Smoking ban in the UK [Archive]

English assassin

10-26-2005, 17:32

I don't smoke but a pub should smell of smoke. And spilt beer. So I am against this.

James Johnson, chairman of the British Medical Association, expressed "utter disappointment" at the "wasted opportunity to protect the public's health".

Yadda yadda yadda, no doubt he's also disappointed that the government doesn't force us all to wear bubble wrap in case we trip up.

As for how far a smoking ban should go: only to public places where there may be children present. Ban it there. Otherwise, we are all adults, can we please be allowed to exercise some responsibiltiy for our lives?

monkian

10-26-2005, 17:42

Well there goes any chance of Amsterdam style coffeeshops opening in the Uk ~:mecry:

Duke Malcolm

10-26-2005, 17:42

Wait to the 26th of March next year when the first smoking ban in the United Kingdom comes into force. The Scottish Parliament banned smoking in all enclosed public places...

English assassin

10-26-2005, 17:47

Well there goes any chance of Amsterdam style coffeeshops opening in the Uk ~:mecry:

Vote David Cameron !!! :smoking: (Make the most of this smiley, kids, Patricia Hewitt will shortly be banning smoking smileys on public forums)

drone

10-26-2005, 17:52

California introduced a ban on smoking in bars back in 1998. I think smoking was only allowed if all employees agreed to it. The employee health was one of the main arguments used to get the bill passed.

I would prefer smoke-free bars, I hate waking up the next day with a hangover AND the stench of cigarettes in my clothes and hair. Smoke-free pubs can succeed, there was one in Lincolnshire I used to go to when I lived there, it was always packed.

Viking

10-26-2005, 17:56

I think Bhutan has gone forward with an excellent example and completely banned all selling/buying of this s**t.

Otherwise, we are all adults, can we please be allowed to exercise some responsibiltiy for our lives?

And others....? There`s something called passive smoking.

English assassin

10-26-2005, 18:07

And others....? There`s something called passive smoking

Sure, if we were forced to go into pubs against our will, this would be a fair point. Lots of pubs have no smoking areas, and if enough people want smoke free pubs they will exist.

Smoke-free pubs can succeed, there was one in Lincolnshire I used to go to when I lived there, it was always packed.

case in point.

I think Bhutan has gone forward with an excellent example and completely banned all selling/buying of this s**t

This is probably what they thought in America before prohibition and that wasn't exactly a success.

BDC

10-26-2005, 18:24

It's just a cover whilst Blair passes his mess of education reform. As far as I can work out he's effectively privatised state schools, or as near as to make no difference. Woohoo.

Whoever is paying Blair to mess everything up so effectively probably has horns.

Goofball

10-26-2005, 18:32

I am a smoker, and I am in favor of the ban. People should not be subjected to toxic, cancer-causing (not to mention stinky) fumes in their workplace. We have the same ban in place where I live, and have had for a few years now. There has been no effect whatsoever on the bar/restaurant/nightclub industry, contrary to all the claims by bar owners that they would all be bankrupt within months. And since most pubs now offer semi-covered patios where patrons are allowed to smoke outside, there has been very little inconvenience to smokers.

_Martyr_

10-26-2005, 19:37

Kanamori

10-26-2005, 19:54

We have a smoking ban like that in Madison. There are problems w/ the bars in the city limits, the ones right on the edge of Middleton, Manona, and Stoughton, people will go the bar across the street where they can smoke inside. It would be interesting to see a study of just how harmful second-hand smoke is and how long one would have to be exposed to it, etc.

drone

10-26-2005, 20:03

It would be interesting to see a study of just how harmful second-hand smoke is and how long one would have to be exposed to it, etc.
CNN link on a study of bartenders after the Cali ban:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9812/20/bartender.smoke/

Ja'chyra

10-26-2005, 20:26

As a non-smoker, and someone who hates the smell of the stuff, I would say it's fair enough to ban it in restaurants but not in bars, banning it in pubs just means that half the group spends the whole night outside having a fag.

