Gardai enforcing smoking in cars law ?

Delancey

Most folks here will be aware of the Government plan to outlaw smoking in a car where there are children present.
Obviously AGS will be expected to be the enforcers of this law and I was wondering what serving members think of this addition to their workload ?

Personally I think it's just another manifestation of our ' Nanny State ' culture that will just divert from far more important Policing - what say others ?

kub

I for one do not smoke, neither does herself, we have 4 kids. This law is a joke, I would suggest perhaps that the Gardai prosecute the Government for wasting Garda time.

If irresponsible parents want to smoke around their kids in the car let them, they will be doing it at home anyway.

Also I imagine these are probably the same type of parents who go around with kids not in safety seats, kids on their laps in the front of the car and even the kid standing between the two front seats, ye know the type.

Especially the ones that would have availed of that recent banned Centra promotion.

audidiesel

i dont smoke myself but id say a certain amount of discretion may be used on it. are the windows rolled up etc.

i suppose twill be a case of seeing how it works out, but i cant see myself prioritising that one too highly on the list of offences id prosecute for.

christmas2012

i think its a good idea,why should anybody be subjected to second hand smoke esp if they dont smoke themselves

RMD

If they're going to smoke in front of their kids in the car they're going to do the same in the home. This is a pointless law that will be incredibly hard to enforce. Instead of trying to outlaw it, combat it with education so the retards willing to smoke in front of their children think twice. I'm a smoker and would never consider such a thing.

Zambia

It's a very easy ticket you see a kid you see a cigarette the offences complete. What's the issue why smoke in a car with kids ?

Is it only the driver that can be fined? Or can other passengers be fined, too?

parsi

Zambia wrote: »

It's a very easy ticket you see a kid you see a cigarette the offences complete. What's the issue why smoke in a car with kids ?

The thing is that those who smoke in the car with kids are also going to be smoking at home in front of the kids.

This is another piece of legislation that will be ignored safe in the knowledge that detection is near to zero.

Law states that kids (and adults) have to be belted up but we all see folk without their belts and if you're doing the school run you'll see plenty of unrestrained kids including those in SUVs and Beemers.

Motorist

What if the kid is smoking in the back too ?

Zambia

parsi wrote: »

The thing is that those who smoke in the car with kids are also going to be smoking at home in front of the kids.

Fine but if you do it in a car you get a ticket.

parsi wrote: »

This is another piece of legislation that will be ignored safe in the knowledge that detection is near to zero.

Why is detection near Zero?

parsi wrote: »

Law states that kids (and adults) have to be belted up but we all see folk without their belts and if you're doing the school run you'll see plenty of unrestrained kids including those in SUVs and Beemers.

Its no reason to make it legal to have Kids unrestrained in the car.

Zambia

Motorist wrote: »

What if the kid is smoking in the back too ?

If the legislation is not written that is a hard question to answer I can tell you Current Victorian state legislation.

Tobacco Act 1987 - SECT 5S

Offence to smoke in motor vehicle if person under 18 is present

5S. Offence to smoke in motor vehicle if person under 18 is present

Despite anything to the contrary in this Act, a person must not smoke in a
motor vehicle, whether or not the motor vehicle is in motion, if another
person is present in the motor vehicle and the other person is under the age
of 18 years. Penalty: 5 penalty* units.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ta198773/s5s.html

*One penalty unit is $140.84 in the 2012–13 financial year (1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013).

So the fine is about 581 euro

So here yes the Passenger would be Fined.

Pappa Charlie

Gardai have enough to be doing without dealing with this sort of ****e, its the likes of these laws that turn decent members of the public against the police. Some pen pushing offical has a bright idea and its pushed over to the gardai to enforce as usual. The vast majority of gardai will get on with their normal work and treat the law as they do any other poor law thats introduced. The will see it for what it is and ignore it. Why dont the government ban smoking all together rather than trying to be seen to be doing something about it. Maybe its cause they value the revenue from it more than peoples health!!

Zambia

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Gardai have enough to be doing without dealing with this sort of ****e, its the likes of these laws that turn decent members of the public against the police. Some pen pushing offical has a bright idea and its pushed over to the gardai to enforce as usual. The vast majority of gardai will get on with their normal work and treat the law as they do any other poor law thats introduced. The will see it for what it is and ignore it. Why dont the government ban smoking all together rather than trying to be seen to be doing something about it. Maybe its cause they value the revenue from it more than peoples health!!

So do you believe parents should smoke in Cars with under 18s in the car lets say an infant under 3?

