Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

by PLOUGHLIN Sat Nov 12, 2016 11:44 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by moggyminor1966 Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:16 pm

For that to have happened he was either drunk or the camper was overloaded. Was lucky that no other vehicle was involved.

by **roli** Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:07 pm

Just seen it on NW News where they announced his sentence.
Looking at the video on TV he was speeding at 80mph and I dont think outside lane use was justified.
That section of the M6 can be very windy

by -mojo- Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:38 am

I thought it was quite considerate of him to park it neatly on the hard shoulder! Well, most of it...

by Kingham Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:33 am

Drugged up ??... No other reason for him to refuse a blood sample !

by Pete Taylor Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:56 am

Yet another argument to raise the driving age for Motorhomes to 60? Whistle1

by dbroada Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:10 am

Wargenwolf wrote:Drugged up ??... No other reason for him to refuse a blood sample !

Jehova's witness?

by PLOUGHLIN Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:40 am

Wargenwolf wrote:Drugged up ??... No other reason for him to refuse a blood sample !

Trypanophobia

by Kingham Sun Nov 13, 2016 11:59 am

Pete Taylor wrote:Yet another argument to raise the driving age for Motorhomes to 60?

Make it 55 and I'm on board smile!

by Kingham Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:15 pm

Dave & Peter L..... Ok, I'll rephrase up!

and clarify my question.

Drugged up ??.... Not many valid reasons for him to refuse a blood sample and the fact that he was charged specifically with refusing a blood sample makes it clear to me that if he had a valid reason, such as religious grounds, or a genuine phobia of needles, the legal procedure does not allow a charge to be laid, until the option of having the sample of blood replaced by one of urine, has been offered.
In that latter case a charge of refusing a 'sample' for analysis would be laid, not 'blood' as reported in the article.

If however, the driver was hospitalised and the request was made at hospital, it could be drink related, or a mixture of both.

If the refusal was at a police station and drink was involved, an additional charge of refusing to provide a specimen of breath would have been laid.

by Kingham Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:35 pm

dbroada wrote:
Wargenwolf wrote:Drugged up ??... No other reason for him to refuse a blood sample !
Jehova's witness?

I'd never heard of JW' religion banning them from giving an evidential sample and have tried to find actual examples on the Internet for my own education. I can find plenty on them not accepting blood as part of medical treatment, but nothing in their belief that exempts them from this aspect of law.

by dbroada Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:13 pm

Wargenwolf wrote:
dbroada wrote:
Wargenwolf wrote:Drugged up ??... No other reason for him to refuse a blood sample !
Jehova's witness?

I'd never heard of JW' religion banning them from giving an evidential sample and have tried to find actual examples on the Internet for my own education. I can find plenty on them not accepting blood as part of medical treatment, but nothing in their belief that exempts them from this aspect of law.

I did end with a ? to indicate I wasn't sure. Whistle1

I have to admit that when I read the initial post I understood the reluctance to give a sample was because of guilt.

I read recently of the early days of urine samples on the Tour de France. Many riders stored a bag of "clean" urine under their armpit with a tube that fed into their shorts. In these days they were allowed privacy while producing the sample, nicely warm from the storage. It was usual for the winner plus two others to be taken aside for testing. The overseeing doctor got suspicious when the winner took too long to produce a sample so he went in to the booth to find the rider trying to sort his sample out as a failure in the equipment made it impossible to transfer the fluids. The doctor then examined the second rider only to find he had the same arrangement. The final rider didn't have such arrangements and produced a sample in the natural way, but he failed the drug test anyway.

by TeamRienza Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:22 pm

This person appears to have previous form, especially in prescription drug misuse. The name address and age are the same in both articles.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Davy

by Pete Taylor Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:18 pm

Sounds like he should not have been driving at all with that addiction problem.

Did anyone else notice that when the 'van first appears there already seem to be two external locker doors missing? Looks like he had already hit something.

by PLOUGHLIN Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:55 pm

Damage around the rear wheel arch as well.

by Kingham Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:40 pm

Pete Taylor wrote:Sounds like he should not have been driving at all with that addiction problem.

Did anyone else notice that when the 'van first appears there already seem to be two external locker doors missing? Looks like he had already hit something.

PLOUGHLINDamage around the rear wheel arch as well.

On another motorhome forum I frequent, one member stated that this incident went on for 35 miles with many members of the public ringing the Police. Unfortunately he didn't post a link to qualify it, but if correct it's likely to explain the prior damage.

by Paulmold Sun Nov 13, 2016 4:00 pm

The reference to 35 miles is in the opening post link from ITV news.

by willy eckerslike Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:58 pm

I like the way the lorry driver went through the debris before he stopped. Then when the police closed the motorway he was on the right side to carry on !

by Greyhound Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:03 am

willy eckerslike wrote:I like the way the lorry driver went through the debris before he stopped. Then when the police closed the motorway he was on the right side to carry on !

I was also impressed he stopped at all. Down here you'd simply have a long stream of people looking out of the window as they passed by, most probably filming it as well.

Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.

Re: Don't drive too fast particularly if drunk.