View Full Version : your thoughts - a long one.
£10,000 to Nail Driver Who Ate Apple
Hardcore offence? Sarah McCaffery behind the wheel
Police spent more than £10,000 of public money, and used a helicopter and a spotter plane, to convict a woman of driving while eating an apple.
Officers spent months gathering evidence and building a vast case against 23-year-old Sarah McCaffery – and yesterday she was fined £60.
The nursery nurse was forced to attend court 10 times before the fine was finally handed out by magistrates at South Shields, Tyneside.
Victims of crime groups and campaigners for taxpayers were furious at what they see as a scandalous waste of public money.
Officers swung into action after McCaffery was spotted eating a golden delicious at the wheel of her Ford Ka.
"This is all about trying to crush her because she is the one who stood up and said 'this is silly'"
-Geoffrey Forrester, Sarah's solicitor
She refused to accept a £30 on-the-spot fine, claiming she was in full control of the car, and said she would fight it in court.
Astonishingly, police then called in a spotter plane to film her route, then repeated the exercise with a police helicopter.
Officers then videoed the route from a squad car and used the footage as part of yesterday’s two and a half hour hearing.
Is This Tax-payers' Money Well Spent?
Chat about the latest developments
Have your say on the message board
The costs of the whole proceedings against McCaffery are estimated at £10,000.
She said: "It is a joke they put so much effort into this. I couldn’t believe it when they brought all this video evidence into court.
"You’d think they’d have better things to do. Aren’t there enough proper criminals for them to catch?"
Her solicitor, Geoffrey Forrester, said: “This is all about trying to crush her because she is the one who stood up and said 'this is silly'."
A spokesman for Northumbria Police said: "As the defendant chose a court trial rather than accept a fixed penalty, we were obliged to gather all appropriate evidence to present our case."
Matthew Elliot of the Taxpayers' Alliance said: "The thousands of pounds spent on this case could have been spent trying to tackle real criminals, the people who burgle our houses and steal our cars."
copied from aol news.
what are your views on this ? reading in the sun yesterday - and they were totally on the defendants side - saying that she was a victim of the police, and that they shouldnt have wasted that money pursuing it ?
in my opinion - she got what she deserved. why didnt she just admit she was wrong in the first place. and take the fine, what she did was dangerous and there arnt many ways around it. bang to rights guilty.
the police spent alot of money - but they cant let people get away with crimes as it would be too expensive to uphold the law.
discuss . . . .
i'd have preferred them to invest £10,000 into catching mobile phone offenders - or people who drive around with their foglights on (pet hate :evil: ). I don't consider that eating an apple at the wheel impairs your control of the car - if you get into trouble, you just drop it. I'd consider smoking at the wheel to be far more hazardous.
Are there any stats? In how many accidents has an apple been a contributing factor? Now how silly does that sound?
but how does the apple get into your hand in the first place ?
admittedly, its not as bad as smoking or chatting on the phone, but it is still an offence. . . . and the police cant drop a ticket thats been issued on the basis that its too expensive to get a conviction. . . otherwise they would be a walk over and everyone would challenge every ticket that they are given.
but how does the apple get into your hand in the first place ?
Irrelevant, you could have it on the passenger seat, or the trays near the steering wheel etc. Or you could responsibly pull over and take it out of a lunch box. I agree fiddling with stuff like bags or lunchboxes etc whilst driving is dangerous, but that is a separate issue.
Mike1234
30-01-05, 12:21 PM
If eating an Apple at the wheel is so wrong then why haven't the government banned all drive through fast food outlets? As far as I can see the only reason for those outlets is to enable you to eat on the move which, according to recent events, is illegal!
Totally over the top and a complete waste of tax payer's money and is IMHO nothing short of malicious.
I'm not saying that eating an apple is the wisest thing in the world to do when driving, but surely a quiet word or a caution would have been a much more appropriate course of action.
