You can’t just go down the road eating a hamburger.

I can't tell you whether the cop had legal justification for this ticket, and maybe he could have warned instead of ticketed, but eating while driving is associated with an 80% increase in accident risk according to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration:
http://www.drive-safely.net/eating-while-driving.html

"You just gotta pay attention to the road and not do anything else."

And that's a bad thing?

So, you guys do nothing else but eyes on the road, hands on the wheel?

No coffee mugs, changing radio stations, cd's, no lighting a cigarette, and never, ever adjust your temperature controls... Nothing?

Bull Shit.

What does your argument have to do with anything? Does Georgia law specifically prohibit eating while driving?

Phil

I don't know specific traffic laws in Georgia but I am pretty sure they have something prohibiting driving with undue care and attention or distracted driving. The law does not have to prohibit a specific activity like eating or talking on a cell phone, it would prohibit the result of that activity.

Eating a burger while driving may not seem to be a problem. But when lettuce and mustard falls onto a driver's lap... the person would likely look down, yell "Oh crap", and try and wipe the spill off their pants. If the car swerves erratically, THAT is distracted driving.

The problem with these types of laws is that they are discretionary. The police officer may or may not pull the driver over and issue a ticket. Then the driver will object to the "arbitrary enforcement of petty laws".

As Juggernaut stated, anyone who says they are hands on the wheel 100% of the time is full of 'who-shot-john'.

Don't know if Mr. Double Quarter Pounder was swerving or weaving but eating can cause distracted driving.

I doubt I'd eat fondue while driving, but I myself have no problem with chicken nuggets (no sauce, I'm not deft enough) or drinks with a lid. Others may be more skillful than I am.

Maybe fast food containers & bags should come with a warning label. "Do not eat while driving". Maybe we should have to sign a log book at the take out place stating our understanding of the law. Maybe all the RLC could start looking for food violations. Maybe cars should come with electronic sniffers or the steering wheel with "food grease" sensors that will prohibit the car from starting.

Until the nanny state has complete control they will not be happy.

Do you of you draw the line anywhere? Texting, for example?

Eating a hamburger is a bit simpler than having the driver's attention taken by a conversation on the phone, IMO. Of course, locals have a habit of ticketing for a number of reasons besides safety.

Fred

What's truly missing in all the reports is any detail. All we have in the published reports are hearsay and observations from one party. The driver did state he was observed driving over a 2 mile stretch of road before being pulled over.

The only statement we have from the police officer is a claim he stated "you can't go down the road while eating a hamburger." We don't know what the officer observed, was the driver changing lanes unsafely, was he failing to observe a reasonable speed, was traffic being impeded or were any other unsafe actions observed in the couple of minutes the driver would have been under observation?

I'm reminded of the old proverb: Every story has three sides; yours, mine and, the truth.

Next time you are near a patrol car, take a look in the front seat area. An officer has to operate the radios, not just one but sometimes two laptops, and then of course they have the smartphone(s). That's much more distraction than a burger. And if you listen to a scanner, you will also notice that police notify each other by radio to then call using the cell phone. And there are all sorts of other gear and equipment to distract the officer. Pay attention to the news, plenty of police cruisers get into accidents.

Did the hamburger make him change lanes unsafely?

Did the hamburger make the driver speed?

What danger was posed as a direct result of eating the hamburger?

I would like to know what statute was noted on the ticket, that would be helpful. What statute says you can't go down the road while eating a hamburger? Perhaps the same statute that says you can't go down the road eating donuts?

BTW, you think police eat donuts in the patrol car?

Now what is the difference between eating a donut and eating a hamburger while driving?

Cars are built with cupholders for what reason?

Shouldn't cupholders be illegal? Or at least one could claim entrapment if accused of drinking coffee while driving.

Hey, what about all those drive through windows at most burger joints and other fast-food purveyors?

If it is illegal to eat a burger while driving, all those businesses that sell through a window to a person in a car are accomplices.

@diesel

Box Car makes pertinent observations about the lack of information. Until we get more details, the portion of the link that says:

should make us wonder what was observed during a stretch of 2 miles of driving.

