When were train drivers banned from smoking in the cab?

[Dentonian]

I remember walking in a pub in Hyde, Cheshire where the smoke clag was so thick I had to crouch down below it to find my way through. My eyes were streaming and I quickly left.

Ah! The good old days!

Pre 1974 presumably, if Hyde was in Cheshire (lol) FTR, my aformentioned problems of smoking on single deckers most schooldays for years was caused by a trio of girls boarding either in Hyde or close to its border.

 

[HowardGWR]

London Underground banned smoking on the tube shortly after the 1987 Kings Cross disaster, so it probably one of the first places to ban its passengers, drivers and staff smoking in the workplace.

I remember the smoking coach on the tube very well. The non-smokers smelt of perfume and were more likely to be inhabited by dolly birds, so even as a then smoker, I always sat in them. The smoking coach was a nasty foul smelling tip and littered beyond belief.

 

[pitdiver]

Sorry to be pedantic but may I respectfully point out that trains on the Underground are known as Cars not Coaches.
This is due to the American influence in the early years.

 

[HowardGWR]

Sorry to be pedantic but may I respectfully point out that trains on the Underground are known as Cars not Coaches.
This is due to the American influence in the early years.

We don't call it a subway do we and we take a lift to get from the platform, not an elevator...........
You say toemayto, I say tomato.

 

[Bromley boy]

Sorry to be pedantic but may I respectfully point out that trains on the Underground are known as Cars not Coaches.
This is due to the American influence in the early years.

If you want to be really pedantic underground trains are simply called trains. It's the carriages that are called cars.

 

[goblinuser]

If you want to be really pedantic underground trains are simply called trains. It's the carriages that are called cars.

Just another day on PedantryUKForums

 

[Railsigns]

We don't call it a subway do we [?]

That depends on whether the underground railway being referred to is in London or Glasgow.

 

[trainmania100]

If a driver sticks his head out of a class 66 window and smokes the fag as opposed to leaning back in the chair, is that still considered smoking in the workplace? Seen it on many occasions whilst loco stationary in yaRd

 

[gazthomas]

If a driver sticks his head out of a class 66 window and smokes the fag as opposed to leaning back in the chair, is that still considered smoking in the workplace? Seen it on many occasions whilst loco stationary in yaRd

Yes - it shows you how addictive nicotine is that people are willing the break the law and put their livelihoods at risk.

 

[centraltrains]

Key word: significantly. You're hardly going to die after breathing a whiff of tobacco.
Some people on transport smell of urine and feces, which in my opinion is worse than smoke, let's ban them.

The only thing worse than Smoke, is the smell Lush stores make.

 

[HowardGWR]

That depends on whether the underground railway being referred to is in London or Glasgow.

Yes but up there is 'foreign', or possibly soon will be. That subway of course backs up pitdiver's point which they made very correctly. I was only having fun, (see smiley) if that is allowed on UK Rail.
On topic, I do hate it when smokers have their last puff on the platform (also not allowed) and then step inside the train as the doors close into a seat opposite me. I do not think smokers realise that they go on smoking like a chimney, long after they have extinguished their fag. The stink is nauseous. I also think that most would not care either. I used to be a smoker and I know I was one of the most inconsiderate people on earth. I didn't smoke in the house when my wife was pregnant and also never in the car and never when the children were about. It doesn't excuse it though, it was a filthy habit but it's a drug addiction and I longed to give it up. Most men now have; it's the young ladies I worry about. I think they do it to keep slim, as a food substitute.

 

[Dougal2345]

Just found this thread after smelling smoke from the open cab window of the 444 I'm riding on at the moment. But I can only just smell it in the coach itself, so mustn't grumble I suppose...

 

[cactustwirly]

All our Company Vans should be "defected" then. As all the Drivers smoke the stickers are to be found in the overflowing ashtrays

Yeah, it's illegal, and completely selfish, what about the non smokers that have to use this vans?

 

[AM9]

Yes but up there is 'foreign', or possibly soon will be. That subway of course backs up pitdiver's point which they made very correctly. I was only having fun, (see smiley) if that is allowed on UK Rail.
On topic, I do hate it when smokers have their last puff on the platform (also not allowed) and then step inside the train as the doors close into a seat opposite me. I do not think smokers realise that they go on smoking like a chimney, long after they have extinguished their fag. The stink is nauseous. I also think that most would not care either. I used to be a smoker and I know I was one of the most inconsiderate people on earth. I didn't smoke in the house when my wife was pregnant and also never in the car and never when the children were about. It doesn't excuse it though, it was a filthy habit but it's a drug addiction and I longed to give it up. Most men now have; it's the young ladies I worry about. I think they do it to keep slim, as a food substitute.

Same subject but very slightly OT, I also find workers in food shops, restaurants and even hospitals reeking of their last snout most offensive. I know that the NHS has a lot of stress inducing work situations but there's no excuse for allowing smoke breaks during shifts, especially when the health industry itself has to deal with the effects of the smoke habit. Maybe in certain environments, wilfuly exposing people to the damaging effects of staff personal will be the next aspect of this inconsiderate habit to be tackled.

 

[matt_world2004]

Same subject but very slightly OT, I also find workers in food shops, restaurants and even hospitals reeking of their last snout most offensive. I know that the NHS has a lot of stress inducing work situations but there's no excuse for allowing smoke breaks during shifts, especially when the health industry itself has to deal with the effects of the smoke habit. Maybe in certain environments, wilfuly exposing people to the damaging effects of staff personal will be the next aspect of this inconsiderate habit to be tackled.

