All - Smoking in company vehicles - wrangler_rover

I am a company car driver and a non smoker so this doesn't apply to me.

I understand that company provided vehicles, be they cars, vans or lorries are classed as part of the workplace and as such are subject to smoking in them being prohibited.

In the local newspaper today, an Environmental Health Officer from a Lincolnshire District Council spotted 2 workers smoking in their works van. he issued them both with a penalty ticket for £50, reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days. The passenger promptly paid £30, the driver ignored it, was taken to court and was fined £200 + £85 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

An expensive smoke?

All - Smoking in company vehicles - oldroverboy

An employee was sacked because he was alleged to have lit a cigarette in his car in the works car park where smoking was prohibited, This despite being a non-smoker. The lunatics are winning. Even in your own property if it is a vehicle being used for work it is illegal, if you are a company car driver it is illegal, ever more pernicious ways to extract money..

And am i lucky i don't smoke? Recently i was warned for dropping a cigarette butt in the street, (it blew past me, and the enforcer wanted to give me a ticket for littering,) but i stood my ground, said i did not smoke, had NOT thrown away a cigarette butt, and if he wanted to proceed he could call plod and i would willingly wait for them, all this in a calm quiet voice.

bit of muttering and off he went in search of another victim. I regularly see them watching people who smoke. And what about the idiot who wanted to give a ticket to a man who withdrew money from a cash machine and £10 fell on the floor and the man picked it up.

Edited by OldRoverboy on 15/08/2012 at 20:22

All - Smoking in company vehicles - Smileyman

When the no smoking law came into force in my capacity as fleet manager I had to go around to all the company vehicles and stick the regulation 'no smoking' signs on the dashboard.

All - Smoking in company vehicles - unthrottled

It is perfectly legal to smoke in a company car provided that the car is solely for the use of one employee. If a vehicle is shared, then smoking is not permitted, even if all users smoke or a non smoker is not present.

Ridiculous, cumbersome law that smacks of legacy politics and way beyond any health and safety risk. Pretty soon the government will succeed in their desire to bully people into quitting-and when the financial impact is realised, they'll immediately wish they hadn't.

The £8 billion raised in excise duty is useful, but the real saving is in the reduction of geriatric care and pension provision.

All - Smoking in company vehicles - motorprop

No sympathy for smokers at all . Tends to be the uneducated or fatalistic who partake

Lots of people have crashes on their way to buy cigs. I'm with Australia on this one (plain packaging, out of sight )

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - unthrottled

Omega 3 fatty acid supplements should be in plain packaging and out of sight. Bought by selfish narcissts who want their to live to 115 but want their longevity to be subsidised by others.

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - bathtub tom

Leave the smokers alone. I'm a non-smoker and I reckon they save me a fortune in tax, because let's face it, the government would only find other sources for the revenue.

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - Bobbin Threadbare

I can see why companies get uppity about it; you sell your fleet vehicles after 3 years and nobody wants to buy the ones that have been smoked in because it's so hard to get rid of the smell.

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - unthrottled

I quite agree. But surely that should be a contractual matter, rather than a legal one?

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - motorprop

Contractual becomes Legal when one party feels cheated.

You can consume a million Omega 3, but that wouldn't cause somebody else cancer, just yourself, possibly

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - FP

"I'm a non-smoker and I reckon they save me a fortune in tax..."

They may pay a lot in tax, but they cost the National Health Service a hell of a lot in treatment. Do you have any idea of the cost of cancer or heart disease treatment?

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - No FM2R II

>>Do you have any idea of the cost of cancer or heart disease treatment?

No, and clearly neither do you.

Annual tobacco oriented tax contribution is approximately £9bn excluding VAT.

Annual NHS Budget is around £105bn.

So, you feel that tobacco driven cancer and heart disease amounts to 10% of everything the NHS does, do you?

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - FP

I'm flattered that you have brought your scrutiny of my comments to this thread.

"So, you feel that tobacco driven cancer and heart disease amounts to 10% of everything the NHS does, do you?"

No, in fact it doesn't. The cost to the NHS of treating smoking-related diseases in 2008/9 was reckoned to be £5.86 billion, 5.5% of the total budget. (Source: tinyurl.com/5tbk6vh)

Your figure for tax revenue from tobacco products for 2008/9 is probably about right.

To be fair, I didn't actually say that the two figures balanced, though I did think they would be closer. And I'm probably biased because I'm a non-smoker and work in a hospice.

