smoking ban

[WL113]

A station in my home is a great example of how laughable the 'smoking ban' is.

The station is unstaffed of course, so it is not a workplace. The station platforms and footbridge are in the open air...

So why are there signs stating that the station and its platforms are a no smoking area?

Drinking cans of high strength lager all night in the shelters is allowed.. But no smoking!!

Obviously this ridiculous smoking ban is soundly ignored by the passengers and quite rightly.

 

[passmore]

I agree with a lot of that. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the laws were rushed in, without consideration for either enforcement or common sense.

In view of this thread, I had a quick look around Gowerton station today. As far as I could see, it has just one, rather small sign, positioned a metre or so to the left of the entrance to the platform. It simply read 'It is against the law to smoke in these premises'.

As to enforcement, well, the platform is long enough for many carriages - is anyone seriously going to object if a person goes to the far end of the platform for a quick puff? In fact, if anyone stood behind the remnants of the old Central Wales railway bridge, they could not be seen at all.

The laws were not rushed in, it is up to individual public places and their respective management to enforce the laws. As I said, there are lots of places where enforcement of the 'no smoking' ban is properly managed, but in this case, it seems as if many are willing to turn a blind eye to stations simply because the majority of stations are 'open air'.

It shouldn't matter where on the station you puff, whether it's the end of the platform or in the middle of the platform. Both consitute public places and the fact that they are not enclosed is immaterial.

 

[Greenback]

I disagree completely. Perhaps the laws were not so rushed in England as they were in Wales ( they seemed to want to beat England to it), but litle notice was taken of some of the concerns raised about the legislation. Some of the concerns, which were at the very east exoressed locally to AM's as well as councillors, were about this very topic. It could easily be seen that on the many unstaffed stations in Wales, some of which already having anti social behaviour, it would be impractical to enforce a smoking ban.

It would have been far, far better if specially designated smoking zones had been incorporated, which seems to work very well in other countries I have visite dlike the Netherlands.

As for your last statement, that is just wrong. There is no legislation in place to prevent smoking at a bus stop for example, which is a public place and not enclosed. It is only bus shelters, which are obviously enclosed, where smoking could be described as illegal under the legislation. Yet a bus stop is a public place, as is a car park, a street, a park and so on. In none of these places is it illegal to smoke, unless of course there is a local byelaw prohibiting it.

Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated in this thread, there is a lot of confusion about the ban to this day. That is a sign of poor legislation. As with the case of a local pub, which was in trouble because it's smoking shelter fell foul of some percentage rule, the legislation seems to have been written by, and for the benfit of, bureaucrats and lawyers!

 

[moonrakerz]

It shouldn't matter where on the station you puff, whether it's the end of the platform or in the middle of the platform. Both consitute public places and the fact that they are not enclosed is immaterial.

If you are going to make statements like that, I would check the LAW.

The no smoking legislation says " From this date (7/7/07) smoking will no longer be permitted in any enclosed or substantially enclosed premises " (My highlighting)

Your statement is therefore factually incorrect. Making ill researched statements like this helps no one.
The English National Law which bans smoking DOES NOT apply to an open railway station platform. Whether the TOCs are using a Railway by-Law is another matter.

 

[passmore]

I disagree completely. Perhaps the laws were not so rushed in England as they were in Wales ( they seemed to want to beat England to it), but litle notice was taken of some of the concerns raised about the legislation. Some of the concerns, which were at the very east exoressed locally to AM's as well as councillors, were about this very topic. It could easily be seen that on the many unstaffed stations in Wales, some of which already having anti social behaviour, it would be impractical to enforce a smoking ban.

It would have been far, far better if specially designated smoking zones had been incorporated, which seems to work very well in other countries I have visite dlike the Netherlands.

As for your last statement, that is just wrong. There is no legislation in place to prevent smoking at a bus stop for example, which is a public place and not enclosed. It is only bus shelters, which are obviously enclosed, where smoking could be described as illegal under the legislation. Yet a bus stop is a public place, as is a car park, a street, a park and so on. In none of these places is it illegal to smoke, unless of course there is a local byelaw prohibiting it.

Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated in this thread, there is a lot of confusion about the ban to this day. That is a sign of poor legislation. As with the case of a local pub, which was in trouble because it's smoking shelter fell foul of some percentage rule, the legislation seems to have been written by, and for the benfit of, bureaucrats and lawyers!

Yes you're probably right as regards to the degree of confusion surrounding this law. My interpretation is that stations and their respective areas constitute public areas and it doesn't matter that parts of that public area are not enclosed. The law is uniform and applies to everything within that public area. Obviously, my interpretation is wrong.

