36 voices in support justify reaching into your car

PB Danman, so would you not agree that the cops should step in to intervene if they saw a man beating his kid?

Don’t be daft – of course I would.

I cant see your point however.

Apples/Oranges one may say.

Passive smoking ‘might’ be a problem but it’s a long way down on the list
The amount of time people spend in their cars is a fraction of most peoples day.
The amount of time they happen to have kids in their car is even less.
The chances of anybody taking any notice of this is minimal
The chances of them getting a ticket is even less
The chances that this will curb their behavior is even less

The chances it will make for a good ole “Oh why wont somebody think of the kiddies” rant is extremely high

Nobody is going to change their vote over it getting up

A few “yeah, we did it” types just might

I used to smoke. When I didn’t have a child, I smoked in the house, in the car …. you name it. After having a child, that changed. I stopped smoking in any enclosed space.

Since then I have also given up smoking.

Any person that smokes in a car/house with children (or other non-smokers for that matter) is selfish and as far as I am concerned is assisting in killing them.

That’s a rather silly comment rawhide. Pollution getting into your vents is an unfortunate consequence of driving cars, however you don’t have to smoke in a car to get the car going but unfortunately we do need petrol.

Just shows how emotive the whole smoking issue is – commonsense goes out the window when defending the indefensible. Those that smoke thinking they have the right to inflict their smoke on anyone anytime. I know not all smokers are like this and over the years smokers have generally got more considerate.

Parking laws are traffic laws and are more about inconvenience, but I see your point

Aren’t all traffic laws ultimately about health and safety? Don’t see any difference between a copper pulling you over for smoking with kids in the car and letting your kids bounce around in the back seat with no seat belts.

Funny how the Labor party gives us more and more laws to ensure our ‘freedom’.

It’s not about our freedom (and freedom to do what, anyway? Poison our kids?). It’s about our kids’ freedom. If parents won’t act in the best interests of their children, then the state must.

Organisations like the Police exist because some people cannot exercise personal responsibility.

+1.

Good point Thumper, and something that people should consider actually is a bigger issue than the one at hand.

Funny how the Labor party gives us more and more laws to ensure our ‘freedom’.

I think smoking with kids in cars is disgraceful, but is this the solution?

Organisations like the Police exist because some people cannot exercise personal responsibility.

screaming banshee said :

Please, the health issues caused by smoking would be enough reason in itself to ban the sale of tobacco altogether but the govt would then stand to lose significant tax revenue which it would appear is more beneficial to the govt then healthy citizens paying all the other taxes.

jakez said :

Well you know there is that whole pesky freedom thing.

Some people take that stuff seriously.

Rubbish. There’s no choice in addiction. Sure, they chose to smoke at some point in time but I know many smokers who wish cigarettes were banned outright (unavailable for legal purchase) so they would be forced to stop.

Many people I know smoke even though they don’t actually want to.. where’s the “freedom” in that FFS

vg said :

City Rangers for example

Vg, that’s true, and I thank you for keeping the debate on point and civil. I will endeavor to do the same.

I doubt city rangers would be enforcing this particular law, though. I think it’s more like the law about seat-belts, which the cops usually pull you up on. Cop sees someone having a smoke, sees a kid in the back, they pull the car over and issue a ticket.

Danman, whilst I agree that there is some level of personal responsibility that should be left to the parents – it’s obvious that this law is needed. It’s a shame, but some people need to be told. Again, it’s like seat-belts. Common sense says you should wear them, unfortunately people need to be told.

Danman, so would you not agree that the cops should step in to intervene if they saw a man beating his kid?

The fact that someone else is irresponsible, not you, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to prevent harm to the children.

As I said above; “There is no “personal responsibility” that a child can exercise here.”

I don’t think we can turn our back on children as someone else, not the child, is not exercising “personal responsibility.”

Carbon dioxide is poison – lets outlaw exhaling in cars too…..If only…..

