DWE: driving while eating
The comments in this thread led to the revelation that, in Britain, eating or drinking while driving has already been made an offense. And that’s not just drinking as in alcoholic beverages, either: drinking a bottle of water will do.
And not just while driving: this woman was flagged for sipping mineral water while stopped at a red light [hat tip: commenter “Fred”].
The incident lets us know where we might be headed, and it’s not in a good direction. It’s one thing to ban reckless driving and then to fine someone for it, and for acts they may be performing that probably contributed to it. But to ban certain acts themselves because they have a statistically increased frequency of contributing to accidents is a very slippery slope, and the libertarian in me protests.
First there’s banning texting and cell phone use. Seems okay, doesn’t it? But what’s to stop the ban from extending to radio listening, or merely talking to one’s companion? I don’t know about you, but I’m very uneasy about it all.
The topic sparks a memory of mine from many years ago, when I had my own proxy driving-while-eating experience. My then-boyfriend (later to be husband) and I were tooling about the country in his little MG, young and in love and eating potato chips.
Yes, eating potato chips (oh to be young and in love and able to eat potato chips with no thought of the consequences!). The large bag of chips was set between the low bucket seats of the MG for easy access (oh to be young and in love and eating potato chips while sitting in low bucket seats with no thought of the aching back!).
We were in Arizona, if memory serves me. Suddenly, while reaching and munching, reaching and munching, my boyfriend spied the blue flashing lights of an approaching highway patrol car bent on pulling us over. Obediently pull over we did, and after the officer came to the driver’s side window and asked for the usual license and other papers, he explained to us that the car had been weaving back and forth in its lane.
He asked for an explanation, and my boyfriend pointed to the bag, “I was eating potato chips.”
The officer, poker-faced as they nearly always are, responded, “Don’t drive and eat potato chips.”
While my boyfriend was busy nodding obsequiously and wisely (“Yes, sir! Yes, sir!”) the whole thing began to strike me as funny. Very funny. I knew it is always a good idea to be very calm and very unemotional with police, but try as I might I couldn’t keep a giggle or two from bubbling up and bursting forth from my lips.
The officer stared at me. My boyfriend glared at me. Fortunately, that was the end of it; we didn’t get a fine for eating or for giggling.
And I’ve never since been tempted to laugh on the rare occasions when I’ve been pulled over for a violation. It’s just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.
Here’s yet another example of the impending nanny state, compliments of those “enlightened” souls in the UK.
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010/12/welcome-to-the-nanny-state/
Ah, and don’t forget that with this goes the need to adhere to party mentality… Bwahhaahahaaaa!
few have taken it seriously for over 40 years and now we notice?
Well, we all sneered and mocked when the helmet laws and the seat belt laws came in and those opposed said, “Just wait. If they can do this they’ll be in your bedroom soon.”
We said they were fools. The more fool we.
vanderleun:
Pennsylvania had a helmet law, but repealed it under pressure from motorcyclists. Then they passed a seatbelt law.
About a month ago my car was hit by a motorcyclist who wasn’t wearing a helmet. He went to the hospital, and my car had the right front door stove in. I was unhurt, even though I wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. Then again I wasn’t in the car at the time, as it was parked.
Sometimes exuberance just gets the better of them.
Once, around the time counties in Illinois discovered they could use the new DUI penalties to avoid tax hikes, I was pulled over for weaving.
It was a very narrow road.
I asked the officer if he had observed me crossing the center yellow line.
I asked him if he had observed me going off the road onto the shoulder.
No, but
At that point, for once in my life, I did the smart thing and shut up.
The cop looked at the road, thought a minute, gave me back my license, and left.
Automobiles are inherently dangerous objects. In the U.S., auto accidents cause over 40,000 deaths per year, and almost 3 million non-fatal injuries. Why don’t we ban driving cars?
I’m not suggesting we outlaw cars, per se. You can still own one if you like, you just can’t drive it. You would have to let it sit in your driveway. It can be an object of admiration for you and your friends, serving a function similar to that of a fish tank. Fish aren’t companion pets. They can’t be taught cool tricks. Their only purpose is to allow people to look at them.
