Man who'd drunk six pints couldn't get the train home

[Bletchleyite]

It’s the same with many news items, someone who thinks they have been hard done by, don’t look at their previous actions that led to their situation. People have to take responsibility for their actions. If you get drunk or take drugs, they should not expect someone to look after you.
that is not
puritanical

He wasn't asking anyone to look after him, he wanted to take the train, which is not typically an activity that requires anyone to get personally involved in what you are doing.

 

[robbeech]

I took this comment to be related to the absence of toilets on Merseyrail trains. Must admit it was the first thing I thought of when reading the opening post.

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[GB]

He wasn't asking anyone to look after him, he wanted to take the train, which is not typically an activity that requires anyone to get personally involved in what you are doing.

Duty of care automatically applies when a member of public boards a service.

 

[Iskra]

Duty of care automatically applies when a member of public boards a service.

If he was ‘too drunk’ to be on a train, surely he must be too drunk and therefore vulnerable to be left on a platform? Especially with a conductor rail around...

I think there’s a duty of care as long as he’s on railway property.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Duty of care automatically applies when a member of public boards a service.

The basic duty of care is not the same as "looking after someone".

 

[Intermodal]

I think Merseyrail should just decide to stop calling at Chester, and refuse to provide any buses, then they wouldn't have to worry about refusing people transport on an individual basis.

 

[nedchester]

I think Merseyrail should just decide to stop calling at Chester, and refuse to provide any buses, then they wouldn't have to worry about refusing people transport on an individual basis.

Well they've made a start at other stations on the network the weekend after next!

 

[Intermodal]

Well they've made a start at other stations on the network the weekend after next!

Seems to me like Merseyrail fail to recognise the business they are in - transporting people.

 

[ash39]

Ok so let's say you go out for the evening, have a few drinks with friends. You live too far away from the town/city to walk home, so...

Can't drive yourself
Rail staff say you're too drunk to travel, which then means a bus or taxi driver may well take the same stance.
How are you supposed to get home? Hotel is the only option.

I agree with 2 key points. The man in question saying there's no consistency in the policy - fully agree based on the state of some people I've seen on trains.

I also think there's probably more to the story than the man is letting on, as someone pointed out above. I really find it hard to believe he only dropped his ticket.

 

[reb0118]

Just a wee point. The article and certain above posters mention a "guard" and e.g. proximity to the third rail (whatever monstrosity that is?), however, it is my reading that he never made it to the platform, never mind the train, but was stopped at the ticket gates. Have I got that correct?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just a wee point. The article and certain above posters mention a "guard" and e.g. proximity to the third rail (whatever monstrosity that is?), however, it is my reading that he never made it to the platform, never mind the train, but was stopped at the ticket gates. Have I got that correct?

I believe so, yes.

 

[kristiang85]

I presume as the police refused to arrest him initially he wasn't doing anything that wrong?

It is one of those cases where someone might be a bit drunk but if they are still left to their own devices they will get home (I've been there a few times!) - challenging someone will only open you up to causing a problem which wouldn't have been there. And involving the police is just a waste of their time (and probably wouldn't have been needed had they just let him on the train).

 

[AlterEgo]

He expected to be able to board public transport, not have a personal steward to accompany him home.

Agreed. Unless his behaviour was displaying that he was completely incapable (I'm imagining a dropped ticket taking ten attempts to pick up, for example), he's entitled to go for a drink in a city and get public transport home.

How else is he supposed to get into Liverpool to have a night out?

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing worthy of note is that taking several attempts to pick up a ticket is not necessarily an indication of drunkenness, it could be an indication of severe dyspraxia. Merseyrail do need to be careful here, as I believe discrimination cases have succeeded in such instances.

 

[Esker-pades]

One thing worthy of note is that taking several attempts to pick up a ticket is not necessarily an indication of drunkenness, it could be an indication of severe dyspraxia. Merseyrail do need to be careful here, as I believe discrimination cases have succeeded in such instances.

This is an excellent point. I wouldn't want to be in charge of MerseyRail's PR if such an incident happens.

 

[talltim]

Presumably staff on Merseyrail are extra cautious since the Zee case?

