Post by thread:[OT] Smoking in public (was Perspectives on the Ea

(Tag changed) Herbert, On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:10:44 -0500, Herbert Graf wrote: > Hmm, you know, that's the ONE thing I DREAD about going to Europe: the smoking. It does depend where you are going - it varies from place to place, in my experience. Germany and the Netherlands seem to be moving towards banning it in most public places, but in France it seems almost to be illegal *not* to smoke! :-) In the UK we're moving towards the California situation, but slowly. Smoking was banned anywhere on the London Underground after the King's Cross fire (1987) where an escalator fire killed 31 people. It's banned on busses and on ordinary trains, but not on outdoor railway stations. It's banned in most shops and offices, but restaurants often have smoking/no-smoking areas which don't usually have any physical barrier between them. Smoking in pubs is a big discussion point - in most pubs the air is so thick you have to cut your way through it! There have been proposals to ban it there but a lot of people in the industry are against it, saying that it will reduce their business. It would *increase* their business from me, because I very rarely go into pubs these days specifically because of the smoke problem! > While it's all not perfect, it's FAR better then some of what I've seen > in Europe. In Holland smoking was allowed in the airports within the > confines of restaurants, bars or casinos. Doesn't sound that bad until > you notice that those restaurants and bars are COMPLETELY open, not even > glass walls. So, within about a 30 meter radius all you see is haze. Yes, having non-seperated smoking areas always strikes me as missing the point! > Please note I'm NOT trying to pick on Holland alone, other places I've > been to in Europe were the exact same way (i.e. trains and hardware > stores in Austria). Why should it be hardware stores in particular? :-) Some places are worse than others, and it is certainly changing, so don't write off the whole of Europe just yet! Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

> Smoking was banned anywhere on the London Underground after > the King's Cross fire (1987) where an escalator fire killed 31 people Call me picky, but arson wasn't ruled out. Anyone can start a fire (warning - bit rough on the old peepers when you come back to a white screen) http://www.firetactics.com/KINGSCROSS.htm Banning something sounds like a knee-jerk reaction, not that I'm standing up for any group in particular

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jinx" <spam_OUTjoecolquittTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz> Subject: Re: [OT] Smoking in public (was Perspectives on the Earthquake) > Banning something sounds like a knee-jerk reaction, not that I'm > standing up for any group in particular Just an excuse. In spite of constant whining about the U.S., much of Europe seems to want to emulate all that's bad here. Pity, too, they are catching up. --McD

Jinx, On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:18:50 +1300, Jinx wrote: > > Smoking was banned anywhere on the London Underground after > > the King's Cross fire (1987) where an escalator fire killed 31 people > > Call me picky, but arson wasn't ruled out. Anyone can start a fire > > http://www.firetactics.com/KINGSCROSS.htm OK, Picky, :-) it wasn't ruled out but it doesn't sound terribly likely - the incident they reported on the Victoria line escalator wouldn't have resulted in a fire, because the Victoria Line was much newer, about 20 years old at that time, compared with nearly 100 for the Picadilly and Northern lines, and it always had metal-staired escalators. The fact that the escalator that caught fire had wooden steps (and much larger gaps at the edges of the steps, down which something could fall) was a major factor in the speed and ferocity of the development of the fire. Nobody would try to set fire to a metal escalator, I'm sure! I'm fairly sure that at that time smoking was allowed in the stations, but not on the trains. Consequently people coming up from the platforms to leave the station would often be lighting up on the escalator, and discarding matches there wasn't exactly unusual. I was *really* lucky not to have been involved in it, by the way. The fact that I stayed at work ten minutes longer to phone a friend probably saved my life - I would have been coming up the Victoria Line escalator into the ticket-hall at just about the wrong time. The driver of the train I was on announced at Euston (the station before) that it would not be stopping at King's Cross, with no further explanation. I got out to wait for the next one, and then noticed smoke drifting down the tunnel, so I decided to go up to the surface and walk instead! Strangely, a fire engine was just arriving back at the fire station that's next to Euston and reversing in, but apparently it had been on a shout elsewhere, and the engines already at King's Cross (about a quarter of a mile along the road) were from other fire stations. When I got to King's Cross the firefighters were still going down into the smoke-filled entrances without breathing apparatus, but I didn't realise that a major disaster was underway - there was no drama, no excitement, no background music or anything that you see in disaster films - just people getting on with their job efficiently and calmly. Incidentally, I don't remember seeing the black smoke reported in the web site you cite, but there was a *lot* of white smoke, billowing out from all of the staircases leading down to the station, and from the one in St.Pancras station (next door) that's linked by a tunnel to the King's Cross Underground ticket-hall. I left the scene to catch my train from St.Pancras at about 20:00. When I got home a news report said that two people were thought to have died, and that shocked me. The next day I was a lot more shocked to hear more of what happened, and that many more people had died, probably when I was only a few dozen yards away (I got there at about 19:45). > Banning something sounds like a knee-jerk reaction, not that I'm standing up for any group in particular It can be a knee-jerk reaction, but so is pulling your hand away from something hot (well, not actually knee...) and that's a Good Thing! In this case it was the right thing to do, because otherwise it could easily have happened again elsewhere - apparently escalator fires (much smaller ones!) were quite common at the time. Apart from banning all smoking they embarked on replacing all the wooden-staired escalators with metal ones throughout the system, which took some time and a lot of money, but was also the right thing to do. They also revised and extended the emergency procedures, including making sure that maps of stations' tunnels are available to firefighters at the entrances, adding the possiblility of evacuating by train - up until then the procedure was to not stop trains, as happened to mine, and evacuate upwards. In this case, staying downstairs would have been the safe thing to do, because fresh air is brought in by trains (which was also feeding the fire) and as well as evacuating by train there are other exits available that don't go up into the ticket hall. Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