You can hold a neighborhood block party and invite your neighbors to stop by and look at the car in the driveway. And your progressive car admiring friends can talk about how smart they are that by prohbitting driving, they helped save 40,000 lives annually and prevented nearly 3,000,000 non-fatal automobile related injuries. Think abou it, banning driving could solve the healthcare crisis!!!
So, let’s solve the heathcare crisis by turning the inherently dangerous automobile into the 21st century equivalent of fish tanks. Who’s with me?
Scott, as an added feature, the oceans would stop rising and environment would be saved. What’s not to like?
My only driving while distracted accident was in North Carolina one hot summer day, in stop and go traffic, and there were 5 or 6 exceptionally fit construction workers in the median with their shirts off. I hit the car in front of me. I leave it up to the nanny legislators to figure out how to prevent that one.
It just sounds like all the TSA stuff. If anyone had said, “if we create TSA, withing 10 years, they will be x-raying people and fondling our genitals”, no one would have believed it. If they had believed it, TSA would have died aborning. But, instead, they created TSA, gave them full authority, and step by step, got to the point of doing exactly that.
It is no wonder the government is tackling what we do in our cars, what we do at home, forcing kids to wear helmets while riding their bikes, etc. We let them do it to us.
I’m conflicted on this one. I ride a motorcycle. I often (on nicer days) commute to work on it during rush hour. Being on a bike slightly elevated in comparison to the average car I get t see what a lot of people ore doing while driving and being on a motorcycle I get VERY worried by the fact that a LOT of people are paying very little attention at all to what they are doing. The survivalist in me thinks that laws that punish people for not paying attention are a good idea. Driving is in fact a privilege and NOT a right after all.
But the libertarian in me feels a little different. Will the slippery slope go all the way to the bottom? Maybe. But I somehow doubt it.
And actually Scott fish CAN be taught to do cool tricks. Search it on youtube and you’ll be amazed.
neo, said,
“(oh to be young and in love and able to eat potato chips with no thought of the consequences!). ”
Don’t know why, but that thought just filled me with a strong urge to return to those carefree days.
Great memories of tooling around in an MG (1964) that a friend had left with me while he was on deployment. What a nifty car!
And there’s this:
“I knew it is always a good idea to be very calm and very unemotional with police, but try as I might I couldn’t keep a giggle or two from bubbling up and bursting forth from my lips.”
Recalls the memory of my wife suppressing her giggles as I was given a stern warning by a female police officer for running a stop sign. Hidden by a newly leafed out tree, I didn’t see it until well into the intersection. The police car was sitting nearby and pounced immediately. I was NOT AMUSED! But my pique passed quickly because we were young and in love.
How did we survive? All those years of no seat belts, no helmets, and no nanny state to take care of us. It’s a miracle!
I remember reading an article about a year ago about a driver in the UK ticketed for laughing while driving. It somehow makes sense in a way for the functionaries of a Leftist-ruled country to try to clamp down on unregulated laughter and other forms of unrestrained, spontaneous expressions of joy.
Mythbusters ran a test, and yes, you drive worse using a cell phone than if you’re just under the BAC legal limit. (myth #6) http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/mythbusters/15-favorite-mythbusters-car-myths?click=pm_news#fbIndex6
What its all about is the control freaks absolutely MUST rule the world.
From Dr. Sanity nails it! …
One reason I’m a Republican is that, while we may be cursed with a few of those she describes, the Democrats seem absolutely infested with them.
While I’ve seen comments here and there about neither party having a monopoly on these types, I submit that empirical evidence suggests that they truly are more prevalent within the ranks of Democrats.
So, I stand behind that quoted statement of mine.
Seems to me that the alternative to all this nanny legislation is the strict enforcement of personal responsibility. You smoke, you get lung cancer–too bad. No seat belt, your head through the windshield–suck it up. No helmet, road rash and a concussion–tough.
How about just passing one final law that says you are required to suffer the consequences of your actions and that your neighbors aren’t going to bail you out if you fail to prepare?
