Smoking at DART stations

morlan · 22-04-2005 5:23pm #1

What exactly are the rules about smoking on DART station platforms?

In Pearse St. On many occasions, I have seen CIE staff puffing away at the end of the platform, aswell as punters. I haven't seen any 'No Smoking' signs on the Pearse platform.

Same goes for most of the DART stations. At Shankill, they have a large 'No Smoking' sign in the station ticket office but nothing on the platform.

Any thoughts?

Trojan · 22-04-2005 5:25pm

I recently had this discussion with a lady at Lansdowne Road (I was stewarding) - she believed that because Croke Park disallow smoking, it must be illegal in Lansdowne.

If it's outdoors it's not breaking the law - perhaps breaking IEs rules if they sign it.

Alun · 22-04-2005 5:28pm

morlan wrote:

In Pearse St. On many occasions, I have seen CIE staff puffing away at the end of the platform, aswell as punters. I haven't seen any 'No Smoking' signs on the Pearse platform.

I'm sure I've seen some at Pearse, but I can't swear to it. Pearse is mostly covered so the ban would apply there, but maybe right at the end of the platforms where it opens up it isn't, I don't know.

uberwolf · 22-04-2005 5:31pm

3 sides = indoors for the legislation - so a standard platform wouldn't be considered. The scale of the gap between the sides in a stadium met let them away with it - despite the fact that you're smoking in peoples faces who cann't get out of the way of it. My guess is Pearse is illegal to smoke in.

NewDubliner · 22-04-2005 6:26pm

uberwolf wrote:

3 sides = indoors for the legislation - so a standard platform wouldn't be considered./QUOTE]

But how many of these smokers just drop their fag-ends on the ground and walk away? That's illegal.

murphaph · 22-04-2005 6:56pm

Trojan wrote:

If it's outdoors it's not breaking the law - perhaps breaking IEs rules if they sign it.

Not necessarily true. If there's a bye-law governing the prohibition of smoking (as is the case on board buses, notwithstanding the workplace ban on smoking), then you may well be breaking more than just a 'rule'. IMHO, don't smoke in a station. Wait till you're outside please and don't inconvenience others by your smoke blowing into their faces.

Trojan · 22-04-2005 8:01pm

I blow smoke regularly. Is it illegal?

murphaph · 22-04-2005 9:08pm

Trojan wrote:

I smoke blow regularly. Is it illegal?

Yes

enterprise · 22-04-2005 10:09pm

Remember, the smoking ban covers workplaces under cover. Therefore the staff and everybody else for that matter at Pearse have the right to smoke at the south end of the station, outside the overall roof.

Same at Connolly. You cannot smoke under the overall roof on Platforms 2,3 & 4, but once outside no bother to you! However you are allowed to smoke anywhere on platforms 1, 5, 6 & 7 because they are outside in the open. Same principle applies to other stations with overall roofs, i.e. Heuston, Cork, Limerick & Galway.

Transfer that to the smaller stations network wide.

You cannot smoke in the station buildings but you can smoke on the platforms.

Its a legal loophole im afraid.

ENTERPRISE

MagicBusDriver · 23-04-2005 1:50am

enterprise wrote:

Remember, the smoking ban covers workplaces under cover. Therefore the staff and everybody else for that matter at Pearse have the right to smoke at the south end of the station, outside the overall roof.

Same at Connolly. You cannot smoke under the overall roof on Platforms 2,3 & 4, but once outside no bother to you! However you are allowed to smoke anywhere on platforms 1, 5, 6 & 7 because they are outside in the open. Same principle applies to other stations with overall roofs, i.e. Heuston, Cork, Limerick & Galway.

Transfer that to the smaller stations network wide.

You cannot smoke in the station buildings but you can smoke on the platforms.

Its a legal loophole im afraid.

ENTERPRISE

Why is it a loop hole? What is the problem?

NewDubliner · 23-04-2005 9:09am

enterprise wrote:

You cannot smoke in the station buildings but you can smoke on the platforms.

Its a legal loophole im afraid. ENTERPRISE

Yes, but since most of the smokers throw their fag-ends on the ground, could'nt they be fined prosecuted for that instead?

passive · 23-04-2005 9:22am

i'm getting the impression these crafty and evil smokers are walking up and blowing it in your face while taking your wallet and insulting your wife?

... seems the only rational explanation for these attitudes unless smoking was moved on from "bad personal habit" to "deplorable scourge of humanity that must be defeated by our mighty disapproval".

murphaph · 23-04-2005 9:55am

I tend to agree that many smokers do indeed discard their butts anywhere they please. I notice this in work in particular where the outside areas are strewn with butts, you can smell them-it's disgusting. The littering aspect should be pushed a lot harder, not just at smokers mind, at everybody who litters.

NewDubliner · 23-04-2005 10:53am

passive wrote:

... seems the only rational explanation for these attitudes unless smoking was moved on from "bad personal habit" to "deplorable scourge of humanity that must be defeated by our mighty disapproval".

From http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=108532

It is also worth remembering that two of Britain's worst disasters - the Bradford City Football fire in 1985 where 40 people died and the King's Cross underground station fire in 1987 when 31 people lost their lives - were caused by dog ends dropped by smokers.

murphaph · 23-04-2005 3:32pm

Excellent point NewDub. In a public building, open or otherwise it's a potential fire hazard. it's not worth the risk to allow smoking on any platforms.

Victor · 23-04-2005 7:01pm

I think the litter point is mis-emphasized in that piece. A build of of litter - I undestand this was the source of fuel in the Bradford City Football fire means you just need to have a régime in place to control litter.

