Smoking in the driving seat...

[Irene]

-pops- just posted this link in another thread....

.... and I just could resist the urge to bring it into a new thread of its' own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

I have no problem with people smoking in their own vehicle, providing that it's not in motion!

It is equally as dangerous as using a mobile telephone whilst travelling.

The rule should be extended to include a ban on smoking cigarettes or the like, when driving a motor vehicle of any kind.

I know someone who once threw a lit cigarette end through the open window.

The airflow blew it back in and caused him to run into the back of another car, because he was so busy trying to avoid the hot ash!

[andsome]

-pops- just posted this link in another thread....

.... and I just could resist the urge to bring it into a new thread of its' own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

I have no problem with people smoking in their own vehicle, providing that it's not in motion!

It is equally as dangerous as using a mobile telephone whilst travelling.

The rule should be extended to include a ban on smoking cigarettes or the like, when driving a motor vehicle of any kind.

I know someone who once threw a lit cigarette end through the open window.

The airflow blew it back in and caused him to run into the back of another car, because he was so busy trying to avoid the hot ash!

Agreed

[Alan2273]

I do not agree, what happened to the freedom of choice we used to have.

The nanny state and do gooders are going too far.

[Boris]

What if he'd been on a motorbike - would that be deemed OK as it is "outside".

The whole thing is a shambles because it is left open to different authorities/officials to interpret as they think it applies.

[Tankus]

in the words of Benny & Björn ..... MONEY MONEY MONEY

[catgate]

The purpose of these silly regulations is in part to satisfy the control desires of the "do-gooders", but is mainly a means of creating "self guilt" in the minds of large portions of the population so as to be able to control them more easily. The church has found out over hundreds of years that "guilty" people part with their money much more easily.

[Gandalph]

I do not agree, what happened to the freedom of choice we used to have.

The nanny state and do gooders are going too far.

I fully agree with you Alan. This Government is slowly driving the thin end of the wedge into freedom and democracy, the right to enjoy one's possessions and free living in general. I wonder how long it will take before the thick end of the wedge is driven all the way home and we people have very little rights at all.

Thousands of lives could have been saved during World War 2 by just sending the boats over to France and inviting Herr Hitler and Company over to Britain.

[Watchful]

I do not agree, what happened to the freedom of choice we used to have.

The nanny state and do gooders are going too far.

I also agree with you Alan. Our freedoms are slowly being eroded in many areas.

[Watchful]

-pops- just posted this link in another thread....

.... and I just could resist the urge to bring it into a new thread of its' own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

I have no problem with people smoking in their own vehicle, providing that it's not in motion!

It is equally as dangerous as using a mobile telephone whilst travelling.

The rule should be extended to include a ban on smoking cigarettes or the like, when driving a motor vehicle of any kind.

I know someone who once threw a lit cigarette end through the open window.

The airflow blew it back in and caused him to run into the back of another car, because he was so busy trying to avoid the hot ash!

The same thing can happen when a wasp flies into the vehicle. Accidents will happen and we can't legislate against everything!

[Irene]

I have no problem with people smoking in their own vehicle, providing that it's not in motion!

I know someone who once threw a lit cigarette end through the open window.

The airflow blew it back in and caused him to run into the back of another car, because he was so busy trying to avoid the hot ash!

The same thing can happen when a wasp flies into the vehicle. Accidents will happen and we can't legislate against everything!

We have no control over a wasp's flight, but we do about smoking and using mobile phones in traveling vehicles. A stationary vehicle is quite a different matter.

Consider how you would feel if someone ran into the back or side of your car, as a result of dodging a lit cigarette end, when you had your treasured grandson in his baby seat. It could result in tragic circumstances.

A driver handling a lit cigarette in a traveling vehicle is a danger to him/herself and other road users. The roads are busy enough these days, without having distractions like aiming hot ash into the ashtray or through the window. Also, what about a motorcyclist having missiles of hot cigarettes flung in their direction?

I agree that if the person in the link of my first post was in a stationary vehicle. it was nonsense to charge him under the 'smoking law'. Yes, that is certainly going to far.

Enjoy your cigarettes, if you are a smoker (and I was once), but don't be defensive and close your mind to the dangers, just on principle.

[andsome]

I have no problem with people smoking in their own vehicle, providing that it's not in motion!

I know someone who once threw a lit cigarette end through the open window.

The airflow blew it back in and caused him to run into the back of another car, because he was so busy trying to avoid the hot ash!

The same thing can happen when a wasp flies into the vehicle. Accidents will happen and we can't legislate against everything!

We have no control over a wasp's flight, but we do about smoking and using mobile phones in traveling vehicles. A stationary vehicle is quite a different matter.

