Rumour has it they are going to make eating whilst driving an offence so do you eat whilst driving or not?
I always eat whilst driving then use my breaks for sleeping.
I used to sometimes eat my snap whilst driving but I put a stop to it after having a ham salad and coleslaw sarnie while in Ireland, bit into it and the whole lot spilt out right down my front 
A right mess I can tell you 
Maybe this reply should go in the Urban myth posting but I do hear that next to the tax, mot, speeding, numberplate and stolen cameras they are installing meat pie detectors. You have been warned.
Meat pie detectors… I’ll stick to sausage rolls & leave the foil on to avoid the camera.
Theres no escape. the food inspectors will Hambush you 
I’ll get me coat
Depends if I am on distance I usualy eat at the wheel more through boredom …if on shortwork I try to find canteen and someone to gas to…on the whole at the wheel though 
daneinter:
Maybe this reply should go in the Urban myth posting but I do hear that next to the tax, mot, speeding, numberplate and stolen cameras they are installing meat pie detectors. You have been warned.
Its not an urban myth, and its not something new, havent you read the press when some jobsworth copper has fined someone ( a woman eating an apple was the last case i heard of).
I think it comes under some driving law, ie.(dont quote me on this) but driving without due care and attention.
But i think you would have to be really unlucky to get done for it, even harder for a copper to see us up in the cab.
I often eat whilst driving, yes. Apples are good for munching on the move . However, I don’t recommend munching on grated cheese sarnies though 
Chocolate bars are another no-no as you think you’ve managed to get it all in your mouth and relax back in your seat, only to discover 2 hours later a massive blob of melted chocolate in your lap .
Mackem:
Meat pie detectors… I’ll stick to sausage rolls & leave the foil on to avoid the camera.
Where do you gwet your sausage rolls from? Harrods, mine come from greggs and haven’t even seen tin foil 
Eating while driving is dangerous and should be banned
the other day I was eating a pasty while going down the M5 and half of it broke off, fell in my lap causing me to spill my can of John Smiths, drop my phone out the window and lose my place in the book I was reading 
as above but i was veiwing trucknet not reading
Technically it is illegal aready.
Driving with out due care and attention.
I mean we’ve all done it, but when you see people eating a pack of crisps or sandwiches while steering with their knees, or grabbing the wheel every few secs when they go off course. It’s good that the law is there to nail them.
well i voted yes you wana try makin a cup of tea and rolling a ■■■ now thats a challenge
dennisw1:
Technically it is illegal aready.Driving with out due care and attention.
I refer you to that which I have posted previously
Clown Persecution Service:
Careless driving and driving without due consideration - Section 3 RTA 1988.
Code for Crown Prosecutors
These apparently straightforward offences can cause substantial difficulties for prosecutors, particularly as the consequences of an incident may be much more serious than the offence suggests. The offences are summary-only and the only available penalties are a fine, penalty points and/or disqualification.You should focus on the extent to which the evidence proves that accused’s conduct fell below the standard required by law. Put another way, the test is: what did the defendant do, or fail to do? It is not: what happened as a result of the defendant’s action or inaction, even if this has serious consequences.
There will be times when another Road Traffic offence, such as failing to obey a traffic sign, will cover the same facts and may be easier to prove. At the other end of the scale, you will frequently have to consider this advice in conjunction with the advice on dangerous driving, refer to dangerous driving, in this guidance, in order to decide upon the appropriate charge.
Careless Driving - the law.
This offence is committed when the accused’s driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case. (Wilkinson, 5.41 to 5.82)The maximum penalty is a level 4 fine (presently £2,500). The court must also either endorse the driver’s licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are ‘special reasons’ not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. (Wilkinson, 19.01)
The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.
Occasionally an accident occurs but there is no evidence of any mechanical defect, illness of the driver or other explanation to account for why the accident happened. In these cases, a charge of careless driving may be appropriate, but you should exercise caution. If you can prove how an incident occurred [e.g. a collision] the case can be put on the basis that there is a very strong inference that the defendant was driving below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver. In the absence of any explanation by the defendant as to the cause of the accident, a court may infer that the offence was committed, but where the defendant does provide an explanation for the accident, however unlikely, you will have to consider whether to proceed. The civil law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [the thing speaks for itself] has no direct application to the criminal law. (But see Wilkinson at 5.50 “In the absence of any explanation by the defendant, if the only conclusion which is possible to draw is that the defendant was negligent or had departed from what a reasonably prudent and confident driver would have done in the circumstances, a court should convict”).
In some cases, particularly where there has been a collision, the evidence will show that more than one driver was at fault. It will be necessary to establish that there is evidence from an independent source against any driver who is to be charged, but the possibility of charging more than one driver remains if both have failed to comply with the statutory standard.