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - No FM2R II

>>5.5% of the total budget

and only 65% of the tax collected. Again, excluding VAT - also a tax and also collected.

So, this "reasoned argument" is proving to be a little harder than sweeping and incorrect statements or implications then.

You're also going to have to struggle past your bias if you wish to stick to reasoned arguments; which I'm sure you prefer.

Edited by No FM2R II on 16/08/2012 at 18:43

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - FP

I can apologise for my initial comment, if you wish, as it seems to have upset you.

What I said was that although I didn't actually equate the two figures concerning smoking-related diseases, I expected them to be close. I was wrong. I'm not actually making any reasoned arguments here and it was never a matter of argument anyway, but of facts.

I am also very sorry that I was/am biased.

Edited by FP on 16/08/2012 at 19:04

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - No FM2R II

Please don't misunderstand, there's never any need to apologise to me for discussing a matter, however rowdily.

I also don't mind any comments, asides, or anything else, as long as you don't mind me doing the same.

I'd kind of object to unintelligent abuse, however I doubt you're the type to stoop to that.

And being biased is not an issue, rather the opposite. In my experience someone who maintains that they are not biased is usually the issue.

Anyway, as we were, I'm clearly right and you're not.

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - FP

"Please don't misunderstand, there's never any need to apologise to me for discussing a matter, however rowdily."

Oh dear.

I suggest you check how irony works.

But you are clearly right. As regards facts, that is.

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - Bobbin Threadbare

Guys - this sniping is really b***** boring now. The bigger man will be the one who can just shut up and ignore the silly comments.

(Edit - quite right, Bobbin - I've removed the most offensive of them.)

Edited by Avant on 18/08/2012 at 12:13

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - No FM2R II

>> just shut up and ignore the silly comments

But then how will I tell you I'm taking the moral high ground and ignoring it?

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - RT

>>Do you have any idea of the cost of cancer or heart disease treatment?

No, and clearly neither do you.

Annual tobacco oriented tax contribution is approximately £9bn excluding VAT.

Annual NHS Budget is around £105bn.

So, you feel that tobacco driven cancer and heart disease amounts to 10% of everything the NHS does, do you?

You would need to add the social cost of benefits for those unable to work due to smoking related causes - I've no idea what that amounts to but it's part of the total cost.

It may be a flawed democracy but the provisions of the smoking ban were debated by parliament and affected individuals could lobby their MPs.

I do like the facts that I can go to a pub for a drink, or several, and not go home stinking like an ashtray.

All - Smoking in company vehists icles - No FM2R II

>>You would need to add the social cost of benefits for those unable to work due to smoking related causes

But also you would need to discount the cost of care in old age since the smoker may well be dead sooner.

I don't think there's a financial argument for banning smoking, in fact the opposite may well be true. I think there is a very clearly social argument for banning it in some places - hospitals, schools, pubs, restaurants etc.

But it does seem to go beyond the logical and reasonable to the pointless hounding.

All - Smoking in company vehicles - TeeCee

>> Lots of people have crashes on their way to buy cigs.

And newspapers, we should ban those.

Oh and what about supermarkets, loads of people crash on the way to those, must ban 'em.

Don't get me started on DIY warehouses, death traps they are.

Edited by Avant on 18/08/2012 at 12:14

All - Smoking in company vehicles - motorprop

I was pointing out an observation that I have formed over the years : A disproportionate amount of accidents happen in journeys where the purpose of the outing is just to buy smokes . Not when buying newspapers , milk or bathroom tiles. The craving overtakes normal rationale . ' I only popped out for me fags '

Smokers should be loaded on insurance , if they aren't already.

Edited by Avant on 18/08/2012 at 12:14

All - Smoking in company vehicles - concrete

We employ people who happen to be smokers, and to comply with the law there are certain places they cannot smoke i.e. company vehicles. A straw pole today revealed than non of them feel particularly inconvenienced by this law. They can smoke in many places and that satisfies them. I am not a smoker but it does not bother me if other people wish to and it does not offend me if they smoke when we are together outside. I think most will agree that pubs, restaurants, cinemas, shops etc are that bit nicer now than when smoking was allowed inside. However the legislation, like many others becomes utterly discredited when officious jobsworths apply their interpretation to any situation. The Health and Safety Act is the most often misquoted and much maligned law. It is used to justify pompous acts from pompous people, then use it as a shield for their sheer b*****- mindedness. We recently had to dismiss a safety officer because of his over zealous attitude and application of the most petty guidelines. He was making life very difficult for site operatives to such an extend that moral and production was diminished. The words sense and common never came together in his interpretation. As a result safety becomes a chore and a drag instead of an integral part of the working day. Anyone who wants to be safety officer should immediately be barred from any post concerned with safety. Like a lot of things in life, it's not what you do but the way that you it. Cheers Concrete

All - Smoking in company vehicles - dieseldogg

Hmmmm,

Factor in the much reduced need for Fire & Rescue Services in the absence of smokers and the savings would start to mount up considerably.

