No Smoking In Cars

[Saracen]

kalniel

Sure, I just read one of the comments about outside. Inside, I would say your own car clearly isn't a public place, so I doubt this new law would pass for this reason. It makes sense so children can't breath in smoke but this is more of a parental decision, just like a law can't be passed stopping you smoking in your house, where children may be present.

The safety aspect still makes more sense.

Well, a law could be passed about smoking in the home. If the perceived problem is that it's a parental decision, the same could be said about smacking kids and that didn't stop legislation being passed. The problem would be enforcement, but it isn't insurmountable. It would just be a case of the relevant authorities, be they police or social services, gathering sufficient evidence.

Another parallel would be TV licensing. That takes place in the home, but it didn't stop legislation making it mandatory for those receiving TV broadcasts, so it isn't as simple s it not being a public place.

As for cars, well, the parallel with using handheld mobiles is obvious, so that could work for smoking too.

Whether such a law will be passed is one thing, but I have no doubt that it could be, both in relation to cars and homes. How heavily it's enforced would largely be a function of the level of resources allocated to it.

Whether it should be passed, either for cars or homes is another matter, and that, IMHO, comes down to whether the medical evidence supports the requirement .... and my suspicion is that it does, where kids are present at least.

I see no problem in principle in banning it either in cars or private homes where kids are exposed. If there are no kids, then it's grossly intrusive, If adults don;t like it, they can always leave. Kids of then don't have that option.

I also wouldn't be supposed to see this type of law on the statute books, but I don't see it happening yet. But the attitude of the public to what is or is not acceptable changes, and the result is often legislation. Seatbelts would be one example, smoking in public places is another and attitudes to drink driving yet another. In each case, attitudes changed and legislation came along with it. Some of it, like seatbelts, we now all pretty much take for granted, and my bet would be that the same will happen to smoking, publicly or privately. The process is already well underway. It may take some more years, but in my view, it's coming.

[Saracen]

In terms of being distracted ? What a pity the argument is based on health grounds.What else in the car is a distraction ? Radios ? Passengers ?
....

No, nothing to do with distraction. My point was that it being inside your own car won't stop a law being passed. It was in response to the bit I quoted ...

Inside, I would say your own car clearly isn't a public place, so I doubt this new law would pass for this reason.

Source ? I haven't seen any causal links shown at all. All we have is a purported correlation. A stronger case could be made for diesel particulates. Ban the buses !

The reason I said "and my suspicion is that it does" is because it's what I suspect to be the case. I did not claim it to be proven, or not proven, because I haven't bothered to search to see is such evidence exists, or even if attempts have been made to prove it one way or the other. There is, however, anecdotal evidence to that effect, including the lady that described the effect on her child's asthma on the TV the other night. There is also my personal experience of the effect second hand smoke has on me. It is certainly not conclusive for the general case, but I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever about my case. And that is why nobody smokes in my home or car, and why I won't travel in a car with those that do.

....

So your proposed solution to parental negligence is to legislate and let the courts sort it out ? That's always worked well in the past.

Please indicate where I proposed anything of the sort? I didn't propose anything at all. I also said I see no problem in principle, that being to err on the side of protecting kids because some parents are selfish enough to smoke and expose their kids to high levels of second hand smoke. My attitude is that given that there is anecdotal evidence and that kids have no choice, parents should not risk the damage to their kids health until or unless it's proven to be no risk. What do you prefer ..... expose kids to risk where we believe there to be a serious risk until we can prove categorically that their is? By then, many kids will have been harmed. I prefer the principle of acting on the side of caution.

But again, I did say "in principle". I didn't say it would (or wouldn't) work in practice, but since when have all laws had to be practical before being passed? I refer you to the legislation about hunting with dogs as an example.

[Cozwin]

i agree with chris p on first page, its a safety thing, if you cant change the cd/tape, use phone, eat etc while driving, why should you be able to hold a light object and then constantly take hand off wheel to put the lit object to mouth. Also fire hazard... if you drop the cigarette you are either going to stamp it out or try and grab it which is dangerous and distracts you from road.

But also i think the effect of Nicotine on the brain while driving is probably something that should be looked at, as i bet it effects the driver more then we know it does.

[kalniel]

But also i think the effect of Nicotine on the brain while driving is probably something that should be looked at, as i bet it effects the driver more then we know it does.

