Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#41 Posted : 07 March 2005 14:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ralph Baqar Phil, thanks for all your comments. I genuinely was not having a go at smokers, merely making an observation and looking at the possible implications – many assuming that I don’t smoke myself. One of the issues that I had was that the system is flawed e.g. mobile phones. If anyone agrees that is the case then should we not be looking for reform? If reform is required then what will it result in? The possible implications are very far reaching. A great number of comments are borne totally out of individuals own perceptions of banning smoking whilst driving? Again many thanks. Ralph.
Admin  
#42 Posted : 07 March 2005 15:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By philip jones never mind the smoking, what about people who never have a crash, but have caused 23 of them? I was on my way to work last week with a leasurly jaunt doing the required 90mph on the country lanes near to where i live, when someone pulled out in front of me, forcing me to swerve. It was then that i dropped the mobile phone which was glued to my left ear, whilst talking to my boss about not using mobiles in the car without a hands free kit installed, in my haste to catch it i lost the page of the map i was looking at for my meeting, and the doughnut i was chomping on fell from my mouth, into the cup of redhot coffee between my legs scalding big bad bob and the twins!! Just a thought! Phil
Admin  
#43 Posted : 07 March 2005 15:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ralph Baqar Phillip, what type of doughnut were you eating? Was the coffee organic?
Admin  
#44 Posted : 07 March 2005 18:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor I find it interesting that, whilst many health and safety professionals would not argue that the existence of other (and perhaps greater) hazard to personal safety is good reason not to address or seek to reduce or eliminate another identified risk under consideration, they are prepared to do so when it comes to excusing a hazard to both health and safety in which they themselves engage. It must be desirable to seek a reduction in factors that adversely affect personal performance in operating plant or machinery upon which the lives of others depends but problems arise in both identification and acceptability. Whilst many performance-affecting drugs are difficult to readily detect without testing employees, this strategy has been adopted for some occupations where lives are clearly at risk and tends to be generally acceptable in those cases. Smoking is, of course, far more easy to identify - but acceptability of control is clearly difficult. Smoking non-legal performance-affecting drugs whilst operating such plant and machinery would probably be generally unacceptable for reasons other than illegality but not entirely so, at present, with tobacco - where acceptability has been clouded by addiction and social issues.
Admin  
#45 Posted : 07 March 2005 19:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ralph Baqar You’re bordering on calling my fellow colleagues hypocrites – careful Ken! It has been a great insight from the perception of smokers and non-smokers alike. I agree that there are many social factors involved within the reemit of the original thread. Which is why it hit a nerve with so many individuals – consciously or not. It’s a bit like having office personnel who can smell car fumes and rightly want the matter investigating immediately and yet some of these may be smokers who will then proceed to go outside (or wherever) and light-up – both car fumes and smoking produce carbon-monoxide. Certainly my view is that the system is flawed and that clearer guidelines are required. The mobile phone issue was a prime example of media hype that resulted in reform. But what did it achieve? As mentioned, one of the things that interested myself was that the reform in relation to mobiles was achieved by using data that highlighted the sub-conscious distraction of up to several minutes by the user. This was the impetus for government in changing the law and yet it had no bearing on holding a mobile? So are the legislatative elements, from a safety prospective, flawed?
Admin  
#46 Posted : 07 March 2005 23:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason Touraine Ralph, you said 'Should it not be a specific offence to smoke tobacco whilst driving? Smoking effects the brain within seconds of inhalation. It contains nicotine, which is an addictive substance, a drug. Nicotine effects the body and mind by altering blood pressure, and supplying a sense of relief, relaxation. Then, after stimulation is gone, withdrawal symptoms cause cravings for another dosage.' You get a few responses you don’t like and then start calling into question peoples professionalism despite the fact you were trying ‘to generate others points of view’. You tell us what nicotine can do ‘ to the mind and body’ but cite no evidence that it has an effect on driving. I think your silly knee jerk reaction to adverse comments perhaps shows you are really trying to find another angle to have a go at smokers. (For example what relevance has it being carcinogenic got to do with your hypothesis about its adverse effect on driving? (I think that particular outcome takes longer than a car journey to manifest yourself!). Yet you mention it twice (Fact: - It is also a potential carcinogen.) Perhaps counting smoking drivers ‘whilst in the obligatory traffic chaos’ is a greater risk. You might find a fag would help you relax! PS I don't mind you having a go at smoking - I don't like it either - but I do object to you being irrational.
