Smoking on stations

[ralphchadkirk]

Surprisingly, I agree with everything that's in the above post!

 

[Butts]

I also can detect it, and I always ensure it's dealt with. I contact staff if possible and I will speak to the smokers directly if appropriate, in the last week that included at Huddersfield and Gatwick Airport. They always put it out but some don't like to be told, but then people breaking the law don't tend to like being told to stop! If I detect smoke on board I usually alert the guard because I see that as very serious, and I fully agree with Flamingo that they should be removed from the train for that.

I will not smoke in an enclosed space as defined within the current legislation.

What I disagree with is preventing people from smoking in open spaces such as railway platforms and bus stations (outwith the shelters) Fortunately the only Bus Station I use regularly is Falkirk which has no restriction something it shares with FKG the Railway Station.

Railway Byelaws are exceeding the prescribed legislation and my belief is that they did it to save money on cleaning bills. Was there any consultation with passengers and or staff before the ban smoking on platforms was introduced?

You mention Gatwick Airport I'm not sure if you are talking about the Rail Station or Airport. The problem with Airports is some of them have smoking provision post-security and some don't.

 

[tony_mac]

I will not smoke in an enclosed space as defined within the current legislation.

I can only speak from my own experience of regularly smoking in hotel bathrooms (when a smoking room was unavailable)

Do you know that a hotel room is 'an enclosed space as defined within the current legislation'? (unless it has been designated as a smoking room)

The reason they gave was to 'avoid confusion' between were people could smoke and couldn't. But, yes, the cost of cleaning may have come into it, but why should they pay to clean up after people if they can avoid it?

I doubt they consulted, but they commented that it had worked well in Scotland before introducing it to England and Wales.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Does anyone who thinks the railway has reduced cleaning costs purely because of the smoking ban actually think that the stations they use are now cleaner (or dirtier) than before for that reason?

At my local station the cost reduction from the smoking ban was less than zero. In other words, they spent more money imposing it than they will save from it. Why? because the chap that cleaned up the fag butts still cleans up all the litter left behind and still empties the bins.

I suppose at the larger stations they might have reduced the number of contract cleaners by one or two.

 

[Butts]

Does anyone who thinks the railway has reduced cleaning costs purely because of the smoking ban actually think that the stations they use are now cleaner (or dirtier) than before for that reason?

At my local station the cost reduction from the smoking ban was less than zero. In other words, they spent more money imposing it than they will save from it. Why? because the chap that cleaned up the fag butts still cleans up all the litter left behind and still empties the bins.

I suppose at the larger stations they might have reduced the number of contract cleaners by one or two.

The problem is the entrance to the stations where people congregate for a smoke often with no provision made for disposal of the "dog ends".

This creates a fug far worse for non-smokers to walk through than if it was dispersed along open platforms.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Look at the question raised by the OP originally. The Act in question is the Health Act 2006. This Act applies to the premises in which it makes reference to within the terminology of the wording of the said Act. Its application covers railway buildings, as any other buildings within its said definition, as these buildings are not shown as a specific exclusion of the strictures of the said Act.

Railway by-laws are specific in their wording and re-enactment and are part of historical terminology inherant within the railway industry. But railway by-laws are not deemed superior in law to any Act that is placed upon the Statute Book. There does seem to be a belief that this is not the case when railway premises are involved which are covered by railway by-laws.

The point to note is the section 2 (b) in the posting of the OP which states:-
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)

Passenger rail travel and general freight transportation by rail both fall under the said legal terminology of the above.

 

[Butts]

Would smoking on an open platform constitute a Civil or Criminal Offence with regard to Railway Byelaws ?

Have there been any prosecutions - I did ask before but no specific cases have been indicated by reference to a link.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Would smoking on an open platform constitute a Civil or Criminal Offence with regard to Railway Byelaws ?

Have there been any prosecutions - I did ask before but no specific cases have been indicated by reference to a link.

If you are smoking, or anything else which Byelaw 3 covers near which a sign is provided telling you you cannot smoke then it is a criminal offence, and will be heard in a magistrates court.

 

[Butts]

If you are smoking, or anything else which Byelaw 3 covers near which a sign is provided telling you you cannot smoke then it is a criminal offence, and will be heard in a magistrates court.

Can you point me in the direction of a prosecution and what the outcome was?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Can you point me in the direction of a prosecution and what the outcome was?

Cases in a magistrates court are not subject to law reporting, and as such, case citations can be very difficult to find. I'm not a member, or don't have the money to be a member, of any of the UK Legal Case Databases.

 

[Butts]

Cases in a magistrates court are not subject to law reporting, and as such, case citations can be very difficult to find. I'm not a member, or don't have the money to be a member, of any of the UK Legal Case Databases.

