Smoking and driving, who makes the rules

[Tafia]

A chum sent this query to Rosie Winterton, Minister of State for Transport and the reply is below.

Subject: Who makes the rules?

Message Good Morning Rosie - Drivers could be prosecuted for smoking at the wheel — this may make good sense but who decided it? Working in hard line Soviet Bloc countries in the 50/60s our biggest problem was that no one seemed to know what the rules and laws were, traceability seemed impossible, so each state official was free to interpret them anyway they liked. We seem now to have so many laws, rules and regulations none of us really know when we are breaking them, who created them or who is responsible for enforcing them.
Anarchy can result when no one sticks to the rules; anarchy can also result from not one knowing what rules to stick to.
Regards

BC

Reply reads:

Thank you for your e-mail of 29 September to Rosie Winterton MP on the issue of prosecuting drivers who smoke. I have been asked to reply.

There are no plans to prosecute drivers simply because they smoke at the wheel. The media, in reporting on the updated Highway Code, have focused on an addition in Rule 148 which adds "smoking" to the list of examples that may distract from driving. Some have misinterpreted that as a new and specific prohibition.

The Department suggested the addition and that was taken forward through the formal consultation on the content of the updated Code.
The Code (available on-line at www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycod... is a mixture of rules, with legislative force behind them and advice. This is advice.

However, it has always been the case that if the police see poor driving and find someone distracted for any reason, then they can prosecute for failing to be in a position to have proper control of the vehicle (an existing offence dating back many years). It would be foolish to attempt to list specific distractions in legislation - the list would be endless and would always be out of date!

I was interested to read your point that it can be difficult for drivers to know what the rules are. The answer surely, is that the Highway Code provides the definitive guidance. Therefore it should be read periodically by all road users.

Hope this is helpful.

Tim Norman
Road User Safety Division
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
LONDON SW1P 4DR020 7944 20433/10/07

---

Edited by Tafia on Thursday 11th October 11:06

[L1OFF]

"It would be foolish to attempt to list specific distractions in legislation - the list would be endless and would always be out of date!"

like mobile phones?
tts

Edited by L1OFF on Thursday 11th October 12:18

[Eliminator]

So.....

It is in the HC
It is not law but guidance
If you don't know what the law is then read the HC from time to time

and back to step 1

Politicians. So used to circular arguments I bet he did not see the humour in his statement.

[Einion Yrth]

Eliminator said:

So.....

It is in the HC
It is not law but guidance
If you don't know what the law is then read the HC from time to time

and back to step 1

Politicians. So used to circular arguments I bet he did not see the humour in his statement.

HC is very clear about which is which. If a paragraph includes the words MUST or MUST NOT in red caps, then it's law; otherwise it's guidance.

[Peter Ward]

And if the HC isn't updated after each and every new law, it is by definition out of date. If the HC is therefore the final authority...

1. How would we get on in court saying, "the HC didn't say holding a mobile phone was illegal" until the latest update?
2. How do drivers find out officially that a new HC has been published?

I think that the question was valid, and the response somewhat simplistic.

[Einion Yrth]

Peter Ward said:

And if the HC isn't updated after each and every new law, it is by definition out of date. If the HC is therefore the final authority...

1. How would we get on in court saying, "the HC didn't say holding a mobile phone was illegal" until the latest update?
2. How do drivers find out officially that a new HC has been published?

I think that the question was valid, and the response somewhat simplistic.

A valid point, which I had not considered.

[10 Pence Short]

Ignorance isn't a defence in law, though. If you're unsure of the law you can always view the relevent legislation. You can even do it online these days.

[Einion Yrth]

10 Pence Short said:

Ignorance isn't a defence in law, though. If you're unsure of the law you can always view the relevent legislation. You can even do it online these days.

Indeed, but if you didn't know of the law in the first place you wouldn't have known that you needed to look it up.

[10 Pence Short]

I agree, but it's one of those two rule jobbies:

1) If you break the law you're guilty of an offence.

2) If you don't know the law, rule 1 still applies.

[Tafia]

10 Pence Short said:

Ignorance isn't a defence in law, though. If you're unsure of the law you can always view the relevent legislation. You can even do it online these days.

Since Labour came to office we have had over 3000 new laws. Kinda hard to keep up, no?

[streaky]

A London bus driver faces dismissal for smoking and using a mobile 'phone whilst driving one of Ken's 'bendy-buses'. He was photographed by a passer-by and the photographs were published in the London Evening Standard - Streaky

[i_luv_co2]

Tafia said:

10 Pence Short said:

Ignorance isn't a defence in law, though. If you're unsure of the law you can always view the relevent legislation. You can even do it online these days.

Since Labour came to office we have had over 3000 new laws. Kinda hard to keep up, no?

What a great point. SOOO many new laws....imagine trying to enforce them all?

Has anybody ever watched someone trying to negotiate a roundabout with one hand on the gear stick and the other holding a fag and trying to steer? Its comical...and when they drop their fag in their lap and crash their car i just hope it leaves a scar to remind them of how stupid they are for trying to smoke and drive at the same time.

If holding a mobile phone whilst driving is dangerous then holding a fag is just as dangerous. Its also an aweful thing to do...smoking in such a confined place....what a nasty, smelly habit Maybe a new law will help you give up and save you some of those inflated taxes you pay on fags.

[TripleS]

Einion Yrth said:

10 Pence Short said:

Ignorance isn't a defence in law, though. If you're unsure of the law you can always view the relevent legislation. You can even do it online these days.

