Drunk depot driver sentenced

61653 HTAFC · 9 Jan 2020

GB said:
They guy was over the limit yes, but not sure why we are assuming he was "pissed" or had a problem.

Those two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive. Some problem drinkers are very good at hiding the obvious effects of alcohol, some are so desensitized to it that masking it is second-nature, and some are so often a bit squiffy that those around them think that's how they are naturally.

In all these cases, these people have a problem. In all cases they aren't safe to be driving any vehicle, let alone a train.

RailUK Forums

Edders23 · 9 Jan 2020

talltim said:
Years ago my friend had his car (a pride and joy Renault 4!) T-boned and written off at a junction by a driver who came through on a red light. The other driver went into the pub on the corner and had two swift shots of vodka 'to steady his nerve' before the police arrived. They breathalyzed him but of course he was over the limit!
While I suspect that the depot shunter in this case was drunk at the time, breathalyzing after the subject has had a drink after the incident proves nothing.

having a drink after an accident of any sort is a stupid thing to do because you will be tested whether it is a road,rail or industrial accident and alcohol consumed afterwards is not deducted from the result. had the driver not had an a collision he would probably have not been caught

I do notice at heritage Galas you do get groups of drivers necking a lot of beer and I often wonder if they start work a day or so later with it not clear of their system

There are many out there of a morning who whilst not intending to drive (cars) whilst under the influence probably don't realise they are so maybe this also applies to drivers or pilots of other forms of transport

Carlisle · 9 Jan 2020

61653 HTAFC said:
Some problem drinkers are very good at hiding the obvious effects of alcohol, some are so desensitized to it that masking it is second-nature,

I think the above applies to many addictions, not just alcoholism.

Stigy · 9 Jan 2020

robert7111a said:
A very sad story indeed and thankfully, nobody got hurt.

However to be fair, was it actually known that the driver was drunk whilst shunting the train?

Smelling alcohol from 3 metres away cannot be concrete proof, nor can a "forensic back calculation" estimate be either. And fancy breathalising him after a bottle of wine...of course it's going to prove he was over the limit - but this doesn't prove he was drunk whilst on duty. I smell something fishy going on here

But it doesn't excuse the fact that he went home without reporting the mishap. Yes he's going to be shaken up; who won't be? Also a shame that his career will have come to a sudden end so close to (probable) retirement

Indeed it could never be 100%, however, no matter how stressed after such an incident, it's not normal behaviour to leave the site, then go and down a bottle of wine. Unless you want to mask the fact that you were 'drunk' on duty, and maybe say that is the reason you're drunk now, is because you've just done nearly a whole bottle of wine at home. Of course you'd be over the limit.

father_jack · 9 Jan 2020

There was a guard taken off a train at Temple Meads years ago, Wessex days maybe, long enough ago that the newspaper story is no longer on Google.

Alcoholic, drinking during shift. Nice person. Manager did everything to get them off the train but they refused. (Same manager wasn't as kind to others on lesser charges mind you....)

BTP called, court, ended up with suspended sentence.

Makes you wonder how the traincrew manglement never got wind (or breath) of any ongoing issue though.

Deepgreen · 9 Jan 2020

43066 said:
He may well be an alcoholic, but alcoholism can never be an excuse for the reckless (and criminal) irresponsibility of going to work and driving trains while under the influence.

All TOCs have a clearly stated policy that staff members who come forward and admit they have a drink problem will be supported through treatment. But that policy relies on affected staff members doing the right thing and admitting to the problem before they are at risk of performing their duties while under the influence.

It’s regrettable that this guy didn’t do the responsible thing and seek help for his condition before it was too late.

Yes. Alcoholism/addiction, though, very often robs a person of the correct perspective to 'do the right thing'. It can alter the sufferer's viewpoint such that their perception of their problem and ability to perform are severely compromised. This doesn't excuse the behaviour in any way, but it can mean that good people end up doing bad things when trapped in a spiral of addiction. Many people fear that seeking help will expose them to punishment/ridicule/being ostracised, and simply cannot afford to do so.

