Re: Drunk cityrail driver

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

Thanks for your reply Tezza. So if breath testing was indeed actually
randomised  and private, do you think it would be better supported by
drivers? Preferably authorities would have an established randomisation
methodology in order to increase employee confidence in the randomness
of testing. As an example, a computer could randomally choose the day,
station(s), times and frequency for a given set of tests (eg Tuesday, 1-
3pm, Parramatta platform 2, test every 3rd train through). The actual
randomised allocation need not be published in advance, but rather the
*method* should be widely known, so that all involved know that the
testing was indeed randomly allocated in an impartial fashion (so that
there is not the perception of victimisation of any given person).

As a rail-layman, I am curious as to why the train has to be stabled
for a test. Would it not be possible for the testers to discretely
enter the drivers compartment at a stop, and ask the driver to perform
the test in their seat, in a similar manner to the way car drivers are
tested in their cars? Am I missing something (as I say, I am a layman
in these matters)?

I am interested, partly because there is obviously an issue of public
safety and concern, though I realise that the drivers deserve to be
treated reasonably and fairly.

Thanks, David.


In article <3a4a971b$0$8122$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>,
  "Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
> > 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.
>
>


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