Posted By Stuart Nagle Geoff. With devil's advocate hat on.... yes it does: a) there is still no evidence to support the claim that passive smoking kills. If it takes 35/40 years on average for a smoker to suffer cancer from smoking 20 to 40 cigerettes a day - how long for a person who claims to have been affected by passive smoking to be affected the same way (with respect to the minority who suffer such disease earlier in life). b) there are less smokers in the UK now than at any other time - they are very much a very small minority. How then are deaths from lung cancer (and other cancers i.e. liver, colon, throat etc) are increasing dramatically? surely placing the blame on smokers per se is no longer a viable argument. c) who would you rather spend the night with in a garage.... a smoker or a car with the engine running!! d) more fines and arrests are now made for speeding than drink driving. e) motorists now spend more time looking for speed cameras than concentrating on their driving f) speed cameras only reduce speed 100 metres before a camera and 200 metres after a camera g) there are more near misses at speed cameras than any other location on roads due to motorists slowing down at them h) drug and alcohol testing of employees has produced no significant abuse figures i) office workers drink more than factory workers - including during working hours there is no evidence that drinking yourself to death is work related j) mobile phones cause more slow moving 'shunt' type accidents that go unreported to police and therefore are not recorded statistically k) how many of the 120000 deaths by smoking related diseases were smokers - former smokers - or persons who had never smoked? l) how many alcohol related deaths were alcoholics - alcoholic poisoning - related to alcohol only as a result of having been drunk (i.e driving or operating machinery at home/work) - dying as a result of injuries suffered from a person who was drunk (e.g. stabbed or otherwise mortally wounded - run over or had been drinking and walked into traffic etc).

Posted By Nigel Singleton BSc If your logic holds out: 220,004 people may have died because they were smoking and /or drinking whilst using a mobile phone whilst driving. No seriously I agree that the figures do not seem to put up a good case for the 'intense' government activity; however I think the point that should be considered is that when smoking or drinking kills, it is their choice, whereas when a mobile phone kills, it is usually someone else who was not using a phone. How many times have we been irritated by a driver in front not driving correclty whilst on the phone? Does this put us at more risk than sitting in a pub with smoke in the air. It would seem to me that it is the old H&S chestnut of long term affects compared to crash bang wallop, which usually provokes a bigger response in any health & safety issue.

Posted By Allan St.John Holt Let's get the phone thing right, at least. There is good evidence from research (from several sources) that any use of a mobile phone while driving downgrades the driver's performance as measured in reaction times, ability to judge distance from the vehicle in front and ability to maintain a constant course. Most of us have seen examples of all of these. The most cogent argument is that in general terms use of a mobile phone downgrades performance at least as much as driving at the UK legal blood/alcohol limit. The effects can be seen easily as noted above. So, if you know (as you do) that there is an enhanced risk from an activity, in my view failure to do something about it -to control the risk - is culpable on the part of the employer. The Government recognises this by putting in a control that goes part of the way, and the Highway Code recommends going all the way and not using a phone of any kind while driving. This measure is clearly related to risk levels. There are few of us who could not modify their own behaviour in relation to the use of phones while driving. So let's have less of the 'nanny State' arguments from H&S professionals who should know better. Happy Christmas - stay alive to enjoy it. Allan

Posted By Merv Newman I have enormous difficulties in believing anyone who says that passive smoking kills. The difference in concentration between the smoker who inhales and the person sitting close to them, and the statistiques on how many smokers actually get cancer tells me that it is all a bit ridiculous. On the use of mobile phones while driving - from personal experience it is extremely dangerous. Soon after getting a mobile phone I had a call while I was on an interconnection between two motorways. foolishly I took the phone and started talking to the person who had called me. The resulting difficulty in negotiating the up-coming bends one handed while trying to hold a conversation nearly killed me. Nowadays I do not respond to the call but wait for the eventual beep that tells me that there is a message. Then I find a safe place to stop, take the message and decide if I want to call them back. Someone mentioned radars. I had an interesting experience last week. The French government has just started installing automatic radars - 5% over the limit and you are "flashed", and the fine is in the post before you get home. £60 if you pay within two weeks, £90 within the month and £180 after that. Just south of Paris there is a well sign-posted radar. The posted limit is 110 km/hr. Going past the radar people were driving at no more than 90 km/hr. Over the past month I have driven something like 3 000 miles on french motorways which have a maximum limit of 130 km/hr. The average speed used to be about 140, with some cars going at an estimated 180-190. Last week, most were going at 125, with only the foreigners (belgians, swiss and english) going over the limit. Behavioural safety theory says that "repression only works if it is consistently and constantly applied". Too right.

