Now drivers face ban on smoking at the wheel

[Tigersoap]

We got it all wrong.
It's driving altogether that should be banned. :P

 

[Z...]

So what data do you have to support your statement that smoking is as dangerous as talking on mobile phones above?

Well I based my opinion on the observation that when I have cigarette in between my fingers I can definitely steer with less precision then without it.
Not to mention situation when amber lands in drivers lap which does tend to happen occasionally especially with open windows.
In additon I ve seen at least once people pulling into the petrol station forgetting that they have lit cigarette in their mouth.

As to the comment that it is unnecessary, I think that is simply a judgement call on your part, reflecting your buying in to the anti-smoking propaganda.

I am examining what you are saying and I think this can hardly be the case considering that I smoke 5-10 cigarettes a day and enjoy it very much. But since I was teenager I never smoked whilst driving and I dont let other people smoke in my car - it really stinks them badly.

 

[Beau]

Deckard, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You can talk all you want about losing steering accuracy but that is subjective, others may not lose any control, and even what is lost is negligible. As for ashes dropping and having a smoke while getting gas, c'mon. Those are so petty things to make it illegal that it blows me away! You can't seriously be using those as reasons for supporting this law?!?! I seriously doubt anyone has died from either of those situations.

Like Henry said, this seems to be a judgement call based on your beliefs and not any objective data.

 

[Beau]

Sure, I've been cut off in traffic by someone on a cellphone who obviously wasn't paying attention, but I don't think "That should be illegal!" I blame the individual's lack of prioritizing his/her awareness, not the object/behavior itself.

Most people can't do both things well - talk on the cell and drive. My own experience is that I tend to dissociate while driving and talking on a cell phone. I usually don't even remember driving or any of the associated acts. Not a good thing! You might be able to, but remember we are not all alike. Not that I'm in favor of making it illegal, but I will say that I think cell phones are evil in and of themselves. I see the cell and smoking bans as legislation created for reasons much different than protecting people.

 

[Mark]

well this one actually makes sense

IMO nobody should smoke whilst driving

Is it OK if I scratch my head, or leg, or arm? Or maybe look at someone in a passing car, or think about what time it is, or talk to someone else in the car?

Where does this crap end? Oh yeah, it's Britain, where everyone is under the eye of a camera non-stop, and soon to be audio, and facial recognition systems, and so on. Pretty soon there're gonna tell you precisely how much milk and sugar to put in your tea and imprison you if you don't obey blindly like a good little sheep.

Then will it be too much?

Sheesh.

This sort of law making has nothing to do with public safety and EVERYTHING to do with building safety for psychopaths who control damn near everything.

 

[Z...]

Deckard, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You can talk all you want about losing steering accuracy but that is subjective, others may not lose any control, and even what is lost is negligible. As for ashes dropping and having a smoke while getting gas, c'mon. Those are so petty things to make it illegal that it blows me away! You can't seriously be using those as reasons for supporting this law?!?! I seriously doubt anyone has died from either of those situations.

Like Henry said, this seems to be a judgement call based on your beliefs and not any objective data.

hmm, I thought I made it clear that I dont agree with such impingment on personal freedoms. Laws like this migh lead to the laws against smoking in your private house, that is very clear.

As for the smoking whilst driving of course it is subjective as are my reasons to be against it. I have many friends who smoke while driving and I never ever raised the issue while being driven in their cars. Everyone is responsible for their own car.
But, by the end of the day you are right it was judgment or buffer made to justify my beliefs.

I was thinking about it and realized that other people probably have cigarette in their mouth leaving their fingers free. For me this is hardly an option as I hate leaving cigarette to hang from my mouth, or even holding it between the teeth as some people do.


You made me look if there are any statistics. There arent many on the net.

I found this though:

(2) The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes,
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, USA

The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety in the USA funded a study by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research published in May 2001. The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes documents the relative reported frequency of serious crashes caused by various forms of driver distraction.

This report included analysis of five years of Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) data - an annual probability sample of approximately 5,000 police-reported crashes involving at least one passenger vehicle that has been towed from the crash scene.

In the study, "driver distraction" is defined as occurring when a driver "is delayed in the recognition of information needed to safely accomplish the driving task because some event, activity, object, or person within or outside the vehicle compels or induces the driver's shifting attention away from the driving task." The presence of a triggering event distinguishes a distracted driver from one who is simply inattentive or 'lost in thought'."

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%

According to the above reports, talking to other passengers - and even singing to oneself - is much more distracting than smoking.

3) Smoking and non-fatal traffic accidents, Médico de Familia, Centro de Salud Delicias Norte, Spain

The suggestion that "smoking" be added to the Highway Code's list of distractions appears to have been arrived at by consulting a study, Smoking and non-fatal traffic accidents, conducted by Médico de Familia, Centro de Salud Delicias Norte, in Zaragoza, Spain in 2001. Its objective was: "To investigate the possible associations between smoking and nonfatal traffic accidents, and to evaluate the possible influence of other factors on traffic accidents."

The study concluded: "In statistical terms, smokers have twice as many accidents as non smokers. The absence of significant differences between smokers who do and do not smoke while driving suggests that smoking increases the risk of being involved in traffic accidents regardless of whether drivers refrain from smoking at the wheel."

In other words, they found that smokers had more accidents than non-smokers (statistically, perhaps dog owners, anglers and beekeepers have more accidents) and then "suggest" (ie they can't prove the link) that smokers are more prone to accidents.

Note that the study did NOT find any significant differences between smokers who do and do not smoke while driving.

Conclusions

As the major international studies show, smoking while driving is one of the LEAST distracting activities in which a driver can engage. The worst distractions are chatting with passengers, outside activity or using a mobile.

