Man fined for smoking in his own vehicle

[naomi24]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime /article4393248.ece

Your thoughts?

[DrFilth]

he has stated that it is insured to take him to and from work

[naomi24]

Aren't most cars insured to take people to and from their place of work? Of course they are, otherwise few would be driving to work. If you have an accident on your way to work, the insurance company doesn't refuse to pay out because you were using the car to get to work. And don't many people carry the tools of their trade with them? As the man said, a barrister would carry his briefcase and papers in his car, just as my husband carries his briefcase and papers in his car. Of course, tools of trade wouldn't be covered by ordinary insurance, but that's a choice the owner of the car must make.

This is an absolute nonsense. Too much interference in people's everyday lives.

[DrFilth]

should always check your insurance , my covers me for pleasure and social only. if i wanted to travel to a place of work , ie commuting to a place of work it would be �150 to �200 ish dearer.

[Ethel]

Are you sure he shouldn't be insured for business use:

* Social, Domestic & Pleasure - this covers you for normal day to day driving, such as driving to visit family or friends, or shopping.
* Commuting - this covers you to drive back and forth to a permanent place of work. Please note that travelling to a railway station, where you park your car, is classed as commuting.
* Business Use - this covers you to use the car in connection with your job, driving to different sites, travelling to training courses or prearranged meetings away from your normal place of work.
* Commercial Travelling - This covers the car to be used for such things as door-to-door sales.


He is hardly decorating the same place for 8 hours a day every day

[naomi24]

You specify use when taking out insurance, but of course you should always check that the policy issued meets your requirements.

[Oneeyedvic]

I know this is slightly off topic, but insurance is normally either:

Social, Domestic a& Pleasure use

or

SDP & Travel to and from a fixed place of work

or

SDP & Business Travel - includes going to and from various different places. This is the insurance he will more than likely have.

Since he is a business insurance customer, his tools of the trade are an optional insurance cover. Most tradespeople do not have them covered as it is very expensive and therefore take their tools out at night.

He may also have stated that he has no passengers on his work time as this would also increase the premium.


With regards the 'nonsense', are you suggesting that he should not have been fined if he was carrying a passenger?

[Bob906]

If you think about it you can smoke in ALL vehicles under 3tonnes cus they are taxed PLG which means Private, Light Goods

[naomi24]

He probably should, Ethel, but at the time the offence was committed, his van was being used as a private vehicle. It's pretty much splitting hairs really and can become a circular argument. The fact remains that our freedoms are being systematically destroyed - and it's becoming nonsensical.

[Ethel]

No you can't.

You cannot smoke in your company car UNLESS no other employee or business contact uses the vehicle AT ALL.

If you normally have sole use of the company car but someone else drives it whilst you are on holiday, you cannot smoke in it.

[Oneeyedvic]

Er, no you can't - just like you can't in a taxi, even though it might say private hire

[naomi24]

Vic, his passenger was smoking too - and fined.

[Ethel]

This is going to smack him in the face with a vengeance.

He bent the facts when he reported the story to the media - he is quoted as saying he had finished his day's work and was on his way home and buying tea bags; it was 8am and he was on his way to buy tea bags.

He failed to mention he and his 16 year old passenger were both wearing decorators overalls and the tools of his trade were in the vehicle.

Had he mentioned that fact straight off there would not have been a story. It is widely known that you cannot smoke in a vehicle used for business purposes unless you never carry passengers connected to that business or allow other people to drive it in connection with the business.

He has stated his van is not insured for business purposes when clearly it should be. I would not be surprised if he isn't done for no insurance as well.

[Oneeyedvic]

So do you think this law should be revoked?

What about if all the passengers in a bus smoked (including driver) - would it be acceptable for them to smoke?

The law is quite clear - if your vehicle is used by more than one person (passenger or driver), then you cannot smoke in it.

He did have more than one person in his trade vehicle and therefore was committing an offence.



I should point out that I don't actually agree with this law (despite being an ex-smoker) - and I think bars should be able to have smoking areas.

[rov1200]

My Dad always smoked when he was driving....helped to calm his nerves in busy traffic. If this harms nobody except himself I cannot see the problem, Prohibition in America never stopped drink and I cannot see the casual smoker giving up here. I'm a non smoker by the way.

[Oneeyedvic]

If this harms nobody except himself I cannot see the problem

And this is the point - if it harms noone, then there is no problem.

If there are other users though, it can potentially harm them by passive smoking

[naomi24]

A bus is a public vehicle.

And this is the point - if it harms no one, then there is no problem.

The passenger was smoking too. No one else was being harmed.

[Oneeyedvic]

But what if the passenger smokes 2 or 3 a day and the driver chain smokes?

The passenger is being harmed.

Hence the law that if carrying anyone you cannot smoke.

(As I said, not particularly agreeing with the law, just giving the other side)

[Gromit]

Fortunately, if it is for domestic use, the two parents can chain smoke to their hearts content and the kids get to smoke for free.

[naomi24]

Well, after all this, I�ll tell you my personal view. As much as I detest the ever-encroaching onslaught of the nanny state, with its Jobsworth employees, and the effect it has on our ever-diminishing personal freedoms (which was my sole reason for posting this question), I don�t think anyone should smoke in a moving car. I�ve known serious accidents happen because people have dropped a lighted cigarettes - and that really is dangerous to other people�s health. It can kill them outright!

I�ve no objection to anyone smoking - it doesn�t bother me - but to take up Gromit�s point, anyone who smokes around children needs their head examined!

[flip_flop]

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the validity of his insurance, this is an uttery absurd situation.

He was smoking. It was his van.

That should be the end of it.

What I can't understand is why he didn't tell the officious prick to **** off.

What next nanny, you aren't allowed to smoke in your own house just in case the bloody meter reader objects?