What a load of mad, self-obsessed twaddle.
Clearly the OP was born 100 years too soon. By the time the world is fit for him I will be dead thank goodness.
Of course he may be unlucky. Things could slip and go backwards. It could be a nightmare of savage cannibal anarchy by then, with no cigarettes available along with no food, no energy and no consumer products. Perhaps that will be a relief to some.
Edited by Lud on 27/12/2009 at 18:28
|
Some people are clearly too delicate for this world, what with a whiff of cigarette smoke threatening to kill them stone dead.
Lucky the OP wasn't round my house on Xmas day, when the rich and plentiful diet consumed in abundance from morning on led to some pretty fierce greenhouse gasses wafting through the air.
|
|
I wondered how long it would be before posts like this sprouted up.
|
Fag ends are bio-degradeable - which is more than one can say for chewing gum. If OP wants a crusade he would get more support for a gum one!
|
I've driven about half a million miles in the my driving career, in and around London, Manchester, Birmingham and other major cities, and out and about in the countryside, and not ONCE have I been inconvenienced or endangered by a smoker.
Tailgaters, people who don't look before pulling out, people who dawdle, people who can't comprehend the simple Highway Code rules on motorway lane usage, people who can't work foglights properly, people who can't read road markings....yes, but smokers? Never.
|
I couldn't give a toss about the smoke part... just wind my window up...
But I have been on the receiving end of a lighted fag but being chucked out of a window when I was on my motorbike and got it full in the face, luckily I used to drive with the visor virtually shut so no harm other than the shock of it hitting me... I did, I'm afraid, give him a few choice words at the next set of lights about using his ashtray in future though...
You could say that he was in stationary traffic, therefore there was little risk, and I'd agree, the trouble is that these sorts of people don't think that way, they just chuck it out regardless of what speed they are doing...
Always two sides to a discussion, eh! :-)
|
|
One of the evident side-effects of nicotine deprivation seems to be a heightened sense of self-righteousness!
|
|
This thread has given me the biggest laugh for a long time.
|
|
Paul me ole Son, as you may have gathered - there are a few idiots on this Forum, just as there are anywhere in life today.
Anyone who throws a cigarette butt out of a car should be given a fixed penalty IMHO.
|
IMO smoking whilst driving is as, if not more dangerous than using a mobile phone.
|
IMO smoking whilst driving is as if not more dangerous than using a mobile phone.
TST got a large wooden spoon for Christmas...i agree though and i've never smoked.;)
|
|
Smoking and driving properly at the same time does take a little bit of practice at first but you soon get the hang of it. Accurate butt flicking is a much higher level skill but it comes in time to those prepared to put the work in.
|
...and what about those drivers who are so stressed that they get out of their car at the smallest incident? Not sure they are safe to be driving amongst...?
(smokie, on the verge of giving up again, but having second thoughts having read this...)
|
Thank you Tony & Perro
Some very sensible posts at last!
indeed, 'smoking is more dangerous than,' whilst trying to drive.
I live on the border of london & drive to work in london. it may not happen every day but i do get caught up in the stench of cig smoke in statict/slow moving traffic.
There are many places where there are multiple lanes when i travel to work & almost every day especailly in the morning i see these anti-social, uneducated, uncaring law breakers throw out their cig ends. it is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident that is attributed to a fool throwing out his/her fag end into the lap of a driver, hence accident eg, driver loses control and mounts pavement or knocks off push bike rider/etc/etc.
Any smokers here will agree with me that they often smoke and try to drive in the morning, poss because of stress of going to work as they may hate their job or not hack it there.
have you seen the face of these drivers that have manual cars and trying to keep up with stop start traffic, ie have the fag stuck in their mouth,smoke going into their eyes and face screwed up.
i'm not an 'ex smoker,' and did go to pubs/etc where people smoked and did not even wink. however, a no smoking policy was bought in about 15 years ago. Over the last 5/7 years i've rarely gone to the pub. This no smoking policy means you only see the odd idiot breaking the law in a covered shopping centre by smoking. Hence my probs with the stink but more importantly my concern about their dangerous behaviour.