Were smoking added to the list of distractions already included in the Highway Code, what would be the consequences? Would drivers stop at the side of the motorway to enjoy a cigarette, potentially causing traffic problems and endangering their safety, and the safety of other road users? Would drivers continue to smoke as they drive while looking out for the police, instead of keeping their eyes on the road?

Drivers often say that smoking helps prevent drowsiness. As drowsiness is a major cause of accidents, might the proposed change to the Highway Code actually lead to more accidents?

While FOREST agrees that drivers should not engage in dangerous driving or drive without due care and attention, adding "smoking" to a list of distractions in the Highway Code is not warranted due to its relative insignificance as a driver distraction, and would cause more problems than it would solve.

Filed 24/05/06

taken from wwwdotforestonlinedotorg/output/page338.asp

so you c it seems that in my subjectivity I wasnt that far off when I eqalized dangers of smoking with dangers of mobile phone use, at least if you look at the ranking on the list :)

 

[Beau]

That ranking is from 2001, no doubt the use of cell phones has increased dramatically since then.

 

[Petey of Lone Tree]

I have just read this thread from beginning to end and I am so upset that I'm going to leave the house, walk to my garage, and have a cigarette.

It's probably not illegal to smoke in the same building where your vehicle is parked. Not yet, anyway.

Then, when I return, I am going to review Laura's article "Aliens Don't Like To Eat People Who Smoke".

 

[Ruth]

but you can see where it is going: You probably shouldn't smoke whilst making a cheese sandwich for example, or for that matter you probably shouldn't be making cheese sandwiches while you are driving, but having specific legislation to outlaw it ....?

Depends on the damage done by a car in a moment of distraction, I suppose. A cheese sandwich coliding with a person at the same speed as a car probably wouldn't do the same damage. Still, there are far more dangerous things to do in a car.

The smoking lobby would 'jump on' this one because it bans smoking and not because smoking is dangerous in a car. I had a quick search of the internet and was interested to see that Washington is only just banning use of hand held cell phones, now. Australia is instigating bans on hands free cell phones for learner drivers and those in their first year of provisional licence.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21735045-661,00.html

My main concern is how do you 'legislate' against squabling siblings in the back seat of a vehicle? As we can all probably remember, it's very common. :D

And, sometimes we forget. Anything that isn't 'secured', such as a person, pet or piece of equipment becomes a projectile in an emergency situation or stop. There was a very sad story here of a mother buying some computer equipment, putting in the back of her car, with kids in the back seat. She had to make and emergency stop and the computer equipment flew forward and broke the child's neck. Sometimes its better to be safe than sorry.

 

[PopHistorian]

Secured indeed. I was at a dead stop at a traffic light once and was rammed from behind. My car was propelled into the one in front of me -- the stereo flew out of the dashboard and missed my head by a few inches.

 

[mada85]

You can talk all you want about losing steering accuracy but that is subjective, others may not lose any control, and even what is lost is negligible.

Until the driver's 'subjective' loss of steering becomes rather more objective when their car hits you…

Anything that distracts you whilst driving should be avoided IMHO, but that requires awareness on the driver's part, and responsibility.

As for ashes dropping and having a smoke while getting gas, c'mon.

Vis a vis cigarette ash igniting petrol, I came across this on the UK Guardian website:

Petrol lit with a cigarette?
Only in the movies

James Randerson, science correspondent
Tuesday February 27, 2007
The Guardian

From Hitchcock's The Birds to The Usual Suspects, it has been one of the staple clichés of Hollywood: the cigarette butt tumbling in slow motion into a pool of petrol unleashing a conflagration.

But if you find yourself tied up and doused in petrol don't worry if all your assailant has is a lighted cigarette: scientists have proved you won't end up as a human fireball.

"On the face of it it's a pretty simple problem," said Richard Tontarski, an expert in forensic fire at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms research laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland. Cigarettes burn at around 700C (1,292F) and the ignition temperature of petrol is 246C. "But it just isn't that simple," he said.

He began looking into the problem because arson suspects frequently claim a petrol fire was started by accident. "The person claims, 'I accidentally threw gasoline on my girlfriend, she was smoking and she burst into flames'," he said.

To find out whether this was possible, he and colleagues experimented. They dropped burning cigarettes into trays of petrol. They sprayed a fine mist of petrol at a lighted cigarette. They even used a vacuum device to produce the higher temperature (900-950C) of a cigarette being sucked. In more than 2,000 attempts the petrol did not ignite.

Dr Tontarski can only speculate why. The layer of ash on the tobacco, perhaps, or the petrol vapour convected away from the hottest part of the cigarette.

So is he in touch with Hollywood to demand it drops the explosive movie cliché? "Actually they are pretty well aware of it. They don't care."

http://www(dot)guardian(dot)co(dot)uk/science/story/0,,2022042,00.html

This law is designed to increase the controls, drop by drop, and get people used to more and more laws affecting every aspect of life. I think, too, that these kinds of laws are also designed to send a message to Joe Public that, 'You are not intelligent or responsible enough to be in control of your own life.' And bit by bit, people are believing them.

"Actually they are pretty well aware of it. They don't care." The same throughout Hollow-wood, the pathocracy, and by now, the majority of the populace.

I have heard of drivers being prosecuted for biting into an apple, here in the UK, while waiting at a traffic light and in their stationary car!!

The problem is, IMHO, that as people are dumbed down and brainwashed to distrust themselves and think of themselves as incompetent, irresponsible and stupid, so they will be asking for more and more laws like this one, to 'protect them from themselves'.

It's a very devious and quite horribly brilliant strategy on the part of the pathocrats.

Personally, I'm going to petition the government to install security cameras in my home. Why should I have to go out all the time so someone can keep an eye on me and make sure I'm safe? I'm so stupid I can't look after myself any more...aren't I...?