Flamin_Squirrel
30-01-05, 03:29 PM
Playing devils advocate...
Say for example that a murder case wasnt persued because it was costing too much money to solve, I think people would be pretty angry.
Whilst I do agree that this was a waste of money, the police do a difficult job already and they should be allowed to get on with persuing criminals, not worrying about how the budget is being spent.
northwind
30-01-05, 03:40 PM
There was another thread on this already.
http://forums.sv650.org/viewtopic.php?t=17517
Holding an apple's not the problem, rummaging around for an apple then eating it is the problem... She'd have been driving one-handed with some of her attention off the road for a considerable distance. If she'd hit a biker while eating an apple we'd have 20 people posting "Hanging's too good for 'em".
The fact is she chose to appeal it. She was handed a £30 fine and no points at the roadside, which is one step above a caution at the roadside. Same as you or I'd get for an illegal plate. She then decided herself to fight the case in court. The alternative is that the Police drop every £30 fine case as soon as court is threatened, since none of them will be financially viable.
The prosecution put the Police cost of the case at £425 and £100 of that was recovered as McCaffrey was fined £60 plus £100 costs.
OTOH the £10000 is "estimated" by the Sun. IE they've guessed an amount and doubled it... I'm not saying you shouldn't believe anything you read in the Sun, just not much of it :)
Mike, the reason for drive-thrus is that you can buy your food and eat it in the car, you don't need to do so while driving... Every drive-thru I've ever seen has had a car park for you to sit in and eat, and s sign telling you not to eat while driving... I call straw man!
Hmmmmm,
So if needed she could just drop the apple?? Well if she needed to do that, that would probably signify that there was a hazard ahead and that she would need to take quick avoiding action. Dropping the apple to regain full control of the vehicle?? The said dropped apple falls into the foot well and rolls under the brake pedal?? Woman needs to push foot on pedal to take the avoiding action (assuming here that in 99% of the time a slowing of speed is going to result in avoiding the hazard or better still preventing one happening). Woman cant apply brakes because of the apple under the brake pedal ??
Result?? More than likely a bigger hazard/accident than the one she could have been reacting to in the first place.
I personally think the police should have cautioned her and explained the possible results of what seems to be a harmless act. The fact that they decided to issue her a ticket is their prerogative. The fact that she decided to appeal and not accept the ticket, gave the police no other option than to pursue it in court.
I think it was HER that wasted the £10000 and not the police. She should have had to pay the full lot in my opinion for being so stupid as not to accept the punishment.
Regardless of whether she thought it was stupid or not, she committed an offence and should have just paid the price.
Balky001
30-01-05, 03:47 PM
I read the air support was already in the air and were not on a job so it didn't cost £10,000 to follow her route specially, that's just normal operating cost. Nice bit of persuasive writing I think. But turning a corner single handedly isn't a very bright idea, manuverability is limited at best and you can't react as quickly whoever you are. I love these sensational headlines - but they do miss the point. There's always a case for saying money spent on doing minor crimes is better spent on more serious things but I think you need a balance and this woman got caught and should have taken the fine - people like her cost's taxpayers money.
Mike1234
30-01-05, 03:49 PM
Holding an apple's not the problem, rummaging around for an apple then eating it is the problem... She'd have been driving one-handed with some of her attention off the road for a considerable distance. If she'd hit a biker while eating an apple we'd have 20 people posting "Hanging's too good for 'em".
but she didn't hit a biker, nor did she rummage around for an apple according to all of the reports that I've seen.
Mike, the reason for drive-thrus is that you can buy your food and eat it in the car, you don't need to do so while driving... Every drive-thru I've ever seen has had a car park for you to sit in and eat, and s sign telling you not to eat while driving... I call straw man!
True, but the majority of people don't do that otherwise they would simply park in the car park (which is why it's there) and eat in the restaurant. The drive through is mainly used for people that are driving through who then continue on their journey.
Why is it so wrong to use your phone, eat an apple, etc. yet not easily punishable to drive badly, be concentrating on the kids in the back, singing to the radio, scratching your a**e, etc.?
Obviously each of these points is somewhere on the scale of ignore or spank them but where is the definition of where each item is on that scale. It is the apparent hypocrisy that people are complaining about not that eating an apple was particularly wrong or right. A bit of concistency and a lot of common sense would subdue a lot of the outrage about incidents like this.
Hmmmmm,
So if needed she could just drop the apple?? Well if she needed to do that, that would probably signify that there was a hazard ahead and that she would need to take quick avoiding action. Dropping the apple to regain full control of the vehicle?? The said dropped apple falls into the foot well and rolls under the brake pedal?? Woman needs to push foot on pedal to take the avoiding action (assuming here that in 99% of the time a slowing of speed is going to result in avoiding the hazard or better still preventing one happening). Woman cant apply brakes because of the apple under the brake pedal ??
Result?? More than likely a bigger hazard/accident than the one she could have been reacting to in the first place.
I personally think the police should have cautioned her and explained the possible results of what seems to be a harmless act. The fact that they decided to issue her a ticket is their prerogative. The fact that she decided to appeal and not accept the ticket, gave the police no other option than to pursue it in court.
I think it was HER that wasted the £10000 and not the police. She should have had to pay the full lot in my opinion for being so stupid as not to accept the punishment.
Regardless of whether she thought it was stupid or not, she committed an offence and should have just paid the price.
think there's rather a large number of "what ifs" in there. I'm not saying eating an apple whilst driving is immensely clever, but there's too much 'bad luck' in there to legislate against. Imagine i have a passenger who drops an apple in shock whilst i'm avoiding a hazard, and that goes under the brake pedal? Imagine my son is sat in the back and under heavy braking drops his gameboy and that slides under the front seat and interferes with the pedals? Are we gonna legislate against all those now? Tell ya what, lets just make it illegal to leave your house. Oh but that doesn't work cos more accidents occur in the home...
northwind
30-01-05, 04:23 PM
but she didn't hit a biker, nor did she rummage around for an apple according to all of the reports that I've seen.
True, but the majority of people don't do that otherwise they would simply park in the car park (which is why it's there) and eat in the restaurant. The drive through is mainly used for people that are driving through who then continue on their journey.
Why is it so wrong to use your phone, eat an apple, etc. yet not easily punishable to drive badly, be concentrating on the kids in the back, singing to the radio, scratching your a**e, etc.?
But she did drive along for some distance holding it, presumably either eating it or with the intent of eating it, which still puts her in one handed/not focusing on driving...
The thing about drive-thrus, is that they're not providing an eat on the move service. If the only purpose was to eat on the move then there'd be a case for baning them, but as it is they're no more inciting eating on the move than any takeaway or food shop so it's 2 seperate issues. If someone decides to go to one then eat on the move then that's their choice. So I still call that a straw man.
The difference between singing on the radio, scratching your **** etc is that these things can't be proven in court "Your honour, the accused was clearly fantasising about the cute girl in the Mazda and not concentrating..." But with mobile phones, eating, that sort of thing you can get actual evidence that they're doing it and so it's prosecutable. Should they not bother to prosecute some unsafe behaviour just because they can't prosecute it all? Course not.
If those distractions cause dangerous driving or some infraction that can be recorded and shown in court then they can be charged, and often are.
People do get charged as a result of shouting at kids or driving badly constantly... But you don't read about it in the papers because it's routine and uninteresting.
Hmmmmm,
So if needed she could just drop the apple?? Well if she needed to do that, that would probably signify that there was a hazard ahead and that she would need to take quick avoiding action. Dropping the apple to regain full control of the vehicle?? The said dropped apple falls into the foot well and rolls under the brake pedal?? Woman needs to push foot on pedal to take the avoiding action (assuming here that in 99% of the time a slowing of speed is going to result in avoiding the hazard or better still preventing one happening). Woman cant apply brakes because of the apple under the brake pedal ??
