Safe Speed Forums

Was I haveing on of those trippy early morning dreams, or did I just really hear some dufus of a "road safety minister" say the following:

"If you're holding a cigarette with one hand, and lighting it with the other, then you've got no hands on the wheel"

Has this man never seen the average joe driving a car & lighting a cigarette in his life, living in a little PC box in whitehall?

This is of course, the new highway code, which seems to be morphing into yet another extension of government propaganda.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I do not smoke, however I can see how someone could light up and keep at least one hand on the wheel. However the distractive factor does remain. Having said that is more distracting than turning on the air con?

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Daily Telegraph

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

strange how this wasn't in the consultation they ran?

There are lots of coulds and possibly's in that statement. The CPS would have to prove that the driver was driving without due care and attention. Technically anyone who causes a RTA, could be done for careless driving. So there is nothing new.

but has anyone looked at the new HWC - its awful - very hard to navigate or find anything?

This story is government 'news management' in action. They buried yesterday's national data with it.

And it's complete crap. There's no evidence from anywhere in the world that smoking is a significant crash contributory factor. It's just a theory.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

This is very important and urgent.

Can anyone check and confirm that it wasn't in the consultation?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I've certainly seen this in a previous draft version.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

as a very-ex smoker, I'd say it was possibly the most distracting thing you can do, worse even than holding a phone. But that's my experience - YMMV - and I have a healthy fear of open flames, especially near my face. In the daytime it's purely a burning risk, at night it can seriously foul up night vision for quite some time.

That said, unless you are doing it really badly wrong, it last a matter of a very few seconds, if that.

When I smoked I did have a couple of occasions when I thought smoking & driving didn't mix - both linked to flicking ciggy butts out the window. One time the wind caught it and it flew into the back seat and smouldered, the second time it flew into my lap and that got my attention very quickly. On another occasion, I wasn't driving but a friend was, and as he flicked his still lit cig butt out it blew back in, and into the T-shirt of the friend in the back seat. A 12 stone man panicking and burning in the back of a small car can affect handling quite badly.

My dad was a pipe smoker, and I recall him having both hands off the wheel to light that - he eschewed lighters and would use a wooden match, with both hands cupped around the bowl of the pipe. Usually at speeds that would gain you an instant ban these days. He was well known in the company he worked for as a "trainee fighter pilot" - some of his colleagues would not travel with him!

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

BBC now have an article on new smoking rules in the revised Highway Code...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7017543.stm

With that statement, the guy has lost all right to be road safety minister in my opinion.

As others have said, there is no link whatsoever between smoking behind the wheel and accidents. If there was, believe me, there would be a "smoker? Y/N" question on all Motor Insurance application forms.

The thing is, this question WILL now start appearing on insurance application forms, due to the additional liability pushed onto smokers by the new highway code guidelines. And premiums will be loaded accordingly. Fleet insurance will begin insisting that company car drivers do not smoke behind the wheel, so expect to see "Smoker? Y/N" appearing on job application forms too (and don't think you can lie - they have a test for it)

It's all additional justification to those who want to give up, I suppose....

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

No it isn't.



Not so onerous is it?

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 11:07 this morning:

PR542: DfT is cavalier, irresponsible and reckless about smoking and driving

news: for immediate release

In the news today are many stories about the new Highway Code 'recommendation'
against drivers smoking.

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "The problem here is that
there's no evidence from anywhere in the world that smoking is a significant
contributory factor in crashes. I'm sick and tired of knee-jerk road safety
policies based on pet theories rather than scientific evidence."

"Department for Transport is cavalier and irresponsible. How dare they impose
their half-baked theories on our fragile and sensitive road safety system? If a
drug company or a doctor behaved in such a way they would be held to account."

"It's entirely possible - even likely - that the eventual effect of this
Highway Code recommendation will mean more crashes as drivers avoid smoking at
the wheel only to have their concentration disturbed because they crave a
cigarette. Making such a change without any supporting evidence at all is
nothing short of reckless."

"Being in 'proper control' of a vehicle is much more about the eyes and the
brain than it is about the hands and feet. This is exactly the area in which
the theory about the risks of smoking and driving falls short. One would expect
transport ministers to have a proper grasp of the nature of 'proper control' -
but judging from this morning's showing they do not."

<ends>

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

apart from the smoking... I need a map as I get lost and that makes me angry.
I need loud music otherwise I need to argue with myself or the other road users. The only thing that calms me down is a sandwich or a drink. and that man on the radio keeps upsetting me with the latest news from the DfT so I argue with him too

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I heard this as I was driving to work having just rolled and lit a cigarette, in a queue of traffic, and turned the radio on.

I'm so glad I'm still alive!!!

[/sarcasm off]

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

That press release is pretty much on the mark if my experience of being driven around by smokers is anything to go by.

The main example is my dad, who has thankfully given up now, but prior to that, I have seen the state he gets into when he'd not have a fag for a while and it most certainly was detrimental to his driving.

I can honestly say that I would much rather have got into his car while he was smoking than whilst he was not, despite the fact that I'm alergic to the fumes to the point of physical pain. Better a few hours of pain than the risk of a smash.

(Of course, when he was a passenger in my car, no cigs!Tough! you should have had one before we left! aaah, revenge )

Edit: Does anyone have a list of all the other rules that changed or were added?

as i have said before. smoking is something you do all day. it is an action that requires minimal concentration. you know where the fags are, you know where the lighter is, you know where your gob is. the action itself becomes natural therefore what concentration is involved? i close my window to light up so one hand remains on the wheel at all times. i dont need a hand to cover the flame or hold the cigarette. this is just another lame attempt at making it look as if something positive is being done

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

Potential distractions. Its pretty foggy isn't it?

Much like the mobile phone law, there is no need to spell out every little thing drivers could do which could distract them from the road, the list would be endless. The DWDCA laws allow drivers who take on too much whilst behind the wheel to be prosecuted for this error of judgment, and it is perfectly acceptable, to my mind, to rely on only this, providing the police and CPS the opportunity to prove lack of care or attention to conventional evidentiary standards. It is risky to have a list, on which they need only tick off the presence of one item, in order to 'prove' DWDCA.

Such micromanagement of drivers limits their freedoms unnecessarily, and risks gaping gaps for unforseen eventualities to slip through. Yes, lighting a cigarette might distract a driver, but so might a pretty blonde on the roadside; let's ban pretty blonde from walking alongside roadways. I do not buy into the suggestion that lighting up 'ruins night vision'; non-red instrumentation, street lighting, the spill of their own headlights and the lights of other cars ensure that no driver is using solely their night-sight at any point during a darkened drive.

Interestingly, I safely conduct several of the things featured on the DfT's list daily (map-reading, radio tuning, talking (and listening) on a wireless communication device, potentially deep discussion/argument with passengers/instructors/other traffic/ATC) all concurrently, whilst doing over 100mph in a high hazard-density environment, requiring continual avoiding action and a high level of situational awareness. As a vehicle operator, so long as you integrate these things prudently into a safe work-cycle, there is no reason why these potential distractions need ever detract from one's care and attention.

Yes. And anyway managing multiple distractions down to a safe level is a key driver skill. The trick is to always ensure that the road has sufficient attention.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I agree completely. I remember saying somewhere here before (I believe during the 'eating at the wheel' discussions) that the driving task cannot require 100% capacity continually or it would be unfeasible. Additionally people have varying levels of capacity, and the requirements of the driving task vary throughout a journey.

I, for one, would be mightily peeved if brought to task by a branch of law-enforcement on the sole basis that something I was doing, whilst driving, had the potential to distract me to a dangerous degree. Its lunacy!

One more issue. The highway code is just that code.
Things you SHOULD do.
It is not law passed before government that you MUST do.

I am p'eed off how this has been launched

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code