AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Busmen and Tobacco

20th April 1962, Page 27
20th April 1962
Page 27
Page 27, 20th April 1962 — Busmen and Tobacco
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

WITH the detonation, by the Royal College of Physicians, of the latest tobacco scare have come renewed demands for more consideration to be given to non-smokers in buses. It is, therefore, timely to recall that three Years ago the question of smOking in buses was then in the news. Anti-smokers campaigned against the practice of the few big bus companies who, contrary to the general custom throughout the country, allowed passengers in double-deckers to smoke not only on the top deck but on the lower deck as well Although there may have been sporadic skirmishes elsewhere, the main battlefields were first in the northern area and later in the north-west. In the northern traffic area, the Traffic Commissioners were persuaded to attach a condition to road service licences held by the Northern General Transport Co,, Ltd., and the Sunderland District Omnibus Co., Ltd., that they must display notices on their double-deckers prohibiting , smoking on the lower decks. The two companies appealed against the decision and the Minister of Transport ordered the Commissioners to delete the condition.

"The Minister has in the first place considered whether he should accept the Inspector's recommendation that the appeal should be allowed for the reasons that it is unreasonable for Traffic Commissioners to seek, either directly or indirectly, to regulate the conduct of passengers on public service vehicles," said the written decision. The Minister agrees that many types of conduct which are generally objectionable are appropriately dealt with by central regulations. .. but he sees no reason why Traffic Commissioners should not, in appropriate circumstances, impose conditions relating to the comparatively few types of conduct whose objectionableness may vary from case to case. Smoking, considered from the point of view of public convenience, appears to the Minister to fall clearly within this latter class, " In the second place, the Minister agrees that friction might result from the imposition of a condition prohibiting—or indeed of one requiring—the exhibition of no-smoking notices; but this friction does not seem to the Minister to differ significantly from that resulting from a decision by an operator himself to exhibit— or not to exhibit—notices prohibiting smoking. . . .

"The important questions for consideration are whether a substantial body of passengers—not, of course, necessarily a majority—on the services in question are in practice inconvenienced by smoking downstairs and, if so, whether their gain from its prohibition would outweigh any inconvenience which that prohibition would entail for would-be smokers.

"Considerations relevant to the settlement of these questions would include the length of the journeys involved, the extent to which a conflict of interest arises in practice, and the extent to which people smoked downstairs when there were vacant seats upstairs, and so on."

The Minister concluded that the objectors, on whom fell the onus of making out the case for prohibition, did not succeed in doing so.

In the north-western area the big company concerned was Ribble Motor Services, Ltd. Here the objectors had in their ranks several local authorities. There was attack and counter-attack, through many witnesses called by both sides. After the public hearing Ribble voluntarily undertook to exhibit notices in the lower decks of double deckers on the routes concerned requesting passengers "occupying seats in front of the fourth full row" to refrain from smoking It was to be an experiment. The Traffic Commissioners approved it as such. After more than two years it still continues . .

Tags


comments powered by Disqus