Electronic Cigarettes on trains

[Greenback]

Because it solves the problem you highlighted (of smokers hanging around right by the entrance) by encouraging them to use the shelter instead.

They would still use the entrance, as that is human nature. Just as you see people having a smoke at the entrance to a shopping mall, or a pub.

Where a station differs is that there is the potential at many of them for a facility to be provide, outside, on the open platform that could be used instead. It would be less bothersome for non smokers, though it would not eradicate the problem of people smoking by the entrance completely.

 

[transmanche]

They would still use the entrance, as that is human nature. Just as you see people having a smoke at the entrance to a shopping mall, or a pub.

I've seen quite a few shopping centres that have such a shelter away from the entrance, to encourage smokers to use it.

But you think a similar solution wouldn't work at a station?

 

[Tibbs]

I've seen quite a few shopping centres that have such a shelter away from the entrance, to encourage smokers to use it.

But you think a similar solution wouldn't work at a station?

There's a shelter about 20 steps away from the rear entrance to Euston Station, but everyone still stands just outside the entrance and smokes there.

 

[Greenback]

I've seen quite a few shopping centres that have such a shelter away from the entrance, to encourage smokers to use it.

But you think a similar solution wouldn't work at a station?

Not as well. From my observations and experience, most smokers congregate at the entrance to stations because they are time sensitive. They know that they can be on the platform very quickly should their train arrive. There is comfort in that, particularly when you may have to wait half an hour or an hour if you miss it.

Having an area on an open platform would reduce the chance of missing a train, and so would be more attractive to use in most cases.

Installing a shelter, maybe across the road or car park and away from the entrance would mean longer to get to the platform for the train, which is a disincentive to use it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's a shelter about 20 steps away from the rear entrance to Euston Station, but everyone still stands just outside the entrance and smokes there.

That reinforces my point!

 

[transmanche]

There's a shelter about 20 steps away from the rear entrance to Euston Station, but everyone still stands just outside the entrance and smokes there.

That reinforces my point!

Well it just demonstrates to me just how anti-social many smokers are! If the area outside the entrance is still railway property, I say stick up no-smoking signs and use bylaw 3 to prosecute anybody that doesn't comply

 

[ComUtoR]

Are you saying these e-cigs are full of crap like proper cigs are?

The only thing about e-cigs that has been agreed on by pretty much everyone is that they are better than a traditional cigarette.

However;

e-cigs vapour and your exhalations have been found to contain amongst other things; nicotine, propylene glycol, and even tin ! Whilst it is very clear the amounts talked about are minuscule if you compounded the effect of numerous vapers in a confined space then it obviously becomes a significant amount.

The major problem is that the ecig industry is steaming ahead and regulation is non existent. There are fears that many harmful chemicals could be contained in them. It's possible for any old joe to produce them in his garage and then sell them to anyone (including children)

Vapers make some very spurious claims about their relative safety and that its only water vapor. Vapers (usually ex smokers) are highly defensive and are quick to downplay any associated risks and claim others are ignorant.

Are they healthier than traditional cigarettes - Absolutely but that's the only claim you can make.

There are plenty of resources available to anyone who wants to educate themselves about ecigs and plenty of dedicated forums. Even on those forums there are plenty of complaints about eye irritation and dryness of the throat as well as other small complaints.

Keeping on topic and with all that in mind you can see why TOC's and many other public establishments are taking a cautions approach and implementing bans. Think long term rather than a knee jerk reaction to bans.

FYI Google is your friend. Plenty of data out there.

 

[Greenback]

Well it just demonstrates to me just how anti-social many smokers are! If the area outside the entrance is still railway property, I say stick up no-smoking signs and use bylaw 3 to prosecute anybody that doesn't comply

I can't disagree with the first point. I usually try and stand well away from the entrance and anyone who is not smoking, but not everyone is considerate.

But I would rather see someone having a smoke at the far end of an unstaffed station like Gowerton, well away from anyone else, than to see them standing at the entrance gate or on the public footway that is the only access to the station which will inevitably affect anyone going in or out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Keeping on topic and with all that in mind you can see why TOC's and many other public establishments are taking a cautions approach and implementing bans. Think long term rather than a knee jerk reaction to bans.

