Drivers in England will be banned from smoking in their cars if they are carrying children as passengers. ...... which will become law on 1 October,
It will not apply to anyone driving alone or driving in a convertible car with the top down.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31310685
|
How fatuous the nanny state is.
It's not as if the BiB needed yet another excuse for random pulls after all. It's just deeply silly faff.
I'm looking forward to an EU ruling that children under 16 should be bound and gagged and carried if possible in the boot, to minimise driver distraction.
|
I notice that all the little shops down here are now following the big stores in hiding their cigarette packets behind shutters (I've boycotted the Tesco cigarette counter since they started doing it two years ago. I hope they go bust).
It's a damn nuisance having to get the shop assistant to slide the door back and forth so you can see what they've got and what they cost.
|
|
They do it in all the co-ops as well.
|
>> It's a damn nuisance having to get the shop assistant to slide the door back
>> and forth so you can see what they've got and what they cost.
I just used to ask for 20 Marlboro while looking at the top shelf mags.
|
The law that's required the supermarkets to put ciggies behind blinds for a couple of years now extends to small shops wef 01/04/2015.
On the children in cars + smoking issue I agree with others that enforcement will be both difficult and patchy. OTOH which is going to give greatest level of compliance, persuasion or a patchily applied law?
|
|
How many parents now smoke with their kids in the car? Is this a solution looking for a problem that no longer exists or one that is declining naturally?
|
>> How many parents now smoke with their kids in the car? Is this a solution
>> looking for a problem that no longer exists or one that is declining naturally?
>>
Pretty much the latter I think. Those who still do are they types who will ignore the law anyway and I suspect it will be enforced as effectively as the dangerous dogs act, which a visit to any council estate will tell you means not at all.
|
>> Is this a solution looking for a problem that no longer exists or one that is declining naturally?
Yeah, it's true, not many people take up smoking these days. Very sensible of them too.
The rest of us are already addicted and too wimpish to stop.
The point about all this is that it's an individual responsibility. If you are willing to shorten your life you have a perfect right to. And it ill behoves you to be too demanding when the health wonks are looking after the wreckage.
So far so good though (Hawk! Spit!).
|
How many parents now smoke with their kids in the car?
Don't know, but this week I'm in a country (Greece) that still allows smoking indoors, and the evidence of my colleagues (all from countries that have outlawed indoor smoking) is that they smoke where they're allowed to, not where it's best for the people around them, which made the bar last night surprisingly unpleasant in a way I'd almost forgotten. Maybe they take different attitudes to smoking in their own space (home/car) and in someone else's (bar) but it doesn't look like smokers will just do the right thing without being compelled to.
In cars, specifically, though, we've had high-profile prosecutions involving drivers consuming an apple and a bottle of water while driving. Neither of those is as potentially harmful to car control as a cigarette, so why not just attack smokers from the 'proper control' angle instead? Or complete the job and eliminate smoking from all enclosed spaces, whether domestic, commercial or mobile?
|
|
Actually it's just as illegal to smoke in Greek bar or restaurant a it is in a UK one. It's just that the law in Greece is universally ignored and never enforced making the inside of a Greek restaurant a no go area for me.
|
> drivers consuming an apple and a
>> bottle of water while driving. Neither of those is as potentially harmful to car control
>> as a cigarette,
The problem surely is though that from a car control point of view, lots of things are more detrimental, but no one has suggested legislating against them:
Fiddling with radio, CD player, etc.
Using SAT nav while moving
Talking to passengers
Listening to children.
The act of lighting a cigarette with the plug-in lighter seems remarkably undistracting by comparison. I know it kills all the occupants, but not immediately.
|
>> In cars, specifically, though, we've had high-profile prosecutions involving drivers consuming an apple and a
>> bottle of water while driving.
Neither of which has stopped me from driving while drinking or eating.
|
>> In cars, specifically, though, we've had high-profile prosecutions involving drivers consuming an apple and
>> a bottle of water while driving.
Both prosecutions were, IIRC, down to driver refusal to accept advice, failing the attitude test when officer pursued the point and then attempting to defend rather than accept a fixed penalty.
>> Neither of which has stopped me from driving while drinking or eating.
Nor me.
|
From April 1st new laws on the sale of cigarettes come in (At least in Wales). Cigarettes must be in a closed cabinet with the goods out of public view and the staff are not allowed to tell you the price of a whatever pack you ask for or which brand is the cheapest, neither are they allowed to show the contents of the cabinet so you can see for yourself. Only at the point of sale can you be informed as to how much they cost. My local shop owner tells me they are already required to fill in a log detailing every instance of when they have refused a sale to someone they know or suspect to be under eighteen.
Aren't we lucky to have such caring rulers?
|
Larger stores, supermarkets and like, in England have had to put ciggies in closed cabinet for a couple of years now. Scope extended to small shops from 01 April according to lass in village shop to whom I commented on the new cabinet. I've an idea she said something about customer having to specify brand too but not sure - not relevant as I've never smoked.