Tribesman

10-26-2005, 21:07

Ireland was the first country in the world to ban smoking in all work places over a year ago. It has been a resounding success. Going out is a much more pleasant experience. Hangovers are less severe because smokey air increases the level of dehydration. Nearly all bars/clubs have outdoor smoking areas. This actually creates a really nice dimension to a night out, a cool and quite area where you can go out and actually talk to people. I dont smoke, but whenever some of my mates are going out for a smoke I often go out as well. Most people I know who smoke are now in favour of the ban, even if they opposed it at first.
Yes but did you see the HSE on the news , now they want to ban outside smoking areas ???? People walk outside and have to breath the smoke , and when the doors are opened smoke can get in . ~:confused:
Just ban the damn things entirely , oh but they won't do that will they .~:handball:

Crazed Rabbit

10-26-2005, 21:08

I'm against it.

The government should not be able to completely control us for our 'safety'.
Don't want a smokey bar? Don't go there.
Don't want a smokey workplace? Don't work there.
If the owner wants smoking in his bar, he should be the one to decide. People should have freedom, not be bossed around according to 'what's good for them.'

After all, look at the gun ban. You guys sure have a lot less gun crime than 100 years ago when there were no laws at all...er nevermind.

@EA. Actually, I think prohibition, while it enjoyed a lot of support, did not have overwhelming and perhaps not even a majority of public support-just a minority of dedicated people who pestered politicians.
In fact, today MADD (mothers against drunk driving) is becoming a neo-prohibitionist organization and less of an anti-drunk driving organization. They work to increasing lower the blood alcohol limit to something where you're not even drunk and most people can drive safely.

Crazed Rabbit

Kanamori

10-26-2005, 23:37

The government should not be able to completely control us for our 'safety'.

As far as I know, there is no federal or state guarantee to the freedom to smoke in bars. If the people want the law passed, then they should be able to pass it.

Soulforged

10-27-2005, 00:13

Is totally ridicolous. Of course not!! How is that this is even discussed in the "first world"?~:rolleyes:

Goofball

10-27-2005, 00:26

Don't want a smokey workplace? Don't work there.

So I take it you support allowing smoking in all workplaces then?

Why is it that only people who work in the bar industry should uproot their lives and find new employment because they don't want to die a premature death, and smell bad while they are on their way to it?

Crazed Rabbit

10-27-2005, 00:48

So I take it you support allowing smoking in all workplaces then?

Yes. Provided the company owns the property, or the landlord allows smoking, they should be able to allow smoking. It's their property, after all.

Crazed Rabbit

GonZ

10-27-2005, 02:09

My name is Gonz and I'm addicted to nicotene.

However I do welcome the ban. Hopefully it will help me quit this filthy habit.

Trouble is I'm self employed, work from home and only go to the pub once a week.

My name is Gonz and I am also addicted to forums.

Papewaio

10-27-2005, 02:13

Crazed Rabbit

10-27-2005, 02:58

Ban it from any workplace or public place.

How would you like someone picking their nose and flicking snot in your food? Guess what you choose to eat there so it is your fault.

Also it would be healthier then cigarette smoke and would eventually build up your immune system... so do you want food saftey levels lowered?

You get Mad Cow disease. Sorry your fault for eating at the restaurant.

If someone gets drunk and attacks you in the pub it is your fault for hanging out in a place that serves alcohol.

Everyone should be allowed their own hobbies, but not when it impacts on the health of others.

Hmmm. Do any of these have anything to do with smoking...nope. It's you trying to defeat my argument by twisting it to seem that I place blame on the victims, when in fact I am against for reasons of freedom, and using that weird logic in totally unrelated situations.

Smoking is unhealthy yes, but that doesn't mean you should be able to stop people from doing it.

Crazed Rabbit

Papewaio

10-27-2005, 03:16

Passive smoking.

That is the act of forcing a habit on someone else.

And it has worse health consequences then if you picked your nose and put it in their food. Or took a swing at them with a fist. Lung Cancer is a whole lot worse then the flu or a black eye.

Crazed Rabbit

10-27-2005, 06:21

You are not forcing the habit on anyone. All people are free to go as they please.

If enough people don't like smokers in a certain store and tell the owner, he can ban smoking on his premises.

Going someplace where you are free to leave at any time and then demanding people change for you is outlandish.

