Rank: Forum user
|
what would your thought be if someone ( out of work hours) drove a company vehicle drunk and crashed it ending up in police custody.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would be concerned that (a) they had brought the company into disrepute and (b) that they were not a fit and proper person to drive on behalf of the company. I might also think that (c) that this probably wasn't my problem (as the poor old H&S person) but someone else's.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 2 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
How do you differantiate between a "Drunk Driver" and a "Drink Driver" Failing a breath test by one pont is different to failing by fifty points. This could be a contencious issue. I do not condone "Drink Driving" in any way shape or form. Being called a "Drunk Driver" is the sort of terminology the CPS use to make things sound ten times worse in an effort to secure a harsher conviction.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Reported Makes you wonder how good they are if they have to advertise like this
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 3 users thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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".
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What if you have been having a drink at home and your partner or mother falls in some sort of a fit--there are few ambulances and they may be late.
It is imperative that they get to hospital and your car is out of action. Only means of transport is the company heap.
What do you do?
I know what I would do.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 2 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Kate/Roundtuit We live out in the sticks---no close neighbour/friends and no phones, etc. etc......... Regards
Mike
Just playing devil's advocate, indicating that there is often a defence however unacceptable it might seem.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Kate ![Go to Quoted Post Go to Quoted Post](/Themes/iosh2/icon_latest_reply.gif) 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?
Still no excuse in my opinon. Remote locations usually have narrow roads without streetlamps and if in an "emergency" the driver may tend to drive faster than usual on dark narrow bendy roads with little concern for other road users. Also consider bad weather.
Having been in the fire service and attending road traffic crashes involving people who have died in a vehicle or are about to die if we didn't get them out fast it is not a nice place to be. Every fatality is a Trauma that sticks forever. Not fair on the emergency services.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 3 users thanked firesafety101 for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 1 user thanked Messey for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think Mike Kelly has a point. On the principle that every rule is there to be broken, as the rule very rarely if ever allows for every possible set of circumstances, I could see why someone in the sticks might wish to defend their actions in an emergency situation and where not doing something "bad" might make some other problem worse. Particularly if their level of intoxication was very marginal - as pointed out earlier in this thread "drink driving" rather than "drunk driving". If H&S professionals consistently insisted on 100% compliance with H&S legislation, they would soon lose credibility and simply reinforce the common idea that they are the Safety Police, not the enablers.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 3 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Done some reading this about this over lunch. Quite interesting really! Things that I have learned: - There are many law firms that specialise in drink offenses. They try to get you off and/or get a reduced sentence.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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”.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Have to echo Peter - until you are placed in a difficult situation you never know how you will respond, your reason may not be an excuse and is unlikly to be a defence if something goes wronge but thats a different question. Just found this on HSE web site HSE - Heroism in the fire and rescue service. Had not read about these two but from memory this came about after HSE tried to prosecute Manchester fire service after a fire fighter died using his breathing kit, to rescue a child from a swollen river. He was an experienced SCUBA diver (hence my interest from those that know my history) and knew his kit was not designed for this purpose - but he was also a dad and he believed the consequences of not trying outweighed the risks - must be stressed he was not forced into the river it was his choice. Been a long time since this happened and could not find the actual case anymore.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel ![Go to Quoted Post Go to Quoted Post](/Themes/iosh2/icon_latest_reply.gif) I am not convinced that driving while drunk(or even tipsy) , for whatever the reason could ever come under the category of “heroism”.
And apologies if i gave that impression im my post - i was simply trying to show how sometimes we make a decision in the spur of the moment against everything we have ever been taught - and until you find yourself in that position no one knows how they will react.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 2 users thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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?
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kate, what the law says and what is "acceptable to society" are not always identical for lots of reasons, some good, some not so good. When I joined the HSE we were NOT enforcing LOTS of "strict liability" duties. In particular when it came to machinery guarding and Section 14 of the Factories Act 1961: "Every dangerous part of machinery shall be securely fenced...." ...we literally had 1000s of internal instructions (some of which were made public) which advised as to what standard to enforce INSTEAD of the law. In some cases action had been taken to change the law to something that was do-able without bringing industy to a standstill - in particular via the Woodworking Machinery Regulations 1922 (and later 1974) and the Abrasive Wheels Regulations 1969 which swept away the strict liability. But that only covered a tiny fraction of all the machines which would not be capable of being used if fully compliant with Section 14 (even allowing for the exceptions written into FA 1961. The subject of drink or drunk driving is understandably of societal concern but needs to be considered in a broader context where excuses (valid or not) are made for all sorts of different types of law breaking.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Kate ![Go to Quoted Post Go to Quoted Post](/Themes/iosh2/icon_latest_reply.gif) 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.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 2 users thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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 hands and ask: “why?”. Of course, most of the time they get away with it and so stupidity becomes, custom and practice until one day it all goes wrong.
Edited by user 19 June 2024 09:02:57(UTC)
| Reason: grammer
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 4 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel ![Go to Quoted Post Go to Quoted Post](/Themes/iosh2/icon_latest_reply.gif) 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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Back to the OP. Once released they’d have been charged or await summons if sent off for analysis. Obviously part of the Inv is to consider the nice Qs to ask to establish the result. They’d not be obliged to show you their printout result or analysis result. That’s where a sound procedure comes in pending a court outcome - and very frequent DVLA checks. Until then any interview would be very generalised as to how it came about, along with a review of the drink/drug policy of course
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The OP was made in 2022 and the poster last visited in August 2023. This is a thread that came from a Spammer resurrection.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The OP was made in 2022 and the poster last visited in August 2023. This is a thread that came from a Spammer resurrection.
|
![thanks](/Themes/iosh2/heart_small.png) 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Mike - methinks that suggests the need for a new thread, so I'll start it! Pierre
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.