Electronic Cigarettes on trains

[185]

As to TOC's not being able to ban them. On what grounds ?

They are an inert device, not harmful to others.

So what next? Babies dummies? Hats? People from France?

Your argument has gone up in smoke.

 

[transmanche]

They are an inert device, not harmful to others.

Tins of paint are also 'inert'. But that hasn't stopped Stagecoach and others from banning certain tins of paint from their buses.

 

[PermitToTravel]

They are an inert device, not harmful to others.

So what next? Babies dummies? Hats? People from France?

Your argument has gone up in smoke.

No it hasn't, TOCs can ban babies' dummies or hats. (They cannot ban people from France.)

Banning babies dummies or hats is very unlikely to make good business sense. They might decide that banning electronic cigarettes makes good business sense. Evidently some already have! (Banning people from France would make very poor business sense.)

 

[ComUtoR]

They are an inert device, not harmful to others.

The harm caused to others is where the debate is.

http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/10/ntr.ntt203.short



Results: The study showed that e-cigarettes are a source of secondhand exposure to nicotine but not to combustion toxicants. The air concentrations of nicotine emitted by various brands of e-cigarettes ranged from 0.82 to 6.23 µg/m3. The average concentration of nicotine resulting from smoking tobacco cigarettes was 10 times higher than from e-cigarettes (31.60±6.91 vs. 3.32±2.49 µg/m3, respectively; p = .0081).

Conclusions: Using an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose nonusers to nicotine but not to toxic tobacco-specific combustion products. More research is needed to evaluate health consequences of secondhand exposure to nicotine, especially among vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and people with cardiovascular conditions.

Please do not post fiction.

That is just 1 study I plucked off googamagle and there are others as well as there being a few documentaries on ecigs.

For as long as they remain unregulated and any and all claims unsubstantiated then the risk must be addressed. Ecigs are no longer a nascent industry. They are growing at an alarming rate and research is ongoing. When that is done and everything is settled then I would hope that the debate about bans are reopened.

Again, keeping it on topic. This is about what the TOC is able to do and if they are justified in doing so. All evidence to support banning for ecigs in their current form suggests that risk to others far outweighs anything else. I promise you that IF ecigs are PROVEN to be harmless to others in the long term then you may see any bans lifted.

 

[dcsprior]

I am a former smoker - having given up shortly after smoking in indoor public places was banned in Scotland in March 2006, before it was banned in the rest of the UK in Summer 2007. I did this without Nicotine gum/tablets/etc and can honestly say it is hard.

I think that among my friends/colleagues/etc [who're not selected to provide a scientifically-valid sample ], I have noticed a similar number succeed in giving up smoking in the last year with the use of an e-cigarette than have done so in the previous seven years without them.

If they do help people stop smoking, then it'd be a good thing to to do as much as possible to encourage people to switch - allowing e-cigarettes to be consumed where smoking a real cigarette would be one such encouragement. I say this having (literally) watched someone die of lung cancer.

Incidentally, am I right in thinking that real cigarettes can still be smoked on open platforms in Scotland, but not in England? If so, what are the rules in Wales/NI?

 

[Starmill]

I advocate the 455driver approach to this issue: where is he when you need 'im!?

Some TOCs have banned the use of these devices on trains or stations. If you are unable to abide by this rule, don't use our trains or stations. Thank you.

 

[455driver]

I advocate the 455driver approach to this issue: where is he when you need 'im!?

Some TOCs have banned the use of these devices on trains or stations. If you are unable to abide by this rule, don't use our trains or stations. Thank you.

Helloooooo!

 

[ECML180]

Buffet cars still sell items with transfats in them. The BMA says they should be banned. Double standards there.

I don't know how you tend to eat but I am usually able to avoid dropping crumbs into other peoples' mouths, in fact, most people are so good at it that when seeing someone else eating I'm reasonably sure that I won't have to eat the same thing too.

However when it comes to use of this 'inert' e-cig, there's a very good chance those around the user will also consume these potentially dangerous fumes, hence the issue and why that comparison is poor.

As for the suggestion they are inert and pose no danger, the same is the case with weasels, but I don't fancy causing one of them to produce smoke and placing it in my mouth.