I agree with personal responsibility – I am a non smoker – but if someone wants to smoke in their car with their children, that’s their business, not mine, not yours, certainly should not be the laws.

If however, one of those children is mine, I would ask for the individual to not smoke whilst my child is in their car.

They can do what they want to their kids… but mine… I don’t think so.

I have a responsibility to my children and they theirs, until their responsibility (or lack there of) encroaches on me or my loved ones, I have no say… That is my stance.

City Rangers for example

Police aren’t the only people that enforce laws

It’s a health issue, but I can only see it being enforced in the same manner as most traffic law.

How else could they enforce it?

How sure are you it will be a traffic law?

Health issue, not traffic. Not diminishing its import, but its a health issue

vg said :

Nothing but an exercise in trying to show people they are ‘responding to community needs’. The reality is guess who they’ll want to enforce it?

Umm, who else would be enforcing traffic law on the streets?

Nothing but an exercise in trying to show people they are ‘responding to community needs’. The reality is guess who they’ll want to enforce it?

Who cares how good the thought is if it’s not communicated to anyone who can do something about it?

I think the point that some are missing here is that cars are, especially for child passengers, an unescapable environment. Even if the kids “parents” choose to smoke at home the child has the opportunity to leave the house or the room. In a car a child does not have this opportunity.

There is no “personal responsibility” that a child can exercise here.

The idea that “smoking in cars is bad” but “X”, “Y” and “Z” are equally as bad but we don’t / can’t ban those, is NOT an argument for not putting in place a law which would help prevent ill health and disease in kids.

Obviously the parents who do this are so thoughtless, addicted, or ill informed, that they do not make a rational choice and are threatening their kids health, therefore we need to take that choice away from them. It’s not about punishing a group, it’s about protecting a group who have no way of protecting themselves.

Here’s a thought…What about the pollution created by other vehicles during peak hours coming into your cars through the air vents? Is that better than cigarette smoke for your children? Maybe we should ban cars.

It is a sad indictment that the government has to even think about banning smoking in cars where children are present. The more I see of some parents the more I shake my head. Perhaps a ban on ignorant parents!

Another point is, if it is illegal to use your mobile phone in a car why should smoking be allowed? Surely this is a road safety issue as well.

MsCheeky it didn’t used to be compulsory to have seatbelts in the back of cars. I remember making airfix model planes on the parcel shelf of Dad’s Mk2 Cortina on the way to Sydney. Didn’t have seatbelts in the back.

I’m enraged by people who don’t put their kids in seatbelts, while they are buckled up in the front seat, and the kiddies are bouncing around in the back. Immediate danger.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

People: Waaaaaah! Whinge, groan, moan, complain, bitch. Poor us! Poor, poor, poor us! We don’t want you to do that. We think that sucks.

Yeah, well, suck it up.

+111.

Water

It becomes more important, later on

People: Waaaaaah! Whinge, groan, moan, complain, bitch. Poor us! Poor, poor, poor us! We don’t want you to do that. We think that sucks.

Yeah, well, suck it up.

+111.

I-filed said :

Spam Box, there’s no statistical significance difference whatsoever between a self-selected online poll of whatever size and a sample of 48 submissions to the government (e.g. besides the, er, sample size, you don’t know whether 12 of the submittors have been contacted and asked to do so). So I don’t understand what your post is attempting to contribute to the conversation …

Mate, since it’s Friday night and your obviously enjoying it, I wont respond for now (it’s only fair). If you want to ask me that question again,(editing is ok, I understand 🙂 ) say, after 11am tomorrow when I check in, I will see if you make any sense. Then we can talk

Spam Box, there’s no statistical significance difference whatsoever between a self-selected online poll of whatever size and a sample of 48 submissions to the government (e.g. besides the, er, sample size, you don’t know whether 12 of the submittors have been contacted and asked to do so). So I don’t understand what your post is attempting to contribute to the conversation …

Self selecting online polls are the laughing stock(rightly so) of anybody with one iota a brain stem.