Consider how you would feel if someone ran into the back or side of your car, as a result of dodging a lit cigarette end, when you had your treasured grandson in his baby seat. It could result in tragic circumstances.

A driver handling a lit cigarette in a traveling vehicle is a danger to him/herself and other road users. The roads are busy enough these days, without having distractions like aiming hot ash into the ashtray or through the window. Also, what about a motorcyclist having missiles of hot cigarettes flung in their direction?

I agree that if the person in the link of my first post was in a stationary vehicle. it was nonsense to charge him under the 'smoking law'. Yes, that is certainly going to far.

Enjoy your cigarettes, if you are a smoker (and I was once), but don't be defensive and close your mind to the dangers, just on principle.

Sound common sense. :D

[catgate]

We have no control over a wasp's flight, but we do about smoking and using mobile phones in traveling vehicles. A stationary vehicle is quite a different matter.

Consider how you would feel if someone ran into the back or side of your car, as a result of dodging a lit cigarette end, when you had your treasured grandson in his baby seat. It could result in tragic circumstances.

A driver handling a lit cigarette in a traveling vehicle is a danger to him/herself and other road users. The roads are busy enough these days, without having distractions like aiming hot ash into the ashtray or through the window. Also, what about a motorcyclist having missiles of hot cigarettes flung in their direction?

It would be even worse if your treasured grandson was saved from the rarest freak accidents on the road, the dreaded flying cigarette end, only to end up a victim of one of the most common road accidents, the careless step off the edge of an unfenced pavement in a busy town centre.

The silly nonsense about driving whilst smoking is more to do with "control" than "safety".

Q. Where do the majority of accidents/deaths occur?

A. In 30/20 mph restricted areas.

Q. What is being done to separate pedestrians from traffic?

A. Virtually nothing. It costs money. Why spend money when we can make silly rules and raise money from them.

To become a driver you have to have lessons and pass a test. To become a pedestrian you just walk out into the street, as soon as you can walk, and that's it. The driver has been trained to anticipate and accommodate your every whim and foible. Well not exactly trained but he knows that whatever happens it will not be the pedestrians fault.

[Watchful]

I have no problem with people smoking in their own vehicle, providing that it's not in motion!

I know someone who once threw a lit cigarette end through the open window.

The airflow blew it back in and caused him to run into the back of another car, because he was so busy trying to avoid the hot ash!

The same thing can happen when a wasp flies into the vehicle. Accidents will happen and we can't legislate against everything!

We have no control over a wasp's flight, but we do about smoking and using mobile phones in traveling vehicles. A stationary vehicle is quite a different matter.

Consider how you would feel if someone ran into the back or side of your car, as a result of dodging a lit cigarette end, when you had your treasured grandson in his baby seat. It could result in tragic circumstances. I must say I object to this part of your reply Irene which seems particularly sarcastic why me? At least two other members have said the same as me. I am quite entitled to treasure my grandson as I lost my own son in a road accident.

A driver handling a lit cigarette in a traveling vehicle is a danger to him/herself and other road users. The roads are busy enough these days, without having distractions like aiming hot ash into the ashtray or through the window. Also, what about a motorcyclist having missiles of hot cigarettes flung in their direction?

I agree that if the person in the link of my first post was in a stationary vehicle. it was nonsense to charge him under the 'smoking law'. Yes, that is certainly going to far.

Enjoy your cigarettes, if you are a smoker (and I was once), but don't be defensive and close your mind to the dangers, just on principle.

I am defensive only about a person's rights and, just as you couldn't resist the urge to criticise the smoker, I can't resist the urge to defend the freedom of the individual in this case.

Exactly. It's an accident when that happens. This is about smoking not mobile phones and I am pointing out to you that we cannot control everything. Whether it's the careless use of a phone, cigarette ash returning through the window or an insect entering. The resulting possibility of an accident is just the same.

[rong]

Well I take it that the anti smokers don't eat sweets when driving or change the channel on the radio, there are lot's of worse things than smoking that cause accidents so why persecute the smoker.

[Watchful]

Well I take it that the anti smokers don't eat sweets when driving or change the channel on the radio, there are lot's of worse things than smoking that cause accidents so why persecute the smoker.

Well said rong. Some people, especially reformed smokers, will take every opportunity to berate the smoker. Life is full of risks.

[rong]

I am an ex smoker, but there are allot of worse things than smokers

[Gandalph]

I am an ex smoker, but there are allot of worse things than smokers

Hear Hear!

[Irene]

Well I take it that the anti smokers don't eat sweets when driving or change the channel on the radio, there are lot's of worse things than smoking that cause accidents so why persecute the smoker.

