Eating and driving

[PXW]

Just read this . Seems a bit sharp to me to be accused of not being in proper control of the vehicle. I could see a case where someone was munching a large sarnie/burger, all content spilling out - clearly a distraction. Or perhaps where the eating was done whilst carrying out a manoeuvre. But where do we draw the line? To me, eating per se is not tantamount to being out of control. Have often sucked a sweet or a mint, or sipped water whislt driving - always making the judgement in the context of the road and conditions - with the overriding factor of safety. Of course, people will point out that we don't have the full facts here etc etc - but on the basis of what is reported, was she hard done by?

 

[imadoofus]

On the face of it, yes she was hard done by.

But, the crust came from a bag on the passenger seat, which presumably previously contained a sandwich; suggesting that she had already eaten the sandwich earlier in her journey, and not been spotted.

So maybe it's karma...

 

[crockers]

Sounds pathetic at first reading...... BUT for all those that want more police and not so many cameras.....would a camera have spotted her??

 

[mattc]

Can she challenge it in court?

 

[Rovinghawk]

"What if she'd killed a child?"

But she didn't, so it's not relevant. She shouldn't be punished for what didn't happen.

RH

 

[crockers]

Can she challenge it in court?

Of course one can challenge any offense in court - but if you lose the fine is greater and the risk of extra points.

Also will a magistrate believe her story over the policemans. Is he in a position to judge how much concentration was used to eat the sandwich.....opps 2" crust - yea right.

 

[verytalldave]

I have read elsewhere that radio operation/smoking/opening sunroof etc...etc....depending on circumstances could also constitute the same offence of not being in full control of your vehicle.
However, it does seem a tad OTT and in my opinion is unreasonable when you consider the penalty.
I have seen police eating burgers etc while driving in my local area presumably on duty.

 

[imadoofus]

But she didn't, so it's not relevant. She shouldn't be punished for what didn't happen.

How can you be punished for something you haven't done?

That's the arugment I used at school over my homework..

 

[mattc]

this is another guilty till you prove you're innocent one though. Of course the Damoclean sword of bigger fine and penalties if you challenge it is immediately raised. As for the what if you hit a child thats contemptable.

Now it may well be she was swerving down the road like an idoit but how many of you on here have quite safely eaten something in the car. Its a mechanical action you learn from an early age and takes as good as no brain power.

I realise its only one side of the story but is that really all the police have to do - the heinous crime of eating a sandwich and NOT hitting a child.

 

[raymont]

this is another guilty till you prove you're innocent one though. Of course the Damoclean sword of bigger fine and penalties if you challenge it is immediately raised. As for the what if you hit a child thats contemptable.

Now it may well be she was swerving down the road like an idoit but how many of you on here have quite safely eaten something in the car. Its a mechanical action you learn from an early age and takes as good as no brain power.

I realise its only one side of the story but is that really all the police have to do - the heinous crime of eating a sandwich and NOT hitting a child.

Agree with this.

From the story it appears there was only one officer present so we're in the situation where it's one persons word against another. Hardly an evidence based approach to justice. At least cameras provide real evidence.

It is totally unacceptable that if you want to defend yourself by going to court you should have the prospect of a bigger fine and / or more points.

Assuming the situation was as described it's a complete over reaction and does nothing at all to engender the support the police need from the public.

 

[CE230]

When I used to commute I often saw drivers shaving, putting on make up, feeding the baby, eating breakfast, drinking from huge insulated mugs, nattering to their passenger, picking up dropped cd's/tapes/bits of breakfast etc. Most of them were NOT in control of their vehicles but not once did I see a policeman who would have grounds for the same charge.

 

[Rovinghawk]

it's a complete over reaction and does nothing at all to engender the support the police need from the public.

I think that support was sacrificed long ago on the altars of political correctness, fundraising and meeting quotas. This does little to persuade me otherwise.

RH

 

[Rob77]

Sounds like just another handy tax to me

 

[Mr E]

Assuming the situation was as described it's a complete over reaction and does nothing at all to engender the support the police need from the public.

The highlighted part is the crux of the matter - we're hearing on side of a badly reported story (where even the car is not named correctly).

I'm more likely, on the basis of this story, to assume that something other than the eating per se bought her to the attention of the officer. Other may choose to assume that this is over-zealous policing. The real fact is that we can't possibly know.

 

[raymont]

The highlighted part is the crux of the matter - we're hearing on side of a badly reported story (where even the car is not named correctly).

I'm more likely, on the basis of this story, to assume that something other than the eating per se bought her to the attention of the officer. Other may choose to assume that this is over-zealous policing. The real fact is that we can't possibly know.

Do you mean because Zafira is spelt Safira we should assume that the story is badly reported?

 

[mattc]

I'm more likely, on the basis of this story, to assume that something other than the eating per se bought her to the attention of the officer.

So do her for that - not the eating of a sandwich or a crust or whatever!

 

[crockers]

You think this is bad then read this one



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/774655.stm

world gone barking mad.............

 

[PXW]

The highlighted part is the crux of the matter - we're hearing on side of a badly reported story (where even the car is not named correctly).

I'm more likely, on the basis of this story, to assume that something other than the eating per se bought her to the attention of the officer. Other may choose to assume that this is over-zealous policing. The real fact is that we can't possibly know.

Not sure we can really assume that there is some convenient 'other reason' for the fine and points. Firstly, if that were the case, then the policiing standards would be extremely troubling - the implication being that we live in a society where you are suspected (but not proven) to have committed one offence, the police can then charge you with another one instead. But we are not in that situation, and the police are not arguing that the cause of her fine was anything other than eating. The article is sufficiently well-researched to include a quote from the police themselves:

A Merseyside Police spokesman said: "There is no correlation between pushing a button on a radio, or changing gear and eating whilst driving.

"Ms Tsekiri was issued with a fixed penalty for not being in proper control of a vehicle. Each case is treated individualy on its merits, but by eating at the wheel a driver is likely to be not in proper control of their vehicle."

The blanket statement is there - if you eat you are likely to be not in proper control of your vehicle. However, the perpetrator in this case has a point - if eating a crust is not being in proper control, then what else is equivalent? Despite the police statement, cahnging gear is quite a close correlation (and is possibly more risky since it will often be done at the same time as a manouevre). Operating a radio may require eyes being taken off the road for a split second - even more risky. However, reading your speedo also requires taking your eyes off the road.....

I guess the questions therefore arise - when did eating in a car become such a danger? Who decided that it was, and on the back of what evidence and research? Is this interpretation of the law consistently applied, or do you only need to fast when passing through Merseyside? And - especially - what other actions by a driver are now to be considered in the same category?

 

[crockers]

Then surely smoking at the wheel must be banned --- not only do you use your hands but are in danger of a lighted object falling between your legs....oeer missus

 

[Rovinghawk]

I recall a quote from Bladerunner:

"You're not a cop, you're little people"

Is this attitude prevalent nowadays?

RH