Deepgreen · 9 Jan 2020

al78 said:
This sums up what I loathe most about forums like this. Someone makes a fair point that they could have some sympathy for the perpetrator based on the possibility he could have been suffering with alcoholism, or mental issues, whatever, explicitly states he is not using this as an excuse for his crime, and then someone else comes along, and throws in a massive strawman with appeal to emotion, to twist it into the most disgusting hyperbole possible. Jesus Christ!!!!

I appreciate emotions run high in cases like this where recklessness has put innocent lives at risk, but for goodness sake, use intelligence to override at least some of the emotion with logic.

I was almost killed by a careless driver a few years ago, but I still harbour forgiveness and sympathy for the driver, and what he must have gone through emotionally, and I would have liked the opportunity to meet him personally to offer my forgiveness.

Very well said.

O L Leigh · 9 Jan 2020

Edders23 said:
There are many out there of a morning who whilst not intending to drive (cars) whilst under the influence probably don't realise they are so maybe this also applies to drivers or pilots of other forms of transport

The rule of thumb that I was given as a trainee driver was that, from the time you stop drinking, it takes 1 hour plus 1 hour for each unit of alcohol consumed for your body to process and excrete the alcohol. For a woman it's 1.5 hours plus 1.5 hours per unit.

Edders23 · 9 Jan 2020

O L Leigh said:
The rule of thumb that I was given as a trainee driver was that, from the time you stop drinking, it takes 1 hour plus 1 hour for each unit of alcohol consumed for your body to process and excrete the alcohol. For a woman it's 1.5 hours plus 1.5 hours per unit.

which is why I am almost completely teetotal I average 1 unit of alcohol per year because my license is my livelihood so I never risk it but many do unfortunately including passengers who put themselves at risk of getting bumped off a flight due to excessive consumption which is something that should be done with trains

Antman · 9 Jan 2020

al78 said:
This sums up what I loathe most about forums like this. Someone makes a fair point that they could have some sympathy for the perpetrator based on the possibility he could have been suffering with alcoholism, or mental issues, whatever, explicitly states he is not using this as an excuse for his crime, and then someone else comes along, and throws in a massive strawman with appeal to emotion, to twist it into the most disgusting hyperbole possible. Jesus Christ!!!!

I appreciate emotions run high in cases like this where recklessness has put innocent lives at risk, but for goodness sake, use intelligence to override at least some of the emotion with logic.

I was almost killed by a careless driver a few years ago, but I still harbour forgiveness and sympathy for the driver, and what he must have gone through emotionally, and I would have liked the opportunity to meet him personally to offer my forgiveness.

I'm sure we've all been careless drivers at some time or other, drunk drivers is another matter.

Raul_Duke · 9 Jan 2020

Deepgreen said:
Very well said.

You two are both entitled to think what you want.

Is alcohol dependency and addiction / illness? Yes of course it is.

But if he turns up to work rather than going sick / attempting to get help through the numerous channels the railway has and then operates a train under the influence of alcohol, putting other people’s lives at risk, whether through addiction or not, then I have no sympathy.

ASLEF will support any member who is seeking help for alcohol addiction, but not one who turns up to drive a train pissed, and I think that says it all.

You can make comments from your high horses about “straw man,” arguments all you like. I’m sure the victims relatives of Cannon Street and Eltham Well Hall would be comforted by your sympathy for people who kill passengers though their addiction.

Antman · 9 Jan 2020

Raul_Duke said:
You two are both entitled to think what you want.

Is alcohol dependency and addiction / illness? Yes of course it is.

But if he turns up to work rather than going sick / attempting to get help through the numerous channels the railway has and then operates a train under the influence of alcohol, putting other people’s lives at risk, whether through addiction or not, then I have no sympathy.

ASLEF will support any member who is seeking help for alcohol addiction, but not one who turns up to drive a train pissed, and I think that says it all.

You can make comments from your high horses about “straw man,” arguments all you like. I’m sure the victims relatives of Cannon Street and Eltham Well Hall would be comforted by your sympathy for people who kill passengers though their addiction.

I totally agree with you, the bottom line is that if he wasn't fit for work he shouldn't have gone in and should have sought the appropriate help.