Delancey

Zambia wrote: »

So do you believe parents should smoke in Cars with under 18s in the car lets say an infant under 3?

I don't think thats what Papa Charlie is saying , what I think he is doing is questioning whether such a breach is a Police/ Garda matter.
As I said earlier I think it is pure Nanny State at its worst and will divert Garda resources away from ' real ' policing.

Pappa Charlie

Zambia wrote: »

So do you believe parents should smoke in Cars with under 18s in the car lets say an infant under 3?

There are lots of things in life that are far from ideal, but pardon the pun I find it hard to swallow the Dept of Healths concern for children when they have presided over the deaths of so many children in so called care in this country. Maybe they could deal with this issue first and they might get some respect and credibility!

TheChizler

I'd support it from the point of view that when someone's smoking it's an added distraction from the road i.e. smoking -> one hand not on the wheel, lighting up -> no hands on the wheel etc. Much like mobile phone legislation.

Pappa Charlie

TheChizler wrote: »

I'd support it from the point of view that when someone's smoking it's an added distraction from the road i.e. smoking -> one hand not on the wheel, lighting up -> no hands on the wheel etc. Much like mobile phone legislation.

Well if some people react the same way to being caught smoking in the car as they do to being caught with the phone and start throwing lit fags around the car like they do throwing their phones from them when approched by Gardai then I can see more kids dying in car fires.

TheChizler

I suppose that would be the legislature's fault then!

Pappa Charlie

TheChizler wrote: »

I suppose that would be the legislature's fault then!

Yes

monument

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

There are lots of things in life that are far from ideal, but pardon the pun I find it hard to swallow the Dept of Healths concern for children when they have presided over the deaths of so many children in so called care in this country. Maybe they could deal with this issue first and they might get some respect and credibility!

If all progress on law from departments and government depended on them first getting their house fully in order, there would be very little progress.

On a more practical level: Health prevention and child protection are both important, interlinked functions of the department. Preventing a child from being harmed or dieing from smoking related illnesses is important.

Both problem areas need fixing, not One or the other.

Delancey wrote: »

Personally I think it's just another manifestation of our ' Nanny State ' culture that will just divert from far more important Policing - what say others ?

What do you rank as more important than protecting babies and children from the harms of smoking?

I would more likely agree with the Nanny State claim if they were trying to outright ban smoking or just outright ban it in cars at all times, but when smoking directly affects babies and children like it does in cars it's different -- children genrally are not in a position to say stop or don't have have the choice to leave the car.

kub wrote: »

Also I imagine these are probably the same type of parents who go around with kids not in safety seats, kids on their laps in the front of the car and even the kid standing between the two front seats, ye know the type.

Great, they can be got for both at the same time!

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Gardai have enough to be doing without dealing with this sort of ****e, its the likes of these laws that turn decent members of the public against the police. Some pen pushing offical has a bright idea and its pushed over to the gardai to enforce as usual. The vast majority of gardai will get on with their normal work and treat the law as they do any other poor law thats introduced. The will see it for what it is and ignore it. Why dont the government ban smoking all together rather than trying to be seen to be doing something about it. Maybe its cause they value the revenue from it more than peoples health!!

Push over to the gardai? You mean to say the "pen pushers" have the cheek to expect the gardai to enforce the law?! That's shocking!!!

Sam Kade

kub wrote: »

I for one do not smoke, neither does herself, we have 4 kids. This law is a joke, I would suggest perhaps that the Gardai prosecute the Government for wasting Garda time.

If irresponsible parents want to smoke around their kids in the car let them, they will be doing it at home anyway.

Also I imagine these are probably the same type of parents who go around with kids not in safety seats, kids on their laps in the front of the car and even the kid standing between the two front seats, ye know the type.

Especially the ones that would have availed of that recent banned Centra promotion.

Tell us more what type?

ArphaRima

Won't somebody please think of the children!?!

I want the Gardai doing different things on duty. I think most people would agree.

Sam Kade

Will it work? It is against the law to use a handheld mobile phone while driving and yet I see plenty gob****es doing exactly everyday.

ArphaRima

If this law comes in to effect I think we should also post Gardai in every kitchen around the country to make sure parents arent feeding their children foodstuffs that may adversely affect their health in years to come.

Won't somebody please think of the children!?!

Zambia

I don't get it why would anyone be against this as a a law. Unless you agree with the behavior?

If you don't pollute your child's lungs well then chances are you will never have to worry about this law.

