Smoking ban in cars

skodacbradio

Today the chairman of ASH has called on the goverment to ban smoking in private cars, is it just me or has this country officially gone nuts. Don't get me wrong protecting children from second hand smoke is important i don't do it, but if your on your own in a car your only harming yourself by lighting up, but by jesus I paid 5K for my car 272 tax and 2700 in insurance and for a gaurd or anyone else to say you cant smoke in your in your car simple answer they will is F Off it is my life and if i want to i will.

Supercell

I suppose you also have the right to flick the fag out your window when finished also?, yeah I bet you've never done that..

Like using mobiles and eating at the wheel, smoking takes your attention away from driving, never mind your tobacco stained fingers away from the steering wheel.

Full thumbs up here, also means less second hand cars will stink of smoke - more choice for me

Should also add I'm an ex smoker and never ever once considered smoking in the car, just seemed dangerous and daft before anyone accuses me of being too politically correct.

DonkeyStyle \o/

ASH Ireland call for Smoking Ban in all Motor Vehicles.

God that's hilarious, what will they think of next?

Smokers must light up, hold the cigarette, deposit the ash and dispose of the cigarette - all whilst driving.

They make it sound like chainsaw juggling.
Smoking is as effortless to a smoker as scratching ones arse. Next they'll be wanting to get rid of the gear stick and have everyone drive automatics because changing gear is such a daredevil ballancing act. :rolleyes:

So some twat wants to smoke with his kids in the car... so what? I don't have kids.
And if it's a "Smoking Ban in all Motor Vehicles", surely this applies to passengers too?
What about two smokers in a car, where the passenger wants to smoke?

ASH as usual trying to justify their poxy existance by proposing nanny-state legislation.
Anyway, good luck enforcing it if it does get taken onboard.

cornbb

Longfield, if you don't like the smell of smoke in a 2nd hand car, that'll be the sellers loss not yours. Love the rhetoric, by the way.

What a pile of toss coming from ASH. So they are an advisory group on road safety now? Why have they called for a smoking ban in cars, not just on drivers? Don't get me wrong, i think exposing kids to smoke is evil, but a road safety argument from an anti-smoking lobby group is bullsh*t. Why has no-one called for bans on eating, drinking and ball-adjusting in cars, surely these are equally "dangerous" activities too?

Well.... I DID have someone run into the back of me a few years ago, his excuse was that he dropped his fag!!:eek: and had to retrieve it before it burnt his assets:D , at least he didn't do much damage & his insurance put it right.

DonkeyStyle \o/

cornbb wrote:

but a road safety argument from an anti-smoking lobby group is bullsh*t.

Yeah I particularly like how they have offered absolutely no data to support their road safety assertion beyond - it must be distracting.

DerekP11

According to FOREST today, the only available study for driving distractions was a spanish one. Top of the list was fiddling with the stereo, followed by talking to a fellow passenger, roadside distraction (obviously cute bums!) Mobile phones etc. Smoking was so far down the list it was almost irrelevent.

I think ASH have shot themselves in the foot today by playing the road safety card. I listened to Prof. Clancy on two different shows and he made no case to me. Im a smoker in the throes of quitting. I agree with the workplace ban. I agree with the 10 pack ban, but this is absolute bonkers. It is just short of banning smoking in a private residence. Someone on this thread made a point about the smell of smoke in a second hand car and how disgusting it is. Well obviously the smell of smoke in second hand houses has done f**k all to affect the booming property market.

dr.bollocko

If one more non-smoking lobbyist does one more thing to piss me off today I am gonna start a letter bomb campaign. They are the most retarded people in the world. Who do they think they are helping?
Shut up!
**slap**
Actually, im gonna nab a tin opener right now, turn my car into a convertible and start smoking cigars whilst parked outside government buildings.
Incidentally, if you are actually sending a letter bomb, would you still write something in the letter?

axer

dr.bollocko wrote:

They are the most retarded people in the world.

I would consider that people that smoke to be even more retarded than those non-smoking lobbyists.

killbillvol2

dr.bollocko wrote:

Incidentally, if you are actually sending a letter bomb, would you still write something in the letter?

BANG!

dr.bollocko

axer wrote:

I would consider that people that smoke to be even more retarded than those non-smoking lobbyists.

Well your considerations are unwelcome right now, and also a bit over the top considering the nature of us humans and our love of all things dangerous. Everybody does things to harm their body all of the time.
If you are a non-drinking non-driving virgin living in an entirely sterile environment where your air supply is created and regulated particle by particle by expensive filters, 200 miles from the nearest other human, animal, slightly pointy thing, or dangerous looking foliage, existing entirely on green things and bugs with a low calorific content, which themselves have been pre-digested by machinery to prevent choking, living in a room with cushioned walls with your legs tied together lest you try anything as dangerous as walking, then your opinion wouldnt come across quite as misguided and holier-than-thou as it did.