43066 · 9 Jan 2020

Raul_Duke said:
But if he turns up to work rather than going sick / attempting to get help through the numerous channels the railway has and then operates a train under the influence of alcohol, putting other people’s lives at risk, whether through addiction or not, then I have no sympathy.
.

I think this is the key point.

I do have some sympathy for the guy, don’t get me wrong - he’s lost his career, probably ruined his life, and I’m sure now bitterly regrets his actions.

Let’s face it, he wouldn’t be the first on the railway to develop this kind of problem: shifts; isolation; fatigue etc. - the job can be extremely mentally draining at times.

But support is there for those who realise they have a problem and ask for it. Turning up drunk (or even just over the railway limit) is a complete no go, whatever the circumstances.

Y Ddraig Coch · 9 Jan 2020

Raul_Duke said:
You two are both entitled to think what you want.

Is alcohol dependency and addiction / illness? Yes of course it is.

But if he turns up to work rather than going sick / attempting to get help through the numerous channels the railway has and then operates a train under the influence of alcohol, putting other people’s lives at risk, whether through addiction or not, then I have no sympathy.

ASLEF will support any member who is seeking help for alcohol addiction, but not one who turns up to drive a train pissed, and I think that says it all.

You can make comments from your high horses about “straw man,” arguments all you like. I’m sure the victims relatives of Cannon Street and Eltham Well Hall would be comforted by your sympathy for people who kill passengers though their addiction.

You clearly know very little about dependency or addiction, they don't realise there is an issue, when they do their brain is usually not thinking like a regular person due to addiction/ condition , they, drink, take drugs, hide a medical affliction to make things look "normal" because they don't know what else to do.

To a "normal" person , obviously seeking help, medical advice etc is the correct thing to do. People s brains are complex things and once affected other influences cloud judgement.

To give an example, I live in an area of North Wales with a extremely high elderly population, due to this just the last few years, people have died after them crashing through barriers and killing others, they have crashed cars into the sea, they have run their owm spouses over pressing the wrong pedal on the car.

Not one, of these people sought help, they continued to drive, they killed or inured people and made life changing injuries.

Not one of these elderly people ever got put in jail or more than a slap on the wrist. Im not even sure any of them where actually charged with anything.
Because they are "old " and didn't mean it and used to be a charity worker and survived the war...….. truth is they know their sight is going and they struggle to feel their left leg, cant walk without a stick, sometimes even at all without a mobility scooter. But they continue to drive.

My issue is people have many and varying issues. Nobody should defend anyone who has done something wrong, but all of us should understand that we all have issues, small or large, seeking help is something we as a nation don't do.

I believe (going from memory not fact) prostate cancer is the biggest killer of men o f a certain age in the UK. DO most men know they have an issue, Yes, do they see a doctor? No. Why , the same as alcoholics, drug users and old people suffering with mobility issues don't. Pride and shame in equal measure.

I'm not saying any of this relates to the driver in question but my god some of you on here have a poor attitude and 0 % compassion. I hope you never fall foul of any affliction or disability.

Adam Williams · 10 Jan 2020

cactustwirly said:
You sure about that? A Forensic back track calculation, is accurate and is accepted by the courts. It's a well recognised formula that takes into account the weight, height, age of the person, and calculates the alcohol elimination rate of the liver.
Maybe the amount of wine consumed was measured and alcohol content consumed quantified, and this would have been taken into account.

I agree smelling alcohol from 3 metres away, cannot be concrete proof on it's own.

Although I hope they used a blood sample for proper lab analysis, rather than a breathylser.

The government's own guidance says:

This process is, however, based on the assumption that over the period between the time of interest and the time the sample was taken the alcohol concentration in the person’s blood is decreasing. If this is not true then the result of the back calculation may be inaccurate. It could significantly overestimate the alcohol concentration.
It follows that back calculation should not be performed if it is likely the alcohol concentration was not decreasing for the whole calculation period.

I'm honestly not sure how much could be concluded if the individual immediately left the scene and started drinking. I'd have thought you'd have very little way to know over what time period they'd drunk the additional alcohol and the way in which it might have affected the rate of decline.

