sdh2903
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 05:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jacko
quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903
As much as I agree with the sentiments of the law it will never stop the numptys who actually do it. The same with mobile phones, I see more people
driving whilst on the phone now than ever before.
I bet most would stop if they had there car taken off them and band them from driving for 3 years 
Jacko
Very true. It should be a 6 point penalty, or 12 for texting.
It enrages me that much that my step son has just got his first car and Ive just fitted it with a parrot handsfree before he even hits the road.
I've also told him I will smash his phone to bits and break his fingers should I ever catch him using it when driving
Harsh maybe, but he got the point.
|
|
|
|
|
matt_gsxr
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 05:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
My Mother (as did all of them in that generation) smoked all through pregnancy with me (and my Sisters) and none of us can be considered to be
stunted. Different times....
Most sons grow up to be taller than their dads.
These are generation on generation increases.
It isn't genetic (as there is no real natural selection), so it must be environmental.
I remember when seat belts became compulsory and all the old people cried "but I want to get thrown free of the wreckage, not be strapped into
the fireball". Now its just common sense to put a seatbelt on.
Similarly smoking. You have to legislate to protect the children who can't protect themselves.
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 05:45 PM |
|
|
I don't think they should bother, I don't think it's the governments place to make rules based on morality but mostly because as
above it's a waste of time and probably already illegal.
For a start, smoking in a car or van used for work is illegal under the existing smoking ban, I'm not going to look up the exact wording but
I'm pretty sure smoking in a work van (even if you own it) is illegal but how often do you see guys in vans smoking? Same if your house is
registered as a business address for council tax purposes (Though I believe only in rooms deemed to be for work). Basically people are already smoking
illegally in vehicles and noone seems to do anything about just like people using phones.
two, it is already socially unacceptable to smoke in the car with children so on that ground I don't think it will do anything. I don't
think people should be smoking in cars, I want to make that clear, I just don't think it should be the law.
I actually think most of the smoking bans effects have been negative, more people getting ill from exposure to outside, everywhere outside smells of
smoke, everywhere inside smells of people, loads of people now sucking on unregulated artificial cigarettes and most other anti tobacco laws have in
no way made things better. Ban all advertising so now all the companies make more money, same with plain packets as theres less expenses.
I really think the money being spent on this would be better spent educating people on why they shouldn't be doing this.
On the same note I dissagree with compulsory seat belt use and child seats until the age of 12. I think people should be wearing seat belts but I
think it should be upto the individual.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
sdh2903
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 05:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by morcus
On the same note I dissagree with compulsory seat belt use and child seats until the age of 12. I think people should be wearing seat belts but I
think it should be upto the individual.
What utter bollox
Would you be saying that if your 15 stone mate was propelled into the back of your head in an accident because he chose not to wear his belt? No you
wouldn't be saying anything because you'd be dead!!!
|
|
|
wylliezx9r
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 06:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sdh2903
quote:
Originally posted by morcus
On the same note I dissagree with compulsory seat belt use and child seats until the age of 12. I think people should be wearing seat belts but I
think it should be upto the individual.
What utter bollox
Would you be saying that if your 15 stone mate was propelled into the back of your head in an accident because he chose not to wear his belt? No you
wouldn't be saying anything because you'd be dead!!!
Plus 1 ! Utter rubbish
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.
George Best
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 06:11 PM |
|
|
Like I said, people should be wearing the seat belt, but in that situation it would be my fault for not making him wear one still, just as the law
says it would be now, only difference is I'd not be breaking the law.
by the same token would you be happy to pay a fine and get some points when you mate in the back took off his seat belt to take his coat off while you
stuck in city traffic not going anywhere?
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 06:16 PM |
|
|
Anyone who does smoke with their kids in the car will be shortening their own lives and the lives of their children. Whilst knowing this (they cannot
be unaware?), the must be of a lower mental order, and by genetic presumption, so must their offspring.
So, let let Darwin have his theory and allow the human race to improve its gene pool by allowing this self culling to continue.
Quick summary - If chavs want to poison their kids, let 'em.
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
Alfa145
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 06:17 PM |
|
|
Not wearing a seatbelt - Illegal....but you still see plenty doing it..... poorly policed
Using mobile phone - Illegal...but you still see a huge amount of people doing it....poorly policed
And others...all the same
Now Smoking in a car with kids....won't make naff all difference as they're aren't enough coppers out there to police this and the
myriad of other offences.