Chris_533976

I saw a woman recently in an SUV on a mobile with one hand and smoking with the other.

She nearly swerved and hit another car. Stupid woman.

axer

dr.bollocko wrote:

Well your considerations are unwelcome right now, and also a bit over the top considering the nature of us humans and our love of all things dangerous. Everybody does things to harm their body all of the time.
If you are a non-drinking non-driving virgin living in an entirely sterile environment where your air supply is created and regulated particle by particle by expensive filters, 200 miles from the nearest other human, animal, slightly pointy thing, or dangerous looking foliage, existing entirely on green things and bugs with a low calorific content, which themselves have been pre-digested by machinery to prevent choking, living in a room with cushioned walls with your legs tied together lest you try anything as dangerous as walking, then your opinion wouldnt come across quite as misguided and holier-than-thou as it did.

There is a difference to eposure to potential danger in practical human life and plain stupidity.

I don't think it is such a bad idea to ban smoking in private cars. Smoking is a distraction whilst driving. No one needs a report to prove such a thing. I think common sense should be enough. Other distractions should also be looked into.

shltter

Chris_533976 wrote:

I saw a woman recently in an SUV on a mobile with one hand and smoking with the other.

She nearly swerved and hit another car. Stupid woman.

How do you nearly swerve?



Anyway I think if people want to smoke in their own private car that is their own business but they should not be allowed to smoke in a car with children in the car.

DonkeyStyle \o/

axer wrote:

Smoking is a distraction whilst driving.

Listening to the radio is a distraction, talking to your passengers is a distraction, thinking about what's for dinner is a distraction.
But is it enough of a distraction to impair your driving to such an extent that it warrants a ban, not only for the driver but (presumably) for someone smoking in the back seat?

axer wrote:

No one needs a report to prove such a thing.

How else should they prove it?

axer wrote:

I think common sense should be enough.

I'd prefer well thought out, proven initiatives rather than willy-nilly "common sense" laws personally... especially when it involves taking away peoples rights.

axer wrote:

Other distractions should also be looked into.

Really, they should actually be looked into? Not just plucked out of the air and submitted as common sense?

When the road safety authority comes out and claims a ban on driver smoking could prevent accidents, I'll listen... but ASH can sod off.

Steoob

god almighty do we have nowhere left? they cant take everywhere away from us... next thing they will actually ban you from smoking in your own house and i wouldn't be suprised if they did.... dear god this country is ****ed.... of to panama for me....

Flukey

skodacbradio wrote:

Tby jesus I paid 5K for my car 272 tax and 2700 in insurance

Well you wouldn't want to get a cigarette burn anywhere in it then, would you?:p

axer

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Listening to the radio is a distraction, talking to your passengers is a distraction, thinking about what's for dinner is a distraction.

They are all distractions but anything that takes your eyes off the road is a dangerous distraction. That includes smoking, changing radio stations, using mobile phones, checkin out the ladies etc when driving. An attempt can be made to remove some of these dangerous distractions but there is nothing that can be done about others i.e. checking out some female walking on the side of the road - what can be done practically about that?. The changing radio stations problem can be fixed via remotes on the steering wheel as is fitted to many new cars. Mobile Phones - already banned. Cigarettes cause dangerous distractions on so many levels - from dropping them to lighting them to extingushing them etc. and this can be dealt with via a ban on smoking while driving.

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

How else should they prove it?

I am not saying reports should not be made for official reasons before the creating of a bill is even considered - I am saying that your common sense should indicate to you that smoking whilst driving can be a dangerous distraction that can take your eyes of the road. I should'nt need a report to prove that to you but of course the government would need a report before even considering to create a bill for any reason.

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

I'd prefer well thought out, proven initiatives rather than willy-nilly "common sense" laws personally... especially when it involves taking away peoples rights.

Really, they should actually be looked into? Not just plucked out of the air and submitted as common sense?

When the road safety authority comes out and claims a ban on driver smoking could prevent accidents, I'll listen... but ASH can sod off.

Just because some lobby group comes along and says something should be done a certain way doesn't mean that the government will just enact a law for it. There is always reports etc done first. The first step however is public awareness of a problem and that is what I presume ASH is attempting to do. Its obviously no surprise that it is an anti-smoking lobby group that want this banned.

Enough of my hard earned cash is paying for the medical treatment for idiots foolish enough to smoke in the first place and who knows a law like this might be enough of an inconvenience to turn a few off smoking which is obviously what ASH are trying to achieve so thats another reason why i'd be all for it.

patrickc

]If one more non-smoking lobbyist does one more thing to piss me off today I am gonna start a letter bomb campaign.

