Mandatory No Smoking signs in commercial vehicles/rep cars

Discussion in 'Electricians' Talk' started by Smokey, Nov 28, 2016.

  1. Smokey

    Smokey Active Member

  2. Lectrician

    Lectrician Screwfix Select

    I bought a new van last week, and between initially looking at it being delivered, a no smoking sign had appeared on the top left of the windscreen. I assume the dealership do this as standard now?
     
  3. FatHands

    FatHands Well-Known Member

    That's madness!!!

    What van did you get lec?
     
  4. koolpc

    koolpc Super Member

    One with 4 wheels i think :cool:
     
  5. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select


    Not so sure, saw this on his driveway.

    download.jpg
     
    Joe95 likes this.
  6. koolpc

    koolpc Super Member

  7. Pollowick

    Pollowick Screwfix Select

    Rule has been around for years ... I got a nice new Jaguar as a company car and the company H&S manager issued 150x100 sticky No Smoking signs to be fitted. I refused as it would damage the interior leather.

    My current car has an insert in the lighter socket with a No Smoking symbol on it - that is enough to meet the rules.
     
  8. More PC madness from the nanny state ripping off the motorist again.
    They should be nicking pushbike users for all the offences they commit daily, as they are a hazard to all drivers and pedestrians.
     
  9. Lectrician

    Lectrician Screwfix Select

    Most new vans don't even have an ash tray or lighter - Just 12v accessory sockets.
     
  10. Get a butt bucket for the cup tray as they charge a fortune to fit an ashtray.

    upload_2016-11-28_17-6-12.jpeg
     
  11. tina lucinda lane

    tina lucinda lane Screwfix Select

    yea like with the lights blinking on and off total breach of the law (as far as im aware) that all lights should be a steady light (ie not flashing or blinking) except for direct dynmo feed lights which may not be steady (due to the surge nature of a dynmo)
     
  12. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    Utter nonsense. From the highway code:

    "Flashing lights are permitted but cyclists riding in areas without street lighting should use a steady front lamp instead."

    "Pushbike users" are unlikely to cause damage to drivers and the cases of them causing damage to pedestrians is very limited. I admit there are a not insignificant number of cyclists flouting laws (jumping red lights etc which I hate), but don't put all cyclists in the same basket. The same could be applied to drivers - there are many breaking the speed limit which is far more dangerous to everyone, but that doesn't make all drivers dangerous people.

    This is label politics at its worst. And don't dare to mention road tax...
     
    2shortplanks likes this.
  13. tina lucinda lane

    tina lucinda lane Screwfix Select

    well then i was wrong about that fair enough and it was a attack at rules not being enforced rather than at cyclists and yes i do think you should pay road tax but not gonna blame them cus they dont (but some blink so fast they strobe which is health hazard)
     
  14. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    "yea like with the lights blinking on and off total breach of the law"

    No, that's an attack on cyclists, using flashing lights, which they are entitled to do.

    And I said not to mention road tax, which you did, highlighting again your ignorance on these matters. Road tax doesn't exist, no one pays it. Actually it might be argued that everyone pays "road tax" as roads are funded out of general taxation. Car owners have to pay "Vehicle Excise Duty" (VED) which is a tax on the car and its based on vehicle emissions. On that basis, if cyclists had to pay this tax they'd pay nothing as cyclists emit no emissions. Of course, most cyclists also own a car so they pay VED anyway.
     
  15. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    Yeah cyclists do tend to bounce off windscreens instead of going through them. :p:p:p:p
     
  16. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    Indeed JJ, and don't get me started on "cyclists should have insurance", like what should they be insured against??? May be they should have legal protection so they can sue the driver of the lorry that just crushed them to death :rolleyes:
     
  17. joinerjohn1

    joinerjohn1 Screwfix Select

    David, surely if they've been "crushed to death" by a lorry, they'll have a great deal of difficulty suing the lorry driver.. (their family might not however) ;);)
     
  18. Dr Bodgit

    Dr Bodgit Super Member

    You get my point...cycle insurance is a bit useless. Third party insurance and legal protection however is not, which comes as part of the package with British Cycling for example, I think £35/year (have just renewed mine). Yes, I am a MAMIL :p
     
  19. The lorry driver should be sueing the family of the cyclist, for causing the accident,lorry repairs and time off work.
     
    Joe95, longboat and Phil the Paver like this.
  20. Phil the Paver

    Phil the Paver Screwfix Select


    I take it your a cyclist, well let me tell you my view on them, 99.99999999% are complete ********* the other 0.00000001% are just about ok.

    Road tax did exist it had just been changed to an environmental tax, thats about to change back to being a road tax and yes you should pay it, you use the road like everybody else.
    As for insurance yes you should have it, to cover the cost of the haulage firms time off the road investigating the reason why a stupid cyclist decided to put themselves under the wheels, yes the cyclist putting themselves there, look it up, not a single lorry driver found to be at fault in London in resent times.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice