Re: Drunk cityrail driver

[David Bradshaw <davidbradshaw@my-deja.com>]

In article <3A40A7E8.72B91264@ozemail.com.au>,
  trainman@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> David Bradshaw wrote:
>
> > I understand that there has been consideration of random testing at
> > times other than sign-on. This appears to be a good idea, and
> > preferably it would be done in an efficient manner so that trains
would
> > not be delayed by testing (ie have the testers already waiting at
the
> > station, rather than the driver having to wait to be tested).
> >
> > Has there been any progress with this idea?
>
> They have realised that there would be too much delay to trains if
they
> tried that.  The driver would secure his train, then demand to go to a
> private area for the test.  Then, just for fun, ask to see the
calibration
> certificates for the breathalizer, then check the operator is
accredited in
> its use.  I think the record is a 40 minute delay last time they
tried this
> trick.

Interesting. Out of curiosity, why are some drivers so opposed to the
idea of RBT? Is it considered an invasion of privacy by the drivers?

I have read another poster stating that drivers are well within their
rights to do as you stated above, which would tend to suggest to me
that the regulations need changing - not to remove legitimate rights
from the drivers, such as a right to see calibration certificates or
accreditation, but rather to reduce nuisance delay tactics. Is there
any reason why a police officer should not be able to simply board a
train at a stop, display the relevant certificates and credentials, and
request that the driver undergo a brief test then-and-there (similar to
a automobile drivers test)?

Thanks for your replies. I find this topic interesting, as obviously
the public's welfare is a factor in the debate, as are the legitimate
rights of drivers to conduct themselves with dignity and privacy.

Cheers, David.


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/