Completely agree with that.

 

[bnm]

Nicotine is a poison. The median lethal dose of nicotine is estimated at 30-60mg. Yet there are no controls on e-cigarette manufacturers to regulate what goes into them, or the dosage that they release in each 'puff'.

It would seem to me that regulating them is a good thing.

I know exactly what goes into mine. Nicotine base (nicotine in a pharmaceutical grade propylene glycol suspension), food grade vegetable glycerin, food grade propylene glycol, food grade flavour concentrates, and a little distilled water.

Far more than I know what goes into a tobacco cigarette.

There are controls on the sale of nicotine base in the UK. The maximum strength one can buy is 75mg/ml. Any stronger and you need a poisons licence. I typically mix my nicotine down to a strength of between 15-20mg/ml.

And the 30-60mg 'lethal dose' is just wrong. Chain smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes could easily give you a dose within that range. No one drops dead (immediately!) from smoking 20 cigarettes.

I support proportionate legislation. Not laws written with flawed science.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...eus-proposed-ecigarette-law.html#.UyHI2Pl_vHQ
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-013-1127-0

 

[jon0844]

Staff appear to turn a blind eye to smokers on the platform. Never seen anything said to people smoking at Hatfield (right outside the station building near the coffee kiosk in most cases), Potters Bar, Finsbury Park or most recently a group at Gatwick Airport where a dispatcher walked right by and said nothing.

Apart from Hatfield, where people were coming in and out of the station, I can't see much harm with people smoking in the open air. Even if they all then litter!

 

[455driver]

Thank you ComUtoR for that explanation.

 

[185]

I am all for them. Anyone who has taken the bold step to pack smoking in should be given all the support possible.

Besides, no train operating company should be able ban them, by law. As they are not lit smoking material, to prevent them would require legislation 'preventing people from exhaling moisture'. This is known in the western world as suffocation... I'm sure FirstGroup management should adopt that rule for themselves too.

 

[CockneySparrow]

I used to have e-cigs, its easy to prove that you have one, like holding the lit end and showing that your not burning your hand

I thought it would be better as then I could safely smoke on trains, coaches, pubs etc, and not pollute the area, but it's now banned in 'Spoons, trains, buses, coaches etc. I've gone back to the real things now, apparently even e-cigs are more harmful...depending which ones they are I guess

I got told off in spoons a year ago for using a vapour one, not been back since just go to a traditional pub and no problem

Been told off on CC so I just puff when there isn't any staff around
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could you link to the independent evidence you've seen that shows that the only waste product is water vapour please?

Makes me laugh when people raise health concerns on second hand vapour as these people are the same people who then go home run a hot bath and burn scented oils while sitting in the bath, then they go downstairs and burn scented candles on the dinner table

 

[TDK]

I am all for them. Anyone who has taken the bold step to pack smoking in should be given all the support possible.

Besides, no train operating company should be able ban them, by law. As they are not lit smoking material, to prevent them would require legislation 'preventing people from exhaling moisture'. This is known in the western world as suffocation... I'm sure FirstGroup management should adopt that rule for themselves too.

I smoked for 45 years and packed up 8 months ago and was completely nicotine dependant. I started on 24mg and am now on 6mg. Without the e-cig I would never been able to pack up smoking. The company I work for has banned them on the grounds that they look like normal cigarettes. The one I use is complete chrome with only a small LED on the button and looks nothing like a cigarette. I gave to my manager a document that quotes that if someone is nicotine dependant that after 2 hours they can lose up to 50% of their concentration and after 4 hours up to 75% of their concentration. I think that the e-cig is by far the best method to assist in packing up smoking as you can still get a proportional amount of nicotine into your system to avoid the adverse withdrawal symptoms. It is obvious now that the government are realising that this is a mass exodus from smoking and are losing a huge amount of revenue so it is obvious what will be done to me.

