It is not illegal to smoke whilst driving…well not in the uk anyway…what a load of old codswallop…and youl be telling me that its illegal to take one hand off the wheel to change gear next…or does most people have an automatic…anyway …i smoke always have and always will…and no one can tell me not to especially in the privacy of my own space and vehicle…law or no law…so stick that in your pipe and smoke it… 
Well said truckyboy dont you just hate theese holier than thou people. I been driving and smoking at the same time for the last 22 yrs and rolling me own while going along and i aint had no probs. Neither do i intend to stop.
aidey:
rolling me own while going along .
smokers have it too easy for toooooooo looooooong…inflicting their orrible habit on his nice healthy people …i do wish as they inflict a slow death on themselves they would do it in silence 
aidey:
Well said truckyboy dont you just hate theese holier than thou people.
For goodness sake chill out, who’s been holier than thou?
All the bloke said was that technically smoking while driving is already an offence because a copper, if he so chose, could construe it as not taking due care. He merely went on to say that most smokers can refrain for quite long periods (ie on planes or at the pictures) and maybe if they wanted to avoid prosecution they could use natural breaks to smoke in.
He was only pointing out a fact of life and has got well slagged off for his trouble.
All you have to say if you don’t like it is ‘I can’t wait’, or ‘I don’t care’, or ‘sod the law’. But why spoil an interesting thread by shooting the messenger?
I would say that hand-rolling a cigarette while driving is definitely an offence
aidey:
Well said truckyboy dont you just hate theese holier than thou people. I been driving and smoking at the same time for the last 22 yrs and rolling me own while going along and i aint had no probs. Neither do i intend to stop.
i dont roll my own but i have been driving and smoking tailor mades for quite a few years now. fortunately for me, i got the hang of it so i dont drop the hot end on my nads any more
Just for the record - It is actually against the law to eat whilst driving but not actually against the law to smoke.
Apparantly it is illegal to eat and drive in case you choke and cause an accident.
Cant think why its not illegal to smoke cos you could technically set yourself on fire with a ■■■ but there is no law against it - unless you bring in the bit about taking one hand off the wheel unecessarily - but then it gets into different territory.
I am a smoker but I dont smoke and drive because I find it a pain to try and hold a ■■■ and the wheel at the same time - but that’s just me.
It is also bloody dangerous to fiddle with your stereo - changing tapes or cds etc. But again no particular law against it as yet.
It is against the law to drive in bare feet too. Reason being your instinctive reactions.
Hit the brake pedal hard in bare feet it causes pain to the ball of the foot so your brain immedietly sends the message to lift foot so you would then stop braking and hit what you are tryng to avoid.
The list could be and probably is - endless.
So here endeth todays list of useless but interesting information!!
Mothertrucker:
Just for the record - It is actually against the law to eat whilst driving but not actually against the law to smoke.
Apparantly it is illegal to eat and drive in case you choke and cause an accident.
Cant think why its not illegal to smoke cos you could technically set yourself on fire with a ■■■ but there is no law against it - unless you bring in the bit about taking one hand off the wheel unecessarily - but then it gets into different territory.
I am a smoker but I dont smoke and drive because I find it a pain to try and hold a ■■■ and the wheel at the same time - but that’s just me.
It is also bloody dangerous to fiddle with your stereo - changing tapes or cds etc. But again no particular law against it as yet.
It is against the law to drive in bare feet too. Reason being your instinctive reactions.
Hit the brake pedal hard in bare feet it causes pain to the ball of the foot so your brain immedietly sends the message to lift foot so you would then stop braking and hit what you are tryng to avoid.
The list could be and probably is - endless.
So here endeth todays list of useless but interesting information!!
the moral of the story is that you are safest when you are comfortable ie you do it out of habit. half the time when you smoke and drive, you arent even aware of it. you get used to the actions and they become instinct. arent instincts almost always correct?
I am a Non smoker, but i could not give a monkeys wether people smoke or not 
In fact i am the only person in my entire family who doesnt, and i feel perfectly safe with whoever is driving, smoking or not
When i was a kid i used to go out with my Grandad or my Uncle and the both drove artics and both used had the ability to roll rollups with one hand, without taking the other off the steering wheel 
Harry Monk:
I would say that hand-rolling a cigarette while driving is definitely an offence
O dear, another avenue of pleasure that looks like being illegal, back on the B&H then, and i was thinking of complaining about the sorry state of the roads in England, I spend more time picking me backy up off the floor than in any other country, still when i stop for a sweep out I get to do all these checks that i should be doing. Could always give up, but then i would have to find something else to do, don’t know what tho what with the fax machine, phones going off, cb, if im with another of our drivers, reaching under the bottom bunk to get to me fridge, if im going somewere ive not been before, setting the sat nav, fitting in a bit of letching out the window, come to think of it i don’t know how i manage to fit in rolling a ■■■ what with everything else going on, o yeah i have to look were im going as well.
sdj
I’ve been following this thread and have been reading about some interesting offences that I seem to be committing on a daily basis.