I'll send them too am sick of that rubbish, have been smoking in all my cars and I'll never stop, Gardai find it hard enough to patrol speeding/mobile phone offences now they want to them stop car smokers... FFS

axer

patrickc2006 wrote:

Gardai find it hard enough to patrol speeding/mobile phone offences now they want to them stop car smokers... FFS

I don't think that the mobile phone use whilst driving ban is something that the gardai need to actively enforce i.e. they are hardly going to set up checkpoints specifically for it, but they DO need the law on their side when they come across it e.g. whilst on general patrol.

BTW according to that Spanish report mentioned above, smokers are 50% more likely to be involved in accidents than non-smokers even without the distraction of smoking whilst they were driving when the accidents happened. Whats does that say about their driving in the first place? I don't like the idea of the dangerous distraction of smoking whilst driving on top of that statistically bad driving in the first place.

DonkeyStyle \o/

axer wrote:

I am saying that your common sense should indicate to you that smoking whilst driving can be a dangerous distraction that can take your eyes of the road.

Well, I can reach for my smokes, take one out, light it, smoke it and extinguish it, all without taking my eyes off the monitor or being distracted from what I'm reading.
I do this several times a day without incident or effort.
It's such a non-event to a smoker that it doesn't even register on the distraction-scale.
To a non-smoker, sure, the unfamiliar routine of smoking may prove a distracting effort, but to a smoker, a cigarette is just an extension of your hand, an extra finger... a routine so practised, so familiar that it's almost subconscious.
So what might be considered a distraction to some, based on what they imagine smoking while driving to be like, is no more taxing than picking ones nose to someone who's been smoking for a few years.
So no, I don't agree that smoking is a dangerous distraction while driving.
If it was, I'm sure I'd have died in a car crash while growing up or would have several cigarette burns on my desk.
I believe this is nothing more than credibility-seeking horse-**** from ASH, trying to re-enforce their weak position with unfounded scare-mongering.

DonkeyStyle \o/

axer wrote:

There is always reports etc done first. The first step however is public awareness of a problem and that is what I presume ASH is attempting to do.

Do you think the public should be made aware of problems that haven't been confirmed to exist?
Of course the public will be in support of a smoking ban in cars if they think it'll make them safer, but should they base their decisions on established facts or what someone who's heavily biased and with no experience on the matter thinks might be a problem.
This is the difference between raising public awareness and scaremongering.

deevey

BTW according to that Spanish report mentioned above, smokers are 50% more likely to be involved in accidents than non-smokers even without the distraction of smoking whilst they were driving when the accidents happened. Whats does that say about their driving in the first place? I don't like the idea of the dangerous distraction of smoking whilst driving on top of that statistically bad driving in the first place.

So WTF causes smokers to be bad drivers excatly?? make sense please.

Quite simply I reckon ALL forms of advertising on the side of the road / trucks / shop fronts etc .. should be banned !!!! its seriously distracting to drivers and intentionally aimed at them.

(do a search for wonderbra trafic accidents in google, one of the more famous problems)

When this happens I will be happy to give up smoking while driving (not giving up my latte for anyone though!).

For example the past week there has been a 20ft directors chair in a field beside the m50 (dundrum direction) and every driver "HAS" to slow down dangerously on a curved section while drivers in front slow down from 120 - 40k to take a peek!!!!

In my experience driving this is a much bigger driving hazard than a contented smoker at the wheel.

Also.. I dunno if I fancy a few thousand p*ssed off HGV drivers roaming the roads of Ireland without their nicotine hit, they already have enough to deal with. having to drive a few thousand miles a week on crap roads, crap traffic and crap national radio not to mention the absolutely crap driving by the idiots of the nation who insist on driving 40k on a 100k road or 140k on a 50k road (causing but not involved in accidents).

Smoking in cars I'm sure causes a alot fewer accidents than a 2 week learner driver, driving on a motorway (badly) .. and I have actually NEVER seen a learner driver get pulled on ANY Irish motorways.

BTW, I would like to give up smoking, just as I would like to join a gym and get fit, just as much as I would like to give up junkfood...

If I manage to do any of the above great, but you can bet your dear life I wont be telling everyone who eats junk food "THATS WRONG IT SHOULD BE BANNED!" or forcing my own petty ideas on the general public.

Why not campaign to ban drink TOTALLY instead, our hospitals would be empty and road deaths would plummet if you are that serious about health and safety.

[edit]BTW im not serious about the drink thing just drawing a comparison - I'm sick and tired of others "who know whats best" for everyone else[/edit]

DonkeyStyle \o/

It shouldn't even be about the driver smoking while driving... look at what they're saying:
"ASH Ireland call for Smoking Ban in all Motor Vehicles."

So can I sit in a parked car on my own and smoke?
Can I smoke while someone else (who's also a smoker) drives?
Why not?

axer

deevey wrote:

So WTF causes smokers to be bad drivers excatly?? make sense please.

Well according to the spanish report that says that somkers are 50% more likely to be involved in an accident would indicate to me that there is something wrong with their driving.

deevey wrote:

Quite simply I reckon ALL forms of advertising on the side of the road / trucks / shop fronts etc .. should be banned !!!! its seriously distracting to drivers and intentionally aimed at them.

(do a search for wonderbra trafic accidents in google, one of the more famous problems)

I couldn't agree more.

deevey wrote:

When this happens I will be happy to give up smoking while driving (not giving up my latte for anyone though!).

Why would you need for advertising on the side of the road to be banned first? from that statement you obviously agree smoking while driving must cause some sort of problem if you are willing to accept a law banning it then whats your problem with being the first to change? BTW I do agree that advertising is more of a distraction than smoking whilst driving. Ideally the more serious distractions should be banned first but if smoking could be banned quicker than advertising then I would be keen on seeing that happen first.

deevey wrote:

Also.. I dunno if I fancy a few thousand p*ssed off HGV drivers roaming the roads of Ireland without their nicotine hit, they already have enough to deal with. having to drive a few thousand miles a week on crap roads, crap traffic and crap national radio not to mention the absolutely crap driving by the idiots of the nation who insist on driving 40k on a 100k road or 140k on a 50k road (causing but not involved in accidents).

Then they obviously have an addiction problem that they cannot control. Hopefully the inconvenience of not being allowed to smoke whilst driving might convince 1 or 2 of them to cut back or give up smoking.

deevey wrote:

Smoking in cars I'm sure causes a alot fewer accidents than a 2 week learner driver, driving on a motorway (badly) .. and I have actually NEVER seen a learner driver get pulled on ANY Irish motorways.

Couldn't agree more - a major overhaul of how a person gets licensed to drive a car and the training involved is much needed.

deevey wrote:

BTW, I would like to give up smoking, just as I would like to join a gym and get fit, just as much as I would like to give up junkfood...

Maybe an extra inconvenience is just what you need then to help you be pushed into giving up smoking.

deevey wrote:

If I manage to do any of the above great, but you can bet your dear life I wont be telling everyone who eats junk food "THATS WRONG IT SHOULD BE BANNED!" or forcing my own petty ideas on the general public.

Nobody is banning smoking completely - prohibition does not work. They are just inconveniencing people so that it might turn some people off smoking or put off some youngsters starting the first place - I'm sure you couldn't disagree with that reason.

deevey wrote:

Why not campaign to ban drink TOTALLY instead, our hospitals would be empty and road deaths would plummet if you are that serious about health and safety.

Because firstly prohibition does not work and secondly there is nothing wrong with drinking in moderation as I mentioned earlier. The problem is with those who drink and drive and that is obviously illegal already.

deevey wrote:

[edit]BTW im not serious about the drink thing just drawing a comparison - I'm sick and tired of others "who know whats best" for everyone else[/edit]

Aye but smoking is just plain stupid anyway. Smoking is not good for anyone no matter what way you look at it. As a non-smoker I can tell you that it is impossible for me to get away from second hand smoke completely even with the bans that are in at the moment. Maybe more bans will reduce the amount I and others like me will have to breathe in. Why should I have to breathe any of it in?

axer

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Well, I can reach for my smokes, take one out, light it, smoke it and extinguish it, all without taking my eyes off the monitor or being distracted from what I'm reading.
I do this several times a day without incident or effort.
It's such a non-event to a smoker that it doesn't even register on the distraction-scale.
To a non-smoker, sure, the unfamiliar routine of smoking may prove a distracting effort, but to a smoker, a cigarette is just an extension of your hand, an extra finger... a routine so practised, so familiar that it's almost subconscious.
So what might be considered a distraction to some, based on what they imagine smoking while driving to be like, is no more taxing than picking ones nose to someone who's been smoking for a few years.
So no, I don't agree that smoking is a dangerous distraction while driving.
If it was, I'm sure I'd have died in a car crash while growing up or would have several cigarette burns on my desk.
I believe this is nothing more than credibility-seeking horse-**** from ASH, trying to re-enforce their weak position with unfounded scare-mongering.

All while keeping both hands on the wheel? I guess you do not have to take one hand off the wheel to take drags either? You must be good! :rolleyes:

axer

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

It shouldn't even be about the driver smoking while driving... look at what they're saying:
"ASH Ireland call for Smoking Ban in all Motor Vehicles."

So can I sit in a parked car on my own and smoke?
Can I smoke while someone else (who's also a smoker) drives?
Why not?