Result?? More than likely a bigger hazard/accident than the one she could have been reacting to in the first place.
I personally think the police should have cautioned her and explained the possible results of what seems to be a harmless act. The fact that they decided to issue her a ticket is their prerogative. The fact that she decided to appeal and not accept the ticket, gave the police no other option than to pursue it in court.
I think it was HER that wasted the £10000 and not the police. She should have had to pay the full lot in my opinion for being so stupid as not to accept the punishment.
Regardless of whether she thought it was stupid or not, she committed an offence and should have just paid the price.
think there's rather a large number of "what ifs" in there. I'm not saying eating an apple whilst driving is immensely clever, but there's too much 'bad luck' in there to legislate against. Imagine i have a passenger who drops an apple in shock whilst i'm avoiding a hazard, and that goes under the brake pedal? Imagine my son is sat in the back and under heavy braking drops his gameboy and that slides under the front seat and interferes with the pedals? Are we gonna legislate against all those now? Tell ya what, lets just make it illegal to leave your house. Oh but that doesn't work cos more accidents occur in the home...
Ok lets ignore all the what if's.
Regardless of whether she thought it was stupid or not, she committed an offence and should have just paid the price.
Ok lets ignore all the what if's.
Regardless of whether she thought it was stupid or not, she committed an offence and should have just paid the price.
exactly, if she'd paid the fine she deserved in the first place the police wouldn't have had to waste that money
timwilky
30-01-05, 06:21 PM
Yes, I have often thought this. Eating an apple she was not in full control. Infact I do not think the offence was that she was eating an apple. But holding the apple whilst driving, meant that she was not in full control..
Otherwise, whilst I personally would like to see the eating of gum legislated against I doubt that eating this whilst driving or sucking a polo could in the least bit be considered a driving offence.
I regularly see drivers slurping thier brew, shaving or the ladies checking/fixing thier make up etc. All deserve to be pulled as much as a mobile user.
But the worst piece of driving has to be the many thousand each day who are sucking on thier cigs. don't give me that crap that they don't need to use thier hands. I never see anyone stop to light up or put one out. They certainly use thier hands to flick them or the contents of the ash tray out the window as they drive.
Regardless of whether she thought it was stupid or not, she committed an offence and should have just paid the price.
what was the offence she was done for? not being in full control? i would guess with supporting evidence, such as erratic driving, this is a fair point.
What is the actual legislation here? Can you be done for not having both hands on the wheel? I find this daft as you can't have both hands on the wheel at all times. So can i assume from this that any car isn't under full control whilst ur changing gear? Or do we all drive in a rigidly structured way which involves not changing gear whilst turning? I change gear when I feel the car needs it, regardless of whether i'm turning or not.
By the same margin, a biker taking one hand off the handlebars to wipe rain off his visor? Only one hand on the steering and no clutch or indicators available. How far should this crap go?
If she wasn't driving safely, i support the police fully in their charge. If it was simply that a copper got out of bed the wrong side and saw someone eating an apple at the wheel, then this aint justice.
Having said all this i have absolutely no idea of the details on this case whatsoever :D
So being argumentative just for arguments sake then??
Ok lets ignore all the what if's.
Regardless of whether she thought it was stupid or not, she committed an offence and should have just paid the price.
exactly, if she'd paid the fine she deserved in the first place the police wouldn't have had to waste that money
my point exactly, if i get pulled for my exhaust . . . im in the wrong and i will pay the price.
if i dont and it goes to court - i will be in the exact same position as the girl above.
its not a question of "if it affects road saftey or not", its a case of im in the wrong - simple as that.
im awaiting fraser and G-force's veiw :) mabe they can shed some more light on the subject.
