BMA : Ban smoking in cars

[Ifreann]

Eh, I could see a ban being justified if there were children in the car, but that'd be about it. I've never seen the health of smokers as being the concern of smoking bans, but rather the health of those around the smokers.

[Ecans]

More nanny-state bullshit.

[Ifreann]

Eh, I could see a ban being justified if there were children in the car, but that'd be about it. I've never seen the health of smokers as being the concern of smoking bans, but rather the health of those around the smokers.

That is the concern of the BMAs proposition. It's the practical implementation of it that leads them to the total ban.

I don't see how. There are plenty of places one could smoke without doing any more than trivial damage to someone's health.

[Ifreann]

I don't see how. There are plenty of places one could smoke without doing any more than trivial damage to someone's health.

I.....agree. This is in the context of cars though. I suppose you could create an airtight seal dividing a smokers part of your car with a non smokers part but that seems awfully hard work.

Ah, I see what you were saying. But still, I don't think a total ban on smoking in cars would be necessary to stop people from smoking in cars with children.

[Osoaribbean]

Banning smoking in cars, while driving, should only be included in an overall campaign of vehicle safety. Anything that distracts a driver while driving is the real health concern, not second hand smoke.

[Bales Rant]

I always thought any argument for banning smoking in cars would be very similar to the one prohibiting the use of mobile phones.

Nonetheless, invariably the driver will be the owner of the car, so it's upto them if they smoke or not. Any adult passengers who don't like it don't have to be passangers. Any smoking in the presence of a child passenger is on the conscience of the driver/owner.

[West Failure]

Wasting money on a marketing campaign seems equally as stupid to me, unless they can show evidence that it is an effective use of public money. And if the idea is to protect children from obnoxious contaminants then surely banning Chris Moyles would be more useful?

[Malgrave]

I support this movement from the BMA.

[Ifreann]

Banning smoking in cars, while driving, should only be included in an overall campaign of vehicle safety. Anything that distracts a driver while driving is the real health concern, not second hand smoke.

That's a thought that didn't occur to me.....

---

I always thought any argument for banning smoking in cars would be very similar to the one prohibiting the use of mobile phones.

Nonetheless, invariably the driver will be the owner of the car, so it's upto them if they smoke or not. Any adult passengers who don't like it don't have to be passangers. Any smoking in the presence of a child passenger is on the conscience of the driver/owner.

Perhaps you're not aware, but Great Britain isn't some class of libertarian utopia where the laws of the land stop where your property starts.

---

Banning smoking in cars, while driving, should only be included in an overall campaign of vehicle safety. Anything that distracts a driver while driving is the real health concern, not second hand smoke.

Why do distractions leading to hazardous driving trump other health concerns?

I didn't think he was suggesting they did.

[GeneralHaNor]

I don't see how. There are plenty of places one could smoke without doing any more than trivial damage to someone's health.

I.....agree. This is in the context of cars though. I suppose you could create an airtight seal dividing a smokers part of your car with a non smokers part but that seems awfully hard work.

Why are there other people in my car? and why the fuck should they have a right to tell me what I can and can't do in my car.

If they don't want to ride with a smoker, let them catch the bus. I am under no obligation to provide them transportation.

As a matter of that fact, the next person that bitches for any reason is walking.

[Station 12]

I support it because 1- I'm against smoking anyway, and 2- for the same reason you can't use phones in the car. Regardless of how focused you are on the road, one of your hands is busy with that cigarette and you're distracted by the fact that it's there, physically there, in your hand or mouth.

[Ifreann]

I.....agree. This is in the context of cars though. I suppose you could create an airtight seal dividing a smokers part of your car with a non smokers part but that seems awfully hard work.

Why are there other people in my car? and why the fuck should they have a right to tell me what I can and can't do in my car.

If they don't want to ride with a smoker, let them catch the bus. I am under no obligation to provide them transportation.

As a matter of that fact, the next person that bitches for any reason is walking.

Never ever transport children anywhere, for their safety.

[GeneralHaNor]

Why are there other people in my car? and why the fuck should they have a right to tell me what I can and can't do in my car.

If they don't want to ride with a smoker, let them catch the bus. I am under no obligation to provide them transportation.

As a matter of that fact, the next person that bitches for any reason is walking.

Never ever transport children anywhere, for their safety.

I'm never having children.
Also I don't smoke

it's the fucking principle of the matter

[Osoaribbean]

Why do distractions leading to hazardous driving trump other health concerns?

Because of the immediate danger of loss of life and property should a driver become distracted, even for an instant, and wrecking.

The act of lighting and smoking a cigarette in an enclosed vehicle may have some long term effect on the people riding in the car but if he drives into a bridge abutment, or another vehicle, while lighting the thing, that is immediate and catastrophic.

I'm in favor of removing all distractions from a driver, save those inherent to driving itself. Your main focus while driving from Point A to Point B should be to do so safely. Not to drink a soda, eat lunch, talk on a phone, get drunk or, in this case, to smoke a cig.

[GeneralHaNor]

Why are there other people in my car? and why the fuck should they have a right to tell me what I can and can't do in my car.

If they don't want to ride with a smoker, let them catch the bus. I am under no obligation to provide them transportation.