This stuff is devolved though so quite possible that Welsh Gov have their own refinements.
Unusually tonight I got bus back from town. Kid who looked about 12-13, certainly pre puberty, was 'vaping' in full view of all.
|
>> Unusually tonight I got bus back from town. Kid who looked about 12-13, certainly pre
>> puberty, was 'vaping' in full view of all.
>>
In the same way, no doubt, that us kids used to make a big show of smoking a cigarette when we were that age. He thinks he's being cool, you think (rightly) that he's being silly.
As one who's converted to "vaping" myself (although I loathe the term) I have to wonder what the outcome will be when some busybody reports a car driver for using one with kids in the car, in the mistaken belief that it's a "real" cigarette.
|
|
I'd be very surprised if vaping wasn't covered by the same restriction, if only to make enforcement easier.
|
>> I'd be very surprised if vaping wasn't covered by the same restriction, if only to
>> make enforcement easier.
>>
Could be fun. IIRC there's already been a legal challenge somewhere and the judgement was that vaping is not classed as smoking. Nor should it be.
|
>> vaping
It even sounds awful, but not as awful as the experience. Give me the real thing any day. I'll take my chances.
|
>>
>> It even sounds awful, but not as awful as the experience. Give me the real
>> thing any day. I'll take my chances.
>>
I tried them once and I'll agree with you. It's one thing having to ask a stranger if they have a light because yours has packed up, but desperately seeking someone with a battery charger because your fag has gone flat is something else.
|
>> I'd be very surprised if vaping wasn't covered by the same restriction, if only to
>> make enforcement easier.
"Vaping" is banned at the sports grounds that I attend, presumably to make enforcement easier.
|
I don't see why they have to make the damn things emit smoke, its not required no one is hooked on the the smoke that comes out the end. At least they stopped putting stupid red glowing LEDS in the end.
|
>> I don't see why they have to make the damn things emit smoke, its not
>> required no one is hooked on the the smoke that comes out the end. At
>> least they stopped putting stupid red glowing LEDS in the end.
>>
They don't emit smoke; it's vapour hence the term vaping. It's a natural residue of the process and harmless despite what the nagging nannies might tell you.
Mrs. HM dislikes cigarette smoke intensely; being asthmatic it makes her cough. For that reason, when I was on the fags I was always careful not to inadvertently exhale smoke in her immediate vicinity. She didn't object to me smoking, just not when she was close to me.
When I took up the e-cigs, I inadvertently took a drag on it and blew the "smoke" out unaware that she was standing next to me. She immediately ducked away, out of habit I suppose, then commented that she couldn't smell anything. She is now quite happy for me to chuff away on my pipe whilst sitting next to her, and says that I smell and taste better too. Glad I made the switch, I feel better too. Incidentally I never did like the taste or smell of tailor-made cigarettes but they smell even worse to me now.
Agree with you about the LED's though; I use the refillable tank type of e-cig, the ones that deliberately imitate a cigarette in appearance are strictly for girls.
|
Mrs Ted still enjoys a fag but she always goes at least as far as the back door. She has a habit of leaving the inner door to the nice warm kitchen open...which doesn't help in this weather !
I don't really mind if she smokes in the house...as a compromise she could smoke by the cooker and switch the extractor on.
It's the smell of the ashtray that bugs me.....I don't mind the smoke, My lungs at 69 are in good nick, the heart surgeon had a look when he was in there, so I don't suppose her 4 or 5 fags a day will bother them too much.
Back to cars, what if your 8/9 yr old grandchildren enjoy a fag in the back seat of the car...will they face prosecution ?
|
>> They don't emit smoke; it's vapour hence the term vaping. It's a natural residue of
>> the process and harmless despite what the nagging nannies might tell you.
Not smoke as nothing is being burnt maybe, but WHO disagrees about the vapour - goo.gl/6SQUqK (Telegraph).
There isn't anything much in that article about the science though.
Article here about possibly harm to users:
www.sciencenews.org/article/health-risks-e-cigarettes-emerge
It was epidemiological evidence that linked smoking to cancer as far as I know, rather than controlled trials. If there is any bad news, it will possibly take some time to emerge, Meanwhile, the worst people to advise on the safety of ENDS (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems) are the people who make and sell them.
E-fags also contain flavourings as well as nicotine and solvents. The flavourings are 'safe' as food but not necessarily when inhaled, we might speculate. I don't like the sound of the solvents either.
Amazingly I've only once seen anybody smoking an e-fag at close quarters, in a pub in Robin Hood's Bay last September. There was a definite odour associated with it and I thought my chest was tightening, which I was sure was psychosomatic, but it stopped me having a second pint and I supped up and left quickly.
I haven't seen anybody with one in the village pub, and the ertswhile heavy smokers don't even seem to step outside for a real one very often now. That said, half of them don't bother going to the pub any more, which seems to be struggling to stay in business.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 15 Feb 15 at 16:32
|
>> Drivers in England will be banned from smoking in their cars if they are carrying
>> children as passengers. ...... which will become law on 1 October,
Today's the day folks.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34402622
|
A good law is one you can enforce. And it has already been said they cannot.