If a Garda does not want to issue the ticket he/she can use their discretion when they encounter the offence.

ArphaRima

Won't somebody please think of the children!?!

Any politician involved in a law like this is politicking and pandering directly to those in the somewhat anti-smoking but definitively PC camp.

Practical application of the law and use of resources doesnt get a look in. Populism at its worst.

Mention the kids, grab the headlines and get an easy win!

Won't somebody please think of the children!?!

Zambia

fluffer wrote: »

Any politician involved in a law like this is politicking and pandering directly to those in the somewhat anti-smoking but definitively PC camp.

Practical application of the law and use of resources doesnt get a look in. Populism at its worst.

It is a very easy law to enforce. The resources are the same resources that are in place on the roads to catch traffic offences.

Why are you so against this law do you want to smoke in a car with kids? If you dont why the **** do you care if its illegal to do so.

Do you wish to perform this behavior yes or no?

ArphaRima

Won't somebody please think of the children!?!

I do not have children nor would I smoke in my car whether or not there were children within.

I believe a law like this is unnecessary and again I believe it to be politicking by the sponsors of it.

It is a very easy law to enforce.

Gardai would have to sit at roadsides, peering at close range into each car individually. They would then have to spot a lit cigarette, who is smoking it, and then whether or not there are children below the threshold age sitting within.

Another moral panic du jour. Nothing more.

Do you wish to perform this behavior yes or no?

I am against children obviously. I am a monster. There can be no other explanation. One is either for this law or hates all kids.

Won't somebody please think of the children!?!

Pappa Charlie

monument wrote: »

If all progress on law from departments and government depended on them first getting their house fully in order, there would be very little progress.

On a more practical level: Health prevention and child protection are both important, interlinked functions of the department. Preventing a child from being harmed or dieing from smoking related illnesses is important.

Both problem areas need fixing, not One or the other.



What do you rank as more important than protecting babies and children from the harms of smoking?

I would more likely agree with the Nanny State claim if they were trying to outright ban smoking or just outright ban it in cars at all times, but when smoking directly affects babies and children like it does in cars it's different -- children genrally are not in a position to say stop or don't have have the choice to leave the car.




Great, they can be got for both at the same time!




Push over to the gardai? You mean to say the "pen pushers" have the cheek to expect the gardai to enforce the law?! That's shocking!!!

Yes! The pen pushers have the cheek to expect gardai to enforce a bad law they have created without any cop on! Its a health issue, are Gardai now going to be asked to act as health inspectors. Is it not the Department of health who take prosecutions in relation to smoking on licensed premises? What next? Gardai at checkouts in supervalu going through your shopping and counting calories. What about people smoking in their own homes beside children? If you are so concerned you could always join the Garda reserve and go on a crusade against these criminals! I'd much prefer see children in state care being looked after but the pen pusher dosent seem to want to address that issue. He'll still get his or her wages regardless and let someone else do the dirty work.

TheChizler

TheChizler wrote: »

I suppose that would be the legislature's fault then!

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Yes

So when harm is caused by someone while trying to avoid being caught breaking the law then it is the legislature's fault?

kub

Sam Kade wrote: »

Tell us more what type?

Sam stay in the utopian world in which you are in. As a law this is good, but if the legislators need to be seen as serious then they need to follow this up with a strong health promotion campaign.

Something simple which these uncaring parents will understand.

Zambia

fluffer wrote: »

Won't somebody please think of the children!?!

I do not have children nor would I smoke in my car whether or not there were children within.

I believe a law like this is unnecessary and again I believe it to be politicking by the sponsors of it.

?!

So the law does not effect you you have no real idea how it will be enforced. Yet you are dead set against it.

Pappa Charlie

TheChizler wrote: »

So when harm is caused by someone while trying to avoid being caught breaking the law then it is the legislature's fault?

It is when the risks are pointed out to them before they introduce the law and they weight up what they are trying to achieve V the death of a child in a car fire / accident. I havent heard of a child dying from inhaling cig smoke yet, while I dont like them being subjected to it I think its a crap law. I can gaurantee you that if it comes in that enforcement of it by Gardai will be extremely low and zero by me.

TheChizler

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

It is when the risks are pointed out to them before they introduce the law and they weight up what they are trying to achieve V the death of a child in a car fire / accident. I havent heard of a child dying from inhaling cig smoke yet, while I dont like them being subjected to it I think its a crap law. I can gaurantee you that if it comes in that enforcement of it by Gardai will be extremely low and zero by me.