I just thought it would have made the press headlines....

"Fined for Puffing on the Station" etc...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I just thought it would have made the press headlines....

"Fined for Puffing on the Station" etc...

Not really. Undoubtably it has happened.

 

[Butts]

Not really. Undoubtably it has happened.

Perhaps Flamingo or some other TOC staff can confirm an actual instance and what the outcome was.

 

[yorkie]

Normally a fine I would have thought but a persistent smoker was jailed in one particularly extraordinary case that was widely reported.

 

[Butts]

Normally a fine I would have thought but a persistent smoker was jailed in one particularly extraordinary case that was widely reported.

Any idea where and when that was ?

 

[Stigy]

Look at the question raised by the OP originally. The Act in question is the Health Act 2006. This Act applies to the premises in which it makes reference to within the terminology of the wording of the said Act. Its application covers railway buildings, as any other buildings within its said definition, as these buildings are not shown as a specific exclusion of the strictures of the said Act.

Railway by-laws are specific in their wording and re-enactment and are part of historical terminology inherant within the railway industry. But railway by-laws are not deemed superior in law to any Act that is placed upon the Statute Book. There does seem to be a belief that this is not the case when railway premises are involved which are covered by railway by-laws.

The point to note is the section 2 (b) in the posting of the OP which states:-
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)

Passenger rail travel and general freight transportation by rail both fall under the said legal terminology of the above.

Smoking in enclosed railway buildings and vehicles could quite easily be enforced using the national legislation, however smoking on an open platform could not be. This is why the byelaws are used as a whole. It makes sense on the railway to use the Byelaws where they are available.

 

[All Line Rover]

I will not smoke in an enclosed space as defined within the current legislation.

What I disagree with is preventing people from smoking in open spaces such as railway platforms and bus stations (outwith the shelters) Fortunately the only Bus Station I use regularly is Falkirk which has no restriction something it shares with FKG the Railway Station.

Railway Byelaws are exceeding the prescribed legislation and my belief is that they did it to save money on cleaning bills. Was there any consultation with passengers and or staff before the ban smoking on platforms was introduced?

You mention Gatwick Airport I'm not sure if you are talking about the Rail Station or Airport. The problem with Airports is some of them have smoking provision post-security and some don't.

Yorkie was talking about the railway station.

I fully support the smoking ban on railway platforms. It may be an "open space" in the sense that there is no roof and no walls, but unlike a park - where people are free to roam about - people have to wait on a platform for their train. If the general consensus is that people don't want to inhale the fumes from smokers' cigarettes, a ban will be introduced and enforced.

I don't think a smoking ban applies outside of a bus shelter, but many of the "shelters" round here just have a roof (no walls) which means that if someone smokes, the fumes go everywhere and I can smell it "inside" the "shelter." I don't want to smell it, or breath it in!

I also don't believe that the smoking ban on railway stations was introduced to save money on "cleaning bills." It sounds like a load of poppycock to me. It was introduced because non-smokers who use the railways don't want to be surrounded by people smoking on the platforms!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was on a very quiet EC train once in FC where the host locked himself in the toilet to smoke, then locked the toilet out of use after. I am very alert to what is going on usually, and it became very clear to me very suddenly what he was up to. After the FC host did this, he swapped with the buffet guy to do it (it was a very quiet train during Engineering work on the EC one weekend). I went to the buffet and politely explained I realised what happened, and nothing would be said if they would unlock the same water closet for me to nip for a quick cigarette. The attendant was happy to be of assistance

If I had seen that, I would have reported them and made sure that they got a very thorough telling off! IMO they should have been fired for that!

I also think TOC's should not recruit smokers to be a Train Manager/Guard and especially a First Class host. I do not want to smell someone's putrid breath when I am asked if I want a sandwich, or when I am asked for my ticket! :roll:

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

deleted

 

[CarterUSM]

I also think TOC's should not recruit smokers to be a Train Manager/Guard and especially a First Class host. I do not want to smell someone's putrid breath when I am asked if I want a sandwich, or when I am asked for my ticket! :roll:

I don't particularly want to smell your breath either, whatever it whiffs of. I suppose we'd better not employ people who eat strong smelling foods either.......

 

[bnm]

I also think TOC's should not recruit smokers to be a Train Manager/Guard and especially a First Class host. I do not want to smell someone's putrid breath when I am asked if I want a sandwich, or when I am asked for my ticket! :roll:

Just TOCs or any employee you come into contact with? Silly idea and no doubt illegal to discriminate in such a way.

It appears that what you are saying is that smokers should not work in any customer facing role. That's a lot of jobs people will be denied access to if such a discriminatory recruitment policy was legal.