2 reasons:
Firstly because it would be alot more difficult to prove who was smoking as the driver if caught could just pass the cigarette to a passenger and say he/she was smoking.
Secondly, the ban can also be a method of trying to get smokers to quit by making it an inconvenience for them to smoke.

Would you not agree that it would be a great ban if it even got some people to quit or discouraged some youngsters from starting smoking?

DonkeyStyle \o/

axer wrote:

All while keeping both hands on the wheel? I guess you do not have to take one hand off the wheel to take drags either? You must be good! :rolleyes:

Can you change gears while keeping both hands on the wheel? :rolleyes:

axer wrote:

Firstly because it would be alot more difficult to prove who was smoking as the driver if caught could just pass the cigarette to a passenger and say he/she was smoking.

If this is the case, then why do they allow passengers to use mobile phones?
Surely the same reasoning applies.

axer wrote:

Secondly, the ban can also be a method of trying to get smokers to quit by making it an inconvenience for them to smoke.

So why don't they just say that instead of tacking on these imaginary benefits to road safety and the (still debated) effects of passive smoking?
Why do they feel this reason alone isn't sufficient?

Suppose for a moment that smoking while driving is completely harmless and that the smoker is alone in the car... what kind of persuasion should be used to get him to quit... a fine? penalty points? time in prison?

axer wrote:

Would you not agree that it would be a great ban if it even got some people to quit or discouraged some youngsters from starting smoking?

At the cost of further persecuting existing smokers - no... there are other avenues... ones that don't involve making criminals out of us.

Perhaps ironically, I would support the complete abolition of the sale of tobacco... I'd be absolutely delighted to see whining non-smokers complaining about the sudden tax hikes and even more delighted to see lobbyists focusing on the myriad of other every-day things linked to cancer.
Take away the cigarette bogeyman and find out the reasons why people who've never smoked a cigarette in their lives are sent home from hospitals to die, riddled with inoperable cancer.
I'd quit smoking in a second.

purple'n'gold

Of course smoking should be banned in cars, the only reason I can think of that it shouldn’t be banned altogether is because it would encourage criminality and smuggling. Aka prohibition. It’s a filthy and dangerous habit.

DonkeyStyle \o/

purplengold wrote:

Of course smoking should be banned in cars

Be-caauuuse?
You sound so convinced, I'd love to know why so I could get onboard.

purplengold wrote:

the only reason I can think of that it shouldn’t be banned altogether is because it would encourage criminality and smuggling. Aka prohibition. It’s a filthy and dangerous habit.

Right, lets legalise heroin and sell in the local sweet shop then... just prove you're over 18 and you can have all the heroin or cocaine you want... BUT you can't use it in the workplace or in your car because it's disgusting and bad for your health.
Anyone else getting mixed messages here?

raido9

axer wrote:

Well according to the spanish report that says that somkers are 50% more likely to be involved in an accident would indicate to me that there is something wrong with their driving.

Well thats a load of sh1te anyway. Nothing more to say about it.

axer wrote:

Then they obviously have an addiction problem that they cannot control. Hopefully the inconvenience of not being allowed to smoke whilst driving might convince 1 or 2 of them to cut back or give up smoking.

Maybe an extra inconvenience is just what you need then to help you be pushed into giving up smoking.

They are just inconveniencing people so that it might turn some people off smoking or put off some youngsters starting the first place - I'm sure you couldn't disagree with that reason.

You really have no idea. Ya pissing off smokers is a sure way to get them to quit. Just reading your posts make me want a cigarette and I don't even smoke anymore. And I'm sure "not being allowed to smoke in a car" is going to be the clincher when a youngster is deciding to smoke. Ya, not the cancer, its the inconvience that'll do it. Do you read your posts before you click submit?

axer wrote:

Aye but smoking is just plain stupid anyway. Smoking is not good for anyone no matter what way you look at it. As a non-smoker I can tell you that it is impossible for me to get away from second hand smoke completely even with the bans that are in at the moment. Maybe more bans will reduce the amount I and others like me will have to breathe in. Why should I have to breathe any of it in?

If you dont want to breate it dont get in the car. I dont let people smoke in my car, thats my choice, but there's no way I'd get into a car with a smoker and tell them not to smoke. If you dont agree with them smoking stay out of their car, simple as that.

DonkeyStyle \o/

axer wrote:

Why should I have to breathe any of it in?

I feel exactly the same way about car exhaust fumes and agree 100%, you shouldn't be subjected to other peoples pollutants... but it happens to us every day of our lives.
I read recently that a single lungfull of car exhaust is like smoking 20 cigarettes, I don't know if the person who wrote it just made it up, but while we're making unsubstaciated claims and all.
Shocking stuff if it is true and really puts second hand cigarette smoke in a new perspective.

axer

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Can you change gears while keeping both hands on the wheel? :rolleyes:

How about changing gears with one hand on the gearstick and one hand holding a cigarette?