It's not that I'm not sympathetic to the principles, just that we are approaching the legal event horizon.
|
Yes, fussy and unenforceable. Adults smoked in cars when I was a child and if it made children carsick that was just too bad.
For some years I had the same attitude, but I couldn't help noticing how much the children hated it, and they kept complaining too. So gradually I have become a bit kinder and more considerate to the little brutes although it goes against the grain.
|
If you have a company car which a work colleague could borrow at any time then you have been banned from smoking in the car with or without a child since 1st July 2007.
How many checks and prosecutions have been brought and upheld in the last 8 years ferrying children to school in company cars while having a smoke?
They should just ban tobacco, then alcohol, then they can get onto the really offensive stuff starting with cricket. Noise, broken property and all to wear a 22 yard track out in the middle of a field. Pah!
Last edited by: gmac on Thu 1 Oct 15 at 14:42
|
>> How many checks and prosecutions have been brought and upheld in the last 8 years
>> ferrying children to school in company cars while having a smoke?
That's a pretty remote set of circumstances. CAB colleagues yesterday were discussing a case where a person smoking in a company vehicle had been dismissed for gross misconduct. Consensus was that penalty would be OTT in case of a first offence but if he's been warned previously........
|
|
Seems to me the old bill have more or less said they are not going to enforce it.
|
>> Seems to me the old bill have more or less said they are not going
>> to enforce it.
>>
They can't.
When politicians create laws like this, who do they think are going to enforce them?
When I joined the Old Bill in 1981, it was the norm for Constables to patrol and to stop people and report them for motoring offences. This is every day cops, not traffic unit officers.
You had to submit your figures monthly and it was soon noticed by your sergeant and inspector if you were low on figures... so that meant the average motorist had to ensure they kept on their toes and remained legal, because the cops were looking out for it.
Fast forward to 2011 just before I retired and NONE of that went on. The Borough based police in London had no expectation whatsoever that their officers would indulge in traffic related offences.... you couldn't afford to let them, you had more pressing stuff queued up... and the stuff they did deal with was after it had happened, rather than catching people at it or before they committed offences.
I understand the Met has to lose another £800 million.... so it's only going to get worse.
|
|
Same view here, there are no cops to investigate crimes - Roads Policing is down by 50% of what it was before 2009.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34402622
I'm against smoking (other than for tax revenues) but I think this woman has nailed it. Love her honesty.
|
>> But I think this woman has nailed
>> it. Love her honesty.
>>
Her children should be taken into care!
Last edited by: Rick O'Shea on Thu 1 Oct 15 at 23:37
|
|
She should become a Jazz singer - she's got just the right voice!
|
Thank goodness I'm staying with my CA friends later this month. Some home grown, self harvested weed, dried on the deck and smoked around a fire pit in the evening. All totally legal.
Interesting conversation yesterday with a local couple whose daughter, 3 weeks short of her 21st bday, was prosecuted for drinking alcohol and had to attend a days awareness course.
Bonkers country.
|
>>Some home grown, self harvested weed, dried on the deck and smoked around a fire pit in the evening. All totally legal.
That's living alright!
|
>>CAB colleagues yesterday were discussing a case where a person smoking in a company vehicle had been dismissed for gross misconduct. Consensus was that penalty would be OTT in case of a first offence but if he's been warned previously...
In which case CAB colleagues need to consult an employment lawyer.
It is either gross misconduct or it is not. You are either fired for gross misconduct or you are not. You cannot change this.
So, if gross misconduct is grounds for immediate dismissal and smoking in a company car is gross misconduct he MUST be fired.
If it was gross misconduct the first time then he must be fired. If he is not, then the second time it is either not gross misconduct, or you cannot be fired for gross misconduct.
Catastrophic HR mistake.
|
|
p.s. examples exist, some bloke playing football with a forklift I think.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 2 Oct 15 at 00:33
|
Depends if there were mitigating/aggravating circumstances.
|
>> In which case CAB colleagues need to consult an employment lawyer.
>>
>> It is either gross misconduct or it is not. You are either fired for gross
>> misconduct or you are not. You cannot change this.
Perhaps I could have been clearer. The point at issue was whether smoking in a company vehicle, at first offence, amounted to gross misconduct.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 2 Oct 15 at 08:11
|
>>The point at issue was whether smoking in a company vehicle, at first offence, amounted to gross misconduct.
I think this would need to be stated by the company - legally it is a non-endorsable offence with a fine up to £200 for the person (more if the business are prosecuted for not preventing it happening).
It could be argued as it is non-endorsable it should be treated no worse than a speeding offence, although as the company can be held liable if they are deemed to have not tried to prevent it, it could also be argued that it should constitute a greater sanction.
Since it is relatively recent legislation, I would expect any HR/management team worth its salt would have notified their staff/updated their business manual if it is deemed to be gross misconduct.
