Is it legal to drink alcohol in the passenger seat of a moving car in Ireland?

padraig102

Anyone know?

ResearchWill

I am aware of no law on this issue, but am open to correction.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055274471

coylemj

I don't think there's even an law that says the driver can't drink while driving. The offence of drink driving relates to the presence of alcohol above defined limits in the breath, blood or urine, not to the actual consumption of alcohol. So an adult male with food in his stomach could potentially swig a can of beer while driving and not be committing any offence provided he stays below the alcohol limit.

In several states in the US it's illegal to have any alcohol in the cab, even in sealed (unopened) bottles and cans so when driving home from the shopping mall you need to make sure that the booze is in the trunk in case you're puled over by the cops.

spiralism

It's illegal to drink it if you're there as the fully licenced driver present with the driver on a learner permit afaik

Victor

coylemj wrote: »

I don't think there's even an law that says the driver can't drink while driving.

There is potentially the matter of driving without due care and attention.

cursai

Drinking in a public place?

Victor

cursai wrote: »

Drinking in a public place?

Possibly, but only where there are bye-laws in place.

solas111

padraig102 wrote: »

Anyone know?

There is a big house in Kildare Street where a crowd of people with nothing better to do sit around and come up with all sorts of silly laws and regulations. No matter what you do in Ireland it is probably illegal under one of their sh*t laws. If the guard is in bad humour or needs to get his book filled up before the next court date he can do you for something.

Holsten

Yes it is legal.

TheChizler

I know someone who got a summons for specifically drinking at the wheel recently. But afaik you can be charged with anything and it's the judge who decides if a law applies. They were also 5 times over the limit so I'm guessing the former was the minor of the charges.

deandean

Holsten wrote: »

Yes it is legal.

Wu-Hoo!
BTW when you're sitting in a car, you're not in a public place IIRC?

coylemj

Victor wrote: »

There is potentially the matter of driving without due care and attention.

Cops don't stop people whom they see light cigarettes, drink cans of Coke or cups of coffee or do various other things while driving. Swigging a can of beer in and of itself isn't illegal while driving, that's all I'm saying.

The worst case the UK motorway cops came across as reported on one of those TV shows was of a lady who liked doing numeric crosswords. When pulled over they discovered that she had a magazine with those crosswords propped up against the steering wheel, a biro in one hand, the steering wheel in the other and she had a calculator strapped to one of her thighs. She was done for driving without due care and attention.

coylemj

TheChizler wrote: »

I know someone who got a summons for specifically drinking at the wheel recently.

See if he still has the summons, ask him to state the section of the RTA or any other act that was allegedly breached by drinking alcohol in the car.

TheChizler wrote: »

But afaik you can be charged with anything and it's the judge who decides if a law applies.

That's an unfortunate choice of words, you're effectively saying that the cops can make up a charge out of thin air (e.g. 'being in possession of an offensive wife' perhaps as in Not the Nine o'Clock News?) and the judge can decide if it's really illegal - it doesn't work like that. The summons has to explicitly say which law they think was broken.

TheChizler

coylemj wrote: »

That's an unfortunate choice of words, you're effectively saying that the cops can make up a charge out of thin air (e.g. 'being in possession of an offensive wife' perhaps as in Not the Nine o'Clock News?) and the judge can decide if it's really illegal - it doesn't work like that. The summons has to explicitly say which law they think was broken.

Ok I was being a bit general, I mean, the charge might be without due care and attention, but the summons did mention drinking at the wheel! Obviously if a member was bringing up charges for any old reason they wouldn't be long losing all credibility with the Judge and their superiors.

Sponge Bob

TheChizler wrote: »

Ok I was being a bit general, I mean, the charge might be without due care and attention, but the summons did mention drinking at the wheel!

How many hands were used to drink with ????

It is illegal for a full driver in the passenger seat to be pished if the driver is on a provisional and under their supervision. It is also illegal if the car is stopped and the provisional licence holder gets out while leaving the keys in the car. They might also have problems explaining L plates..or the lack of them.