Call me names if you must but my concerns are genuine. However, I appreciate that the stench of fag smoke from other vehicles whilst driving is a bit OTT, but it is a concern to me.
The law must not only be changed, but enforced.
smoking whilst driving must be outlawed. Those littering our streets from their vehicles with fag ends must get 6 penalty points.
finally, how many times have you seen follish, uncaring, dangerous adults in a relatively old car smoking whilst they drive and one or more children in their car? Through work i've been to peoples homes that smoke, have young children, the walls are often yellow with nicotine stains, home stinks, but imagine what is happening to their children!
i'm made my point. possibly my intially post could have been a bit more diplomatic as I'm a passive guy. however, i feel strongly about this subject and will now leave other sensible drivers to agree with me that people that smoke and drive must be outlawed.
|
"Call me names if you must ..."
I would have been the first to,but it'd be bad form for a moderator so I won't! But I do think you need to get things in proportion and you are choosing to overlook some very valid points above regarding your car being many time more polluting etc.
Edited by smokie on 28/12/2009 at 08:25
|
"I will now leave other sensible drivers to agree with me that people that smoke and drive must be outlawed." I am sensible but I do not subscribe to this OTT sentiment. More reminiscent of East Germany in the 50s than UK in 2009
|
Moderation would delete my true feelings on this poster within seconds so I will refrain.
I often sit there on the Western Avenue behind a bus belching PM10's into the air, and wonder just how fresh and pleasant the air outside would be if those pesky smokers around me just quit.
Cigarette smoke in stationery traffic is completely irrelevant, and the least of the OP's problems, if only he were prepared to remove his blinkers.
|
|
In his urgency to get into a fight over nothing, he is likely to be a danger on the roads. Until that is his prayers are answered but he picks a fight with the wrong one and the butt in question will be the one to his head that lands him on his.
|
Hi Paul,
you make some good points I feel- there is a slight risk of a butt injuring someone (viz b308) and the smell for a non-smoker isn't pleasant.
However, you make these points very, very badly indeed, and if you really want to win people over to your side then you'll need to learn something about making your case. I suspect even some non-smokers posted against you here, just because of the way you come across. If you don't mind, I'll critique you a little?
1."went over to the fool by Chelsea bridge traffic lights and rebuked the fool."
Pejorative, and makes you sound like B.A. Baracas.
2. "thick people".
Your post is littered with grammatical and spelling mistakes. Calling someone thick or ignorant while doing this makes you look thicker.
3. "He wanted to swear by all accounts"
??? by all accounts? Whose accounts? Not clear on this at all. What do you mean?
4. "As I expected, a foul post from an uneducated fag smoking poster."
You have no evidence to prove this. The poster can use a PC, posts regular, cogent points on this site, so uneducated?
So, really just a word to the wise. Make your point, make it well, but lay off the name-calling at least- its probably no skin off your nose, but if I think someone is a trooll I quietly ignore their posts and refrain from replying, and I suspect others do the same.
On this forum, the only posters who name-call are those who wish to inflame and insult- they post a couple of posts and never come back- they're trolls- that's not you, is it, Paul?
regards
tt
Edited by theterranaut on 28/12/2009 at 08:54
|
First let me confess I'm a heavy smoker and it's posts like the OP's that make me want to drive with one in each hand as I do indeed, on National No Smoking Day to show my disapproval:)
I dislike the semll of exhaust fumes, more so in heavy traffic, rush hour and when in tunnels.
I dislike the smell that emits from air conditioned offices where it is a mortal sin to open a window and let in some fresh air.
I dislike the smell of stale alcohol on people's breath the morning after.
I could go on.
But they are just that............smells.
To balance that I love the smell of the sea, newly mown grass, a garden in full bloom, CastrolR and farmyards.
You state the case of the look on the smokers face, but I've yet to see a jogger looking happy whilst jogging, yet he would argue that he enjoys the exercise.
You feel strongly about smoking so OK, don't do it then, but while I agree to you having freedom of choice, then I expect you to respect my freedom of choice to smoke.
That is until you can remove the smells that I dislike from this world.
The smoking ban has only achieved one thing.