I ate all my meals in the car today..... I wasn't stopped. I've been doing it since I started driving. Mind you it makes it a bit more difficult to hold the mobile while you've got a big mac in the other hand. Lucky for me I can steer with me knees ;)
So being argumentative just for arguments sake then??
no i just don't think that eating an apple at the wheel should be an offense. Driving badly should be an offense.
I don't think the same about a hot cup of coffee though. That's plain stupid.
I think that some people can drive better holding an apple than others can with both hands on the wheel. And then there are those that seem to deliberately drive like idiots. Don't get me started on them :shock:
un freeking beleivable..... cops can hand out fines, eating an apple is considered breaking the law. no wonder you have so many criminals over there, everything is a freeking crime
what would happen to me if I got caught balancing a pizza on my tank between the pizzaria and my house? (it's actually easy as long as you tape the box closed)
From what I heard (please bear in mind I'm 400 mioles away so if I'm wrong just tell me...)
At no point in the policemans statement did he mention dangerous driving.
The policeman pulled her thinking she was holding a mobile phone. It wasn't it was an apple. He looked daft and got a bit miffed about it.
The plane was taking pictures of the wrong section of road.
If driving with one hand is dangerous why do they give lisences to people with one arm?
I'm sorry I'm with the waste of time and effort. If she had been driving dangerously then fine, but she wasn't (from all the info I've read).
Stu
timwilky
01-02-05, 08:43 AM
From what I heard (please bear in mind I'm 400 mioles away so if I'm wrong just tell me...)
If driving with one hand is dangerous why do they give lisences to people with one arm?
I'm sorry I'm with the waste of time and effort. If she had been driving dangerously then fine, but she wasn't (from all the info I've read).
Stu
Stu
There is nothing wrong with a disabled driiver, e.g. with one arm driving, so long as the vehicle is suitably modified to permit them to do so safely.
Taking a hand off the wheel is perfectly safe so long as the vehicle is under control e.g. to change gear, indicate, scratch your **** etc. However there is no way you should attempt any manouvre single handed.
IMHO The police officer should have used his discretion and if she had been driving otherwise adequately given her a warning. There must have been something in the way she was driving to have attracted his attention in the first place.
Balky001
01-02-05, 09:09 AM
So being argumentative just for arguments sake then??
no i just don't think that eating an apple at the wheel should be an offense. Driving badly should be an offense.
I don't think the same about a hot cup of coffee though. That's plain stupid.
I think that some people can drive better holding an apple than others can with both hands on the wheel. And then there are those that seem to deliberately drive like idiots. Don't get me started on them :shock:
Do you consider driving with one hand (and going around corners) a good driving trait - unless as previously stated its been modified for that operation? You say you don't think people should hold coffee, is that because of the heat or because its a drink. If its heat what about warm coffee -could do roadside thermometer teats? If is because its a drink then what if the apple is extra juicy. Should there be mositure tests? I'm being pedantic but you can make a decent arguement about any discrepancy and interpretation of a law unless it written for every eventuality. They can't so laws and guidance have to be wrtten as clear as possible and as such can be fairly general. Also, this woman executed the turn perfectly, but there was no hazard - had there been taking avoiding action could have been hampered.
You say there are different levels of driver ability - well of course some people might be better than others, but what's your point - do you think the current test is too easy? Maybe we should be re-tested every few years. Or should there be a single handed test where people who pass it can eat snacks in certain areas?
If the roads weren't as conjested and poorly designed/maintained, maybe carrying pizza and doing other things whilst driving would be acceptable but, as you pointed out, there are so many ****s on the road alread, why give them another excuse to kill you?
