Tanker driver dragged to court for smoking - even though it was a fake cigarette !

[rustylug]

Tanker driver dragged to court for smoking - even though it was a fake cigarette !

Smoke signal: Chris Minihan puffing on the fake cigarette device which has landed him in court after a council officer mistook it for a real one

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203894/Tanker-driver-dragged-court-smoking--fake-cigarette.html#ixzz0NDnNMsRr

 

[Liscab]

this should be happening more frecuently, so we can get a real law about ecig

 

[Angela]

This was in the UK, and the question of whether or not e-cigs are affected by the smoking bans has already been raised in the UK parliament... the answer was no, they are not, so it is quite clear here in the UK that they are legal in non-smoking areas (though whether or not the owner /manager of premises wishes to allow it is obviously another question).

The issue with this case was whether or not he was using an e-cig. He argues that is what he was using, but the enforcement officer has stated that he was seen flicking ash and throwing the .... out of the window. The court chose to believe the enforcement officer (and TBH, having read a few reports on this case and seeing a couple of different video clips of this fella, I am not sure I believe he wasn't smoking either....... he seemed to have great difficulty in working out how to use his e-cig in one vid!)

 

[Ryle]

Yet another reason I think they should stop making PVs look like analogs. This guy very well might have been smoking a real cig and never heard of a PV until after the fact and might now be trying to use it as a means to get out of the fines.

 

[prof beard]

Yet another reason I think they should stop making PVs look like analogs. This guy very well might have been smoking a real cig and never heard of a PV until after the fact and might now be trying to use it as a means to get out of the fines.

That's exactly what I think happened!

I'm in the UK, and I've never had a problem with such things (even though I drive a rag-top) - maybe because a Screwdriver doesn't look like a ciggie

 

[illyria]

My husband drives a gasoline tanker (in Texas.) He doesn't smoke, but a lot of the company drivers do. Naturally, they aren't allowed to smoke in a gas tanker. I showed up to the company's annual dinner with my M401, and before long I had a SWARM of drivers around me asking me about this "miracle". (That's what they called it.) Since the president of the company was there at the dinner, several guys asked him if they could "smoke" this "fake" cig in the tankers. He and the Safety Director himmed and hawed and refused to give a straight answer.

Now, the M401 doesn't look like an analog. The LED is blue, and the whole thing is black with gold squiggles on it. So that wouldn't be an issue. The fact is, this device is no more dangerous in a gas tanker than a cell phone (which they use regularly) or a computer (which they also use).

This was my first (first of many it turns out) experience with what I called Die Hard Anti-Smoking N*zis. (Can I use that word here? I was chastised on another forum for using that term.)

 

[Angela]

In the UK, it is an offence to smoke in any commercial vehicle

 

[trog100]

That's exactly what I think happened!

I'm in the UK, and I've never had a problem with such things (even though I drive a rag-top) - maybe because a Screwdriver doesn't look like a ciggie

its the ban on smoking in a work place thats the problem here prof.. the tanker is a work place.. i can see the enforcement officers problem tho.. they can no longer attack from a few hundred yards away..

i wasnt smoking its an electronic cigarette could bugger them up completely..

its a whiz bang guilty on the spot fine job.. having to prove it in court will literally stop the snooping buggers dead in their tracks..

in the UK we have a law about e cigs.. its not smoking.. its legal.. simple as that..

is the tanker driver telling fibs.. possibly but i think its more likely the enforcement officer was..

trog

 

[HighTech]

The fact is, this device is no more dangerous in a gas tanker than a cell phone (which they use regularly) or a computer (which they also use).

Well, that's probably not a 100% accurate statement, especially in the presence of gasoline vapors, the ecig could be a potential source of ignition, given enough concentration of volatile vapors. More so if the cartridge is removed from the device. Although it is certainly less of a hazard than the burning tip of a cigarette. The companys insurance will probably not approve the use of the device in or near a gas tanker since there is a risk of ignition, one that they will probably not be willing to take.

