Re: Drunk cityrail driver

["Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au>]

"David Bradshaw"
>   trainman@ozemail.com.au wrote:

> > 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?

It's considered an accusation that he's pissed. When police do RBT on the
roads, they select cars at random and test the drivers in relative privacy
without any else knowing anything about it. When they test a Train Driver in
the circumstances mentioned, it's a targeted test against one Driver, with all
the publuc in attendance knowing what's going on, with I'm sure a good many
assuming that he must be pissed, if they're testing him and no-one else.

Another point is that management in the past have used breath-testing to
harrass Drivers. Whenever a Driver reported a signal irregularity, he was
breath-tested.


>
> 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)?

If it was done randomly rather than selectively and in private I don't see why
not. To be done in private though, the Driver has to stable the train.