I could soon be working for a TOC (fingers crossed) as an ATE, my first permanent job in over 5 years. Would you rather I wasn't allowed to, and continue to draw state benefits?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't think a smoking ban applies outside of a bus shelter, but many of the "shelters" round here just have a roof (no walls) which means that if someone smokes, the fumes go everywhere and I can smell it "inside" the "shelter." I don't want to smell it, or breath it

I have checked again with TfGM about their ruling of smoking within bus stations. The categoric reply was that anywhere within the legally-defined perimeter of the bus station, be it inside or outside bus shelters and on the external pedestrian access routes within the said perimeter and on the busways themselves, constitues a total no-smoking area.

As bus and coach stations and railway stations exist for passenger carrying facilities, how can the Health Act 2006 not be applied in a blanket fashion to all of these.

Are TfGM being too precise with their "premises perimeter" definition of this part of the Health Act 2006?

 

[bnm]

I don't particularly want to smell your breath either, whatever it whiffs of. I suppose we'd better not employ people who eat strong smelling foods either.......

Those complimentary Chicken & Brie sandwiches in All Line Rover's favourite* enviroment, Virgin 1st Class, are quite whiffy.

Best brush your teeth straight after you tuck in to your next one, ALR!


*EDIT: 2nd favourite enviroment. ATW Premier Service came out tops with ALR. Some pretty strong flavoured ingredients use by the ATW chefs though. Take a travel size bottle of Listerine with you ALR.

 

[All Line Rover]

Those complimentary Chicken & Brie sandwiches in All Line Rover's favourite enviroment, Virgin 1st Class, are quite whiffy.

Best brush your teeth straight after you tuck in to your next one, ALR!

I find those Chicken & Brie sandwiches to be disgusting! And I do brush my teeth very frequently, as a matter of fact.

Being serious, though, I have ONCE seen a Virgin TM who absolutely stank of cigarette smoke, and for such a customer-facing role it really wasn't very pleasant. I feel that Virgin should be able to discriminate against such people - if they want the job so badly, stop smoking. (If you want a catering job, stop biting your nails. If you want a job in a posh restaurant, dress smartly. If you want a job working with machinery but are taking medication that causes drowsiness, then unfortunately you can't have the job. If you want a job with Virgin in a customer-facing role but smoke and "can't"/won't stop smoking, then unfortunately you can't have the job. etc, etc.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

*EDIT: 2nd favourite enviroment. ATW Premier Service came out tops with ALR. Some pretty strong flavoured ingredients use by the ATW chefs though. Take a travel size bottle of Listerine with you ALR.

I don't mind the smell of food. I mind the smell of cigarette smoke. (Except cheese - it may taste nice but people really don't have nice breath after eating it!) If a Virgin Trains First Class host LOVED cheese, then yes, I would expect them to brush their teeth before work. I think it's a reasonable requirement not to smell.

I can't help but notice that almost everyone who dislikes my idea is a smoker. I would dislike the above suggestion if I loved smelly cheeses.

 

[Butts]

ALR are you aware that there are TEN MILLION SMOKERS in the UK....

Whats next fat people ???

People with BO ????

People you don't like the look of ???

 

[bnm]

I want the job I've applied for. I smoke and have no current plans to give up. Should I also not eat garlic, onions, mature cheddar, spicy food etc etc during my meal breaks? Or should I always carry my oral hygiene gubbins with me just in case I may offend some overly sensitive passenger after eating anything that isn't bland?

Bread and water for all customer facing staff is it?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

ALR are you aware that there are TEN MILLION SMOKERS in the UK....

Which represents 16% of the UK (if your figures are to be believed). Why should the vast majority be made to suffer for the minority?

(For the record, I do not support ALR's views that smokers should be banned from getting jobs)

 

[Butts]

Which represents 16% of the UK (if your figures are to be believed). Why should the vast majority be made to suffer for the minority?

(For the record, I do not support ALR's views that smokers should be banned from getting jobs)

It's over 20% as children are not included

Suffer is a bit extreme outside !!!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Suffer is a bit extreme outside !!!

For asthmatics and people with respiratory illnesses it's not.

And for people who find cigarette smoke disgusting it's not.

Either way, smokers are in the minority now. They'd better get used to going away from non-smokers to smoke rather than the other way round.


Incidentally Butts, I see you have not commented on your rank hypocrisy yet?

 

[Butts]

For asthmatics and people with respiratory illnesses it's not.

And for people who find cigarette smoke disgusting it's not.

Either way, smokers are in the minority now. They'd better get used to going away from non-smokers to smoke rather than the other way round.


Incidentally Butts, I see you have not commented on your rank hypocrisy yet?

Which rank hypocrisy ???

 

[ralphchadkirk]

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=780164&postcount=93