We know quite a lot about the effects of nicotine on the brain, and they're probably rather more helpful than harmful in this respect.

[Phage]

The reason I said "and my suspicion is that it does" is because it's what I suspect to be the case. I did not claim it to be proven, or not proven, because I haven't bothered to search to see is such evidence exists, or even if attempts have been made to prove it one way or the other.

And you see this lack of evidence as no barrier to passing legislation ?

There is, however, anecdotal evidence to that effect,

Apologies, but anecdote /= evidence.

My attitude is that given that there is anecdotal evidence and that kids have no choice, parents should not risk the damage to their kids health until or unless it's proven to be no risk.

How do you feel about other risks with anecdotal evidence ? Pylons ? EMF ? WiFi ? Mobile Phones ? Diesel exhaust ? Auras ? Your attitude is that we should eliminate all risk, whatever the cost. To keep legislating until all risks are eliminated. I understand the motivation, but the end result is repugnant. If parents are negligent, find a way to educate them, or more realistically make tobacco a banned substance. Nothing less will stop people (possibly not even then.)

But again, I did say "in principle". I didn't say it would (or wouldn't) work in practice, but since when have all laws had to be practical before being passed? I refer you to the legislation about hunting with dogs as an example.

Very true. But I am again mystified. Becuase we have one piece of crap legislation we should have another ? Should we not try to avoid such laws where possible ? They only bring the law into disrepute.

[99Flake]

Reading people's arguments is very interesting.

It seems to me that most people haven't really touched upon the issue that this is being proposed upon - kids in cars with smokers.

Most are saying that it should be banned from a safety point of view, which I would see as a more valid point.

I agree with Phage here, parent's need to be educated, not just a blanket ban which would affect people who are not within the constraints of having children in the car.

Again the argument here would be why not ban it on safety grounds and therefore solve the problem?

The thing is, like drinking a bottle of water, or changing a cd etc, smoking is already covered under the 'driving without due care and attention law'. To ban smoking completey would mean having a ban on drinking, fiddling with radio's, cd changing etc.

It is not the same as using a mobile, for two reasons, firstly a mobile conversation means you HAVE to have one hand off the wheel ALL the time you are using the phone. Not so when smoking, you can have the offending item in one hand whilst holding the wheel, only occasionally taking it away for a puff.

A phone also means you are having a conversation, which means not all your attention is on driving, therefore this leads to accidents. A cigarrette doesn't do that.

My problem is with it, if you ban that then where does it stop? No talking when driving? No music? No farting? They are all distractions like anything else. These are the things that drivers have to contend with everyday.

[Saracen]

And you see this lack of evidence as no barrier to passing legislation ?

Again, you're putting words in my mouth and asking me to justify things I didn't say.

I did not say I thought such legislation should pass. I said that the evident weaknesses did not mean it wouldn't be passed.

Apologies, but anecdote /= evidence.

Now you're being pedantic. Alright, instead of anecdotal evidence, which is a term generally used (or perhaps misused) to refer to evidence from personal account, let's refer to "personal account". That is evidence, and evidence that can be used in a court. That is not to say it's scientific evidence, or that it should be used to draw conclusions that cannot be supported, but nonetheless, where a sufficient body of such personal account exists, it is enough to at the very least justify there being a case to investigate.

If you have 50 people all of whom saw smoke emerging from a wooden box, a workable hypothesis is that something in the box, or the box itself, is on fire. It could be, of course, that 50 people saw a box containing a working smoke machine. Where there are lives at stake if it turns out to be fire, it's worth assuming it is fire until such time as investigation proves otherwise.



Hence my comments. In principle, if sufficient evidence exists to suggest that children's health is being harmed, you have two choices while you ascertain if it is the case or not :-

1) Assume it is not, and if you're wrong, children's heath is damaged or perhaps ruined
2) Assume it is, and if you're wrong, no kids have been harmed.

I see nothing wrong with the principle of acting to prevent harm to kids health, where sufficient grounds for reasonably believing it to be the case exist, even in the absence of actual proof.

But absolutely nowhere did I say I thought such legislation should be passed. I did not express an opinion on whether it should be passed, one way or the other.

[TooNice]

parent's need to be educated

Sometime it's not negligence or lack of education, but plain selfishness. More education won't help under such circumstances, but depending on their priorities, a fine might just swing their behaviour.