Howard Winter wrote: > > > >>While it's all not perfect, it's FAR better then some of what I've seen >>in Europe. In Holland smoking was allowed in the airports within the >>confines of restaurants, bars or casinos. Doesn't sound that bad until >>you notice that those restaurants and bars are COMPLETELY open, not even >>glass walls. So, within about a 30 meter radius all you see is haze. >> >> > >Yes, having non-seperated smoking areas always strikes me as missing the point! > > > Reminds me of the quote, "Having a non-smoking section in a bar is like having a non-peeing section in a pool." -Adam

In Arizona we have smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. Thankfully, when the restaurant is full, and I am forced to sit in the "Smoking" section, I am not required to smoke. But I still love the smell, sorry... --Bob, nonsmoking for 25 years now. Jinx wrote: {Quote hidden}>>Smoking was banned anywhere on the London Underground after >>the King's Cross fire (1987) where an escalator fire killed 31 people >> >> > >Call me picky, but arson wasn't ruled out. Anyone can start a fire > >(warning - bit rough on the old peepers when you come back to a >white screen) > >http://www.firetactics.com/KINGSCROSS.htm > >Banning something sounds like a knee-jerk reaction, not that I'm >standing up for any group in particular > > > -- Note: To protect our network, attachments must be sent to .....attachKILLspam@spam@engineer.cotse.net . 1-866-263-5745 USA/Canada http://beam.to/azengineer

A local establishment in my town, a large converted theatre that has become a bar/pub/concert hall, is considering courting my business by banning smoking. They will be the second bar to do so, the first was well rewarded by extra business. But they will be the largest, can seat 1000 easily. I have hated it whenever I go there, the air is so nasty. It would be a great place to dance, if it were healthy, and dance would be good excercise, if you didn't have to breath that nasty air. Unlike California, my town has no progressive smoking ordinace that applies to bars. Forward thinking owners are the ones who will realize that they will get MORE business, not LESS, by making everyone welcome in their establishment. --Lawrence {Quote hidden}>From: "Howard Winter" <HDRWKILLspamH2Org.demon.co.uk> >Reply-To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclistKILLspam.....mit.edu> >To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <EraseMEpiclistspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmit.edu> >Subject: RE: [OT] Smoking in public (was Perspectives on the Earthquake) >Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:07:48 +0000 (GMT) > >(Tag changed) >Herbert, > >On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:10:44 -0500, Herbert Graf wrote: > > > Hmm, you know, that's the ONE thing I DREAD about going to Europe: the >smoking. > >It does depend where you are going - it varies from place to place, in my >experience. Germany and the >Netherlands seem to be moving towards banning it in most public places, but >in France it seems almost to be >illegal *not* to smoke! :-) > >In the UK we're moving towards the California situation, but slowly. >Smoking was banned anywhere on the >London Underground after the King's Cross fire (1987) where an escalator >fire killed 31 people. It's banned >on busses and on ordinary trains, but not on outdoor railway stations. >It's banned in most shops and offices, >but restaurants often have smoking/no-smoking areas which don't usually >have any physical barrier between >them. Smoking in pubs is a big discussion point - in most pubs the air is >so thick you have to cut your way >through it! There have been proposals to ban it there but a lot of people >in the industry are against it, >saying that it will reduce their business. It would *increase* their >business from me, because I very rarely >go into pubs these days specifically because of the smoke problem! > > > While it's all not perfect, it's FAR better then some of what I've seen > > in Europe. In Holland smoking was allowed in the airports within the > > confines of restaurants, bars or casinos. Doesn't sound that bad until > > you notice that those restaurants and bars are COMPLETELY open, not even > > glass walls. So, within about a 30 meter radius all you see is haze. > >Yes, having non-seperated smoking areas always strikes me as missing the >point! > > > Please note I'm NOT trying to pick on Holland alone, other places I've > > been to in Europe were the exact same way (i.e. trains and hardware > > stores in Austria). > >Why should it be hardware stores in particular? :-) Some places are worse >than others, and it is certainly >changing, so don't write off the whole of Europe just yet! > >Cheers, > > >Howard Winter >St.Albans, England > > >