 

[thenorthern]

Just a thought, even if these E-Cigs don't cause second hand smoke do people in confined spaces really want water vapour that has been down to someone's lungs blown on them or objects that they touch. I know some people use them responsibly and don't use them on packed trains but lets face it many people don't.

 

[455driver]

Aside-

I always remember a conversation a colleague had with somebody who insisted on blowing his smoke in our direction-

You like to smoke, the by-products of which get on my clothes and in my hair. I like to drink beer, the by-product of which is urine, how would you like it if I pis-sed all over you!

 

[thenorthern]

Aside-

I always remember a conversation a colleague had with somebody who insisted on blowing his smoke in our direction-

You like to smoke, the by-products of which get on my clothes and in my hair. I like to drink beer, the by-product of which is urine, how would you like it if I pis-sed all over you!

As shown by this advert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF41mVcDBPs

 

[455driver]

As shown by this advert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF41mVcDBPs

Ha ha, very good!

 

[Butts]

I am a former smoker - having given up shortly after smoking in indoor public places was banned in Scotland in March 2006, before it was banned in the rest of the UK in Summer 2007. I did this without Nicotine gum/tablets/etc and can honestly say it is hard.

I think that among my friends/colleagues/etc [who're not selected to provide a scientifically-valid sample ], I have noticed a similar number succeed in giving up smoking in the last year with the use of an e-cigarette than have done so in the previous seven years without them.

If they do help people stop smoking, then it'd be a good thing to to do as much as possible to encourage people to switch - allowing e-cigarettes to be consumed where smoking a real cigarette would be one such encouragement. I say this having (literally) watched someone die of lung cancer.

Incidentally, am I right in thinking that real cigarettes can still be smoked on open platforms in Scotland, but not in England? If so, what are the rules in Wales/NI?

You are correct in relation to Scotland (except NR controlled stations and Dunbar (East Coast run). I regularly puff a B&H on open platforms.

The Taffs only have the pleasure at Fishguard I believe which belongs to the Ferry Company hence the exemption.

NI I'm unsure !!

 

[thenorthern]

[/B]

You are correct in relation to Scotland (except NR controlled stations and Dunbar (East Coast run). I regularly puff a B&H on open platforms.

The Taffs only have the pleasure at Fishguard I believe which belongs to the Ferry Company hence the exemption.

NI I'm unsure !!

For Fishguard Harbour I think its for Health and Safety reasons because people were smoking on the Level Crossings before.

In Northern Ireland though its illegal on all station premises similar to that in England and Wales I think, according to their website E-Cigs are covered by exactly the same ban as regular tobacco on NI Railways.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Why? You can smoke in the open air outside railway premises with relative impunity. This includes covered spaces, such as pavements with awnings over them.

Depends. If it's still Railway owned land, then they can ban smoking there should they want to as it is private land.

Once you enter the public highway, then obviously you can light up with impunity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just a thought, even if these E-Cigs don't cause second hand smoke do people in confined spaces really want water vapour that has been down to someone's lungs blown on them or objects that they touch. I know some people use them responsibly and don't use them on packed trains but lets face it many people don't.

I get water vapour that has been down someone's lungs blown on me or on objects I touch daily.

I don't smoke or vape, but water vapour is expelled from my lungs every single time I breathe out!

 

[boing_uk]

All this withering on about a "vaper" putting other folks "at risk" with various pollutants got me thinking. Which can be dangerous.

Just a simple walk down any urban street will expose you to Benzene, PM10 and PM2.5, Sulphur Dioxide... mostly from road-going vehicles. Hell, being stood in a station with a few HST's idling, or waiting at the bus station will expose you to more pollutants in concentrations higher than you could ever be exposed to by even being sat next to a "vaper".

Medical inhalers contain tetrafluoroethane as the propellant, yet I'm sure no-one would prevent a person using such a device in their proximity.

The levels of whatever exhaled by a vaper are in the single units of micrograms - as the vapour leaves the "vaper". Those concentrations are immediately diluted in the surrounding air to a point where other pollutants cause more of a "risk".

To the poster bleating on about how it puts their health at risk? You best stay at home then... you will breath more pollutants from external sources within the cabin of the train than you will probably do from being sat next to someone using an e-cig. So there's no need to get your knickers in a knot.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Ah, so, because there are already harmful gases in the atmosphere, one more won't get noticed?