Going back to the crux of the matter as regards to enforcement, it seems to me as your argument of it being 'impractical' highlights a symptom of modern society in that people no longer get involved for fear of reprisals. Perhaps there are stations that do have proper enforcement, but by and large enforcement at the majority of stations is non-existent. I still doubt that this is to do with the law being confusing, and I still maintain this is due to stations not having the proper staff on hand and these staff being afraid to confront these misdemeanours for fear of come back.

I'm sorry again if my interpretation comes across as being 'at odds' to how you've interpreted the law, but maybe my misconceptions are also a symptom of just how muddled and confused this whole legislation really is.

 

[Greenback]

Exactly, the legislation is far from perfect. I was heavily involved with a sports and social club at the time the legislation was going through in Wales. As secretary, I sought to protect the interests of the smoking members and joined in with other club officals across Wales to try and ensure that we could have a smoking room in the club itself for those who wished to smoke inside. No one was prepared to listen to our arguments or to try and reach a compromise. The club is now closed, as elderly members (most of the smokers) chose to stay in where they could smoke as much as they liked whilst drinking cheap beer from Tesco, and watching the football on Sky with the money they saved.

In my opinion, and it is only an opinion, the fact that many people are willing to flout the ban on stations is indicative not only of a general trend in society, but also of a realisation that the ban is rather silly in open spaces. I have seen the smoking ban enforced by staff in places where the platforms are covered by canopies, and the only dissent I've seen is from a soldier who had just returned from Afghanistan. he wondered exactly why he had been fighting there, was it for the right to have a cigarette?!!

The crux of the matter is, really, how can a ban be enforced at all at an open, unstaffed station? I have caught the train at Gowerton when I have been the only person on the platform!

The law makes no mention of public spaces, otherwise it would be against the law to smoke everywhere apart from your own home. Conversely, it would be OK to smoke inside a private space, such as a prvate members club where access is controlled. I believe the intention of the legislation was to ensure workers are not exposed to other people's smoke in enclosed premises - if that is the case ther eis no harm at all in smoking on an open platform. It's courtesy to move away from others, but courtesy is also sadly lacking in modern society!

 

[Stigy]

I had to tell somebody to extinguish their ciggie the other day. Now usually I'm very tollerant unless it's on board a train, but this girl was smoking facing a blown up No Smoking sign on an A1 style display...In hindsight I wish I'd have reported her, but I was on a train and didn't want to alight....:roll:

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It shouldn't matter where on the station you puff, whether it's the end of the platform or in the middle of the platform. Both consitute public places and the fact that they are not enclosed is immaterial.

Not true I'm afraid.

(1) Premises are smoke-free if they are open to the public.
But unless the premises also fall within subsection (2), they are smoke-free only when open to the public.
(2) Premises are smoke-free if they are used as a place of work—
(a) by more than one person (even if the persons who work there do so at different times, or only intermittently), or
(b) where members of the public might attend for the purpose of seeking or receiving goods or services from the person or persons working there (even if members of the public are not always present).
They are smoke-free all the time.
(3) If only part of the premises is open to the public or (as the case may be) used as a place of work mentioned in subsection (2), the premises are smoke-free only to that extent.
(4) In any case, premises are smoke-free only in those areas which are enclosed or substantially enclosed.

 

[passmore]

Ah, but that's how I interpreted it Ralph. I interpreted that it doesn't matter whether the space is enclosed or not as the space is a public area.

Obviously that interpretation is wrong. In legislation so confusing as this, just what is THE right and THE wrong interpretation?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Ah, but that's how I interpreted it Ralph. I interpreted that it doesn't matter whether the space is enclosed or not as the space is a public area.

Obviously that interpretation is wrong. In legislation so confusing as this, just what is THE right and THE wrong interpretation?

That's where case law comes in, and I haven't got access to the right sites to look up the correct precedent. The law that is churned out of parliament is written in a very confusing way, and it is up to the many judges to refine it through precedent.

 

[Greenback]

Section 3 is writen so that someone who owns and lives in a shop, like a village post office cum general stores, cannot claim that it is their home and therefore they are entitled to smoke behind the counter when serving customers. They are allowed to smoke in their home section of the premises, as that is not open to the public.

Section 4 is there to provide that car parks and such similar open areas of a premises are not covered by the ban. Presumably on the grounds that it would be impossible to enforce effectively? If that is the case, then one wonders why the decisionw as taken not to provide smoking sections on open railway station platforms!

It can all be quite confusing, until you apply a lot of thought both to the intention of the law and the specific wording.

 

[island]

Ah, but that's how I interpreted it Ralph. I interpreted that it doesn't matter whether the space is enclosed or not as the space is a public area.

Obviously that interpretation is wrong. In legislation so confusing as this, just what is THE right and THE wrong interpretation?