I'd be very surprised if that stood up in court, or even to many people's common sense. Is the risk that drivers will get startled by police and throw their lit cigarette into the apparently-very-flammable footwell one that has been pointed out to the government in the past? With that logic you could argue that when anyone gets startled when doing something illegal and injures someone as a result it is the government's fault.

If you had to consider as likely any exceptionally imaginative potential outcome when making laws there would be no laws made. Sure it's possible, but will it really happen with the regularity you claim?

Zambia

It also applies to an 18 year old with a 17 year old in the car.

Qualitymark

Speaking as an asthmatic who grew up with two 80-a-day smokers, I'm glad to see this law, and would like to see it enforced.

Pappa Charlie

Zambia wrote: »

It also applies to an 18 year old with a 17 year old in the car.

Thanks for the example, just say Tim is 18 and is driving the car, his friend John is 17 and is in the passenger seat. Tim lights up a fag and starts to smoke. Tom inhales. Tim is an adult and Tom is a child for the record and legislation. Pappa charlie pulls up alongside in the patrol car at the traffic lights where they/we are all stopped waiting for the light to turn green. He spots the crime. What next?

Zambia

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Thanks for the example, just say Tim is 18 and is driving the car, his friend John is 17 and is in the passenger seat. Tim lights up a fag and starts to smoke. Tom inhales. Tim is an adult and Tom is a child for the record and legislation. Pappa charlie pulls up alongside in the patrol car at the traffic lights where they/we are all stopped waiting for the light to turn green. He spots the crime. What next?

Its up to Pappa Charlie really isnt it?

You could pull over the vehicle and issue Tim a ticket or enlighten him to the legislation an let him off with a warning.

Coeurdepirate

In all fairness though, smoking in a car with small children/anywhere with small children is absolutely disgraceful. And that's coming from a smoker.

Delancey

I don't think anyone here would suggest smoking in a car with children is not undesirable , however I think using Police to enforce a Government health strategy is a bad joke.
Under 18's are not permitted to use sunbeds - should Gardai enter tanning establishments to check ID's ?

Zambia

ThAt is understandable but who else has the power stop vehicles on the move? What other body could perform the service?

goldie fish

Zambia wrote: »

ThAt is understandable but who else has the power stop vehicles on the move? What other body could perform the service?

You only need a garda to stop the car, any agency in government can, if so permitted, prosecute an offender.
See for example the DSFA checkpoints for white van men.

Also, a set of road works type traffic lights, et viola, traffic stops.


ways and means....

Zambia

goldie fish wrote: »

You only need a garda to stop the car, any agency in government can, if so permitted, prosecute an offender.
See for example the DSFA checkpoints for white van men.

Also, a set of road works type traffic lights, et viola, traffic stops.


ways and means....

True Goldie but now your using two people for a one man job.

Pappa Charlie

Zambia wrote: »

Its up to Pappa Charlie really isnt it?

You could pull over the vehicle and issue Tim a ticket or enlighten him to the legislation an let him off with a warning.

Ok so Pappa Charlie pulls over the vehicle and the two you guys are 100% co operative to the point of even handing over their birth certs and Passports which they happened to have on them to prove their age. Jim then points out to pappa charlie that he finds it strange that he cannot inhale Tims smoke given that under the current legislation he is entitled to purchase and consume cigrettes when over the age of 16 yrs. Pappa charlie drives off with tail between legs! Has it really been thought out!!!!!

Zambia

Jeez your a tough Cop

The two guys are a nice as pie and you try and hit them with that ticket...

On a more serious note I see nothing in Tims defence that would not allow you to issue the ticket.

Was he smoking = Yes
Was he in a car = Yes
Was a person under the age of 18 present = Yes

So regardless he can still get the ticket.

Pappa Charlie

Zambia wrote: »

Jeez your a tough Cop

The two guys are a nice as pie and you try and hit them with that ticket...

On a more serious note I see nothing in Tims defence that would not allow you to issue the ticket.

Was he smoking = Yes
Was he in a car = Yes
Was a person under the age of 18 present = Yes

So regardless he can still get the ticket.

