Driving and smoking: a criminal offence?
Sunday, May 13, 2007 
The Observer reports that the Local Authority Road Safety Officers' Association, which represents local councils, is calling for a ban on smoking while driving "in an attempt to cut the number of crashes". According to the paper, the Department of Health said it would "seriously consider" a ban. (Full story HERE.)
I'm not sure what this has to do with the DoH. Surely smoking and driving is a matter for the Department of Transport? Last year the Driving Standards Agency, part of the DoT, invited a list of 'stakeholders' to contribute towards a review of the The Highway Code. "We wish to take account of the views of a wide range of stakeholders and others with an interest in road safety."
Needless to say representatives of smokers were excluded from the list, despite the fact that it was being suggested that smoking might be added to a list of distractions that should be avoided when driving. (Other activities, already on the list, include loud music, eating and drinking, reading maps, and arguing with passengers.)
Undeterred, Forest submitted a document to the DSA pointing out that "International studies show that smoking is one of the least distracting things a driver can do. Worse distractions include tuning the radio, changing a CD, or adjusting the climate controls. Talking to other passengers, even singing to oneself, is far more distracting than smoking. Accidents caused by smoking are negligible by comparison." (See HERE.)
The point is, while there are other distractions that are far more likely to lead to accidents, no-one has suggested that tuning the radio, adjusting climate controls or chatting to passengers should be made illegal while driving. In any case, we already have laws to combat reckless driving or driving without due care and attention. If it can be proved that smoking while driving is the direct cause of an accident, by all means prosecute the driver under existing laws. What we don't need is yet another law that is designed not to reduce the number of accidents but to stigmatise smokers and limit what adults can do in their own private space.
Reader Comments (23)
Simon I'm sure the "evidence" will be "overwhelming" as it usually is when presented by special interest groups who will gain from their proposed legislation.
But I also think that many neutral observers will start to raise their eyebrows at the audacity of regulating smoking in our own cars.
The other bright spot is that the word "libertarian" is used twice in the article. I'm sure there aren't many who have much of an idea of what the word means. Five years ago I hadn't a clue myself but then, thanks to Google, I found out and it changed my life. I'd say there is a good chance that other readers of that article will wonder what it means too.
Hmmm, I feel a letter to my MP coming on. As Simon pointed out - what does this have to do with the DoH? It's clearly a DoT issue, or is it another example of the agenda at work here; to make it harder for people to smoke.
Actually, I thought it was illegal to smoke whilst driving for years and did it anyway. An actual ban means I got back to the way I used to do it - i.e. smoking whilst keeping one eye out for the police.
I'm sure I won't be alone in this and so perversly the roads will become a slightly more dangerous place - and before anyone suggests how this shows how irresponsible smokers really are, consider this - surely lawmakers must take responsibility for the laws they pass.
If said law is hugely unpopular amongst the people it effects, to the point where they ignore it and thus take greater risks in the process, surely the people who made the law in the first place must take at least some responsibility for that.
Call me old fashioned but I'm of the opinion that laws are not only there to serve the people but must also take into account how people will react to the law.
As pointed out by Simon and the others, banning smoking in cars has nothing to do with road safety, but designed to make it almost impossible to smoke anywhere in comfort.
A law already exists for careless or reckless driving without having to make smoking a specific criminal offence at the controls of a car.
Idiotic or vindictive laws, epecially those inspired by ASH/ Hewitt and all, should be ignored at will. The police already indicated that they would not police the smoking bans and I am sure feel effort and taxpayers money would be better spent doing their proper job - catching criminals for a start.
Does anyone have idea how to stop this insanity driven by sadistic nature of the “Antismoking Cult”?
They do not care for other people safety or other people health but they just promote own belief born out of their own fear from illnesses.
Many studies have proved that moderate smoking is correlated with longer life span, and no one study proved correlation whit abstinence from smoking and longer life span.
I feel that this is an issue that unless it is tackled full on will become law in a couple of years. I feel we are past the point of waiting to be invited to these supposed consultations and we demand to be heard. I have driven for 22 years without ever having had an accident, a speeding ticket or for that matter even a parking fine and I have enjoyed a smoke all the way.
The anti's are on a roll and the goverment treats us as soft targets because on the whole we are law abiding citizens who dont want to break any laws, but as long as we dont shout as loud as the anti's we will not be heard.
Simon please keep us informed as I know you will on this issue, I know from previous articles on this site that this has been tried in other countries and been stopped in it's tracks.
I feel we have all got to do a lot more shouting about these issues and give Simon and forest any support they want from all the many people who visit this site, so when it comes to a consultation on any smoking issue Simon is not stood alone fighting on our behalf.
So now they want to increase the incidents of Road Rage - how utterly irresponsible!
I feel that if we are no longer going to be able to smoke anywhere but our own homes (and even that could be in jeopardy) then smokers should be able to claim disability allowances as to be forced to travel to work and not be allowed to smoke, then be in work all day and not be allowed to smoke followed by driving home again, by which time we will be in such a state, I doubt we will be driving safely, as we will just be trying to get home to have a smoke, or several, is going to make the roads far less safe than allowing us to continue smoking.