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

If this is the case, then why do they allow passengers to use mobile phones?
Surely the same reasoning applies.

Nope, it is harder to spot a cigarette than a mobile phone.

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

the (still debated) effects of passive smoking?

I think this sums up your thinking. From that line of thought you probably think cigarettes are good for you. :rolleyes:

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Suppose for a moment that smoking while driving is completely harmless

but I don't it is completely harmless. I don't think it is as bad as other dangerous distractions out there however.

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

At the cost of further persecuting existing smokers - no... there are other avenues... ones that don't involve making criminals out of us.

Like...

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Perhaps ironically, I would support the complete abolition of the sale of tobacco... I'd be absolutely delighted to see whining non-smokers complaining about the sudden tax hikes and even more delighted to see lobbyists focusing on the myriad of other every-day things linked to cancer.

prohibition does not work. The extra tax smokers pay is trying to cover the cost of looking after the idiots when they end up in hospitals dying of lung cancer while still clutching the coffin nail in their hands.

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Take away the cigarette bogeyman and find out the reasons why people who've never smoked a cigarette in their lives are sent home from hospitals to die, riddled with inoperable cancer.
I'd quit smoking in a second.

87% of all lung cancer is caused by cigarettes. So your attitude is "sure I'm gonna die anyways". Well, how many are you gonna take with you?

axer

raido9 wrote:

You really have no idea. Ya pissing off smokers is a sure way to get them to quit.

So, what, they are going to smoke more just because there is a law banning it? Take for example the smoking ban in public at the moment - I'm sure that pi$$ed off a few smokers but it turns out that "hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 27%" dropped in colorado when they introduced it; Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%-15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average.(PDF)

raido9 wrote:

Just reading your posts make me want a cigarette and I don't even smoke anymore. And I'm sure "not being allowed to smoke in a car" is going to be the clincher when a youngster is deciding to smoke. Ya, not the cancer, its the inconvience that'll do it. Do you read your posts before you click submit?

All those inconveniences add up. Look at the above reports and you will see the lack of intelligence in your reply.

raido9 wrote:

If you dont want to breate it dont get in the car. I dont let people smoke in my car, thats my choice, but there's no way I'd get into a car with a smoker and tell them not to smoke. If you dont agree with them smoking stay out of their car, simple as that.

Not as simple as that. What if a lift is your only means of transport? I have a car thank god and I don't let people smoke in my car but others are not so lucky.

DonkeyStyle \o/

axer wrote:

How about changing gears with one hand on the gearstick and one hand holding a cigarette?

How about that non-smoker imagination.
Thanks for proving my point.
Really, if this is what ASH thinks people are doing while smoking and driving, all I can do is laugh.

axer wrote:

Nope, it is harder to spot a cigarette than a mobile phone.

I wonder how they'll enforce it then.

axer wrote:

I think this sums up your thinking. From that line of thought you probably think cigarettes are good for you. :rolleyes:

Wow, you've descended into a strawman argument already... I'd have thought it beneath you, but I suppose desperate times call for desperate measures. :rolleyes:

So far I haven't read a single compelling argument as to why I should be pulled out of a parked car and face legal action just because I was having a smoke.
Was I distracted from driving? No, I wasn't driving.
Was I murdering people with second hand smoke? No, I was alone.
Are there any actual statistics to show a ban on smoking in cars would significantly reduce road traffic accidents? Not that I've seen. And not that ASH have provided, since really the burden of proof is on them to support their claim.
Crackpots.

axer

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

How about that non-smoker imagination.
Thanks for proving my point.
Really, if this is what ASH thinks people are doing while smoking and driving, all I can do is laugh.

How so?

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

I wonder how they'll enforce it then.

How is the mobile phone ban enforced?

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Wow, you've descended into a strawman argument already... I'd have thought it beneath you, but I suppose desperate times call for desperate measures. :rolleyes:

You indicated earlier that you do not believe that the effects of passive smoking are as bad as claimed. explain more.

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

So far I haven't read a single compelling argument as to why I should be pulled out of a parked car and face legal action just because I was having a smoke.

I think you shouldn't be pulled out of your car just because you are smoking. T'would be a bit excessive I think. :rolleyes: A fine would be more appropriate with possibly one penalty point.

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Was I distracted from driving? No, I wasn't driving.

I think ASH are more interested in the health aspects and unfortunately not all parents would be as good citizens as you and would smoke in front of a children. How does one stop that?

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Was I murdering people with second hand smoke? No, I was alone.

So how does one protect children from second hand smoke in cars?

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Are there any actual statistics to show a ban on smoking in cars would significantly reduce road traffic accidents? Not that I've seen. And not that ASH have provided, since really the burden of proof is on them to support their claim.