Thats because the full licence holder is 'in charge' of avehicle and is fully liable if the keys are in the car. If the provisional driver stops and gets out WITH the keys they arre safe because the standard of proof for being drunk in charge requires one to be capable of starting the car which is impossible absent keys ( immobiliser) nowadays. But if it is an old car and the guard is cranky.then !!!!!

Being the only pissed person in a car, even in the back seat and with 3 other adults renders one liable to a charge of drunk in charge if nobody else has a full licence too. Do feel free to ask!

Furthermore

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/sleeping-man-drunk-in-charge-of-car-27409383.html

John McCarthy of Main Street, Ballyduff, argued through solicitor Pat Enright that he was asleep when gardaí found him in the car at 9.20am on May 2, 2010, and although the key was in the ignition and the ignition light was on, he was not intending to drive.

How could they tell??

Garda Aoife O'Connell said she found the car beside the footpath at the Kit Ahern Road in Ballybunion, facing in the wrong direction and with two flat tyres. Mr McCarthy was asleep in the car and when he woke he was groggy and said he didn't know where he was going or how he got there.

and so

Judge Mary O'Halloran said she was satisfied with the evidence of the State and that the prosecution was 'well grounded' and convicted Mr McCarthy. He was disqualified for three years and fined €400.

ResearchWill

Sponge Bob wrote: »

How many hands were used to drink with ????

It is illegal for a full driver in the passenger seat to be pished if the driver is on a provisional and under their supervision. It is also illegal if the car is stopped and the provisional licence holder gets out while leaving the keys in the car. They might also have problems explaining L plates..or the lack of them.

Thats because the full licence holder is 'in charge' of avehicle and is fully liable if the keys are in the car. If the provisional driver stops and gets out WITH the keys they arre safe because the standard of proof for being drunk in charge requires one to be capable of starting the car which is impossible absent keys ( immobiliser) nowadays. But if it is an old car and the guard is cranky.then !!!!!

Being the only pissed person in a car, even in the back seat and with 3 other adults renders one liable to a charge of drunk in charge if nobody else has a full licence too. Do feel free to ask!

Can you point to one case where a full licenced driver, who was a passanger was convicted of any drink driving charge. I will say you can't to be convicted of drink driving one must be driving. To be convicted of being in charge there must be an intent to drive.

Section 4 of the 2010 Act,

4.— (1) A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

Section 5

5.— (1) A person commits an offence if, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place with intent to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle (but not driving or attempting to drive it), he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

ResearchWill

ResearchWill wrote: »

Can you point to one case where a full licenced driver, who was a passanger was convicted of any drink driving charge. I will say you can't to be convicted of drink driving one must be driving. To be convicted of being in charge there must be an intent to drive.

I was always under the idea that u can face some sort of punishment for being drunk while being the fully qualified driver, In saying that I don't think the gardai enforce the law if it is there. BUt back to the OP question, only last week I was drinking in a friends car and we went through a checkpoint and nothing was said.

ResearchWill

tolow wrote: »

I was always under the idea that u can face some sort of punishment for being drunk while being the fully qualified driver, In saying that I don't think the gardai enforce the law if it is there. BUt back to the OP question, only last week I was drinking in a friends car and we went through a checkpoint and nothing was said.

Like lots of laws, that don't exist. I am aware of no such law, If someone can point at such a law I would be very grateful. I don't even know how AGS can perform a test on a passenger.

Marcusm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Like lots of laws, that don't exist. I am aware of no such law, If someone can point at such a law I would be very grateful. I don't even know how AGS can perform a test on a passenger.

In the ordinary course, I suspect the passenger would consent to the test to protect the learner driver. However, how could a charge be upheld against the learner driver without establishing that the supervising passenger was incapable. Perhaps declining the test is protecting the learner driver. A chicken/egg situation.