It's given everyone the right to be down right rude to anyone who dares to enjoy a smoke.
Pat
|
Paul, I am one of the world's most anti-smokers since it took the life of my mum when I was only 13.
I hate the smell of smoke and I hate being polluted by cigarette smoke.
However, all things need to be in reason.
I cannot agree with someone who drives huge cars in stop/start city traffic complain about the pollution from a cigarette? Come on, get serious Paul?
However, some of your comments I do agree on - driving whilst trying to set fire to something in your mouth is allowed? I also have seen your example many times of drivers holding a fag, whilst trying to signal and change gear etc and its not particularly smooth!
I agree re your bugbear of seeing drivers smoking away and the kids in the back seat inhaling all the fumes.
But you must realise that many smokers do so, as their parents and grandparents did and they do not know any different.
|
A couple of years ago a fire claims investigator told me that around 30%b of all vehicle fires are caused by discarded cigarettes. It's surprisingly easy for them to be sucked into engine air inlets where fanned by the inrushing air they set fire to paper air filters. So paul2007 has a genuine case. HJ
thank you HJ
This is an incredible stat.
The guys cig did land and i reiterate, between the end of the bonnet and windscreen. it was lit for, up to 2 mins judging by the smoke.
as i said earlier, i could have posted this subject without getting a bit angry.
smokers have a right to smoke where it is legally permitted.
however, most reasonable, socially aware people will not smoke in vheclices with babies inside it or indeed chuck out fag ends out of their vehicles thus putting others at risk of death and destruction.
i apologise for calling the offending driver a fool/etc, but was a bit angry. this is not my style here, or the real world - just check my posts.
if people wish to smoke, their choice but please do not inflict on others, nor throw out your fag ends out of the vehicle.
surely there must be people here that have seen company vehicles that are disgnated as 'work places' being smoked in. this is an offence.
my brother hired a car in june, smelt of fags, he swiftly rejected it 7 the hire company was going to try and charge the guy extra.
when we went on hols in the summer to California - our beach front rental home smelt of cigs. we complained as our daughter is asthmatic, they home hire people moved us to another asap.
smoking may have been acceptable years ago, but it is generally deemed anti-social by the masses these days.
I confess, i drink the odd glass of whisky, tastes great. but if someone else has had an alcoholic drink and i have not, i hate the smell on their breath.
If you want to smoke with your kids in your car, your choice but i'd report you to social services if i had it my way.
To be concise: Smoking and throwing the fag end out of the window is a criminal offence & danger to others.
(I am aware that there are quiet a few cig smokers that do not throw their cig ends out of their car & i take my hat off to you)
|
A couple of years ago a fire claims investigator told me that around 30%b of all vehicle fires are caused by discarded cigarettes..
Thinking that such a staggering 'statistic' would surely have been commented upon/studied by learned institutions/reported/become a cause celebre/subject of Parliamentary debate etc. etc., I googled the various cocktails of 'cause' , vehicle' , 'fire' , 'smoking' , 'cigarettes' etc & found virtually no causal link between them. In fact about the only identifiable cause/effect I found was of an old chap in Suffolk, some years ago, who set his car alight in a car park accidentally when he dropped a burning cigarette.
Of course, the presence of naked flame, combusting & combustible materials were noted as as potential dangers of course - as were sweet wrappers, gas canisters (camping gaz?) hair-spray containers & all the other forms of goods & detritus carried in vehicles.
From this (and although google searches aren't 'admissible' evidence as such...) I conclude that the 'around 30%' figure for vehicle fire cause is about as convincing as an 'up to 30% off sale items' banner is of getting a bargain - i.e. not very!
However, if the claims investigator has more convincing & verifiable evidence perhaps he or she should not tarry & deliver the evidence forthwith to RoSPA or other influential body/authority.
|
The smoking ban has only achieved one thing. It's given everyone the right to be down right rude to anyone who dares to enjoy a smoke.
Actually Pat, no it hasn't... its allowed people like me who are asthmatic to be able to visit pubs again to have a quiet pint or two and not have to take my inhaler with me, leave early or have to wash all my clothes as soon as I got home...
