The Future is Here - Robot Cars

[Slargos]

Can you be done for being drunk in charge of a driverless car? Over here, you don't actually have to be driving to be "in charge".

What is the legal definition of being in charge?

There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle.

Matters are more complicated where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle". 

http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm

Since violators will inevitably claim they weren't actually driving the vehicle, these laws are necessary even if they're tremendously stupid.

People who are responsible and choose to sleep it off in their car rather than drive home, for instance, can be charged with DUI. Ass-retarded.

[DontSayBanana]

  Active park assist is far from the closest thing that made it to the market.  Mercedes S-Class is a test-bed for all sorts of gizmos that will gradually make up a robot car.  Active cruise control that automatically accelerates or brakes is pretty nifty, and much more advanced than a park assist.

I did say "that I know of," although they both seem about on level playing ground, one manages steering the car while unconcerned about speed, and the other manages speed control while unconcerned about steering.  Nifty is in the eyes of the person buying the vehicle.

[jimmy olsen]

This isn't the future! Where the hell is my flying car and jetpack!? 

[DGuller]

  Active park assist is far from the closest thing that made it to the market.  Mercedes S-Class is a test-bed for all sorts of gizmos that will gradually make up a robot car.  Active cruise control that automatically accelerates or brakes is pretty nifty, and much more advanced than a park assist.

I did say "that I know of," although they both seem about on level playing ground, one manages steering the car while unconcerned about speed, and the other manages speed control while unconcerned about steering.  Nifty is in the eyes of the person buying the vehicle.

Yeah, but I would think that priority for robot cars would be to drive automatically, not park automatically.

[The Brain]

Will the various robot settings be considered racist? "Old Asian", "Young Immigrant" etc?

[Barrister]

Can you be done for being drunk in charge of a driverless car? Over here, you don't actually have to be driving to be "in charge".

What is the legal definition of being in charge?

There is no legal definition for the term "in charge" so each case will depend on its exact circumstances and facts. Generally, a Defendant is "in charge" if he was the owner/in possession of the vehicle or had recently driven it. He is not in charge if it is being driven by another person or is "a great distance" from the vehicle.

Matters are more complicated where a person is sitting in the vehicle or "otherwise involved with it". In charge can include attempting to gain entry to the vehicle and failing, having keys to the vehicle, having intention to take control of the vehicle or even "being near the vehicle". 

http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/in_charge_of_a_vehicle_with_excess_alcohol.htm

Over here you can be charged with having "care or control" of a motor vehicle while impaired.  It all comes down the particular facts, but you can be convicted for having the keys in your pocket while you sit in the drivers seat for example.  The test is a risk of setting the vehicle in motion.

So yes, I imagine you could be convicted.

[DGuller]

That's just dumb, except in very limited circumstances (you're caught drunk while not driving, but while being in a place where you must have driven to recently).  Driving under the influence should actually be about driving under the influence.

[Barrister]

That's just dumb, except in very limited circumstances (you're caught drunk while not driving, but while being in a place where you must have driven to recently).  Driving under the influence should actually be about driving under the influence.

I love how you guys are such legal experts.

The "care or control" law is not dumb at all.  Otherwise you'd have a situation where if the cop can't maintain line of sight with the driver for the entire time, once the vehicle stops nobody is "driving" it any longer, and if there is more than one person in the vehicle you'd never be able to prove who was driving.

[DGuller]

If you phrased it as a law that defines what is a reasonable suspicion that one drove the car intoxicated, that would be fine.  In fact, that's pretty much what my exception touched upon. 

What you seemed to imply is that the risk of driving a car intoxicated counts as DUI as well, which I still maintain is assinine.  If that's not what you meant, then of course my comments are based on a poorly worded interpretation of the law rather than the actual law.

[Barrister]

If you phrased it as a law that defines what is a reasonable suspicion that one drove the car intoxicated, that would be fine.  In fact, that's pretty much what my exception touched upon. 

What you seemed to imply is that the risk of driving a car intoxicated counts as DUI as well, which I still maintain is assinine.  If that's not what you meant, then of course my comments are based on a poorly worded interpretation of the law rather than the actual law.

Can't do it like that.  The Crown (or the state) must prove all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.  One of the elements of the offence of impaired driving is of course that the accused is driving a motor vehicle.

Care or control is a highly litigated area, and comes down to the specific facts of the case.  Having the keys in your pocket, standing beside the vehicle in your own driveway might theoretically be the basis for a conviction, but realistically will not.  Being seated in the drivers seat, keys in the ignition, at the side of the road, will certainly get you convicted.  And everything else inbetween is a bit of a crapshoot.

[Razgovory]

What about underneath the car, keys in the gas tank, wearing a big hat?  Car is also on a bridge.

[Barrister]

What about underneath the car, keys in the gas tank, wearing a big hat?  Car is also on a bridge.

You might laugh, but there are hundreds if not thousands of these kinds of cases that are reported.   

[DGuller]

I wonder if you can get off the DUI charge by having a bottle of vodka in your car.  Let's say that a cop catches you shitfaced when you're stopped on the side of the road.  Normally the assumption is that you must've been even drunker when you got there, but you have a bottle of vodka with you, and you aren't moving.  Furthermore, in your shitfaced condition, you accidentally lost the keys to your car.  You'll probably be nailed on the open container charge, but can you get a DUI from it?

[Razgovory]

What about underneath the car, keys in the gas tank, wearing a big hat?  Car is also on a bridge.

You might laugh, but there are hundreds if not thousands of these kinds of cases that are reported.   

I wasn't laughing, and I wasn't drinking.  I was very grateful when the police showed up and scared away those Rotary Club bullies.

[Barrister]

I wonder if you can get off the DUI charge by having a bottle of vodka in your car.  Let's say that a cop catches you shitfaced when you're stopped on the side of the road.  Normally the assumption is that you must've been even drunker when you got there, but you have a bottle of vodka with you, and you aren't moving.  Furthermore, in your shitfaced condition, you accidentally lost the keys to your car.  You'll probably be nailed on the open container charge, but can you get a DUI from it?

In the biz it's called bolus drinking, or a last drink defence.  It's the claim that you only started drinking after you stopped.  It can come into play any time when there is even a brief gap between the observed driving, and police being in contact with the driver.