Crazed Rabbit

GoreBag

10-27-2005, 07:48

We have a smoking ban in our city and it has improved the bar life both here and across the river (smoking in bars is still cool in Hull, the Quebecois third of the mega-city), even though that will shortly end as well. People bitched and moaned, but now it's second-nature to have to outside to smoke.

On a democratic level, it makes sense. The majority of the population are non-smokers, so they're perfectly fine to enforce their will on the cancer suckers, right? I don't smoke cigarettes, but I'll have a cigarillo now and then.

As for the Libertarian approach, which I normally support in this case (yes, even if someone gets date-raped at a nightclub), smoking outside is just sensible. The "you don't like the smoke, don't leave the house" approach is just fine, but that's just as legitimate as my decking some smoker out for smoking in my presence. Smoking outside more more efficiently limits the smoke to one person. Besides, many bars have patios or balconies (read: smoking sections).

Just pass the damn bill. If society breaks down and there's rioting in the streets after a few months, then the worrying should start.

Adrian II

10-27-2005, 08:23

Passive smoking. That is the act of forcing a habit on someone else. And it has worse health consequences then if you picked your nose and put it in their food.One more example of the health hysteria that has befallen us. Passive smoking probably causes a slightly higher risk of cancer, but a lot less than many other risk factors to which people are involuntarily exposed. Smoking bans make use of most peoples' inability to distinguish between absolute and relative risk.

Former Swedish toxicologist Robert Nilsson has produced an estimate of the annual incidence of cancer in a population of 100,000 resulting from environmental factors: unknown (177), diet (135), smoking (68), other lifestyle factors (45), sunshine (23), passive smoking (2).

There are several studies confirming the innocuousness of passive smoking compared to other risks. As stated by George Davey Smith, Britain's leading epidemiologist, in a 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal: 'The considerable problems with measurement imprecision, confounding, and the small predicted excess risks limit the degree to which conventional observational epidemiology can address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.'

The campaign against passive smoking is basically a moralist campaign, like the drive for Prohibition in the pre-war United States. This too will pass. If you want to prevent involuntary exposure to carcinogenes, you should ban all industrial pollution for starters. Oh, and seafood. It caused an incidence of 12 in Nilsson's study. Are you infavour of a seafood-ban in public places, Papewaio?~:confused:

Duke of Gloucester

10-27-2005, 08:26

Don't want a smokey workplace? Don't work there.

This sounds reasonable, but if you accept the premise, then you need to repeal all the safety related employment law: no hard hats for builders and any old scafolding will do; no high visibility jackets for railway workers; no legal requirement on employers to keep their building in good repair. "Don't want a dangerous workplace? Don't work there."

Of course, in the real world, people need employment to pay their mortgages and support their families. The freedom to move to a different employer is limited, especially if in a given field, employers adopt the same dangerous practice.

For me smoking in pubs and bars is all about protecting workers from passive smoking. Evidence shows passive smoking can have a serious affect on health and therefore it should be illegal to expose your employees to it.

Papewaio

10-27-2005, 09:18

Former Swedish toxicologist Robert Nilsson has produced an estimate of the annual incidence of cancer in a population of 100,000 resulting from environmental factors: unknown (177), diet (135), smoking (68), other lifestyle factors (45), sunshine (23), passive smoking (2).

Oh, and seafood. It caused an incidence of 12 in Nilsson's study. Are you infavour of a seafood-ban in public places, Papewaio?~:confused:

Difference is choice. If you smoke it is your health, your diet your health, your lifesytle factors your health, smoking around someone else it is their health.

The difference with smoking and drinking is that I can go to the bar and have a beer. I am not forced to drink the umbrella decorated cocktail choice of other patrons in the bar because that is their habit. The smokers on the other hand think that it is their right to force others to partake in their habit.

I can choose to eat seafood or not. Someone else dining on that does not effect my consumption of it unless I start eating like a baby bird.

Also what is the rate of passive smoking for someone working in a bar or other closed environment? I'm sure it is higher then the passive smoker who is working in the outdoors.

Smoking bans make use of most peoples' inability to distinguish between absolute and relative risk.