As a matter of that fact, the next person that bitches for any reason is walking.

Good for you. Children generally don't have such options. Well I suppose you might be a negligent abusive adult who would apply similar rules to small children but i'd like to think not

I have trouble imagining a person with kids smoking with kids in the car, you might garner sympathy with that argument if you can prove it's a prevalent thing. Otherwise it's a strawman.

[Ifreann]

I didn't think he was suggesting they did.

I'd welcome your interpretation in that case.

Never mind, I misread.

---

Never ever transport children anywhere, for their safety.

I'm never having children.
Also I don't smoke

it's the fucking principle of the matter

What I was getting at was that if you can't stand the idea of someone asking you not to smoke while they're in your car, you'd probably end up pulling over to strangle an annoying child.

[Bales Rant]

I always thought any argument for banning smoking in cars would be very similar to the one prohibiting the use of mobile phones.

Nonetheless, invariably the driver will be the owner of the car, so it's upto them if they smoke or not. Any adult passengers who don't like it don't have to be passangers. Any smoking in the presence of a child passenger is on the conscience of the driver/owner.

Perhaps you're not aware, but Great Britain isn't some class of libertarian utopia where the laws of the land stop where your property starts.

So people who have cars just go about picking random people up and dropping them off, like a public bus service?

[GeneralHaNor]

I'd welcome your interpretation in that case.

Never mind, I misread.

---

I'm never having children.
Also I don't smoke

it's the fucking principle of the matter

What I was getting at was that if you can't stand the idea of someone asking you not to smoke while they're in your car, you'd probably end up pulling over to strangle an annoying child.

Nah, despite all my rage (and I'm still just a rat in a cage) I would not visit harm upon a child
I'm not a barbarian.

Adults get no sympathy however.

[Ifreann]

Perhaps you're not aware, but Great Britain isn't some class of libertarian utopia where the laws of the land stop where your property starts.

So people who have cars just go about picking random people up and dropping them off, like a public bus service?

Not that I'm aware of.

[Lackadaisical2]

Eh, I could see a ban being justified if there were children in the car, but that'd be about it. I've never seen the health of smokers as being the concern of smoking bans, but rather the health of those around the smokers.

^this.

Banning smoking in cars, while driving, should only be included in an overall campaign of vehicle safety. Anything that distracts a driver while driving is the real health concern, not second hand smoke.

But then we'd have to ban GPSs, All cellphones and electronics must be turned off before leaving the driveway, no radios allowed in cars anymore.

[Tekania]

Banning smoking in cars, while driving, should only be included in an overall campaign of vehicle safety. Anything that distracts a driver while driving is the real health concern, not second hand smoke.

Good, we can put an end to this nonsense of people talking on the cellphone while driving.

[GeneralHaNor]

So people who have cars just go about picking random people up and dropping them off, like a public bus service?

This is true. If someone voluntarily gets into my car i'm completely fine to beat them to death. I am, after all, in a lawless realm.

No, they are completely fine to exit your vehicle if they don't like the company.
I wasn't aware that every British Auto also doubled as a Taxi.

[GeneralHaNor]

No, they are completely fine to exit your vehicle if they don't like the company.
I wasn't aware that every British Auto also doubled as a Taxi.

I'll play along with your libertarian masturbatory fantasies for one more post. If you are driving 70 down the motorway, pull a knife and start swinging at them, it's completely their fault if they don't leap from the moving car.

That's it. That's all you get. Go play with it.

I'm still trying to figure out how they got in my car in all honesty.
I might even be justified in pulling that knife, I've probably been car jacked.

[Osoaribbean]

But then we'd have to ban GPSs, All cellphones and electronics must be turned off before leaving the driveway, no radios allowed in cars anymore.

Good, we can put an end to this nonsense of people talking on the cellphone while driving.

Yes, and HELL yes

Although, I can see a case being made for the use of a GPS type device. I'm trying to find the issue and article I got this from so I can post the link, so it's anecdotal evidence at the moment, but the ATA (American Trucking Association) did a study of causes of distracted driving in the early 2000's (r=to add to the many they had already done). The main causes were, oddly enough and I can't remember the order, smoking, eating and drinking, cell phones, and getting lost.

Getting lost in an unfamiliar area caused stress levels to go through the roof, especially if it was at night.

[Morrdh]

Why do distractions leading to hazardous driving trump other health concerns?

Because of the immediate danger of loss of life and property should a driver become distracted, even for an instant, and wrecking.

The act of lighting and smoking a cigarette in an enclosed vehicle may have some long term effect on the people riding in the car but if he drives into a bridge abutment, or another vehicle, while lighting the thing, that is immediate and catastrophic.

I'm in favor of removing all distractions from a driver, save those inherent to driving itself. Your main focus while driving from Point A to Point B should be to do so safely. Not to drink a soda, eat lunch, talk on a phone, get drunk or, in this case, to smoke a cig.

Depends on the driver, my dad usually just pulls over or waits until everything is moving at a crawl or stationary before lighting up....then again he smokes roll-ups which are tricky to do anyway. He always cracks open a window in a car or when I was still at home he'd always smoke in different room to what I was in.