It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Cited For 'Eating While Driving' In Cobb County, Georgia...

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
I really do believe I have nearly heard or read it all, folks.

An Alabama man was driving and eating, like millions of people do everyday, and was actually stopped and given a ticket for distracted driving.


Madison Turner said he ordered a double quarter pounder with cheese from McDonald’s last week, and a police officer pulled him over, along Canton Road in Marietta.

“The officer explained to me that he observed me eating a burger for 2 miles,” Madison said. “He said specifically three times, you can’t just go down the road eating a hamburger.” According to the ticket, the officer wrote him up under Georgia’s distracted driving law, and under the comments sections wrote “eating while driving.”

That law reads, in part: “A driver shall exercise due care in operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state and shall not engage in any actions which shall distract such driver from the safe operation of such vehicle.”


According to legendary traffic/OVI attorney William Head (I've actually heard of this guy, he's like THE top notch lawyer when it comes to things like this) people are usually only ticketed when they have caused an accident...Turner did not break any traffic laws, he was not speeding, drifting out of his lane, etc. He was just driving and eating a burger.


“If this was the law, I’d have to hire more attorneys because everybody does it including me,” said William Head, a longtime traffic and DUI attorney, who is not representing Turner.

“I’ve only seen something like this charge when there’s an accident. There was no accident here so the fact that this man was charged with eating and driving is a first for me,” Head said. Head added that law was very vague.

“Maybe if you had a giant pizza in both hands and you weren’t holding the wheel or maybe if you had a watermelon, half watermelon and you were just diving into it holding it with both hands, maybe that would be something,” Head said.


Am I mistaken or are LEO's not supposed to interpret and bend laws in order for them to write citations and make arrests? Isn't the interpretation and judgment of laws left up to, heck I don't know, lawyers? Judges? I realize LEO's are tasked with knowing when someone actually BREAKS the law.

Someone really needs to reign some of these folks in, and fast.

Turner is due back in court on February 3. I am anxious to see how an actual judge, not an LEO who is playing judge, rules on the matter.


Source




posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Do you think you could OMV while munching down a mcheartattack?

Distracted drivers are certainly a danger. As to whether or not this guy was dangerous? Depends on the situation.

If he was driving according to all applicable laws, then yes this is unwarranted.

Then again, I wouldn't shed a tear if every McDonalds shut down overnight.

Just my 2c



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

then the guy should counter sue maccas for having a drive through ....personally i hate all the law suits that happen in the U.S it is petty and is really bad for society as a whole,but in this case i would make an exception



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

I have mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I believe that drivers should have both hands on the wheel when the vehicle is in motion, and that food, where available, should be taken either in the fast food joints parking lot, or at the side of a road somewhere. On the other hand, it would be fair enough to sup a bottle of water at the wheel, because one can sip that, and put it down after a couple of mouthfuls, reducing the amount of time ones hands are away from the controls, and maintaining ones hydration levels.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   

“I’ve only seen something like this charge when there’s an accident. There was no accident here so the fact that this man was charged with eating and driving is a first for me,” Head said. Head added that law was very vague.


And you shouldn't put a crosswalk in until someone gets hi by a car...

Yeah but maybe the guy was driving like a jackass and more focused on his burger. I cringe when I se people eating and driving.

So it was a first. So it doesn't happen often. So perhaps the guy was actually driving like a complete douche and this was the best thing to charge him with to get him to get his act together.

Eating a burger while driving is dangerous. Because people are stupid. Spill a little and most people are going to try to clean themselves and be distracted.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
Do you think you could OMV while munching down a mcheartattack?

Distracted drivers are certainly a danger. As to whether or not this guy was dangerous? Depends on the situation.

If he was driving according to all applicable laws, then yes this is unwarranted.

Then again, I wouldn't shed a tear if every McDonalds shut down overnight.

Just my 2c


I noted in the OP the man made no traffic mistakes. He wasn't speeding, swerving, etc.

Do I eat at Mc Donald's? Absolutely not. It's gross and I don't care to put that sort of "food" in my body. However, his restaurant choice has no bearing on the case at hand.

The LEO used a law, usually reserved for those texty texters (THE WORST, IMO) and other idiots doing idiotic things while driving, who actually POSE a risk to other drivers as evidenced by them speeding, driving way too slow, swerving, etc.

This guy was just OBSERVED by the LEO eating a burger and driving. That's it.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
Do you think you could OMV while munching down a mcheartattack?

Distracted drivers are certainly a danger. As to whether or not this guy was dangerous? Depends on the situation.

If he was driving according to all applicable laws, then yes this is unwarranted.

Then again, I wouldn't shed a tear if every McDonalds shut down overnight.

Just my 2c


McDonalds being good or bad doesn't matter. The man was ticketed and now has to defend himself in court or pay up. The lawyer fees alone are going to be more than the cost of his ticket, which means justice won't be served. In order for driving while eating to be illegal the law either needs to specify that doing so is illegal or they need to prove the man was driving while distracted. Considering he didn't cause an accident and wasn't doing anything reckless that's a tough case to prove.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1

“I’ve only seen something like this charge when there’s an accident. There was no accident here so the fact that this man was charged with eating and driving is a first for me,” Head said. Head added that law was very vague.


And you shouldn't put a crosswalk in until someone gets hi by a car...

Yeah but maybe the guy was driving like a jackass and more focused on his burger. I cringe when I se people eating and driving.

So it was a first. So it doesn't happen often. So perhaps the guy was actually driving like a complete douche and this was the best thing to charge him with to get him to get his act together.

Eating a burger while driving is dangerous. Because people are stupid. Spill a little and most people are going to try to clean themselves and be distracted.


OMG. Again, he did not break any traffic laws as I clearly stated in the OP.

Wow.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: JBurns
Do you think you could OMV while munching down a mcheartattack?

Distracted drivers are certainly a danger. As to whether or not this guy was dangerous? Depends on the situation.

If he was driving according to all applicable laws, then yes this is unwarranted.

Then again, I wouldn't shed a tear if every McDonalds shut down overnight.

Just my 2c


McDonalds being good or bad doesn't matter. The man was ticketed and now has to defend himself in court or pay up. The lawyer fees alone are going to be more than the cost of his ticket, which means justice won't be served. In order for driving while eating to be illegal the law either needs to specify that doing so is illegal or they need to prove the man was driving while distracted. Considering he didn't cause an accident and wasn't doing anything reckless that's a tough case to prove.


Thank You! Looks like you actually READ the OP!! Star for you.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit



there is always a solution

edit on 31-1-2015 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If you purchase something from a business they have no control over you and what you decide to do with a product. A drive through is on private property, they give you a bag, and at that point it's up to you where you decide to eat the food.

If you use a cell phone while driving, that's your call (heh). If you eat while driving that's your choice. If you buy a car and decide to ram other people on the road the car manufacturer should not be liable for your actions.

The guy made a choice, no one else is responsible.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

i am little torn on this one.....i agree with you that driving and eating is a stupid thing to do....in fact around 15 years ago now i spent 50 grand on a brand new ute and i crashed it into a gutter because i was eating,i dropped a blueberry onto the upholstery and took my eyes of the road to clean it....i know i get the dumb ass reward for that one....

my problem comes with the drive through itself...it promotes bad habits,you can drive away with food without getting out of the car,so technically you are breaking the law by simply driving away from the drive through with food....



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck




OMG. Again, he did not break any traffic laws as I clearly stated in the OP.

Wow.



Well he still broke the law, so I would call that breaking traffic laws. Also, its basically only this guys word at this point. I read the article too sweetheart, I didn't see anything about why the guy was actually stopped.

You think perhaps the guy that was ticketed is pissed?

NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED DOES IT GIVE A REASON WHY HE WAS PULLEd OVER. Not even the guys statement. He says the cop mentioned the burger, he does NOT say that was the reason the officer cited when pulling him over.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Fair enough.

as a former LEO, no ticket from me...



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: lovebeck

I have mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I believe that drivers should have both hands on the wheel when the vehicle is in motion, and that food, where available, should be taken either in the fast food joints parking lot, or at the side of a road somewhere. On the other hand, it would be fair enough to sup a bottle of water at the wheel, because one can sip that, and put it down after a couple of mouthfuls, reducing the amount of time ones hands are away from the controls, and maintaining ones hydration levels.


you don't need "two hands on the wheel" to drive. one is enough. now in poor sloppy conditions like snow, rain, slush and high winds i prefer to keep both hands on the wheel, but it is not needed for most driving. if two hands were needed on the wheel, why is it legal to drive a standard transmission which requires one hand to be frequently off the wheel to change gears. why have so many controls like horns, windshield wipers, lights, mirrors, defrost, heating/aircon, hazard lights, windows, turn signals, manual and automatic transmissions, emergency brakes, etc been mounted in such a way that you need to remove a hand (and for many people it also requires them to look at it) to operate them? also why are people who only have one usable hand allowed to operated a motor vehicle? or require someone else there to be able to lend a hand like here where if you are hearing disabled you must have someone with unimpaired hearing with you (yes that is one possible condition marked on my licence like "must wear corrective lenses")? you know many of us drove safely for years while talking on CB radios, eating, drinking, smoking, talking on cellphones, etc. i can understand not being able to text as that tends to require constant looking down at it. but for the rest? heck it takes no concentration to do something like eat. even glancing down occasionally is not an issue, since you are supposed to be able to do that anyway to check your instruments for warnings and speed, as well as checking mirrors and such. but why is it now with cars built so much better in regards to controlling it, has it become such a safety concern? seriously if you can't drive with one hand, likely you can't drive any better with two, or your vehicle has some serious safety concerns and shouldn't be on the road.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Unless they ticketed him with something like reckless driving, it doesn't matter why they pulled him over. It's a charge they can't prove. There is no legal statute that says you can't eat while driving, which means the only thing they're going on with this charge is the cops subjective experience.

