Smoking at Railway Stations... Illegal?

[AverageJoe]

I don’t smoke lol

Fair enough, I wasn’t having a pop at you btw.

 

[dk1]

Fair enough, I wasn’t having a pop at you btw.

No problem. I just don’t get the big issue with having a quick smoke towards the end of an uncovered platform so will never engage with anybody that decides to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2023 ==

Although I did think you were getting on your high horse for a moment

 

[Joey Beauchamp]

I remember during my "more stupid than I am now" phase, a staff member shouting at me from across the tracks at Stalyvegas. I argued the point that there was no one else on the platform (apart from my Mum who I was stood well away from as she hates smoking). Then my Mum started calling me an idiot at which point I put it out. Parental pressure trump's railway bylaws.

 

[mrmartin]

Bigger problem recently has been smoking in tube stations. Both last visits to London I've seen (and reported) homeless people smoking in the station while begging. One at KX (ironic) and one at Old St.

Seems to be a real problem. I lived there for 10 years and never saw this, now have saw 2 separate incidents in a couple of months.

 

[Archvile]

No problem. I just don’t get the big issue with having a quick smoke towards the end of an uncovered platform so will never engage with anybody that decides to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2023 ==

Although I did think you were getting on your high horse for a moment

There's no issue at all - unfortunately the railway seems to attract many 'binary thinkers', I.e. if it's not this, then it must be that. If it's illegal, I must challenge it at any cost, with no thought given to the psychology or the how's and why's of what people do.

For example, a smoker is stood as far away from people as possible, way down at the end or a platform, albeit next to a no smoking sign. They've shown consideration to others by doing that, and to reprimand them is to do so for no other reason than to enforce a law that doesn't affect you. And in their mind, they are being punished when they're trying to do the right thing (regardless of legality). That can cause a person to become less cooperative with authority figures further down the line. It's no different than reporting the guy in the burger van who just sold you a single chocolate bar with the words 'to be sold as part of a multipack only' on it.

Turning a blind eye is one of those things that triggers people because they associate it with the nuclear option of ignoring something safety related, for instance. But, for very minor things, it's actually helpful for a happy and functioning society.

Nobody wants to live in 1984.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

There's no issue at all - unfortunately the railway seems to attract many 'binary thinkers', I.e. if it's not this, then it must be that. If it's illegal, I must challenge it at any cost, with no thought given to the psychology or the how's and why's of what people do.

For example, a smoker is stood as far away from people as possible, way down at the end or a platform, albeit next to a no smoking sign. They've shown consideration to others by doing that, and to reprimand them is to do so for no other reason than to enforce a law that doesn't affect you. And in their mind, they are being punished when they're trying to do the right thing (regardless of legality). That can cause a person to become less cooperative with authority figures further down the line. It's no different than reporting the guy in the burger van who just sold you a single chocolate bar with the words 'to be sold as part of a multipack only' on it.

Turning a blind eye is one of those things that triggers people because they associate it with the nuclear option of ignoring something safety related, for instance. But, for very minor things, it's actually helpful for a happy and functioning society.

Nobody wants to live in 1984.

So we should turn I blind eye be cause its something minor? Does that work for shoplifting or not using indicators/lights on their car?

If I'm on a platform and someone is down the far extremities, I wouldn't just ignore that. There could be reasons other than smoking/vaping that I'd rather go and investigate rather than just turn a blind eye.

Maybe it comes down to personal preference or opinion, but smoking in a non smoking area is very much a binary decision to me, that's not say a mistake with a ticket type which can happen. Smoking/vaping is very much a binary decision in itself

 

[AverageJoe]

There's no issue at all - unfortunately the railway seems to attract many 'binary thinkers', I.e. if it's not this, then it must be that. If it's illegal, I must challenge it at any cost, with no thought given to the psychology or the how's and why's of what people do.

For example, a smoker is stood as far away from people as possible, way down at the end or a platform, albeit next to a no smoking sign. They've shown consideration to others by doing that, and to reprimand them is to do so for no other reason than to enforce a law that doesn't affect you. And in their mind, they are being punished when they're trying to do the right thing (regardless of legality). That can cause a person to become less cooperative with authority figures further down the line. It's no different than reporting the guy in the burger van who just sold you a single chocolate bar with the words 'to be sold as part of a multipack only' on it.

Turning a blind eye is one of those things that triggers people because they associate it with the nuclear option of ignoring something safety related, for instance. But, for very minor things, it's actually helpful for a happy and functioning society.

Nobody wants to live in 1984.

Just follow rules. It’s not hard is it.

That ‘thoughtful’ smoker who has moved to the end of the platform and is now smoking next to a no smoking sign is setting an example that rules don’t need to be followed.

