Bangkok Police seek cab drivers helping drunks evade arrest

[chooka]

Can't really see any offence being committed. Irresponsible but not illegal.

Isn't it illegal to help someone break the law? By helping drivers evade checkpoints, don't they aid them in their drunk driving?

But are they breaking the law? I know in Australia the offence of drink driving is not committed until the actual evidentiary breathe test/blood test has been completed and the person is deemed to be in excess of the prescribed limit. The charge then shows the date and time of test and not the time of driving. (Test must be conducted within 4 hours of driving) We don't even have a power of arrest and persons do not have to submit to a test. Can be charged with refuse if they don't but can't be forced.

Have had quite a few stop and change drivers when approaching a booze bus site but nothing we could charge the new driver with. Still breath test and charge the original driver tho.

Thailand may be completely different and I have never been stopped for a breath test in Thailand.

If this is the case in Australia, I would suggest it is the exception rather than the norm. Certainly in the UK committing the offence is doing the act, not being caught for it. AFAIK drink driving is illegal here in that it is illegal for a driver to driver after imbibing more than the allowed driving blood alcohol level - not when they are proved to have done such (of course to criminally charge them evidence would be required such as a blood or accurate breath (not the portable ones the cops carry everywhere - but lab level machines at police station such as in the UK) test). Aiding and abetting another to commit a crime is a crime - probably intentionally evading police check points in order to avoid prosecution is also illegal - or at least grounds for arrest. Both the driver and the cab driver could be liable for extra charges, not less - and the taxi also has his taxi license to worry about. However this is not hard to make this a mute point - random stop and checks - police in unmarked car/bikes stopping drunks - police at pubs/clubs/etc at close - photographing people at check points looking for people continually going through (build up a database of said taxis - can even use the taxi license database as they already have photos) - following vehicles suspected of being driver by taxi driver on bike to see just how far they are willing to walk back to their taxi afterwards (and nabbing the drunk as they take the wheel back) - and so on.

No it is the norm.

[antimedia]

Can't really see any offence being committed. Irresponsible but not illegal.

I'll drink to that.

[djhotsox]

Can't really see any offence being committed. Irresponsible but not illegal.

Isn't it illegal to help someone break the law? By helping drivers evade checkpoints, don't they aid them in their drunk driving?

But are they breaking the law? I know in Australia the offence of drink driving is not committed until the actual evidentiary breathe test/blood test has been completed and the person is deemed to be in excess of the prescribed limit. The charge then shows the date and time of test and not the time of driving. (Test must be conducted within 4 hours of driving) We don't even have a power of arrest and persons do not have to submit to a test. Can be charged with refuse if they don't but can't be forced.

Have had quite a few stop and change drivers when approaching a booze bus site but nothing we could charge the new driver with. Still breath test and charge the original driver tho.

Thailand may be completely different and I have never been stopped for a breath test in Thailand.

Yes, but if the taxi drivers are helping someone evade a breath/sobriety test, which would prove the driver was drunk and driving, isn't that a crime. The test proves that an offence has taken place, if the taxi driver helps the driver evade this, shouldn't that be seen as a criminal act in itself.

Clearly you do know more about how the law is applied in drunk driving than myself, but it does seem that the taxi drivers are covering up a crime.

Yes, it is a crime. It is called "Aiding and abetting a criminal" in the Canada and U.S., I would think similar is upheld here in Thailand but not certain.

A quick Google search show that yes, it is in Thailand as well.

Edited March 19, 2014 by djhotsox

[wolf5370]

But are they breaking the law? I know in Australia the offence of drink driving is not committed until the actual evidentiary breathe test/blood test has been completed and the person is deemed to be in excess of the prescribed limit. The charge then shows the date and time of test and not the time of driving. (Test must be conducted within 4 hours of driving) We don't even have a power of arrest and persons do not have to submit to a test. Can be charged with refuse if they don't but can't be forced.

Have had quite a few stop and change drivers when approaching a booze bus site but nothing we could charge the new driver with. Still breath test and charge the original driver tho.

Thailand may be completely different and I have never been stopped for a breath test in Thailand.

If this is the case in Australia, I would suggest it is the exception rather than the norm. Certainly in the UK committing the offence is doing the act, not being caught for it. AFAIK drink driving is illegal here in that it is illegal for a driver to driver after imbibing more than the allowed driving blood alcohol level - not when they are proved to have done such (of course to criminally charge them evidence would be required such as a blood or accurate breath (not the portable ones the cops carry everywhere - but lab level machines at police station such as in the UK) test). Aiding and abetting another to commit a crime is a crime - probably intentionally evading police check points in order to avoid prosecution is also illegal - or at least grounds for arrest. Both the driver and the cab driver could be liable for extra charges, not less - and the taxi also has his taxi license to worry about. However this is not hard to make this a mute point - random stop and checks - police in unmarked car/bikes stopping drunks - police at pubs/clubs/etc at close - photographing people at check points looking for people continually going through (build up a database of said taxis - can even use the taxi license database as they already have photos) - following vehicles suspected of being driver by taxi driver on bike to see just how far they are willing to walk back to their taxi afterwards (and nabbing the drunk as they take the wheel back) - and so on.

No it is the norm.

The norm in Australia you mean? I meant it is not globally the norm - Australia (if what you said is the case) is the exception. Or are robbers only guilty if caught red handed? Seems a very awkward and strange law - guilt is the act of committing an offence, not the act of getting caught doing it.

If you mean that most countries with a true rule of law, like Australia, follow this seemingly absurd difference between the illegality of being drunk in charge and other crimes - I'd like you to list some as I would be most surprised!

[heybuz]

same in oz ,they also have chase cars b4 and after booze bus

[Chicog]

In the states people have been charged with DUI just setting in the drivers position with the key in the ignition, no driving involved

Same in the UK, you are considered "In control of the vehicle".

People have been done for going out to the car park and sleeping in their cars.

[Chicog]

Yes, but if the taxi drivers are helping someone evade a breath/sobriety test, which would prove the driver was drunk and driving, isn't that a crime. The test proves that an offence has taken place, if the taxi driver helps the driver evade this, shouldn't that be seen as a criminal act in itself.

Clearly you do know more about how the law is applied in drunk driving than myself, but it does seem that the taxi drivers are covering up a crime.

Yes, it is a crime. It is called "Aiding and abetting a criminal" in the Canada and U.S., I would think similar is upheld here in Thailand but not certain.

A quick Google search show that yes, it is in Thailand as well.

If I get pished and realise I am too drunk to drive home, and hire a cabbie to drive me, how is he "aiding and abetting a criminal"?

They have to prove an individual has committed an offence, anything else is rubbish.

More lazy arsed Thai policing.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Chicog

[JoeThePoster]

They should give the cabbies a piss-test and see what comes up.

[wolf5370]

In the states people have been charged with DUI just setting in the drivers position with the key in the ignition, no driving involved

Same in the UK, you are considered "In control of the vehicle".

People have been done for going out to the car park and sleeping in their cars.

This is true. Almost happened to a friend of mine when we were in our late teens in Kent (England). He climbed into the back (not driver's seat!)) of his old Cortina very drunk, to sleep - police were watching the car park and attempted to arrest him - he was lucky as he did not have the keys with him and they are needed to prove control (the car had been stolen and recovered earlier and the ignition had a hammered in screwdriver, used to start it, and the front door lock did not work - so he didn't bother carrying them around with him - he did have to prove it was his car though which was fine as he had the logbook in the car and id, having been stopped previously in a petrol station when cops spotted the screwdriver - as a student he couldn't afford to get the ignition fixed as it would right-off the value of the car).

[Chicog]

They should give the cabbies a piss-test and see what comes up.

And that is a whole new metallic container of phylum annelida.

[wolf5370]

Yes, but if the taxi drivers are helping someone evade a breath/sobriety test, which would prove the driver was drunk and driving, isn't that a crime. The test proves that an offence has taken place, if the taxi driver helps the driver evade this, shouldn't that be seen as a criminal act in itself.

Clearly you do know more about how the law is applied in drunk driving than myself, but it does seem that the taxi drivers are covering up a crime.

Yes, it is a crime. It is called "Aiding and abetting a criminal" in the Canada and U.S., I would think similar is upheld here in Thailand but not certain.

A quick Google search show that yes, it is in Thailand as well.

