Innocent set to suffer the most (From York Press)

Innocent set to suffer the most

11:00am Thursday 28th June 2007

• Print
• Email
• Share

WHAT an absolute farce.

I have just read the article about Jim Kerr, the taxi driver who, when the smoking ban comes into force, will be faced with a fine of £2,500 if any of his passengers light up while in his cab, while the smoker him or herself only has to pay a measly £50.

This is as crassly unjust as fining bartenders for selling alcohol to underage people when the real culprits, the drinkers, get off scot-free.

Punishment of any sort should surely apply to the person who smokes, the actual law-breaker. In these violent times, Jim is justifiably concerned that if a passenger wants to smoke while travelling, he may suffer a nasty attack or worse if he dares to question them.

He would be the innocent party, yet he would have to pay - can this be right, or is the law even more of an ass than I suspect? Drivers face enough dangers in their job as it is, and are fully aware that when drunk, or even when not, some men will lash out at anyone without so much as a second thought.

Women, too, nowadays just as likely to be smokers, and just as aggressively drunk, can always play their trump card, accusing an innocent driver of a sexual attack, which may be less painful, but cause far more serious damage to his job and reputation.

I have always believed that taxis, like buses, coaches and other forms of transport should be smoke-free - they stink to high heaven if even a single cigarette is smoked while inside, and anyone inconsiderate enough to smoke in a taxi, knowing the unpleasant effect on the next passenger, and the driver, should certainly be fined. But why on earth should the driver suffer, too?

Heather Causnett, Escrick Park Gardens, Escrick, York.

• Print
• Email
• Share