Motorola had a zero tolerance to smoking in their premises - gross misconduct & dismissal, even in a worker's car in the car park (this was the case 20 years ago when I had a summer job with them) - to their credit they would pay for stop smoking intervention for any employee who requested it (although it's free now on the NHS - at least in Scotland)
|
Lygonos has it. If the company has stated its condition that smoking in a company vehicle will constitute gross misconduct and render the employee liable to dismissal, then the employee's case will be weak unless he can successfully run an 'unfair contract terms' argument - I don't know whether that can be made in employment law.
I once worked for business one of whose rules was that "consumption of alcohol on company premises" would result in immediate dismissal. 'Pre-loading' wouldn't work either - the same penalty applied to "gross inebriation".
|
>>The point at issue was whether smoking in a company vehicle, at first offence, amounted to gross misconduct.
You were clear, but I think misunderstand.
"at first offence" is not relevant. Either it IS gross misconduct or it IS NOT. Whether or not it is a first offence is not relevant.
The company will have determined and advised what the definition of gross misconduct is and the matters that are included. There would need to be good reasons for smoking in a car to be gross misconduct, you can't just say it is because you don't like it. But if it is, it always is.
|
>> "at first offence" is not relevant. Either it IS gross misconduct or it IS NOT.
>> Whether or not it is a first offence is not relevant.
Surely though an otherwise good employee who indulges in something that constitutes gross misconduct, might well receive some leeway for a first offence e.g. final written warning, depending on what the gross misconduct is?
In the big scheme of things, smoking in the work vehicle is not stealing or false accounting or grossly bringing the employer's reputation into disrepute.
So an instant dismissal might* be somewhat harsh.
* depends what's gone on before.. if it's come out of the blue, then probably harsh...if there's been loads of previous communication about it and/or some previous examples that the current employee has ignored, then not harsh
|
>> Surely though an otherwise good employee who indulges in something that constitutes gross misconduct, might
>> well receive some leeway
Absolutely. Company doesn't have to enforce it. But woe will betide you if they want to get rid of you and you trip up:)
I can think of at least one unpopular and expensive employee who was hoofed out after a forensic trawl (as in fishing trip) though his expenses and browsing habits.
|
|
Old thread - just noticed
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Tue 15 Mar 16 at 14:32
|
|
WP, its like a murder / manslaughter thing. If you want a lot of flexibility then don't call it murder.
|
>> WP, its like a murder / manslaughter thing. If you want a lot of flexibility
>> then don't call it murder.
>>
The trouble is, many people in the system can't or won't handle flexibility some to the point of being wilful... so the seemingly easy thing to do management wise is have an inflexible system, but that ends up shooting themselves in the foot... and... if you want the ability to use the ultimate sanction....maybe manslaughter wouldn't be enough.
So keep the murder, properly evidence the process and award manslaughter sentences for those that need it.. and murder likewise.
|
>> If you have a company car which a work colleague could borrow at any time
>> then you have been banned from smoking in the car with or without a child
>> since 1st July 2007.
Isn't smoking in a company vehicle at any time illegal - if that vehicle can be used, or shared by a colleague, whether or not the other people agree?
So all those groups of tradesmen in their vans and lorries, one or more puffing away, are all breaking the law?
How many prosecutions have been brought?
|
Missed the edit.
To answer my own question:-
www.gov.uk/smoking-at-work-the-law
|
So what do we think about this one?
It is now illegal to smoke in the car in the presence of an under 18 year old.
However.you can legally smoke cigarettes at the age of 16.
Now. you can't legally purchase cigarettes until you are 18. but you can legally pass your driving test at the age of 17.
So. if I'm a passenger in a car with a 17 year old driver who is legally allowed to drive and has all the correct insurance MOT and vehicle excise duty and he takes out a cigarette from a packet which his mum purchased for both of us) and lights up, who will get fined and why?
Pat
|
|
No one. Your over 18, he's old enough to smoke.
|
>> No one. Your over 18, he's old enough to smoke.
Exactly that. Even if caught by Police and reported for offence (if it is an offence at all) any authority that prosecuted would be a laughing stock. Not in public interest etc.
Be careful about 16-18 yo smoking though. It's legal in England and Wales to smoke at 16 but in Scotland and NI age to buy OR smoke tobacco products is 18.
|
|
One thing i think is odd is why do we have separate ages to smoke and buy. Why not one age like in Scotland?
|
If it's wrong to smoke in a car with a 16 year old in it, it must be wrong (at least logically) to introduce a 16 year old to smoking. As he can't buy them for himself, should he be allowed to smoke at all?
I suspect the problem is that he is between the age at which his parents cease to be responsible for his habits, and the age at which he is fully accountable.
I was in a playground, pushing my young granddaughter on a swing on Monday afternoon. A couple of possibly 12-13 year schoolgirls came by, puffing surreptitiously. Cab they be stopped? By whom? Are their parents legally at fault in any way?