If I get pished and realise I am too drunk to drive home, and hire a cabbie to drive me, how is he "aiding and abetting a criminal"?

They have to prove an individual has committed an offence, anything else is rubbish.

More lazy arsed Thai policing.

There is a difference in using the taxi to take you home and using the taxi to just avoid a police check, with the intention to drive illegally before and afterwards - and as the taxi is aware that he is doing just that, he is aiding and abetting a drunk driver to get away with it.

[Bazt]

Can't really see any offence being committed. Irresponsible but not illegal.

Isn't it illegal to help someone break the law? By helping drivers evade checkpoints, don't they aid them in their drunk driving?

But are they breaking the law? I know in Australia the offence of drink driving is not committed until the actual evidentiary breathe test/blood test has been completed and the person is deemed to be in excess of the prescribed limit. The charge then shows the date and time of test and not the time of driving. (Test must be conducted within 4 hours of driving) We don't even have a power of arrest and persons do not have to submit to a test. Can be charged with refuse if they don't but can't be forced.

Have had quite a few stop and change drivers when approaching a booze bus site but nothing we could charge the new driver with. Still breath test and charge the original driver tho.

Thailand may be completely different and I have never been stopped for a breath test in Thailand.

Refusal of breath test still results in a DUI charge.

At least in the West

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[marioc]

Clever indeed...I wonder if it could work also in Falangs countries.

[chooka]

But are they breaking the law? I know in Australia the offence of drink driving is not committed until the actual evidentiary breathe test/blood test has been completed and the person is deemed to be in excess of the prescribed limit. The charge then shows the date and time of test and not the time of driving. (Test must be conducted within 4 hours of driving) We don't even have a power of arrest and persons do not have to submit to a test. Can be charged with refuse if they don't but can't be forced.

Have had quite a few stop and change drivers when approaching a booze bus site but nothing we could charge the new driver with. Still breath test and charge the original driver tho.

Thailand may be completely different and I have never been stopped for a breath test in Thailand.

If this is the case in Australia, I would suggest it is the exception rather than the norm. Certainly in the UK committing the offence is doing the act, not being caught for it. AFAIK drink driving is illegal here in that it is illegal for a driver to driver after imbibing more than the allowed driving blood alcohol level - not when they are proved to have done such (of course to criminally charge them evidence would be required such as a blood or accurate breath (not the portable ones the cops carry everywhere - but lab level machines at police station such as in the UK) test). Aiding and abetting another to commit a crime is a crime - probably intentionally evading police check points in order to avoid prosecution is also illegal - or at least grounds for arrest. Both the driver and the cab driver could be liable for extra charges, not less - and the taxi also has his taxi license to worry about. However this is not hard to make this a mute point - random stop and checks - police in unmarked car/bikes stopping drunks - police at pubs/clubs/etc at close - photographing people at check points looking for people continually going through (build up a database of said taxis - can even use the taxi license database as they already have photos) - following vehicles suspected of being driver by taxi driver on bike to see just how far they are willing to walk back to their taxi afterwards (and nabbing the drunk as they take the wheel back) - and so on.

No it is the norm.

The norm in Australia you mean? I meant it is not globally the norm - Australia (if what you said is the case) is the exception. Or are robbers only guilty if caught red handed? Seems a very awkward and strange law - guilt is the act of committing an offence, not the act of getting caught doing it.

If you mean that most countries with a true rule of law, like Australia, follow this seemingly absurd difference between the illegality of being drunk in charge and other crimes - I'd like you to list some as I would be most surprised!

In Melbourne we do not arrest people on the suspicion of drink driving, the person does not even have to submit to a breath test. If he does refuse then he will be charged with a separate offence of refuse. The person is not cautioned ie "You are not obliged to say or do anything until after the evidentiary breath test has been conducted. The offence will be committed then.

"Did within 4 hours of driving a motor vehicle furnished a sample of his breath for analysis by a breath analysing instrument. The result of that test indicated that his blood contained alcohol in excess of the prescribed limit being x.xx.. The offence is committed at the same location and time of the breath test ie at a police station (designated place)

[chooka]

Can't really see any offence being committed. Irresponsible but not illegal.

Isn't it illegal to help someone break the law? By helping drivers evade checkpoints, don't they aid them in their drunk driving?

