Smoking in Cars Carrying Children

Hintza

kwmlondon wrote: »

My mum smoked in the car with me, she'd never smoke in the car with her grandson as she knows the risks now.

Aye but you still don't have any children, so why are you on such a crusade?

As I have already pointed out the research is flawed as they did their tests with a stationary car. Neither they nor you know if it is all that harmful. Living in London is probably more harmful in the long term from all the pollution. So I presume when you do finally have children you will be moving out of London?

A._Badger

Passive smoking zealots may care to read some of the more recent research.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract

Here's an article about it. Not too many long words involved.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/

kwmlondon

Hintza wrote: »

Aye but you still don't have any children, so why are you on such a crusade?

As I have already pointed out the research is flawed as they did their tests with a stationary car. Neither they nor you know if it is all that harmful. Living in London is probably more harmful in the long term from all the pollution. So I presume when you do finally have children you will be moving out of London?

I could just as easily ask why you don't care about children's health.

Jamie_Carter

Horizon81 wrote: »

It's worked so well for mobile phones hasn't it? Rarely a week goes by without me seeing a driver chatting on one. I'm sure people who spend much more time on the roads than I do see it almost daily.

Yes there are still loads of people who use mobiles whilst driving. Just the same as there are still loads of people who break the speed limit, or drink and drive. But most people who have been caught once, are far less likely to do it again.

Horizon81 wrote: »

Anyway, back to smoking. How can police judge at a glance if a passenger is under 18? Are we even looking at 18 or 16 as the definition for a child?

I can't believe you even said that!!
What does a police officer do if they suspect anyone of committing any offence whilst under age?? They stop them to find out.


Your arguments don't add up at all, you are just clutching at straws now.

Jamie_Carter

Hintza wrote: »

Aye but you still don't have any children, so why are you on such a crusade?

As I have already pointed out the research is flawed as they did their tests with a stationary car. Neither they nor you know if it is all that harmful. Living in London is probably more harmful in the long term from all the pollution. So I presume when you do finally have children you will be moving out of London?

You really do like to bury your head in the sand, and try to find excuses for your irresponsible behaviour don't you?

jaydeeuk1

Drink Driving is illegal, speeding is illegal, holding and using phone while driving is illegal, so why shouldn't smoking in the car full stop be illegal? Mate of mine who is a heavy smoker (20 a day), not long turned 40 had cancer a couple of years ago in stomach, lung and testicle, was cured but is now back in both lungs and has several weeks, if not months of intensive chemo meaning he needs to stay in hospital Mon-Fri for the next few months and not see much of his 3 year old daughter.

Still smokes too, silly !!!!!!. Its like a form of prolonged suicide.

Horizon81

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Your arguments don't add up at all, you are just clutching at straws now.

Haha yes and yours add up perfectly! Is the upper age limit for a child for the purposes of this smoking ban in cars 16 or 18? Lets say it's 18. Lets say you're a 17 year old smoker, after all it's not a criminal offence to smoke at under age 18. So you could be driving a car, on your own, age 17 puffing away. You're both culprit and victim at the same time. Or maybe you're age 17, a passenger and are enjoying a cigarette with the driver who's an adult. Is the driver guilty then?

The overall issue was discussed on Question Time last night and the sensible panellists concluded that even if this silly law does come in, the police aren't going to spend much time peering through car windows looking for people surreptitiously smoking a tab.

WTFH

Ban children from cars.

If children are banned from being in cars then there is no risk of them catching a disease from the driver by being in the car.
The driver also has no distraction on the backseat that they have to turn around to talk to, so there will be fewer accidents.
Traffic congestion in towns and villages will be greatly reduced due to no more yummy mummies parking their 4x4s half on a double yellow line and half on the pavement to drop Chardonnay and Tarquin off at school because it's too cold for them to walk. This saves fuel and reduces pollution for everyone.
Fewer abandoned cars at schools would mean a reduction in traffic wardens, which means the councils would no longer outsource them, fines could be decreased and MSE would have fewer posters giving out immoral advice on how to deliberately break the law but get away without penalty.

In fact I can't think of one reason why it would be a bad idea to ban children from cars.

[Deleted User]

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Not if done responsibly.

there is no safe level of tobacco use

Jamie_Carter

Horizon81 wrote: »

Haha yes and yours add up perfectly! Is the upper age limit for a child for the purposes of this smoking ban in cars 16 or 18? Lets say it's 18. Lets say you're a 17 year old smoker, after all it's not a criminal offence to smoke at under age 18. So you could be driving a car, on your own, age 17 puffing away. You're both culprit and victim at the same time. Or maybe you're age 17, a passenger and are enjoying a cigarette with the driver who's an adult. Is the driver guilty then?

The overall issue was discussed on Question Time last night and the sensible panellists concluded that even if this silly law does come in, the police aren't going to spend much time peering through car windows looking for people surreptitiously smoking a tab.

So you are now making assumptions about the age. As I said, your arguments don't add up.