Since the ticket will be challenged, according to the news station, it is likely that a judge will dismiss the ticket unless the officer does show up and give his observations. But, that does not tell us anything about what was observed, does it?

While observations about "double standards" and "donuts" are interesting comments by others in this thread, they do not bear on the specifics of this particular case. What might a dash cam video from either the driver or the officer show?

You, yourself, asked the questions that are pertinent. Since we do not know the answers to them, the officer's observations are, at this point in time, just as valid as the comments of all those in this thread who are trying to belittle that officer.

It is usually how you are driving (i.e. somewhat erratic). Distracted driving is illegal in most states and there is no distinction made to what you are doing whether eating a burger or lighting a cigarette or anything else. If you weave and are doing a task then it is distracted driving and you can get written for that.

I normally don't say anything but I can't help myself on this one.

This is B&*%S*$T!!

Get drivers for being unsafe, i.e.: texting I can understand but eating? Talking on Hands Free or Speakerphone? Really?

PC Police need to get a life. Go after drunk drivers or drivers that are high on weed or drugs.. Why is this police officer going after the burger eater? Probably a safer way to go for him/her and get some ticket income! I will guarantee you that there are much more dangerous crimes going on in his area and if not he needs to change areas!

Get over it and go after the truly bad people not the Burger Eater!

Flame if you want to because I really don't care! It never should have happened!

I was very involved in getting cell service in my town many, many years ago. As a result, I learned and saw many aspects of cell service. We have been eating in our cars for decades, many decades before cell phones. The distracted driver laws came about as a result of increased accident rates that were attributed to the use of cell phones while driving. It was proposed to ban the use of cell phones completely while driving, but that would severely impact the cell phone industry and the billions of dollars invested in cell phone infrastructure along our highways, aimed at selling air time to drivers. So complete bans on cell phone use by a driver in a car never happened. From that, the hands-free push was born. And also came the distracted while driving statutes, which are so vague and too encompassing.

How does a LEO know that a driver is distracted? Reading a roadside advertisement, such as a billboard, is a distraction aimed at car occupants, including the drivers. To know that someone was distracted, it must be known what the person was thinking. How does the LEO know that? Psychic? ESP?

If the car is swerving, there is a statute for that. If the car is speeding, there is a statute for that.

I've had a few instances when I had a huge bug in the car, like a wasp, and I may have served around while swatting at the bug.

A LEO can just sit at the exit of the drive through window at the Dunkin' Donuts and pull over all cars as they drive away from the drive through window. They are all distracted.

What are we supposed to do with all those cupholders?

I guess we should all be wondering why hamburgers are discriminated against, and get the hamburger lobby involved. Get the cattle ranchers involved. The hamburger is the real victim here.

I recently had a rental car for a little over three weeks. I was amazed at how complicated this car was and how distracting it was to operate. The dashboard was incredibly complicated. Even the automatic climate control was more complicated than a manual control heater/AC. Far more buttons and controls than I had ever seen. And then put the onboard computer system on top of that with the display. All I thought was how absurd it was to think a cell phone was a distraction when the OEM controls of this car were far more distracting than a cell phone. A cell phone was a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what this car had going on as distracting OEM design.

Hmmmm.... a friend was ticketed for something similar and fought it. The officer said he observed my friend for a couple miles. Well, isn't that too long to let something dangerous go on? Why did the LEO wait so long? My friend made his point and was found not guilty. If it was so dangerous, then the LEO should have acted immediately, not observed for several miles.

Who knows what else that burger could have done.

In Louisiana, the drive-through daiquiri stands have to give you your straw separately. They can't put it in the drink for you.

EVERY time I see an officer driving, he/she has one hand on a cell phone. That is not distracted driving too?

EVERY time I see an officer driving, he/she has one hand on a cell phone. That is not distracted driving too?

...wrote the ticket just because the subject was eating a hamburger, then the officer may have a problem with this in court. However, if the subject was distracted in such a way as to commit a lane violation or other infraction, then the officer is within his/her rights to issue a citation for the violation. The courts will determine if this is justified or not.