 

[rustylug]

Anyone know where the links to this guys videos are?
Would love to have a geek at them.

 

[trog100]

its the ban on smoking in the work place thats the biggy in the UK..

pubs clubs a plumbers van.. trash cart.. they are all work places.. but before they banned smoking they had to define exactly what it was..

the legal definition of smoking came before e cigs.. else it might be different..

but the current legal definition involves setting fire to something.. which excludes e cigs.. hoist by their own petard so to speak..

e cigs are not smoking in the UK.. unless someone is daft enough to set fire to one.. he he

but the snoopers aint a happy bunch thats for sure.. but then again they dont deserve to be.. the e cig defense to no smoking laws is a beauty... it would take a chemical analysis of whatever it was that looked like smoke to truly prove the case..

one up for the smokers.. one down for the snoopers..

trog

 

[RustyTec]

Well, that's probably not a 100% accurate statement, especially in the presence of gasoline vapors, the ecig could be a potential source of ignition, given enough concentration of volatile vapors. .

Anyone ever test for this? I think e-cigs would not reach ignition temp. I vape at the pump, I ain't scared. he he

I vote that we ban the self cleaning cycles thoe. 8-o

 

[Angela]

Anyone know where the links to this guys videos are?
Would love to have a geek at them.

Links are on the TW forum thread here:
Lorry driver wrongly fined and taken to court!

 

[d0kieSmok]

the coil in a 510 glows as much, if not more than a regular cigarette tip! You CAN light a regular cigarette off of a 510.

 

[NikUk]

its the ban on smoking in a work place thats the problem here prof.. the tanker is a work place.. i can see the enforcement officers problem tho.. they can no longer attack from a few hundred yards away..

i wasnt smoking its an electronic cigarette could bugger them up completely..

its a whiz bang guilty on the spot fine job.. having to prove it in court will literally stop the snooping buggers dead in their tracks..

in the UK we have a law about e cigs.. its not smoking.. its legal.. simple as that..

is the tanker driver telling fibs.. possibly but i think its more likely the enforcement officer was..

trog

I thought I'd throw in my tuppence worth here.... I happen to be an enforcement officer, for a different Council but still, and I do deal with these issues on a day to day basis.

With regards to smoking in the vehicle, yes it's an offence - but only if the vehicle is used by more than once person. If you own the vehicle, and nobody ever rides with you, or drives your vehicle, then you can smoke in it. The law was designed to protect the people around the smoker, not the smoker him/herself. (not that I necessarily agree with the law).

From what I can make out, the fine here was for littering. It's a low level amount, designed to discharge your liability from a prosecution for the offence. The way I look at it is it's a slap on the wrist. DO NOT do this again. (Again, I know there will be a lot of people who thin that chucking a cig end on the ground is no biggie, but when everyone does this.... different debate )

Now, I have fined people who have been sitting in their cars, and chuck the litter out, (all sorts from discarded food, to sweet wraps, to chewing gum and cig ends.) Now people can make mistakes, however, you can not mistake watching visibly an item thrown from a vehicle and falling to the ground. If the enforcement officer was that far away, that he could not see the object clearly fall, the the fine was issued in error. However, my inclination is that the driver is probably trying to get out paying the fine, and has got obstinate about it. I have know a lot of people who will go to extraordinary lengths to pretend that they are innocent of something, even low level offences.

If the enforcement officer wanted to make up his numbers for giving out tickets, all he would have to do is go and sit at a busy bus shelter for an hour. I guarantee he would be going back with 10 or more tickets. I know this because I have done this...

 

[RandallFlagg]

Well, that's probably not a 100% accurate statement, especially in the presence of gasoline vapors, the ecig could be a potential source of ignition, given enough concentration of volatile vapors. More so if the cartridge is removed from the device. Although it is certainly less of a hazard than the burning tip of a cigarette. The companys insurance will probably not approve the use of the device in or near a gas tanker since there is a risk of ignition, one that they will probably not be willing to take.

I can't see that as being an issue. The catalytic converter and exhaust piping in vehicles are about 3-5 times hotter than the atty of the average ecig. And, they're more in abundance.