Most nhs/retail staff dont get paid breaks. We should not be legislating allowing businesses to dictate what staff do on their unpaid break.

 

[hexagon789]

Most nhs/retail staff dont get paid breaks. We should not be legislating allowing businesses to dictate what staff do on their unpaid break.

Wouldn't be such an issue if they followed the law on the matter, but many staff smoke on the hospital grounds, right outside the doors even which is illegal.

 

[matt_world2004]

Wouldn't be such an issue if they followed the law on the matter, but many staff smoke on the hospital grounds, right outside the doors even which is illegal.

Then they should be disciplined appropriately for that. But smoking on their breaks no

 

[AM9]

Then they should be disciplined appropriately for that. But smoking on their breaks no

So how would you suggest that the patients are protected from the hazardous reek of staff that have just pursued their habit in their unpaid break?

p.s., to keep this discussion on topic, it's not just hospitals that subject their 'customers' to unhealthy contaminated air. Patients and less robust members of the public need to travel by rail sometimes so why should they be subjected to pollutants that are not a consequence of them using those trains.

 

[Butts]

So how would you suggest that the patients are protected from the hazardous reek of staff that have just pursued their habit in their unpaid break?

In what way is it hazardous to be in close proximity to someone who has recently smoked a cigarette ?

It may be unpleasant for some, similar to being exposed to body odour, but you are not seriously suggesting it constitutes passive smoking or some other mysterious health risk ?

 

[matt_world2004]

p.s., to keep this discussion on topic, it's not just hospitals that subject their 'customers' to unhealthy contaminated air. Patients and less robust members of the public need to travel by rail sometimes so why should they be subjected to pollutants that are not a consequence of them using those trains.

That is on topic if you are suggesting that employers should regulate what employeess do in their private time. It needs to be paid. And my answer also covers retail employees

 

[AM9]

That is on topic if you are suggesting that employers should regulate what employeess do in their private time. It needs to be paid. And my answer also covers retail employees

I'm not suggesting that their activities should be regulated by their employer during their private/break time (other than what the law requires), but employers ensure that employees present for their work in a state that does not impinge on the safety or health of the customers that they might be in proximity to. That state might include sobriety, notifiable disease, general cleanliness and in the context of this thread, not emitting noxious byproducts from their smoking habit.

 

[AM9]

In what way is it hazardous to be in close proximity to someone who has recently smoked a cigarette ?

It may be unpleasant for some, similar to being exposed to body odour, but you are not seriously suggesting it constitutes passive smoking or some other mysterious health risk ?

I am agreeing with post #101 which says:

I do not think smokers realise that they go on smoking like a chimney, long after they have extinguished their fag.

The continued discharge of tobacco smoking byproducts can go on for a considerable time, which is something that anybody who has needed to work in a clean room would know. Even e-cigarettes have recently been found to cause local contamination that can affect others' health.

 

[hexagon789]

Then they should be disciplined appropriately for that. But smoking on their breaks no

But they aren't it happens time and again every day and consequently entry into a hospital is through a cloud of smoky fug

 

[RLBH]

But they aren't it happens time and again every day and consequently entry into a hospital is through a cloud of smoky fug

I'm firmly of the belief that the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces ought to have included a clause along the lines of '... or within thirty metres of an entrance or air intake thereto.' Precise distance being arguable, but the point being to get those who have the uncontrollable urge to inhale toxic fumes as far as possible away from those with self-control and intact lungs.

 

[D1537]

I'm not sure about the stench of cigarettes, but there's a distinct whiff of self-superiority amongst many posts on this thread.

(Non-smoker, by the way).

 

[GrimShady]

Some people on here could do with smoking something potent and get over themselves.

It's okay for DMUs to sit in covered stations idling away all day but for someone to spark up a cigarette is being compared to defecating

How about banning all car combustion engines which actually are causing people harm? Why should the rest of us have to breathe in toxic fumes for someone else's pointless car journey?

 

[driver_m]

End of the day, if you smokers want to kill yourselves, that’s fine, fill your boots.

Just do it away from the rest of us who don’t want to put up with how bad you stink, and yes, you do stink. You’re no different to someone with bad B.O. or walking past a freshly laid dog turd.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I remember the smoking coach on the tube very well.

I don't remember "the smoking coach" but certainly did enjoy a puff or two on the tube. But then I didn't really pay attention to how dirty it was compared to other carriages or the platforms. And one could have a smoke at the back of the top deck of the buses...

I gave up in the late 1980s and haven't looked back...

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Wouldn't be such an issue if they followed the law on the matter, but many staff smoke on the hospital grounds, right outside the doors even which is illegal.

Most hospitals have designated smoking areas for staff, well away from patient areas.

If staff are not using these, then yes, action should be taken. But it becomes difficult when patients (and staff) smoke outside the main entrance

I know of a hospital where people (mostly patients, but I have seen staff) smoke right outside the Special Care Baby Unit...

 

[hexagon789]

Most hospitals have designated smoking areas for staff, well away from patient areas.

If staff are not using these, then yes, action should be taken. But it becomes difficult when patients (and staff) smoke outside the main entrance

I know of a hospital where people (mostly patients, but I have seen staff) smoke right outside the Special Care Baby Unit...

I have seen security chase people away from the entrance, but then as soon as security go, others come out and smoke at the entrance. Perhaps a very large fine as a penalty might deter more?