This seems like a poor argument to try and use in court for these reasons (not that it looked to matter, since "the defendant was found guilty in his absence during an earlier hearing"). Failing to provide the specimen and failing to stick around after the incident are big enough problems, I think!

bramling · 10 Jan 2020

43066 said:
I think this is the key point.

I do have some sympathy for the guy, don’t get me wrong - he’s lost his career, probably ruined his life, and I’m sure now bitterly regrets his actions.

Let’s face it, he wouldn’t be the first on the railway to develop this kind of problem: shifts; isolation; fatigue etc. - the job can be extremely mentally draining at times.

But support is there for those who realise they have a problem and ask for it. Turning up drunk (or even just over the railway limit) is a complete no go, whatever the circumstances.

I’m afraid it’s an area where my sympathy level is low; not zero, but low.

Myself and a colleague were instrumental in identifying a driver booking on heavily under the influence of alcohol. The necessary business was reluctantly but professionally done, and the long and short of it is the individual is no longer employed in the industry. At the time we were sympathetic, even a little sad, about the individual’s self-inflicted plight. How wrong this sympathy turned out to be. Unfortunately it’s not appropriate to post more on the subject, suffice to say it turned out this individual’s character, personality and history was extremely “interesting”.

Mathew S · 10 Jan 2020

Clip said:
He is lucky he didnt kill anyone, however, for clarity , Alcoholism is an illness and whilst im not using that as an excuse for his behaviour, some of you with your crass posts claiming he 'deserves everything he gets' need to remember that he may have been ill.

And when you start picking on peoples illness then you lose all credibility

Well said. It's not an excuse, of course, but people don't just commit crimes for a laugh (well, in most cases). There are reasons, and understanding those reasons is key to stopping the same thing happening again.

Bertie the bus · 10 Jan 2020

Just one question. There has been plenty written about how he may be an alcoholic and how that might have affected his judgement and that he might have been too ashamed to seek help, but is there anything anywhere to suggest he is an alcoholic and not just a reckless individual who has little regard for others' safety?

Mathew S · 10 Jan 2020

There's no excuse for breaking the law, but there's always a reason it happens, and understanding those reasons helps prevent more problems happening in future.

Raul_Duke · 10 Jan 2020

Mathew S said:
There's no excuse for breaking the law, but there's always a reason it happens, and understanding those reasons helps prevent more problems happening in future.

As I say, I never ever want to see a driver lose their job, and I sympathise with this guy, clearly he’s in a dark place, but sometimes you buy the ticket you take the ride.

cactustwirly · 10 Jan 2020

Adam Williams said:
The government's own guidance says:

I'm honestly not sure how much could be concluded if the individual immediately left the scene and started drinking. I'd have thought you'd have very little way to know over what time period they'd drunk the additional alcohol and the way in which it might have affected the rate of decline.

This seems like a poor argument to try and use in court for these reasons (not that it looked to matter, since "the defendant was found guilty in his absence during an earlier hearing"). Failing to provide the specimen and failing to stick around after the incident are big enough problems, I think!

You would visit the suspects house, and measure how much had been consumed from open containers etc, as well as interview the suspect to determine when exactly they would have started drinking.
This would then be taken into account when performing the backtrack calculation.

Need2 · 10 Jan 2020

So in theory, this guy (or anyone for that matter) could have an incident, leave the scene, open the front door to the police and state that you have just necked half a bottle of scotch.
Until anyone can prove otherwise that you have drunken nothing (or next to) since the incident, how can a back track calculation EVER be safe?

endecotp · 10 Jan 2020

It was 27th December.

If it had been some random tuesday in april, yes there’s a good chance he was an alcoholic or other regular drinker. But on 27th December, this sounds like someone who had far too much to drink on Boxing Day.

Yes it would take a lot of booze to still be over the limit at 4pm the next day, but if you stay up till the early hours it’s far from impossihle.

O L Leigh · 10 Jan 2020

Need2 said:
So in theory, this guy (or anyone for that matter) could have an incident, leave the scene, open the front door to the police and state that you have just necked half a bottle of scotch.
Until anyone can prove otherwise that you have drunken nothing (or next to) since the incident, how can a back track calculation EVER be safe?

The use of backtrack calculations were explained by @Kingspanner on the previous page.

