Smoking To Be Banned In Cars

[POAH]

But some people think that smacking a child is wrong full stop, and is harmful to kids, so will that be the next to be banned? What about parents that have an obese child, surely thats harmful too?

smacking and leaving a mark is illegal and letting your child get obese is child cruelty

 

[cambsno]

you're not allowed to eat or drink when you drive as is and being in an argument would also fall under the careless driving remit I suppose.

Really? I like many others will dive with a bottle of water on the go.

 

[cambsno]

smacking and leaving a mark is illegal and letting your child get obese is child cruelty

So why are fat kids still with parents then? Obviously not enforced.

 

[POAH]

So why are fat kids still with parents then? Obviously not enforced.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-25299764

 

[Steve Smith]

you're not allowed to eat or drink when you drive as is and being in an argument would also fall under the careless driving remit I suppose.

It can only be classed as dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention as it's not an offence in itself.


Steve.

 

[Bernie174]

In my time in the police, I've dealt with around 20 accidents caused by eating and drinking, but not one caused by smoking. Strange as it may seem, Police officers speak to each other, so I have heard of numerous others caused by eating and drinking, never, not one caused by smoking.

Of course that does not mean they don't happen, I am sure they do, but there are also accidents caused by driver having oral sex preformed on them, and yes, I have heard of that happening, happened to a friend of mine, he cost control, in every sense of the word and collected a roundabout...But I digress!

All of these things are not careless/reckless per sae, they all require some evidence that the standard of driving has fallen below that of a competent driver.

That all being said, I do smoke, and I kind of go along with the ban, but i am concerned where it goes next. It's not just smoking, alcohol gambling and many other things you have as 'freedoms' now could well go the same way, banned.

As to it being enforcable? Of course it is. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool. it's perfectly obvious when someone's smoking, if you look. As is the presence of a child. It's like every other offence, Police are not omnipresent, nor is each individual member of the public, just because you don't see it happen, does not mean it can't, or doesn't.

 

[DaveS2]

Bernie, I respect your input, based upon your experience as a Police Officer, and yes the smoking ban will be enforceable, in the same way as any other law.

However, being enforceable, doesn't mean that it will be enforced, to the degree that it would be an effective deterrent.

One only has to look at the widespread use of hand-held mobile phones while driving, that continues, despite a law that says it is an offence and enforceable. A deterrent?, it would seem not, unfortunately.

I'm not knocking the Traffic Police, as they have enough to contend with, without having to look at the driver of every car they pass.

Yes, of course they catch some offenders, but its just a fraction of the mobile phone using drivers, that we all see every day on the road. My guess is that it will be the same for the in-car smokers, with kids on board.

I fully support the mobile phone law, and the new smoking ban, but remain sceptical as to the effectiveness of either.

Dave

 

[big soft moose]

you're not allowed to eat or drink when you drive as is and being in an argument would also fall under the careless driving remit I suppose.

If you have a crash or get caught driving carelessly through any kind of distraction that's "driving without due care and attention" so individual legislation for different distractions isn't needed.

As regards children and smoking in cars - I agree kids can't choose whether or not to breathe your second hand smoke and unlike an adult passenger aren't able to tell you to put the thing out or to seek alternate travel arrangements, so smoking in the car with kids should be banned.

The other point of note is that the law passed does not actually impose this ban , it merely gives the health secretary the power to do so, so as it stands no ban is in place

 

[Quicksnapper]

It's not being a nanny state. The government has a duty to protect the vulnerable in society against a known danger. It usually does that by passing laws as in this case, it's not nonsensicle it's just fulfilling it's obligations

Steve

Totally agree with Steve and others on this issue. Responsible parents wouldn't smoke in the presence of their kids at all, regardless of whether they are in the car, at home or where ever they are. It's the irresponsible ones that need a legal restriction in the form of a law to make them see the error of their ways. But, of course, that law needs to be enforced and that might be where it falls down. But, in principle, I'm all in favour of any law which reduces the amount of smoking of any kind, anywhere. This is another step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Dave *]

Absolutely Yvonne, but the fact that it has been made law
Dave

Just to clarify, it hasn't actually been made law yet. The vote was to allow an amendment to the Children and Families Bill.

The amendment - passed by 376 votes to 107 - empowers, but does not compel, ministers to make it a criminal offence for drivers to fail to prevent smoking in their privately owned vehicles when children are present.

Unless/until the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, actually amends the Act and makes it an offence it is just a proposal.

 

[magicaxeman]

I find it ironic given the amount of pollutants they'll breath in if the car windows are opened, far worse than a bit of mum or dad's fag.