Barty_b0y
01-02-05, 10:34 AM
not read all this lot there is just tooo much black stuff to wade through but here`s an opinion
if you cant eat you cant smoke while driving
as when your putting the ciggy in your mouth your not in full control :P
anyway
I heard a finishing touch to this tale of eating and driving and personally its a classic
either somone made it up but what about this
Her brother apparently thought of getting his own back on the policeman in question and did this
Outside of a local copshop where said copper works a Doughnut kiosk was operating offering FREE Doughnuts and when all the coppers got there doughnuts and drove off in the cars goijng to work they were caught on camera especially one of them ;) with said tasty doughnuts in mouth
Wonder how far that will go :D
Balky001
01-02-05, 10:52 AM
not read all this lot there is just tooo much black stuff to wade through but here`s an opinion
if you cant eat you cant smoke while driving
as when your putting the ciggy in your mouth your not in full control :P
anyway
I heard a finishing touch to this tale of eating and driving and personally its a classic
either somone made it up but what about this
Her brother apparently thought of getting his own back on the policeman in question and did this
Outside of a local copshop where said copper works a Doughnut kiosk was operating offering FREE Doughnuts and when all the coppers got there doughnuts and drove off in the cars goijng to work they were caught on camera especially one of them ;) with said tasty doughnuts in mouth
Wonder how far that will go :D
Yes there should be continuity inthe law - maybe one day!
I read about the doughnut thing - nice one. Can't imagine there will be a court case coming up anytime soon though!
Captain Nemo
01-02-05, 11:04 AM
un freeking beleivable..... cops can hand out fines, eating an apple is considered breaking the law. no wonder you have so many criminals over there, everything is a freeking crime
what would happen to me if I got caught balancing a pizza on my tank between the pizzaria and my house? (it's actually easy as long as you tape the box closed)
i think youd be ok unless the rozzers saw you trying to push pizza through the visor !!!, ive tried it , you have to steer the bars with your knees, carefully pull one glove off and balance it on the speedo, gently push the pizza through the face hole, dont worry if any pizza is hanging over the helmet as long as you dont bite all the way through the base youll be ok.., if your helmets got a skirt you wont mess your jacket up,any stray bits will be caught in the helmet for later consumption..........
je$us what am i on about, im so bored today, ive taken to posting utter drivel.........
Balky001
01-02-05, 12:16 PM
un freeking beleivable..... cops can hand out fines, eating an apple is considered breaking the law. no wonder you have so many criminals over there, everything is a freeking crime
what would happen to me if I got caught balancing a pizza on my tank between the pizzaria and my house? (it's actually easy as long as you tape the box closed)
i think youd be ok unless the rozzers saw you trying to push pizza through the visor !!!, ive tried it , you have to steer the bars with your knees, carefully pull one glove off and balance it on the speedo, gently push the pizza through the face hole, dont worry if any pizza is hanging over the helmet as long as you dont bite all the way through the base youll be ok.., if your helmets got a skirt you wont mess your jacket up,any stray bits will be caught in the helmet for later consumption..........
je$us what am i on about, im so bored today, ive taken to posting utter drivel.........
Stringy cheese bits around yor helmet skirt, for later consumption - really - its lunchtime and now I don't feel very hungry! :lol:
Biker Biggles
01-02-05, 12:55 PM
Bit Big Brother this air photography isnt it?If we went back 20 years and some one said they would use this technology for nicking us for munching our coxs at the wheel :shock: they would have been laughed at.Well here we are.This stuff gets introduced and sold to us on the grounds that it will stop Granny being murdered on the street corner and who could argue with that?Trouble is within a few years Big Brother spends his time issuing parking tickets and other trivial pursuits.Doesnt seem to do much for Granny either,or am I too cynical?
northwind
01-02-05, 02:54 PM
if you cant eat you cant smoke while driving
as when your putting the ciggy in your mouth your not in full control :P
Still all just degrees though isn't it... For one thing you're not likely to do that while going around a bend like she did. For another, it takes, what a couple of seconds to do, while it'd take a couple of minutes of constant distraction and one-armed-ness to eat the apple.
Stringy cheese bits around yor helmet skirt, for later consumption - really - its lunchtime and now I don't feel very hungry! :lol:
enuendo eddie :lol: :lol:
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.