The accused states that the officer, "explained to me that he observed me eating a burger for 2 miles,”

For 2 miles????

I would like to know how the officer made that observation, for 2 miles. So now this officer must have x-ray vision too.

Here is the interesting part to all this. He plans on going to court. If the verdict is guilty, this sets a precedent and the courts will then be flooded with "eating while driving" cases. There will be demand for thousands more lawyers... everybody go to law school right now. You will make a career out of "eating while driving" cases.

Let's learn more about the officer.

I wish this guy had a video camera going.

well keeping your hands on the wheel is not that great of an item now of days. The car has now turned into a moving restroom/parlor room. I do my best to keep one hand on the wheel at all times but i see people shaving, putting on makeup and eating just about everyday and I have not until now heard about anyone being pulled over for it. This is something that I will talk to my local police department to see what their take is on it. We do have a no cell/texting while driving law and there is a gray area about distraction while driving. I say check with your local police department or look into the codified ordnance for your city.

Those that drive manual transmission cars can only use one hand on the steering wheel, the other is operating the transmission. Is operating the manual transmission a distraction?

And people with one arm are allowed to drive.

You and others are belittling this officer without knowing all the facts - which you at least take pains to point out.

The stature broken was "Distracting Driving". Yet, those making fun continue to use the "Eating while driving" appellation.

If someone were asking for an explanation of just how "driving while eating" can be "distracted driving" that would be adding something worthwhile to to discussion.

Hopefully, the news station (WSB) will do a follow-up after this case goes to court in Cobb County, Georgia on Feb. 3 - although if the defendant (named Madison Turner from Alabama) loses, we likely will never know.

I've seen distracted drivers drilling for oil, so to speak. Now THAT would be embarrassing to have in the comments of a ticket hit the news.

"EATING WHILE DRIVING" was written on the citation.

Not swerving, not dangerous operation, not speeding.

From the interview with Madison Turner: “The officer explained to me that he observed me eating a burger for two miles,” Turner said. “He said specifically three times, ‘You can’t just go down the road eating a hamburger.’”

The problem according to the officer was eating a burger. Not swerving, skidding, speeding, etc. I still want to know how the LEO saw the defendant eating the burger for two miles.

From what the LEO said, there must be a statute prohibiting going down the road eating a burger.

Maybe some dash cam footage from the police dept will show up.

When police leave the auxiliary substations, AKA: donut shops, they are leaving with coffee and snacks that will be consumed while driving. Do police cruisers have cup holders?

What about all those drive through fast food restaurants... thousands of them across the country. And all those cupholders!!!???

Examples of profound civil disobedience.

They have way to much other stuff like laptops, cell phones, radar guns and god knows what else in the way.

I think that should end this whole "we are belittling the officer" argument as put forth previuosly.

Sounds like bull-pucky to me.

Then your assumption is that Mr. Turner has given us all of the pertinent facts - and that what he said is totally true and complete.

If we had heard from the officer that, contrary to what Mr Turner said - that he was not driving erratically - that indeed Mr Turner was observed driving across the lane lines multiple times, would you still object? Would you say that Mr. Turner's assertion was enough to overcome what the officer said?

But - you see - we have nothing but the defendant's side of the story.

As I have said, we will have to see if Mr. Turner shows up in court as does the officer.

The driver was cited for eating while driving.

Nothing else.

Not swerving.

Not speeding.

Nothing else.

The officer can not claim dangerous motor vehicle operation now, or when they get to court. He should have cited the driver for that also when he had the car pulled over. That horse left the barn, that bell has been rung, can't unring that bell. If the car was speeding or swerving, that should have been cited, but it wasn't.

Think about it... you see a car speeding, swerving, and the driver is eating a burger. You cite the driver for eating the burger and not speeding or swerving. doh?

It is now exclusively all about eating a burger while driving, and only about eating burger while driving. The citation has been posted, go read it.

It will be interesting as to how the LEO presents this eating while driving charge to the Court. Now the State has to prove that eating a burger is a distraction that is in violation of the Statute. The State has to prove the driver was distracted and in violation of the Statute. Not speeding, not swerving, nothing else, just eating a burger. I really want to know what test the State has to pass to prove the driver was distracted.

