Drunk depot driver sentenced

[Andrew Ford]

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

We get paid a very fair wage to do a safety critical job.
All you have to do is be alcohol free on duty.
How am I loosing credibility?

 

[Clip]

No. You take on a responsible job where you can kill people. In a Depot you’ve got possibly the best chance of accidentally killing someone on the railway.

And when he killed someone through his illness presumably you’d go to their grieving family and tell them that it’s less of a big deal because he was ill?

What if a driver is diagnosed with a heart condition, decides not to tell their employer and then dies while driving at 125?

TPWS + DSD might not stop you in time. Would that be ok because it’s an illness?

Its not an office job, people can and will die if you can’t focus. And it probably won’t be the person who’s having a six pack on the way to work, for whatever reason.

We get paid a very fair wage to do a safety critical job.
All you have to do is be alcohol free on duty.
How am I loosing credibility?

Expected replies and not sure its worth giving any sort of reply back, especially seeing as i said i wasnt excusing his behaviour, but whether or not you get paid lots of money(like that has any bearing on it) and he didnt kill anyone either - but im guessing thats there for extra railway dramatic effect - Im simply saying that he may have had an illness and one that may have clouded his judgement and we simply do not know if he was drinking or drunk on the job - the story makes it clear that they only saw him with a drink after the event and if he has got an illness then thats something that we all have to take into consideration because ive seen an alcoholic member of my family die through it and i can tell you its not pretty what people go through if they are one so put away your daggers for a minute and try and be a bit more caring, just a little.

 

[Dunfanaghy Rd]

We get paid a very fair wage to do a safety critical job.
All you have to do is be alcohol free on duty.
How am I loosing credibility?

Well said, that man.
Pat

 

[cactustwirly]

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

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.

 

[TurbostarFan]

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.

I agree with you, even if not 100% a foresnic calculation would still be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which would be enough to satisfy a court so that they are sure, which is the evidenital standard used by criminal courts when deciding whether to convict.

 

[43066]

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

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.

 

[FGW_DID]

A forensic back calculation is indeed used (using a specimen of blood or urine) and as mentioned above is accurate and accepted by the courts/ prosecution authorities.

When I was in the Forces, I attended a single vehicle RTA, there was no sign of the driver, he was later traced back to his accommodation and when spoken to, he was all over the shop, reeking of alcohol.
The roadside breath test was carried out which the subject failed, he claimed he had a couple of drinks, after the RTA, once he had got back to his room. He was arrested on suspicion of drink driving, a sample of blood was taken and sent of for analysis. He was subsequently convicted on the results.

 

[Economist]

So, I'm guessing the forensic back calculation worked out precisely how much alcohol he had in his system at the time of the incident, regardless of how much he had drunk later? If he was sober at the time of the incident, would the back calculation have shown this?

I presume he was technically still on duty until the time he was located, therefore guilty regardless.

 

[FGW_DID]

, I'm guessing the forensic back calculation worked out precisely how much alcohol he had in his system at the time of the incident, regardless of how much he had drunk later? If he was sober at the time of the incident, would the back calculation have shown this?

essentially yes.

 

[SlimJim1694]

This is a very sad story and we had a similar thing not long ago at West Marina where the shunter was pissed and fell over and lost his hand. It's easy to slag this bloke off and say he was livid with the drink while on duty, but why are there scaffolding poles lying around across roads in the depot anyway?

Anyone turning up to work pissed has a problem. I know the railway are meant to support people who admit to it beforehand but there is a real stigma attached. Nobody wants to be known as the depot alkie. I know an alkie driver. He did the right thing and told the managers and they gave him some room - but everyone still knows him as the alkie even though he probably hasn't touched it in years.

It's completely wrong to book on for railway duty pissed up, but there are also many on here very quick to judge.

"He who casts the first stone..."

 

[Carlisle]

Same at NR, even if you were a cleaner.

I don’t think NR employ cleaners directly

 

[bramling]

This is a very sad story and we had a similar thing not long ago at West Marina where the shunter was pissed and fell over and lost his hand. It's easy to slag this bloke off and say he was livid with the drink while on duty, but why are there scaffolding poles lying around across roads in the depot anyway?

Anyone turning up to work pissed has a problem. I know the railway are meant to support people who admit to it beforehand but there is a real stigma attached. Nobody wants to be known as the depot alkie. I know an alkie driver. He did the right thing and told the managers and they gave him some room - but everyone still knows him as the alkie even though he probably hasn't touched it in years.

It's completely wrong to book on for railway duty pissed up, but there are also many on here very quick to judge.

"He who casts the first stone..."

At the end of the day the railway pays excellent money, and one of the things which is non-negotiable in return is that people don’t attempt to go on duty pissed, no ifs no buts.

