Should smoking in cars carrying children be banned?

[Stuart]

Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of smoking in the car, I have to query something.

How would such a ban be enforced?

The police (who would probably have to enforce this) don't necessarily spend their time watching what each individual driver is doing in the care (and they certainly don't watch passengers). They should only be watching the driver if they think the driver is doing something dangerous. As I understand it, even the current mobile phone laws are only really enforced if the police officer happens to notice someone on the phone, or they are doing something dangerous.

If the Police are watching drivers and passengers for signs of smoking, they may miss someone doing something geniunely dangerous to themselves, their passengers and other road users.

It's also likely that CCTV and Speed cameras would be ineffective as they tend to focus on the driver, and unless they are all lowered (and thus be more susceptible to vandalism) to the same level as the car, they would be unable to see any children. Even if they had some sort of ability to see the kids, how would they detect the smoke?

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

I have to agree, why do we need a law to stop people smoking in cars with kids. I'd have thought responsible parents would not smoke in a car with kids.

I have a lot of friends who smoke in cars, or in rooms in the presence of their kids. When I comment about this, the respnse I hear the most is "It's not that bad", "wheres the proof that they will get cancer", " I know many people who smoke 20 a day and dont have cancer " etc etc. It does suprise me that such views are used as excuses but I do think that a lo of people still genuinely believe that passive smoking isn't such a big deal.

As I understand it, a lot of people do think passive smoking is a big deal, but no one can prove conclusively how big a deal it is. One of the things that caught my eye about the study I linked to above is it started when smoking was considered "cool", so numbers of smokers (and therefore passive smokers) should be higher at the beginning. The study concluded (although as foreverwar noted their methodology was challenged) that passive smoking does not contribute as much to lung cancer as people think. Other studies have said the opposite.

While, as I have stated, I do not smoke, and actually would rather not be stuck in a car with a smoker, I agree that people should have a choice. Put simply, as long as the owner of the car is happy for any passengers to smoke and any passenger is happy for the owner to smoke, I don't believe it's anyone else's business (least of all the government's).

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

.... It does suprise me that such views are used as excuses ....

I remember a medical colleague telling me about a conversation with a pregnant patient:

Doc: "You really shouldn't smoke. It can harm your baby."
Patient: "But he's not breathing yet, is he?"
Doc: "No, but it could make your baby grow less, so it might be born smaller."
Patient: "Really? Great! Should make for an easier delivery!!"

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

I remember a medical colleague telling me about a conversation with a pregnant patient:

Doc: "You really shouldn't smoke. It can harm your baby."
Patient: "But he's not breathing yet, is he?"
Doc: "No, but it could make your baby grow less, so it might be born smaller."
Patient: "Really? Great! Should make for an easier delivery!!"

Did your friend work in Springfield and have a patient called Mrs Simpson? Doh!!

" How would such a ban be enforced? "


Could take a look across the atlantic http://www.windsorstar.com/Health/ba...702/story.html

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

" How would such a ban be enforced? "


Could take a look across the atlantic http://www.windsorstar.com/Health/ba...702/story.html

From the article

O'Neil said that as of Wednesday, police will be enforcing the act by ticketing offenders, similar to procedures for catching speeders.

The article totally misses the glaring difference between spotting someone speeding and spotting someone smoking. As, apparently, have you.

It also misses the subtle point that detection is part of enforcement (you can instigate all the bans you want, but if you have no means of detecting if they are being broken, they will be ineffective).

Put simply, it is usually obvious when someone is speeding. You can see it. Even where it is not obvious (someone doing 60 in a 30 limit would be obvious, someone doing 35 in a 30 limit may not), there are various devices, such as radar guns, that can detect it.

How would you tell if someone is smoking? As long as they aren't smoking something dodgy (which is already illegal) and driving dangerously, There will be little or no external signal that they are smoking. Ok, there may be some smoke coming from an open window, but what if they don't have windows open? What if they are just relying on the car's vents to remove the smoke (in which case, the cigarette smoke will just merge with all the gases coming out of the car already so will not be visible)?

In extreme circumstances, there will be smoke visible in the passenger cabin, but this will only occur if the driver has been smoking a long time, is easy to get rid of (just open the vents and waft it toward them) and may not be easily visible on a CCTV camera (which, let's face it, is where the police seem to do most of their traffic enforcement).

To make it easier, I'll rephrase the question. How would the police detect people smoking? Bear in mind that detection should be quick (to avoid unnecessary delays on busy roads), so the police may not be allowed to set up checkpoints where they can stop drivers and check them manually.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

From the article


The article totally misses the glaring difference between spotting someone speeding and spotting someone smoking. As, apparently, have you.