Basically, they can calculate how much of the blood alcohol in your system is as a consequence of the half bottle of scotch you've just necked. What's left in your system must be as a consequence of the earlier period of intoxication that you're trying to mask and, by calculating the rate of decline, they can determine how much blood alcohol you will have had in your system at the time of the incident. If that figure is zero then clearly you were not intoxicated at the time of the incident and all is well, but if not they can use the rate of decline to establish your blood alcohol level at the time of the incident.

Rates of decline and so on are well established and known through scientific experimentation, so there is a huge body of evidence to back them up making the backtrack calculation "safe". Not only is it scientifically sound but it's already been tested in the courts and used to establish guilt.

If you'd drunk nothing at all since the incident then your blood alcohol would be continuing to decline to a lower level. Saying that you'd just had a drink when in truth you hadn't is a dangerous strategy because you will be asked to provide details of precisely what you'd drunk and any containers would be seized for testing. If your blood alcohol level does not then match what the experimental evidence says it should be then you will only give the investigating authority grounds to carry out further investigation by casting doubt over your own testimony. The likely outcome would be that the investigating authority would not believe that you'd "topped up" and would back calculate your blood alcohol level based on only a single period of intoxication.

Trisha · 10 Jan 2020

O L Leigh said:
The use of backtrack calculations were explained by @Kingspanner on the previous page.

Basically, they can calculate how much of the blood alcohol in your system is as a consequence of the half bottle of scotch you've just necked. What's left in your system must be as a consequence of the earlier period of intoxication that you're trying to mask and, by calculating the rate of decline, they can determine how much blood alcohol you will have had in your system at the time of the incident. If that figure is zero then clearly you were not intoxicated at the time of the incident and all is well, but if not they can use the rate of decline to establish your blood alcohol level at the time of the incident.

Rates of decline and so on are well established and known through scientific experimentation, so there is a huge body of evidence to back them up making the backtrack calculation "safe". Not only is it scientifically sound but it's already been tested in the courts and used to establish guilt.

If you'd drunk nothing at all since the incident then your blood alcohol would be continuing to decline to a lower level. Saying that you'd just had a drink when in truth you hadn't is a dangerous strategy because you will be asked to provide details of precisely what you'd drunk and any containers would be seized for testing. If your blood alcohol level does not then match what the experimental evidence says it should be then you will only give the investigating authority grounds to carry out further investigation by casting doubt over your own testimony. The likely outcome would be that the investigating authority would not believe that you'd "topped up" and would back calculate your blood alcohol level based on only a single period of intoxication.

I am wondering why there was no indication of his situation when signing on for work? Working at a Maintenance depot you are expected to see your Supervisor for your start of shifts brief, also was he not in contact with fellow drivers in a messroom beforehand after getting changed for work? Is there a worry from other staff about reporting someone suspected of being under the influence? Personally after working for just under 30yrs on the railway i feel that Contractors in particular have a tendency to be less strict than Maintenance staff in relation to Safety aspects, even after inductions at the Depot.

O L Leigh · 10 Jan 2020

I don’t know what the procedures are for depot drivers booking on at Selhurst, but I’ve seen them doing it elsewhere at other locations run by other TOCs and it seems to be that they book on remotely by phone. As such they don’t tend to see the depot supervisor prior to starting duty. Also if movements are controlled by radio then there isn’t even a necessity for them to be in the messroom at all so it wouldn’t be that hard to hide away from the rest of the team. This may not even be considered unusual if this is what an individual usually does.

I’ve never yet encountered an intoxicated colleague attempting to book on, but if I did then I’d not be unstinting in my criticism of them and insist that they book sick and go home. Would I then report it to the managers? I’m not sure. I think I’d want to talk to the driver concerned first to try and get a handle on the situation first. I think I’d also mention it to the LLC in confidence.

It’s a tricky one because knowing our management it’s likely to result in an overreaction because they would likely see it as the driver attempting to conceal the problem. If I’ve prevented someone booking on in an intoxicated state I have prevented them from committing gross misconduct, but our glorious leaders may not see it that way. What I would expect, though, is for the driver concerned to self-report any issues he/she is having to the management in order that they can access the required support. I think that would elicit a better and more supportive response to the benefit of all involved.