Better a fire out doors than indoors anyday.

NewDubliner · 23-04-2005 7:54pm

Victor wrote:

you just need to have a régime in place to control litter.

Someone has to pay to clear up the litter.

Better again that smokers act responsibly.

Drummer · 23-04-2005 7:58pm

murphaph wrote:

Not necessarily true. If there's a bye-law governing the prohibition of smoking (as is the case on board buses, notwithstanding the workplace ban on smoking), then you may well be breaking more than just a 'rule'. IMHO, don't smoke in a station. Wait till you're outside please and don't inconvenience others by your smoke blowing into their faces.

What is IMHO ?

Drummer · 23-04-2005 8:09pm

I disagree with littering - but on occasion when a smoker flicks away their butt, ive been known to spit out my chewing gum. The look they give me is hyterical.

Similarly , i disagree with spitting. However, i suffer from throat infecions and if i dont expel excess phlegm it builds up and i become very ill. The biggest thwart to the build up of phlegm ( especially on cold mornings ) is cigarette smoke. So when someone beside me is smoking and i have to spit, they dont like it, but it's their fault.

Victor · 23-04-2005 8:29pm

Drummer wrote:

What is IMHO ?

In My Humble Opinion, usually said by not very humble people.

sceptre · 23-04-2005 9:44pm

NewDubliner wrote:

Someone has to pay to clear up the litter.

Better again that smokers act responsibly.

Indeed. However the litter (both fires mentioned above were fuelled by regular litter debris which sat there for months uncleared) should be cleared regardless - and yes, that means someone paying to have it done. If the cigarette ends hadn't been dropped, there wouldn't have been a fire; likewise, if the unsanitary litter hadn't been just left there by authorities who weren't concerned about it, there wouldn't have been a fire. Two causes,one effect, two places.

murphaph · 23-04-2005 11:12pm

Victor wrote:

Better a fire out doors than indoors anyday.

Better no fires at all. Is it really that much of an ask of smokers not to smoke whilst on IE property?

Eriugena · 24-04-2005 12:06am

murphaph wrote:

Better no fires at all. Is it really that much of an ask of smokers not to smoke whilst on IE property?

Yes.

murphaph · 24-04-2005 12:08am

Eriugena wrote:

Yes.

Why?

Eriugena · 24-04-2005 12:24am

murphaph wrote:

Why?

Because this tyrannical law has changed everything. It has created hostility and division. I don't care for such distinctions (indoor/outdoor) anymore and will smoke wherever.

murphaph · 24-04-2005 12:32am

Eriugena wrote:

Because this tyrannical law has changed everything. It has created hostility and division. I don't care for such distinctions (indoor/outdoor) anymore and will smoke wherever.

In contravention of the law and the right to good health of your fellow man?

Eriugena · 24-04-2005 12:33am

murphaph wrote:

In contravention of the law and the right to good health of your fellow man?

The law is a tyrnnical one, brought in at the behest of nanny-statists, without any real discussion and with no exceptions.

murphaph · 24-04-2005 12:40am

Eriugena wrote:

The law is a tyrnnical one, brought in at the behest of nanny-statists, without any real discussion and with no exceptions.

I'll take it you've never watched anyone die of cancer. If you have it's a most surprising stance to take. In any case, there were exceptions made. Prisoners and patients in mental institutions still smoke indoors in a workplace. This is wrong too. Those staff are entitled to work in a safe environment as much as you or I.

The point I'm really getting at is that if you're on IE property on a platform then odds on you're taking a train. You can't smoke on that anyway, so what's the problem extinguishing your cigarrette etc. before entering the station?

Eriugena · 24-04-2005 12:46am

murphaph wrote:

I'll take it you've never watched anyone die of cancer. If you have it's a most surprising stance to take

I have actually, three in all.

In any case, there were exceptions made. Prisoners and patients in mental institutions still smoke indoors in a workplace.

Exceptions means smoking/non-smoking parts of pubs etc.

This is wrong too.

Says who?

Those staff are entitled to work in a safe environment as much as you or I.

I don;t buy this "passive smoking" thing. You can find studies to prove anything if you need them. And even if they were valid - then surely we should ban a whole load of things on that argument.

The point I'm really getting at is that if you're on IE property on a platform then odds on you're taking a train. You can't smoke on that anyway, so what's the problem extinguishing your cigarrette etc. before entering the station?

As I said, I am not inclined to bow to a tyrannical law.

murphaph · 24-04-2005 1:10am

Eriugena wrote:

Exceptions means smoking/non-smoking parts of pubs etc.

I can see where your priorities lie.

Eriugena wrote:

Says who?

Says the WHO is more like it.

Eriugena wrote:

I don;t buy this "passive smoking" thing. You can find studies to prove anything if you need them. And even if they were valid - then surely we should ban a whole load of things on that argument.

Cigarrete smoke contains hundreds of known carcenogens. That's all the proof I need that breathing it in is a bad idea.

Eriugena wrote:

As I said, I am not inclined to bow to a tyrannical law.

Just because you don't 'buy into' the passive smoking is a killer thing, doesn't mean you should get to take chances with other people's lives. Fair enough?

Eriugena · 24-04-2005 1:13am

murphaph wrote:

Says the WHO is more like it.

Nice pun.

Cigarrete smoke contains hundreds of known carcenogens. That's all the proof I need that breathing it in is a bad idea.

And th air is full of such things from all the cars etc. What about all the crap in the food chain? The list is endless.

Just because you don't 'buy into' the passive smoking is a killer thing, doesn't mean you should get to take chances with other people's lives. Fair enough?

No, because its question-begging.

Smoking at DART stations

Comments