If smokers had been a little more considerate about how they smoked they would not have been subject to the draconian measures that have been enforced, but you weren't and have now reaped what you sowed. Carry on smoking by all means, but keep it to yourself rather than try and spread it round... To keep a motoring theme, keep it to your cab or car, especially your butts! ;-)
Edited by b308 on 28/12/2009 at 19:22
|
that is a joke?
since the smoking ban in pubs , and all the smokers staying at home , i have not seen anymore non smokers in the pubs
in fact the truth is , that pubs are shutting down because of lack of customers
|
not seen anymore non smokers in the pubs in fact the truth is that pubs are shutting down because of lack of customers
Yes, but we can stay all night now if we want to, and not have to leave half way through like I've had to, Freddy! And my asthma is not that bad either.
As for pubs closing, they were doing that at the same rate before the smoking ban, its nice that you think that smokers were keeping pubs alive, but thats just not true, if it were then pubs that sell cheap booze like Wetherspoons would also be closing, not expanding... What is killing pubs is the price you can buy booze at supermarkets and the wholesale price of booze sold to pubs... thats why more people are staying at home and not going out. Its cheaper. Nothing at all to do with smokers!
|
I'd be interested in your opinions B308, on why pub landlords shouldn't be allowed to choose either to run a totally no smoking pub or one that allows smoking?
Surely it's their business, their trade and their livelihood at risk.
On the other hand non smokers would have the freedom of choice to visit whichever pub they preferred, as would smokers.
At least there would be the old traditional pubs being retained, instead of the 'restaurant with creche' we have them turning into now to keep in business.
Pat
|
Before I say anything, I'd say we're going off topic and certainly motoring so I wouldn't be surprised if we get told off! But (very briefly)...
1. I don't agree with your and Freddy's assumption that smokers kept "traditional" pubs going.
2. As long as the bar staff have the choice to work in a "clean" environment if they so wish, then I don't have a problem with "split" pubs, never have done, the only issue I had before is that smokers had the choice, but the rest of us didn't! But by saying one pub is completely smoking you give non smokers no choice, that I don't agree with. But I can see why you are annoyed that we've gone from one extreme to the other, but I would hope that you could see our non-smokers point of view as well, you had it all your way and now its all ours, both are wrong, there should be compromise.
3. Traditional pubs can still exist with smoking bans and still do, a pub doesn't have to be nicotine coloured inside to be traditional, you are making assumptions that smokers keep them alive, as I've said before I fundamentally don't agree with you on that, its down to price of supermarket booze, not the smoking ban...
The reason we see more and more "food" pubs is because thats where they can make money, and that why you see even back street boozers selling the stuff, and for country pubs who rely on people driving there (motoring connection, phew!) its their only way to make any money.
Edited by b308 on 29/12/2009 at 10:08
|
I'm glad to see we can meet in the middle somewhere:)
My idea of a traditonal pub though is very different to yours.
It is where men go to drink,smoke, swear, play dominoes and cribbage and to generally get away from the family for five minutes peace.
Women venture in them at their peril and accept it or not, as the case may be!
Now I stand in so called traditional pubs, without a cigarette but can accept that, and find myself surrounded by children with badly behaved parents who prefer to drink at the bar and ignore what little Freddie is getting up to and all this is under the guise of 'eating out'
>>>>>runs away and hides:)
Pat
|
Pat - I think ladies are now admitted to the 'lounge'
The 'smoke room' and 'tap room' are still male preserves, I believe :-)
|
I go in pubs with the lads on a night out, dressed in my uniform, you see. That's how I know what goes on in those 'other rooms' :)
Pat
night out =up the road= in the lorry! I really have to teach you lot lorry driver lingo!
Edited by pda on 29/12/2009 at 11:58
|
Something to bear in mind about pubs is that they are privately run businesses where you enter at the landlords invitation, they are not a branch of the Social Services. If the landlord permitted smoking on his premises that was his business, and if you didn't like it you could take a few cans home and drink there. Or go to a pub that didn't permit smoking, there must have been loads as demand for them was so high, as the anti smoking lobby kept telling us.