Why are they poorly policed? Probably because thy have been subject to the multitude of cuts by the government. So you get one copper in a car to
cover hundreds of miles of roads.
Also it's easier to see a missing seatbelt or a phone in the hand....but you can't always see a kid in a child seat in a car, so do you
pull over all smokers just in case there is a baby seat in the back?
|
|
|
sdh2903
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 06:33 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by morcus
Like I said, people should be wearing the seat belt, but in that situation it would be my fault for not making him wear one still, just as the law
says it would be now, only difference is I'd not be breaking the law.
by the same token would you be happy to pay a fine and get some points when you mate in the back took off his seat belt to take his coat off while you
stuck in city traffic not going anywhere?
No I wouldn't and that's exactly how the law works, anyone over 14 it's their responsibility, anyone under 14 it's the drivers
responsibility and that's fair enough in my eyes. My car don't move til everyone has a belt on.
I really don't get your point of view on this
|
|
|
jossey
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 06:36 PM |
|
|
one of the only good ideas I see from the government. I was on the m62 the other day. There was a young couple in a car smoking with the windows up
and a young kid in the back. I just don't get it......
Thanks
David Johnson
Building my tiger avon slowly but surely.
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 07:04 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Duncan36
Throwing cigarette butts out of the car window is classed as littering and really bugs me, but you never hear of anyone getting done for it.
my brother got pinched for it. cost him a £100
Anything With Tits or Wheels Will cost you MONEY!!
Haynes Roadster (Finished)
Exocet (Finished & Sold)
New Project (Started)
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 07:27 PM |
|
|
just ban smoking or a much more sensible idea, take all the smokers children away! being smokers they are clearly unfit to be parents. it has to be
much better putting them into social care where they can be messed up fully rather than just a little bit by their parents.
now being serious. i know its not a good idea to smoke and its also not good to expose others to your smoke but! when i was a child everyone smoked
everywhere pubs, restaurants, cars....................you name it! I'm still alive! heck i remember when i did my very first week of work
experience at 13-14. everyone at the place smoked indoors at work! you couldn't even see the other side of the room it was that smoky in there!
again............................. still alive!
At the end of the day its all just political BS and a complete waste of tax money. MP's need to come up with silly poo like this to keep
themselves in jobs. If they didn't we could say hey maybe we don't need so many of them and save a bit more money! Lets face it they
don't want that to happen!
the sort of people that smoke in cars with their kids on board are hardly the type that will give an ass about what the gov are saying. As mentioned
before, like mobile phones its virtually impossible to enforce. My bro and his wife to be, both smoke. They have a two year old, being good
parents they don't smoke in the house, car or anywhere near the baby!
why don't they take the money for this stupid idea and use it to build some make shift flood defences, then go pump a few more peoples houses
out! that would be a good idea
[Edited on 11/2/2014 by ashg]
Anything With Tits or Wheels Will cost you MONEY!!
Haynes Roadster (Finished)
Exocet (Finished & Sold)
New Project (Started)
|
|
|
red22
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 08:09 PM |
|
|
Totally pointless law, if it gets on the books. What's the point of being all high and mighty about smoking in cars while ignoring the fact the
child will be going home at some point.
The Government of the day should either ban smoking outright or stop pretending to be making healthy choices for us when it treats smokers as cash
cow.
FWIW I don't smoke.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 08:37 PM |
|
|
I'm in favour. It might be unenforceable but it at least makes the point and puts some social pressure on people who do it.
The solution for smoking is just increased taxation to discourage kids from starting. Seems to be working!
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
steve m
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
Were I live its more likely the kids smoking with their Parents in the front
is that going to be illegal ?
Fwiw ive never smoked, nor my parents, and ive never managed to find out what the attraction is to smoking
Thats was probably spelt wrong, or had some grammer, that the "grammer police have to have a moan at
|
|
|
whitestu
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 09:40 PM |
|
|
Just get parent to hand over their kids to the government at birth and abdicate all responsibility.
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 11/2/14 at 09:48 PM |
|
|
If wearing a seat belt was not a legal requirement then most people would not bother, hopefully by making smoking illegal with children in the car
this will have the same affect.
I'm in favour, if it stops a couple of hundred people poisoning their or other peoples children then it's worth the effort.