As for banning e cigs in public places is absolutely ridiculous such as station platforms and open areas. On trains, well that is a debateable subject if it offends people. I get offended when people stink of body odour in a confined space so would it be viable to do a sniff test and ban smelly people? The point I am trying to make is there will always be someone somewhere who will complain about anything and this unfortunately is the World we live in.

I think that they should not be banned as they are assisting people like me to pack up smoking who have found it very difficult in the past.

 

[Wivenswold]

I'm having a fight with Greater Anglia at the moment about this.

They keep coming back with the same argument. They are banned along with cigarettes. I've asked them what legal action they would take against me if I was caught taking one and which Railway By-law they'd use to prove I'd broken the law (there isn't one). For some reason they keep ignoring my points.

 

[transmanche]

I've asked them what legal action they would take against me if I was caught taking one and which Railway By-law they'd use to prove I'd broken the law (there isn't one).

That's easy. Bylaw 2(1), 6(8); or if they'd already asked you to leave the premises, 13(2).

 

[Gemz91]

Noticed a sign on the bus today (Stagecoach Lincolnshire) saying electronic cigarettes are not allowed.

 

[No Fault Found]

I saw a memo today and FGW have banned them on all trains, stations and railway depots. Obviously depots have smoking huts as i imagine stations may have.

Their reasonings were that if somebody is using an E-cig on a train, other passengers may think it is ok to smoke traditional cigarettes :-?

Apparently it also encourages smoking overall rather than try to stop it. There were a couple of other quotes from the BMA which they used as justification for their ban but i didn't take a great deal of notice as it doesn't affect me.

 

[transmanche]

Noticed a sign on the bus today (Stagecoach Lincolnshire) saying electronic cigarettes are not allowed.

I've seen notices on both Stagecoach and Arriva buses recently, stating that their respective CoCs had been updated to prohibit e-cigarettes.

 

[carriageline]

Last time I read/looked (some time ago I might add), they was unproven, and scientists where unsure on what long term damage they do have on people. And they are not yet regulated in anyway shaped or form, or approved by medicinal associations? And the vapour wasn't just moisture, and that any tomdickharry can't make them and add what they want in them!

If all that is true, then I don't want your "vape" (ridiculous nickname!!) anywhere near me thank you very much!!

 

[Wivenswold]

That's easy. Bylaw 2(1), 6(8); or if they'd already asked you to leave the premises, 13(2).

Not sure about 2(1). Under a heading of dangerous items, I don't think they'd be able to run a case under that clause unless another passenger could be proven to be annoyed or threatened. Not strong enough in my legal opinion.

I think they'd struggle with 6(8) if an objective test was a reasonable person's tolerance levels (and it would be).

Another issue is that the Department for Health are planning on classifying them as medicine in 2016. At that point a ban would become a matter for The Court of Human Rights.

 

[ComUtoR]

I am all for them. Anyone who has taken the bold step to pack smoking in should be given all the support possible.

Besides, no train operating company should be able ban them, by law. As they are not lit smoking material, to prevent them would require legislation 'preventing people from exhaling moisture'. This is known in the western world as suffocation... I'm sure FirstGroup management should adopt that rule for themselves too.

Firstly as has been said by many; as well as the manufacturers themselves. THEY ARE NOT AN AID FOR CESSATION. There is no clinical evidence to support that claim. Anecdotally it may even cause further addiction due to the high levels of nicotine as well as inaccurate levels of nicotine stated on the plethora of suspension liquids (which aren't water).

As to TOC's not being able to ban them. On what grounds ? Its their property and your travelling on their trains. A TOC should be allowed to set whatever rules it wants.


Just because they are not 'lit smoking material' doesn't justify any arguments for them. Currently the problems are that there is no legislation for them because its unknown how to classify them or under what regulations they should fall. If they are to be distanced from tobacco then what do you suggest they should be regulated under ? Unfortunately Tobacco legislation will be the route that the gov and medical profession takes because its a lot quicker to amend existing policies than create new ones.


The second anyone can prove that the vapor is just water; which it isn't, and the second that someone can prove beyond doubt that second hand vape is TOTALLY harmless then I will 100% support vaping in public.

