Re: Drunk cityrail driver

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

"David Bradshaw" <davidbradshaw@my-deja.com> wrote in message
92envm$nmr$1@nnrp1.deja.com">news:92envm$nmr$1@nnrp1.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?

Probably, though I suspect there would always be some resistance to it, just
as there is with RBt for car drivers.


> As a rail-layman, I am curious as to why the train has to be stabled
> for a test.

So that the Driver can go to a location where he can be tested privately
without everyone stickybeaking.


> Would it not be possible for the testers to discretely

Dressed like stormtroopers? Not likely.


> 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)?

As I pointed out before, someone being tested in their car has relative
privacy, there's no onlookers. A Train Driver will be under observation by
passengers on the platform who will probably assume that he must be drunk,
otherwise why would they be there to test him?