 

[Just Dave]

We dont smoke in ours cars never have done, we do however smoke in our motorhome, we wouldnt if our grandchildren were in with us

 

[artyman]

I'm a non-smoker, and agree exposing children to smoke either in cars or homes is not good, however it smacks a little too much of the nanny state to me. If the Government really want's to cut smoking, either have an outright ban or make it prohibitively expensive would seem to be the answer.

 

[ghoti]

I find it ironic given the amount of pollutants they'll breath in if the car windows are opened, far worse than a bit of mum or dad's fag.

I love comments like this. You have absolutely no idea whether that's true or not, but you've decided to glibly throw it into the debate anyway.

Turns out that, surprise surprise, it's not even nearly true; as the authors of the Stanford Tobacco Smoke Study explain here: http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience...n-from-vehicles-and-power-plants-more-serious

Air pollution (all sources) in urban areas was measured at <10micrograms per cubic metre. Air pollution in the vicinity of a smoker was recorded at >1000micrograms per cubic metre. And that's in the open air.

 

[Steve Smith]

or make it prohibitively expensive would seem to be the answer.

It seems prohibitively expensive to me already. That doesn't stop people though.


Steve.

 

[cambsno]

I love comments like this. You have absolutely no idea whether that's true or not, but you've decided to glibly throw it into the debate anyway.

Turns out that, surprise surprise, it's not even nearly true; as the authors of the Stanford Tobacco Smoke Study explain here: http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience...n-from-vehicles-and-power-plants-more-serious

Air pollution (all sources) in urban areas was measured at <10micrograms per cubic metre. Air pollution in the vicinity of a smoker was recorded at >1000micrograms per cubic metre. And that's in the open air.

A letter in today's evening standard was from someone doubting that smoking in cars was dangerous to occupants and there was no proof!

 

[donut]

what age is a young person a child , and then not a child ,,,? just wondered

 

[SFTPhotography]

what age is a young person a child , and then not a child ,,,? just wondered

Under 16 is a good cut off.

IMHO people get the laws and governments they deserve

 

[antihero]

Like to know how they will police it, especially as newer cars have darker tinted glass in the back.

 

[POAH]

I find it ironic given the amount of pollutants they'll breath in if the car windows are opened, far worse than a bit of mum or dad's fag.

no its not

 

[POAH]

Like to know how they will police it, especially as newer cars have darker tinted glass in the back.

the same way other laws are enforced oddly enough

 

[antihero]

So they'll stop everyone they see smoking at the wheel to check if there are kids in the back?

 

[cambsno]

the same way other laws are enforced oddly enough

But in the real world we know that probably less than 0.1% of people will be done for this. If police are following on single carraigeway they have no way of seeing it - the only way is if they pass someone on say a motorway, and even then, probably only if they look while the fag is in the lips, or if its sticking out the window.

Dont get me wrong, I am very anti smoking and agree in principle, but it just seems of doing something for the sake of it and in reality will have next to no impact.

 

[POAH]

So they'll stop everyone they see smoking at the wheel to check if there are kids in the back?

yes that's what they will do

 

[JonathanRyan]

I'm a non-smoker, and agree exposing children to smoke either in cars or homes is not good, however it smacks a little too much of the nanny state to me.

You realise a nanny is basically an expert version of a parent, right? It's their paid job to look after children so for once calling the government a nanny state is actually accurate.

Quite rightly, the government don't really care if people smoke or not (though they may have a vested interest - you'd need to compare the lifelong healthcare costs of smokers minus tax revenue against the virtual certainty that they will nearly all die early and spare the government the costs of pensions and geriatric care). Like they don't actually care if I stab myself with a carving knife (again, they do, a bit, bleeding is expensive). However, they have a duty to care whether I stab other people. They may have overreached a little when they say that I can't carry a carving knife along the high street with me just in case I feel like stabbing somebody. But, honestly, in the run up to Christmas I've been tempted. So possibly they do know best.

So they don't stop me smoking tobacco even though we both agree it would kill me. But they do stop me (well, people, I have no interest in smoking personally) from smoking in a confined place where people have to work. I can only assume that the reason they didn't include smoking in cars with children in the smoking in the work place legislation is because they assumed nobody would be stupid or evil enough to do it. It's actually shameful that we would need a law to stop people doing this - but then we already have laws that say you can’t stab children, starve them or chain them up and a moral society wouldn't need those either.