PERSONALLY the closest analogy for vaping is the "legal high" and the justifications people make with them are shockingly similar.


The TOC is justified in their actions for as long as the risks associated with second hand vape is unknown. The current situation with ecigs are the same as tobacco many many years ago. The risk to others is unacceptable. Those people everyone seems to have forgotten also need to be protected.

The TOC has a responsibility to its staff to minimise exposure. Front line staff being exposed on a daily basis to second hand vape is a potential liability for a TOC and remember it's their responsibility to provide a safe and healthy working environment for its staff (HSA 1974) Again, another reason for a TOC to justify a ban on ecigs on their premises.

I would love for anyone to provide more than just rhetoric and snide underhand comments to support an argument for the allowing of ecigs in a public place. In a private establishment...

 

[Wivenswold]

Unfortunately the British Public have a very low tolerance of others enjoying themselves.

 

[transmanche]

Not sure about 2(1). Under a heading of dangerous items, I don't think they'd be able to run a case under that clause unless another passenger could be proven to be annoyed or threatened. Not strong enough in my legal opinion.

However what matters is the opinion of the authorised person - nothing else needs to be proved.

Remember also that nicotine is a poison. Carrying it around in a liquified form can be dangerous. (Liquid nicotine can easily be absorbed through the skin.)

Another issue is that the Department for Health are planning on classifying them as medicine in 2016. At that point a ban would become a matter for The Court of Human Rights.

How so?

 

[Wivenswold]

Buffet cars still sell items with transfats in them. The BMA says they should be banned. Double standards there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However what matters is the opinion of the authorised person - nothing else needs to be proved.

Remember also that nicotine is a poison. Carrying it around in a liquified form can be dangerous. (Liquid nicotine can easily be absorbed through the skin.)

How so?

Nutmeg is a poison in the right doses. You would have to pour purified nicotine directly on to your skin for it to have any effect. That's simply not possible with e-cig filters.

If e-cigs are classed as medication, you cannot prevent a person from taking their medication anywhere. Simple as that.

 

[carriageline]

Unfortunately the British Public have a very low tolerance of others enjoying themselves.

It's not about enjoying yourself is it. You can enjoy your self as much as you like, as long as it doesn't bother me, or affect me in anyway shape or form, more importantly health wise, or medically.

 

[Wivenswold]

It's not about enjoying yourself is it. You can enjoy your self as much as you like, as long as it doesn't bother me, or affect me in anyway shape or form, more importantly health wise, or medically.

Vapor is much less likely to affect you than the stresses of commuting, the germs that linger in carriages or the effects of bad posture due to overcrowding.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
By the way, I don't use them. I just think it's a stupid rule and that far too many have been reading the health scare stories in that fine old rag The Daily Mail.

 

[carriageline]

Vapor is much less likely to affect you than the stresses of commuting, the germs that linger in carriages or the effects of bad posture due to overcrowding.

Yes, but can you scientifically prove that? Or more importantly, any health/medicine board, or whoever regulates this type of thing? Earlier on someone mentioned nitrate glycerol (I think) and tin being in the vapour. If I had the choice of inhaling that or not, I go with the not thank you very much

 

[Wivenswold]

Can you disprove it?

 

[carriageline]

What a childish argument. Can't prove a negative and all that!! That is a typical argument from you lot actually.

Whilst there is a RISK of there being chemicals that can harm me, I would rather people didn't smoke them around me. I shouldn't potentially have to suffer just so someone else can enjoy something. Once they are scientifically proven to be healthy for passive vapour/regulated, then I can accept them. Until then, no thanks

 

[PermitToTravel]

Makes me laugh when people raise health concerns on second hand vapour as these people are the same people who then go home run a hot bath and burn scented oils while sitting in the bath, then they go downstairs and burn scented candles on the dinner table

Rubbish!! I'd be willing to bet that no one who's raised concerns about second hand vapour in this thread does any of those things. Nor do the majority of people who do so outside this thread!

Furthermore, I'd be significantly happier to inhale the smoke from a scented candle burning than a vapour containing nicotine!