You could read this austrailian report that shows that smoking whilst driving is a hazard and does cause accidents. I think blanket ban on smoking in cars should be enacted solely for the health reasons just as it was enacted for public places. The ban on smoking in public places DID reduce cigarette consumption and does increase the chance of smokers giving up smoking - maybe there would not be as dramatic an effect as the ban on smoking in public spaces had but I think it would still have a positive effect on reducing smoking in our country. That would be a good thing.

DerekP11

Has anyone considered that the car your smoking in is doing more harm to the environment and peoples health than the cigarette you are puffing on???

mackerski

Smoking is already banned in company vehicles. I see this law ignored every day. Not much point strengthening a law that's already not enforced. Given that company vehicles are often pool cars or occupied by many staff at a time, it's very reasonable that you'd police the smoking ban in them as vigorously as in an actual office.

Private cars? It shouldn't be inflicted on children as a matter of child protection (but not just in cars), and shouldn't be inflicted on non-smoking passengers as a matter of simple good manners, but the rationale for banning it on attention grounds smacks of the slippery slope. A bawling baby in the back seat is the most distracting thing I've ever experienced while driving, you can't legislate these things away.

DonkeyStyle \o/

axer wrote:

You indicated earlier that you do not believe that the effects of passive smoking are as bad as claimed. explain more.

I indicated that not everyone believes the facts of second-hand smoke are completely established.
There's plenty of reading at http://www.lcolby.com where many of the studies behind passive-smoking claims are contested as being flawed in one way or another.
If they are flawed, then there's surely some misinformation as a result.
I don't think passive smoke is harmless, but I do think there is a lot of questionable crap being bandied about with hysteria to match.

Anyway, it was a throw-away remark, and I'm not qualified to vet other peoples research, but as an idiotic smoker I can choose to believe what ever research suits my bias... just like anti-smokers.

axer wrote:

So how does one protect children from second hand smoke in cars?

Class passive smoking as child abuse and take the kids off them? (if that floats your boat)
Really, I don't see why I should face harsh penalties because of what someone else is doing... maybe I should for the greater good, but I think smokers have been victimised enough.

axer wrote:

You could read this austrailian report that shows that smoking whilst driving is a hazard and does cause accidents.

It still uses the same 0.9% of distractions figure mentioned earlier in the thread.
I think enclosing the driver in a soundproof capsule would be more beneficial... why start at the bottom with the least significant factor?
And if it's such a serious problem, why aren't the road safety authority all over this?

axer wrote:

I think blanket ban on smoking in cars should be enacted solely for the health reasons just as it was enacted for public places.

It wasn't enacted for public places in this country, I haven't been stopped for smoking while walking down the street or sitting on a park bench... as much as I'm sure ASH would love that.
The workplace ban was different in that it was put in place to protect non-smokers from smoke that was otherwise forced on them while at work... and that's fair enough.
But if I'm smoking alone in a parked car, I'm only harming myself.

My problem with this suggestion is that:
A). it's too all-encompassing, I don't have any children, I hardly even know any children and I can see a ban on smoking in the home as the next logical step if this reason alone is reason enough.
. I don't like the idea of the government telling me what I can or can't do unless I'm harming someone else or putting someone else at risk of harm or loss... which is why, I imagine, ASH has thrown in the usual passive smoking argument and tacked on a road safety angle.

These "for your own good" suggestions/laws are all well and good until some pressure group is lobbying to control elements of your life.
Why aren't there more strict controls on alcohol... why are A&E wards chocked full of drunks every weekend... can you see why smokers are feeling victimised when there are clearly bigger bad-health fish to fry?

You say prohibition doesn't work, but at what point do you say: "this far, but no further"? When we can buy them, but not smoke them anywhere?

I don't defend smoking in general, but I disagree with using blanket bans as a form of gentle persuasion and criminalising people for their own good. (with the exception of complete prohibition, just for the laugh)
But then I am biased.

Victor

deevey wrote:

Also.. I dunno if I fancy a few thousand p*ssed off HGV drivers roaming the roads of Ireland without their nicotine hit, they already have enough to deal with.

In fairness, changing gears going around the roundabout, mobile phone to the ear, reading the Star, with a hot coffee between he knees, he could do with out smoking.

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

I believe this is nothing more than credibility-seeking horse-**** from ASH, trying to re-enforce their weak position with unfounded scare-mongering.

Some decorum wouldn't go astray.

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

It shouldn't even be about the driver smoking while driving... look at what they're saying: "ASH Ireland call for Smoking Ban in all Motor Vehicles." So can I sit in a parked car on my own and smoke? Can I smoke while someone else (who's also a smoker) drives? Why not?

