Smoking at Railway Stations... Illegal?

[lxfe_mxtterz]

Amazing when smoking was permitted on Trains for well over a 100 Years how few fires there were

That's not the point. It's not as clear-cut as "It didn't happen very much in the past, so what's the chance it's going to happen now?"

As @Krokodil has said, when they've finished smoking, where are they going to dispose of that cigarette? I'd rather say something and allow them the opportunity to dispose of it at the station rather than a bin on an enclosed train.

I would rather spend a few seconds of my breath asking somebody to stop smoking than risk - however unlikely - 30 people losing their lives due to a fire onboard my train.

It's that kind of lax attitude that does contribute to fires.

What's your basis for asking someone to stop vaping? The bylaw that's been quoted on here refers only to smoking.

As I stated in my first paragraph, it's a selfish and anti-social thing to do. There may not be a bylaw which specifically applies to "vaping", however I am sure there is one somewhere out there which applies to interfering with the comfort of other passengers.

At the end of the day, I would assume most passengers don't want to be stood on a crowded platform inhaling some sickly strawberry and lime cheesecake scented crap being expelled from an electronic cigarette.

I see it exactly the same as feet on seats - selfish and vile - but that's just my opinion.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Why can’t people be considerate and obey signage even when they are not being watched?

Because we live in an inconsiderate society

 

[infobleep]

So should other things where its not allowed to do something but no one is watching also just be given up on?

One way streets and no entry signs often aren't monitored and its possible to disobey them with no enforcement so are they futile too?

Sometimes there is a good reason to not allow something and just to trust people are considerate and sensible enough to follow the rules.

I was about to say the same - it is like saying that the speed limit for roads should be unlimited except where there are working speed cameras. Just because something is not always monitored doesn't make it futile.

A better analogy would be that speed limits are often broken despite the prevalence of signage.

Point taken. Of course speed is more dangerous than smoking but you are right.

I guess then the question could shift to what can be done to stop it occurring at unmanned train stations, just as attempts are made to stop people speeding.

 

[Butts]

Point taken. Of course speed is more dangerous than smoking but you are right.

I guess then the question could shift to what can be done to stop it occurring at unmanned train stations, just as attempts are made to stop people speeding.

Is it really that important if no one else is going to be affected, the effort involved would be out of all proportion to the problem ?

Turn a blind eye !!

 

[AM9]

Which is the reason that ashtrays are still included on every seat of aircraft.

I haven't travelled on an aircraft built in the last 30 years that had ashtrays built in at all.

 

[infobleep]

Is it really that important if no one else is going to be affected, the effort involved would be out of all proportion to the problem ?

Turn a blind eye !!

Playing devil's advocate, if no one else is going to be affected, is it worth banning it at unmanned railways stations in the first place?

 

[Butts]

Playing devil's advocate, if no one else is going to be affected, is it worth banning it at unmanned railways stations in the first place?

Hallelujah

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2023 ==

I haven't travelled on an aircraft built in the last 30 years that had ashtrays built in at all.

As I alluded to above that's because they are in the toilets.

 

[ainsworth74]

In those days there were proper ash trays for disposing of the hot fag ends. Someone lighting up in a train toilet on the other hand will probably just bin it with the potential for something else in the bin to ignite.

This is of course why they still feature in aircraft toilets despite being forbidden to smoke on board for years (decades?). Just in case someone breaks the law they can safely dispose of it rather than throw it in a bin and risk a fire.

Which is the reason that ashtrays are still included on every seat of aircraft.

I believe it is just the toilets. Whilst I've not been on many aircraft can't say I've spotted them at every seat. Presumably because the expectation is that a mixture of fellow passengers and the aircraft crew will be able to police it in a public space!

Playing devil's advocate, if no one else is going to be affected, is it worth banning it at unmanned railways stations in the first place?

Because I don't particularly want to be around someone puffing away anywhere. I do think that some pragmatism should apply and I do think the approach in some parts of the continent of having designated smoking areas is sensible but lifting the ban completely is just caving into those who want to be able to inflict their disgusting habit on anyone without any concern for others feelings or, indeed, health. Asking them to refrain from smoking outside of designated areas for the short period of time that they're travelling by public transport is not a particularly onerous imposition.

 

[43066]

In those days there were proper ash trays for disposing of the hot fag ends. Someone lighting up in a train toilet on the other hand will probably just bin it with the potential for something else in the bin to ignite.

It is likely that the ignition source for the King's Cross escalator fire was a discarded match from someone who had just lit up (it was common for people to do so there, in spite of the area being 'non smoking'. A discarded cigarette is believed to have ignited the litter under the main stand in Bradford City stadium.

