Great Western Coffee Shop

This problem has grown to epidemic proportions. The main entrance / exit from Praed Street is now so blocked by smokers that FGW / NR have instigated special areas by the hoardings (opp. from the side of the Hilton Hotel) just for smokers.

There are huge 'No Smoking' signs on the other side. These signs are on the pavement, and clearly displayed on the walls. Yet smokers claim that side too and block the free passage of bona-fide passengers to / from the Station. Its like having to cut your way through a pall of carcinogenic fumes just to pass by these selfish oiks.

The BTP and Network Rail staff are tasked with keeping smokers to their side of the road. Yet they fail time and time gain. Indeed uniformed staff have been seen smoking themselves on the 'wrong' side of road. Crossrail staff are the worst.   

The BTP wander past and do nothing. Network rail staff enter and leave Network Rail House and do nothing, the doors are even being blocked by smokers.

At the entrance to the Station is a long red demarcation line with 'No Smoking Beyond This Line' on it. Smokers stand well within the Station boundary almost on the concourse.

For non-smokers it is appalling to have this disgusting habit foisted onto them just to get into or out of the Station.

It is even more unacceptable that Staff do nothing to move these selfish oiks over to the smoking side of the road.

Network Rail need to start heavily fining or prosecuting smokers on their properties - that'd soon put an end to smokers' selfish and inconsiderate behaviour.
 

I think you'll find that the roadway is public access....the rules are uninforcable as it's not part of the 'station'

In that case, obstructing it will be an offence.
Doing so while smoking may constitute a public nuisance.
I also wonder if the legal concept of "common purpose" could be applied. IIRC it is used in some public order cases for groups who come togther to do something without prior arrangement.
I'm sure BTP powers are not restricted in any narrow cadastral sense to "transport" property.

Errr....they have no powers off BR property & have to pass cases to the 'ordinary' police. As nothing criminal is occurring, the police won't be interested.

NR & FGW have said to me that it'll need the public to playball to achieve a workable solution.

Far worse, IMHO, are the cyclists who insist on cycling onto the concourse before dismounting. They should be dismounting before the station curtilage, not where the bollards on the concourse are!

I have noticed a lot more smoking on station platforms recently. For example last night someone was smoking on platform 7B at reading. This morning someone literally had their cigarette in their mouth until they boarded the train at Burnham at which point they through the roll up under the train. At Thatcham in the morning it is quite common to see this

So you may ask "why don't I ask them to stop?". Well I used to,but then got tired of the abuse I would get in response

Last time I was at Padd I walk out up to Pread Street it was like going through a fog bank!

Just for information we have 21 No smoking signs on Taplow station. Most people smoke by the gate to platform 4.

I witnessed someone at a local station 'not exactly' smoking on the platform. In that they were stood on the platform but their hand holding the cigarette was held over the railings onto the car park side. In order to have a puff he craned his neck over the railings. An interesting interpretation.

This of course in no way impeded the stench of cigarette smoke onto the platform...

Yes I have seen this on quite a few occasions as well. To remove any doubt though I was talking about people smoking in the waiting huts on the platform (normally just below the "no smoking" sign and to the right of a half evaporated pool of something not very nice)

I am a non-smoker and have never touched the stuff so I have much sympathy with most of the comments above.  However, I also understand that as an addiction, smoking, like other chemical addictions, is unlikely ever to be controlled by punitive measures alone.  I never cease to be amazed at the ingenious ways in which addicts get their 'fix' when their bodies demand satisfaction.  The fact that tobacco is legal, simply means that, like alcohol, the rest of us have to put up with the fall-out of the addiction.  Nevertheless, I will make life difficult for addicts who are breaking the law where I can, because the alternative is to 'roll over' and let their addiction affect my life. 