The risk is small for passive smoking but the damage is great. So the cost risk factor is rather large. Which is worse the flu, a black eye or cancer? How many black eyes to dying by lung cancer would be of equal agony?

Again why should someones choices override everyone else? It is not just cancer, it is the smell, the effect on food and the risk factor for anyone with asthma, hayfever or any other air effected allergy.

English assassin

10-27-2005, 09:53

I don't normally think much of slippery slope arguments, (because it is not usually established very convincingly that the slope exists, or is slippery). But there is a slippery slope here.

If we are allowed to ban things because they impose a (small) risk on other people, what else should we ban? Alcohol, obviously:

it has been estimated that 40% of violent crime; 78% of assaults and 88% of criminal damage cases are committed
while the offender is under the influence of alcohol. Although there is no simple causal relationship, alcohol is often consumed by offenders and victims prior to the offence being committed. Moreover, it is inextricably linked to disorder around licensed premises. In addition, fear of alcohol related violence or intimidation may well mean that large numbers of people avoid city centres on weekend evenings

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/ar020101.htm

Driving, naturally. Even if we treat all vehicle users as asking for it pedestrians are passive victims, surely:

In 2004, 671 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in Great Britain. This was 21 per cent of all deaths from road accidents

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

And so on.

As for a restaurant that flicked bogies in your food, are you really saying you would keep going and chow down on those bogies week in week out until the government comes to your rescue with the Soup (Bogey Prohibition) Regulations 2009 ??? Or would you just go to a bogey free restaurant?

Adrian II

10-27-2005, 10:55

I can choose to eat seafood or not.I bet you do, without ever raising a stink about it. Speaking of which, obligatory ventilation in public spaces is the obvious and simple solution to the whole (fake) issue, including the smell. Open & shut.

mystic brew

10-27-2005, 13:22

speaking as someone who ran a pub for several years, i think there's a slight mixing of the issues here.

this rule isn't designed to protect the patrons of the pub, it's designed to help the staff. people can choose or not to frequent the pub or bar, but workers should have similar protections to everyone else.

Think of the Winter. A member of staff could be working for up to 48 hours a week in a smoky environment, and even good ventilation can't fully scrub the air.

personally, I don't smoke and hate the stench, so bring on smoke free pubs.

When i took over the pub i took the step of banning smokng at the bar, and that made a huge difference to the staff. i noticed my snot was no longer black, for a start.

rather than a non-smoking area in the pubs, i'd like to see designated smoking areas... it's a slight change of mindset that would be important in protecting largely young staff who may be ignorant of their rights.

Geoffrey S

10-27-2005, 15:49

I find smoke unpleasant, particularly the smell it leaves on clothes after going out for an evening. I can understand smokers disliking a law prohibiting their habit, but generally I'd have thought just going outside for a smoke can't be too hard. At the least a smoke-free workplace would be pleasant; when it comes to bars/pubs/clubs it should be up to the owners, though a seperate area for smoking would be welcome.

master of the puppets

10-27-2005, 16:26

good, nothin worse then smokers.

GoreBag

10-27-2005, 19:30

I bet you do, without ever raising a stink about it. Speaking of which, obligatory ventilation in public spaces is the obvious and simple solution to the whole (fake) issue, including the smell. Open & shut.

Instead of making people step outside to smoke for five minutes, you'd have every enclosed public space install improved ventilations systems?

Ja'chyra

10-27-2005, 19:48

I bet you do, without ever raising a stink about it. Speaking of which, obligatory ventilation in public spaces is the obvious and simple solution to the whole (fake) issue, including the smell. Open & shut.

Adie, me old mucker, you fail to say why the whole issue is fake.

You have given figures that say the actual risk of cancer from passive smoking is quite small and I won't argue with your figures, but if those 2 in 100,000 are your mum and your wife (figuratively not personally) then that would be completely unacceptable. As for the smell, who can deny it, any non-smoker will be able to point out someone who has just had a fag from 100 paces.

The arguement of "If you don't like it leave" is a bit off too especially in the work place, the HSAW Act forces the employer to provide a safe place of work, how would the risk of passive smoking fit into that as it an easily solved problem. As for pubs I don't have a problem with it as I accept that people will want to smoke there and that is just a part of the environ.