Due care - public interest considerations
When considering the public interest test you should look at the degree of blameworthiness: the greater the blameworthiness, the greater the public interest in favour of prosecution. There are specific reasons to proceed where the defendant has not passed a driving test, particularly where he/she is unfit to drive because of a disability or is driving otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of a provisional licence. See Section 36 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for power to disqualify the driver until he passes a driving test, and Section 22 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 where the defendant may be unfit to continue to drive, the court has power to notify the Secretary of State about any relevant disability.Conversely, the public interest does not call for a prosecution in every case where there is, evidentially, a realistic prospect of conviction for careless driving. A prosecution should not be commenced because of technical lapse from the statutory standard where a case is likely to attract only a nominal penalty and will have no deterrent effect on a defendant or other motorists. It will not necessarily be appropriate to prosecute in every case where a minor collision occurs. What matters is the extent of the error, not the extent of any damage. It is not the function of the prosecution [or the criminal courts] to conduct proceedings in order to settle questions of liability for the benefit of individual motorists or insurance companies. Therefore the public interest will tend to be against a prosecution for careless driving where the incident is of a type such as frequently occurs at parking places or in traffic queues, involving minimal carelessness. A prosecution may not be necessary where the only or main loser (in terms of personal injury or damage) was the proposed defendant. Refer to ‘nearest and dearest’, in this section above, in this guidance.
Charging Practice
The following are examples of driving which may amount to driving without due care and attention:
overtaking on the inside;
Conduct whilst driving, such as:
The above examples are merely indicative of what can amount to careless driving. It is necessary to put the facts in context and consider whether the particular facts of the case warrant a charge of careless or dangerous driving.
The reason for the driver’s behaviour is not relevant to the choice of charge: it is the acts or omissions of the driver, or conduct whilst driving, which determine whether the driver has fallen ‘below’ (careless driving) or ‘far below’ (dangerous driving) the standard required.
Consider whether a defendant has failed to observe a provision of the Highway Code. This does not itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings, but a failure, particularly a serious one, may constitute evidence of careless or dangerous driving. (Section 38(7) RTA 1988) is the statutory authority for this point.
Where there is an overlap between careless driving and some other offences such as driving with excess alcohol, a regulatory offence, an offence of strict liability, or a ‘Construction and Use’ offence, the merits of the individual case may often be adequately met by charging the specific statutory or regulatory offence. In short, a prosecutor may ask: what does the ‘due care’ allegation add to the case - and what additional penalty is likely? In practice, there will need to be some further evidence to show that the manner of the driving fell below that which is to be expected in order to justify proceedings under Section 3 RTA 1988.
Driving without reasonable consideration - Section 3 RTA 1988
The lawThis offence is committed when a vehicle is driven on a road or other public place “as a result of which other persons using the road or place are inconvenienced.” ‘Other persons’ may include persons in or on the driver’s vehicle itself. The penalties are the same as for “Careless Driving”.Generally, prosecutors prefer ‘Careless Driving"’ to “Driving without due consideration” as the former is easier to prove - there is no need to show that an actual road user is inconvenienced, etc. But ‘due consideration’ is more appropriate where the real harm done is aimed at, or suffered by a particular person.
The accused must be proved:
Note the essential difference between the two offences under Section 3 RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced.
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness. There must, however, also be some inconvenience to other road users, for example, forcing other drivers to move over and/or brake as a consequence. Examples of conduct appropriate for a charge of driving without reasonable consideration are:
Note that you must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the Magistrates/Youth court. (R-v-Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 450).
There is also another offence under Con & Use of not being in full control of the vehicle.
‘Multi-tasking’ is not, in itself, illegal, (except for using a non-hands free phone) providing that it is carried out in a competent manner.
I eat. I pour drinks. I consume drinks. I even, heaven forbid such an evil, I even change stations on the radio whilst driving. And most distracting of all, I listen to the radio whilst driving. What could be more detrimental to Road Safety than that.
To repeat again
The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective
Reality check needed, me thinks.
Rob K:
I often eat whilst driving, yes. Apples are good for munching on the move
This has got to be a urban myth,how the hell did you miss rob■■?
oddsodz:
Rob K:
I often eat whilst driving, yes. Apples are good for munching on the moveThis has got to be a urban myth,how the hell did you miss rob■■?
Yeah, yeah, very good, blah, blah, boIIox!!!
I’ll let you have that one Jim cos even I had a laugh at it!
I pour coffee from a flask and everthing. (hard to do in a flat floor motor)
I’m guilty in the first degree off eating/drinking/smoking/phoning/ etc etc whilst driving. Not much to go wrong at 2am though!
I couldn’t imagine a boring 4 hour journey in the wee hours without anything to eat/drink/smoke. It relieves the boredom more than anything.
Rob K:
I often eat whilst driving, yes. Apples are good for munching on the move
hahahaha yes me too rob. The looks you get when people see a brown stain on yer arse! ITS CHOCOLATE! yea right driver `course it is
Willy Gofar:
…so do you eat whilst driving or not?
the other day I was eating a pasty while going down the M5 and half of it broke off, fell in my lap causing me to spill my can of John Smiths, drop my phone out the window and lose my place in the book I was reading
i almost fell for this one Denis, but I just knew it had to be a joke when I read the last bit, i mean PLEASE, we all KNOW you’re from the South West