There is one law that says "no smoking in enclosed or substantially enclosed public places, and the controller of the public place must put up a no smoking sign".

There is a second (older) law that says "no smoking on railway premises if there are no smoking signs up".

The second law (technically a bye-law) can apply to outdoor areas as well as indoor areas. The first law can't.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....The station is unstaffed of course, so it is not a workplace....

Presumably your local station operates under DOO or is a DLR station and never has revenue protection staff about then? One of my local stations is unstaffed, but up to 44 members of staff perform work related duties on it each day and up to three more people perform duties every week. That is before we get to managers too.

....Obviously this ridiculous smoking ban is soundly ignored by the passengers and quite rightly.

Quite rightly???? It is against a byelaw if there are signs which prohibit smoking, doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps this is the way society works now, everything is allowed until you are told it's not? Oh, but wait, what are those funny signs about? I guess we can just ignore them, I mean it's not like we are breaking the law or anything.

Presumably I can go around stealing things from people's houses until I'm told to stop, and then it's no harm done, right?

 

[Greenback]

The difference is that it is against the law to steal from peopl'es houses full stop. If a blanket smoking ban had been introduced in 2007, then we would not need signs. However, it is clear that smoking is perfectly legal in most non enclosed spaces, so the signs are necessary in order to enforce no smoking rules where they exist in such areas.

If the law stated that it was only illegal to steal from houses which had been marked 'No Burglars' then I am sure there would be signs everywhere!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Equally, the fact there are signs telling us not to smoke means it is far more obvious that it is not allowed, yet some on this forum and in the real world seem to claim that because they see no logic to it or no-one has told them to stop, the law/byelaw should not apply to them.

So if I see no logic in taking other people's stuff without consent being illegal, or no-one tells me to stop taking other people's stuff without consent, that law shouldn't apply to me.

 

[passmore]

Equally, the fact there are signs telling us not to smoke means it is far more obvious that it is not allowed, yet some on this forum and in the real world seem to claim that because they see no logic to it or no-one has told them to stop, the law/byelaw should not apply to them.

So if I see no logic in taking other people's stuff without consent being illegal, or no-one tells me to stop taking other people's stuff without consent, that law shouldn't apply to me.

That's how I interpreted it. If there are signs telling us not to smoke, then so be it: don't smoke!

But where the complications, contradictions and ultimately confusion come in is when we try and debate what constitutes an 'enclosed public space'. My earlier posts explaining my interpretation is obviously not shared, and this is exactly the underlying problem with the 'no smoking' law.

It's therefore very difficult to apply logic to a law that is based on very little logic.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Which is why the railway chose to employ byelaw 3 so widely.

 

[Greenback]

Equally, the fact there are signs telling us not to smoke means it is far more obvious that it is not allowed, yet some on this forum and in the real world seem to claim that because they see no logic to it or no-one has told them to stop, the law/byelaw should not apply to them.

So if I see no logic in taking other people's stuff without consent being illegal, or no-one tells me to stop taking other people's stuff without consent, that law shouldn't apply to me.

Where has anyone said that the law does not apply to them? All we have been discussing is the difficulty in enforcing the byelaws, and the fact that the legislation is not ideal.

The question remains, how ar epeople to know where smoking is not allowed or allowed if there are no signs to tell them?

If there are signs telling us not to smoke, then so be it: don't smoke!

Quite correct. No one can argue against that, althoug soem may argue the law is wrong!

But where the complications, contradictions and ultimately confusion come in is when we try and debate what constitutes an 'enclosed public space'. My earlier posts explaining my interpretation is obviously not shared, and this is exactly the underlying problem with the 'no smoking' law.

It's therefore very difficult to apply logic to a law that is based on very little logic.

Yes, this is where the pub I mentioned earlier had problems. There was a long dispute over how enclosed their smoking shelter was and it went down to one or two percentage points IIRC. This also relied on interpretation, and the council's view was that a small section of plastic roof and the thickness of the wooden supports meant that the shelter was in breach of the regulations.

Which is why the railway chose to employ byelaw 3 so widely.

And isn't that the one that relies on signage?!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Where has anyone said that the law does not apply to them?....

....The station is unstaffed of course, so it is not a workplace. The station platforms and footbridge are in the open air...

So why are there signs stating that the station and its platforms are a no smoking area?....

....Obviously this ridiculous smoking ban is soundly ignored by the passengers and quite rightly.

.....

 

[wbbminerals]

At Wakefield Kirkgate today there were an old couple that were both puffing away in the completely enclosed subway! Not that anyone cared.

 

[WL113]

Quite rightly???? It is against a byelaw if there are signs which prohibit smoking, doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps this is the way society works now, everything is allowed until you are told it's not? Oh, but wait, what are those funny signs about? I guess we can just ignore them, I mean it's not like we are breaking the law or anything.