But are they breaking the law? I know in Australia the offence of drink driving is not committed until the actual evidentiary breathe test/blood test has been completed and the person is deemed to be in excess of the prescribed limit. The charge then shows the date and time of test and not the time of driving. (Test must be conducted within 4 hours of driving) We don't even have a power of arrest and persons do not have to submit to a test. Can be charged with refuse if they don't but can't be forced.

Have had quite a few stop and change drivers when approaching a booze bus site but nothing we could charge the new driver with. Still breath test and charge the original driver tho.

Thailand may be completely different and I have never been stopped for a breath test in Thailand.

Refusal of breath test still results in a DUI charge.

At least in the West

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Quite true, refuse a preliminary breath test, fail to accompany and fail to furnish a sample of breathe for analysis are all separate offences.

[wolf5370]

The norm in Australia you mean? I meant it is not globally the norm - Australia (if what you said is the case) is the exception. Or are robbers only guilty if caught red handed? Seems a very awkward and strange law - guilt is the act of committing an offence, not the act of getting caught doing it.

If you mean that most countries with a true rule of law, like Australia, follow this seemingly absurd difference between the illegality of being drunk in charge and other crimes - I'd like you to list some as I would be most surprised!

In Melbourne we do not arrest people on the suspicion of drink driving, the person does not even have to submit to a breath test. If he does refuse then he will be charged with a separate offence of refuse. The person is not cautioned ie "You are not obliged to say or do anything until after the evidentiary breath test has been conducted. The offence will be committed then.

"Did within 4 hours of driving a motor vehicle furnished a sample of his breath for analysis by a breath analysing instrument. The result of that test indicated that his blood contained alcohol in excess of the prescribed limit being x.xx.. The offence is committed at the same location and time of the breath test ie at a police station (designated place)

I don't doubt your understanding of Australian law in this matter - I have no idea - however, in the UK at least, this would not be the case. If you refuse the breath test, you will be arrested and taken to the police station where you will have to submit to a urine and/or blood test (or as I said one of the new lab accurate breath testing machines) - refusing to do so would go against you (http://www.drinkdrivinglaw.co.uk/offences/failing_to_provide_a_specimen_for_analysis.htm) -

It is an offence for a person who has been required to provide specimens for analysis to fail without reasonable excuse to do so.... Includes/also know as: Failing to provide a specimen for analysis, Failing or refusing to supply an evidential specimen, Without reasonable excuse, failing to supply specimens of breath, blood or urine for analysis. Failing to provide breath test, failing to provide blood test, failing to provide urine test, refusing to supply specimen, failing to provide breath, blood or urine sample.

The Police can lawfully require a person to provide a specimen of blood, breath or urine "in the course of an investigation as to whether a person has committed the offences of being in charge/driving or attempting to drive whilst unfit, or driving/attempting to drive with excess alcohol.

Essentially, if the Police think that you have consumed alcohol, or are under the influence, they are entitled to obtain evidence. Given that the only way they can obtain that evidence is to take a breath, blood or urine sample, a refusal to provide such a specimen would clearly prevent them from proving their case, so that refusal is a further offence.

Your obligation is to provide 2 specimens of breath for analysis. If you could not do this, you are guilty of failing/refusing to supply unless there is reasonable excuse

In the UK you do not even need to be arrested - or driving - to be required to provide breath/blood/urine samples (and its up to the police which they require - and they can request 2 which you are obliged to produce).

There are some delaying tactics - after the initial breath test fails and the police take you to the station for a second more accurate reading - the usual one is to request to read PACE and other information that you have a right to read - this will have to be read in a reasonable time (which is max of 4 hours I believe - and likely blood-alcohol levels will still be high enough to convict unless only a borderline reading at the first fail).

I know the UK is not even as strict as some Scandinavian countries - and not much more strict than other mainland European countries. This is what I meant when I suggested that Australia is somewhat lax in it approach compared to other first world countries - I bet the USA is nearer the UK model than the Aussie one - NZ?