 

[AM9]

There's no issue at all - unfortunately the railway seems to attract many 'binary thinkers', I.e. if it's not this, then it must be that. If it's illegal, I must challenge it at any cost, with no thought given to the psychology or the how's and why's of what people do.

For example, a smoker is stood as far away from people as possible, way down at the end or a platform, albeit next to a no smoking sign. They've shown consideration to others by doing that, and to reprimand them is to do so for no other reason than to enforce a law that doesn't affect you. And in their mind, they are being punished when they're trying to do the right thing (regardless of legality). That can cause a person to become less cooperative with authority figures further down the line. It's no different than reporting the guy in the burger van who just sold you a single chocolate bar with the words 'to be sold as part of a multipack only' on it.

Turning a blind eye is one of those things that triggers people because they associate it with the nuclear option of ignoring something safety related, for instance. But, for very minor things, it's actually helpful for a happy and functioning society.

Nobody wants to live in 1984.

Having worked in an industry where clean rooms were used, there was evidence of a significant rise in tobacco related particulates and nicotine compounds in the air just after rhe smokers had taken their breaks, despite all occupants wearing protective clothing. That is backed up by the ease with which a person who had recently smoked, or even just been in a smoke filled environment was easily detected by others.
As for the issue of not enforcing a prohibition of smoking area; it may be easy to turn a blind eye to avoid confrontation, but it would establish a defacto permission for smoker to ignore the (by)law when it suits them. Then what would happen if just after lighting up it started to rain. Some would wander down the platform and stand just under a canopy. That would then become accepted as OK, until there is a conflict with somebody objecting. The creeping conversion of granting slight easements of rules becomes a sign to others that the rules don't matter.

 

[Sly Old Fox]

When I worked on the station platform and saw somebody smoking, I’ll tell them they weren’t allowed to smoke but that if they went around the corner I wouldn’t be able to see them anymore.

 

[Mikey C]

In reality, someone vaping outside on a quiet draughty platform is causing zero nuisance to anyone else, and zero health risk.

 

[weepingwillowb]

In reality, someone vaping outside on a quiet draughty platform is causing zero nuisance to anyone else, and zero health risk.

Depends on which way the draught is blowing. If someone stands at an end of the platform, where the smoke will be blown away from any other customers on the platform, then no problem.

 

[1D54]

Depends on which way the draught is blowing. If someone stands at an end of the platform, where the smoke will be blown away from any other customers on the platform, then no problem.

But is it legal? I know of pubs where they gladly let you vape.

 

[faltskog36abba]

Manchester Victoria is none smoking of course, But at the end of platform 3 [west] There is/was a smoking shelter. It was for the staff of the offices above, I remember a charter train pulling in and as I walked passed people in their finery there were a few huddled at the end smoking/Nobody batted an eyelid.

 

[karlos]

There's a certain hypocrisy of banning smoking on platforms while people are still getting gassed with diesel fumes at many stations. Smoking a cigarette is probably a healthier than spending an hour inhaling the air at Birmingham New Street.

If someone's smoking a fag and they're not bothering other people then let them get on with it.

 

[al78]

So we should turn I blind eye be cause its something minor? Does that work for shoplifting or not using indicators/lights on their car?

Shoplifting imposes a cost on someone else, smoking in a place where the byproducts are vented well away from other people only imposes a cost on the smoker.

Not using indicators/lights imposes a cost on others through a combination reduced safety and increased inconvenience, again not a good analogy, although you should never infer anything from indicators alone, all they mean is the bulb is working.

A better analogy would be riding a bicycle for a short distance on an empty pavement because the cyclist perceives the adjacent road is too dangerous. Against the law but no externalised cost. Another good comparison would be the police giving some leeway to motorists breaking the speed limit within a small margin (around 10% from what I've heard in the past).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2023 ==

There's a certain hypocrisy of banning smoking on platforms while people are still getting gassed with diesel fumes at many stations. Smoking a cigarette is probably a healthier than spending an hour inhaling the air at Birmingham New Street.

If someone's smoking a fag and they're not bothering other people then let them get on with it.

I get the point and agree with it but I really don't like arguments like that. It is the classic fallacy of relative privation and often gets used in other situations (e.g. claiming passive smoking shouldn't be complained about because emissions from motor vehicles are worse) to try and trivialise something that really shouldn't be.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

A better analogy would be riding a bicycle for a short distance on an empty pavement because the cyclist perceives the adjacent road is too dangerous. Against the law but no externalised cost.

Something, as a keen cyclist, I absolutely detest!

