As there doesn't seem to have been any comments on this since the ban
came in, I thought I'd share the text of an email I've just sent to
Southern:

"I notice that you have placed an 'it is illegal to smoke on these
premises' sign near the entrance to the Up platform at East Dulwich
station.

Both the entrance ramp and the platform are actually entirely in the
open air, and it is therefore emphatically not 'illegal' to smoke
there.

The fact that you chose to bring in your non-smoking policy on the
same day as the Smoke-Free regulations (which only cover enclosed
spaces) came in to force is, I am sure, intended to encourage a
perception in the public mind that the non-smoking policy at open-air
railway stations is a consequence of the new law. It is not, and I
would therefore request that you remove this misleading signage: I am
sure there are many other open-air stations on your network where the
same thing has been done, so please consider those as well."

From a frustrated weed addict....

On Jul 3, 9:41 pm, "Obadiah Jones" wrote:
As there doesn't seem to have been any comments on this since the ban
came in, I thought I'd share the text of an email I've just sent to
Southern:

"I notice that you have placed an 'it is illegal to smoke on these
premises' sign near the entrance to the Up platform at East Dulwich
station.

Both the entrance ramp and the platform are actually entirely in the
open air, and it is therefore emphatically not 'illegal' to smoke
there.

The fact that you chose to bring in your non-smoking policy on the
same day as the Smoke-Free regulations (which only cover enclosed
spaces) came in to force is, I am sure, intended to encourage a
perception in the public mind that the non-smoking policy at open-air
railway stations is a consequence of the new law. It is not, and I
would therefore request that you remove this misleading signage: I am
sure there are many other open-air stations on your network where the
same thing has been done, so please consider those as well."

From a frustrated weed addict....



Questions rather than answers:

1) If the railways ban smoking from certain premises or trains, is
there some kind of legal force or by-law behind it, such that it would
then be illegal so smoke there?

2) Is it stated (however much it might be inferred) that the ban has
anything to do with the recent changes to the law?

I have noticed that other operators have chosen to ban smoking from
all their premises, enclosed or not, to coincide with 1 July. It's
probably a case of burying bad news (unless one finds it good).

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 21:41:22 +0100, "Obadiah Jones"
wrote:

Both the entrance ramp and the platform are actually entirely in the
open air, and it is therefore emphatically not 'illegal' to smoke
there.

They own the ground. Their rules apply..
No like? Do not go there!

--
|\ |
| \|ico

Panic now and avoid the rush!

On Jul 3, 9:53 pm, MIG wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:41 pm, "Obadiah Jones" wrote:



As there doesn't seem to have been any comments on this since the ban
came in, I thought I'd share the text of an email I've just sent to
Southern:

"I notice that you have placed an 'it is illegal to smoke on these
premises' sign near the entrance to the Up platform at East Dulwich
station.

Both the entrance ramp and the platform are actually entirely in the
open air, and it is therefore emphatically not 'illegal' to smoke
there.

The fact that you chose to bring in your non-smoking policy on the
same day as the Smoke-Free regulations (which only cover enclosed
spaces) came in to force is, I am sure, intended to encourage a
perception in the public mind that the non-smoking policy at open-air
railway stations is a consequence of the new law. It is not, and I
would therefore request that you remove this misleading signage: I am
sure there are many other open-air stations on your network where the
same thing has been done, so please consider those as well."

From a frustrated weed addict....

Questions rather than answers:

1) If the railways ban smoking from certain premises or trains, is
there some kind of legal force or by-law behind it, such that it would
then be illegal so smoke there?

2) Is it stated (however much it might be inferred) that the ban has
anything to do with the recent changes to the law?

I have noticed that other operators have chosen to ban smoking from
all their premises, enclosed or not, to coincide with 1 July. It's
probably a case of burying bad news (unless one finds it good).

It is much easier to enforce the new law if you say that all
platforms, ticket offices etc are smoke free. The Railways have
changed this using their existing by-laws, so whilst it is not
illegal, you could be prohibited from entering the railway or be
removed by staff or police.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 21:41:22 +0100, Obadiah Jones wrote:

As there doesn't seem to have been any comments on this since the ban
came in, I thought I'd share the text of an email I've just sent to
Southern:

"I notice that you have placed an 'it is illegal to smoke on these
premises' sign near the entrance to the Up platform at East Dulwich
station.

Both the entrance ramp and the platform are actually entirely in the
open air, and it is therefore emphatically not 'illegal' to smoke
there.

Under the railway byelaws, it is in fact illegal to smoke anywhere
where the railway has decided to prohibit smoking.