[mrwebb8825]

"The Metropolitan Police Bureau is looking into traffic law to see how they can punish taxi drivers who are reportedly hired by drunken people to drive their cars past police checkpoints"

They're going to try and find a way to fine people for taking the wheel AWAY FROM a DRUNK DRIVER and driving them home for money? Not to mention SAVING LIVES! Is THAT about it? Tards

[DLP]

What the taxi drivers are doing is driving someone from point A to point B.

I thought that was a taxi drivers job.

[Loles]

My idea this is a big BST story, an urban legend.

May be this happened one time and some-one has made publicity for it.

And where does leave the cab driver his car when he is picked up by drunk driver suddenly? In the left lane?

And than through the service walks back to his car. Unbelievable (for me).

[tompelli]

What a load of <deleted>. They got the Red Bull guy bang to rights, high on coke, speeding & vehicular manslaughter & what happened? Get a hold of him, then I might be interested in the police upholding the law - wouldn't that be a nice example?

[somchaimaidai]

It is very tough to bribe your way out of drunk driving now. That is why this is happening.

And no, I have no personal experience with that.

If you mean by tough that's its getting more expensive as the police realise the increased earning potential of this offence then I agree with you.

3 of my staff in the past year have complained about the police getting greedier with these offences. Not condoning it but we should realise that it is still rife, at least in bangkok.

[seabass69]

Can't really see any offence being committed. Irresponsible but not illegal.

Isn't it illegal to help someone break the law? By helping drivers evade checkpoints, don't they aid them in their drunk driving?

But are they breaking the law? I know in Australia the offence of drink driving is not committed until the actual evidentiary breathe test/blood test has been completed and the person is deemed to be in excess of the prescribed limit. The charge then shows the date and time of test and not the time of driving. (Test must be conducted within 4 hours of driving) We don't even have a power of arrest and persons do not have to submit to a test. Can be charged with refuse if they don't but can't be forced.

Have had quite a few stop and change drivers when approaching a booze bus site but nothing we could charge the new driver with. Still breath test and charge the original driver tho.

Thailand may be completely different and I have never been stopped for a breath test in Thailand.

So you're only committing an offence if you're caught? Yep, sounds like Thailand to me.

[Bangmod]

Yeah Shinawatra's order the cops to do minor offenses, and evade the police from fighting crimes!!!

way to go, now everybody seems to be on ear drops

[chooka]

What a load of <deleted>. They got the Red Bull guy bang to rights, high on coke, speeding & vehicular manslaughter & what happened? Get a hold of him, then I might be interested in the police upholding the law - wouldn't that be a nice example?

Will never happen he is still in a Singapore hospital with the sniffles. The maids, nursing and personal staff say he is still using 2 tissues per day. He is extremely ill. Now he has dropped into depression because Daniel Ricciardo driving for Red Bull and in his debut race finished 2nd and was disqualified. It's not fair this poor guy is going through hell. He should have been in Melbourne to sort this out.

[seajae]

Can't really see any offence being committed. Irresponsible but not illegal.

Isn't it illegal to help someone break the law? By helping drivers evade checkpoints, don't they aid them in their drunk driving?

But are they breaking the law? I know in Australia the offence of drink driving is not committed until the actual evidentiary breathe test/blood test has been completed and the person is deemed to be in excess of the prescribed limit. The charge then shows the date and time of test and not the time of driving. (Test must be conducted within 4 hours of driving) We don't even have a power of arrest and persons do not have to submit to a test. Can be charged with refuse if they don't but can't be forced.

Have had quite a few stop and change drivers when approaching a booze bus site but nothing we could charge the new driver with. Still breath test and charge the original driver tho.

Thailand may be completely different and I have never been stopped for a breath test in Thailand.

In the states people have been charged with DUI just setting in the drivers position with the key in the ignition, no driving involved

when I was 18 I would sleep it off in the back of my panelvan if I had drunk too much rather than risk driving and being caught. Had one cop try to grab me for being in charge of a car whilst drunk when he saw me climbing over the seat to sleep it off but I had already ditched the keys into a little hidie hole and told him that the keys where with a friend and would be returned to me in the morning, really p*ssed him off but he couldnt do anything about it when I produced the rego papers and my licence to show I owned the car.

[smedly]

Yes, but if the taxi drivers are helping someone evade a breath/sobriety test, which would prove the driver was drunk and driving, isn't that a crime. The test proves that an offence has taken place, if the taxi driver helps the driver evade this, shouldn't that be seen as a criminal act in itself.