Like Berkshire Bugsy though, I choose my moments carefully so as not to incur even worse consequences.  My proudest moment was to challenge four young men smoking in a non-smoking carriage on a French train.  With my poor and limited French I copied the locals by raising my voice and waving my arms a lot.  They left the carriage AND apologised!  Obviously that was a few years ago, but when my ire is up caution sometimes goes down.  I also remember that people in addiction are still people and it's their habit that makes me distressed.

As an occasional smoker, I object to the term 'selfish oik', however on the lighter side, at Lostwithiel, (very open air throughout), it is usual for any smokers to congregate at the roadside end of 1 and 2 for a smoke.  Never seen anyone smoking ON the platform....

Surely smoking in a place where it is illegal or obstructing the passage of others is selfish?

I'm not sure my opinion is the same. Whilst in my opinion whilst smoking somewhere where it is illegal is wrong, that doesn't (in my opinion) automatically make it selfish. However I accept there are plenty of situations where it would be easy to agree with that logic.

I think I find myself more offended by the fact that people are breaking the rules than I am that they are smoking. Leaving aside the rather odd grammar of the signs that say 'This station is a no smoking station' (as opposed to 'This station is a no smoking bowl of petunias'?), I don't see a good reason to ban smoking in open air areas of stations.

I really don't like cigarette smoke, or smoking-related litter, but I'm not sure what legal or operational reason there can be for totally banning smoking in these places.

People regularly smoke on Maidenhead platforms in the evenings, plus I've seen it a number of times at Reading, Tilehurst and Goring.

I've seen people asking them to stop, but its just the usual abuse so not worth the agro.

Interestingly last weekend I saw someone smoking on the platform at St James Park Exeter while I was on the opposite platform. It was only when he started to ride his bicycle towards the exit slope that he was challenged by someone - and that was for pedalling his machine on the station.

Many of our station platforms are partly inside and partly outside so it is difficult to define which is which. Also on a crowded platform non-smokers would still have the hazard of breathing in smoke from smokers who are in close proximity. If they cannot realise this then they are as I said selfish. It seems that even though it may not be in the station, the cluster of smokers by the entrance would seem to fall into this category. I am however not sure this really is outside the remit of the BTP as I thought it was the station approach not a public highway.  

Of course at the end of a deserted platform on a country station - I am not bothered.

Personal view - it should be easily possible to enter and leave any service / building / place in the direction you want to go without having to pass through a fog of unhealthy smoke. 

With the exit from Platform 1 now closed, leaving Paddington to get the bus from the front is now (?) through "smoker's alley" or a really long walk around via Paddington Basin. Other exits take you onto the tube or into a taxi. So Paddington with the current arrangements, as not enforced (not enforceable?) is inadequate in this respect.

Another question about that entrance ramp.   Why is there almost always a police vehicle parked on the double yellow lines up near the barrier?   Does the parking law not apply to police vehicles?  If it doesn't, why not, and if it does, should they not set a good example?  [Happy with them parking anywhere in an emergency]

I agree regarding the smoking area at Padd although most London terminals suffer the same issue, KX is about the only one I've seen controlled perhaps because its new station area.
What can be done about, whilst I am not and never have been a smoker for the railway authorities to be heavy handed about this would cause them unwelcome grief and complaints so my guess is that from time to time they will as people to move.


Despite comments earlier in this thread the approach road from Parade St to Plat 8 is a private road the parking restriction is not made under the Local Authority planning but made under by-laws by Network Rail the parking is enforced by BTP or a Network Rail parking attendant. 

Who can remember when you could drive along plat 8 through Paddington Stn?  That was made under (I think the 1937 Highways Act) as a private road an application had to be made by Railtrack to close it, likewise the area above plat 12 Bishops Bridge Rd through to London St and the covered road along side Eastbourne Terr all were private roads

The smoking problem was caused by the railway banning smoking anywhere on stations (even at open ends of rural platforms) and not being arsed to provide at the same time for the resultant crowds of smokers....they were warned that this would happen.