ResearchWill

Marcusm wrote: »

In the ordinary course, I suspect the passenger would consent to the test to protect the learner driver. However, how could a charge be upheld against the learner driver without establishing that the supervising passenger was incapable. Perhaps declining the test is protecting the learner driver. A chicken/egg situation.

There is no offence for the passanger. Simple he is not driving, he is not in charge. The learner driver will be tested if he is under the limit fine. I have never seen any prosecution of a passanger for being drunk, nor have I seen a prosecution of a learner driver for driving while unaccompanied when the full driver was drunk. If anyone can point to any case where this happened I would love to know of it.

Sponge Bob

ResearchWill wrote: »

nor have I seen a prosecution of a learner driver for driving while unaccompanied when the full driver was drunk. If anyone can point to any case where this happened I would love to know of it.

Fine, you explain that to the judge so.

The concept of 'in charge' is rather mutable as I explained earlier.

ResearchWill

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Fine, you explain that to the judge so.

The concept of 'in charge' is rather mutable as I explained earlier.

No the concept of in charge with intention to drive is well settled law. Also you forget the offence is not being in charge of a MPV its being in charge with the intention to drive how can anyone have an intention to drive if someone else is in the drivers seat.

BTW explaining to judges is what I do. I can say with relative certainty that no judge would convict a passenger who has no intention of driving under section 5 of the 2010 Act.

valleyoftheunos

Many years ago I was a passenger in a car in which some passengers were drinking when we were stopped by the Gardai. The Garda's first question was were we all over 18? When we said that we were he replied that was grand, no issue with the drink in that case but it meant we could all pay our own fines for not wearing our seatbelts.

It was a totes awky momo:P.

wicklowstevo

TheChizler wrote: »

I know someone who got a summons for specifically drinking at the wheel recently. But afaik you can be charged with anything and it's the judge who decides if a law applies. They were also 5 times over the limit so I'm guessing the former was the minor of the charges.

Errrmmm thats not possible ,as it isnt a law , theres laws relating to drunk in charge of a mpv or drunk in public but drinking behind the wheel is something you saw in telly , american telly.

solas111

wicklowstevo wrote: »

Errrmmm thats not possible ,as it isnt a law , theres laws relating to drunk in charge of a mpv or drunk in public but drinking behind the wheel is something you saw in telly , american telly.

Not true.

I know a case where someone was done for being drunk in charge of a vehicle even though they were not driving. Just having the key in the ignition was enough justification for a summons.

Victor

wicklowstevo wrote: »

Errrmmm thats not possible ,as it isnt a law , theres laws relating to drunk in charge of a mpv or drunk in public but drinking behind the wheel is something you saw in telly , american telly.

solas111 wrote: »

Not true.

I know a case where someone was done for being drunk in charge of a vehicle even though they were not driving. Just having the key in the ignition was enough justification for a summons.

solas111, you do realise that you said you disagreed with wicklowstevo and then you said the same thing that wicklowstevo said?

LoveCoke

coylemj wrote: »

Cops don't stop people whom they see light cigarettes, drink cans of Coke or cups of coffee or do various other things while driving. Swigging a can of beer in and of itself isn't illegal while driving, that's all I'm saying.

The worst case the UK motorway cops came across as reported on one of those TV shows was of a lady who liked doing numeric crosswords. When pulled over they discovered that she had a magazine with those crosswords propped up against the steering wheel, a biro in one hand, the steering wheel in the other and she had a calculator strapped to one of her thighs. She was done for driving without due care and attention.

if they impair your driving you can be prosecuted. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0052.html#sec52

coylemj

LoveCoke wrote: »

if they impair your driving you can be prosecuted. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0052.html#sec52

Scratching your arse can also impair your driving. My point is that in and of itself drinking a beer while driving is not an offence. I take your point that you might not be paying due care and attention but the same principle applies to all of the people who drive around with a cup of coffee sitting in a cup holder on the dash and the cops don't charge any of them with S.52 so why should a driver swilling a can of beer be treated any differently provided he's below the limit?

