Three-quarters of professional drivers support a ban on smoking in cars carrying children, a survey shows.
On February 10, MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour – 376 for, 107 against. A ban is likely to come into force in England before the next general election.
The TrackCompare poll, held during the week leading up to the Commons vote, asked: Do you support the plan to ban smoking in cars carrying children?
Seventy-five per cent said yes, 25% said no.
Kjell Anderton, a TrackCompare director, said: “While difficult to enforce a ban sets the right example: the protection of children must be paramount. Furthermore, smoking while driving is distracting and should be discouraged.
“Broadly speaking the results are what we expected.”
The government now has powers to introduce a new offence of exposing children to smoke in vehicles, with breaches of the law likely to incur a small fine. The Welsh government will make a separate decision about what happens in Wales.
bajaK - 27/02/2014 07:19
-- Have those officials who push smoking bans in cars consulted with medical professionals about the problems of going Cold Turkey while driving...especially with kids in the car? After all, some symptoms of withdrawal are sleepiness, irritability, inattention and distraction, anxiety, headaches, constipation, and increased appetite...perhaps causing distracting eating while driving. Will police at auto accidents note if Smoking Withdrawal was a contributing cause? -- Have Civil Rights groups noted that such laws provide pretenses for police to pull over drivers, even if the drivers just have a toothpick or lollypop in their mouths? And, how can police detect the age of young people in the car? Must all young car passengers now carry ID to prove they are old enough to survive tobacco smoke? -- What if the offending cigarette is made of just plain organic tobacco? Since no studies have been presented about pesticide-free, radiation-free, chlorine and dioxin-free tobacco then there is no scientific justification for the bans. If laws are justified (?) by material about Tobacco Smoke, there must be analysis of the offending cigarette to determine if it contains any tobacco. Justice and Law require no less. -- Has one child anywhere been diagnosed as having been harmed by 2nd hand smoke...even from a contaminated cigarette...in a car? If such a kid was ever found, we'd surely have a nice "Emily's Law" movement by now. -- Officials who push such laws prove they have little or no concern for the health of children. Such regulators, after all, completely ignore the presence in typical cigarettes of industrial adulterants, especially pesticides, burn accelerants, and dioxin-producing pesticides and chlorine-bleached paper that are particularly harmful to children...and to fetuses and pregnant mothers. Officials demand no tests of that stuff, and require no specific warnings. They don't even criticize the cigarette makers and chemical suppliers. And, they don't say a word about the hosts of un-labeled, untested, added sweeteners, flavorings, aromas, or soothing substances that help kids tolerate the otherwise rough taste of tobacco. Who is blamed and criminalized for the effects of typical industrially-concocted cigarettes? The victims. The whole global war on tobacco is about the involved parties evading criminal charges and astronomical liabilities, PR and profit damages, and bad consequences for complicit, sold-out public officials. PS: Ample references at http://fauxbacco.blogspot.com