Slyspy

10-27-2005, 19:50

mystic brew

10-27-2005, 22:32

does this mean i have your vote, slyspy?

just for the record, y'understand.

Papewaio

10-27-2005, 23:43

I bet you do, without ever raising a stink about it. Speaking of which, obligatory ventilation in public spaces is the obvious and simple solution to the whole (fake) issue, including the smell. Open & shut.

Actually I am very particular about the seafood I eat. A hint of being off and I cannot eat it... the smell is what gets me. Same with smoking.

It is not a fake issue, most non-smokers do not like the smell of cigarettes, also the breath of smokers has a musky smell that is not nice at all. The breath of smokers and their clothes emit enough smell that it can set off allergies and can be an irritant for asthmatics or those with hayfever.

As to English Assassin. What happens to an alcoholic that attacks someone while drunk? What are the penalties for drink driving? Can you be dismissed from work if you are drunk? What would be the penalities for spiking someones drink with alcohol? What are the penalities to a restaurant for not being clean?

English assassin

10-28-2005, 09:57

As to English Assassin. What happens to an alcoholic that attacks someone while drunk? What are the penalties for drink driving? Can you be dismissed from work if you are drunk? What would be the penalities for spiking someones drink with alcohol? What are the penalities to a restaurant for not being clean?

No too sure what the point is here. Alcohol related bad behaviour is illegal, but it still happens, big time. If you wanted to stop it all you can do is ban alcohol. And killing people through bad driving isn't even necessarily illegal at all. Life is full of risk, you can't eliminate it all and still have a life worth living.

Juast wait, the next thing they will be making it illegal to eat pork scratchings, or at the very least if you buy a packet you won't be able to offer any to your friends for fear of passive heart disease. Just google a picture of Patricia Hewitt and then tell me if that's not a woman who would ban EVERYTHING if she could.

As for the smell, (and I speak as a non-smoker) come on, its not THAT bad? Snogging a smoker whose just had a ciggie is a bit much, (although like most slightly dubious snogging experiences its tolerable so long as you go at it with enough enthusiasm) but apart from that IMHO we are overegging the pudding a bit here.

Ja'chyra

10-28-2005, 10:03

As for the smell, (and I speak as a non-smoker) come on, its not THAT bad? Snogging a smoker whose just had a ciggie is a bit much, (although like most slightly dubious snogging experiences its tolerable so long as you go at it with enough enthusiasm) but apart from that IMHO we are overegging the pudding a bit here.

No he's not, the smell is quite vile and easily noticeable from at least 10ft away.

InsaneApache

10-28-2005, 10:35

As a recent non-smoker (hey, it's six months now ~;) ) I have to say that the smell is quite acrid. However an outright ban is a bit much. I mean c'mon guys anyone who's been to the UK in winter knows that it's practically impossible to smoke outside. If the rain don't get you the wind will.

Now then. When I were a lad :listen: things were different. I mean women for a start were not allowed in the 'tap room'....'tis true I swear. I can remember going into pubs that did not allow them in at all.

In those halcyon days :jumping: pubs used to have something called a 'snug' or a 'smoke room'. This was connected to the pub by means of a hatch. Through this hatch passed beer one way and cash the other. When not in use the hatch remained shut.

Then in the mid to late 70's a law was passed (prolly from the EU) that all areas of the pub had to be seen from the bar. This meant tearing down all the internal walls....and hence no more 'snug' 'tap room' or 'smoke room'

I fail to see why something along these lines couldn't be accommodated. There again Bliar and his cronies do like to ban things don't they?.....we're overrun with damn foxes up here these days for starters ~;)

English assassin

10-28-2005, 11:27

we're overrun with damn foxes up here these days for starters

Maybe we could get the foxes to smoke the ciggies? Solves two problems at once. Which reminds me:

A lab rabbit breaks out of his cage, tunnels under the fence, and emerges to his first taste of freedom. He is in a green field, and the sun is just rising on a new day. He sees some other rabbits like him nearby, and hops over.

"Hello" he says, "I've just escaped from that lab over there. Who are you and what are you doing?"

