SMOKING ON BUSES Board Votes 5-2 Against Ban

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30630, 22 December 1964, Page 1

SMOKING ON BUSES Board Votes 5-2 Against Ban

A motion that smoking he banned on Christchurch Transport Board buses from January 1 was lost by five votes to two at a meeting of the board yesterday.

It was moved by the chairman (Mr J. R. Smith), but Mr Smith and Mr R. G. Brown were the only members who supported it.

The works and traffic committee reported that the general manager (Mr J. F. Fardel!) had found that Auckland and Wellington banned smoking on buses, and drivers had experienced no difficulty with the rule.

Courteous notices had been placed in the buses, ano the response had been good. The cleanliness of the buses had improved, and the stale smoke smell was absent from the buses. There had bee- no falling off in patronage.

There were now no matches, butts and cartons on the floors of the buses, and ceilings did not become stained with nicotme.

If the board introduced a no-smoking rule the saving would be about £1730 a year. The committee said that, after a full discussion, it recommended that no action be taken, and the present regulations continue unchanged. Moving his motion, Mr Smith said he had been concerned with smoking on buses since he joined the board in 1951. In 1952 he had moved that smoking be banned, but although the motion had been passed it had been rescinded. How’ever, he was of the same opinion as he had been in 1952. He felt smoking on the buses was unnecessary, and from a health point of view a ban would be appreciated by the large majority of persons.

He thought the board would gain patronage rather than lose it if the ban was im-

posed. He was sure there were many who would not mind going without a cigarette for the few minutes of a bus trip. If they could not go without a cigarette for a few minutes it was a “pretty poor show.” He was not trying to interfere with the right of people, any more than theatres did when they banned smoking. He had not seen a better fleet of buses than that in Christchurch, but they were not so clean inside. “I am certain that stopping smoking will not affect our patronage one iota," Mr Smith said. Mr P. D. Dunbar seconded the motion.

The deputy-chairman (Mr E. J. Bradshaw) said he could not support the motion. He felt any restriction must affect patronage. Neither Auckland nor Wellington was in a position to say whether patronage had been lost because of the ban on smoking. He did not think the board should consider a restriction which might affect patronage. He did not accept that if smoking were banned the board would save £1730 on cleaning. Neither did he agree that Christchurch buses were dirty inside. They were a credit outside and in.

Were drivers going to be stopped from smoking in the buses at termini? he asked. Mr Smith: Yes, inside the bus.

Mr Bradshaw said there was adequate ventilation in the buses to deal with the smoke. Passengers generally were good at observing the existing regulations. Mr R. G. Brown spoke in support of the motion, and

said there were many women and children carried during the day who objected to the smoking. Mr R. H. Stillwell said he thought the saving in cleaning of £1730 was grossly exaggerated. He felt the less interference with the regulations the better. Mrs L. E. Macfarlane said she did not support the motion, and Mr H. E. Denton also expressed opposition. Mr Smith said he did not expect everyone to support him, and it was not the first time he had lost. He took exception to Mr Stillwell’s remark that the figure of £1730 was grossly exaggerated. The general manager was not a man to put a figure down on paper if it was not correct.