I hope that the case goes to trial and the defendant is found not guilty. Many people just pay these tickets because it is the easier thing to do, but should go to court.

But I hope the defendant goes to a trial by jury. No jury will let this get a guilty verdict.

There is no assumption. The State has to prove that the driver was distracted by eating the burger. And all of you that never ate while driving can throw all the stones you want. Not a single stone will be thrown.

We heard from the officer, the citation has been posted, read it. It is all about eating while driving, nothing about speeding, swerving, lane changing, etc. Now go and prove that the driver was distracted, when you can not say that the car was swerving, speeding, performing dangerously. If it was, that is what should have been cited. Go and prove that the driver was distracted in violation of the Statute.

I hope he goes to a trial by jury.

That should explain why he got the ticket. That's a two handed meal if I ever saw one.

So two hands on the burger and elbows or knees to steer. Tell me how that's safe.

He also admitted that he might have enjoying the meal a bit too much.

I just checked the definition of "argument" online, and nope, I did not present an argument in my post. You on the other hand do seem intent on verbal disagreement. What I offered was a statement or an observation. You of course are free to reject it as irrelevant, and I promise not to lose any sleep if you do. As to your second question, I already said in the first sentence of my post that I didn't know.

It seems my post failed to meet your expectations for heartfelt outrage. This one probably does as well. What a shame.

We do know part of what was on the ticket - and we clearly saw "driving while eating" when we looked at the portion of the WSB newscast that was posted online.

We did not get a look at the entire citation. Did we? There could be other comments on the citation - we just do not know.

We have not heard an explanation from the officer. Perhaps we will.

Regardless, you are making assumptions.

Let's say that you turn out to be entirely correct. However, at the moment, we do not have all of the facts, because we have not heard from the officer what he saw that made him determine that the distracted driving statute under which Mr. Turner was charged had been violated.

All too often on this site, there are those who jump to conclusions based on a few statements because the conclusion supports their biases. I keep trying to encourage getting all of the facts before drawing conclusions.

"Waiter! This coffee tastes like mud."

"Yes sir, it's fresh ground."

There is a need for common sense. A simple sandwich, with 2 slices of bread, meat or jam, and cut in half is easily and safely handled with one hand. There's little chance of a mess and it can be readily set down without a problem.

Then you have a big, messy, double cheeseburger and you have something that likely needs two hands and will be partially wrapped in paper, to keep relish, mustard, lettuce and special sauce from dripping over your pants, shirt, steering wheel and upholstery.

You will also have to peel back the paper as you eat, unless you like the taste of paper. If you have somehow figured how to eat that double quarter with one hand (which I doubt) you will need an extra hand or your teeth to peel back the paper.

I suspect the cop would not have paid much attention, if the guy had been eating a sandwich.

Are you an eagle? Maybe a Hubble Telescope? At what range do you think the LEO was to be able to discern the difference between a simple sandwich and a burger? Do you really want to go there? Somehow, I don't think this was the first time the accused dined on a burger while driving and he knew how to do it safely without putting himself and his 2009 BMW at risk.

Go ahead... list what you think could be other facts, even if just potential or speculating. Go ahead. And then prove that those other "facts" prove distracted driving. Go ahead. I'm curious, please share.

I still want to know how the LEO saw the driver eating the burger for 2 miles. He must have superhuman eyesight.

The officer already listed "eating while driving" as the "reason" for invoking the distracted driving statute.

There are plenty of statutes for cars being operated dangerously or erratically. Apparently none of those were cited.

Another interesting case from years ago... a driver was charged with many violations such as OUI, speeding, and all sorts of other moving violations. There were many, many charges. The judge scolded the officers, saying it was clear the accused was OUI and everything else was ridiculous. The judge made a comment like, "He was drunk, do you expect him to have his eyes glued to the speedometer?" The judge kept the OUI charges and threw everything else out.

I hope there is police dash cam video of the driver eating the burger. It will be great fodder for vegetarians.

This story is all over the news.

This is from the NYT:

"The law under which Mr. Turner, who could not be reached on Tuesday, was ticketed is broad: “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.” An exception allows the “proper use” of cellphones."