There was never going to be the money for any sort of proper enforcement, hence I think this rule was rather silly. If they'd stuck to the general rule of not within enclosed areas/buildings (which the vast majority of dmokers accept & adhere to), they'd have been a lot more successful.

Thanks for the clarification on the PAD acces road, but NR created this concentration if smokers, and its down to them to find an acceptable solution

I suppose you could argue that smoking a cigarette will kill them slowly whereas riding a bike on the platform is an immediate danger both to the rider and any pedestrians.

Although I have only smoked one cigarette in my life (over 5 decades) having lived with chain smoker, who smoked 60 senior service a day, I do have first hand experience of them trying  to give the habit up - although I'm not in anyway justifying the specific actions raised in the original post

In an earlier post someone mentioned that the "general smoking in buildings" law covered on enclosed buildings which is why you see a lot of tables outside restaurants and pubs. However if stations are private property does the property owner have the legal right to set the terms of use, including smoking?

For those who have never heard of senior service they were unfiltered cigarettes which I believe you can not buy legally in the uk now. As a boy of 10 I was often sent to the local shops to buy these for my (late) father and in those days no one used to bat an eyelid!

Am I alone in going through The Lawn, up the escalators and then through the Hilton Paddington onto Praed St? I find that a quicker route which has a bonus in that it is totally smoke free.

The congregation that worship at the temple of St Nicotiana don't bother me that much, but then I've only recently given up tobacco.

I now get my nicotine fix from an electronic source.

I cant say that the smokers congregating in or near the station entrance much worry me.
Yes it is a dangerous and expensive habit, but still legal.
I use that entrance regularly, and do not feel that such very brief expousure to tobaco smoke is likely to do me much harm.

And I am a non smoker ! and allways have been.

Where possible I feel that the railway should provide smoking areas, this would be legal and easily achieved at most stations by simply declaring the end of the platform to be a smoking area.

For smoking to be legal, I understand that EITHER the smoking area must be open to the sky, OR it may be roofed provided that at least half the wall area is open.
(or of course open to the sky AND with less than 50% of the sides enclosed)


It would seem that all unroofed platforms comply with this, and many of the roofed ones as well. Smoking in such places is not against the law of the land, but it is against railway bylaws.

The railway are entitled to ban smoking on their property, just as I am entitled to ban smoking in my garden if I so wish.

However just because they CAN ban smoking, that does not mean that so doing is sensible.

The byelaws say:


That part 'on or near which there is a notice' is somewhat ambiguous. If I'm smoking in an unenclosed or substantially unenclosed area where there is no, 'No Smoking' sign, or I have not passed one, have I committed a byelaw offence?

To return to the question of BTP officers' powers, if I may:


I said I was sure of this because I was told ages ago that all police officers - even MoD ones ("Mod-plods") had the same personal policing powers. That means they can tell you to do X, Y or Z, and arguing they are "out of area" is not going to do you any good. That sounds to me like the kind of legal ides that is not readily altered. The power is meant to be for urgent action where referring to control and to the police hierarchy is not possible (an "out of area" officer is not part of the right hierarchy, so cannot do that, of course), and in practice its use is limited to that.

Wikipedia's page on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Transport_Police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Transport_Police) seems to be solidly based on quotes from the statutes, and I'd rather not plough through those to check (done too much of that recently). In the list of places where BTP officers have "all the power and privileges of a constable", I can see at least three that can apply to a station approach:

• in a station, (any land or other property which consists of premises used as, or for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, a railway passenger station or railway passenger terminal (including any approaches, forecourt, cycle store or car park), whether or not the land or other property is, or the premises are, also used for other purposes)
• on other land used for purposes of or in relation to a railway
• throughout Great Britain for a purpose connected to a railway or to anything occurring on or in relation to a railway.

Note that it is use, not ownership of property that counts (though property owned by a railway is also included). Thus the access road does not need to be private.