 

[Joe Paxton]

I've known colleagues who get 'tipsy' after only a few pints refused entry at Liverpool Central. It's all about how you look when approaching the barriers, if you can't walk in a straight enough line they will spot it and likely refuse you entry. The number of pints is completely irrelevant, but an inability to control your body does concern them.

I know I make a particular effort to walk straight when I get there

Crumbs, if this approach was followed in London (Tube or NR) then there'd be an awful lot of stranded passengers... that, or a riot!

 

[Clip]

Agreed. Unless his behaviour was displaying that he was completely incapable (I'm imagining a dropped ticket taking ten attempts to pick up, for example), he's entitled to go for a drink in a city and get public transport home.

Well the bylaws seemingly differ to what you think

4. Intoxication and possession of intoxicating liquor
(1) No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a state of intoxication.
(2) Where reasonable notice is, or has been, given prohibiting intoxicating liquor on any train service, no person shall have any intoxicating liquor with him on it, or attempt to enter such a train with intoxicating liquor with him.
(3) Where an authorised person reasonably believes that any person is unfit to enter or remain on the railway, or has with him intoxicating liquor contrary to Byelaw 4(2), an authorised person may: (i) require him to leave the railway; and (ii) prevent him entering or remaining on the railway until an authorised person is satisfied that he has no intoxicating liquor with him and/or is no longer in an unfit condition.

Of course how one defines whether someone is intoxicated or not is a different matter however 6 pints with,say an average of 2 units per pint should satisfy you to being classed as intoxicated.

 

[OwlMan]

Well the bylaws seemingly differ to what you think
Of course how one defines whether someone is intoxicated or not is a different matter however 6 pints with,say an average of 2 units per pint should satisfy you to being classed as intoxicated.

Merseyrail have their own bylaws which are slightly different

4 INTOXICATION AND POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL
4.1 No person shall enter, attempt to enter or remain on the railway where that person is
unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a state of intoxication.
4.2 No person shall enter, attempt to enter or remain on the railway while in possession of
an open container of alcohol, unless expressly permitted to do so by the Operator in a
particular area.
4.3 No person shall consume alcohol on the railway, unless expressly permitted to do so by
the Operator in a particular area.
4.4 Without prejudice to Byelaws 4.2 and 4.3, where reasonable notice is, or has been,
given prohibiting alcohol on any train or on any part of the railway, no person shall have
any alcohol with him on such a train or any part of the railway, or attempt to enter such
a train or any part of the railway, whilst in possession of alcohol.
4
4.5 Where an authorised person reasonably believes that any person is unfit to enter or
remain on the railway or is in contravention of any provision of Byelaw 4, the authorised
person may:
(i) require him to leave the railway; and
(ii) prevent him entering or remaining on the railway until the authorised
person is satisfied that he is in a fit state to enter or remain on the
railway and is no longer in contravention of any provision of Byelaw 4.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably staff on Merseyrail are extra cautious since the Zee case?

I believe this (and the other case) are the reasons for the policy shift, which is much stricter than applied by any other TOC.

 

[eastdyke]

Crumbs, if this approach was followed in London (Tube or NR) then there'd be an awful lot of stranded passengers... that, or a riot!

Not just London.
My recent observations at Nottingham on Saturday evenings, last train to XYZ, suggest that BTP and staff on the platforms are helpful to ensure as many as possible make it onto the train.
ie. they want the smallest number possible left at the Station.
No doubt there are limits but quite a few pax would be failing a sobriety test.

