cheese and onion crisps?
Author
Discussion

ya55erm

Original Poster:

133 posts

254 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
Seeing that you can be done for puting make-up on whilst driving, what about eating crisps or drinking a bevarage whist driving?

Are we going to see plod pulling a you over for driving whilst eating donuts?

black-k1

12,803 posts

259 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
IIRC someone was done for eating an apple!

Mrs Fish

30,018 posts

288 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
black-k1 said:
IIRC someone was done for eating an apple!



rayats

23 posts

258 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
They already have prosecuted a lady for eating an apple whilst driving. I think it was quite expensive with a helicopter being involved some where along the line. There was the case of the guy on the M3 done for eating a Kit Kat [offer of fixed penalty notice cancelled after much publicity].
Be very careful. They are out to get you and camera use will multiply enourmously in the next few years. Cameras are a cheaper option than Trafapol.

combemarshal

2,030 posts

256 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
Quiet rightly you can already be done for it as it's bloody stupid!

hedders

24,460 posts

277 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
Why are the car makers putting cup holders in cars if we are not allowed to eat or drink ?

We are getting slightly mixed messages.

ya55erm

Original Poster:

133 posts

254 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
will we be getting warning messages on the bottom of our cupholders and will mcdonalds have a public disclaimer?

Beggarall

591 posts

271 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
rayats
"Be very careful. They are out to get you and camera use will multiply enourmously in the next few years. Cameras are a cheaper option than Trafapol"

Has anyone ever been prosecuted from information seen/recorded by a spy camera alone (i.e. not an enforecement safety device)? There are zillions of cameras so you would have thought the courts would be over-run with evil law-breaking motorists caught in this way.... not to mention the tax!

alltorque

2,646 posts

299 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
How many people have just gone and bought a packet after reading this? Me for one....

hughesieII

12,793 posts

312 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
Mrs Fish said:
black-k1 said:
IIRC someone was done for eating an apple!





By a helicopter IIRC

jimothy

5,151 posts

267 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
sean5302 said:
Caution: This packet of salted peanuts may contain nuts. Really, it's there on a packet of Sainsbury's own-label peanuts.


Thanks to another thread, I now know that:
Peanuts are legumes, not nuts.
People who have nut alergies may not be alergic to peanuts and vice versa
Peanuts are packed in factories that also pack nuts, hence the warning.

ya55erm

Original Poster:

133 posts

254 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
sean5302 youre a bit bitchey arnt you!

deeps

5,432 posts

271 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
lambo cop said:
As for the Helicopter, the helicopter did not report the apple incident; it was just asked if during its routine flight would it fly over the road and record on tape to show how twisty it is for the purpose of explaining at court. The helicopter like most police ones was in the air already, and not used just for the fly past of the road, like the press want you to believe.



Yeah yeah...there's two sides to every story

I personally believe I can eat an apple, crisps or whatever and still be concentrating on the road ahead, far moreso than many with two hands gripping the wheel.

As for make-up, that does sound dodgy, wouldn't wanna be doing that.

7db

6,060 posts

260 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
Lambo is spot on -- it's the context that also defines whether this is dangerous.
(Which notice is partially independent of whether a charge of careless driving will stick)

I'm pretty sure there are times when I am driving that I could take both hands off the wheel in perfect safety. Such as when I'm stationary at lights with a stationary car behind.

Our lady in question (is that a church?) was doing 32mph -- I'm pretty sure I could take my hands off the wheel at 32 on a wide area devoid of hazard (the main runway at Bruntingthorpe?) and perform a full wet shave whilst endangering noone.

Parrot of Doom

23,075 posts

264 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
I have driven on many many occasions down a motorway with a Ginsters double cheese and onion sandwich being shoved down my gullet, followed by a Coffee Nation large latte, and perhaps some kind of nutty bar.

I don't care, I can eat my cake and drive. I'd love to see them demonstrate how eating a butty is more distracting than putting a cassette in the radio.

Lois

14,706 posts

282 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
What about picking your nose? Was behind a bloke pickin his nose at traffic lights and his missed the lights turning green...

r5gttgaz

7,897 posts

250 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
I know there was one recorded offence of a guy taking a swig of his bottled water while stationary at a red light. Has anyone been prosecuted for spending to long trying to figure out the BMW I-Drive system?

Gaffer

7,156 posts

307 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
Parrot of Doom said:
I have driven on many many occasions down a motorway with a Ginsters double cheese and onion sandwich being shoved down my gullet, followed by a Coffee Nation large latte, and perhaps some kind of nutty bar.

I don't care, I can eat my cake and drive. I'd love to see them demonstrate how eating a butty is more distracting than putting a cassette in the radio.


But a Ploughmans is a bit more difficult as you tend to get a bit of manky lettice/pickle/tomato/onion dropping into your lap.

And its even more difficult trying to wedge crisps into the buttie as well.

Claire

>> Edited by Gaffer on Wednesday 8th March 19:57

rewc

2,187 posts

263 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
Lambo cop said "As for the Helicopter, the helicopter did not report the apple incident; it was just asked if during its routine flight would it fly over the road and record on tape to show how twisty it is for the purpose of explaining at court. The helicopter like most police ones was in the air already, and not used just for the fly past of the road, like the press want you to believe".
What doesn't appear to be in dispute is that the Policeman originally thought that the lady was using a mobile phone. He followed her with the intention of booking her for that and only then did he discover it was in fact an apple. There was no evidence produced to show that any hazard had been caused or that she was not in control of the car, only an acceptance that if she was eating the apple she couldn't have been.
Still water under the bridge and all that.

Size Nine Elm

5,167 posts

314 months

Wednesday 8th March 2006
quotequote all
And another for drinking water from a bottle...

ETA: while crawling forward in heavy traffic...

>> Edited by Size Nine Elm on Wednesday 8th March 20:37