Distracted driving is primarily a charge levied after you have been in an accident, or if the cop sees you do something that is expressly illegal like text while driving. That is not the case here.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: lovebeck




OMG. Again, he did not break any traffic laws as I clearly stated in the OP.

Wow.



Well he still broke the law, so I would call that breaking traffic laws. Also, its basically only this guys word at this point. I read the article too sweetheart, I didn't see anything about why the guy was actually stopped.

You think perhaps the guy that was ticketed is pissed?

NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED DOES IT GIVE A REASON WHY HE WAS PULLEd OVER. Not even the guys statement. He says the cop mentioned the burger, he does NOT say that was the reason the officer cited when pulling him over.


Seriously? Normally, I would just assume you have nothing better to do than to just troll ATS threads tonight. But in case you really are having trouble with reading and comprehending the article and OP, I'll try again. With large type, since it is so late and all...

HE WAS PULLED OVER BECAUSE THE LEO OBSERVED HIM EATING AND DRIVING.

THAT'S IT.

HE DID NOT BREAK THE LAW, HE DID NOT BREAK ANY TRAFFIC LAWS, NOR DID THE COP ACCUSE OR CHARGE HIM WITH BREAKING ANY TRAFFIC LAWS. HE WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEO EATING A BURGER.

That's it and THAT is why it is so absurd. The LEO is using a law intended for idiots who actually cause accidents or who are driving recklessly because they're doing things like texting, applying makeup, reading the Bible, or on ATS apologizing for boot jack LEO's while driving...

FWIW, It is not against the law in Georgia to drive with only one hand on the wheel, either.

He wasn't driving distracted, was not observed driving distracted, nor breaking any traffic laws or operating his vehicle in an unsafe manner. So which laws did the man break again?

Oh, that's right, NONE. Zero. Zilch. Nada.




posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: generik

I do not know how driving is looked at in the States, but my preference is to have both hands on the wheel at all times unless I am changing gear. Appropriate training allows one to do this without taking ones eyes off the road, and ensures that hands are quickly back on the wheel.

Furthermore, most of the controls necessary to operate a vehicle (that is, to drive it), like the indicator, lights, windscreen wipers, and so on, are right on the central column. There is no need to move ones hands from the wheel to operate the vast majority of them, nor take ones eyes off the road.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

we have different laws in this country.....


DRIVERS eating - or even playing loud music - could be fined $330 for inattention under Queensland's Fatal Five police campaign to cut the state's rising road toll.


www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au...



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: lovebeck

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: lovebeck




OMG. Again, he did not break any traffic laws as I clearly stated in the OP.

Wow.



Well he still broke the law, so I would call that breaking traffic laws. Also, its basically only this guys word at this point. I read the article too sweetheart, I didn't see anything about why the guy was actually stopped.

You think perhaps the guy that was ticketed is pissed?

NOWHERE IN THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED DOES IT GIVE A REASON WHY HE WAS PULLEd OVER. Not even the guys statement. He says the cop mentioned the burger, he does NOT say that was the reason the officer cited when pulling him over.


Seriously? Normally, I would just assume you have nothing better to do than to just troll ATS threads tonight. But in case you really are having trouble with reading and comprehending the article and OP, I'll try again. With large type, since it is so late and all...

HE WAS PULLED OVER BECAUSE THE LEO OBSERVED HIM EATING AND DRIVING.

THAT'S IT.

HE DID NOT BREAK THE LAW, HE DID NOT BREAK ANY TRAFFIC LAWS, NOR DID THE COP ACCUSE OR CHARGE HIM WITH BREAKING ANY TRAFFIC LAWS. HE WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEO EATING A BURGER.

That's it and THAT is why it is so absurd. The LEO is using a law intended for idiots who actually cause accidents or who are driving recklessly because they're doing things like texting, applying makeup, reading the Bible, or on ATS apologizing for boot jack LEO's while driving...

FWIW, It is not against the law in Georgia to drive with only one hand on the wheel, either.

He wasn't driving distracted, was not observed driving distracted, nor breaking any traffic laws or operating his vehicle in an unsafe manner. So which laws did the man break again?

Oh, that's right, NONE. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I know that in Colorado eating while driving is defined as "distracted while driving", and will get you a ticket.

CO definition for distracted driving


That seems pretty clear cut to me, bit maybe his state has different laws, or maybe they are worded difrently?


edit on 31-1-2015 by AprilFooseball because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join