Lawrence Lile <piclistspam_OUTmit.edu> wrote: > Unlike California, my town has no progressive smoking ordinace > that applies to bars. Forward thinking owners are the ones who > will realize that they will get MORE business, not LESS, by making > everyone welcome in their establishment. Everyone except the people who like to smoke when they drink, anyway... Actually, though, I don't think it's "making everyone welcome" that produces more profit for them; I think it's "making people welcome who are unwelcome elsewhere". In an area where smoking is usually banned in bars/pubs, a forward-thinking owner who figures out how to ALLOW smoking in his establishment will get more business. It certainly works that way in California, where smoking is banned in all commercial buildings with only a few exceptions. One of the exceptions is for tobacco shops, so a coffee shop in my neighborhood also sells cigarettes and pipe tobacco. That coffee shop is directly across the street from a Starbucks, half a block away from another independent coffeeshop, and within three blocks of two more Starbucks and a coffeeshop that also sells good food and wine/beer... And it's always WAY more crowded than any of those others. -Andy === Andrew Warren -- @spam@aiwKILLspamcypress.com === Principal Design Engineer === Cypress Semiconductor Corporation === === Opinions expressed above do not === necessarily represent those of === Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

Lawrence Lile wrote: > Unlike California, my town has no progressive smoking ordinace that > applies to bars. Forward thinking owners are the ones who will realize > that they will get MORE business, not LESS, by making everyone welcome > in their establishment. > > --Lawrence > Don't forget New York (not "the city", the entire state)! The only reason I enjoy going out at all is that they don't allow smoking in bars/restaurants/any public facility. -- Martin K http://wwia.org/sgroup/biofuel/

> > Banning something sounds like a knee-jerk reaction > > It can be a knee-jerk reaction, but so is pulling your hand away > from something hot (well, not actually knee...) and that's a Good Thing! > In this case it was the right thing to do, because otherwise it could > easily have happened again elsewhere What's your reaction to this ? www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12019631%255E9 03,00.html

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jinx" <KILLspamjoecolquittKILLspamclear.net.nz> To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTmit.edu> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [OT] Smoking in public (was Perspectives on the Earthquake) > What's your reaction to this ? > > www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12019631%255E903,00.html Which is about banning smoking in cars. BTW. I've no problem to people smoking in cars IF THEY ARE NOT DRIVING AT THE TIME. Most accidents are caused by people doing things other than driving when that is what they should be concentrating on 100%. If you think about all the things you have to do to light up, then just as you get to taking the lighter out of the dash....BANG.....now you will need to smoke a cigarette. Mike. -- Outgoing mail certified virus free. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 21/01/2005

> www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12019631%255E9 03,00.html {Quote hidden}> Which is about banning smoking in cars. BTW. > > I've no problem to people smoking in cars IF THEY ARE NOT DRIVING > AT THE TIME. > > Most accidents are caused by people doing things other than driving > when that is what they should be concentrating on 100%. If you think > about all the things you have to do to light up, then just as you get to > taking the lighter out of the dash....BANG.....now you will need to > smoke a cigarette. I'd go along with that. I'd also like to see a ban on talking, changing a CD, changing a radio station, blowing your nose, sneezing, coughing, scratching, eating, looking at anything that's nothing to do with the road or thinking about anything that's nothing to do with driving. And God help you if you're caught laughing or smiling. Every driver takes a compulsory advanced driving course. Every 6 months But what about the passengers ? What about the hoon in the back seat who lights farts ? String 'em up by the thumbs with piano wire ;-)

I'm wondering what Scully will have to say when he comes on-line http://www.robot-hosting.com/html/talk.html Inter-active talking heads out of Auckland

Jinx, On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:46:34 +1300, Jinx wrote: > What's your reaction to this ? > > http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12019631%255E903,00.html It's about smoking in cars, and the possible banning thereof in Austrailia... I think that anyone who throws lighted items out of a car (matches, cigarette ends) should be banned from driving, let alone anything else! Apart from the risk of starting a bush (or whatever) fire, there's the possibility of hitting a cyclist, motor-cyclist, or passing motorist with a window open, which could prove a fatal, which has happened on more than one occasion. Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England

> It's about smoking in cars, and the possible banning thereof in Australia... How about being busted for eating an apple in Northumbria ? http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/the_north_east/news/NEWS3.html It's not mentioned what got her stopped in the first place - her driving or simply being seen holding an apple I can appreciate feelings on both sides, but sheesh .........

>It's not mentioned what got her stopped in the first place - her >driving or simply being seen holding an apple Cost them GBP10,000 to get a conviction and GBP60.00 fine http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2737-1455523,00.html

> Cost them GBP10,000 to get a conviction and GBP60.00 fine > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2737-1455523,00.html A potent message to other miscreants who eat apples in cars

>> Cost them GBP10,000 to get a conviction and GBP60.00 fine >> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2737-1455523,00.html >A potent message to other miscreants who eat apples in cars What - How to get your taxes back by costing the state a lot of money? :))

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Jinx wrote: {Quote hidden}>> It's about smoking in cars, and the possible banning thereof in > Australia... > > How about being busted for eating an apple in Northumbria ? > > http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/the_north_east/news/NEWS3.html > > It's not mentioned what got her stopped in the first place - her > driving or simply being seen holding an apple > > I can appreciate feelings on both sides, but sheesh ......... They didn't find any friendly snakes in the car, did they ? Peter