For the record, i don't think the law here has actually deterred anyone from eating in their cars. While i do feel a need to curb any texting while driving, i don't feel any particular need to stop eating even though it could technically result in a fine and I'm pretty sure, by the looks of it, other people feel similarly about eating.
I do like the idea of penalizing someone for causing an accident due to them being distracted...whatever the cause might be, assuming it can be pinpointed at the time of the accident. This type of law gives law enforcement an mechanism for doing so.
Like i said...i think too many people don't take paying attention while they are driving seriously enough. So yep...if you do actually cause an accident because you were unwrapping your stupid hamburger...i'm totally fine with an extra fine or penalization going along with it.
I wish i could remember which alien races i've done so far and which ones i haven't.
Going with Ferengi...might be a repeat
I once saw a lady eating out of a takeout box with chopsticks at a stoplight!!! Now, she may have been great with chopsticks, much better than me (I still have to concentrate on eating when I use them) but I still think that any food that you have to use a utensil to eat should be out of the question for car consumption. That would be like eating a bowl of soup with a spoon while you drive. I rock with a spoon. I still don't think I could eat soup and drive at the same time.
Other than that, I agree with Laurie that I think that you can't really ban or control all distractions. Talking to a passenger is a distraction. Having a bee fly in your window is a distraction (I could seriously see me wrecking my car in that scenario.) Having kids is like a permanent distraction. I file all eating (without utensils) under the same category as all of those, where I get that it is probably not the ideal driving scenario, but also, life happens.
This is an excellent description about what distracted driving laws are actually about
Taken from this article Major crackdown on distracted driving under review in N.J. | NJ.comWisniewski, who said the bill is modeled after New Hampshire’s law on negligent driving, said police can already pull drivers over for many of the behaviors that would be covered under the bill and write them up for careless or reckless driving. But, he said, police might be hesitant to cite those violations if they felt it might not stand up in court.
"If you create an offense of distracted driving, it’s pretty easy to define what distracted is: not watching the road," Wisniewski said.
Wisniewski said it makes more sense to create a wider category of distracted driving than legislate individual distractions as they arise as problems.
This makes a ton of sense to me. You are not going to get pulled over for eating a sandwich if you are driving 30 mph on a 30 mph road and abiding by your typical traffic laws.
In Maine, it was even described as such, that it is a secondary offense that you cannot be initially pulled over for.
If you are driving unsafely, because you are engaged in something other than driving...i think it makes a lot of sense to give police the ability to hammer down exactly what your offense is. To put it another way...if you can't eat your hamburger and drive safely while doing so....then you shouldn't be eating your hamburger. Simple as that.
Laurie, mom to:
Nathaniel ( 11 ) and Juliet ( 7 )
Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)