Some of the stock I sign is equipped with ashtrays in the driving cabs!

I was just going to say that some staff are the worst for a crafty puff lol.

Part of my route learning was being told where it’s safe to spark up with the door open etc. (and this wasn’t decades ago, it was immediately pre Covid ). I’ve quit smoking since, so it’s no longer an issue for me.

I’m 100% sure it still continues. Whether it’s a driver or a guard opening a window, and having a crafty tab. It matters little, as a cab is a solitary work environment, and nobody else is being subjected to it. Personally I find the occasional cab smelling faintly of cigarettes is less irritating than coke cans, coffee cups, banana skins and other detritus that are regularly left on driving desks.

As I stated in my first paragraph, it's a selfish and anti-social thing to do. There may not be a bylaw which specifically applies to "vaping", however I am sure there is one somewhere out there which applies to interfering with the comfort of other passengers.

At the end of the day, I would assume most passengers don't want to be stood on a crowded platform inhaling some sickly strawberry and lime cheesecake scented crap being expelled from an electronic cigarette.

I see it exactly the same as feet on seats - selfish and vile - but that's just my opinion.

It’s not ideal, but music from phones/loudspeaker conversations, dogs, noisy kids etc. are all arguably more irritating and more widespread than vaping on the railway.

I’m sure you as a guard(?) are capable of exercising good judgment about whether or not it’s worth saying anything in any given situation. Ultimately nobody is ever going to thank you for getting assaulted and having to take a train out of service etc.

 

[lxfe_mxtterz]

It’s not ideal, but music from phones/loudspeaker conversations, dogs, noisy kids etc. are all arguably more irritating and more widespread than vaping on the railway.

I’m sure you as a guard(?) are capable of exercising good judgment about whether or not it’s worth saying anything in any given situation. Ultimately nobody is ever going to thank you for getting assaulted and having to take a train out of service etc.

I don't disagree with you, and I would also challenge those kinds of anti-social behaviours (more so the first two).

And of course, but sometimes it is difficult deciding whether it's worth it to say something in any given situation - and at the end of the day, whichever option you choose, you'll probably be upsetting one or the other (either the offending party or surrounding passengers who see you not bothering to act, which thus reinforces that such behaviour is acceptable). Although I do appreciate where you are coming from.

 

[infobleep]

Hallelujah .

But they did ban it.

Because I don't particularly want to be around someone puffing away anywhere. I do think that some pragmatism should apply and I do think the approach in some parts of the continent of having designated smoking areas is sensible but lifting the ban completely is just caving into those who want to be able to inflict their disgusting habit on anyone without any concern for others feelings or, indeed, health. Asking them to refrain from smoking outside of designated areas for the short period of time that they're travelling by public transport is not a particularly onerous imposition.

If you were at an unmanned railway station with one other person smoking, would you ask them to refrain from smoking? I wouldn't.

 

[ainsworth74]

If you were at an unmanned railway station with one other person smoking, would you ask them to refrain from smoking? I wouldn't.

If they lit up next to me and ask them to go smoke further away from me please. If they were down the end of a platform I'd leave them to it.

 

[Mikey C]

There's a massive difference between someone smoking in a train or on a crowded platform, as opposed to someone smoking at a deserted end of a well ventilated and quiet platform.

It's the same difference between speeding past a primary school at 3.15pm and doing 85mph on a deserted Motorway at 2am.

 

[Butts]

If they lit up next to me and ask them to go smoke further away from me please. If they were down the end of a platform I'd leave them to it.

Have you become more sensitive to cigarette smoke since the ban came in ?

 

[ainsworth74]

Have you become more sensitive to cigarette smoke since the ban came in ?

I'm unclear of the relevance of that to anything that I've said?

 

[dk1]

Part of my route learning was being told where it’s safe to spark up with the door open etc. (and this wasn’t decades ago, it was immediately pre Covid ). I’ve quit smoking since, so it’s no longer an issue for me.

I’m 100% sure it still continues. Whether it’s a driver or a guard opening a window, and having a crafty tab. It matters little, as a cab is a solitary work environment, and nobody else is being subjected to it. Personally I find the occasional cab smelling faintly of cigarettes is less irritating than coke cans, coffee cups, banana skins and other detritus that are regularly left on driving desks.

My minder back in the day smoked like a trouper. My uniform stunk of it lol.

I must admit it’s quite rare for any mess to be left in our cabs by anyone. Cleaners insist on emptying the bin at all major turnarounds and cabs are fitted with smoke detectors like the rest of the train.

 

[Deepgreen]

Is it really that important if no one else is going to be affected, the effort involved would be out of all proportion to the problem ?

Turn a blind eye !!

Your forum name and avatar would suggest you are not unbiased here...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2023 ==

Playing devil's advocate, if no one else is going to be affected, is it worth banning it at unmanned railways stations in the first place?

Inability or will to enforce does not mean it should be allowed. Apart from the direct health issues, there is the risk of flicked lighted cigarettes landing in dry vegetation in summer and a fire resulting. An unmanned station is more likely to see a fire escalate than a manned one.

 

[Butts]

I'm unclear of the relevance of that to anything that I've said?

Saying that someone smoking on an open platform next to you would result in your asking them to move out of your nasal receptors range.

I wondered if you are now less exposed to smoke than you would have been in the days when it was permitted in Pubs, Restaurants etc and this would have a bearing on your tolerance levels.

Twenty Years ago you wouldn't have thought twice about it as it was normal ?

 

[AM9]

Saying that someone smoking on an open platform next to you would result in your asking them to move out of your nasal receptors range.

I wondered if you are now less exposed to smoke than you would have been in the days when it was permitted in Pubs, Restaurants etc and this would have a bearing on your tolerance levels.

Twenty Years ago you wouldn't have thought twice about it as it was normal ?

Twenty years ago, non-smokers legally were forced to put up with it. Now the law says that they don't have to.

 

[Butts]

Twenty years ago, non-smokers legally were forced to put up with it. Now the law says that they don't have to.

Exactly, so does that mean non-smokers are more sensitive to smoke today than they would have been twenty years ago, and hence less tolerant to it's presence ?

 

[43096]

Exactly, so does that mean non-smokers are more sensitive to smoke today than they would have been twenty years ago, and hence less tolerant to it's presence ?

No. I hated it then as much as I hate it now. Filthy habit.

 

[43066]

Saying that someone smoking on an open platform next to you would result in your asking them to move out of your nasal receptors range.

I wondered if you are now less exposed to smoke than you would have been in the days when it was permitted in Pubs, Restaurants etc and this would have a bearing on your tolerance levels.

Twenty Years ago you wouldn't have thought twice about it as it was normal ?

It has been well known since at least the 1960s that smoking is terrible for everyone’s health; both the smoker themselves and those around them, so I can well understand people not wanting smoking to take place right next to them.

I say that as a former smoker.

 

[AM9]

It has been well known since at least the 1960s that smoking is terrible for everyone’s health; both the smoker themselves and those around them, so I can well understand people not wanting smoking to take place right next to them.

I say that as a former smoker.

Similarly for me. Although I'd never been a heavy or even continuous smoker, I was concious of its impact on others around me when I did have a puff. In away I was pleased when in a matter of a few years, it went from virtually unrestricted to almost banned, - it gave me the extra push to do without altogether.
So now, I expect the environment to be conducive e to 'normal' life, as the law prescribes rather than being forced to inhale the pollution from the unsociable habits of others.

 

[Butts]

It has been well known since at least the 1960s that smoking is terrible for everyone’s health; both the smoker themselves and those around them, so I can well understand people not wanting smoking to take place right next to them.

I say that as a former smoker.

I don't disagree that smoking is conducive to good health.

However there are exceptions to the rule.

I have smoked 20 B&H a day for over 40 years and have not had a day off sick for 36 years. How many non-smokers have gone that long without a sickie ?

 

[Mikey C]

I don't disagree that smoking is conducive to good health.

However there are exceptions to the rule.

I have smoked 20 B&H a day for over 40 years and have not had a day off sick for 36 years. How many non-smokers have gone that long without a sickie ?

Is your username a reference to all the fag butts you've got through?

 

[AM9]

I don't disagree that smoking is conducive to good health.

However there are exceptions to the rule.

I have smoked 20 B&H a day for over 40 years and have not had a day off sick for 36 years. How many non-smokers have gone that long without a sickie ?

So you were lucky whilst everybody around you was subjected to passive smoking that might well have impaired their health.

 

[Butts]

Is your username a reference to all the fag butts you've got through?

Ho Ho,

Well over 300,000 by my calculation.

Don't mention the money I've squandered

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2023 ==

So you were lucky whilst everybody around you was subjected to passive smoking that might well have impaired their health.

Even those that were also smoking ?

Might being the appropriate word.

Getting back on topic I feel that smoking should be permitted on certain open platforms such as Crianlarich.

 

[AM9]

Even those that were also smoking ?

Might being the appropriate word.

The potential damage to the health of the smokers was within their own control. Those that chose not to smoke didn't escape the problem.

 

[Cowley]

The potential damage to the health of the smokers was within their own control. Those that chose not to smoke didn't escape the problem.

Which I think is the basic common sense point at which to stub this thread out…

Thanks everyone.