A local watch Commander with whom I am friendly allows most of their fire related calls have a ciggarete (and probably drink forby) involved, or indeed drink and the chip pan.

Why else do houses go on fire??

Ditto the previous pre smoking ban in restruants, ignorant thick selfish smokers seemed to feel perfectly at home spoiling it for others, ciggarete casually nonchantly held back over their shoulder, gosh they would not want to blow smoke in their dining companions face

But excuse dear/sir I am sitting right behind you

Humph

Oh and the dismissive "flick" of the butt when finished, cos obviously that anit litter is it??

However generally Cigar & Pipe smokers are in a different class altogether

Edited by dieseldogg on 16/08/2012 at 17:55

All - Smoking in company vehicles - No FM2R II

>>Why else do houses go on fire??

51% from cooking.

And 7% from smokers materials.

Interestingly, even though smoking materials only accoutn for 7% of fires, they actually account for 35% of the deaths. (96 in 2010). I guess smokers frequently set fire to themselves.

All - Smoking in company vehicles - No FM2R II

On a further point, I don't always understand what the anti-smokers are after.

Not smoking in pubs and restaurants seems eminently sensible, much more pleasant. But complaining about smoking areas seems a little OTT.

Not smoking on buses and trains, seems pretty appropriate as well. But not smoking in your "own" company car? Seems a bit excessive.

It seems worse in the UK, although I do notice it in other countries as well, there is a total lack of live and let live these days.

People seem to be focussng on what their rights and dues are from a society, without considering that they have any responsibility, even of behaviour, to that society.

If I want a cigarette with my restaurant meal, that will be a problem for those around me. Clearly I should not have that cigarette even though that inconveniences me, although its a pity that there needs to be a law for me to understand that.

If I want to have a cigarette in a the car park, that might irritate (although goodness knows why) non-smokers, but shouldn't they just get over it for my sake?

It doesn't work that way, I know. The UK, at least, is a country full of angry people who believe that everybody else should do things their way. That society should make allowances for them, not that they should make allowances for society.

A bit more tolerance and the world would be a better place.

All - Smoking in company vehicles - jamie745

If I want to have a cigarette in a the car park, that might irritate (although goodness knows why) non-smokers, but shouldn't they just get over it for my sake?

It doesn't work that way, I know. The UK, at least, is a country full of angry people who believe that everybody else should do things their way. That society should make allowances for them, not that they should make allowances for society.

A bit more tolerance and the world would be a better place.

Quite, I think you've hit upon the key point. There's three groups of people I find, smokers, non smokers and anti-smokers. Now I'm in the middle category and I really couldn't care less what other people do with their time, but plenty who don't smoke are in the third category. They don't smoke because they personally don't like it but feel everybody else should be banned from doing it by a totalitarian state (or the Labour Party, which is the same thing). These are the people who complain when Hospitals set up smoking zones (which themselves were probably set up due to complaints of people smoking all over the place) because they don't think they should be allowed to smoke at all.

They may pay a lot in tax, but they cost the National Health Service a hell of a lot in treatment. Do you have any idea of the cost of cancer or heart disease treatment?

No more than alcohol related illness but we don't put beer in plain brown paper hidden under the counter do we? No, it's stacked 17 boxes high the moment you walk in the supermarket.

If we're going to boil this down to a pathetic argument of who pays more than I'll say the worst ones are people who eat all the green nonsense and try to live to 125. They cost the country a fortune in pensions, elderly care bills, false hips, eye operations, winter fuel payments, free TV licences, free bus passes etc etc etc the list goes on. If someone wants to live in a way which gets them off the pension bill sooner than I am in support of their actions. Baby boomers expecting 30 year retirements subsidised by the generation they screwed over have more to answer for than smokers.