"MIG" wrote in message
ps.com...


Questions rather than answers:

1) If the railways ban smoking from certain premises or trains, is
there some kind of legal force or by-law behind it, such that it would
then be illegal so smoke there?

Its been discussed in uk.railway - it is believed that the existing railway
byelaws already allowed for the extension of the non smoking area to the
whole of stations.

2) Is it stated (however much it might be inferred) that the ban has
anything to do with the recent changes to the law?

SWT for example were, and are now, definitely explaining on signs and with
announcements that the ban is due to government legislation, without
elaboration on how they've extended it (as have others - see below)

I have noticed that other operators have chosen to ban smoking from
all their premises, enclosed or not, to coincide with 1 July. It's
probably a case of burying bad news (unless one finds it good).

I don't think its necessarily been buried, rather the explanation hasn't
been thorough enough. But it is standardised on all Network Rail stations,
don't forget the TOCs are only the station operators, not the owners...

Paul

Obadiah Jones wrote:

"I notice that you have placed an 'it is illegal to smoke on these
premises' sign near the entrance to the Up platform at East Dulwich
station.

Both the entrance ramp and the platform are actually entirely in the
open air, and it is therefore emphatically not 'illegal' to smoke
there.

You are mistaken. Railway Byelaw 3 makes it illegal to smoke on any part
of the railway where there is a notice indicating that smoking is not
allowed. There is no reason to believe these notices can only be placed
in enclosed spaces.

Interestingly, violation of this byelaw is an offence with a penalty of
a fine of up to £1,000, while smoking in violation of the Smoke-free
Regulations can result in only a fine up to £200.
--
Michael Hoffman

asdf wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 21:41:22 +0100, Obadiah Jones wrote:

As there doesn't seem to have been any comments on this since the ban
came in, I thought I'd share the text of an email I've just sent to
Southern:

"I notice that you have placed an 'it is illegal to smoke on these
premises' sign near the entrance to the Up platform at East Dulwich
station.

Both the entrance ramp and the platform are actually entirely in the
open air, and it is therefore emphatically not 'illegal' to smoke
there.

Under the railway byelaws, it is in fact illegal to smoke anywhere
where the railway has decided to prohibit smoking.

Just to add to that, some TOCs (Midland Mainline springs to mind) banned
smoking *anywhere* on their premises well before the July 1st regulations
(MML did so from the beginning of the year or thereabouts, IIRC). As others
have mentioned, railway premises are not public spaces - they are private
property on which members of the general public are entertained, subject to
the conditions of the owner/occupier - usually the holding of a valid ticket
to travel. Therefore rules/regulations over and above national laws can be
implemented as a condition of admittance.

Michael Hoffman wrote:
Obadiah Jones wrote:

"I notice that you have placed an 'it is illegal to smoke on these
premises' sign near the entrance to the Up platform at East Dulwich
station.

Both the entrance ramp and the platform are actually entirely in
the
open air, and it is therefore emphatically not 'illegal' to smoke
there.

You are mistaken. Railway Byelaw 3 makes it illegal to smoke on any
part of the railway where there is a notice indicating that smoking
is not allowed. There is no reason to believe these notices can only
be placed in enclosed spaces.

Interestingly, violation of this byelaw is an offence with a penalty
of a fine of up to £1,000, while smoking in violation of the
Smoke-free Regulations can result in only a fine up to £200.

Ah, IANAL, as you can probably tell - And thanks for this and all the
other replies.

Its just that in the past a simple 'no smoking' or
'burning-fag-with-red-slash' pictogram seems to have proved sufficient
deterrent on trains etc, even though lighting up was illegal under the
Byelaw. Now that NR stations put up the same 'statutory'-type signs
that pubs, shops, etc have to display, it does tend to imply that they
want people to believe that the blanket ban at stations is a result of
the new law.

Obadiah Jones wrote:

Its just that in the past a simple 'no smoking' or
'burning-fag-with-red-slash' pictogram seems to have proved sufficient
deterrent on trains etc, even though lighting up was illegal under the
Byelaw. Now that NR stations put up the same 'statutory'-type signs
that pubs, shops, etc have to display, it does tend to imply that they
want people to believe that the blanket ban at stations is a result of
the new law.

It's probably for cost efficiency reasons, in that they'd have to put
the specified signs up *inside* the station buildings (and on covered
platforms) anyway, so they just ordered a job lot rather than two
different sets depending on the location.

That and it means whoever applied the signs/stickers didn't have to make
sure they had the right one before doing so.

Cheers,

Barry