I think their point is to stop smoking. A smokey car can be a nuisance.

DonkeyStyle \o/

Victor wrote:

Some decorum wouldn't go astray.

Sorry, I'm pretty sure that was a bizarre series of typos caused by my knee jerking violently under the desk.
rolleyes @ self

Actually I might just flip-flop on this whole issue and get back in my box.
Fighting the power is hard work and smokers lethargy is overcoming me.

deevey

Just a quick reply to some of the points made before i go out for a night of smoking and drinking (in moderation of course)

Well according to the spanish report that says that somkers are 50% more likely to be involved in an accident would indicate to me that there is something wrong with their driving.

Just no point replying to a nonsense answer...

from that statement you obviously agree smoking while driving must cause some sort of problem if you are willing to accept a law banning it then whats your problem with being the first to change?

Actually I would prefer to be rid of the habit altogether (see my last point about what I would "LIKE" to do) that is personal CHOICE , but in answer, NO I don't see it as a problem and NO a ban wont make me give up faster, just make me p*ssed.

[BTW I do agree that advertising is more of a distraction than smoking whilst driving. Ideally the more serious distractions should be banned first but if smoking could be banned quicker than advertising then I would be keen on seeing that happen first.[/quote]

I would see the more serious distractions causing a HUGE amount more accidents than a smoker.

Then they obviously have an addiction problem that they cannot control. Hopefully the inconvenience of not being allowed to smoke whilst driving might convince 1 or 2 of them to cut back or give up smoking.

See my post above .. I'm sure many will feel the same way as me.

Couldn't agree more - a major overhaul of how a person gets licensed to drive a car and the training involved is much needed.

Good .. go try to get them enforce some of the non-nanny and "real world" solutions on the good people.

Maybe an extra inconvenience is just what you need then to help you be pushed into giving up smoking.

See my quote above ... in actual fact a total ban on ciggarettes is, IMHO what should be enforced - until then *spark*......

Nobody is banning smoking completely - prohibition does not work. They are ju`st inconveniencing people so that it might turn some people off smoking or put off some youngsters starting the first place - I'm sure you couldn't disagree with that reason.

Actually in the case of smoking .. in all likelyhood it would be more likely to stop youngsters from smoking because (a) cost of illegal substances (b) availability .. but a pack of fags costs more than grass these days (almost) if you want illegal and as a teen I know which I would have preffered.

Because firstly prohibition does not work and secondly there is nothing wrong with drinking in moderation as I mentioned earlier. The problem is with those who drink and drive and that is obviously illegal already.

See point above

no matter what way you look at it. As a non-smoker I can tell you that it is impossible for me to get away from second hand smoke completely even with the bans that are in at the moment. Maybe more bans will reduce the amount I and others like me will have to breathe in. Why should I have to breathe any of it in?

Then let me smoke my fags in peace and safety of my own car (alone).

deevey

By the way,

My main gripe with all this is the money ploughed into an unsubstantiated claim could be put to much better use in systems where there are simply not enough resources to make our roads safer in real terms. For example Driving lessons in schools and enforcing the no "L" drivers on their own type laws ... etc ...

As I said I would be all up for a total ban on fags in this country if they are going to do it at all.. anything else just makes people p*ssed.. by inconveniencing us in an already stupidly inconvenient and stressful country. Goverment offices, social services, public transport, road problems etc..

At least a total ban would mean "Most" people would have an instant stoppage .. no going back, and I doubt most would go the illegal dealer route for the sake of fags, most smokers already (i think) as a majority agree on the health problems that exist from smoking and many would like to quit.

(you may see alot of "Michael Douglas" moments the first few weeks though)

Not to mention total Ban would require quite possibly less Garda resources to police. (Customs Policing the ports might be an issue for a while though)

Look after the real problems first please though and if you want to make the roads safer, plough the cash into addressing the real problems.

axer

deevey wrote:

NO a ban wont make me give up faster, just make me p*ssed.

Well the smoking ban already in place in workplaces has had a dramatic effect on the number of cigarettes sold in this country and the numbers of people giving up smoking. It increases the likelyhood of a smoker giving up the addiction. The inconvenience caused by the ban has obviously had an effect on smokers in this country.

The whole personal choice argument about smoking is bull****. They are just the words of an addict. Of course an addict is not going to agree with a law that causes problems with him/her getting his/her fix.

Prohibition does not work. Cannabis, Cocaine, Ecstasy and many other durgs are illegal here but yet there is no problem sourcing them here. The only way to stop people smoking is to make it awkward for them to do so. The supply will always be there no matter what is done to try and circumvent it.

How would a total ban on cigarettes take less garda resources to enforce? What a ludacris statement.

Smoking IS a real problem in Ireland. Millions of euro are wasted on smokers in hospitals each year.