Posted By Ken Taylor Well, I certainly ban smoking and drinking in my car, Geoff - but then you would expect that from me. The other week, when driving round a bend in the road, I was confronted by a large lorry coming towards me being driven by a clown with a mobile phone clutched to his ear - and only just managed to get out of his way. Somehow the thought that it might be better to ignore this practice in favour of preventing more smoking deaths did not seem to occur at the time! The point is that, if people are so selfish as to insist on putting the lives or health of others at risk, society needs to take action to deter them from doing so - whether by smoking, drinking or irresponsible and unsafe driving. There are places and circumstances where people can smoke, drink and use their phones without the risks to others. If they have a concern for the health and safety of others, that's where they should be engaging in those activities.

Posted By Jack Geoff, isn't the logical extension of this 'why bother with occupational safety' after all only a few hundred deaths a year; a drop in the ocean when compared with the figures you quote for booze & fags (ok I know Occ Health figures higher but you get my drift). Perhaps we should all concentrate on road safety - that always seems to have about 10 times as many deaths. Stuart, I would agree if you said there was no proof re passive smoking but I think there is some evidence (probably also some the other way too)

Posted By Ken Taylor I'm not really missing your point Geoff - just not entirely agreeing with it for the sort of reasons that Jack has put. There are, in fact, more fatalities and other injuries in the home than on the road but that doesn't stop me being interested in road safety as well as occupational safety as well as health issues, etc. Government also needs to look at all areas of injury causation and take appropriate action at the right time and in an effective way. The time for stopping idiots driving cars with a phone in one hand has come - as has the need to protect non-consenting people from the tobacco smoke of others.

Posted By Geoff Burt Agree with you this time Ken (including the bit about non consenting smokers!) but we already had legislation in place that would deal with careless driving. You use the word 'effective', and that's my whole point of putting up this thread. Effective in my book means putting what resources you have to best use. I'd be interested in the figures for home fatalities due to accidents - as a comparison.

Posted By Steven John Nelson Yes, but the government don't make millions from taxing our use of mobile phones....not that I'm aware of anyway.

Posted By Jay Joshi I do not dispute the experimental evidence that there is loss of concentration when using a mobile phone, but I doubt that there is a significant cost in enforcing the new law. No doubt some mobile phone users have had to procure the hand free kits. So, it is a cost to the users and profits for companies that sell them. The new law simply provides the authorities with a means of pro-actively enforcing the law. Previously, they had to prove that the driver was driving without due care and attention!!The new proposals have not prohibited the use of hands free systems, although most employers would have explicitly prohibited its use when driving. I wonder if there are reliable figures on number of accidents where the main cause is attributed to the use of mobile phones ?? This discussion about merits etc of smoking, drinking & mobile phones and its effects has 2 mains points. The first one is that some activities do not affect "others" -except the immediate family, such as DIY, Gardening or even smoking, drinking at home etc -except that it is the taxpayer who picks up the cost of treatment. The second one is that for too long we have been depending upon slack enforcement, but spend significant amopunts of money in alternative enforcement schemes, that in the long run may be detrimental not only to health( back-pain etc) such as speed bumps, but additional costs in car maintenanace. If a speed limit is 30 mph, and we knew that we will get a fine if we do 35 mph, I am sure most of those who ignore it will change their behaviour. In my view, the driving habits of those who tailgate at high speeds, cut into lanes, etc are worse and need to be "caught" in comparision to the use of mobile phones. Unfortunately, unless there is serious personal injury, the police do not want to get involved, even if the potential for a fatality is greater in such car accident cases!! It is all a mteer of resources and how they are utilised. An idea for the future is to have cars fitted with black boxes and record speed data and other significant parameters in relation to speed limits--that are checked annually and penalties charged proportionately!! Personally, I would prefer that to the speed bumps that are everywhere in residential areas that cause havoc to our backs and car-suspensions, not to mention the slowing down of emergency vehicles. The voluntary approach such as the "highway code" was okay when we did not have the current number of vehicles and the roads were not congested. We need innovative enforcement measures now, using technology.