It also misses the subtle point that detection is part of enforcement (you can instigate all the bans you want, but if you have no means of detecting if they are being broken, they will be ineffective).

Put simply, it is usually obvious when someone is speeding. You can see it. Even where it is not obvious (someone doing 60 in a 30 limit would be obvious, someone doing 35 in a 30 limit may not), there are various devices, such as radar guns, that can detect it.

How would you tell if someone is smoking? As long as they aren't smoking something dodgy (which is already illegal) and driving dangerously, There will be little or no external signal that they are smoking. Ok, there may be some smoke coming from an open window, but what if they don't have windows open? What if they are just relying on the car's vents to remove the smoke (in which case, the cigarette smoke will just merge with all the gases coming out of the car already so will not be visible)?

In extreme circumstances, there will be smoke visible in the passenger cabin, but this will only occur if the driver has been smoking a long time, is easy to get rid of (just open the vents and waft it toward them) and may not be easily visible on a CCTV camera (which, let's face it, is where the police seem to do most of their traffic enforcement).

To make it easier, I'll rephrase the question. How would the police detect people smoking? Bear in mind that detection should be quick (to avoid unnecessary delays on busy roads), so the police may not be allowed to set up checkpoints where they can stop drivers and check them manually.

"It doesn't matter if the car is moving or stationary, nor does it make a difference if a car's windows are up or down, said Const. Kevin O'Neil of Leamington police."



What does that say?

You could have a situation where the car is pulled over at a service station? or layby?

[rogerdraig]

hmm why would detection rate decide if it is effective speed enforcement is most likely the least detected per occurrence of any law but even i wouldnt say that should mean not having some sort of speed laws in place

i doubt very much if police would miss other offences because of this one being on the books it would just be another one they can use if caught

the main idea behind this would be to get over that its not a good thing to do

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

"It doesn't matter if the car is moving or stationary, nor does it make a difference if a car's windows are up or down, said Const. Kevin O'Neil of Leamington police."



What does that say?

It says (to me) that they have no clue how they are going to enforce it, but are just saying they will.

Originally Posted by rogermevans

hmm why would detection rate decide if it is effective speed enforcement is most likely the least detected per occurrence of any law but even i wouldnt say that should mean not having some sort of speed laws in place

i doubt very much if police would miss other offences because of this one being on the books it would just be another one they can use if caught

the main idea behind this would be to get over that its not a good thing to do

People already know that it's not a good thing to do. Implementing another ban is not going to change that. I am saying that this proposed ban would be just another in a long line of difficult or impossible to enforce bans that this government has put in place.

How would it be impossible to enforce if the resources are put into it?

Unlike the mobile phone ban which is being blatantly ignored, I have lost count of the number of drivers attempting to take a roundabout with one hand on the steering wheel.

The key to any success they may have in america is the fact that the car does not have to be moving, nor does it matter if the windows are down.

The whole thing is though, I dont need anyone to tell me its not a good idea to smoke in a car full of kids, my common sense tells me.

We still have the selfish minority who think otherwise, as with the mobile phone ban.

[TheNorm]

This is in the news again:

More than 15,000 people have signed a petition asking the government to make smoking in cars when children are passengers illegal.
Research by the British Lung Foundation found 86% of children across the UK want people to stop smoking when there are kids in the car.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/ne...00/9412454.stm

pointless ,and mostly unenforceable .If parents are going to smoke in a car with children then they will be smoking at home which will expose the children to more smoke as they more time at home than in a car

[Gary L]

This was on my local news with the kids going to give the petition in.

some of them don't really know what the petition is for. they're just repeating what they've been told kind of thing. a lot of them will probably be smokers in a few years.
some even said it should be banned in homes with children in.

I'm starting a counter petition. get out the car and bloody walk, you lazy kids.

Originally Posted by Gary L

This was on my local news with the kids going to give the petition in.

some of them don't realy know what the petition is for. they're just repeating what they've been told kind of thing. a lot of them will probably be smokers in a few years.
some even said it should be banned in homes with children in.

I'm starting a counter petition. get out the car and bloody walk, you lazy kids.

Nice to see you treating the subject with the seriousnes it deserves Gary. Not.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

Nice to see you treating the subject with the seriousnes it deserves Gary. Not.

Which part?

I don't agree with it. if these kids genuinely do want smoking banned in cars, and possibly homes. and they can assure me that they won't start smoking in a couple of years anyway. and they promise to try and walk a bit more often because it's good for your health.

then I still wouldn't agree with it.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by martyh

....If parents are going to smoke in a car with children then they will be smoking at home which will expose the children to more smoke as they more time at home than in a car

Good point. Should that also be banned?