It all gets a bit complicated when you start banning things that are essentially (provided they inconvenience no-one else) private.
|
|
Its al very well harping on about this 16 - 18 year old thing, but lets not forget the other 16 years the poor kid may well have been force fed tobacco smoke, thats why the act has been brought in. Surely no-one can say thats a bad thing.
|
>> lets not forget the other 16 years the poor kid may well have been force
>> fed tobacco smoke, thats why the act has been brought in. Surely no-one can say
>> thats a bad thing.
JBJ had a stab upthread, linking to a blog called 'Velvet Glove'.
Perhaps it was irony?
|
>> lets not forget the other 16 years the poor kid may well have been force
>> fed tobacco smoke, thats why the act has been brought in. Surely no-one can say
>> thats a bad thing.
Not at all. I was subjected to a certain amount I suppose, but nobody really perceived much if any harm then. Now that it's proven and quantified as far as most of us are concerned, I'm surprised anybody would inflict it on their own child whether legal or not.
If I were to smoke within 10 yards of my granddaughter, I'm pretty sure her mother would chuck a bucket of water over me at the very least.
|
He will, for smoking in a car containing an under-18. The origin of the smoking material is irrelevant, as is your presence - unless you're smoking too, which you didn't mention.
I suspect you're introducing irrelevant complications to make this measure look like more of a bad idea than it really is.
|
|
It was a very good question though!
|
Pat's post is amusing WDB, and looks as if she meant it to be.
The new law is quite a bad idea - most new laws are - although it attempts to discourage people from smoking which may be a good thing I suppose. It can't possibly be enforced systematically.
|
|
Yeah, next they'll be telling us to wear seatbelts - it'll never catch on.
|
>> Yeah, next they'll be telling us to wear seatbelts - it'll never catch on.
People's perception of risk is poor. Probably more people think it is safe to to use a mobile phone while driving than to travel without a seat belt.
Unless you are in the back seat of course, when you will be fine!
|
>> Yeah, next they'll be telling us to wear seatbelts - it'll never catch on.
I sometimes wear a seatbelt and sometimes don't. I've never been pulled for not wearing it, or even noticed really.
|
But I've noticed that some women really don't know how to sit in cars: they perch loosely upright on the seat instead of adjusting it and sitting in relaxed but braced position with back against backrest, feet on footboard and so on.
My first wife and my sister-in-law are both offenders in this way, who fall clumsily about if there is a sudden deceleration or swerve. The SiL even annoys me by holding a big loop of seatbelt away from her, rendering the device useless if it should ever be needed. Silly bints.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 2 Oct 15 at 15:00
|
>> But I've noticed that some women really don't know how to sit in cars: they
>> perch loosely upright on the seat instead of adjusting it
better known as steering wheel biters.
|
|
Yes, AC, but you're an immortal road god with a note from your mum to exempt you from Newton's First Law. We can't all aspire to that.
|
|
Come come WDB, you flatter me, you exaggerate. So far so good however.
|
|
It's his sister Shirley who thinks she's immune to the laws of motion.
|
Now, W de B and the person who has given you a thumbs up for that, I have a message for you.
I am a smoker and I don't hide the fact but your post is what makes us rebel so much and shows that the 'irrationally against smoking' brigade will read just what they want to see in anything about the subject.
I copied that from our local forum pages as a question posed from someone else, and I couldn't work out the answer.
To me, it demonstrates how utterly ridiculous introducing a law that isn't definitive in it's layout, really is.
I was interested to see what the 'more intelligent than me' brains on here made of it.
To be accused of posting it because I think the law/measure is a bad idea says it all really.
* shakes head in disgust*
As a matter of fact I have no opinion either way since I never go in a vehicle with anyone under the age of 18 and if pushed my answer would be that as an adult, I should be trusted to let common sense prevail, not have to have it legislated against.
But as always these days, we have to pander to the lower common denominator......as perhaps you will think I am doing now!
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Fri 2 Oct 15 at 16:47
|
>> But as always these days, we have to pander to the lower common denominator
Sadly, that's why we have most laws. Some people are utter ****.
Roy Castle syndrome ought to be obvious to even the most retarded human being, but still some selfish git will drive along with their kids in the car.
Kids need legislation to look after them, for the above reasons, whereas adults can make their own minds up.
I lived with two separate ladies who smoked during our time together and regularly drove with them puffing away and can well remember pubs / night clubs with a fog of smoke in them ..however.. i'm now glad it's all banned, because:
A, Roy Castle
B, the smell in my hair and clothing
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 08:45
|
>> Roy Castle syndrome ought to be obvious to even the most retarded human being, but
>> still some selfish git will drive along with their kids in the car.
>>
>> Kids need legislation to look after them, for the above reasons, whereas adults can make
>> their own minds up.
I find myself in rare agreement with WP. The great thing about the pub ban is not needing a shower and a change of clothes on arriving home. And anybody who has owned an ex smokers car will know how long it takes to get rid of the taint.
|
I find myself in rare agreement with WP. The great thing about the pub ban
>> is not needing a shower and a change of clothes on arriving home.
I forget how strong the smell was until i go overseas where its still allowed.
|
>> I forget how strong the smell was until i go overseas where its still allowed.
