over the drink or drugs limit behind the wheel. 

My pet/child/wife was poorly and I needed to get there doesnt work with me when there are always alternatives

Firesafety101's post says it all 

Done some reading this about this over  lunch. Quite interesting really!

Things that I have learned:

1. There are many law firms that specialise in drink offenses. They try to get you off and/or get a reduced sentence.
2. There are two distinct offences:  “being drunk in charge of a vehicle” , which is the older offence and depends on a subjective assessment that the driver is drunk. In comes into paly as soon as you get into the vehicle i.e. you don’t need to be actually drive just sitting in the driver’s seat.  Punishment typically a fine

Then there is “driving while under the influence” where you are pulled over while driving and are then tested. If you are over the limit, you are guilty and subject to a (mainly) mandatory driving ban.

3. The lawyers seem to spend most the time trying to stop people from getting a driving ban. So someone might plead guilty to “being drunk in charge of a vehicle”,  where a driving ban is not mandatory.
4. The main defence is based on the police not following  correct procedures eg not having a legitimate reason to pull someone over or not using the breath sampling equipment correctly.
5. There is no defence in law for “driving under the influence” such as “an emergency” but a court might be persuaded because of special circumstances to reduce the sentence and in particular not apply the driving ban. I suspect for this to happen you would  need to grovel to the court and admit your guilt straight away.  Being available to drive  for work reasons would not come under “an emergency”.   

As with a Risk Assessment being suitable and sufficient this ends up being the remit of the court.

The local rag regularly prints the prosecution stories and the comment sections get incredibly full about the leniency observed or the pitiful parade of excuses rolled out to mitigate poor decision making generally giving out little more than a slap on the wrist.

As to driving under the influence the "remote emergency" could equally apply to someone without a licence, yet to obtain a licence or who has had their licence removed by either a court or the DVLA for medical reasons - it remains "other than in accordance with" and invalidates insurance for third parties.

Society doesn't make laws for breaking it makes them to protect the greater good of society as a whole.

I am not convinced that driving  while drunk(or even tipsy) , for whatever  the reason could ever come under the category of “heroism”. If a person needs to get to hospital urgently you call an ambulance because they are trained to deliver emergency medical assistance, they are trained to negotiate bad roads, they are allowed to exceed the speed limit and ignore other road restrictions and if worse comes to the worse can arrange for an  air ambulance.

The standard for what is acceptable to society and for what will be accepted as a defence of a criminal act isn't "would I feel a temptation to do that thing in some circumstance?".  You might feel tempted to do it, but that in itself doesn't make it either right or excusable.

If you feel so strongly about the need to be able to drive a vehicle at all times, perhaps you should give up drinking?

Originally Posted by: Kate

If you feel so strongly about the need to be able to drive a vehicle at all times, perhaps you should give up drinking?

Kate im not sure if that comment was aimed at me - but once again let me stress I am not condoning or excusing drink driving in any circumstances. But to try and bring this back into a health and safety discussion, unless there some understanding of human behavior and the reasons behind why violations occur it can be difficult to do a meaningful accident investigation. I have seen so many so called behavioral safety systems that are simply a reason to blame the individual - we have a rule you broke it its your fault and we will discipline you - very rarely achieves long term safety improvement.  

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Getting back to H&S like  Snail said; I spend a lot of my time dealing with “enthusiasm”. This refers to the situation, when it is decided that something needs to be done and ideally  as soon as possible, so some enthusiast decides to go for it, with no plan, controls and no idea. I put my face into my and ask: “why?”. Of  course, most of the time they get away with it and so stupidity becomes, custom and practice and one day it all goes wrong.

I hesitate to be too down on 'enthusiasm' (I might prefer the term 'initiative').  It often occurs to me that we hear lots of damning comment about 'human error', and rarely celebrate 'human correctness'.  Sometimes individual initiative saves the day, and on balance I think I prefer thinking, emotional, sentient workers than drones that follow every rule as it is written.

I am mindful, for example, to celebrate Mr Spriggs who, on 13 June 1992 was working on a Network Rail arch works (St Johns).  He was on top of the arch bridge when it collapsed, and was part-buried in the rubble, but he dug himself out, ran across the tracks to a nearby station, over a footbridge, along a road, back to an excavator that was at road level. Once there, he used the bucket to support a precarious section of unsupported masonry hanging over other trapped men.  He didn't stop to worry about authorised walking routes.  He didn't stop to do a risk assessment or prepare a method statement, and his machine was probably not specced for propping structures.  However, his actions probably reduced the death-toll that day (still, two people died)

Having said all of which, I have zero sympathy for any intoxicated driver.  Some things are just stupid - and putting yourself in control of heavy fast potentially deadly machinery when your motor skills and reasoning are impaired is just stupid and ought to be treated something like attempted manslaughter.

The OP was made in 2022 and the poster last visited in August 2023.

This is a thread that came from a Spammer resurrection.

Hi Kate et al

It is not very often that drink driving is needed to get someone to hospital.  I am making the pointl that there are many cases which are decided very differently to how they are expected. We have all got examples of such capricious results. Mine is great surprise that 'reasonably practicable' was accepted by the ECJ. 

There are loads of other apparently strange results like the cases where juries decide against the directions of judges--and against the law as the public interest is higher .

It is my bet that you might even enlist the help of a cop to get you to hospital--maybe with an escort [see the French film Untouchable].

I don't drink anyway so it's irrelevant to me. I don't condone the drink driving activity I described but could be swayed depending on the circumstances. As in all cases it's the devil in the details [see Peter's ref to sect 14 FA61] Although I'm  a strict liability supporter. 

cordialement

Mike