Don't drink...coffee and drive

mogman wrote:
Here in B.C. we have a "Distracted Driving" law.
This includes using the phone, texting, eating or drinking, carrying your dog on your lap etc. etc.

I think just about all, if not, most states in the U.S. have the same law.

In the am hours between 7 and 10 one car accidents with female drivers are almost always failure to control. They are putting on makeup and climb a utility pole or smash a parked car. Ask them what happened and the response is I don't know. Then smirk at the lipstick spread from the mouth to the ear.

Men in same hours in one car accidents are for reading or dictating a letter.

Oldme wrote:
Nothing new.
Anything that will be a distraction from the job of driving will get you a ticket.

Now the next thing is will the Judge in that Jurisdiction, using his Judicial Interpretation of "distracted" driving - careless driving, whatever that code
says, will he uphold it?

In my area you would have to work very hard to get the judge to "not uphold it" . In fact if you tried you either would get yelled at and a bigger fine or laughed at and a bigger fine.

Nothing new.
Anything that will be a distraction from the job of driving will get you a ticket.

Now the next thing is will the Judge in that Jurisdiction, using his Judicial Interpretation of "distracted" driving - careless driving, whatever that code
says, will he uphold it?

spoon059 wrote:
Yea, I saw this article and didn't even bother reading it. Obviously this woman wasn't pulled over for "drinking coffee". She was obviously pulled over because something about her driving concerned the officer. Most states have a distracted driving law. I'm sure that most states define "distracted driving" as doing something while driving that takes away the drivers time and attention from driving.

If you can drink your coffee and drive safely at 70 mph in the left lane, you are probably okay. Then again if you have to slow down to 37 mph and swerve across 3 lanes to drink your coffee, you are probably a distracted driver.

Is it possible that the officer was completely unreasonable and this is truly a egregious case of police misconduct? Sure, its possible. That is what court is for. It would be interesting to see how this case proceeds at trial. It would be interesting to see the in car video, if one exists.

I work investigations now, but did over 12 years on the road as a patrol officer. The amount of stupid things I saw on the road are amazing. I pulled someone over for reading a newspaper in traffic. A full newspaper. Opened completely and spread across his steering wheel. In stop and go traffic. He couldn't believe that I was "harassing" him and wrote him a ticket for distracted driving.

When you only get one side of the story, I generally don't entertain the story. Chances are that there is WAY more to this story than to which this lady is admitting.

Thank you that was my point also. I avoided reading the story for awhile also. Your basic low on facts filler for the news (editorial). But with respect to this story it is a mute point. She received a seatbelt violation. If she decides to fight it, it will be as uneventful as any traffic court proceeding. She may or may not get points. She may or may not get a deferred, reduced or waived fine. Just depends on the judge at that point.

Yea, I saw this article and didn't even bother reading it. Obviously this woman wasn't pulled over for "drinking coffee". She was obviously pulled over because something about her driving concerned the officer. Most states have a distracted driving law. I'm sure that most states define "distracted driving" as doing something while driving that takes away the drivers time and attention from driving.

If you can drink your coffee and drive safely at 70 mph in the left lane, you are probably okay. Then again if you have to slow down to 37 mph and swerve across 3 lanes to drink your coffee, you are probably a distracted driver.

Is it possible that the officer was completely unreasonable and this is truly a egregious case of police misconduct? Sure, its possible. That is what court is for. It would be interesting to see how this case proceeds at trial. It would be interesting to see the in car video, if one exists.

I work investigations now, but did over 12 years on the road as a patrol officer. The amount of stupid things I saw on the road are amazing. I pulled someone over for reading a newspaper in traffic. A full newspaper. Opened completely and spread across his steering wheel. In stop and go traffic. He couldn't believe that I was "harassing" him and wrote him a ticket for distracted driving.

When you only get one side of the story, I generally don't entertain the story. Chances are that there is WAY more to this story than to which this lady is admitting.

dodge guy wrote:
I would also think that towing a trailer as compared to not towing could also be considered distracted, because you now have to check on something else while your driving!
I don't consider towing to be "distracted driving" or erratic, careless, or reckless. When I tow, I'm attentive to the load behind me and use the skills I've learned to make it a safe journey.

What I find funny is the new hands free law. It doesn't mater whether or not you have 2 hands on the wheel or not. Your still talking on the phone and not paying attention to the road! I have never had an issue with doing 2 things at once, anywhere. I'll continue to talk on the phone (hands free to avoid a fine) or take a sip from a drink while driving.
If you're doing these tasks and "not paying attention to the road", there is an issue.

A special thanks to all the people that can't walk and chew gum at the same time!??

FWIW, I was just through this stretch of road this morning, during rush hour. It is not a place to be inattentive to your driving. There are multiple interchanges with erratic, stopped lanes of traffic in all lanes. I94 is one Interstate (at least through the TC's) where the engineer/designer brought to bear his love of left lane exits and entrances. Two miles West of the traffic stop referenced is what everyone, including newscasters, refer to as "Spaghetti Junction" (if that adds to visualize the route).

I would also think that towing a trailer as compared to not towing could also be considered distracted, because you now have to check on something else while your driving!

What I find funny is the new hands free law. It doesn't mater whether or not you have 2 hands on the wheel or not. Your still talking on the phone and not paying attention to the road! I have never had an issue with doing 2 things at once, anywhere. I'll continue to talk on the phone (hands free to avoid a fine) or take a sip from a drink while driving.

A special thanks to all the people that can't walk and chew gum at the same time!

I live in a very rural area. When I get into bigger towns with more traffic I even tell other passengers in the car not to talk to me. I also shut the radio off. But, that is because I am not used to the traffic.

Some of this distracted driving stuff is built into modern cars. Anybody remember when you could change the temp of the heater or the fan speed just by the feel of the knob? You can't do that on my 2004 Chevy pickup. You have to remove your eyes from the road to do them.

Same way with the radio. Doing the simplest of task to it now requires me to take my eyes off of the road. Don't event think about changing out a CD. It requires a lot of work to get that radio to do that. I hate the thing.

I'm all for stopping a person who is driving erratically and ticketing them for that fact (the erratic driving).

Given the multiple issues involved, it's probably more appropriate to punish the bad result (erratic driving) vs. the "cause" as what will case erratic driving for one person will not cause it for another.