Yes quite rightly. Laws and byelaws only have credibility when they have the support of society. The way the smoking ban has been applied does not have this support.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quite rightly???? It is against a byelaw if there are signs which prohibit smoking, doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps this is the way society works now, everything is allowed until you are told it's not? Oh, but wait, what are those funny signs about? I guess we can just ignore them, I mean it's not like we are breaking the law or anything.

Yes quite rightly. Laws and byelaws only have credibility when they have the support of society. The way the smoking ban has been applied does not have this support.[/QUOTE]

 

[passmore]

Quite rightly???? It is against a byelaw if there are signs which prohibit smoking, doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps this is the way society works now, everything is allowed until you are told it's not? Oh, but wait, what are those funny signs about? I guess we can just ignore them, I mean it's not like we are breaking the law or anything.

Yes quite rightly. Laws and byelaws only have credibility when they have the support of society. The way the smoking ban has been applied does not have this support.

Because many members of the public don't understand its application, eg its OK for you to smoke in this public space but not in this.

The signs should be all that you need to know about where to smoke, it's when we scratch the surface into the nitty-gritty and try and tackle the logic upon which these laws and byelaws are based that the credibility of them becomes diminished.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . Yes quite rightly. Laws and byelaws only have credibility when they have the support of society.

Er, that's a tautology, isn't it. (ie It defines something in terms of that same definition - effectively it doesn't say anything).

. . . . it's when we scratch the surface into the nitty-gritty and try and tackle the logic upon which these laws and byelaws are based that the credibility of them becomes diminished.

I'm more inclined to accept that explanation (though in this whole debate, I find it hard to remove the French element, as referred to above, that smokers don't WANT to find it credible. We citizens often resist legislation we don't like for a variety of sound reasons and specious reasons; and everything in between those two.)

Maybe there are poorly defined elements to the legislations, but I must say that there are very, very many people who have no difficulty at all. The companies in the lucrative business of manufacturing and installing 'smoking shelters' are in no doubt of exactly the proportions and definitions of 'partially enclosed space' which provide the maximum protection to staff against the weather, with the minimum of open space to remain within the permitted definitions. Its not that mysterious.

As for the Byelaws, 'the Railways' is empowered to create those (subject to a defined procedure). That seems to be quite straightforward to me.

 

[Darandio]

But where the complications, contradictions and ultimately confusion come in is when we try and debate what constitutes an 'enclosed public space'. My earlier posts explaining my interpretation is obviously not shared, and this is exactly the underlying problem with the 'no smoking' law.

Completely agree.

Lets take my local station for example, Redcar Central.

The platform is around 143 metres long, but only served by 2 Car DMU's, less than half of this gets used at the eastern end. You are probably wondering where I am going with this, but.........

At the eastern end is the ticket office, where the trains stop is plastered with signs station no smoking is allowed on the premises. Another 30 or so metres up is a small shelter, again with signs inside. That leaves around 60 metres of open platform with no signs whatsoever.

As this is (unbelieveably) a destination for daytrippers, many will often cross the bridge at the western end, and take a seat further up the platform, never venturing down towards where any signs state they cannot smoke. Although they can easily access the car park behind them, only 5-6 metres or so, they will happily light up on the platform, not aware because of no signage at that end and because the general "ideal" is believed to be no smoking in an enclosed space which it isn't.

Thats the main problem, how are they supposed to know? Despite the fact they could quite easily be stopped and fined for having what seems like a seemingly innocent cigarette.

 

[Greenback]

Where the ban is enforced, it is far more likely they would be asked ot put the cigarette out rather than prosecuted.

Some people do things without thinking, a man came into the pub the other day, got out a cigarette and lit up, at which point several people and the staff all shouted at him to get outside! He was very embarrassed, as he said, it's been four years since the ban came in!

 

[Bon Accord]

at which point several people and the staff all shouted at him to get outside!!

Just shows you how much the world has changed. A subtle word in the ear would once have been considered the done thing, alas 'bold and brash' seems to be the mantra today.
To tangent slightly, it does sadden me somewhat that in todays world of supposed equality and tolerance, that such equality and tolerance only tends applies to those who follow the mainstream view, whatever it may be, everyone else tends to be fair game.

 

[Greenback]

With the risk of a £2500 fine for the owner, it's not really surprising that there was a bit of shouting! Mind you the girl behind the bar is not exactly quiet at the best of times!

 

[Bon Accord]

A £2500 fine if they "Knowingly Permit" smoking isn't it?
Still not an excuse for rudeness.

 

[Greenback]

Yes, however I wouldn't like to be the one that is testing the definition of knowingly in court!