The automotive and fast food economy is designed around eating in the car while driving. People, look at all those drive through windows. All those cup holders!!!!

Legislation is not going to stop people from eating while driving. Just as it doesn't stop people from using cell phones while driving.

And I would really want to see the definition of "proper use" of cellphones.

plucking eyelashes, changing or putting on pants and other things not suitable for posting here. I was a lineman and being on a pole or up in a bucket working on lines you see some amazing driving

I see we've found a new topic to argue about.... At least it's. Not about ROCk's & speed cams

It seems that it would be distracting to watch someone else eating a hamburger for two miles.

It's the Whopper that requires two hands, not a DQP. Maybe he got it without condiments and no onions.

"It takes two hands, to handle a Whopper. The two-fisted burger at Burger King" (geezer alert).

I eat them all the time (Feel sorry for me if you wish). I have meat hooks for hands. I can hold the burger with the right hand, with the box supported under it at the same time, drive and signal with the left. No problem at all. Never removing my eyes from the road, or swerving, speeding, crossing lines... I may be new at driving, having only been doing it for 33 years, but I've been eating for 49. I think I've gotten pretty good at it!

Well, what have you found? What else is there? What don't we know?

I have to think that if the officer wrote anything else incriminating on the citation, it would have already been posted, and nothing else is showing up. I think we know everything there is to know, as indicted by the citation that has been posted. I doubt there is anything else on the citation that is being withheld.

This incident is getting huge exposure. Why could there be so much interest in what appears to be a simple, routine motor vehicle traffic stop?

This exposure causes interesting things. The police department will not drop the charges now out of fear of showing fault or bowing to public pressure. They will not cave to public exposure. There have probably been many people that have been ticketed for eating while driving in that county and paid the fine and mailed it in, simply because it was the easier and believed to be less costly thing to do, and as such, there is a dubious precedent of this statute being "effective". And that there is little chance of winning such a case when it is the word of the LEO vs the defendant, the court sides with the word of the LEO over the defendant.

If a guilty verdict is handed down, this could result in a firestorm of exposure, very undesired exposure for the county. Perhaps the best way to get out of this for the county is to suspend this statute pending establishment of limits of such a broad and seemingly undefined statute. But that would acknowledge fault, not something the legislation and law enforcement communities are known for doing. Which is why there are so many of these broad reaching and vague laws.

If erratic driving was witnessed by the LEO, it should have been cited on the ticket. It wasn't, and some reports are saying that the LEO and accused had a discussion that established that there was no deviant vehicle operation. So deviant vehicle operation can not be an option for the prosecution. Think about it... a LEO witnesses dangerous vehicle operation and someone eating a burger, and the LEO chooses to write a citation for eating a burger and not do anything about the dangerous driving. I think it is rather safe to assume that deviant vehicle operation did not happen, very safe.

And if the LEO should testify that deviant vehicle operation did occur, it will raise huge red flags. Why didn't he cite the driver for deviant vehicle operation? Clearly that is dangerous offense. That could have been recorded on the dash cam and there could be evidence.

So now the State has to prove the driver was distracted. So please answer this... if the driver was operating the vehicle with no signs of deviant, unacceptable or dangerous operation, was the driver distracted from safely operating the vehicle?

Im sure it was thrown out, but im also sure it wasted alot of that indiviuals time going to court.

A copy of the ticket can be viewed here: http://is.gd/Aubnav

It says only: "EATING WHILE DRIVING"

It cites GA Code section 40-6-241:

"Driver to exercise due care; proper use of radios and mobile telephones allowed"

"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, provided that, except as prohibited by Code Sections 40-6-241.1 and 40-6-241.2, the proper use of a radio, citizens band radio, mobile telephone, or amateur or ham radio shall not be a violation of this Code section."

Note that under this Code Section, use of a mobile phone for calls is excepted and would therefore not be considered to "distract such driver from the safe operation of such vehicle".

Is a hamburger more of a distraction than a cell phone?

Edit: 241.1 relates to drivers under 18; 241.2 relates to texting (data entry)