Clown Persecution Service:
Careless driving and driving without due consideration - Section 3 RTA 1988.
Code for Crown Prosecutors
These apparently straightforward offences can cause substantial difficulties for prosecutors, particularly as the consequences of an incident may be much more serious than the offence suggests. The offences are summary-only and the only available penalties are a fine, penalty points and/or disqualification.You should focus on the extent to which the evidence proves that accused’s conduct fell below the standard required by law. Put another way, the test is: what did the defendant do, or fail to do? It is not: what happened as a result of the defendant’s action or inaction, even if this has serious consequences.
There will be times when another Road Traffic offence, such as failing to obey a traffic sign, will cover the same facts and may be easier to prove. At the other end of the scale, you will frequently have to consider this advice in conjunction with the advice on dangerous driving, refer to dangerous driving, in this guidance, in order to decide upon the appropriate charge.
Careless Driving - the law.
This offence is committed when the accused’s driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case. (Wilkinson, 5.41 to 5.82)The maximum penalty is a level 4 fine (presently £2,500). The court must also either endorse the driver’s licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are ‘special reasons’ not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. (Wilkinson, 19.01)
The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.
Occasionally an accident occurs but there is no evidence of any mechanical defect, illness of the driver or other explanation to account for why the accident happened. In these cases, a charge of careless driving may be appropriate, but you should exercise caution. If you can prove how an incident occurred [e.g. a collision] the case can be put on the basis that there is a very strong inference that the defendant was driving below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver. In the absence of any explanation by the defendant as to the cause of the accident, a court may infer that the offence was committed, but where the defendant does provide an explanation for the accident, however unlikely, you will have to consider whether to proceed. The civil law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [the thing speaks for itself] has no direct application to the criminal law. (But see Wilkinson at 5.50 “In the absence of any explanation by the defendant, if the only conclusion which is possible to draw is that the defendant was negligent or had departed from what a reasonably prudent and confident driver would have done in the circumstances, a court should convict”).
In some cases, particularly where there has been a collision, the evidence will show that more than one driver was at fault. It will be necessary to establish that there is evidence from an independent source against any driver who is to be charged, but the possibility of charging more than one driver remains if both have failed to comply with the statutory standard.
Due care - public interest considerations
When considering the public interest test you should look at the degree of blameworthiness: the greater the blameworthiness, the greater the public interest in favour of prosecution. There are specific reasons to proceed where the defendant has not passed a driving test, particularly where he/she is unfit to drive because of a disability or is driving otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of a provisional licence. See Section 36 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for power to disqualify the driver until he passes a driving test, and Section 22 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 where the defendant may be unfit to continue to drive, the court has power to notify the Secretary of State about any relevant disability.Conversely, the public interest does not call for a prosecution in every case where there is, evidentially, a realistic prospect of conviction for careless driving. A prosecution should not be commenced because of technical lapse from the statutory standard where a case is likely to attract only a nominal penalty and will have no deterrent effect on a defendant or other motorists. It will not necessarily be appropriate to prosecute in every case where a minor collision occurs. What matters is the extent of the error, not the extent of any damage. It is not the function of the prosecution [or the criminal courts] to conduct proceedings in order to settle questions of liability for the benefit of individual motorists or insurance companies. Therefore the public interest will tend to be against a prosecution for careless driving where the incident is of a type such as frequently occurs at parking places or in traffic queues, involving minimal carelessness. A prosecution may not be necessary where the only or main loser (in terms of personal injury or damage) was the proposed defendant. Refer to ‘nearest and dearest’, in this section above, in this guidance.
Charging Practice
The following are examples of driving which may amount to driving without due care and attention:
overtaking on the inside;
Conduct whilst driving, such as:
The above examples are merely indicative of what can amount to careless driving. It is necessary to put the facts in context and consider whether the particular facts of the case warrant a charge of careless or dangerous driving.
The reason for the driver’s behaviour is not relevant to the choice of charge: it is the acts or omissions of the driver, or conduct whilst driving, which determine whether the driver has fallen ‘below’ (careless driving) or ‘far below’ (dangerous driving) the standard required.