 

[Dieseldriver]

A few points on both sides of the argument.
I'm wary of stories like this in the media as generally they are very one sided. As railway staff, we constantly see people on trains and at stations in what can only be described as absolute states. Personally, I have only had problems or had to intervene in extreme cases where an intoxicated person is behaving in an abusive or downright dangerous manner in the railway environment. As much as I am keeping an open mind, I am struggling to believe that this man would have been refused travel unless he truly was abusive/a danger.
The other side of this is attitudes from other railway staff that I have personally witnessed towards drunk passengers. We work in public transport, people who have had a few drinks are incapable of driving and should always be encouraged to catch public transport. We have a duty of care to the reasonable drunk people (99% of them are absolutely no problem at all and generally are pretty happy if not mildly irritating at times ). The way some staff talk about or treat passengers who have had a few drinks is disrespectful and unnecessary in fact, I've witnessed verbal conflicts that IMO have been largely caused by a member of staffs attitude towards the passenger. I've personally experienced a member of staff trying to goad me when I've had a few (few as in ever so slightly tipsy) drinks and it seemed that they were trying to provoke a reaction out of me for absolutely no reason.
Like I said, I personally feel that there is more to this news story but I do think both sides need to consider how they act.
Passengers having a drink need to try and remain capable and not in a state that makes them a danger or a nuisance on the Railway when returning home.
Staff need to bear in mind that one reason for using public transport is to get back home after having a few drinks and we have all been there so try and treat people with the respect they deserve.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A few points on both sides of the argument.
I'm wary of stories like this in the media as generally they are very one sided. As railway staff, we constantly see people on trains and at stations in what can only be described as absolute states. Personally, I have only had problems or had to intervene in extreme cases where an intoxicated person is behaving in an abusive or downright dangerous manner in the railway environment. As much as I am keeping an open mind, I am struggling to believe that this man would have been refused travel unless he truly was abusive/a danger.

Seriously - watch the episode of "The Railway" that covered Merseyrail, it makes it quite clear that they operate a much stricter policy than any other TOC by some margin, I believe it was quoted on that programme as being due to the Martin Zee case as mentioned.

I've been on LNR out of Euston in all sorts of states of intoxication (though never D&D, that's not the effect alcohol has on me) and have never been stopped. But they aren't known for that kind of policy, and I doubt BTP would be in support of stranding drunk people at Euston in any case. Though I guess Euston is a bit different - they would end up trying to sleep around the station front at night, as a taxi would be unaffordable and walking too far, whereas most Merseyrail journeys are fairly short with a taxi being affordable to many people and walking not out of the question (though if you needed to cross the river you'd be stuck trying to walk!)

 

[AlterEgo]

Well the bylaws seemingly differ to what you think

...

Of course how one defines whether someone is intoxicated or not is a different matter however 6 pints with,say an average of 2 units per pint should satisfy you to being classed as intoxicated.

Good luck trying to ban all drunks from the railway. If they're not causing a problem (and it seems this guy wasn't hence the police's refusal to arrest him), I don't see why they shouldn't be carried.

The whole point the guy was raising is that the rules aren't enforced consistently. There are tens of thousands of intoxicated or drunk people on trains every Friday night.

 

[Groningen]

Let him blow in a tube and see how much % he has in his breath.

 

[Adlington]

It's illegal to drive with over nnn% alcohol in your breath. Are you saying there should be a corresponding limit on train passengers?

 

[Clip]

Merseyrail have their own bylaws which are slightly different

Oh aye but not that much different

Good luck trying to ban all drunks from the railway. If they're not causing a problem (and it seems this guy wasn't hence the police's refusal to arrest him), I don't see why they shouldn't be carried.

The whole point the guy was raising is that the rules aren't enforced consistently. There are tens of thousands of intoxicated or drunk people on trains every Friday night.

I never mentioned anything about banning all drunks just merely pointing out to you, of which you should have known, that the bylaws state different to what you claim. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

We can't get BTP to attend serious assaults promptly, the idea of them manning every station in the land to breathalyse Mrs Miggins after a few sherries isn't happening.

We have PSO(Protective services officers, one stop lower than the police) on every single station on the metro network 6PM to last train every night. All 200 something stations. They even appear on some V/Line stations where trains are a bit few and far between.

 

[Adlington]

We have PSO(Protective services officers, one stop lower than the police) on every single station on the metro network

And what do they do if they spot somebody inebriated but not aggressive/abusive?

 

[Bookd]

I have an old Bus Eireann timetable from 1994; one of the regulations (which may also have applied to Iarnrod trains) stipulates that no passenger should enter or remain on the company's vehicles having consumed intoxicating liquor.
It is surprising that they had any passengers at all!