OT: Smoking ban in cars

tailwindhome

Porgy

I understood what you were trying to say, even under a tsunami of DDD nonsense I understood

But you threw it away in spectacular fashion with that shed analogy.

What were you thinking?

Don't be disheartened, it's only the internet, you can play again tomorrow.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

it would be a smoke free area under the Health Act 2006. In which case, smoking in private cars is already illegal!

If Spen disagrees is all human existance negated?

Wait a minute....

I don't recall Spen and Greg ever posting on the same thread....

rjsterry

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

it would be a smoke free area under the Health Act 2006. In which case, smoking in private cars is already illegal!

If Spen disagrees is all human existance negated?

Wait a minute....

I don't recall Spen and Greg ever posting on the same thread....

A scary thought indeed!

DonDaddyD

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Porgy

I understood what you were trying to say, even under a tsunami of DDD nonsense I understood

WTF!? Is there any need? You b*tch about my off topic stuff, you attack my sensible stuff. Maybe you're the problem.

Quite besides which what "tsunami of DDD nonsense", I walked away from this thread, I really did because I was dumbfounded by the notion that a car isn't "personal property" and in fact a public space. I tell you what since your car is a public space, I'll go sit in it, maybe drive it to work sometime, OK?

To clarify

In the civil law systems personal property is often called movable property or movables - any property that can be moved from one location to another. This term is in distinction with immovable property or immovables, such as land and buildings.

Wheezy wrote:

Porgy wrote:

What is howver a road safety issue is the widespread perception that a car is a private domain, when in reality it is a piece of heavy machinery operated at speed in a public area.

And it is a safety issue as the psychological effect of those who believe such nonsense creates the fall-out that cyclists have to put up with every day.

This is an opinion not informed, not researched, nothing and to me it makes no logical sense.

To drum home the point, there is no correlation, no substantive evidence that drivers are more dangerous to cyclist because they perceive their cars as personal property. If anything because they believe they own their cars personally (which they do) they would arguably be more cautious as the responsibility for repairing any damage and charges for damage caused would be theirs (which it is when proven as their fault).

Have either of you ever thought to consider that while the car is ultimately the owners, it has to interact (be driven) safely when in the vicinity of the public and their are laws, regulations and enforcement of both to help ensure and maintain this.

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Porgy

I understood what you were trying to say, even under a tsunami of DDD nonsense I understood

WTF!? Is there any need? You b*tch about my off topic stuff, you attack my sensible stuff. Maybe you're the problem.

Quite besides which what "tsunami of DDD nonsense", I walked away from this thread, I really did because I was dumbfounded by the notion that a car isn't "personal property" and in fact a public space. I tell you what since your car is a public space, I'll go sit in it, maybe drive it to work sometime, OK?

To clarify

In the civil law systems personal property is often called movable property or movables - any property that can be moved from one location to another. This term is in distinction with immovable property or immovables, such as land and buildings.

Wheezy wrote:

Porgy wrote:

What is howver a road safety issue is the widespread perception that a car is a private domain, when in reality it is a piece of heavy machinery operated at speed in a public area.

And it is a safety issue as the psychological effect of those who believe such nonsense creates the fall-out that cyclists have to put up with every day.

This is an opinion not informed, not researched, nothing and to me it makes no logical sense.

To drum home the point, there is no correlation, no substantive evidence that drivers are more dangerous to cyclist because they perceive their cars as personal property. If anything because they believe they own their cars personally (which they do) they would arguably be more cautious as the responsibility for repairing any damage and charges for damage caused would be theirs (which it is when proven as their fault).

Have either of you ever thought to consider that while the car is ultimately the owners, it has to interact (be driven) safely when in the vicinity of the public and their are laws, regulations and enforcement of both to help ensure and maintain this.

Personal / private property vs personal /private space. Subtly different concepts...

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Porgy

I understood what you were trying to say, even under a tsunami of DDD nonsense I understood

WTF!? Is there any need? You b*tch about my off topic stuff, you attack my sensible stuff. Maybe you're the problem.

Quite besides which what "tsunami of DDD nonsense", I walked away from this thread, I really did because I was dumbfounded by the notion that a car isn't "personal property" and in fact a public space. I tell you what since your car is a public space, I'll go sit in it, maybe drive it to work sometime, OK?

To clarify

In the civil law systems personal property is often called movable property or movables - any property that can be moved from one location to another. This term is in distinction with immovable property or immovables, such as land and buildings.