 

[MartynK]

OK. I smoke, and I smoked when my kids were in the car occasionally. That was quite a long time ago, and I probably wouldn't do it now, but smoking was much commoner then and most people didn't give it any thought. I'm not going to have a mea culpa moment about this.

I can see some merit in this move towards a ban, but the thinking behind it is a bit muddy. If this is premised on the health risk, then surely smoking must also be banned in any home where there are children? Their exposure is going to be far greater in this environment than during the relatively short periods when they're in the car. I can see some practical issues too. Will the ban only apply when the children are actually in the car, or will there also be a minimum "smoke free" period before they are allowed to get in? What is the cut off age for "children"? This seems to vary according to what laws we're discussing.

Someone suggested that the cut off age might be 16. Fair enough, but you're not permitted to buy cigarettes until you're 18, so perhaps that should be it. We can then have the ridiculous situation where you can't smoke in the car if your 17 year old son or daughter, married with a child of their own, and who is also a smoker is with you.

There is also the scenario where a 13 year old girl can obtain contraception without her parent's knowledge or consent - the state have taken this responsibility onto themselves - despite being 3 years below the age of consent. This "child" is considered mature enough to make the decision for herself, but has to be protected against second hand smoke?

Booze is probably the greatest single factor in domestic violence, which can be truly terrifying for a child. I was a cop a long time ago, and speak from personal experience. It also contributes to family breakdowns and various other social problems that impact children. Shouldn't we consider banning it if children are present? I realise that sensible, responsible, drinking doesn't present much of a risk but where do you draw the line? People's tolerance for alcohol, and their behaviour when they've been drinking, varies a lot so it would be much easier to just ban drinking if children are in the house. We could also create another offence, entering a house where there are children if you've been drinking, or perhaps if you've exceeded the recommended "safe limit" for the day?

Anyway, I'm not particularly bothered by this development itself, but by the reasoning behind introducing it. Is it really necessary or useful? Is it logical? Is it another part of the boil the frog process of state meddling? Is it just another piece of feel good legislation - "it's all about protecting the children" - with an election in the offing?

 

[DaveS2]

From this morning's paper:

"For the first time in 80 years, only one in five adults are smokers.

In the 1960's up to 70% of men, and 40% of women smoked.

While it is reassuring that the figures are going down, it is vital to remember that millions of people remain addicted to a lethal product.

Half of all long-term users will die from smoking"

So, maybe the banning of smoking in the workplace, pubs and eating places, and now in cars carrying children, is having an impact.

That plus the high cost, and high profile newspaper and TV campaigns highlighting the proven health risks of smoking.

When I was a smoker, back in the late 1950's to the mid 60's, in was rumoured that smoking was linked to lung cancer, but nobody, at least as far as I knew, had presented any concrete evidence.

Now with so much concrete evidence that smoking IS directly linked to Cancer, Thrombosis, Coronary Heart Disease, respiratory problems, and legs having to be amputated because the blood vessels feeding these extremities have narrowed and hardened, it is difficult to understand why people continue to smoke. Do they not value their life, or wish to see their grandchildren grow up, and maybe even great grandchildren?

Cancer, in one form or another, impacts upon just about every family. It certainly has on mine, having lost my father and a brother (a life long smoker) to it, other relatives, and some good friends. Even I have been through being diagnosed and treated for Prostate cancer, so why give an open invitation to the awful disease that is Cancer, by smoking. It just doesn't make sense, to play 'Russian Roulette' with your health, and certainly not that of children.

Dave

 

[viv1969]

You realise a nanny is basically an expert version of a parent, right? It's their paid job to look after children so for once calling the government a nanny state is actually accurate.

Err no. Try Googling the definition of a nanny.

 

[JonathanRyan]

Err no. Try Googling the definition of a nanny.

A nanny, childminder, child care provider, or a mother's helper is an individual person who provides care for one or more children in a family as a service. Traditionally, nannies were servants in large households and reported directly to the lady of the house. Today, modern nannies, like other domestic workers, may live in or out of the house depending on their circumstances and those of their employers. Professional nannies are usually certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, qualified in First Aid, and have a degree or extensive training in child development. There are many employment agencies that specialize in childcare and online services that aid in finding available nannies.

That was hit number 1 and comes from Wikipedia. As I read it, it says they have specialised training in childcare and although it doesn't say it explicitly, it implies they are paid for this service. That fits my definition of "professional".