If I came across a man who had been mugged and badly beaten, would it matter if I kicked him in the ribs?

 

[Greenback]

[/B]The Taffs only have the pleasure at Fishguard I believe which belongs to the Ferry Company hence the exemption.

Correct, it is owned and operated by Stean Line. Just to clarify, it's Fishguard Harbour not Fishguard and Goodwick!

Though I suspect there will be plenty of opportunity to smoke on the latter's platfrom, during the gap between services, without anyone even noticing never mind objecting!

For Fishguard Harbour I think its for Health and Safety reasons because people were smoking on the Level Crossings before.

As far as I know smoking has never been banned on Fishguard Harbour platform. The company may have decided not to prohibit it because of fears about
people going to the LC, but to be honest with the amount of trains there I can't see how that would be dangerous in itself, I'd have been more concerned about smokers disrupting the flow of cars and lorries on to the ship.

Depends. If it's still Railway owned land, then they can ban smoking there should they want to as it is private land.

Once you enter the public highway, then obviously you can light up with impunity.

Sorry, yes, I should have written outside railway owned land, which is what I meant by 'premises'.

 

[jopsuk]

Hospital local to me has banned smoking from the site, removing the shelters. The smokers now congregate on the paths just outside the boundary (which are through rights of way on foot and by bike... they block these) and carpet the ground with cigarette butts, leaving piles of coffee cups in the verge and bushes. Quite spectacularly anti-social (and really quite dumb from the hospital). I'd much rather they had a shelter away from the path with bins etc, so that I didn't have to ride through them and the cloud of smoke they produce.

 

[transmanche]

(and really quite dumb from the hospital)

As recommended by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

 

[carriageline]

All this withering on about a "vaper" putting other folks "at risk" with various pollutants got me thinking. Which can be dangerous.

Just a simple walk down any urban street will expose you to Benzene, PM10 and PM2.5, Sulphur Dioxide... mostly from road-going vehicles. Hell, being stood in a station with a few HST's idling, or waiting at the bus station will expose you to more pollutants in concentrations higher than you could ever be exposed to by even being sat next to a "vaper".

Medical inhalers contain tetrafluoroethane as the propellant, yet I'm sure no-one would prevent a person using such a device in their proximity.

The levels of whatever exhaled by a vaper are in the single units of micrograms - as the vapour leaves the "vaper". Those concentrations are immediately diluted in the surrounding air to a point where other pollutants cause more of a "risk".

To the poster bleating on about how it puts their health at risk? You best stay at home then... you will breath more pollutants from external sources within the cabin of the train than you will probably do from being sat next to someone using an e-cig. So there's no need to get your knickers in a knot.

Hi, yeah that's me. I'm not 'bleating' at all, actually. I take it you use these? Some of you lot do really get excited and defensive about your little toys!!

So, if we allow it to be smoked on trains. ALOT of people use these ecigs in there various forms. So I imagine a fair few would use then on a packed rush hour train, or I imagine a lot of people would be tugging away say on a packed train in delays.

Now I'm no scientist, or mathematician (and neither are you I can tell) but that will greatly increase the amount of 'chemicals' in the air. Plus the closed compartment of a train?

And plus, we do not know what is in the ecigs.

Yeah, pollution is a part of everyday life now (in the forms you mentioned), and the things causing it are a near on necessity to every day life (cars, trains, planes etc etc). There is no getting rid of them.

Smoking IS NOT a necessity to every day life, why should non smokers breath in 'POSSIBLY' toxic vapour, how ever small or minute, just because a few other people want to 'vape' (cringing every time I use that word..) on a train?

It's simple, I don't want to breath in whatever crap your breathing out. I don't care if it's 0.0000001mg of something, that's still more than what I want to be breathing in, as you say, it's bad enough as it is!!

When it comes out the vapour is safe, or they do tests in places like trains, and say there is no risk to public health, then I will be happy for people to use them around me. The NHS bill must be extortionate through dealing with the effects of smoking, and the associates risks/costs coming from them, so people attempting to quit/do quit should get every help they can, and kudos to them as I know it is not easy!!