In addition, police forces can agree to vary these demarcation lines. Also, they can give each other permission to act in specific circumstances. I suspect that reinforcing police authority may be such a case. What I have in mind is that some apprentice tearaway does something minor - smoking, littering, etc., specifically as a challenge to the authority of an out of area officer, with a spoken or unspoken "you can't touch me" taunt. I can well see that ACPO might conclude that all officers should be given reciprocal powers to enforce in such a case.

Should they bother about milling hordes of smokers? On the grounds of smoking itself probably not, but for obstruction yes, if they think its benefit would outweigh the actual cost (in time) and any cost in annoying people who only contributing slightly to the problem. I'm assuming that the Met., if asked whether they insist on taking over such a task, would say "oh no, please do go ahead and spend your own budget". They may validly resist on the grounds of the annoyance factor, which would affect them too, of course.

I was under the impression that a BTP Police Officer has the same powers as any Constable. Meaning they can uphold the law anywhere in the UK.

Yes, but ... I think the point is that an officer can only reasonably act without reference to superiors within his force to save life, apprehend a criminal, or if he sees a serious crime being committed. It is when referring to superiors comes into it (even just "should I do X or keep on doing what I was sent to do?") that having the wrong superiors makes it impossible in practice to act out of area. Read the Wikipedia page - carefully - for more of the subtleties.

The seriousness of the offence doesn't come into it, or referring to superiors, according to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/24/contents):


So, someone committing an offence, or being suspected of committing an offence, outside railway property, and/or unrelated to the railway, can be arrested by a BTP officer acting alone as long as said officer is in uniform and carrying his warrant card, and can't get help from a local officer without the course of justice being frustrated. The seriousness of the offence, or suspected offence doesn't appear, from the legislation, to matter.

Regarding superior officers, it appears that the ACPO Policing Protocol is after the fact, with BTP's Chief Constable, only being required to notify the local Chief Constable as soon as reasonably practicable where a BTP office has used his powers as a Constable away from his natural jurisdiction.

I'd watch out for the bit of the legal text where the weasels live - that's a seriously difficult sentence, and needs reading several times to make any sense at all. It also has these (bold) subjective bits in it. The officer's belief as to what ought to be done will be based on training and force policy, and the seriousness of the offence will be relevant to his judgement.

In practical terms, the personal power covers only instances where a local officer would leap out of his car or break into a run without using a radio first, and not 100% of those. Once he's on the radio, it's not down to his personal interpretation of these clauses. After all, the text is clear enough that an officer only acts in this way because it has not been possible to for a territorial officer to attend.

I still think the takeaway message is that all police officers have the same powers vis-a-vis any member of the public; and the rest is about precedence between police forces, is not all set out in statute, and it would be unwise to disobey an officer based on your own interpretation of how it ought to work.

Indeed.

So if a BTP officer was to tell me I, and a large group of others, were causing an obstruction by standing outside railway property (not that I believe the access road at Paddington is off railway property) and having a smoke, I'd move on.

I'd not question his authority to do so.

.........in all honesty, if you work in London and are exposed to all the filth & pollution caused by traffic and on the Underground etc, the dreadful trauma of being subjected to some second hand smoke for a nanosecond as you walk past probably isn't going to be much of an issue in the great scheme of things.......I'm sure (I hope) the British Transport Police have better things to do than agonising over whether someone is contravening sub sub paragraph 14 (3) (ii) or whatever it is by taking part in a legal activity on the pavement  ::)

I accept (obviously) that the original post was about Paddington

However on one of my frequent journeys, which terminates at Reigate, it is not possible to enter or leave the platform (2 i think) without passing through what I call smokers corner.

Because smokers use the area outside of the barriers (which I believe is still station property) it is difficult to pass through that area without enjoying second hand smoke.

Although I object to this I am more concerned about any impact on young children whose parents may be delayed due to sorting out ticket issues.