Ok what happens if Tim decides to contest the offence? It is now before the District Court. Jim comes as a witness on his behalf. Tims solicitor points out that Jim is legally entitled to smoke as a child as per the current legislation and that it was Jim 17 who had actually lit the cigarette for himself as Tim was driving. He then passed it to Tim for a drag when Pappa charlie detected the crime. Jim also inhaled after initially lighting the fag. The DPP states that as Tim is in control of the car that he is committing the offence. Meanwhile all the smoke in the car is a combination of Tim and Jims breath which both are inhaling. The solicitor asks Pappa charlie was the smoke in the car inhaled by Jim and how does he know that it was Tims exhaled smoke that Jim inhaled and not his own. Pappa charlie states that he saw more smoke on Tims side of the car. The defence asks Pappa charlie is it possible that while stopped smoke from the exhaust could have come into the car. The judge at this point is FUMIMG and dismisses the case and berates pappa charlie for endangering the lives of Tim and Jim by subjecting them to carbon manoxide posioning and wants the ombudsman to investigate! Jim and Tim collaspe in court from respiritary proplems and an ambulance is called. Their solicitor immedialy files a compensation claim against the state. Pappa charlie awaits the ombudsman investigation.

Zambia

Huh...

Who cares about who inhaled what ? It makes no difference to the literal offence which is
Smoking in a car with a person under 18 Present (Victorian offence yours is not written)

So what I am hearing is when they bring in this legislation they should also raise the age to purchase cigarettes to 18.

No harm there.

Pappa Charlie

Zambia wrote: »

Huh...

Who cares about who inhaled what ? It makes no difference to the literal offence which is
Smoking in a car with a person under 18 Present (Victorian offence yours is not written)

So what I am hearing is when they bring in this legislation they should also raise the age to purchase cigarettes to 18.

No harm there.

I agree with the last part, Are you telling me that this law is currently in place in Victoria and if so please let us know how it is working, who enforces it, fines etc, thanks

Zambia

Yes its in the Tobacco Act here.

Its enforced by Police there may be some tobacco officials who can issue the ticket but chances are its gonna be a Copper.

It is only a few years old and many people are not aware its an offence. I was mistaken earlier its a fine of 282 Dollars. That's about 235 Euro.

This week on HIGHWAY PATROL:

Officer Luke Anderton pulls over an unlicenced 17 year old out with his mate’s in his mother’s car. Luke wants to find out if the boy has his mother’s permission to use the car so he calls her. When the mother admits to letting her unlicenced son use her car she gets a stern speech from Luke!. Instead of issuing a ticket Luke decides to arrange a meeting with the driver and his mother.

Senior Constables Mick McCrann Kevin Hulme Cook pull over a car only to find a small child in the back sharing a seatbelt with another passenger, a woman is smoking in the car and the car itself is unroadworthy. Then one of the passengers decide this is the perfect opportunity to try and pick up one of the police officers.

Officer Dean Pickering pulls over a driver for doing 30ks over the limit and discovers that the driver is suspended. Because the driver has priors his car is going to be impounded but the driver’s not going to make that easy. A long debate rages between Dean and the driver about the condition of the car, with the driver refusing to sign the police report.

A driver u-turns in a busy street directly in front of officer Alasdair Farrell in an unmarked patrol car. The woman’s defence is that she was only going to pretend to turn. But it’s no pretend ticket that’s coming her way and that’s not all… an inspection of the car turns up more problems.

The passenger copped a ticket for that

Pappa Charlie

Zambia wrote: »

Yes its in the Tobacco Act here.

Its enforced by Police there may be some tobacco officials who can issue the ticket but chances are its gonna be a Copper.

It is only a few years old and many people are not aware its an offence. I was mistaken earlier its a fine of 282 Dollars. That's about 235 Euro.



The passenger copped a ticket for that

I note you say many people are not aware of the offence which would suggest low enforcement of the act as I suggested would happen here. I think the sharing of the seat belts and unroadworthyness of the car were probally the leading offences as to why the vehicle was pulled over and not the smoking. Any chance you could dig deep and find the austrailan legislation thats relevant, I'll look as well, thanks

Zambia

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

I note you say many people are not aware of the offence which would suggest low enforcement of the act as I suggested would happen here. I think the sharing of the seat belts and unroadworthyness of the car were probally the leading offences as to why the vehicle was pulled over and not the smoking. Any chance you could dig deep and find the austrailan legislation thats relevant, I'll look as well, thanks

I cant recall but it may actually have been the reason for the stop.

Here is the Leglislation

Tobacco Act 1987 - SECT 5S

Offence to smoke in motor vehicle if person under 18 is present

5S. Offence to smoke in motor vehicle if person under 18 is present

Despite anything to the contrary in this Act, a person must not smoke in a
motor vehicle, whether or not the motor vehicle is in motion, if another
person is present in the motor vehicle and the other person is under the age
of 18 years. Penalty: 5 penalty* units.