Admin  
#47 Posted : 08 March 2005 13:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Mackessack Mobile phone? cigarette? passenger in the car? Do the differences of any of the above really matter. Not a jot as the majority of drivers are crap, frankly. Distractions or not.
Admin  
#48 Posted : 08 March 2005 14:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sean Fraser Yet again we have a full blown discussion on a motoring issue that has generally failed to understand the point. We would not need to ban anything if we all understood the dangers involved in what we do and act accordingly. Surely that was the point behind the concept "risk assessment". And has been pointed out right at the beginning of this thread, if smoking was subjected to an HONEST risk assessment, then people wouldn't do it. But they do - why? I don't smoke for a number of reasons, but top of the list is health. As an advanced driver, I don't do a number of things while driving. Why? Because I know that I need to concentrate on the task in hand all the time, and I need to be able to react effectively at any point during my journey. I do my risk assessment when I get in the vehicle and before I start off, each and every time. How many of you do that? Point is - While driving, everything you do that distracts you from the task in hand (manoeuvering a piece of lethal machinery from one point to another) make you less safe, it is only a matter of degree. The fact is, if everyone applied this level of conscious thought to this particular activity you wouldn't need legal intervention. Meanwhile, back in the real world, people don't, and so the law feels it must. That is also why we still need a prosecuting HSE as well as an advisory HSE.
Admin  
#49 Posted : 08 March 2005 14:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Mackessack Sean, Sorry to digress but IAM or RoSPA?
Admin  
#50 Posted : 08 March 2005 14:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sean Fraser John, IAM.
Admin  
#51 Posted : 08 March 2005 15:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Aidan Toner Going way way back to Ralp's-Why did mobile phones attract the attention of the legisliture and not other potential in-car hazards.??? Might I suggest legal intervention came about because of the following. (1) The public back then did'nt care much for M-Phone users, ie you must remember a time when users were loutish, rude and overbearing.(2)There were obvious high profile M-Phone related carnages (no one was really bothered as to the statistical comparison of death by ice cream eating, hot coffee drinking , or radio twidle,etc) and last but most importantly(3) Legislation was involked because it was EASY TO INTRODUCE AND ENFORCE. Sorry for shouting but sometimes us professionals over egg a story.Is there a possibility other in car hazards will be individually legally recognised ?-I dont think so as factor 3 just is,nt present.
Admin  
#52 Posted : 09 March 2005 12:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By jackw. Driving to work this morning. Nursing/enduring a 10 day old cold. I spent most of the time, sneezing, coughing, blowing my nose, searching around for yet an other tissue.. hmm seems like I was distracted a lot.. Is ok by me if you outlaw colds.. or should that be driving with a cold?. Could form part of a new health policy.. ban colds, flu, asthma, heart attacks, stomach pains, cramp, et al.. just in case they happen whilst driving and cause a distraction Ps yes also ban smoking…. pps Think of what I have just saved the health trusts.. one magic sweep of my pen..ok keyboard.. think i should get a fat cat bonus!!!!!
Admin  
#53 Posted : 09 March 2005 12:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ralph Baqar Sorry to hear you have a cold. Fat Cat bonuses? I doubt it JackW – maybe a saucer of milk?