Posted By Stuart Nagle Some interesting comments.... So where is the evidence Ken? - well quite frankly as you rightly state there is not a lot it there!! Has a scientist sat a person down in a room with a smoker for 20 years to see if they contract smoking related diseases? The only evidence is conjecture and 'educated guesses'. As far I am aware, studies relate only to disease and 'presumed causes' because the symptoms are like that of those of smokers. Exposre and disease in this context is and must be random. As I stated above, more people contract cancer of the lung and other organs who have not smoked than those who smoke (persons who smoke are getting less and less). They can't all be passive smokers surely! On the subject of speed cameras. fines and the like I would direct those of you who want to research this a little further to the Durham Police Chief and an article in the Telegraph concerning Durham Police Constabulary refusing to introduce speed cameras (actually there is 1 fixed camera in the whole of County Durham), as it seem that the Police Chief Constable is not of the opinion that 'safety cameras' (as the government prefers to call them) are 'safe' at all!! Police Officers in County Durham use handheld cameras or mobile cameras where they are needed - in accident black spots. This is coupled with a road safety campaing run by the Police in Durham - a very sensible attitude me thinks.... After all we don't prevent accidents at work by taking pictures of people, we train them and introduce preventative measures. 'Safety cameras' don't train or introduce preventative measures they simply add to problems and create distain for authority.

Posted By Ken Taylor There seems to be a suggestion around that lung cancer is the only (and possibly wrongly attributed) health risk from passive smoking and that one has to wait 20 years or so to find out. I would point out, therefore, that the products of smoked tobacco are also linked by medical authorities to coronary heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, other circulatory and respiratory diseases, acute irritant effects on eyes, throat and respiratory tract and the aggravation of asthma. As uncaring smokers still seem prepared to submit non-smokers to their foul emissions, the Government has now turned to using children to see whether any degree of compassion can be found for them if not adults. It will be interesting to see whether this has any effect - particularly among health and safety practitioners. You may recall that this approach was tried with regard to the risk to children in cars from not wearing seat-belts. Eventually legislation was required in order to have any appreciable effect.

Posted By Chris Abbott Geoff, Great topic - and some very good responses too.. I won't bother with my original observations, because they have all be said. Most of this discussion has been about the serious implications or effectiveness of doing an act - like "answering a phone call" - or "Smoking a cigarette in a confined space" etc. Unfortunate we DO have to rely on published statistical information as a basis for reporting matters, but given the numbers quoted - and not having a basis for comparison myself, It does, in my mind, put it all into perspective. Chris

Posted By David Waterton Once again I am amazed at how much of a response this type of tongue in cheek question gets from H&S PROFESSIONALS????? As a relatively new member to the FOLD should I be worried? is this my future?

Posted By peter gotch Geoff, There is plenty of statistical information to indicate that driving through red lights is a major cause of road traffic accidents. I can observe on an almost daily basis that I need to beware of those whose type of car, and attitude to seat belts and use of phones are most likely to run me down. My daily risk assessment doesn't even need the back of a fag packet, let alone thorough quantitative analysis. Mobiles and drivers don't mix! Have a good weekend. I've still got to cross Bothwell Street one more time before getting to the weekend. Peter