Would a smoking ban in cars work?

It is not the lighting of the cigarette that is dangerous but driving while holding it. You cannot hold the steering wheel properly and securely while you also have a cigarette in your hand and if you drop it, because it has a hot smouldering end, you could burn yourself, your clothes or your car.

Drop a lit cigarette and you will be looking down and around for the burning fag (or trying to crush your smouldering clothes) and not concentrating on your driving.

At least if you have a phone in your hand you can drop it of an instant to put two hands on the steering wheel and really concentrate, without worrying hat it might set you or the car on fire

Was watching a TV programme the other night where they were catching mobile phone users left, right and centre. One lorry driver was watching a DVD and another was actually texting while driving a huge HGV.

Loved to see their faces when they realised they'd been filmed, because it could be my grandchildren in the car they hit through their gross stupidity.

If you are stopped for a petty reason [or what you think is a petty reason] it means the policeman on duty who sees you is bored.Or needs arrests [yes, they do have quotas.]Actually, doing anything at the wheel of the car is potentially dangerous, unwrapping a sandwhich, eating an apple, looking over your shoulder at quarrelling children, fumbling for another toffee, changing a dvd the list is endless.I don't think they are saying that lighting a ciggy is dangerous in this case though, it's more about the passive smoking when children are present.The thing is, laws are easy to pass, but hard to enforce sometimes [like mobiles and hunting ban.] We have to sort out the ones that really, really need enforcing. Remember, parents that smoke in their own living rooms have children in there as well, do we go down the road of banning that?I don't smoke and never have done, neither does any of my family [or friends, now I come to think of it] but how far are we willing to take the no smoking thing?

I believe that someone, several years ago, was stopped by the police for eating a Kit Kat while driving because they said it made him drive erratically. Unwrapping a Mars Bar or opening a packet of Maltesers while you're driving causes a drop in your concentration but once you get round to eating it, surely you can keep your eyes on the road. Sorry, that's a bit of a digression from the OP.

I am with gillybob it seems incredible that drivers are not allowed to use a phone at the wheel but are allowed to smoke. Children aside I do not think a driver should be allowed to smoke even if his passengers can.

No law stops every law breaker. If it did we would be a murder, theft and rape free society, to name but three crimes. However it does mark out what actions are considered dangerous and the penalties that await you if you are caught or cause an accident. There are a number of drivers serving long prison sentences for causing accidents which killed other people because there attention was diverted by their phone

Our SIL is a police officer, and he says it will be almost unenforceable just like mobile phones only even more less obvious to spot.He says that if a car is pulled over [for suspicious driving or some such thing] and it's then noticed that the driver is smoking [with children on the back seat] he would be told not to [but that's all.] In other words, they aren't going to stop a car with smokers in it unless there is another reason. I don't think the general public realise [I didn't use to] how very few police officers there are in some areas, chasing after what they call real criminals.

The play I went to see last night (Brassed Off) required one of the characters to smoke and it wasn't an electronic cigarette. The smell pervaded the small theatre and it was the only thing about the evening that I didn't enjoy.

My son is an ex smoker. He always smoked at the back door of his house although when he was at mine I made him stand at the bottom of the garden (I figured this would seriously piss him off but he didn't seem too bothered). He hasn't smoked for over a year now (thank goodness) but has become one of those "born again" types who picks up the smell of cigarette smoke from a mile away. He says that he cannot believe how he even thought standing at the back door was acceptable.

Yes durhamjen you are right. On the estate where my son and DiL live there is a house famous for the supply of cheap cigarettes. The owner does a "cigarette run" once a month !

Eloethan, there is a black market in cigarettes as it is, to avoid paying the import duty.
I knew someone who worked for a company which produced vitamin and mineral supplements. He used to smoke in the car with the windows closed with his children in the back of the car. We used to tell him about all the vitamins and minerals he was destroying by smoking.
Suddenly there appeared a smokers' supplement.
He died a few years ago of lung cancer.

I would imagine that banning cigarettes would create a black market - as with other drugs.

I agree bags there are rules/laws in place to cover employees being subject to passive smoking in the workplace which also covers company vehicles (cars and vans). What difference would there be to have the same set of rules apply to anyone carrying a child passenger?

I'm not so sure about law though. I think it's good that the social norms surrounding smoking in the presence of others are changing.

No need to apologise, jings. I was just informing people of another point of view that I've come across. My view is that once you put someone else in the "private space" of your car, it is no longer private. I don't think parents are 'entitled' to impose passive smoking on their kids.

I still think a law against it would be a good thing. It would cause some people to think twice. Every little helps.

Bags sorry but sod state interference in private spaces. Think of the kids. And the welfare of the NHS in reducing future treatment needed.

'Those who already smoke in cars containing children will continue to do so; those who don't will be unaffected by any new law.' That is a statement of fact not an opinion.
I accept that it was meant to be an opinion Absent but it doesn't read like that. Now in your 03.47.27 post you say 'I think' and that makes all the difference.
Just saying

I have seen comments elsewhere about this which suggest that some people (and not just smokers) think this suggestion is too much state interference in private spaces.

Did I ever suggest otherwise?

Well as I said before you are entitled to your opinion, but it is just that. Not a statement of fact.

I don't think a law will make any difference. And I reiterate that people who so stupid – and I mean stupid – that they smoke in a car with children, are unlikely to change their stupid behaviour. I think it would be just like those mothers passing packets of junk food through the railings around a school because they didn't appreciate healthy food for their children.

I suspect that the only thing to that will ultimately be effective is what is already happening – educating young people about the danger of smoking and encouraging them to harangue their parents.

Of course, an outright ban on cigarettes and other tobacco products would certainly reduce smoking and its harmful effects. It would also massively reduce government tax revenues. In spite of having taken up the filthy weed again recently and knowing the results of Prohibition in the USA, I would support a complete ban.

My first paragraph was simply stating a rebuttal of your ridiculous statement absent. You stated quite unequivocally that those who smoke in cars will continue to do so. That is stating that people who smoke in car will wilfully break the law when it is changed. Not all smokers are law breakers. Some are quite nice people. Most have complied with other smoking bans.

It must therefore be my last sentence which you consider to be an 'outburst' but I disagree as I was talking about your rant and saying you're entitled to it.

So not sure what the problem is?

Or perhaps you think that nothing should be done.

There are so many issues affecting child health - including those for which parents are responsible that absent mentioned.

There are also many children who are: living in urban areas with very poor air quality, living in sub-standard, overcrowded, damp, accommodation with mould growing on the walls; suffering health conditions directly related to poor diet, etc., etc. These are all matters over which the government has some control but it chooses to put forward a proposal that, with less money being spent on law enforcement, would have negligible impact.

I would imagine that, given the current climate, there are very few parents who smoke in their cars with children present, and those that do would probably continue to do so even if such a law were introduced.

Given that the number of smokers has drastically reduced over the last twenty or so years, I wonder why the incidence of childhood asthma is now so high. I only knew one girl at school who suffered with asthma - now it seems it is commonplace. It seems to me that there are many other discussions and proposals that should take precedence if we truly want to protect children - but that might involve looking at the food industry, the enforcement of minimum standards in housing, the reduction in car usage, by means of a better and cheaper public transport system, to improve air quality, etc.

Aka Whatever has caused that outburst? I never suggested that smoking and abiding by the law were mutually exclusive. But I do maintain that anyone who is already stupid enough to put their children's health and, possibly, lives at risk by smoking when they are in the a car is unlikely to be affected by a law that the police cannot possibly have the time to monitor. I wasn't ranting – I was merely suggesting examples of other unhealthy practices that could be considered suitable for laws to protect the health of children but which would be equally impractical.

For the record I, to my shame, started smoking again towards the end of last year, having quit two years ago. I am a deeply law-abiding person. I have never smoked in the car or house (children present or not) or in children's playgrounds.

Gillybob I said burger and chips more than once a week.

Does anyone know of anyone that has actually been charged for using a mobile phone whilst driving? There's nothing more scary/annoying than looking in the rear view mirror and seeing the person behind you chatting away on the phone.

But jingl as I have said up there ^^ I see lots of people around here using their phones whilst driving, and apparently getting away with it.

If a current law is being flagrantly broken, what hope is there for this one?

I agree with Absent on this one. The law would be unenforceable and of course it would all be the fault of the police, who are under more than enough pressure right now reconciling rising expectations from the public and falling budgets. And the next logical step would surely have to be making smoking illegal in houses where children live. As you say, Jingle, this would be too hard, and probably undesirable.

Sadly, the sort of parent who doesn't care about a child being enveloped in their cancerous fug isn't going to be too bothered about a law that's only going to net a handful of people a year.