 

[JonathanRyan]

I can see some merit in this move towards a ban, but the thinking behind it is a bit muddy. If this is premised on the health risk, then surely smoking must also be banned in any home where there are children? Their exposure is going to be far greater in this environment than during the relatively short periods when they're in the car. I can see some practical issues too. Will the ban only apply when the children are actually in the car, or will there also be a minimum "smoke free" period before they are allowed to get in? What is the cut off age for "children"? This seems to vary according to what laws we're discussing.

Someone suggested that the cut off age might be 16. Fair enough, but you're not permitted to buy cigarettes until you're 18, so perhaps that should be it. We can then have the ridiculous situation where you can't smoke in the car if your 17 year old son or daughter, married with a child of their own, and who is also a smoker is with you.

There is also the scenario where a 13 year old girl can obtain contraception without her parent's knowledge or consent - the state have taken this responsibility onto themselves - despite being 3 years below the age of consent. This "child" is considered mature enough to make the decision for herself, but has to be protected against second hand smoke?

The fact that it may create anomalies isn't by itself an argument against making a law.

When the workplace smoking act came in, the papers fell over themselves to come up with the example of a sales rep who could smoke in his car on the way to and from work, but not in the same car whilst he was "on the clock". As far as I know that anomaly hasn't caused any serious issues.

Basically, the law makers believe the situation would be better with the law (and anomalies) than it is now. I agree.

 

[Gremlin]

You know what, it won't make one iota of difference because nothing will be done if people carry on smoking with kids in the car.
and before anyone says anything I am an ex smoker who does allow people to smoke in my car, it really doesn't bother meo

13 years ago another stupid law was passed called the Dangerous Dogs act banning certain breeds of dog, on Monday an 11 month old baby was killed
by a dog that shouldn't have been in this country and to make things worse it already had been reported for a previous incident.

Everyday I see people talking on mobile phones, today I was almost side swiped by a white van driver using one
Then you get the lane hoggers and tailgaters on motorways, both laws passed last year,have you ever seen the police pull anyone over ?
Nope nor have I, so if it makes the government feel good to pass these laws, they should also realise that they probably won't be enforced

 

[PMN]

I utterly detest smoking, I think it's one of the most disgusting habits imaginable but I couldn't give a stuff if people want to smoke as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, it's their choice. The key words there being 'as long as it doesn't affect anyone else', I've lost count of the number of times I've seen parents/people in cars smoking with the windows closed and a toddler or young kid in the back and I have an inner rage whenever I see it, I think this rule should have come into force decades ago. Better late than never though...

 

[big soft moose]

Err no. Try Googling the definition of a nanny.

nanny
ˈnani/
noun
noun: nanny; plural noun: nannies; noun: nanny goat; plural noun: nanny goats

1. 1.
   a person, typically a woman, employed to look after a child in its own home.
   .
2. 2.
   Brit.informal
   one's grandmother.

Your point ?

 

[Steve Smith]

I utterly detest smoking

Me too. I was very pleased when the ban on smoking in pubs was introduced.

I have a friend who sings in pubs about four times a week, About six months before the smoking ban, she went to see her doctor with a vocal chord problem. The doctor had a look and asked "how much do you smoke? About forty a day?"
She doesn't and never has smoked. The problem was caused by passive smoking.

For her, the ban couldn't come quickly enough. Fortunately the problem has now gone away now she can perform in a smoke free environment.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

Basically, the law makers believe the situation would be better with the law (and anomalies) than it is now. I agree.

In my opinion, a good test to see if a law is worth introducing is to assume it is already in force and decide if you would vote against it.


Steve.

 

[viv1969]

nanny
ˈnani/
noun
noun: nanny; plural noun: nannies; noun: nanny goat; plural noun: nanny goats

1. 1.
   a person, typically a woman, employed to look after a child in its own home.
   .
2. 2.
   Brit.informal
   one's grandmother.

Your point ?

My point is that nannies are in no way "expert versions of parents." But at least you looked up a decent definition.

 

[JonathanRyan]

My point is that nannies are in no way "expert versions of parents." But at least you looked up a decent definition.

Unlike me you mean? I used Google like you said. That was the top result and the only one that wasn't an advert.

I'm still unsure what you're on about.

 

[Mitch78]

It's only a matter of time before smoking is banned completely, and I can't see a problem with that. Most other substances that are used purely for pleasure, which cause serious illness and eventually death, are already banned.

 

[viv1969]

It's only a matter of time before smoking is banned completely, and I can't see a problem with that. Most other substances that are used purely for pleasure, which cause serious illness and eventually death, are already banned.

Like alcohol? Saturated fats? Carbs?

 

[Mitch78]

You can't claim that saturated fats and carbs do nothing but kill you.