We had an room in an office building I worked in occupied successively over 10 or so years by two chain smokers. Eventually though smoking was banned, even in single occupier rooms. Three years on from the ban when we moved out of the building the room still smelled of ciggys .
|
I certainly agree with WP's closing points.
I think there's an argument that enforcement isn't everything. The seat belt law pretty well changed behaviour overnight, with compliance rising from below 50% to over 90%, even though there's very little active enforcement. With luck this will be similar, with all but the I reachable hard core getting the message, without needing an actual tap on the shoulder.
As for Pat's 'irrationally against smoking', how can it possibly be irrational? There is no sound argument to be made in favour of smoking; it does nothing but harm to all who come near it. I am vehemently opposed to smoking but I promise you there's nothing irrational about it.
|
>> I am vehemently opposed to smoking
I'm not.
Not near me, not near my children. Arguably not near any minors.
Other than that why would I care what someone else does?
|
>> Other than that why would I care what someone else does?
What about the indirect cost to us of all the NHS treatment, or am I being naive?
|
>> What about the indirect cost to us of all the NHS treatment,
Which is a great deal less than the taxation raised.
|
The nannies aren't considering the big picture.
Smoking causes a lot of suffering at the personal level, and it must be right to make people aware of the dangers and to protect children who have no choice in the matter.
Overall though it is arguably a good thing. One thing there is no shortage of is people. Smoking also creates employment and wealth. A considerable chunk of my pension savings is invested indirectly in BAT, Imperial Tobacco, Philip Morris etc.
I would rather my family and friends did not smoke, for the sake of their own health, but to all the millions of anonymous smokers out there exercising their choice to do so, carry on. Just stop throwing the butts all over the place if you can.
That might seem a callous view, but it it just the other side of the libertarian, freedom of choice outlook preferred by many to an excessively regulated society.
|
>>As for Pat's 'irrationally against smoking', how can it possibly be irrational?<<
In as much as you defined, quite wrongly, the angle I was posting from because you knew I was a smoker.
As smokers we get used to non smokers assumptions about us all.
We are all inconsiderate
We all smell
We are all dirty
We all rip off the NHS
We all oppose any curbs on smoking
....I could go on, but you get my drift.
Pat
|
>> As smokers we get used to non smokers assumptions about us all.
>>
>> We are all inconsiderate
>> We all smell
>> We are all dirty
>> We all rip off the NHS
>> We all oppose any curbs on smoking
>>
>> ....I could go on, but you get my drift.
>>
isn't that a series of assumptions?
|
Not at all Sooty, each and every one of them have been levelled at me personally at some time in my life.
I, on the other hand, learned long ago to assume nothing about other people because if I look hard enough they frequently have hidden depths, and are worth that deeper look.
Pat
|
>> Not at all Sooty, each and every one of them have been levelled at me
>> personally at some time in my life.
>>
the term non smokers cover a large number of people.
Not sure i follow your logic on your second part. People can do both.
|
|
I didn't assume anything, Pat. The verb I used was 'suspect', which acknowledged that I didn't know and needed evidence. If you were just floating a question for discussion, and not making mischief, even my suspicion was wrong. Sorry.
|
>> >>
>> Roy Castle syndrome ought to be obvious to even the most retarded human being, but
>> still some selfish git will drive along with their kids in the car.
>>
>>
It's an unproven assumption that passive smoking led to Roy Castle's death. Of course you dare not say that these days as you'll have the health lobby and their followers coming at you while foaming at the mouth.
|
>> It's an unproven assumption that passive smoking led to Roy Castle's death.
The dangers of passive smoking are somewhat exaggerated... Nevertheless Zero has just pointed out elsewhere that children are 'force fed' tobacco smoke in cars over periods of years. Indeed I was, and duly became a smoker at age 20 or so, in 1958, and have been one ever since. Your parents give you a bit of bad along with the good.
So the dangers are somewhat exaggerated, but very far from non-existent. That's why I try not to fug the car up with smoke when there are nippers in it these days.
|
>>It's an unproven assumption that passive smoking led to Roy Castle's death
I can't find any mention of the type of lung cancer Roy Castle had, but if he had 'small cell' cancer it is almost never seen in non-smokers.
Similarly with mesothelioma, it is almost unheard of in people with no contact with asbestos.
R O'R is of course correct though: non-smokers do indeed get lung cancer, but at much lower rates than smokers.
The health risks of passive smoking are now well documented and only disputed by smoking advocacies - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
|
>> It's an unproven assumption that passive smoking led to Roy Castle's death. Of course you
>> dare not say that these days as you'll have the health lobby and their followers
>> coming at you while foaming at the mouth.
And there's no point saying it either. It can't be proved either way.
You can't prove that any individual ever got lung cancer from smoking, because the evidence is epidemiological: 10%-15% of lung cancer appears in lifelong non-smokers: there's no doubt smoking has killed millions though.