Well said rong. Some people, especially reformed smokers, will take every opportunity to berate the smoker. Life is full of risks.

Agreed, a very dangerous business.

I am not an anti smoker. I am not persecuting any smoker. I am not a reformed smoker 'taking any oportunity' as you put it, to berate the smoker!

You make your own decisions in life, then you have to live with them.

Let's hope that you can live with yours, should the occasion arise - which I sincerely hope does not.

The silly nonsense about driving whilst smoking is more to do with "control" than "safety".

What on earth is the difference?

I am an ex smoker, but there are allot of worse things than smokers

Hear Hear!

Of course there are worse things than smokers. I am not criticising smokers in general.

You have all just jumped on the band waggon to criticise me!!

You can go off at tangents all you like, but it still does not excuse, IMHO, total disregard to safety measures, which are completely in your control.

[rong]

My comments are not a personal attack on you Irene, I am sorry you seam to take them as so.

[catgate]

The silly nonsense about driving whilst smoking is more to do with "control" than "safety".

What on earth is the difference?

I can understand your slight bewilderment because I had not made clear that I was talking about "control" as general control of all the population, through generating a guilt complex, rather than specifically controlling the wicked motorist who smokes.

My point was, and still is, that there are dozens of stupid notions being paraded as safety measures, which are in general inadequately thought out and badly implemented, using the cheapest means possible, causing unnecessary disruption to the motorist and are of far less than effective. (Though many of them have provided the exchequer with endless bounty)

I will give you an example. We live about 10 miles away from Elvington and if we are travelling North to York, or other places, we must pass through it. Our local GP practice had a new surgery complex built on the edge of the village a couple of years ago. It was built in the 40mph zone exiting the village Northwards (or entering it Southwards...take your pick). Virtually next to the surgery nearer the village is a school. It seems to embody infants and primary levels.

Up to a couple of years ago the village 30mph area started at the point between the present site of the GP surgery and the school, and continued right through the village as far as the bridge over the River Derwent, which is the East Riding boundary with York.

Some months after the surgery was completed a solar powered 20 mph flashing warning sign was put up, just on the village side of the school, and at the point where 30mph sign used to be a 20mph sign was placed. The accompanying 20mph sign marking the other end of the zone was situated just beyond the school. This of course was accompanied by the mandatory sleeping policemen.

This particular road is the B1228 which is the road from York to Goole and the M62 so it is a fairly busy road, particularly at n morning and evening commuter hours. This notwithstanding, the school run mums and dads are allowed to park in this 20mph area in the area containing the speed bumps, and thus any chance of watching a speedometer, navigation speedbumps, looking out for doors suddenly opening and spying an errant child are severly hampered. Meanwhile there is a side road to the low side of the school which is standing idle.

Now the school is only used five days per week for 40? weeks per year. 54.8% of the days in the year so that for 45.2 % of the year the 20 mph limit is a farce. The same children who go to the school can be seen walking, running and cycling in the rest of the village 30mph area at all sorts of times.

What makes it even more foolish is that the the going to, and leaving, school covers about half an hour twice a day, but if it was four times a day it would still only be 10 hours in total per week. i.e. 400 hrs / p.a. Since there are 8760 hrs/ p.a. the true utility (?) of this nonsense is "enjoyed" by the good citizens of Elvington for just 4.5% of the time the remaining 95.5% of the time it is just a damed nuisance. Their children do not go and play in the 20mph zone they play in the middle of the village near the green in the 30mph zone.

Now if this is looked at from the point of view of keeping Elvington's children safe from road casualty it makes absolutely no sense at all, because for at least 95.5 % of their time they are not in the 20mph zone.

But it does have the effect of impressing upon the motor vehicle user that they are wicked and are unable to use the road sensibly without control from afar, and they must therefore be controlled in yet another area of their lives.

I have not touched on the fact that the new surgery is in a 40 mph zone and is used by the decrepit booring old farts such as myself .

[CurlyWhirly]

I do not agree, what happened to the freedom of choice we used to have.

I fully agree with you Alan. This Government is slowly driving the thin end of the wedge into freedom and democracy, the right to enjoy one's possessions and free living in general. I wonder how long it will take before the thick end of the wedge is driven all the way home and we people have very little rights at all.

Agreed.

I think we should be left in peace to get on with our lives without the state constantly interfering

[Watchful]

You made it personal Irene when you said this:

"Consider how you would feel if someone ran into the back or side of your car, as a result of dodging a lit cigarette end, when you had your treasured grandson in his baby seat. It could result in tragic circumstances."

and, in your selective reply, you haven't said why you replied to me specifically. No-one is arguing against sensible safety precautions but against being told what to do, and when, at every turn.