Anybody who suggest otherwise is either ignorant, deluded or biased

If you still hang on to this demented claptrap

Start here = http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/

It’s full of BIG words so you might need to think.

Perhaps start at the beginning

For all of those who feel indignant about this … if you don’t personally smoke in your car while kids are present …. then honestly, why would you care if there was a smoking ban in cars while kids were present???

fnaah said :

Did I miss anything?

Yep. The roundabout game.

I would think there are ways that the government could make it easier for people to find out about consultations, and initiatives they could introduce to make it very simple and comfortable for people to submit feedback.

However, I would also think that when a topic is hotly debated on a website with a readership of 50,000 people and less than 50 bother to comment, then this says more about community apathy than it does about the government’s decision making processes.

It’s very worrying if the government’s “citizen initiated legislation/implementation” is actually happening based on, what, 0.01 per cent of the population. (Did I count right?)

Previous poll results were:

I couldn’t care less either way (8%, 26 Votes)
Just ban it all the time (42%, 133 Votes)
Ban it when there are passengers (5%, 15 Votes)
Ban it when kids are in the car (24%, 77 Votes)
None of the gubbmint’s bidness (22%, 69 Votes)

but the poll is still open.

Can we have a riotact poll on this? I suspect it would go the other way.

I would imagine anybody who already feels the need to smoke when their kids are in the car, would also smoke at home.

A useless ‘feel good’, with no benefit whatsoever to children’s health.

How are they expected to know the will of the people without being in touch with the people?

From my experience politicians and administrators are happy – even eager – to get the thoughts and feelings of everyday people out in the community.

Everybody I have seen has been grateful to hear what I have to say and, despite being busy people, they have given the meeting up to twice the allocated time.

That doesn’t mean they will agree with what you say or even act on it, only that democracy only works when the will of the people is made known to its executors.

Jim Jones said :

Seriously, we have seen that pssive smonking is dangerous so when will governments learn?

Of course passive smoking is dangerous – but I do wonder why it’s the government’s job to take action when it really should be the decision of any responsible individual.

The decision is not about individual responsibility, more about protection. The kids in a car do not have any way of “exercising responsibility” when a person in authority (they shouldn’t be granted the honorific “parent”) decides to smoke.

This kinda interventionist policy gives me the irrits, because it seems to be little more than (over)legislating common sense: much like the bike helmet legislation, and blah blah blah.

Again, would you object to the helmet law if it said that any bike user could go helmetless, but kids under the age of 16 riding pillion MUST wear a helmet?

People that are moronic chuckleheads are still gonna do the wrong thing, and no matter how hard you legislate, you can’t stop it. Better to spend time and effort on education than banning everything that is harmful.

All of that said, I suppose legislation can entrench certain activities as a cultural norm (wearing seatbelts), so I’m wrong. It still gives me the sh1ts though.

Kudos for that admission Jim.

I’m sorry, jakez. You’re right. We need to educate people. Are you interested? But perhaps that’s a fight for another day.

Granny said :

That was what the whole of the previous thread was about though, jakez – the call for submissions. What do they have to do to get community feedback – knock on your door and stick a gun to your head?

I can tell you for a fact, and I said this at the time on the original thread, that it was faster to email my thoughts to the minister than it was to make my last post on RiotACT.

I even posted the text so people could see how easy it was.

I’m sorry – I’m really cross about it. I hate apathy. I just want to say, ‘Wake up Canberra and engage with the process’.

That’s why city business used to be conducted at the gates. People are supposed to participate.

Granny, believe me I am absolutely kicking myself that I forgot to rally some troops on this one.

Jim Jones: Yeah I was going to make a similar reply but I realised that thumper was actually making fun of a spelling error.

fnaah said :

Alternatively, ban any activity in a car that involves removing one hand from the steering wheel. This means no changing the radio station, no eating, no drinking etc.