Clearly you do know more about how the law is applied in drunk driving than myself, but it does seem that the taxi drivers are covering up a crime.

Yes, it is a crime. It is called "Aiding and abetting a criminal" in the Canada and U.S., I would think similar is upheld here in Thailand but not certain.

A quick Google search show that yes, it is in Thailand as well.

If I get pished and realise I am too drunk to drive home, and hire a cabbie to drive me, how is he "aiding and abetting a criminal"?

They have to prove an individual has committed an offence, anything else is rubbish.

More lazy arsed Thai policing.

There is a difference in using the taxi to take you home and using the taxi to just avoid a police check, with the intention to drive illegally before and afterwards - and as the taxi is aware that he is doing just that, he is aiding and abetting a drunk driver to get away with it.

you are correct but as I already stated the police need to prove that this was the intention by allowing the whole process to complete then building a case and presenting it in court

There's no use in stopping them while the taxi driver is driving the car - at that point no offence has been committed the taxi driver is simply driving a drunk man home in his car - no way to prove otherwise - in my home city people would sometimes get a taxi and 2x drivers (effectively 2x taxi's) one taxi would follow while the other driver would drive the drunks car to his house - were they evading the law if they drove through a check point - no

[wolf5370]

There is a difference in using the taxi to take you home and using the taxi to just avoid a police check, with the intention to drive illegally before and afterwards - and as the taxi is aware that he is doing just that, he is aiding and abetting a drunk driver to get away with it.

you are correct but as I already stated the police need to prove that this was the intention by allowing the whole process to complete then building a case and presenting it in court

There's no use in stopping them while the taxi driver is driving the car - at that point no offence has been committed the taxi driver is simply driving a drunk man home in his car - no way to prove otherwise - in my home city people would sometimes get a taxi and 2x drivers (effectively 2x taxi's) one taxi would follow while the other driver would drive the drunks car to his house - were they evading the law if they drove through a check point - no

No, not if they drove him home - if on the other hand they stopped and let him drive himself home after the check point, and thus was their intension, then yes, that's aiding and abetting. Proving it (and their intension - easy to say the guy changed his mind), as you say, is another matter entirely.

[scorecard]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Can't really see any offence being committed. Irresponsible but not illegal.

Isn't it illegal to help someone break the law? By helping drivers evade checkpoints, don't they aid them in their drunk driving?

But are they breaking the law? I know in Australia the offence of drink driving is not committed until the actual evidentiary breathe test/blood test has been completed and the person is deemed to be in excess of the prescribed limit. The charge then shows the date and time of test and not the time of driving. (Test must be conducted within 4 hours of driving) We don't even have a power of arrest and persons do not have to submit to a test. Can be charged with refuse if they don't but can't be forced.

Have had quite a few stop and change drivers when approaching a booze bus site but nothing we could charge the new driver with. Still breath test and charge the original driver tho.

Thailand may be completely different and I have never been stopped for a breath test in Thailand.

Yes, but if the taxi drivers are helping someone evade a breath/sobriety test, which would prove the driver was drunk and driving, isn't that a crime. The test proves that an offence has taken place, if the taxi driver helps the driver evade this, shouldn't that be seen as a criminal act in itself.

Clearly you do know more about how the law is applied in drunk driving than myself, but it does seem that the taxi drivers are covering up a crime.

'Covering up a crime' is one valid way to summarize the situation.

Another analysis is that drunk drivers, after going through the 'paid driver' scam, are still on the road with the possibility that they will cause an accident and me or my Thai kids or my Thai grandchildren will be killed or maimed.

[chooka]

@Seajae post 56

the Sandman, shagger Van. many women met their man in a Sandman.

Edited March 19, 2014 by chooka

[chooka]

People, please it is not an offence to drive a drunk person from one location to another. The taxi drivers are not breaking any law. If the guy is totally pissed then they are irresponsible if they give the keys back to him/her and that is it. They could take the 300 baht walk back down to the BIB give them the keys say he is to pissed to drive. He hasn't been found driving so the worst case is he gets locked up for drunk in a public place. The taxi driver makes his money and nobody dies.