Wheezy wrote:

Porgy wrote:

What is howver a road safety issue is the widespread perception that a car is a private domain, when in reality it is a piece of heavy machinery operated at speed in a public area.

And it is a safety issue as the psychological effect of those who believe such nonsense creates the fall-out that cyclists have to put up with every day.

This is an opinion not informed, not researched, nothing and to me it makes no logical sense.

To drum home the point, there is no correlation, no substantive evidence that drivers are more dangerous to cyclist because they perceive their cars as personal property. If anything because they believe they own their cars personally (which they do) they would arguably be more cautious as the responsibility for repairing any damage and charges for damage caused would be theirs (which it is when proven as their fault).

Have either of you ever thought to consider that while the car is ultimately the owners, it has to interact (be driven) safely when in the vicinity of the public and their are laws, regulations and enforcement of both to help ensure and maintain this.

There's really nothing I can add to that.

Sloppy work on the quotes though, and you may be confusing me with someon else on the off topic b*tching

rjsterry

MatHammond wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Porgy

I understood what you were trying to say, even under a tsunami of DDD nonsense I understood

WTF!? Is there any need? You b*tch about my off topic stuff, you attack my sensible stuff. Maybe you're the problem.

Quite besides which what "tsunami of DDD nonsense", I walked away from this thread, I really did because I was dumbfounded by the notion that a car isn't "personal property" and in fact a public space. I tell you what since your car is a public space, I'll go sit in it, maybe drive it to work sometime, OK?

To clarify

In the civil law systems personal property is often called movable property or movables - any property that can be moved from one location to another. This term is in distinction with immovable property or immovables, such as land and buildings.

Wheezy wrote:

Porgy wrote:

What is howver a road safety issue is the widespread perception that a car is a private domain, when in reality it is a piece of heavy machinery operated at speed in a public area.

And it is a safety issue as the psychological effect of those who believe such nonsense creates the fall-out that cyclists have to put up with every day.

This is an opinion not informed, not researched, nothing and to me it makes no logical sense.

To drum home the point, there is no correlation, no substantive evidence that drivers are more dangerous to cyclist because they perceive their cars as personal property. If anything because they believe they own their cars personally (which they do) they would arguably be more cautious as the responsibility for repairing any damage and charges for damage caused would be theirs (which it is when proven as their fault).

Have either of you ever thought to consider that while the car is ultimately the owners, it has to interact (be driven) safely when in the vicinity of the public and their are laws, regulations and enforcement of both to help ensure and maintain this.

Personal / private property vs personal /private space. Subtly different concepts...

Izackly. Not even that subtly either.

DonDaddyD

To everyone,

There are two seperate issues being discussed here:

(i)

Porgy wrote:

Wheezy wrote:

What is howver a road safety issue is the widespread perception that a car is a private domain, when in reality it is a piece of heavy machinery operated at speed in a public area.

And it is a safety issue as the psychological effect of those who believe such nonsense creates the fall-out that cyclists have to put up with every day.

Porgy was reinforcing what Wheezy was saying. Both IMO are wrong. There is nothing to suggest that a motorist's perception of their vehicle, in this case private/personal property and their private domain is directly related to safety. If that was the case buses, white vans (often company owned) and other public vehicles would pose less of a threat on the road. They don't.

How the car is used on public road is a seperate issue regulated by traffic law and legislation. These laws can dictate what a person can and cannot do within their car this doesn't suddenly make the car a public space.

(ii)

Porgy wrote:

the car is in a public space. If you're in a car in a publci space you're in a public space. I don;t believe that people have special rights from being in a private car on public space - compared to say, a cyclist or a pedestrian.

so if I'm wrong - pray tell us tthe true state of affairs.

Now I'm reading this as a car is public space. It is not. As LIT pointed out earlier. A car can be located within a public space it still remains (i) personal/private property identified through legal ownership. (ii) The space within your car can be argued as your personal space (private domain) since no one but the owner (and emergency services in extreme circumstances) has the right to enter said vehicle and no one but the owner is responsible for the contents within the car - there are exceptions.

cee

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

cee wrote:

my point about children is that if the health drive is for them, then better to clean up our air quality in big cities. that will affect more children, more often than a ban on smoking whilst children are present in any location.

Can I not have both?

Or is like helmets verus cyclecraft or hi vis versus lights?

I don't get your point. Helmet use is not mandatory, neither is the reading of cyclecraft, but an individual can still choose both.