"we are wild rabbits" say the rabbits "and we are eating grass. You should try it, its delicious"

So the lab rabbit has his first ever taste of grass and its the most delicious thing he has ever tasted. After he has eaten his fill, he has a look round. Its a beuatiful warm spring day, and he feels the sun on his fur for the first time. As he looks he sees some more rabbits nearby.

"Who are they" he asks his new friends

"They are lady rabbits" say his friends, and they whisper to him what they do with the lady rabbits.

Well, the lab rabbit thinks, I've got to try THAT. So he hops over to the lady rabbits and does what rabbits do. He hops back to his new friends the wild rabbits with a big smile on his face.

"So", they ask "will you be living here with us now , eating the lovely fresh grass, feeling the warm sun on your fur, and fooling around with the lady rabbits?"

"Sorry, no" he replies. "I've got to get back to the lab. I'm absolutely gasping for a fag"

BDC

10-28-2005, 11:54

We need an outright ban, or no ban at all. The 'ban' here is going to need an insane amount of policing, and huge amounts of pointless red tape. Just like everything in the UK at the moment.

Prodigal

10-28-2005, 11:56

I think total Buhtan like ban is the way to go, with the reason given being, that the state needs us to work for longer, to support all the freakin' non smokers who are living too long & not having enough kids.

Yep I smoke, & yes, deeply bitter about everything...Especially cars, but I guess they produce far less harmful products than fags, right? I mean walking down a road I'm not forced to inhale toxic fumes pupming out of all the "I don't like the smell" non smokers cars.

Adrian II

10-28-2005, 21:10

Actually I am very particular about the seafood I eat. A hint of being off and I cannot eat it... the smell is what gets me. Same with smoking.Rotten fish does not cause cancer, marine toxins do. And you never know which fish they have chosen to hide in, do you? Like I wrote above, people have a hard time understanding the concept of relative risk. Traffic carries various risks with it, including the risk of 'passive accidents' (you are not driving, yet somebody else is driving over you). The risk of it hitting your wife and child is unacceptable, to paraphrase another poster with regard to passive smoking and cancer - so, we better ban driving in public places altogether. Same goes for seafood.
~:eek:
It is not a fake issue, most non-smokers do not like the smell of cigarettes, also the breath of smokers has a musky smell that is not nice at all.So what? The same goes for the smell of alcohol, garlic, perfume, &cetera -- any and every smell is bound to irritate someone. No reason to ban them all, is there?

Goofball

10-28-2005, 22:06

Rotten fish does not cause cancer, marine toxins do. And you never know which fish they have chosen to hide in, do you? Like I wrote above, people have a hard time understanding the concept of relative risk. Traffic carries various risks with it, including the risk of 'passive accidents' (you are not driving, yet somebody else is driving over you). The risk of it hitting your wife and child is unacceptable, to paraphrase another poster with regard to passive smoking and cancer - so, we better ban driving in public places altogether. Same goes for seafood.

I would have expected better from you. That's the same argument that gun-toters use (car accidents kill more people than guns, should we ban cars too?).

It's a question of a thing's value to society vs. its potential to cause harm, as well as a thing's intended purpose.

Cars, when used as intended, provide any number of benefits to society. They facilitate commerce, improve social interaction, enhance communication, etc. Yes, people are killed by them by accident, but the benefits cars provide far outweigh the harm they cause.

Tobacco, when used as intended, is a known or probable cause of approximately 25 diseases, including heart disease, cancer, and emphysema, both in its deliberate users and in its unwilling (second-hand) users. There is no overriding social benefit to smoking that outweighs its harmful effects. Why should people have to put up with this in their workplace?

Pick another tactic AII, the one that you're using now is way too full of holes.

Adrian II

10-28-2005, 22:18

I would have expected better from you. That's the same argument that gun-toters use (car accidents kill more people than guns, should we ban cars too?).Indeed, I have come round to the view lately that the private possession of guns in a society is not a problem. Though not because of any comparison with car traffic. Or seafood, for that matter.
It's a question of a thing's value to society vs. its potential to cause harm, as well as a thing's intended purpose.No, it isn't. It is for the individual, not for society, to decide what the net benefit of smoking is. As for the supposed societal benefits of cars, I have serious doubts. From the standpoint of society they are mostly counterproductive and wasteful. Only from the point of view of the individual do cars bring huge benefits: they increase prestige and provide a false sense of unrestricted mobility.

