to expect coach drivers not to smoke

[GoEngland]

Background: DD has just returned from a school day trip and has told me that they had to wait outside the coach whilst the driver finished smoking inside the coach. As the DC in question are 12+ they did ask why he was smoking and the teachers told him that they had special ventilation .
AIBU to expect better from teachers/school, like refusing to get on the coach.

Surely he's not allowed to smoke in his workplace - ie the coach. I would check that the school have reported him

It's illegal and him or his employers could be fined up to £2,000.

P.S I think it's ridiculous to expect the teachers to not get on the coach - what on earth do you expect them to do - leave themselves stranded with 50 or so kids? That would be utterly irresponsible. I would, however, expect them to report the driver to the coach company - and they probably have.

You say it is ridiculous to not get on the coach but the DC had already been told if they returned wet they would not be allowed to get on and would have to get the train home.

I have emailed the school for an explanation, they problem that I have is that they are going on a longer trip on Monday and don't know if they are using the same company again.

Who told the children they would not be allowed on the coach and would have to get the train instead? And how would the staffing have worked for that?

Have you seen the forms a school as to complete, and register with the Local Authority, for trips out of school? Have you seen the risk assessment? Because it would be pages long. The level of detail is immense. I find it hard to believe the school would organise a trip which meant the kids 'might come home on the coach but might have to catch a train'.

Presumably the teachers were just saying that to make sure the kids didn't get wet. Sorry, but I wouldn't get stroppy with the coach driver who was the sole means of getting me and 50 kids home. Not until he'd got us there, anyway.

Haha - refuse to get on the coach

Me thinks someone should get something bigger to worry about.

As for wet kids not being allowed on - teachers have trotted that line out since the dawn of time, as if they would actually make a 12 year old get a train home.

How long did the kiddies have to wait, 2 mins? Get a life.

YANBU. I would phone the coach company and ask about their policy. If they say smoking is allowed then point out that it's illegal and also inappropriate for school trips.

The driver should not have been smoking on his coach - it's illegal. I'll bet his boss is furious. I run a coach company and would give verbal warning for this.

No point in refusing to get on the coach though. Bit ott tbh.

SouthMum so glad to see that you didn't get the point, the children had no problem with waiting to get on the coach, it was why they were having to wait that was the issue. Maybe instead of me getting a life, you should grow up.
What the coach driver was doing was illegal and whilst I know many parents think that smoking in front of, in same room as children is acceptable, I don't.

Agreed, but your greivance should be with the coach company, not the teachers. What else were they supposed to have done?!

I am a bit confused. Who was it who decided the children could not get on the coach until he had finished - the teachers or the coach driver?

If it was the teachers then maybe they were making an on the spot decision about what was best in the circumstance, i.e. they might have been surprised and put out at the driver smoking and thought keeping the kids out of the way until he was finished was appropriate. The ventilation story could have been just something to fob the kids off with so they didn't get stroppy. For all you know maybe the teachers have already complained.

If it was the driver then I agree he was out of order but maybe this was just some mad way of making it seem OK - i.e. "I didn't do it when the kids were actually on the coach!"

TBH this is not something I would get at all wworked up about. Perhaps he needed a quick ciggie to calm his nerves before driving the little darlings home again! [JOKE!]

The old guy who drove our school bus used to smoke a pipe. It was OK thought he didn't try to light it while he was actually driving - he used to get one of the big lads to do that for him.

oh was there a point? must have missed it.

YNBU.....as already said, it IS illegal.... & okay it might not be in theteaching job description,

but got to admit I'm a bit surprised that none of the Teaching staff stood up to the Coach driver & had him stand outside & smoke whilst the Kids & staff sat on the coach in comfort.....I certainly wouldn't of stood by, & not reminded him of his legal responsibilities in his "public service role "...I personally do find that a bit slack

Well don't worry about it - you shouldn't ever be teaching anyway if you think 'I wouldn't of stood by' is correct!

By violethill Sat 12-Jun-10 18:49:06
Well don't worry about it - you shouldn't ever be teaching anyway if you think 'I wouldn't of stood by' is correct! grin

Oh dear me, Trolls out to play again is it......

poor little thing really needs to get a life if all it has to do with its time is count responses & pick holes in others more genuine replies & accidental mistakes........not like its showing it knows the rules of grammar in practice now is it

YANBU, it is illegal and that is for a reason, I sincerely hope the teachers have already taken it up with whoever and that they were just improvising to avoid a terrible scene ending with the coach driver driving off and leaving the them and kids stranded. Quite actually.

whispers, I don't think violethill is a troll. She is just accurate!

In my many years of teaching this has never happened to me, but if it had I would have had to make light of it in front of the children. There is no group more prone to hysterics than 12 year old girls - can you imagine the drama!?!
Yes it is illegal and irresponsible of the driver, but what was the alternative?

Whispers back ..... I'm never sure on here with the name change facility, & theres does seem to be troll like behaviour,....& thats not accurate....just nit picking for the sake of it, which doesn't make for a very pleasant personality, still needs to get a life & smacks of antagonism....its a forum....not writing an essay or book......& I'm not looking to impress anyone..... so I can hardly be blamed for presuming it might be a troll

& yes, I can see your point as far as 12 yr old girls go, but with a bit of creative thinking, I still think a way could have been found to pull the Driver up, & have him act responsibly, Though that said.......I'm surprised some presume he would of driven off & left everyone.....that would of been furthest from my mind, after all he's either got a Boss to impress, or is self employed & needs to keep his reputation in tact.....either way, he'd have to be pretty bloody stupid not to realise he was in the wrong & back down PDQ

But MN is a broad church so of course you will get people who are pedantic about grammar and spelling (should of/could of are pet hates of mine too), some who are feistier than others, some who like to have a bit of a ding-dong etc etc.
And the disclaimer at the top of AIBU states that people will disgree with you (and maybe even your use of language).

violethill is not a troll, don't be so ridiculous.

Mind you, I am pissing myself at the thought that a grammar troll is at large

If you are going to criticise teachers on a thread with teachers on it, expect the red pens to come out.

Copied this from the Smookefree website

'Which places must be smokefree?

Smokefree premises

The new smokefree law applies to virtually all 'enclosed' and 'substantially enclosed' public places and workplaces. This includes both permanent structures and temporary ones such as tents and marquees. This also means that indoor smoking rooms in public places and workplaces are no longer allowed.

Premises are considered 'enclosed' if they have a ceiling or roof and (except for doors, windows or passageways) are wholly enclosed either on a permanent or temporary basis.

Premises are considered 'substantially enclosed' if they have a ceiling or roof, but have an opening in the walls, which is less than half the total area of the walls. The area of the opening does not include doors, windows or any other fittings that can be opened or shut.

If you require further guidance on whether your premises are 'enclosed' or 'substantially enclosed' please contact your local council.

Click here to locate your local council (new window)

Smokefree vehicles

The new law also requires vehicles to be smokefree at all times if they are used:

• to transport members of the public or
• in the course of paid or voluntary work by more than one person - regardless of whether they are in the vehicle at the same time.

Vehicles that are used primarily for private purposes are not be required to be smokefree.'

It is very clear that the driver was breaking the law and he should be reported for doing so. I would contact the school on Monday morning and ask if they are in the process of making a complaint to the coach company themselves and, if not, I would make a complaint myself. I do agree that this situation would put the teachers in an awful position, but I would have expected them to report the breach of law upon their return.