On eating and driving, it’s something we “road warriors” just do. You learn from experience what “road food” you can eat safely with one hand without looking at it (Taco Bell bean burrito, kept partially in the wrapper; Chick-fil-A plain chicken sandwich; any White Castle/Crystal burger), and what you can’t (any sandwich that’s either too stuffed or too heavy on the sauce; anything that requires you to look away from the road to handle it). Worst is the “lettuce bomb” exemplified by the Whopper hamburger. The ketchup-and-mayo-covered lettuce often escapes the confines of the bun, and ends up in one’s lap. Messy, distracting, and potentially dangerous. So, should the government ban eating and driving? Not for my money. I get tired of laws passed “for my own good” when I’ve seen other traffic laws not enforced that can lead to very dangerous situations–tailgating at high speed, cars going 50 in the left lane in a 70 mph zone, sudden lane changes without a signal, and so on.
One thing that’s perfectly legal to do, but quite deadly, is to drive while sleepy. Another recent Mythbusters tested if you drove worse when “tipsy” (just under legal BAC limit, .08% in California) or sleepy (Kari and Tori went without sleep for 30 hours before the test). As with the cell phone, they did worse, much worse, when sleep-deprived than when they had a bit of alcohol in them. Long, monotonous stretches of road were especially troublesome, with both ‘busters either crossing the center line or onto the shoulder repeatedly.
I can vouch for this. For a period of about 8 years, I traveled frequently to SE Asia from the East Coast. I don’t sleep well on airplanes, so when I returned to the U.S., I was badly jet-lagged, but still had to make a 50-mile (one-way) commute. Mornings were ok, but the drive home was a killer, almost literally so on way too many occasions. I can’t count the times that I almost ended up under a semi, in the ditch, or in the wrong lane.
We need those Google self-driving cars, and we need them now. Imagine opening the car door, grabbing a beer, lying down on a plush queen-sized bed and demanding to be driven to beach right now. That’d be real nice.
LAG said, “Seems to me that the alternative to all this nanny legislation is the strict enforcement of personal responsibility. You smoke, you get lung cancer—too bad. No seat belt, your head through the windshield—suck it up. No helmet, road rash and a concussion—tough.”
IMO, it is our litigious society. My wife and I were astounded when we were roaming around the Alps and there were none of the usual nanny state warnings, guard rails, etc. The assumption is that you will exercise caution and good sense. If not, do not plan to sue because you were killed/injured due to a lack of common sense or caution. The laws are much different over there. Loser pays for the trial and many judges will throw the case out if reasonable judgment and caution were not exercised.
Here you can sue for nearly any death/injury. The legislators try to substitute the law for good sense and judgment. They are trying to thwart “Darwin’s Law” – which states that the gene pool is improved by eliminating those who don’t exercise good judgment and caution. At least that’s my take.
J.J.,
The idiots may not be the only ones to suffer. I was once rear-ended by a jerk in a van who had been to a motorcycle race, had been drinking, and hadn’t slept. My car rolled over and was totalled, but luckily I escaped without a scratch. Then his insurance man tried to get out of paying me the cash value of my very modest car. I told him that I worked in a hospital and knew lots of first class doctors, and that if he didn’t give me my money, he would be fighting whiplash cases for years. I got my money. I hope the van driver had to survive on hot dogs for years to pay his car insurance premiums. He could have killed me.
Here is one for readers to ponder. I was listening online to radio station KLCW [Hamilton TX], when I heard a PSA from a state trooper.
Children under 8 years old and under 4’9″ are now required to be in booster seats. There will be no more warnings: tickets or fines will be imposed for even first-time violators. [See the link for a more detailed explanation.]
Do you consider this a necessary safety precaution, or an example of an overweening nanny state?
http://www.examiner.com/family-in-houston/child-booster-seat-law-effective-june-1-2010-boost-it-or-lose-it
http://www.kclwradio.com/ For those who like to stereotype TX, consider this. The owner of this radio station is a Buddhist. He is also black, a.k.a. Afro-American. Only in TX, as we say.
Gringo, Malcomn Gladwell analyzed the many tests and reports about child safety seats and found there was very little evidence that they were more effective than standard seat belts for little kids. (Not babies, just little kids). This being the case I think it is wrong to make such legislation. I know I have suffered for it, when I have been unable take a cab with my son because I don’t happen to travel everywhere with a massive cumbersome car seat. Irrational fears tend to outweigh firm evidence when it comes to our kids.