The fact is the Government gets around £9billion a year from tobacco duty and the Government would soon want that £9billion back if every smoker was to quit. Smokers quitting wouldn't reduce the NHS bill, too many public sector bureaucrats with vested interests to prevent that money going back to the taxpayer, so arguments about how much smokers 'cost' the NHS are silly because you're never getting that money back even if they quit. Even if the Treasury did get it back they'd still want an extra £9billion and would just tax something else instead. Petrol probably. With that in mind I would imagine for a smoker it feels like a total mickey-take that the Government pretend to be so anti-smoking.

The smoking ban itself was badly thought through, another example of Government trying to control people and boss everybody around. I can see the sense in banning smoking in places like McDonalds where there's children, but to ban it in country pubs and places where adults visit is overkill, adults can decide for themselves whether to go in or not. The anti smokers always say 'oh it used to be horrible with people smoking over you' which makes me wonder why - if it was so horrible - they kept going to these places. Why didn't they stay at home if they hated it that much? Another example of people going out of their way to complain about something.

No sympathy for smokers at all . Tends to be the uneducated or fatalistic who partake

Funny, given how you need almost a mid-range income to afford smoking these days. I've been to posh stately homes-cum-restaurant/hotels and witnessed incredibly wealthy, grown up individuals all have to huddle outside the 400 year old mansion for a cigarette, like children behind the bike shed. Is this necessary? I think not.

There's plenty of stuff I hate, but Government constantly bossing people around is very high up the list, along with it's socialist (usually anti-smoking) supporters who want a totalitarian state to ban everything they don't like just because they don't think other people should have lives of their own. That is top of the list.

'Ban everything I don't like but keep things I do like.' Somebody should shoot these people.

All - Smoking in company vehicles - 1litregolfeater

They're watching you wherever you go!

It is both comedy and tragedy, but we are the victims, and the fall guys.

I suppose it could be local councils relying on the 99% who dont smoke to allow them to victimise the 1% who do.

I'm not laughing, this is Nazi-ism, we're all 1-percenters of something.

All - Smoking in company vehicles - Avant

I've pruned this thread of posts where there were personal insults. This was Very Boring and if it happens again I'll simply remove the whole thread.

This is a perfectly reasonable subject to debate. If you disagree with someone, that doesn't make him/her a lesser person.

All - Smoking in company vehicles - No FM2R II

Sorry Avant, I'll try harder to keep a civil tongue.

All - Smoking in company vehicles - hillman

I used to drive company fleet vehicles. The company had personal cars and fleet cars. The practice was to trade personal cars in at 4 years and 40,000 miles. That is, if the car had done 40,000 miles when the 4th year came up then it was traded. If the mileage was less then the drivers used to lend out their cars to bump up the mileage or they would have it much longer. If the driver was a heavy smoker, and many were, then the car was unsaleable and was put on the fleet for casual users, i.e. mugs like me.

In all, the company policy was to spend the minimum possible on the fleet cars and the responsibility for cleaning was assumed to be the users. Because most of the other fleet users were smokers too, and who cares about the company cars, I regularly had to clean out the cars as soon as I collected them; ash everywhere, dimps and empty packets etc. underfoot.

On one occasion I picked up a car late in the evening in mid winter for a dawn start from home next morning. On the way home I firstly took it into a car-wash, but the radio aerial was corroded and I had to abandon the idea of washing it in case the rotating machine brushes carried it away. The inside of the windscreen had a thick coating of amber tobacco tar with many handmarks where previous drivers had tried to wipe a clear place.

Next morning I set off, planning to stop at the first shop selling suitable windscreen cleaner and cloths to clean the inside of the screen. After about 15 minutes and sunrise, I turned a corner into the full glare of the rising sun on the horizon. With the tobacco tar covering the screen and the multiple handmarks the glare effect was to completely obscure forward vision. I braked and swerved out in reaction and stopped beside a British Telecom 1 tonne van, which were at that time painted bright yellow, the same as the sunrise. It was only later in the day that I found a source of windscreen cleaner.

Yes, I’m all in favour of a ban on smoking in company cars.

All - Smoking in company vehicles - FP

I should apologise, too. I wound Mark up and I knew I was doing it.

My problem is that, once I get my teeth into an argument, I won't let go.

All - Smoking in company vehicles - No FM2R II

>> I wound Mark up

I may very well regret saying this, but I'm afraid you didn't. I'm not saying you couldn't, but you'd have to do better than that.

Edited by No FM2R II on 18/08/2012 at 23:21

All - Smoking in company vehicles - FP

Why do I bother?