Right on! Amputees shouldn’t drive. Oh, and people shouldn’t talk to or look at passengers either, they can be distracting.

This is not in any way analogous with smoking in the car, or its effects on kids health.

Seriously, we have seen that pssive smonking is dangerous so when will governments learn?

Of course passive smoking is dangerous – but I do wonder why it’s the government’s job to take action when it really should be the decision of any responsible individual.

This kinda interventionist policy gives me the irrits, because it seems to be little more than (over)legislating common sense: much like the bike helmet legislation, and blah blah blah.

People that are moronic chuckleheads are still gonna do the wrong thing, and no matter how hard you legislate, you can’t stop it. Better to spend time and effort on education than banning everything that is harmful.

All of that said, I suppose legislation can entrench certain activities as a cultural norm (wearing seatbelts), so I’m wrong. It still gives me the sh1ts though.

I just called the Minister’s office to try and find out where you can find the submissions received. Got an answering machine (lol) so I left a message.

Bugger me if I can find the thing on the Govt website. I only spent about 5 minutes looking though so…

That was what the whole of the previous thread was about though, jakez – the call for submissions. What do they have to do to get community feedback – knock on your door and stick a gun to your head?

I can tell you for a fact, and I said this at the time on the original thread, that it was faster to email my thoughts to the minister than it was to make my last post on RiotACT.

I even posted the text so people could see how easy it was.

I’m sorry – I’m really cross about it. I hate apathy. I just want to say, ‘Wake up Canberra and engage with the process’.

That’s why city business used to be conducted at the gates. People are supposed to participate.

Granny said :

Government: We’re thinking about doing this. What do you think?
People: We don’t bloody care.
Government: Ok, well we’ll do this then.
People: Waaaaaah! Whinge, groan, moan, complain, bitch. Poor us! Poor, poor, poor us! We don’t want you to do that. We think that sucks.

Yeah, well suck it up.

Mate, I’d say 98% of the population don’t even know that you can make a submission.

I find the whole thing frustrating. It’s like the Alcopops tax. There was massive outcry against it. The average young punter hated it. The facebook group against it was one of the biggest Aussie politically related groups I’ve seen.

There was one submission received from someone that wasn’t on behalf of an organisation. All the public health nazi organisations put in submissions. The alcohol groups put in submissions. I put one in on behalf of the Australian Taxpayers’ Union. There was one regular Joe submission.

I don’t even know what to say about it. The option is given to all, but you can hardly call it a representative sample of views.

Government: We’re thinking about doing this. What do you think?
People: We don’t bloody care.
Government: Ok, well we’ll do this then.
People: Waaaaaah! Whinge, groan, moan, complain, bitch. Poor us! Poor, poor, poor us! We don’t want you to do that. We think that sucks.

Yeah, well suck it up.

Back to the original point: 36 votes is pathetic but typical of the consultation needed for our government to assume they have our blessing to do whatever ridiculous thing they come up with.

A few years ago, we had speed limits reduced to 50 km/h in the ACT because of this same kind of widespread support. Apparently there were about 30 odd public submissions in favour of this silliness, and pretty much all of them came from members of that dubious organisation, Pedalpower. Check it out, it’s true. They boast about it on their website. That was enough for our pollies to get a hard-on about reducing the limits to ridiculous levels. The message here is simple: If you want something done in Canberra, organise thirty friends and get them to support it, and some clown will get onto the media claiming widespread support in the community.

That said, I agree that people who smoke in cars with kids in them need a smack upside their face.

fnaah said :

Alternatively, ban any activity in a car that involves removing one hand from the steering wheel. This means no changing the radio station, no eating, no drinking etc.

Right on! Amputees shouldn’t drive. Oh, and people shouldn’t talk to or look at passengers either, they can be distracting.