Bicycles should be ridden on the road unless a bike lane is available. You won't find me ridding on a pavement whether it's city centre, main road or country road. And I use all 3 at all times of the day. If you don't feel safe riding a bike, use another form of transportation.

What is this requirement of being 'a cost' for a law to be kept?

 

[Richardr]

For example, a smoker is stood as far away from people as possible, way down at the end or a platform, albeit next to a no smoking sign. They've shown consideration to others by doing that, and to reprimand them is to do so for no other reason than to enforce a law that doesn't affect you. And in their mind, they are being punished when they're trying to do the right thing (regardless of legality). That can cause a person to become less cooperative with authority figures further down the line.

"Psychology" can go both ways - someone who repeatedly gets away with petty crime can progress up the scale of crime as a result.

There is also the point that they may be smoking where no one is at the moment, but as the train arrival gets closer more people will be on the platform and wanting to spread out along the platform.

 

[AM9]

"Psychology" can go both ways - someone who repeatedly gets away with petty crime can progress up the scale of crime as a result.

There is also the point that they may be smoking where no one is at the moment, but as the train arrival gets closer more people will be on the platform and wanting to spread out along the platform.

Agreed. As I referred to in post #38, an arbitrary unofficial relaxing of the law leads to some presuming that it doesn't matter at all. Who is it that wants the enforcement dropped, - not those who suffer from cigarette smoke I'm sure.

 

[Butts]

Crianlarich used to be a hotbed of smoking where the Trains used to split for Fort William/ Oban including staff

Perhaps a sensible compromise would be to have a designated smoking area on outdoor platforms as exists in many European Countries.

 

[AM9]

Crianlarich used to be a hotbed of smoking where the Trains used to split for Fort William/ Oban including staff

Perhaps a sensible compromise would be to have a designated smoking area on outdoor platforms as exists in many European Countries.

I presume that it is an ungated station so there is plenty of room for smoker passengers changing trains to walk down the stairs and off the platforms for their fix.

 

[Butts]

I presume that it is an ungated station so there is plenty of room for smoker passengers changing trains to walk down the stairs and off the platforms for their fix.

Nah, they just stay on the platform smoking with the staff.

 

[uruk_captain]

I have a question... are staff allowed to smoke in the railway sidings?

 

[Krokodil]

I have a question... are staff allowed to smoke in the railway sidings?

"All of our trains and stations are no smoking areas..." goes the announcement. Sidings aren't trains or stations so unless there is a specific prohibition (only likely if there's something flammable nearby) then yes, they can smoke in a siding.

 

[Geoff DC]

A while ago on a 5hr+ journey to Paddington, before smoking was outlawed on platforms, I would usually detrain at a few stops where I knew there were 2 or 3 minutes booked for the stop.
On one journey home, I was on the platform at Exeter when the Guard asked me to get back on board and smoke out of the window so as to enable a smooth departure.
Common Sense 1 Rules & Regs 0

 

[scotraildriver]

Crianlarich used to be a hotbed of smoking where the Trains used to split for Fort William/ Oban including staff

Perhaps a sensible compromise would be to have a designated smoking area on outdoor platforms as exists in many European Countries.

Still is. Mainly foreign tourists. Nobody cares.

 

[miklcct]

As a member of railway staff as long as they are out in the open I have never challenged them.

I will challenge (and have done so) people who smoke on a busy platform in a busy Central London station.

 

[Butts]

Still is. Mainly foreign tourists. Nobody cares.

Why should they as it's an absurd rule that you can't smoke on an open platform in that setting.

 

[haltendehand]

Given the byelaws' formulation is

"No person shall smoke or carry a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, match, lighter or other lighted item on any part of the railway on or near which there is a notice indicating that smoking is not allowed"

It follows that it is lawful to smoke on any part of the railway where there is no such notice (and where smoking is not prohibited for another reason under different legislation, e.g. indoors). The exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.

What constitutes 'on or near' is more debatable. In particular, 'any part of the railway on or near which' could be interpreted to mean that a single "no smoking at this station" sign at the entrance would be adequate to render smoking unlawful everywhere on that station.

Conversely, the nature of that signage also seems important to me; the standard legally required signage of 'It is against the law to smoke in these premises' affixed on a station building, precisely by being so specific, would seem to imply that its application extends only to those premises in which it is in any case illegal to smoke (i.e. in the building on which it is affixed).

This is all academic of course, but this is probably one situation where 'Where's the sign mate' is a valid retort from a lone smoker at the uncovered end of a platform.

 

[43066]

As a member of railway staff as long as they are out in the open I have never challenged them.

Same here. Not worth the aggro.

 

[TUC]

As a member of railway staff as long as they are out in the open I have never challenged them.

Still very unpleasant for other passengers on a crowded platform.