At my location there are people who everyone knows have been on the programme and I wouldn’t say they’ve had much in the way of stigma. However there are a couple who do get stick through having been on the programme and still having an issue - in one case (not a driver) it’s a bit of an open secret that he’s still got big drink issues. It’s rather unfortunate to say that the general feeling, rightly or otherwise, is a blind eye is turned due to him being influential in the Freemasons!

 

[C J Snarzell]

Just out of curiosity, I've only worked in the railway industry a short time in a ROC. There are safety critical roles in my work place (mine isn't one of them) but I've yet to ask the question - do safety critical workers not get random drug/alcohol tested?

Being ex-police, my old force implemented drug/alcohol testing about 12 years ago and an external company would turn up at stations and pull people out at the start of their shift to take part in a screening. This was done privately and took over an hour because the person being tested had to sign forms and there was legislation read to them about rights and entitlements. Unfortunately, because of the budget cuts of 2009/10, the drug/alcohol testing was scaled down for many years but I believe my old force is re-implementing it again.

This article is sad in alot of ways because I'm sure this driver has issues with alcohol and his mental health. If his illness had been brought to attention without this incident happening would the TOC have supported him or still gone down a discipline route anyway for breaching his safety critical contract?

CJ

 

[bramling]

Just out of curiosity, I've only worked in the railway industry a short time in a ROC. There are safety critical roles in my work place (mine isn't one of them) but I've yet to ask the question - do safety critical workers not get random drug/alcohol tested?

Being ex-police, my old force implemented drug/alcohol testing about 12 years ago and an external company would turn up at stations and pull people out at the start of their shift to take part in a screening. This was done privately and took over an hour because the person being tested had to sign forms and there was legislation read to them about rights and entitlements. Unfortunately, because of the budget cuts of 2009/10, the drug/alcohol testing was scaled down for many years but I believe my old force is re-implementing it again.

This article is sad in alot of ways because I'm sure this driver has issues with alcohol and his mental health. If his illness had been brought to attention without this incident happening would the TOC have supported him or still gone down a discipline route anyway for breaching his safety critical contract?

CJ

Yes safety-critical staff do get subject to random testing. It’s not something which happens particularly frequently, but it does happen on a, well, random basis! Typically staff can expect to be called for this a few times in their careers. In the case of drivers the first they may know is when a spare is standing on the platform and the driver is unexpectedly told they’re being relieved.

The most common form of testing is post-incident, however. Namely where a routine test is carried out after certain types of operational incident. Extremely rare for people to fail this form of test.

 

[TheEdge]

Just out of curiosity, I've only worked in the railway industry a short time in a ROC. There are safety critical roles in my work place (mine isn't one of them) but I've yet to ask the question - do safety critical workers not get random drug/alcohol tested?

I've been random D&A tested once in 7 years as operational staff so while it does happen it really isn't all to common.

 

[Minilad]

19 years on the footplate, 21 years operational and I have never been D&A tested. So no, not exactly frequent

 

[GB]

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

 

[43066]

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

I don’t suppose any of us knows for sure, but I would suspect a problem is most likely. I don’t know anyone on the railway who who would risk life and liberty turning up to work p*ssed - that suggests something more was going on.

The fact he booked on in the afternoon suggests he had been drinking before work.

It’s not an excuse, he should have availed himself of his TOC’s support process.

 

[Llanigraham]

Just out of curiosity, I've only worked in the railway industry a short time in a ROC. There are safety critical roles in my work place (mine isn't one of them) but I've yet to ask the question - do safety critical workers not get random drug/alcohol tested?

I don't know what you do in the ROC, but I am very surprised if you are not subject to the standard D & A rules.

As for safety critical workers being randomly tested, I know of it happening once at one of the signal boxes on our line; MOM arrived with a couple of people, told the resident they were being relieved and the signaller taken to a van a breathalised and a urine sample taken, then a couple of forms filled in and because the the breath test was negative, returned to work.
I also know of someone who was kept waiting for 3 hours to be tested after an incident because the nearest "testers" were not immediateley available! Since he was kept waiting after the end of his shift he had to be paid overtime!
Even when at Signalling School we were warned that we were liable to be tested and there are reports in the last couple of years of a trainee being kicked off the course when he was tested one morning.

 

[221129]

I don’t suppose any of us knows for sure, but I would suspect a problem is most likely. I don’t know anyone on the railway who who would risk life and liberty turning up to work p*ssed - that suggests something more was going on.

The fact he booked on in the afternoon suggests he had been drinking before work.

It’s not an excuse, he should have availed himself of his TOC’s support process.

Or he got proper steamin the night before?

 

[SignallerJohn]

What would have happened if the chap had gone somewhere and hidden out for 24 hours until he’s stone cold sober?

Would he have kept his job but been in trouble for going AWOL? Interesting story nonetheless.

 

[221129]

What would have happened if the chap had gone somewhere and hidden out for 24 hours until he’s stone cold sober?