Meanwhile, we’re expected to read every stupidly-spelt roadsign that the gubmint puts up, nto to mention keep track of the crazy tradie drivers in their sport utes, and the lane-splitting bikies (while they’re possibly shooting at each other) all while slowing down for the arbitrary revenue-raising cameras while hogging the right lane.

Did I miss anything?

You sure did Fnaah – don’t forget you have the choice of either:

a) driving at least 20km under the posted limit in case there’s a speed camera; or
b) driving at least 20km over the limit to make up for the times when you have to slam on the brakes because there’s a speed camera.

Only the deadline for the submission.

Alternatively, ban any activity in a car that involves removing one hand from the steering wheel. This means no changing the radio station, no eating, no drinking etc.

Right on! Amputees shouldn’t drive. Oh, and people shouldn’t talk to or look at passengers either, they can be distracting.

Meanwhile, we’re expected to read every stupidly-spelt roadsign that the gubmint puts up, nto to mention keep track of the crazy tradie drivers in their sport utes, and the lane-splitting bikies (while they’re possibly shooting at each other) all while slowing down for the arbitrary revenue-raising cameras while hogging the right lane.

Did I miss anything?

I’d rather die smonking on my feet than live non-smonking on my knees.

Ahem – might I suggest that if you can’t light a cigarette while driving you shouldn’t be in control of a +1000kg piece of machinery to begin with….

Alternatively, ban any activity in a car that involves removing one hand from the steering wheel. This means no changing the radio station, no eating, no drinking etc.

FWIW, I agree with the ban. But OzPhoenix has a good point.

Sgt.Bungers said :

+1 Goose.

We’re not allowed to use phones in the car. As the law is written we’re not allowed to talk on phones placed in a hands free kit if we have to press any buttons to answer the phone. Legally we must be pulled over, stopped, out of gear, *with the engine turned off* if we have to press any buttons on a mobile phone.

Yet, we’re allowed to have a naked flame/a burning hot cigarette lighter, and a lit cigarette in the car whilst navagating a 1000kg+ peice of machinery in a public place. Why?

It seems to me that it’s the mobile phone laws that are wrong then.

Funny that pushing buttons on the car radio is OK, though.

+1 Goose.

We’re not allowed to use phones in the car. As the law is written we’re not allowed to talk on phones placed in a hands free kit if we have to press any buttons to answer the phone. Legally we must be pulled over, stopped, out of gear, *with the engine turned off* if we have to press any buttons on a mobile phone.

Yet, we’re allowed to have a naked flame/a burning hot cigarette lighter, and a lit cigarette in the car whilst navagating a 1000kg+ peice of machinery in a public place. Why?

Anything that targets derro bogan mums and dads has got my vote.

Absolutely. These people are responsible for raising the future scum our kids will have to deal with.

+1 JB.

What will the next regulation be? No smoking in your own home? How about no drinking?

maybe we can install metres so the government can check how long you take a shower for?

Personal responsibility people….

Personal responsibility? How can the kids whose parents virtually addict them to cigarettes by smoking in enclosed spaces with them present, exercise “personal responsibility”?

Do you really think Bogans will change their behaviour because you want them to take responsibility for their actions?

I’m all for this, crack the whip hard.

I was addicted to cigarettes at a young age (8-10 years) before I ever put one in my mouth, It took me years to break this filthy habit.

Smonking in cars should be banned full stop. I see them daily trying to light a ciggie whilst doing the hair and talking on the mobile. “Bogan mothers are the worst”

hmmm, I’m totally for banning smoking in any form or shape, but this ban just seems illogical. Specifically what is the difference between banning smoking in your own car and smoking in your own home? I see that now potentially parents/adults will not smoke in their cars with children in there, but then they’ll go inside when they get home, sit down on the lounge and light up while the kids are watching the cartoons!!!