LoveCoke

coylemj wrote: »

Scratching your arse can also impair your driving. My point is that in and of itself drinking a beer while driving is not an offence. I take your point that you might not be paying due care and attention but the same principle applies to all of the people who drive around with a cup of coffee sitting in a cup holder on the dash and the cops don't charge any of them with S.52 so why should a driver swilling a can of beer be treated any differently provided he's below the limit?

How do you know what all the guards in the country charge people with

coylemj

LoveCoke wrote: »

How do you know what all the guards in the country charge people with

Because if the Gardai successfully prosecuted even one driver with S.52 purely because they were drinking coffee/lighting a cigarette/scratching their arse, it would be headline news.

It would also beg the question as to why a specific ban on using a mobile phone was necessary.

The existence of S.52 is neither here nor there, you could be staring out the windscreen with both hands on the wheel and still not be paying due care and attention.

LoveCoke

coylemj wrote: »

Because if the Gardai successfully prosecuted even one driver with S.52 purely because they were drinking coffee/lighting a cigarette/scratching their arse, it would be headline news.

It would also beg the question as to why a specific ban on using a mobile phone was necessary.

The existence of S.52 is neither here nor there, you could be staring out the windscreen with both hands on the wheel and still not be paying due care and attention.

now you know what all athe gardai and reporters in the country do

The existence of S.52 is neither here nor there, you could be staring out the windscreen with both hands on the wheel and still not be paying due care and attention

whatever

wicklowstevo

thank you victor

Victor

coylemj wrote: »

It would also beg the question as to why a specific ban on using a mobile phone was necessary.

Hopefully you aren't having a conversation with the coffee, imagining what it talking about, etc.

coylemj

Victor wrote: »

Hopefully you aren't having a conversation with the coffee, imagining what it talking about, etc.

That applies equally to talking on a hands free kit.

meathstevie

A fully qualified driver accompanying a learner is to all intent and purpose driving in his/her role supervising/assisting the learner.

Ask yourself this question : how would you feel about a phissed driving instructor taking you for a lesson telling you what to do with the car ?

Pat Mustard

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Many years ago I was a passenger in a car in which some passengers were drinking when we were stopped by the Gardai. The Garda's first question was were we all over 18? When we said that we were he replied that was grand, no issue with the drink in that case but it meant we could all pay our own fines for not wearing our seatbelts.

It was a totes awky momo:P.

It's a Garda's job to enquire as to perceived illegalities. A Garda could ask a driver or passenger any question under the sun, potentially.

In Ireland, there is no law against passengers drinking, as such.

Laws against having open vessels of alcohol exist in the USA and perhaps other countries, but not here.

It's as simple as that.

ResearchWill

meathstevie wrote: »

A fully qualified driver accompanying a learner is to all intent and purpose driving in his/her role supervising/assisting the learner.

Ask yourself this question : how would you feel about a phissed driving instructor taking you for a lesson telling you what to do with the car ?

Can you point at any statute law, or case that says a fully qualified passenger is driving the car. If you look at the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Act's there is no mention of the qualified licence holder. In my opinion the worst AGS could do is charge the learner with driving unaccompanied/driving with out a licence. I have never seen that happen btw. I also don't think that would even hold up, as I'm not even sure the AGS could perform a test on the passenger.

A driving instructor is providing instruction for money, I would be very annoyed if he turned up pissed. On the other hand ask yourself what's wrong with a son taking a bus to town meeting parents in pub who had had a few, and driving them home. BTW which parent do you charge with an offence, what if they ask a friend who has a full licence to join them in car he gets in front, say he has no idea son is on a learner s permit do you charge all 3 or just him with this offence, that no one can even point to in legislation or case law.

padraig102

I should have said this early but i'm asking because a guard said it to me, when me and my friend were pulled over and I was drinking in the passenger seat. my friend wasn't drinking just me and he had a full licence.