Am I against smoking ? Not really. But I do believe that those who don't smoke should also have the choice not inhale the smoke from those that do smoke

The byelaws say:


Quote
3. Smoking
No person shall smoke or carry a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, match, lighter or other lighted item on any part of the railway on or near which there is a notice indicating that smoking is not allowed.


These rules presumably apply to staff as well as passengers.
Is it permitted to use a match or lighter to light the fire in a steamer  :)
Or the gas fire or cooker in the staff mess room ? :)

Read pedantically, it goes wider still ...

Obstruction on the access road at PAD is unlikely nearly 99% of the time. You can always walk around / between the smokers, the vast majority of whom to congregate now o9n the 'smoking' side of that road. It might be hard fgor the cyclists to cycle through them, but considering they should be dismounting at the bollards anyway, they become pedestrians, referred to above.

I seriously think that a police officer would NOT get an obstruction offence to stick.

Posting in a personal capacity, rather than as an administrator: I agree with ChrisB's assessment of that particular scenario.  :-X

hi All,

Came back through Paddington on Sunday and thought it was a lot better since they put in the ash trays, what more can they do there are signs on the wall and floor.

It is not yet illegal to smoke in a public place, it was the way the law been interpreted at stations dont help, just issue a blanket ban all you do is move people to the entrances.

I smoke I try to obey the rules, I find I have to change my travel patterns. Catching a 15min earlier train and changing at Swindon it helps theres a good split choice but out of the 5 times in the last 3 months the 20.00 has been late arriving at Swindon with the Cardiff train on time behind having to rush out have a quick smoke and back up.

Now fly moslty from Birmingham since i fond the smoking balcony split at Cheltenham just a step outside, splitting flights in Germany or Swiss because they have smoking lounges in Airports and at train stations they have marked areas usually at the end of platforms.

Bignosemac do them electronic devices work and have you had any problem using them?

Basset

I've now been on the electronic devices for three months (bar the odd occasion when I've forgotten to take it with me and have bummed a smoke from travelling companions) and I'm not regretting the decision.

I started with the disposable ones and have moved on to the rechargeable ones with replaceable cartomizers. Currently using the E-lites brand.

I've discovered there's quite a 'vaping' (it's not smoking!) scene out there and the vast majority roundly scorn the disposables and the kits found on the High Street. So I soon may have a device that looks nothing like a traditional cigarette. One I can fill with a vast array of different liquids containing nicotine. Peanut Butter flavour anyone?

As a long-time lapsed smoker myself, I don't want to breath smoke and I'm all for helping people give up (surely all smokers want to give up, in their heart of hearts?)

But I don't see it as the rail industry's job to be anything other than neutral on this - yes it should protect the non-smoking majority from their addicted fellow travellers, but there is no reason why addicts should not be humanely accommodated. There is room in most major stations to provide a smoking area, and at minor stations it would be easy to paint a zone at the downwind end of the platform. Why not?

Cost.

The railway saw an easy way to save money in cleaning costs. Not having to permanently send someone round with a dustpan clearing up the dog-ends everywhere. And its easier to police if its a complete ban.

Except that it's not policed - you only have to count the number of dog-ends in any of the shelters (particularly the one on the down platform) at Nailsea & Backwell to see that, for example.  They've obviously still saved on the cost of staff with a dustpan and brush, though.  ::)

And on policing it too, I guess! :-)

....like I said before, I suspect the Police have better things to do, and more important things to worry about, than supervising those taking part in a legal activity  ::)

Sadly, some of the staff take a more Stalinist approach and I've seen unsuspecting smokers having a cheeky one at the end of a desolate platform get pursued with vigour and given a right verbal lecture!  I've said before that allowing smokers to smoke at station entrances, but not on the end of a quiet platform makes a mockery of the reason the ban was introduced.

Entering Paddington yesterday via the old Cab Road, I noticed that there are 'No smoking' signs painted on the pavement before you get to the red line saying 'No smoking beyond this line'. I saw someone stood smoking outside the line being told to move (rather brusquely), and empathised with their bewilderment...