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 12/2/14 at 11:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
now being serious. i know its not a good idea to smoke and its also not good to expose others to your smoke but! when i was a child everyone smoked
everywhere pubs, restaurants, cars....................you name it! I'm still alive! heck i remember when i did my very first week of work
experience at 13-14. everyone at the place smoked indoors at work! you couldn't even see the other side of the room it was that smoky in there!
again............................. still alive!
Unfortunately the "im still alive" argument doesn't pan out. Single data points are not valid. (inter)National statistics show
there's significant impact and cancer rates are closely linked, and that we're effectively sitting on a cancer timebomb as a side effect.
You might be still alive now, but what if it accelerated a chain of events? What if you're not affected but 9 people out of 10 are unlucky with
it?
Remember, single data-points and anecdotes are invalid argument points. Policy is (or at least should be) set by statistically significant,
independently variable analysis of all available data.
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 13/2/14 at 12:34 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
quote:
now being serious. i know its not a good idea to smoke and its also not good to expose others to your smoke but! when i was a child everyone smoked
everywhere pubs, restaurants, cars....................you name it! I'm still alive! heck i remember when i did my very first week of work
experience at 13-14. everyone at the place smoked indoors at work! you couldn't even see the other side of the room it was that smoky in there!
again............................. still alive!
Unfortunately the "im still alive" argument doesn't pan out. Single data points are not valid. (inter)National statistics show
there's significant impact and cancer rates are closely linked, and that we're effectively sitting on a cancer timebomb as a side effect.
You might be still alive now, but what if it accelerated a chain of events? What if you're not affected but 9 people out of 10 are unlucky with
it?
Remember, single data-points and anecdotes are invalid argument points. Policy is (or at least should be) set by statistically significant,
independently variable analysis of all available data.
possibly..... i just happen to work for a company that makes equipment for treating cancer. in fact my life is devoted to developing products to
treat cancer. the sad sad fact is that cancer caused by smoking is a minor drip in the ocean of all causes of cancer.
when it comes to smoking related death, other illness caused by smoking statistically make up over 50% of the death rate. cancer related smoking
deaths are 28% of the death rate. BUT! that 28% is calculated by saying "they died of cancer did they smoke? ok thats a smoking related cancer
death! regardless of if it was lung cancer or little toe cancer(silly example). If you take that 28% and dig into it only 40% of that 28% are smoking
related area cancers e.g lung mouth throat..... which equated to around 28000ish people last year vs 170,000ish that died from other non cancer
smoking illness.
obesity actually kills more people than smoking related cancer! 34000 last year! we should ban take aways!
the real issue with smoking is that long term exposure really messes up you whole body, it doesn't just cause cancer, i know people that have
got phd's in this area, a bit of exposure now and then isn't going to kill you. its not ideal and should be avoided but its not going to
kill you and your body will recover.
all that that said, i do agree that its unacceptable to expose your children and others to a smokey atmosphere that they do not have a choice of
leaving. the problem with the law they are trying to pass is it wont really achieve anything. the sort of dicks that smoke in a car/house with
children are not going to stop. even if they occasionally get caught and fined they still wont stop, there just isn't enough resource to police
it. banning smoking in cars would actually be easier to spot and police! as your only looking for a smoker and not a smoker + child. but i doubt we
even have the resource to do that. we are certainly not very successful at policing mobile phones! and they are several times the size of a cigarette
[Edited on 13/2/2014 by ashg]
Anything With Tits or Wheels Will cost you MONEY!!
Haynes Roadster (Finished)
Exocet (Finished & Sold)
New Project (Started)
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 13/2/14 at 06:32 AM |
|
|
Agree with Ash (!)
There point I would make about cancer deaths is....We are not dying of other diseases or accidents first. The tidal wave of cancer related deaths
are, by and large, replacements for deaths by TB etc etc.
The rise in Dementia cases is a also directly related to this, live longer and you are more likely to get Dementia. The cost to the country of all
these people surviving to get cancer in old age and/or Dementia is enormous and is having a big impact of NHS/Social spending.
Certainly children should be protected where possible but an in-car smoking ban is unenforceable. I often see HGV drivers on their phones or texting
or, indeed, watching videos on laptops and they don't seem to get caught, what chance of making any impact on the number of people who smoke in
cars with children by making it illegal?
|
|
|