Consider whether a defendant has failed to observe a provision of the Highway Code. This does not itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings, but a failure, particularly a serious one, may constitute evidence of careless or dangerous driving. (Section 38(7) RTA 1988) is the statutory authority for this point.
Where there is an overlap between careless driving and some other offences such as driving with excess alcohol, a regulatory offence, an offence of strict liability, or a ‘Construction and Use’ offence, the merits of the individual case may often be adequately met by charging the specific statutory or regulatory offence. In short, a prosecutor may ask: what does the ‘due care’ allegation add to the case - and what additional penalty is likely? In practice, there will need to be some further evidence to show that the manner of the driving fell below that which is to be expected in order to justify proceedings under Section 3 RTA 1988.
Driving without reasonable consideration - Section 3 RTA 1988
The lawThis offence is committed when a vehicle is driven on a road or other public place “as a result of which other persons using the road or place are inconvenienced.” ‘Other persons’ may include persons in or on the driver’s vehicle itself. The penalties are the same as for “Careless Driving”.Generally, prosecutors prefer ‘Careless Driving"’ to “Driving without due consideration” as the former is easier to prove - there is no need to show that an actual road user is inconvenienced, etc. But ‘due consideration’ is more appropriate where the real harm done is aimed at, or suffered by a particular person.
The accused must be proved:
Note the essential difference between the two offences under Section 3 RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced.
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness. There must, however, also be some inconvenience to other road users, for example, forcing other drivers to move over and/or brake as a consequence. Examples of conduct appropriate for a charge of driving without reasonable consideration are:
Note that you must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the Magistrates/Youth court. (R-v-Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 450).
We can all point to tales/reports of drivers being prosecuted for doing this, or doing that, but in each and every case, for a prosecution to succeed, there needs to be evidence that due to some ‘act, omission or conduct’ , the standard of driving had fallen below that of which is required.
It also serves to explain why pierre’s little ‘■■■■’ was NFA’d. (The bit in blue)
driving a bus in such a way as to scare the passengers.
I prefer that one, heehee
flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
what is that? my lights just flash so they must be talking about some new fangled things that are capable of physically forcing an object james bond has them
If you all packed up the ■■■■ the government would be up crap creek without a paddle.
The revenue from ■■■■ is stupid. I have now been off them for 8 months & feel so much better.
Give them up & bugger the government!!! 
ROFL
this is very funny from this side of the earth. it seems that the nanny state is truly gone over the edge in the UK.I’m all for safety and oh&s also I’m a heavy smoker and respect non smokers. but this is insane. we have smoke free workplaces here which is fine but if I own the truck I will smoke in it.
common sense is out the window.
in some schools here they dont even celebrate chrismas for fear of offending people of other faiths.
personally I find the transport industry in the Uk very heavily regulated. at least here a smal bloke can still start and build his own business with out masses of paper work. we have fair driving hours 12 hours driving. but we also have the option of doing fatigue managment courses to increase this to 14 hours (need acreditation etc) the driving hours aren’t enforced with in 100 klms of your home base. govt every whee are becomming addicted to the evenue generate from traffic offences its like a hidden tax. so now when you drive on the motorway traffic runs @ 80-90 kph in a 100 zone. the ones in the right lane for overtaking are the b double artics sitting on their 100 kph limiter. a sad state of affairs.
meggala
richiessex:
Dear oh dear oh dear, me thinks this is about an anti smoker having a whinge at smokers and naf all about safetyIn the 22 years of driving trucks i have never even come close to having a crash or ANY incident of ANY kind because of smoking whilst driving
Get a grip mate or a job in government
Here Here. I am the same, I have been a driver (HGV1 PSV1) for 40 plus yrs and driven more miles accross Europe, England, Ireland,Scotland and Wales and now the USA, than I care to remember, and smoked, in all that time I have never been involved in a accident, this is just another way to collect money in fines… watch out for those camras they take a good clear picture of the driver.
tellmm7:
If you all packed up the ■■■■ the government would be up crap creek without a paddle.
The revenue from ■■■■ is stupid. I have now been off them for 8 months & feel so much better.
Give them up & [zb] the government!!!
well they will only put it on petrol again, why the hell do you think the tax is so high on petrol now, cause people packed up smoking. what they lose on one they will gain on another… the big three are beer ■■■■ and petrol always have been always will be. 
poor smokers aint they hard done by
whinge whinge whinge cos they cant poison us nice no smokers
Do not have a problem with smokers smoking, personal choice thing but as a non smoking cab hopper I do object to the smell that gets left behind.