OT; It had to happen.

[The Medway Handyman]

In a logical argument, the person making the claim supplies evidence to back it up. Those who perpetuate the Roy Castle myth should supply evidence to back their statement - alas they can't.

[The Medway Handyman]

Then he is effectively not insured whilst driving to & from work - his insurance company wouldn't pay out a claim in those circumstances.

I can see his point, it may be the only vehicle they have, so its dual purpose.

But its not 'his place of work'. He doesn't carry out his trade in the van.

Indeed, see above. My van is insured for both uses.

And that use is surely transport to & from his place of work - not his actual place of work, which would be his clients premises.

So if the latter is the case, could you smoke in the vehicle.

The real point here is that the legislation is deliberately intended to harrass smokers, nothing else. One wonders which minority group is next on the list?

[Huge]

Completely wrong in all respects.

[Huge]

?id=dn6091I have hundreds more. And every single one states that passive smoking is bad for you.

[The Medway Handyman]

Drink is already going that way. We are already seeing the health fascists using dodgy statistics to support their point of view.

"20% increase in alcohol related hospital admissions" is the latest.

Look behind the figures & you will find there is no real increase. In the past if the Police found a drunk he was put in a cell overnight to sleep it off. Now they don't want the reponsibility in case they get sued for something & call an ambulance instead.

The ambulance crew have no choice but to take the drunk to A&E to sleep it off. That counts as an 'alcohol related hospital admission'. Ambulance crews refer to the late Saturday shift as 'the big yellow taxi service'.

Chips next?

[Rod]

I rather hoped it would be people who murder, wound, rape and in other ways severely damage other people.

But, at least following the tabloid view of the world, perhaps they are not now a minority?

[Andy Hall]

Exactly my point. He may or may not be claiming use of the vehicle as a business expense. If he is, then it is certainly a workplace within the meaning of the legislation. If he isn't, then his accountant should be fired, assuming he has one. In either case, he can't have it both ways.

OK. So in that case, the legislation does consider it to be a workplace and the rules apply.

It's used in connection with his trade. For example, he might take somebody else to a job because it's too large for him or may take a customer to look at decorating materials. The legislation only requires the possibility to exist.

If he wanted to argue the point that he is using it only personally it would need the insurance details as well as demonstrating that there is no claim for business use.

More generically.... I own my own car. I also take a monthly allowance for running it and a fuel allowance as well. I work at home when I'm in the UK, I visit customers in the UK and sometimes drive to and from the airport. I don't actually *do* my nominal work in the car - i.e. I don't read and write emails or speak on the phone. I don't even allow smoking in it. At all. Does this mean that I need to have a No Smoking sticker? The answer is yes. Sometimes I take customers to lunch in it and sometimes colleagues. As a result it is a workplace.

As it should be.

No. He is confusing the home to work arrangements that employees typically have whereby they can't claim business mileage (personal use) with business arrangements.

Let me put it a different way. You use your van for going to places that sell materials and for going to customers. You also have signage on it. Do you factor the running of it into your prices and/or your accounts or do you just donate the use of your personal vehicle to the business and pay for all of the vehicle costs, upkeep and fuel. If it's the latter, then it is a place of work.

No. The only exception would be if the vehicle is only *ever* going to be used personally. Companies used to provide vehicles for employees. Some still do. Many provide a car allowance. There are two reasons. One is that having and using a decent car is required to do the job. Secondly, it is part of their remuneration package and they pay tax and NI on it. Nonethless, the assumed basis is that the car will be used at least part of the time for business purposes. Occasionally cars are provided for the wives of senior executives. Arguably that is more of a perk than the main car. However, it's possible that the wife might go and meet a client for example, thn it's business use.

It is intended to protect others in the vicinity who may not be able to escape the fumes. Into the bargain it is discouraging people who do smoke from doing so. For their health and possibly that of others, that is a good thing. I don't think that I have read of anybody recently saying that smoking is actually good for the health.

OTOH... the methods of implementation are poor. This hapless taffy in his van was stopped because it was assumed, probably quite correctly, that it was a trade vehicle. It's therefore easy to check. Are the same gestapo going to do random stopping of cars? Probably not.

Even so, there is little to complain about. It isn't as though there is a blanket prohibition on smoking. What we have at this point is that smokers can do so wherever and whenever they like, *provided that* they do not impinge on the equal right of non smokers not to be subjected to it.

That seems equitable to me.

[stuart noble]

So, to answer TMH's question, the next target group should be 4X4 drivers, whose extra visibility is at the cost of my reduced visibility

[NOSPAMnet]

So when does a works van also used for pvt purposes not become a works van.Just because an employee is in the van doesn't mean that he ( or the driver) is working . He should just have told them that at that particular time neither of them were working .

[Bob Eager]

And at the time he was stopped, he had a passenger who had been helping him with his work. The irony is that they were smoking too.

[Andy Hall]

Simple solution. Get yourself a 4x4. You know a big diesel makes sense.

Besides... if a 4x4 is hampering your visibility you are driving too close.

[Andy Hall]

Doesn't matter. If it used for business purposes it is a place of work.

An office doesn't cease being an office or a factory cease being a factory when people go home on Friday afternoon.

[nightjar]

That wasn't in the initial reports I read and it does make a difference.

Colin Bignell

[Andy Dingley]

Two admissions to the court:

• Roy Castle did a lot of passive smoking.

• Roy Castle died of lung cancer.

Now these don't _prove_ causality. But I'd require a lot more evidence before I started to believe that passive smoking wasn't unhealthy.

[stuart noble]

Nobody drives a 4x4 round here, they just leave them parked on corners

[Andy Dingley]

This van wasn't insured for works use either, merely SDP. The driver, when interviewed, tried to use this as an excuse that it thus wasn't a "works van". OTOH, I think he might now fnd himself with invalid insurance and being charged for such by the police, pour encourager les autres.

If he's insured with Admiral, the temptation to make Byng jokes would be irresistible.

[Huge]

The Wikipedia article on Passive Smoking has 144 references, mostly to peer reviewed journals or to authoritative sources. Not one I've looked at so far says "Passive smoking is harmless, don't worry about it."

[Andy Hall]

I'd see about getting the road widened.

[Stephen Howard]

I have a feeling that the figures on 'passive drinking' would prove to be quite entertaining.

Regards,

[dennis]

Then he could inform the tax people that he uses the van for private use so he can have his tax relief cut too.