Admin  
#54 Posted : 09 March 2005 13:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martin Mulholland Here's a contentious issue: Mobile phone ban gets introduced via Legislation. UK industry make multi-millions through the sale of car phone accessories. Now im not saying that there is a direct relationship at work here but there are often economic benefits to UK PLC when Legislation is introduced. Im sure there are others who can cite similar cases?
Admin  
#55 Posted : 09 March 2005 13:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ralph Baqar MORE cynicism – Martin, are you saying that there is a conspiracy?
Admin  
#56 Posted : 09 March 2005 13:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martin Mulholland Ralph Maybe it's just a coincidence?? marty
Admin  
#57 Posted : 09 March 2005 14:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Alan T Just to add to the mix. Is being able to drive on UK roads not covered by the requirement to prove your competency? So take this to the next level, would it not be correct then to test people for their ability to drive safely and deal with a certain level of distraction. Do we agree reform is required, lets teach people to be able to deal with this level of distraction whilst driving, I mean lets face it if a formula 1 driver can drive with the level of skill required by them and talk to the pits at the same time, look at fuel gauges, flags etc etc you must be able to learn this skill. Alan T *(CEO major UK driving School) *(smoker) Alternately The majority of laws are created due to pressure from the public and the perceived levels of risk, when cars where first introduced no speed limits, drink drive limits etc were needed or should that be perceived, as we are a ever changing society who's perceptions are always changing no-hunting, reduced legal status of cannabis etc need I go on. We can only wait to see if technology can rescue us from the dangers of the automobile. Maybe all revenue raised from the motorists should be used to once and for all resolve the transportation issue and do away with the need to drive cars.
Admin  
#58 Posted : 09 March 2005 14:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor So you'd rather abolish cars and loose your job than give up smoking, Alan! That is dedication!
Admin  
#59 Posted : 09 March 2005 14:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Alan T Ken Just trying to add some thoughts on the bigger picture rather than fall into the smoking argument again. Alan T
Admin  
#60 Posted : 10 March 2005 10:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ralph Baqar Alan (re; bigger picture), rather than abolishing cars why not have cars that can drive themselves? It may sound a little far fetched however; it is possible with the technology that we presently have – who knows what the future will bring?
Admin  
#61 Posted : 10 March 2005 11:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Hi Ralph, Interesting point about cars driving themselves; just hopw it's not Windows software at the back of it (Fatal Exception Error anybody?):) And on the subject of safe cars; I know a couple of people who've fitted safety camera detectors; when I've suggested it would be cheaper (and safer) for them to slow down a bit, they've looked at me like I have two heads (I don't, it's just a spot, honest). And considering all the technology which goes into safety camera detectors & GPS camera databases, why hasn't somebody produced a cheap device which will use GPS to bleep if you exceed the limit, which might help all those drivers who allegedly haven't got time to use a speedo safely? Smoking in cars; as long as it's not mine I don't care that much, but when I'm at a standstill on the A1 (again) and the person in front is smoking I can smell it, which is always a real shock. Phones really are a distraction, fags are nothing like as bad, John
Admin  
#62 Posted : 10 March 2005 12:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ralph Baqar Bet Bill Gates is already working on ythe softwear!
Admin  
#63 Posted : 10 March 2005 17:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Deborah Burkmar Fear and Consumption: Customer: Worcester sauce crisps please Shopkeeper: Sorry can't, it's off the shelves, cancer scare. Customer: Oh right, Chinese Chicken Wings? Shopkeeper: Ah that's the same , Cancer scare Customer: Hamburger Relish? Shopkeeper: Cancer scare Customer: Sausage and Mash? Shopkeeper: Cancer scare Customer: Cottage Pie? Shopkeeper: Yes, ...no wait, Cancer scare. Customer: So they're all off the shelves because of a Cancer scare? Shopkeeper: Yes Customer: (sigh) Just give me a 20 Marlboro then. Shopkeeper: Certainly. £4.50 please.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
2 Pages<12
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.