Four weeks ago I emailed Dorset Constabulary regarding their notices which adorn Brittany Ferries ships and freight office informing drivers that the Port of Poole is (in their opinion) deemed to be a public place under the road Traffic Act 1988.
The question I asked was:
"According to notices displayed at the Port of Poole, it is deemed by you (Dorset Constabulary)to be a public place under the road traffic Act 1988 and that you will prosecute truck drivers who commit an offence under the aforementioned act (your notices specify drivers leaving a ferry after drinking alcohol). However you choose to ignore offences committed by drivers of other vehicles, particularly those owned and or operated by the Poole Harbour Commissioners and their employees. I refer to the use within the port area of mechanically propelled fork lift trucks, trailer tugs and other such motorised vehicles and plant.
It would seem that you operate a system of double standards, choosing to enforce the law upon one group of people and quietly ignoring offences commited by another group. It may be of course that certain vehicles are exempted - I would be grateful if you would clarify the situation at your earliest convenience"
Guess what… they havent even bothered to reply!! Duplicity is clearly alive and well in the Dorset CON - stabulary.
Drink driving is certainly taken seriously and drivers prosecuted. A good friend & colleague who was involved in an accident with the passport control hut was banned even though he was having a full rest period after leaving the ferry.
Wheel Nut:
Drink driving is certainly taken seriously and drivers prosecuted. A good friend & colleague who was involved in an accident with the passport control hut was banned even though he was having a full rest period after leaving the ferry.
And so it should be, however double standards should not apply - if the Police wish to impose the law then it should be applied evenly and fairly - not just when it suits them.
Yes there is a very simple reason why I asked the question.
If we as lorry drivers have to abide by the law, then so should everyone else - however it seems that we are being singled out (again) and that rather sticks in my throat.
And I agree about the blokes and the women on the security gate, especially the one who looks like Denis Healy, hes a right twonk!
I heard yesterday that Poole - Cherbourg is being reduced to a one ship operation. They are stopping it as a passenger route and just reverting to a one ship freight route. Anyone confirm ?.
And PHC,s Transit has a big notice by the fuel filler, Red Diesel only.
Ex Haulier
Brittany Ferries are taking the Barfleur out of service in February and mothballing it or chartering it out. They have bought an ex Superfast ferry which when it goes into service will be doing 2 Portsmouth / Cherbourg a day, the Coutinin is going to do 2 Santander a week calling at Cherbourg on the way. All BF are going to have at Poole is Condor Vitesse which they lease for the morning passenger ferry to Cherbourg from Condor and there own Normandie Express running from Poole,there seems to be some speculation that LD Lines might jump into Poole.
So all the conventional ferries are going from Poole ?. Is the superfast ship that much faster than the Barfleur ?. The biggest problem with Brittany is they are just too expensive, both for freight and car traffic. That will mean they have 5 ships running out of pompey, can it handle that ?.
there was a post on here some months ago about a dutch registered truck being done in poole for being overweight on his drive axle but the tugs are not weighed otherwise they would be the same and their tyres are a bit iffy too
i agree with what you’re saying mark double standards and just punishing the lorry drivers when all should be treated equally
if the dock is public access why do they have barriers to stop the public entering?
welshboyinspain:
there was a post on here some months ago about a dutch registered truck being done in poole for being overweight on his drive axle but the tugs are not weighed otherwise they would be the same and their tyres are a bit iffy too
i agree with what you’re saying mark double standards and just punishing the lorry drivers when all should be treated equally
if the dock is public access why do they have barriers to stop the public entering?
I think that was Portsmouth you were thinking of, but every port I have ever been on use tugs which run on red fuel, Many don’t have suspension or tax but most do not travel on the public road.
Yes it was Portsmouth and he got off it,something to do with it being the first weighbridge in the uk to checkweigh also when they weigh you they put it down as though the weighbridge is on the m271/portsmouth not in the port…
A Road or area perceived to be a road (any highway or road to which the public have access) and
any ‘other public place’ (a place where the public has access) - a field open to the pulic (ie a boot sale etc) is a public place while it is open to the public. Likewise a pub car park is open to the public so despite being private property, you can be convicted for drink driving there. If the landlord permits parking outside licensing hours, it is still a public place.
For the point of drink driving law, Dorset Police can quite rightly deem Poole docks a public place by virtue of you as a truck driver and therefore also a member of the public (as you do not work for PHC), need to drive across it.
the dock tugs, forklifts etc are private(PHC) non road going vehicles on private property (albeit also a public place) and are not subject to road traffic regs. The red deisel in the van would also apply as long as it does not leave the dock.
Please don’t confuse Drink drive / DUI laws with construction and use laws.
the dockside plant would also be covered by public liability insurance as the docks are a ‘public place’
A Road or area perceived to be a road (any highway or road to which the public have access) and
any ‘other public place’ (a place where the public has access) - a field open to the pulic (ie a boot sale etc) is a public place while it is open to the public. Likewise a pub car park is open to the public so despite being private property, you can be convicted for drink driving there. If the landlord permits parking outside licensing hours, it is still a public place.
For the point of drink driving law, Dorset Police can quite rightly deem Poole docks a public place by virtue of you as a truck driver and therefore also a member of the public (as you do not work for PHC), need to drive across it.
the dock tugs, forklifts etc are private(PHC) non road going vehicles on private property (albeit also a public place) and are not subject to road traffic regs. The red deisel in the van would also apply as long as it does not leave the dock.
Please don’t confuse Drink drive / DUI laws with construction and use laws.
the dockside plant would also be covered by public liability insurance as the docks are a ‘public place’
If there was a barrier or gates through the public had to be allowed before they could gain access…is that still a “public place”?
As i understood it, a “public place” is an area to which the public have “unfettered” access i.e. they do not have to pass a physical barrier or obstruction, or defy a prohibition either express or implied.
This is why most pub car parks are considered to be “public places” although if it were a private members club it may not necessarily be treated the same.
i may not have made it clear in my previous post, but members of the public doesn’t just apply to people wandering past a barrier on foot, Drivers of vehicles embarking or disembarking a ferry are also members of the public. You are not employed by the landowner therefore you are the ‘public’
As for the assumption that lorry drivers are being singled out in this instance, i’m sure if car drivers disembarking after a few glasses of vino would equally be likely to be invited for a breath test.
With regards to Drink driving, police officers can also invoke what is known as ‘likelihood’ if the officer percieves a likelihood that you may drive a vehicle whilst under the influence, he may arrest you for the offence of drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. This would be so if for example you were parked on Poole docks, drinking during a daily rest with say an hour of daily rest left and a book in slot at Basingstoke for 3 hours time.
It would be fair for the officer to assume you would soon need to drive and in probability be over the limit.
Please don’t take this as an attack on professional drivers, anyone in charge of any motor vehicle would be treated the same. surely everyone on this forum would support drink drivers being stopped from taking to the roads, and actively encourage anti DD initiatives. It could easily be you or your loved ones a drink driver ploughs into.
DonutUK:
As i understood it, a “public place” is an area to which the public have “unfettered” access i.e. they do not have to pass a physical barrier or obstruction, or defy a prohibition either express or implied.
To clarify,
the trading floor of a high street shop is deemed a public place during it’s trading hours even if the front door is closed and patrons have to open it themselves, as there is implied permission for the public to be there by the fact it is a shop
in the same way as the dock area is a public place by way of implied permission due to the fact the public need to enter it to board a vessel, despite there being a barrier.
I’m not too familiar with what the queing / boarding arrangements are at Poole, but i would imagine it could be feasable for coach passengers to get off their bus and go for a wander while waiting to board.
May I make it quite clear that I have NO problem with the Police in the UK or anywhere else for that matter enforcing drink drive laws - my gripe is that it appears that in Poole docks the road traffic act is being applied to one group and another namely PHC and its employees are being (or appear) to be allowed to contravene the law.
The deafening silence from Dorset Constabulary would appear to confirm this.
i’m sure if while driving through Poole, you stopped a constable and told him/her you think the tug driver on the docks is worse for ware through drink, they would go and breatylise them and prosecute.
Perhaps you could clarify which email address you sent your letter to, i suspect there are many departments within DorPol, I agree curtosy would decree a response would be appropriate, however, it is feasable the email could be lost in the internal system somewhere. May i suggest putting pen to paper in the old fashion way and either post it or drop it in to an Inspector at the Road Policing Unit next time you’re passing the divisional HQ at ferndown (just off the the roundabout for Ferndown Ind Est on the Ferndown bypass). I’m sure that would provoke a response.
I agree about drink/driving on any bit of land, however I was at a court when two guys had been charged with DD at Toddington services. First guy had gone home earlier than expected, found his Mrs in the sack with someone else and after having a little tiff about it, jumped in his car with a bottle and supped it at the services. No intention to drive anywhere but found guilty and 18 months ban.
Second guy was a company director who had been out on the lash and was seen staggering back to his car after having a pee and stopped at the wheel in the services. His very expensive Barrister argued that as the services have to pay for the update of their own tarmac, it is not a public place and his guy was let off. This was about 8-10 yrs back.
Justice depends on how much spare cash you have, not what the law states…
I think in the above cases, the officer in the first instance would correctly assume that as parking is restricted to 2 hours, there could be an intention that the driver would drive the vehicle, hence the arrest.
In the second case, not withstanding the expensive smart-ar#ed barrister, the guy still got breathylised, arrested and charged for being drunk in charge in a public place. The fact he was found not guilty in court does not detract from the police officers actions, besides, in the 8- 10 years since, i would be suprised if that defence had not been addressed with statute.