Indeed, but if you didn't know of the law in the first place you wouldn't have known that you needed to look it up.

Exactly; and just how much of our lives are we going to spend checking to see if what we're about to do might be in contravention of the multitude of new rules and laws? In my case, not much!

Up yours, Gov.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[i_luv_co2]

TripleS said:

Einion Yrth said:

10 Pence Short said:

Ignorance isn't a defence in law, though. If you're unsure of the law you can always view the relevent legislation. You can even do it online these days.

Indeed, but if you didn't know of the law in the first place you wouldn't have known that you needed to look it up.

Exactly; and just how much of our lives are we going to spend checking to see if what we're about to do might be in contravention of the multitude of new rules and laws? In my case, not much!

Up yours, Gov.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Fortunately for us...the police do not uphold a fraction of the laws around today because they are a waste of time. Thank goodness for that!

And i second the comment "up yours, gov". The only prob being...the public have voted this bunch of wallies in time and time again so they cant complaint too much. And i bet they get in again next year only to creat more laws and annoy more people. Do people not understand democracy or are they all brainwashed sheep?

[Jeremy Kyle]

i_luv_co2 said:

If holding a mobile phone whilst driving is dangerous then holding a fag is just as dangerous.

What a load of crap. a ciggy is held between two fingers and you are still able to use this hand to steer etc. there is no way holding a fag is the same thing as trying to have a conversation while holding a phone.

Edited by Jeremy Kyle on Friday 12th October 10:07

[Davi]

Jeremy Kyle said:

i_luv_co2 said:

If holding a mobile phone whilst driving is dangerous then holding a fag is just as dangerous.

What a load of crap. a ciggy is held between two fingers and you are still able to use this hand to steer etc. there is no way holding a fag and trying to have a conversation while holding a phone is the same thing.

Personally I don't tend to have in depth conversations with a cigarette either. well not that in depth - they are great listeners though.

[i_luv_co2]

Jeremy Kyle said:

i_luv_co2 said:

If holding a mobile phone whilst driving is dangerous then holding a fag is just as dangerous.

What a load of crap. a ciggy is held between two fingers and you are still able to use this hand to steer etc. there is no way holding a fag and trying to have a conversation while holding a phone is the same thing.

• **What a load of crap****

Come on Jeremy....you can do better than that cant you?

How do you light this cigarette when you cant find the lighter? Do you fiddle about in a bag, taking your eye off the road and steering all over the place? Also...how do you find the fag you've just dropped on your lap? Do you thrash about in your seat trying to avoid that rather unpleasant burning sensation? If not...you are not the same as people I HAVE ENCOUNTERED.

Not all smokers behind the wheel are dangerous...but some are and it is this minority that have spoiled it for the rest of you....as with just about everything today.

Smoking on a motorway or quiet main road is possibly more acceptable? And this is why the advise given to police is to use 'discretion' when dealing with motorists.

I agree with you...a fag doesnt take the same amount of concentration to as it does to speak on a phone...but it still takes your hands away from the wheel and concentration away from the road.

All this still doesnt change the fact that smoking is a foul, antisocial habit and should be banned all together (that point will cause some upset i bet!)

[WildCat]

i_luv_co2 said:

TripleS said:

Einion Yrth said:

10 Pence Short said:

Ignorance isn't a defence in law, though. If you're unsure of the law you can always view the relevent legislation. You can even do it online these days.

Indeed, but if you didn't know of the law in the first place you wouldn't have known that you needed to look it up.

Exactly; and just how much of our lives are we going to spend checking to see if what we're about to do might be in contravention of the multitude of new rules and laws? In my case, not much!

Up yours, Gov.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Fortunately for us...the police do not uphold a fraction of the laws around today because they are a waste of time. Thank goodness for that!

And i second the comment "up yours, gov". The only prob being...the public have voted this bunch of wallies in time and time again so they cant complaint too much. And i bet they get in again next year only to creat more laws and annoy more people. Do people not understand democracy or are they all brainwashed sheep?

I think our police also cannot keep up with the plethora of petty laws und most have the common sense or professional judgement to concentrate on what really matter to ensure society bumble along relatively calmly.

Lot of these laws though.. hot air und do not do what they intend. Ineffectual spin from ineffectual government voted in by an apathetic public who did not vote - or rather voted in the "None Of These Party". Perhaps Brits do need to take keener interest in politics though. I would like to see more political/current affair programmes in the prime time slots .. und I do not mean Vine's Panorama which ist not as deep or intense as the Panorama I seem to recall from the past. I want John Humphreys back to give hell to politicians on the Politics Show as well. I have "Schadenfreude" sometimes .. I always loved to watch the polticos shift on seats und visibly squirm.

[i_luv_co2]

Davi said:

Jeremy Kyle said:

i_luv_co2 said:

If holding a mobile phone whilst driving is dangerous then holding a fag is just as dangerous.

What a load of crap. a ciggy is held between two fingers and you are still able to use this hand to steer etc. there is no way holding a fag and trying to have a conversation while holding a phone is the same thing.

Personally I don't tend to have in depth conversations with a cigarette either. well not that in depth - they are great listeners though.

hahaha. Very whitty

[streaky]

Tafia said:

10 Pence Short said:

Ignorance isn't a defence in law, though. If you're unsure of the law you can always view the relevent legislation. You can even do it online these days.

Since Labour came to office we have had over 3000 new laws. Kinda hard to keep up, no?

I think that might be criminal offences, rather than laws - Streaky