Getting things in proportion is what is needed as most accidents happen in the home. That's life. Some people have common sense and some don't; you can't force them to be sensible no matter how many laws you bring in.

[Irene]

Response to: Watchful Posted Today, 07:16

You made it personal Irene when you said this:

"Consider how you would feel if someone ran into the back or side of your car, as a result of dodging a lit cigarette end, when you had your treasured grandson in his baby seat. It could result in tragic circumstances."

It sometimes gives clarity, when one can identify with a particular set of circcumstances. The obvious way of doing this is to imagine the situation in personal terms, which is why I suggested in my reply to your post, the above scenario.

I must say I object to this part of your reply Irene which seems particularly sarcastic why me? At least two other members have said the same as me. I am quite entitled to treasure my grandson as I lost my own son in a road accident.

I copied the above quote from your post [No.13] in this thread.

Unfortunately, I didn't notice it before, because you had included it in the 'quote' box.

I was certainly not being sarcastic about your grandson. In fact quite the reverse. The word 'treasured', in my knowledge, is a very endearing term, which clearly and correctly describes how you feel about the relationship with your grandchild - as I do with mine.

and, in your selective reply, you haven't said why you replied to me specifically. No-one is arguing against sensible safety precautions but against being told what to do, and when, at every turn.

I also replied to other members, rong, Gandalph and catgate, so you were not singled out.

However, this post in specifically in reply to yours of this morning.

[Irene]

The silly nonsense about driving whilst smoking is more to do with "control" than "safety".

What on earth is the difference?

I can understand your slight bewilderment because I had not made clear that I was talking about "control" as general control of all the population, through generating a guilt complex, rather than specifically controlling the wicked motorist who smokes.

My point was, and still is, that there are dozens of stupid notions being paraded as safety measures, which are in general inadequately thought out and badly implemented, using the cheapest means possible, causing unnecessary disruption to the motorist and are of far less than effective. (Though many of them have provided the exchequer with endless bounty)

I will give you an example. We live about 10 miles away from Elvington and if we are travelling North to York, or other places, we must pass through it. Our local GP practice had a new surgery complex built on the edge of the village a couple of years ago. It was built in the 40mph zone exiting the village Northwards (or entering it Southwards...take your pick). Virtually next to the surgery nearer the village is a school. It seems to embody infants and primary levels.

Up to a couple of years ago the village 30mph area started at the point between the present site of the GP surgery and the school, and continued right through the village as far as the bridge over the River Derwent, which is the East Riding boundary with York.

Some months after the surgery was completed a solar powered 20 mph flashing warning sign was put up, just on the village side of the school, and at the point where 30mph sign used to be a 20mph sign was placed. The accompanying 20mph sign marking the other end of the zone was situated just beyond the school. This of course was accompanied by the mandatory sleeping policemen.

This particular road is the B1228 which is the road from York to Goole and the M62 so it is a fairly busy road, particularly at n morning and evening commuter hours. This notwithstanding, the school run mums and dads are allowed to park in this 20mph area in the area containing the speed bumps, and thus any chance of watching a speedometer, navigation speedbumps, looking out for doors suddenly opening and spying an errant child are severly hampered. Meanwhile there is a side road to the low side of the school which is standing idle.

Now the school is only used five days per week for 40? weeks per year. 54.8% of the days in the year so that for 45.2 % of the year the 20 mph limit is a farce. The same children who go to the school can be seen walking, running and cycling in the rest of the village 30mph area at all sorts of times.

What makes it even more foolish is that the the going to, and leaving, school covers about half an hour twice a day, but if it was four times a day it would still only be 10 hours in total per week. i.e. 400 hrs / p.a. Since there are 8760 hrs/ p.a. the true utility (?) of this nonsense is "enjoyed" by the good citizens of Elvington for just 4.5% of the time the remaining 95.5% of the time it is just a damed nuisance. Their children do not go and play in the 20mph zone they play in the middle of the village near the green in the 30mph zone.

Now if this is looked at from the point of view of keeping Elvington's children safe from road casualty it makes absolutely no sense at all, because for at least 95.5 % of their time they are not in the 20mph zone.

But it does have the effect of impressing upon the motor vehicle user that they are wicked and are unable to use the road sensibly without control from afar, and they must therefore be controlled in yet another area of their lives.

I have not touched on the fact that the new surgery is in a 40 mph zone and is used by the decrepit booring old farts such as myself .

Slightly off-topic, I think catgate. :D

[rong]

I have the compromise, ban anyone from driving with their car windows open then nothing can enter the car to cause the accident. I would think a £100 fine should cover it.