So yes....you could have both....but are you suggesting compelling people to both not smoke in their cars and wear cycle helmets at the same time?

wait....Theres too many double negatives in there for that to sound right....

My answer is.....

clean up the air quality that affects more children more of the time and allow individuals to get the extra special advantage of not smoking in their cars too.

Yes...you could choose both, but I would not compel you to do both.

much like the cycle helmet debate always ends up....since you bring it up.

tailwindhome

Cee

You, in common with other posters to the thread are indulging in 'what-aboutery', a debating technique commonly seen on helmet and light threads.

What about pollution?
What about diabetes?
What about giving 2 year old crisps?

My point, which I think you get, is that both should be an aspiration and they aren't mutually exclusive.


Another common debating technique is the deliberate misunderstanding of another posters position and comments.

I'll let you get back to that.

lost_in_thought

I don't think this really counts as 'debating'...

tailwindhome

You just wait until the candidate debates start.

You will yearn for debate of this quality.

holybinch

The what-aboutery could be also called:
"is that the most urgent/applicable thing you can think of to protect the health of our kids" (subtitled: or are you just jumping on the "persecute the smokers" bandwagon)

cee

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Cee

You, in common with other posters to the thread are indulging in 'what-aboutery', a debating technique commonly seen on helmet and light threads.

What about pollution?
What about diabetes?
What about giving 2 year old crisps?

My point, which I think you get, is that both should be an aspiration and they aren't mutually exclusive.


Another common debating technique is the deliberate misunderstanding of another posters position and comments.

I'll let you get back to that.

ok...

whataboutery....

erm...pot-kettle-kettle-pot? I think it was you who brought in cycle helmets and are now pointing out discursive techniques. I don't know to what end, however, of course we all indulge in whataboutery....my point about pollution however was not a whatabout...it was to highlight that the motives for the RCS report seem at odds with the perceived goals.

In that, I mean that if child health is the goal...as was citied in the report...then banning a person who has no children from smoking in their car does nothing to acheive this goal. Therefor, what is the motive in doing so?

that doesn't cloud the issue...it defines it better.

I agree that the reduction of smoking in the general populace is a fine goal. I myself have recently elected to become a non-smoker (check out my non-negative way of describing my current ambition!) However, you must be able to agree that as soon as you legally compel people to do something...it stops becoming an aspiration.

and finally...

I don't think I misunderstood anyones points at any time...maybe you can find an example of a misunderstanding on my part, deliberate or otherwise?

Paulie W

Just to chime in on the 'debate' about public vs private space: if I have consenting sex in my house that is nobody's business but my own; if I have sex in my car, other than in my garage I guess, this could be deemed to have taken place in 'public' and I could suffer the consequences (although am unlikely to do so unless the car is parked in full view of the world).

I suspect that there's an interesting discussion to be had about how the car is a liminal space - just not here though

Crapaud

Here's a sample of what's coming, Wheezy: St.Luke's to start screening job candidates for nicotine, rejecting those who test positive

In an already tough job market, the region's No. 2 employer has this message for people who want to work there: Smokers need not apply.

St. Luke's Hospital & Health Network on Monday announced a new policy against hiring smokers, joining at least a handful of hospitals across the nation taking a tough stance against a major cause of lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and stroke. ...

Oh, lookie ...

... Houle said there is also an argument that smokers are unjustly discriminated against while people who risk their health by drinking or eating too much and exercising too little don't face the same punishment.

''There is a concern, a slippery slope argument, that once you start banning one behavior, there is a likelihood that it could transcend to other behaviors,'' he said. ...

I hope you're not as portly as your username suggests; it could be you next.

First they came for the smokers ...

Crapaud

Here's some more fun info via ASH US's self published PR:

[url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/16/BUKG11A2VO.DTL]Employers ponder tough tactics to halt smoking[/url] wrote:

... Weyers, owner of a health care benefits administrator in Lansing, Mich., gave his 200 employees an ultimatum in 2004: Quit smoking in 15 months or lose your job. He refused to hire smokers. Ultimately, he extended his smoking ban to employees' spouses and monitored compliance through mandatory random blood testing. ...

No signs of discrimination or coersion there, eh?

The ends justify the means ...

tailwindhome

Thanks to Always Tyred 's post on another thread I've realised that I'm going on and on this thread.

I've said what I think, why I think it and related the personal experience which has motivated my interest in the topic.

cee wrote:

I myself have recently elected to become a non-smoker (check out my non-negative way of describing my current ambition!)

I hope you suceed in your ambition, I know how hard it is to quit and have seen first hand the horrendous price a smoker can pay for the choice they make.

Thanks to everyone who expressed concern for my dad's health especially those who took the time to PM me.

cee

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Thanks to Always Tyred 's post on another thread I've realised that I'm going on and on this thread.

I've said what I think, why I think it and related the personal experience which has motivated my interest in the topic.

cee wrote:

I myself have recently elected to become a non-smoker (check out my non-negative way of describing my current ambition!)

I hope you suceed in your ambition, I know how hard it is to quit and have seen first hand the horrendous price a smoker can pay for the choice they make.

Thanks to everyone who expressed concern for my dad's health especially those who took the time to PM me.

thanks wheez....

current stats.....

Two weeks, two days, 9 hours, 11 minutes and 3 seconds. 163 cigarettes not smoked, saving £49.15. Life saved: 13 hours, 35 minutes.

MonkeyMonster

picked onion > flaming hot > beef

Nuff said.

lost_in_thought

MonkeyMonster wrote:

picked onion > flaming hot > beef

Nuff said.

Agreed, but saying that I bought a multipack after we last discussed this weighty issue, and preferred the flaming hot and the beef. The Pickled Onion, while the crisp of kings in the past, has become too vinegar-y for my refined tastebuds.

MonkeyMonster

lost_in_thought wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

picked onion > flaming hot > beef

Nuff said.

Agreed, but saying that I bought a multipack after we last discussed this weighty issue, and preferred the flaming hot and the beef. The Pickled Onion, while the crisp of kings in the past, has become too vinegar-y for my refined tastebuds.

you drink cooking lager - how can you define your tastebuds as being refined... 8)

lost_in_thought

MonkeyMonster wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

picked onion > flaming hot > beef

Nuff said.

Agreed, but saying that I bought a multipack after we last discussed this weighty issue, and preferred the flaming hot and the beef. The Pickled Onion, while the crisp of kings in the past, has become too vinegar-y for my refined tastebuds.

you drink cooking lager - how can you define your tastebuds as being refined... 8)

Touché... BUT I do it mostly out of guilt at making people buy me expensive beer when they're drinking cheap ale. My fridge is full of belgian goodness and Innis and Gunn.

cee

lost_in_thought wrote:

Innis and Gunn.

err...still cooking beer.

i&G is the most plastic ale i have ever encountered....

lost_in_thought

cee wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Innis and Gunn.

err...still cooking beer.

i&G is the most plastic ale i have ever encountered....

Blimey, really? I rather like it. Maybe 'plasticky' should be on my list of things to look out for rather than 'oak-aged'. What do you recommend then?

il_principe

cee wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Innis and Gunn.

err...still cooking beer.

i&G is the most plastic ale i have ever encountered....

heretic.

MonkeyMonster

cee wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Innis and Gunn.

err...still cooking beer.

i&G is the most plastic ale i have ever encountered....

I suspect you're gonna be on your lonesome calling that stuff cooking beer. Deuchars IPA might be the dogs bollocks but I and G is lovely stuff when countered with lovely whiskies.

lost_in_thought

MonkeyMonster wrote:

cee wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Innis and Gunn.

err...still cooking beer.

i&G is the most plastic ale i have ever encountered....

I suspect you're gonna be on your lonesome calling that stuff cooking beer. Deuchars IPA might be the dogs bollocks but I and G is lovely stuff when countered with lovely whiskies.

Agreed... I do note that he said 'ale', though, maybe that's the crux of the issue. I like it 'cause I prefer my beer flavoursome but fizzy.

rjsterry

MonkeyMonster wrote:

cee wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Innis and Gunn.

err...still cooking beer.

i&G is the most plastic ale i have ever encountered....

I suspect you're gonna be on your lonesome calling that stuff cooking beer. Deuchars IPA might be the dogs bollocks but I and G is lovely stuff when countered with lovely whiskies.

I take it you've found the one that's matured in old whisky casks? Mmmmmm.

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

cee wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Innis and Gunn.

err...still cooking beer.

i&G is the most plastic ale i have ever encountered....

I suspect you're gonna be on your lonesome calling that stuff cooking beer. Deuchars IPA might be the dogs bollocks but I and G is lovely stuff when countered with lovely whiskies.

I take it you've found the one that's matured in old whisky casks? Mmmmmm.

Are there two varieties? I only ask because I was so sure there were, but can find no evidence whatsoever to support it...