Goofball

10-28-2005, 22:31

No, it isn't. It is for the individual, not for society, to decide what the net benefit of smoking is.

But what you are ignoring is that there is no net benefit of smoking to society.

And you have not addressed the issue of intended use.

Cars used as intended, do not kill people.

Tobacco, used as intended, does kill people.

As for the supposed societal benefits of cars, I have serious doubts. From the standpoint of society they are mostly counterproductive and wasteful. Only from the point of view of the individual do cars bring huge benefits: they increase prestige and provide a false sense of unrestricted mobility.

You may have a case. And if enough people felt as you did, it would possible lead to them electing politicians who would effect a ban on cars. However, it appears the currently society as a whole disagrees with you.

Geoffrey S

10-28-2005, 22:47

As for the supposed societal benefits of cars, I have serious doubts. From the standpoint of society they are mostly counterproductive and wasteful. Only from the point of view of the individual do cars bring huge benefits: they increase prestige and provide a false sense of unrestricted mobility.
Although it's slightly off-topic, I agree wholeheartedly with that one, at the very least when it concerns the Netherlands. Perhaps as a student it's somewhat easier for me to hold this opinion, but public transport combined with good old healthy walking and cycling has always gotten me wherever I needed to go. I can't imagine it being too different in most other (European) countries if you apply a little effort; that little effort can go a long way.

Cars used as intended, do not kill people.

Tobacco, used as intended, does kill people.
Emissions into the atmosphere from cars used as intended probably cause more deaths than smoking tobacco products.

Edit: some obvious typos.

Goofball

10-29-2005, 00:01

Emissions into the atmosphere from cars used as intended probably cause more deaths than smoking tobacco products.

If you believe that, you need to do a little research on the subject.

And with that, lads and ladies, since it is now 4pm on Friday I will take my leave.

I'm off to the pub, where I will consume a pint or six of Tennents Lager, and smoke outside like a good lad.

Adrian II

10-29-2005, 00:22

Tobacco, used as intended, does kill people.So does seafood, if you twist the sense of the word 'intended' far enough. Tobacco, used as I intend it, produces happy smokers, not graveyards full of active and passive smokers. Dying from cancer is a risk you take when smoking, dying from a traffic accident is a risk you take whenever you go near a road (even if only as a footer).
You may have a case. And if enough people felt as you did, it would possible lead to them electing politicians who would effect a ban on cars.Trying to ban cars would be as futile as trying to ban private ownership of guns. People can be encouraged to make less use of cars. Most people spend an inordinate number of working hours in order to be able to afford a car that gives them a sense of the kind of freedom they would have if they did not have to work so much and spend so many useless hours in traffic jams.

Generally speaking I do not believe in bans to promote socially beneficial behaviour. I believe in encouragement. A prime example of such a policy with regard to mobility would be the town of Hasselt, in Belgium. Hasselt has provided free public transport for all its 70.000 inhabitants and very low public transport fares for all visitors since 1997. The accumulated cost of this policy is estimated at 15 euro per inhabitant per year. The accumulated benefit to the town has been enormous. The measure drew huge crowds of visitors and shoppers and they have continued to come ever since 1997. Hasselt is a traditional provincial capital with a Late Medieval to 18th century town center as well as classy shopping boulevards. They made the most of these assets by banning motorised traffic from the town center whilst providing huge parking lots in the outskirts that were connected to the town center by frequent bus services. The general climate in Hasselt improved enormously, crime was down, community life received a huge boost (Church attendance doubled), pensioners without cars could finally make a decent trip around town, Christmas celebrations draw record crowds because of the great atmosphere and sales and investment, hotels and restaurant turnovers and tourist attractions have all reached record highs. The mayor, Steve Stevaert, went on to become a national politician on the strength of this success.

And on a completely OT note, Hasselt sports the largest Japanese garden in Europe and it is a real beauty.

http://www.hasselt.be//upload/27698581/images/acer7.jpg