 

[jon0844]

The thing that worries me most is that the industry is totally unregulated. And even when you see those pop-up stores selling what appear to be quite slick looking devices, in very fancy packaging, you know that most of them are built with little to no quality-control or safety standards, in a factory in China or Taiwan.

Probably meaning a very nice profit margin for the company that has set up to sell its own e-cig. And I doubt that most of these companies do ANY research of their own.

The other thing that bothers me is that the people trying to sell them are as smarmy and slimy as those trying to sell double glazing, conservatories, second hand cars or sofas. Again, suggesting that there's currently good money to be made - but when the profits begin to fall, from even more competition that seems to spring up every day, you have to be even more concerned about what corners will be cut to try and maintain decent margins.

 

[Greenback]

I saw a TV programme earlier this week which reported on e-cigs exploding or catching fire in people's homes while been recharged.

 

[jon0844]

I saw a TV programme earlier this week which reported on e-cigs exploding or catching fire in people's homes while been recharged.

That doesn't surprise me. I bet the quality of the electronics in some of them is going to be shocking (perhaps literally!!).

We've probably all heard about the horror stories of buying chargers even from the likes of Amazon? Whether for a mobile phone or laptop, some of these cheap chargers (and even some of the more expensive ones that are fakes trying to be sold as originals) will short circuit and catch fire, or the casings will break exposing live wires.

I know there are sites dedicated to e-cigs now, but I wonder how many of them do thorough reviews of the devices themselves? I am assuming the likes of Which? hasn't tested them?

I know in the mid 00's, we got a load of first generation e-cigs in and did a feature. I noted how horrible they 'tasted' but it was early days. We didn't review them, but there was a real mixed bag in terms of looks and quality.

I actually think I've still got a couple in a box in my garage, along with some cartridges.

 

[TDK]

All this withering on about a "vaper" putting other folks "at risk" with various pollutants got me thinking. Which can be dangerous.

Just a simple walk down any urban street will expose you to Benzene, PM10 and PM2.5, Sulphur Dioxide... mostly from road-going vehicles. Hell, being stood in a station with a few HST's idling, or waiting at the bus station will expose you to more pollutants in concentrations higher than you could ever be exposed to by even being sat next to a "vaper".

Medical inhalers contain tetrafluoroethane as the propellant, yet I'm sure no-one would prevent a person using such a device in their proximity.

The levels of whatever exhaled by a vaper are in the single units of micrograms - as the vapour leaves the "vaper". Those concentrations are immediately diluted in the surrounding air to a point where other pollutants cause more of a "risk".

To the poster bleating on about how it puts their health at risk? You best stay at home then... you will breath more pollutants from external sources within the cabin of the train than you will probably do from being sat next to someone using an e-cig. So there's no need to get your knickers in a knot.

I have the answer to all this, the TOC's should provide gas masks to prevent their passengers inhaling any toxic fumes from baby ****, farting (methane gas), diesel fumes, alcohol fumes in the air, bad breath, curry smells, kebab smells I think you get my drift here.

 

[thenorthern]

Just a question when was smoking banned on on British Rail?

 

[Greenback]

Just a question when was smoking banned on on British Rail?

It wasn't. I remember smoking on FGW in 2000!

 

[jopsuk]

post privatisation. There were certainly still smoking carriages (on longer trains) in the late 90s/early 00s. I think the cross-border train services (East Coast, West Coast, Sleepers, Cross Country) started getting rid of smoking before the Scottish ban came into force- for instance there's never been smoking allowed on Pendolinos (2002), Voyagers (2001) or any other modern stock; similarly GNER trains that had undergone "Project Mallard" refurbishment had no smoking carriages. I'd guess it may have been banned on smaller trains much earlier- has there ever been smoking allowed on Spinters, Pacers, similar age EMUs?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As recommended by guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Indeed, but even as someone who is vehemently anti-smoking, better to coral them into draughty shelters at the 4r53 end of the site where litter can be controlled, than have them block paths and make the place look untidy.

 

[edwin_m]

When the 158s were introduced about 1990, half of one coach was for smokers.

 

[Starmill]

When the 158s were introduced about 1990, half of one coach was for smokers.

Interesting! Might as well have just made it the whole damn coach!