So is the message here, please make sure you only smoke around the kids when we’re not watching?

meh, so pointless. Like someone said above, the real issue is the governments unwillingness to lose their cut of the tobacco market in the form of taxes.

*erm* abuse.

I agree with the ban forcing babies and children to breathe second hand smoke is a form of child abouse.

peterh said :

screaming banshee said :

Please, the health issues caused by smoking would be enough reason in itself to ban the sale of tobacco altogether but the govt would then stand to lose significant tax revenue which it would appear is more beneficial to the govt then healthy citizens paying all the other taxes.

I have given up on raising this point, but good on you for doing the same.

Well you know there is that whole pesky freedom thing.

Some people take that stuff seriously.

screaming banshee said :

Please, the health issues caused by smoking would be enough reason in itself to ban the sale of tobacco altogether but the govt would then stand to lose significant tax revenue which it would appear is more beneficial to the govt then healthy citizens paying all the other taxes.

I have given up on raising this point, but good on you for doing the same.

I actually agree too. If people need to be told not to smoke in cars with kids, then society fails. What adults do around adults, i.e. pubs, should be left to them, however.

If they’re going to do this, it should be for the right reasons: safety on the road.

This thing where it’s for cars with kids only, essentially reinforces the idea (already too present) that the government is more responsible for raising peoples’ children than the parents are.

+1 JB.

What will the next regulation be? No smoking in your own home? How about no drinking?

maybe we can install metres so the government can check how long you take a shower for?

Personal responsibility people….

The reason why I can accept the particular position outlined in this thread is that I think personal responsibilty is absolutely fine for adults. I think children are a different matter. They can’t give informed consent.

I don’t particularly like this idea, but I’m not opposed to it (except in terms of some sort of game theory scenario where it is considered conceding ground in a larger war for smoking (or more accurately property rights) freedom).

That is a failure. 75% is a failure result.

I hate smoking bans in pubs and clubs. I think businesses should be free to place their cigarette cartons wherever they desire. I don’t even agree with the ban on cigarette advertising. I want to legalise drugs.

AND EVEN I AGREE WITH BANNING IT IN CARS WITH CHILDREN.

Please, the health issues caused by smoking would be enough reason in itself to ban the sale of tobacco altogether but the govt would then stand to lose significant tax revenue which it would appear is more beneficial to the govt then healthy citizens paying all the other taxes.

Won’t somebody think of the children!!!

There, that’s out of the way, it’s now time for rational debate. Or at least discussion on RiotACT.

I think it’s sad that there were only 48 submissions. As I said at the time, all it takes is an email saying ‘Dear Katy, I think blah.’

And that’s all I did. It took about thirty seconds to say, ‘I like option blah’.

As Gungahlin Al says, ‘Decisions are made by those who turn up, young lady!’ (I hope he doesn’t mind me quoting that). But it’s true.

How lazy!!

I am more concerned about what this says about our society than what it says about the government. You can’t say they didn’t ask. And how many thousands of people read this website?

I am in favour of the ban, but that’s not the point for me. Fat, apathetic societies are soft targets.

What’s the point in a democracy, in freedom of speech, if nobody uses it?

Start giving a damn, people!

“And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up”

Anything that targets derro bogan mums and dads has got my vote.

I don’t smoke in my car. mentioned this several times past. not just for my kids, but for any passenger at all. What i want to know is, how the heck will they enforce it? will it be a police matter? will they have roving inspectors to fine you and confiscate your kids?

I don’t like smoking in cars where children are present either. But here we’re going to see road rules applied in an area where there is no road safety issue at all

This is a health issue rather than a road safety issue.

Secondary smoke and all that ….

The prior RiotACT coverage had a poll on this with 320 respondents – 71% supported banning it to a lesser or greater extent, 22% were agin’ the ban, and 8% didn’t give a fig.

Although both the RiotACT poll and the official submissions are both pretty worthless in terms of a statistical analysis of what the population’s true opinion is, at least they’re in agreeance.