Above all of this, in my view,THE MOST distracting thing in a car is arguing and/or fighting children - so should we ban them as well? When will these idiots realise that you cannot ban everything just because some don't like it? It is a complete and utter disgrace that this is even being considered.
I would encourage everyone who opposes this to write to their MP and make them aware of your feelings, oh and demand to know exactly what it has to do with the Department of Health anyway.
Having the Department of Health involved is quite dubious. The Department of Transport should be doing something, though what difference that will make is anyone's guess. There's still an astounding amount of people who drive while holding a mobile to their head.
Driving with due care and attention while making sure the ash doesn't fall on the dashboard - I think not.
I agree that it is not the business of the D of H but I don't think it is the business of any other arm of the state either. It is no one's business but my own whether or not I smoke in my car.
For those who think the D of T has a right to even think about legislation in this area please state how you justify this.
The whole smoking issue is becoming farcical,even by non smokers standards,it is simply a 'fashionable topic 'amongst those who strive for attention,naybe they think it improves their social standing or puts them a further rung up the ladder,who know's,what does concren me is how these groups can just invent and impose new laws without the views of the people,Are we indirectly being governed by dictators,? Must be getting quite desperate with this new proposal.I for one will reserve the right to chose in my own proprty. .
Banning smoking and driving is absurd enough- but here in N Ireland they are trying to ban smoking and standing!In Lurgan a man was pulled in the town square for leaning against a post and having a smoke. He was told to move on as it was illegal to be stationary but it was ok if he was walking and not standing still.I do not know where this piece of legislation came from but the enforcer was from the council.How ridiculous is it going to get before enough is enough?
I committed the crime of driving and smoking today - I can't smoke at college (banned in the grounds now as well as in the buildings) and didn't have time to walk off the site - it is a disciplinary offence now to smoke in the extensive grounds. So, after doing a few hours' work, I smoked in my car on the way home. My husband, a non-smoker, is self-employed and has received the information pack with stickers to be displayed - he doesn't even work at home! Failure to display these stickers leads to a £1,000 fine. I listened to news on the radio informing us that churches and other places of worship must display these bright red and white stickers. People are respectful enough not to smoke in such places anyway. When will sanity be restored to this country? Am I the only one who believes that this country is going rapidly stark raving bonkers? I just can't understand why we as a nation are simply remaining passive and not reacting against this prevailing oppressive and barmy mentality. In 1990 people demonstrated against the poll tax, yet no one now seems to be demonstrating against the systematic erosion of our rights/way of life - or, at least, I never hear about such demonstrations. The prisons are full, violent crime is increasing, things are generally in a mess, yet the oppression of tobacco smokers appears to take priority. All this just highlights the depths to which we have sunk.
Michael Peoples:
You're kidding.
I wish I was Belinda. The guy drives a white van and being a company vehicle it is illegal to smoke inside it. He made a delivery to Lurgan and was having a puff outside when he was approached. The enforcer told him that the ban was in 'Public Places' of which the town square was one.He had to leave the square and smoke down a side street as he was worried about a report being made to his employers about him breaking the law.I would have told him where to go but I can understand why this man did not, as he feared for his job. These fascists tell any lies and get believed because we are easy targets.
I hope people realise that these 'enforcers' are 'highly trained' (!!) and are paid salaries in accordance with their exceptional expertise by local councils. The 'stationary' guy mentioned above who drives the van is probably being paid half the amount of money per annum than the enforcer. These salaries come (obviously) out of taxpayers' money - so people are paying for the privilege of being told off, fined and, perhaps, criminalised or even sacked. A reliable source informed me that when the ban came into force in Scotland in late March 2006, there were cameras and officers watching traffic crossing over the border from England into Scotland. People smoking in private cars were ok, but those driving coaches, lorries, vans etc. were targeted and many of those people were fined if they were smoking. This will happen in England from 1 July this year. It would not surprise me in the least if traffic cameras and speed cameras were modified to take photos of people smoking. Perhaps there will be 'lay-by' enforcers waiting to catch people outside having a furtive smoke because those are public areas! Mind how you go!
Michael - I understood that the ban was in ENCLOSED Public Places, if not, then even a side street is a public place and essentially we will all be in trouble if we smoke anywhere but in our own homes!
It would be great if something like That's Life came back with it 'Jobsworth Awards' for people, usually council workers or local government, who stuck to petty rules way beyond common sense, decency or respect - these people need to be shown up as the Little Hitlers that they are and exposed to the whole country, including what us tax payers are forking to pay them!! It is totally outrageous, the whole ban thing that is, never mind the additional perceptions being added on by these power crazy individuals.