Another example of government intrusion into our lives, and within the next ten years I fully expect to see a ban on smoking in cars, on the grounds that the next person you sell it to will have children who will die immediatly because of fumes trapped in the headlining, or whatever crap they can commision some quango or other to come up with.
|
RR, nice to see tollerance to us non-smokers... not! Your post summarises quite nicely why this country had to introduce some sort of ban - it reeks of intollerance, "I'm ok, to heck with the rest of you" - even though we were the majority...
Pat, as I said, a traditional pub doesn't have to reek of smoke, and the rest of your list I'm quite in agreement...
I feel that although I am willing to compromise, it seems some smokers aren't... they seem to feel that we are pcking on them, when will they understand that until recently it was the other way round... learn to compromise chaps (not directed at you, Pat).
|
b308,
The pud trade offered a compromise of screened off smoking areas which were well ventilated and protected those who did not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke from so being. This was rejected in favour of a total ban, so I think it is obvious on which side the intolerance lies.
|
It was tried and didn't work, as you well know... Totally seperate rooms did work, but were very difficult in older pubs, shared bars for instance made it virtually impossible. Hence the total ban.
I have had to suffer smoke in pubs virtually all my life, blown deliberately in my face, people lighting up in restaurants when I was eating (but after they had finished), the list was endless... However I very rairly complained, I tollerated their indulgence even though it meant that my time out was restricted by having to get out to somewhere where I could breath normally again. I've never experienced these tollerent smokers you see to think were around, so to be honest I have little sympathy in their cause especially especially as it now seems we non smokers are being made out to be the villans of the piece...
You would do well to remember that it was the Gov who put in the total ban, not the majority of non-smokers, who, like me were willing to compromise. Had smokers thought of others and compromised earlier we probably wouldn't have had to have such draconian measures put in place, but it was clear that the majority of smokers were not prepared to compromise what they thought was their "right" to smoke wherever and whenever they wanted, regardless of others.
I really feel that some smokers need to step back for a minute and try to see it from a non smokers point of view.
Edited by b308 on 29/12/2009 at 14:21
|
"Totally seperate rooms did work, but were very difficult in older pubs, shared bars for instance made it virtually impossible"
Not sure about that, b308. The older pubs generally started out with separate rooms - which were ripped apart to make 'open plan' areas in the 70's.
|
|
There are probably examples of both, but the sort I think Pat and I refer to are the old boozers with a "bar" and a "snug", they were seperate but I think you'll find they had a shared bar in most cases... Shame, as I used to like those places and they are quite rare these days...
|
in fact the truth is that pubs are shutting down because of lack of customers
Yes but they are the pubs which aren't very good. The big pub chains which offer an environment not just for drinkers are making great profits, the smoking ban has increased sales for them.
Traditional Pubs have been hit by many things over the years:
An awareness of drinking and driving (my motoring link!)
Higher costs of distribution compared to grocery retail
Supermarket efficiency and incredible (maybe loss making) offers
24 hour drinking (this was not a law for pubs/clubs, it was for the supermarkets)
Social changes, TV choice, Internet, more eating out of the home, health awareness
The smoking ban is a wonderful thing and everyone I know thinks the same. I hope they ban public outdoor spaces such as high streets, also banning cigarettes vending machines and covering them in shops like they do in Canada would be a big improvement
|
|
Hear Hear!! But not let us forget the chewing gum drivers as well, just think of what would happen if they happened to swallow it ! Carnage, absolute carnage !
|
Goodness Gracious!
This person would really have been upset following my old Lagonda about half a century ago. The paintwork (Valspar, remember?) was readily renewable, and I would knock my pipe out on the side. There was a cutaway in the bodywork which facilitated this.
But people were more tolerant then.
|
|
|
|
Fag ends are bio-degradeable -<<
Oh no they arn't,filters are made of cellulose acetate,a plastic.There are now so many on the streets,thanks to the ban,that they may end up in your loft.
tinyurl.com/ye3uhzn
Chucking one out of your car window could cost you £500,well,if you are a bit of an idiot as well.
tinyurl.com/y8p6hwh
|
|
|
>>Fag ends are bio-degradeable <<
Actually they are not. The filter takes eons to degrade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