[finlay666]

Now they are claiming it is to stop children from breathing in second hand smoke and I respect that. However it doesn't solve anything, someone who is going to be inclined to smoke in the car with their kid around (which I hate) is also going to smoke in the house with their kids around....

If I have kids in my car, I think the fact I am smoking is the least of the their worries.

We know quite a lot about the effects of nicotine on the brain, and they're probably rather more helpful than harmful in this respect.

As one of the most powerful legal stimulants, yep

[Phage]

Hence my comments. In principle,

The lawyers equivalent of the physicists frictionless vacuum. We should discuss facts, and scientific evidence. You did use the term medical evidence did you not ?

if sufficient evidence exists to suggest that children's health is being harmed,

It doesn't - and a lot of people have spent a lot of time looking. My point is that there are much better uses of parliaments time. Time that could be based looking at arguments based on facts and a real risk assesment. This is pseudo-science and political posturing. Nothing more.
Either ban it, and alcohol, or do not.

even in the absence of actual proof.

Or indeed rational debate. Say no more. No sacrifice too great etc etc.

[Saracen]

Please note - this is the cleaned up version of the thread. No continuation of the previous argument in this thread please. The other one is still there for that.

[SammEl]

How I see this, it will keep children and passengers safe from drivers that are smoking in the car when they have no say i.e. parents smoking in the car with their children, which, unless you are some scumbag parent, is a very very good idea.

You want to smoke in your car and give yourself cancer or w/e - fine, do what you want.

But, then you run to the NHS when you get lung cancer or develop breathing problems etc - Not exactly a good thing for the Government and the already screwed NHS. I think non smokers don't understand this compared to smoking in a house for example, your car is confined, even if the window is open, it's more damaging - And it's one of the reasons why weed users smoke in cars, it gets you stoned much much quicker because it becomes like a smoke oven - and the effects in the air last longer - and it becomes very hard to remove the smell (tobacco or weed).

People who smoke in cars = Gonna hate it
People who don't smoke = Gonna love it

And, even someone stated that smoking is pretty much the same as eating or drinking in a car

[Lucio]

In all honesty, I don't see why the smoking bans need to go much further, as it is smokers are kept out of 90% of our social and working environments, pay a hefty tax on their habit and are generally made to feel ashamed of what they do anyway. The laws passed seem to have been pretty effective and unless they're willing to go to a total ban, I think enough is enough.

[Zak33]

How I see this, it will keep children and passengers safe from drivers that are smoking in the car when they have no say i.e. parents smoking in the car with their children, which, unless you are some scumbag parent, is a very very good idea.

You want to smoke in your car and give yourself cancer or w/e - fine, do what you want.

But, then you run to the NHS when you get lung cancer or develop breathing problems etc - Not exactly a good thing for the Government and the already screwed NHS. I think non smokers don't understand this compared to smoking in a house for example, your car is confined, even if the window is open, it's more damaging - And it's one of the reasons why weed users smoke in cars, it gets you stoned much much quicker because it becomes like a smoke oven - and the effects in the air last longer - and it becomes very hard to remove the smell (tobacco or weed).

People who smoke in cars = Gonna hate it
People who don't smoke = Gonna love it

And, even someone stated that smoking is pretty much the same as eating or drinking in a car

I agree. Parents in cars with kids, smoking, is wrong. And people smoking when they're not allowed to even pick up a phone and hold it to their ear... I mean.. lighting a fag while driving.. gotta be banned,

BUT>.without people paying for fags, there would be NO NHS... so that bit's not quite right. I argued it here years ago and was flattened on the fact.. fag tax pays for when we all get ill

[Stringent]

Nanny state getting ridiculous.

[Iota]

Your car is a private place! It is of no concern of anyone but you.

Isn't it already in the highway code now about smoking in cars? I know when i've driven in a company vehicle i couldn't smoke for a few years now.

It's an interesting one, i've smoked for 20+ years and driven for 20+ years, and it's never caused an issue from my perspective. Having a window open automatically creates a vacuum for the smoke to be drawn outside the vehicle when moving.

I think that IF the goverment wants to get so heavily involved in areas like this they should avoid the grey areas and just outright ban smoking, or leave everyone in peace and take the tax revenues as they have done happily for years without conscience.

Either way, i'm not really concerned as i've recently given up smoking