Lyn. The tobacco taleban stated that the square was enclosed because it is surrounded on all sides by buildings. Presumably a side street is ok because it is open at both ends. I am only guessing but I bet he would not try a stunt like that on a Saturday night.I have to agree that is a total waste of OUR money but while we have almost all politicians supporting the ban,nothing will be done about the actions of the enforcers.
From the Grauniad article: "The Department of Health said it was 'looking at how we can get further momentum towards smoking cessation beyond the introduction of the smoking ban in England'."
They've admitted to engaging in social-engineering, then.
Personally, I used to use public transport before the smoking bans. Now that this former pleasure has been turned into an ordeal by those same nu-labor wonks whose stated intent it is to widen access to public-transport, I choose to drive.
Private car drivers will ignore any such legislation [as I shall], and just try and not get caught by Plod. This we see already with the mobile-phone ban. But commercial-vehicle drivers, already subject to an increasing weight of petty, nannying rules, and with company logos and phone-numbers adorning their vehicles, will be in a more precarious position. There's plenty of nasty vindictive little nazis out there ready to "report" what they interpret as Unacceptable Behaviour, when there's an easy route to creating employment-problems for someone they've never met.
So what state are the lorry-drivers' nerves gonna be in, after four hours sitting at a nu-labor regulated 40MPH and all without the benefit of a stress-busting ciggie? I'd advise you not to pull out on him.
Michael - I understood enclosed to be less than 80% open to the air, how can a public square be deemed to be that enclosed as there is air all around and it is not sealed? Some people are just soooo over the top it is almost unbelievable.
Also, well said Basil. I would not consider public transport these days because I am unable to smoke and as smoking has been banned in most offices for a decade or more, I need my fix on route to work and again on my way home, especially in the winter months. Well said too for the lorry drivers, my husband is one and he has said less work will get done because they will stop for a smoke each time they would have had one in the cab, so even if that is only 3 or 4 a day, it is still around half to three quarters of an hour driving lost. Thing is, Joe Public will end up paying again as either more drivers and vehicles will be needed or to support the drivers that are out of work because they smoke!
The whole thing is totally ridiculous - I would rather get into a vehicle that smelt of tobacco smoke than one that stank of stale body odour or some sickly perfume or cologne,or some other nasty things I can think of! Anyway with AirCon in most newer vehicles these days, the smoke is reasonably well cleared out and no-one has ever said our vehicles smell smokey or refused a lift because we smoke!
I've got no strong views on driving whilst smoking but this story does remind me of the small quarter windows that cars used to have years ago that were particularly useful for smoker drivers. Back in 1972 my grandfather took delivery of a brand new Austin Maxi and being a frequent cigar smoker his only complaint was the absence of the little quarter window which either aided ventilation or which he flicked ash out of.
Perhaps as a sign of the times it is interesting to note that some car manufacturers (Volkswagen) now only supply an ash tray and a cigarette lighter as an optional extra!!
Another proposed law processed in someone's bottom as opposed to their brain. The AAA figures show smoking to be the lowest of all risk factors and the current fad to extend the smoking ban to cars is not the product of wisdom but of idiocy as every well brainwashed and vindictive little moron jumps on the bandwagon.
Consider how difficult it is to enforce the ban on mobile phones. It will be even more difficult to enforce a ban on smoking in cars as it's easier to hide the activity. However, the secrecy that might be required for successful car smoking may well provide an increased risk. Of course they haven't figured that one out.
However, relax a bit. There are so many elements of these smoking bans that are unenforceable and I fully intend to take advantage of them all. In fact, I shall really enjoy it and as I do so I shall hum the chorus of Obramvoskia!
A few years ago when they started banning smoking on the buses/tube/airlines I did start to think that they might one day think about banning smoking in cars with the excuse of trying to solve congestion on the roads.Rest assured if this government stays in power for much longer they will. They have already started with banning it from work vehicles! I am not quite sure where this would leave me and my husband. Our business (we are both self employed) take us all over England where we do one job in one place per day (we are not in the building trade - we give talks at various places). We have a lot of "props" which we could not put on public transport as it would be totally impractical and also we go to out of the way places not served by public transport. We lease our van under a private leasing agreement and we both smoke. We do not have any logo on our van. There is no way on earth that we are going to stop smoking on our journeys as sometimes we can be on the road for 7 hours a day, so will we be breaking the law?
Whilst on our travels we have noticed that most of the drivers on the really congested roads are smokers, which is probably the reason why they use their cars to give them the freedon to have a cigarette when they want. If I have noticed it then so must these people who wish to ban smoking in cars. They will use this unfair legislation to try to push people onto our already creaking at the seams public transport system. Surely it is against all human rights and decency to force people to go cold turkey like this?
cant we get drivers together that smoke and do adrive slow on major roads and disrupt the citys or refuse to drive vehcles that we cannot smoke in.i am sick of a small minority telling me with stupped laws what i can do and cannot do to myself imean it is not illegal to commit suicide but it is illegal to smoke in your own car.we need to show this gov we are not going to stand for it even if it means we take on the law head on