 

[trog100]

I thought I'd throw in my tuppence worth here.... I happen to be an enforcement officer, for a different Council but still, and I do deal with these issues on a day to day basis.

With regards to smoking in the vehicle, yes it's an offence - but only if the vehicle is used by more than once person. If you own the vehicle, and nobody ever rides with you, or drives your vehicle, then you can smoke in it. The law was designed to protect the people around the smoker, not the smoker him/herself. (not that I necessarily agree with the law).

From what I can make out, the fine here was for littering. It's a low level amount, designed to discharge your liability from a prosecution for the offence. The way I look at it is it's a slap on the wrist. DO NOT do this again. (Again, I know there will be a lot of people who thin that chucking a cig end on the ground is no biggie, but when everyone does this.... different debate )

Now, I have fined people who have been sitting in their cars, and chuck the litter out, (all sorts from discarded food, to sweet wraps, to chewing gum and cig ends.) Now people can make mistakes, however, you can not mistake watching visibly an item thrown from a vehicle and falling to the ground. If the enforcement officer was that far away, that he could not see the object clearly fall, the the fine was issued in error. However, my inclination is that the driver is probably trying to get out paying the fine, and has got obstinate about it. I have know a lot of people who will go to extraordinary lengths to pretend that they are innocent of something, even low level offences.

If the enforcement officer wanted to make up his numbers for giving out tickets, all he would have to do is go and sit at a busy bus shelter for an hour. I guarantee he would be going back with 10 or more tickets. I know this because I have done this...

how many enforcement officers do you think are aware of e cigs Nik..

how many would assume "smoke" coming from something that looked very cigarette like was in fact real smoke.. i could be wrong but i would guess a good few.. i can also see some coming red faces when the fines get issued..

would i also be right in assuming that a workplace that only has one person in it is exempt from the work place rule..

trog

 

[NikUk]

how many enforcement officers do you think are aware of e cigs Nik..

how many would assume "smoke" coming from something that looked very cigarette like was in fact real smoke.. i could be wrong but i would guess a good few.. i can also see some coming red faces when the fines get issued..

would i also be right in assuming that a workplace that only has one person in it is exempt from the work place rule..

trog

Hi Trog...

Firstly your query about the workplace. Yes exempt if you and you alone work in it, that no one ever needs to be in the place except you!

Secondly with regards to knowing about e cigs. The enforcement officer doesn't need to know about them... because the legislation surrounding littering, and the issuing of a fine for littering, states very specifically that the offence must be observed. It's not good enough to see a cloud of smoke and presume that an offence has been committed, nor is it good enough to walk around the corner and see a smoking cig .... on the floor, and presume the person standing next to it with a pack of cigs in his hand is the offender. The officer must observe the offence, (or worst case, if you can get the person to admit under caution he/she dropped it, but thats long winded and overkill for a litter fine).

So the point of my original post, is that if the enforcement officer did not see the actual act of the driver throwing or discarding the cigarette, the fine was definitely issued in error.

 

[DaBrat]

Not sure about the coppers in the UK but here in the US they can definitely be full of themselves. That meaning that even when they are wrong they are loathe to admit it.

 

[NikUk]

Not sure about the coppers in the UK but here in the US they can definitely be full of themselves. That meaning that even when they are wrong they are loathe to admit it.

Oh yeah... totally see that. But, point being the enforcement officer in this case wouldn't have bothered with this if he was too far away to see the drop! The reason that he wouldn't have bothered presuming thsi guy would have dropped, is that it is so damn easy to ticket someone for littering.

Find a cafe, pub, bus stop, hospital entrance and so on, sit and wait, and smoker after smoker will come, smoke, drop. You don't need to see smoke and say, well I see smoke, so I'm going to guess he's going to drop.

Almost all vehicles have an ashtray, and those that don't or have had them removed, well people keep bottles and cans etc to use. You take someone to court and you have to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed. The only way to do this is to observe, or get a confession.