ISTR the Chief Medical Officer saying no evidence had been found of a link between BSE and CJD. That argument didn't convince me at the time either.
|
> I am a smoker and I don't hide the fact but your post is what
>> makes us rebel so much
In what does it make them rebel, in what manner does this rebellion occur?
>> just what they want to see in anything about the subject
>> To me, it demonstrates how utterly ridiculous introducing a law that isn't definitive in it's
>> layout, really is.
The law is a vague on this because of the law that says it's legal to smoke at 16 but you can't buy them till your 18. How we came about with this odd set of circumstances i don't know.
|
>> The law is a vague on this because of the law that says it's legal
>> to smoke at 16 but you can't buy them till your 18. How we came
>> about with this odd set of circumstances i don't know.
>>
It's not unique. Similar applies with regard to drinking alcohol, inasmuch as those over 16 but under 18 can be served wine or beer with a meal in a restaurant; but they cannot order it or pay for it.
a quick perusal of Wiki with regard to smoking laws seems to show that the UK is a long way from being a world leader when it comes to restricting tobacco use by kids; which does make me wonder if this latest idea, admirable though its intention might be, is simply another wheeze to keep petty civil servants in a wage.
An interesting one in Wiki's list is Chad, which seems to be breaking new ground by banning smoking (in public at any rate) by pregnant women. Now that WOULD get my support; not only from a health angle but it might incentivise some of the feckless rabble to think twice before breeding, just as the smoking ban in prison might have a slight effect on repeat ofenders.
|
> It's not unique. Similar applies with regard to drinking alcohol, inasmuch as those over 16
>> but under 18 can be served wine or beer with a meal in a restaurant;
>> but they cannot order it or pay for it.
>>
i didn't suggest it was unique. But there is a health drive* against smoking. So it seems odd that such a loop hole does exist, it goes against the whole government idea to reduce smoking which is everywhere and at all levels. To what purpose does it serve?
*The government isn't too keen on drinking but no where near the same level.
|
>> I copied that from our local forum pages as a question posed from someone else,
>> and I couldn't work out the answer.
Was it posted there from a position of curious inquiry or as a supposed spanner in the works?
|
Bromp
I read our local forum pages to see....what's going on locally, not to psychoanalyse every person posting:)
Pat
|
>> So. if I'm a passenger in a car with a 17 year old driver who
>> lights up, who will get fined and why?
Nobody. See below - the law does not apply to:
www.gov.uk/government/news/smoking-in-vehicles
All though it says 'on their own' there's clearly no offence if passenger(s) over 18.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 3 Oct 15 at 09:33
|
Police in England and Wales are "unable" to enforce a new law banning smoking in cars carrying children because there are no tickets which they can issue.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35808647
|
|
Would cigarette papers do instead?
|
Police are choosing not to enforce a new law protecting children from people smoking in cars, figures suggest.
In the first seven months only three police forces in England and Wales reported incidents and all were dealt with by verbal warnings.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36653291
|
I haven't smoked in years now, but I have to admit, I miss it sometimes. Especially in the car. I never smoked in the car when there was anyone else in it, but a long cross country drive on a summers evening with the window cranked down, the music cranked up, elbow on the window sill and a Marlboro on the go...It was nice.
Wine gums don't really offer a suitable alternative.
;-)
|
>> Wine gums don't really offer a suitable alternative.
>>
...difficult to light, too......
;-)
|
They are indeed. Sometimes I fill the cup holders with monkey nuts. Relieves the boredom cracking monkey nuts. That's probably banned too though I suppose. Most things are now.
;-)
|
>> That's probably banned too though I suppose.......
>>
.....only if they're still attached to the monkey........
|
>> ....only if they're still attached to the monkey........
Tee hee ...
|
>> I haven't smoked in years now, but I have to admit, I miss it sometimes.
>> Especially in the car. I never smoked in the car when there was anyone else
>> in it, but a long cross country drive on a summers evening with the window
>> cranked down, the music cranked up, elbow on the window sill and a Marlboro on
>> the go...It was nice.
>>
>> >>
>> >>
First job in the morning when I get in the car. Engine on, window open and light up.
Sorry to rub it in.....
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Wed 29 Jun 16 at 13:49
|
|
Mornings are more of a challenge. Don't know about anyone else but neither wine gums or monkey nuts seem appropriate until the afternoon.
|
>> Mornings are more of a challenge. Don't know about anyone else but neither wine gums or monkey nuts seem appropriate until the afternoon.
Not even then actually. I'm barely human until I've smoked several nails. Old dog, new tricks... still alive nevertheless and no real signs of impending doom.
|
|
Mint Imperials can be more of a morning thing, but even then, you end up with furry teeth. It's hard you know. People don't realise.
|
Cars are one time I really miss smoking. Quite restful moments outside are another.
However, do you remember the pain that also went along; outside to smoke, the cost, other people's irritation, the debris in a car, the cough, etc. etc.
Miss it though I do, I am not tempted to start again. 12 years now, I think. I've lost track a bit.
|
>> Mornings are more of a challenge. Don't know about anyone else but neither wine gums
>> or monkey nuts seem appropriate until the afternoon.