Would he have kept his job but been in trouble for going AWOL? Interesting story nonetheless.

No chance of keeping his job.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Literally zero sympathy. Irrespective of the circumstances. We are paid a decent salary for a variety of reasons, one of those being the responsibility we hold and the consequences if we get something wrong. If this person had a drink problem or not it doesn't matter, they still knew they would be over the limit, that's a fact. There is help for Drivers who feel like they have a drinking problem, there is a chain of care process and support. To turn up to work knowing that you are over the limit is absolutely unforgivable. In my view, the fact that someone gets dismissed for this is less about a punishment and more about keeping other staff and the travelling public safe.
I wonder if people's attitudes would be different if we were talking about a fatal accident caused by this reckless, irresponsible and selfish individual?

 

[Kingspanner]

What people are saying about the breathalyser is partly correct, but what has been said about forensic back calculations is wrong.

I have dealt with many drink driving cases in which suspects have attempted to obstruct justice by deliberately drinking alcohol after the collision but before police arrive.

Step 1. Identify the container from which they have been drinking and seize it, so that the alcohol content and amount consumed can be measured. Take account of the evidence offered by the suspect and others as to the post incident drinking.

Step 2. Obtain blood and urine samples, the concentration of alcohol in which is a function of what has been drunk, and crucially when. Clearly breath alcohol accessible to a breathalyser can be affected by alcohol in the mouth from something drunk in the previous few minutes, which is why suspects are asked about when they last had a drink. By the time a suspect reaches an evidential breath test machine in a police station this mouth alcohol will have cleared. What is breathed out then via the lungs is a function of blood alcohol concentration, which trails behind consumption as the digestive system has to absorb it. Urine concentration trails further because of the need for further processing by the kidneys.

Step 3 Carefully assess all of this information against the huge volume of experimental data which exists regarding alcohol concentrations and consumption which comes from both medical experiments and real world data where suspects alcohol consumption has been well documented.

Step 4. Prosecute when the back calculation points to a figure significantly in excess of legal limits to allow a margin for error.

Simples.

(Actually it is far from simple, but you know, science. This process has also been rigorously tested in court by, you know, the law).

 

[duffield]

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

It's interesting to note that a figure of 39 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath was quoted. The drink-drive limit for road vehicles in England and Wales is 35, so within a very small margin he would have been considered fit to drive a road vehicle at up to 70mph. I would contest that if you're not fit to drive a train, you're not fit to drive a road vehicle and the road vehicle limit should be reduced to match the rail limit.

In terms of consequences, the likely worst case for a shunter is killing one person, e.g. a cleaner or other staff member. In the case of a road vehicle deaths could run into double figures in a motorway pile-up.

Not in any way attempting to excuse this; on the contrary, I'm just saying that if the rail limit is soundly based it should be applied on the roads.

 

[Trackman]

I don’t think NR employ cleaners directly

They do employ full-time cleaners at some offices, but not stations.

It's interesting to note that a figure of 39 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath was quoted. The drink-drive limit for road vehicles in England and Wales is 35, so within a very small margin he would have been considered fit to drive a road vehicle at up to 70mph. I would contest that if you're not fit to drive a train, you're not fit to drive a road vehicle and the road vehicle limit should be reduced to match the rail limit.

The back calculation was 32 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath.
I agree with you, if you are not fit enough to drive a train you shouldn't be driving anything.

I've just been looking at the photo of the train, looks like some serious arcing has occurred.

 

[sprunt]

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

I'd say that his reaction to the incident being to go home and drink a bottle of wine is indicative that there's a problem.

 

[Dieseldriver]

I'd say that his reaction to the incident being to go home and drink a bottle of wine is indicative that there's a problem.

I'd say that reaction is also indicative of someone reckoning themselves to be a clever **** by causing an incident whilst over the limit, fleeing home to guzzle some alcohol to try and fool people into thinking they were sober at the time of the offence and are now over the limit due to consuming alcohol to cope with the shock of the event. Either way, the end result is the same, this reckless moron is no longer in a position to endanger my life, my colleagues lives or the lives of the fare paying travelling public. To me that's a big win, whether they were an alcoholic or not.

 

[Carlisle]

They do employ full-time cleaners at some offices, but not stations.
.

Ok cheers, I stand corrected

 

[al78]

No. You take on a responsible job where you can kill people. In a Depot you’ve got possibly the best chance of accidentally killing someone on the railway.

And when he killed someone through his illness presumably you’d go to their grieving family and tell them that it’s less of a big deal because he was ill?

What if a driver is diagnosed with a heart condition, decides not to tell their employer and then dies while driving at 125?

TPWS + DSD might not stop you in time. Would that be ok because it’s an illness?

Its not an office job, people can and will die if you can’t focus. And it probably won’t be the person who’s having a six pack on the way to work, for whatever reason.

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.