Child seats up to 8 years? That’s the law in Ohio. Overweening, unbridled nanny state for sure. The shuffling around, storage and manipulating of the 5 seats I need for my 5 grandchildren drives us crazy. If I drop some off and my husband picks them up, I have to unhook the seats, schlepp them from the car to wherever, then the reverse has to happen when he picks them up. Not only that, you have to have 1 kind of seat for the infants, another for toddlers, and yet another for the bigger kids until they are 8 years old. Arrrgggghhh!
The fallacy is in the new feminized world view that considers any risk in life to be unneccessary and negligent . When in fact it has always been risky to live a natural and spontaneous human life.
We can either be uber safe cocoon people or natually risky humans. Let the argument be over whether it is the sparrow or the parakeet that lives the superior life.
Steve Ducharme Says: Driving is in fact a privilege and NOT a right after all.
For over thirty years I’ve been hearing that statement from pompous statists, either Republican or Democrat; and for over thirty years I’ve bridled at the tone. (NB: I’m not calling you a statist, Steve!)
As a practical matter, I don’t think that everybody who can start their engine should be allowed on public roads.
As a practical matter, I don’t trust the government to strike the appropriate balance between freedom and safety. With every new safety-related restriction, the politicians are seen to be doing something about a “problem”, government revenues increase via fines and taxes, bureaucratic jobs are created for their hack supporters, government contracts are created for their donors, and opportunities are fabricated for trial lawyers.
A while ago, some UK gummint type was recorded admitting that traffic cameras were being installed for revenue and safety was only a pretext. I don’t have time to dig up a link, sorry.
Simon: do you have a link for that Malcolm Gladwell study? Thanks.
[I forgot to add that the radio station in question plays traditional country, which makes its being owned by an Afro-American of the Buddhist religion rather interesting.]
On eating and driving, waltj pretty much nails it.
I too am a road warrior.
A “road warrior” is anyone who is not a professional driver, but who nonetheless spends a lot of their work time driving from one place to another. This includes people such as salesmen, field service people, couriers etc. Generally, folks who put 30000 or more miles on a car per year in their work. (Ironically, this also includes a lot of cops.)
Do I sometimes eat while driving down the road? Yeah, sometimes I do, though I would rather not. I do it because it saves time. And as waltj has said, we know what we can eat while driving and what we can’t. And I never eat while driving unless I am out on the open road where hazards – and other drivers – are few and far between.
Do I use a cell phone while driving? Of course I do. I have to because I have to be dispatched while I’m on the road. I also have a pretty good hands-free system that makes cell phone conversation no less safe than conversing with a front seat passenger. (I have noticed that in this thread and the previous one, the use of a hands free system has gone almost completely unmentioned.)
Look, we all do stupid stuff every now and then. It’s part of the human condition. But a few people are just inherently stupid. (chronic DUI’s for example.) In my opinion one of our biggest problems as a society is that we are over-run by busybodies who through their influence – mostly via the sensationalist press – have stampeded our legislators to pass silly laws which pull all of us down to the “inherently stupid” level.
We have to turn this around now or real soon we will have no more freedom at all. But all for our own good of course.
When I posted my previous comment, I hadn’t seen Michael Ledeen’s The Stop Sign Mystery.
One of my favorite routines by a country comedian (Jerry somebody) goes like this:
“They say it’s unsafe to use yer cell phone while drivin’ and it’s TRUE! Why just tha otha’ day, Ah had to slam on mah brakes to keep from hittin’ a guy who ran a red light while he wuz tawkin’ on his cell pone.
Mah hambugah flew all ovah tha car!”
Risk aversion sunk to the lowest common denominator among us. Government hasn’t learned yet that you can’t fix stupid, nor can you legislate against it.
SteveH,
re: “safe cocoon people”.
As I see it the only legit purpose and reason for existing for a government is “providing safety and security of the public”.
It’s all right and well until this function is limited to Army/Navy, police, border patrol and national Fire Code. But nature of any bureaucracy is to grow like cancer, and various governmental departments now “taking care” of everything in their sight.
It only means there should be set a limit to this expansion. A perfect time for the public to stop to be “served” by nanny of steroids.
It’s a natural process, and I don’t see a reason to be angry or emotional about it…