Royal college calls for smoking ban in cars
BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1689 (Published 24 March 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c1689
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Smoking while driving is far from proven as being a major cause of
accidents, being responsible "for 0.9% of accidents," by comparison:
"Outside person, object, or event, 29.4%, Adjusting radio/cassette/CD,
11.4%, Other occupant, 10.9%.." (1) Yep, having an extra person in your
car increases the chances of an accident 11 fold.
This paper from the Australian State Of Victoria suggests 2% and out
of 11 risks is the least problem. Pages 19 and 20. (2)
So banning distracting children from cars would reduce road deaths.
As a smoker I will not be prepared to obey the law as I see this as a
gross invasion of my privacy. To all you non smokers would like to be on
the same road of a smoker who has driven 3 hours without a cigarette,
probably grumpy, irritated, having trouble concentrating and possibly
driving at a greater speed to arrive at their destination? The 0.9% to 2%
is trivial compared to what might happen to speeding smokers trying to get
to the mother in laws.
1. http://www.drivers.com/article/423/
2.
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc/distraction/Distraction_Final_Repor...
Competing interests:
Director Freedom2Choose. We do not receive any money from pharaceutical or tobacco companies.
Competing interests: No competing interests
There is derisory enforcement of the law prohibiting the use of a
hand held mobile phone while driving, and of the regulations prohibiting
smoking anywhere on some hospital sites. The former offence may be seen by
any road user any day, because the likelihood of prosecution is so low.
Similarly, the hordes of smokers are regularly seen around the smokers'
bins placed right by the No Smoking notices at the entrances to offending
hospitals.
The introduction of another unenforced and widely disregarded
regulation, no matter how laudable, would bring the law into disrepute and
should not be done at present.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is perfectly right for us as doctors to highlight the harm smoking
causes, and thus seek for the eradication of this bad habit; however we
should not be seen to be disinterested or disrespectful of patients who
contact us with conditions that may be caused or perceived to be caused by
smoking!
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The Royal College of Physicians of London has called for a ban on
smoking in vehicles as a means of improving the air quality within
vehicles and, hence, improving the health of vehicle-occupants,
particularly children (1). I highlight another reason for banning smoking
in vehicles: it is a distraction for the driver. In particular, the
smoking driver must attend to a sequence of behaviour including fumbling
for the cigarette-packet, extracting and handling the cigarette, lighting-
up, stubbing-out and disposing of the butt, all of which activities must
divert his/her attention from the road.
Distraction can be incorporated into a group of inappropriate
behaviours labelled "careless driving" which has yet to formulated in
terms of a really effective basis for legislation (2). However, there is
now legislation directed to combating one form of distraction, mobile-
phone use, a behaviour which has demonstrable negative effects on casualty
rates (3-5).
For law enforcers, distraction if often difficult to assess as much
as anything because of the enclosed nature of modern vehicles: for
example, how might one determine whether the level of discourse between
vehicle-occupants amounts to distraction for the driver? Nonetheless,
smoking, like mobile-phone use, is an activity containing distinctive and
overt components, so in principle it is amenable to detection and hence
legislation.
Since driver distraction adds by way of potential trauma injury to
the issue of poor health, the case for a ban on smoking in vehicles must
be substantially strengthened.
REFERENCES
1. Wise J. Royal college calls for smoking ban in cars. BMJ
2010;340:c1689.
2. Department for Transport. Road safety compliance consultation.
2008;TSO:London.
3. McCarley J S, Vais M S, Pringle H, Kamer A F, Irwin D E, Strayer D
L. Conversation disrupts change detection in complex traffic scenes. Human
Factors 2004;46:424-436.
4. McEvoy S P, Stevenson M R, McCartt A T, Woodward M, Haworth C,
Palamara P, Cercarelli R. Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes
resulting in hospital atttendance: a case-crossover study. BMJ
2005;331:428-430.
5. Strayer D L, Johnson W A. Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies
of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular phone. Psychological
Science 2001;12;462-466.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Proposed vehicle laws and their desirability
In the discussion evoked by the Royal College's suggested ban on
smoking in vehicles (1), I am uneasy about some of the attitudes
particularly regarding their general implications for laws directed to
reducing road-related health issues. Two issues seem particularly
pertinent:
(a)There continue to be entrenched negative attitudes to laws aimed
at reducing road casualties. This has ever been a feature of driving, even
extending to obvious dangers such as drink/drug-driving and speeding, both
of which remain engrained problems. An obvious example in relation to
speeding has been the often vitriolic hostility to speed cameras (2).
(b) Just because a law is difficult to enforce or might be seen as
providing the DfT with "resources to which it is not entitled" or somesuch
does not mean that it should be discarded. Again, both drink/drug-driving
and speeding provide obvious examples. I do not read much material that
advocates scrapping laws dealing with these issues just because many
miscreants habitually go undetected.
So no matter what the problems might be with enforcement of a smoking
ban, I believe that they should not be allowed high priority in decisions
concerning any proposed laws directed to this issue.
(1) Wise J. Royal college calls for smoking ban in cars.
BMJ 2010; 340: c1689
(2) Reinhardt-Rutland A H. Roadside speed-cameras: arguments for
covert siting. Police J 2001; 74: 312-315.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests