ASH want to ban smoking in ALL private vehicles, with or without children present
Monday, March 7, 2016 at 13:25 I was on BBC Three Counties Radio this morning.
I was invited to discuss a report in this morning's Telegraph – Car smoking ban farce as Met nets no prosecutions.
Also on the programme was Deborah Arnott. The CEO of ASH made it very clear that a ban on smoking in all private vehicles is the next target, just as we predicted.
Her argument focussed on the fact that because it's difficult if not impossible for the police to check whether a child is in the back of a moving car, the only solution is to ban smoking in all cars – even if the driver is on his own with no passengers.
She also threw in the suggestion that smoking while driving is as dangerous as driving while using a mobile phone.
To the best of my knowledge is there is no evidence of a single accident being caused by smoking while driving.
I can't say such an accident has never happened but the police don't keep a record of it which suggests it's not a serious issue. And if it was a problem it's inconceivable that insurance premiums for people who smoke while driving would not have soared in an effort to deter them.
Anyway, ASH never let facts get in the way of legislation so we'd better prepare ourselves for another costly and time-consuming battle.
Reader Comments (11)
Confirmation that antismokers have consistently lied about their desire for total prohibition of smoking. Unless we stop them, once they are done with smoking they will seek prohibition of alcohol too. Instead of prohibition, let's close down these sock puppet false charities. It's time to soundly reject smoking bans.
Many studies have been carried out on what activities are likely to cause accidents. Passenger distraction and fiddling with sat navs, radio, phones etc are top. Smoking comes way down. Ban passengers from moving or speaking and ban sat navs. I'm amazed they were ever allowed.
If this legislation comes into force I'll be ignoring it.
If I can see that there are children in a car - and it isn't difficult - then so can the police, so if there have been no prosecutions so far then either it's because smokers don't smoke in cars with children or the police have got better things to do.
I'd get prepared, Simon, by contacting the relevant authorities to find out how 'dangerous' smoking whilst driving is considered to be because when there's a justifiable outcry about a blanket ban she'll shift the focus to the 'danger'. I could write her script.
Surprise, surprise. As we knew.
The exploitation of children was only ever a means to push forward a ban in all private vehicles, with or without children, as a means to the next three steps - home bans, outdoor bans, and criminalisation of honest people simply because the thugs and bullies in ASH - a vile and manipulative political lobby group that uses charities as a front and children as human shields - don't like them.
My car. My line. ASH can do it's worst.
BTW, 12 years of court reporting before the smoking ban and there was only ever one incident I picked up of smoking being related to a one vehicle accident. This happened when a woman was reaching down in the footwell of the car because she dropped her fags. This could be a phone, or CD or whatever and isn't smoking related but stupid related. She hit a lamp post and had no injuries.
So again, NO. It isn't an issue but no doubt the liars at ASH will make one out of it.
In the 1950s they made the same claims about radios in cars. What's next eating in them too. Or smoking while parking.
That didn't take them long. They are desperate.
"A new law aimed at protecting children from health risks of adults smoking in cars has turned into a farce after it emerged that Britain's largest police force has not prosecuted a single driver."
Let me requite this with my own sensible addition.
A new law aimed at protecting children from health risks of adults smoking in cars has turned into a farce after it emerged that Britain's largest police force has not prosecuted a single driver, because the chances of seeing one was highly unlikely as hardly anyone does it.
Didn't a lot of police forces (like the one quoted in this article) say even before it came in that they wouldn't be enforcing this law, even if they saw it - or words to that effect, i.e. they'd be concentrating their attention on much more important things? And rightly so.
I quite agree with timbone,
"it emerged that Britain's largest police force has not prosecuted a single driver, because the chances of seeing one was highly unlikely as hardly anyone does it."
It is quite possible that our publicly funded antismoking obsessives haven't noticed that over the past few years car manufacturers have removed the ashtrays and substituted them with an array of cupholders and that what used to be the cigarette lighter is now a port for plugging in electronic devices.
Simon if I can refresh your memory you wrote this is 2007!
"The specific sources of distraction among distracted drivers were, in order of frequency:
Specific distraction % of drivers
Outside person, object, or event 29.4%
Adjusting radio/cassette/CD 11.4%
Other occupant 10.9%
Unknown distraction 8.6%
Moving object in vehicle 4.3%
Other device/object 2.9%
Adjusting vehicle/climate controls 2.8%
Eating and/or drinking 1.7%
Using/dialing cell phone 1.5%
Smoking related 0.9%
Other distractions 25.6%"
http://www.forestonline.org/info-bank/smoking-and-driving/