Islineclear3_1 · 10 Jan 2020

Trisha said:
Is there a worry from other staff about reporting someone suspected of being under the influence?

I don't know about the railway but people in my industry do get worried about whistleblowing in case they are seen as troublemakers. There have been many high profile cases where whistleblowers have been dismissed/forced out of their jobs for reporting dangerous, life-threatening activities

Dieseldriver · 11 Jan 2020

O L Leigh said:
I don’t know what the procedures are for depot drivers booking on at Selhurst, but I’ve seen them doing it elsewhere at other locations run by other TOCs and it seems to be that they book on remotely by phone. As such they don’t tend to see the depot supervisor prior to starting duty. Also if movements are controlled by radio then there isn’t even a necessity for them to be in the messroom at all so it wouldn’t be that hard to hide away from the rest of the team. This may not even be considered unusual if this is what an individual usually does.

I’ve never yet encountered an intoxicated colleague attempting to book on, but if I did then I’d not be unstinting in my criticism of them and insist that they book sick and go home. Would I then report it to the managers? I’m not sure. I think I’d want to talk to the driver concerned first to try and get a handle on the situation first. I think I’d also mention it to the LLC in confidence.

It’s a tricky one because knowing our management it’s likely to result in an overreaction because they would likely see it as the driver attempting to conceal the problem. If I’ve prevented someone booking on in an intoxicated state I have prevented them from committing gross misconduct, but our glorious leaders may not see it that way. What I would expect, though, is for the driver concerned to self-report any issues he/she is having to the management in order that they can access the required support. I think that would elicit a better and more supportive response to the benefit of all involved.

I agree with what you've said. If they were booking on and hadn't worked a train, I would tell them to go home. If they didn't go home, I would then report it. Easy for me to say without ever being in that position though!

Trisha · 11 Jan 2020

O L Leigh said:
I don’t know what the procedures are for depot drivers booking on at Selhurst, but I’ve seen them doing it elsewhere at other locations run by other TOCs and it seems to be that they book on remotely by phone. As such they don’t tend to see the depot supervisor prior to starting duty. Also if movements are controlled by radio then there isn’t even a necessity for them to be in the messroom at all so it wouldn’t be that hard to hide away from the rest of the team. This may not even be considered unusual if this is what an individual usually does.

I’ve never yet encountered an intoxicated colleague attempting to book on, but if I did then I’d not be unstinting in my criticism of them and insist that they book sick and go home. Would I then report it to the managers? I’m not sure. I think I’d want to talk to the driver concerned first to try and get a handle on the situation first. I think I’d also mention it to the LLC in confidence.

It’s a tricky one because knowing our management it’s likely to result in an overreaction because they would likely see it as the driver attempting to conceal the problem. If I’ve prevented someone booking on in an intoxicated state I have prevented them from committing gross misconduct, but our glorious leaders may not see it that way. What I would expect, though, is for the driver concerned to self-report any issues he/she is having to the management in order that they can access the required support. I think that would elicit a better and more supportive response to the benefit of all involved.

Understand your thoughts but part of the duties where i was employed, was you present yourself to your Teamleader/Supervisor for work as well as read any notices which are relevant to your role, any situations earlier in the day which have arisen that may change how you normally carry out your duties.

43096 · 11 Jan 2020

O L Leigh said:
It’s a tricky one because knowing our management it’s likely to result in an overreaction because they would likely see it as the driver attempting to conceal the problem. If I’ve prevented someone booking on in an intoxicated state I have prevented them from committing gross misconduct, but our glorious leaders may not see it that way. What I would expect, though, is for the driver concerned to self-report any issues he/she is having to the management in order that they can access the required support. I think that would elicit a better and more supportive response to the benefit of all involved.

It's one thing for a driver to phone in sick or whatever if they're under the influence, but quite another to actually present themselves for work in such a state and be sent home. That demonstrates an intent to work under the influence and really ought to be reported. If you weren't there they would presumably have booked on for duty. That really needs reporting and they need dealing with - if that means dismissal then so be it - they're a danger to themselves and others.

Drunk depot driver sentenced

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

On Moderation