>>
Haven't you tried vaping? Not sure I'd like it too much, but it's got to be better than nothing.
|
Couldn't do that, deeply uncool.
;-)
|
I mean, you couldn't imagine this with the guy vaping could you? ( or assaulting a monkey come to that ) ;-)
m.youtube.com/watch?v=2zg8PWdVWM0
|
>> Couldn't do that, deeply uncool.
And nasty and unsatisfying with it. A parody of smoking, tchah!
|
|
It's the battery charging that puts me off. I mean, it's one thing asking someone if they've got a light, quite another to ask if you can borrow a set of jump leads.
|
|
I've got a long day in the car tomorrow. I thought dried figs in one cup holder for a change and perhaps some Brazil nuts in the other. Shelled ones mind, not sure I could crack fresh ones without some disarray.
|
|
Good call, but I'm worried about the dynamics there, I mean, many twiglets would be sort of self stabilising in a cup holder, but I fear they would become a bit random in inverse proportion to quantity. The last few could be moving about far too much on the corners. Distracting at best.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Wed 29 Jun 16 at 22:08
|
That is a valid concern. Twiglets need to be in a group to have any form of stability.
I worry also about the longevity of a single twiglet once it has entered the consumption phase.. It is difficult to imagine quite how many cup holders one would need to supply a single long journey.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 29 Jun 16 at 22:13
|
|
Same with bread sticks in truth. Especially the salty ones. Tuc biscuits are awkward too, wrong shape, and Ritz crackers, while being better suited to cup holders are just too small a diameter to be satisfactory. I think nuts and figs are going to win out. Mixed peanuts and raisins are never wrong of course, or liquorice allsorts.
|
Peanuts and raisins are good. But they make me thirsty. Ritz don't work without cheese and that all gets too complicated.
More research is needed....
|
...good god man, RTFM.
Bratwurst in one cup-holder, Currywurst in the other, and sauerkraut in the centre console....
;-)
|
|
S'very complicated. I'd probably end up indicating with the bratwurst. Or worse.
|
Hmm.
Sausage-Shaped Objects To Avoid Hanging Out of a Car Window
1. Bratwurst
2. ...
|
>> Sausage-Shaped Objects To Avoid Hanging Out of a Car Window
Or even being on display inside the car
metro.co.uk/2016/06/20/driver-fined-for-masturbating-while-he-drove-his-bmw-down-the-m40-5954849/
|
|
...as long as it wasn't as you turned into the red-light district in Lüneburg (which I accidentally discovered on my recent travels), you'd probably get away with it.....
|
All in all, bratwurst is too high risk
But those little cocktail sausages are a possibility....
|
...you know something we don't?
(Or were you in that changing room?)
;-)
|
Mix of Revels and Maltesers in cup holders.
Not on a hot day though !
|
Not here, the car is cool enough with the air con on, but in the summer it gets well over 40 when parked.
I do like them though.
|
|
That's why I'm favouring figs and nuts really, not too temperature sensitive, stable under braking, low crumb issues and fairly shirt front friendly.
|
Ah yes, shirt front issues.
Shirts are manageable, its tie stains which are a problem.
|
|
Never wear them, well, unless someone is dead.
|
>>Never wear them,
By and large my customers in the UK, most of Europe actually, insist. Tiresome, but they pay well.
|
>> That's why I'm favouring figs.......
...not too long between stops, though......
|
|
Aye, true enough, don't want any pickled fish type incidents.
|
|
...and the combination of figs and nuts can lead to some "interesting" pebble-dash effects....
|
|
A baby wipe will remove most things from a tie.
|
...except the smell....
;-)
|
I am sceptical, but I do wear a tie from time to time so should the need arise I shall try.
|
Too much to respond to individually:
Twiglet - love ‘em but the name reminds me of our cat which was called Twiglet :-( She passed away aged 19 last year. Named thus because of her colouring.
Revels - anyone like the orangey ones? I am remembering right about a sort of sweet organ get one aren’t I?
Crackers - difficult to slice the cheese in the car. And where to rest the board? Would you keep the cheese fresh in the air-con glovebox?
Liquorice All-Sorts - take care, remember liquorice has a laxative effect
|
>> organ
Goodness I hate auto correct and Swype at times. Orange!
|
>> Haven't you tried vaping? Not sure I'd like it too much, but it's got to
>> be better than nothing.
>>
I've ben using e-cigs for a couple of years now; occasionally I've lapsed and bought a half ounce of baccy and some papers, but the craving got less and less. Finally realised I'd nailed it last week in Bruges; having had a bit of a bad day (bike broken down and waiting for parts plus it was raining) I took a walk from the hostel up to the market square, only to find that i'd forgotten to charge my e-cig and it had run out. Went into a shop, bought a 50 gram pouch of my favourite baccy, rolled up, lit up...... and after three drags binned it in disgust.
Result.
|
O1 OCT - Ban on smoking in cars carrying children - Armel Coussine
