Still doesn't make him 'drunk'
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Passengers ‘striking’
- Thread starter pompeyfan
- Start date
- Status
Still doesn't make him 'drunk'
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Ruled out by the employer, yes. But I don't know for a fact that there wasn't dissenting medical opinion.
And, as others have pointed out, there's a difference between failing a breathalyser test and being drunk. Had it been an actual blood alcohol test then the case would be clear cut.
Still makes them unsafe to drive though.
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,016
Does it?
This morning, I double-dosed my alcohol based mouthwash as I felt I needed to. I go to work, sign on, random tested and I blow over the limit - easy to do as it is absolute 0. Am I drunk? of course not. Would you say I'm unsafe to drive because I've had extra mouthwash? Of course not. It's ludicrous and despite your recent posts which I cannot work out if they are anti-toc/TfL, anti-Driver or anti-Union, even you must admit it was be crazy to even suggest I should be removed from duty and disciplined.
Unless you do think that then there's no hope or point continuing this.
You have no understanding or in-depth knowledge of the facts or what happened - you're just spinning a sensationalist news piece to suit your agenda.
Your completely missing the point.
You stated the Driver was drunk - No reported evidence whatsoever states this.
No level of alcohol has been reported - Therefore you cannot make any claim to how much alcohol was in their system.
No reports of the Driver being 'unsafe' - Only YOU are making this claim.
You do not know and cannot confirm any 'safe' level of alcohol as per the TOC policy
I'm sorry but without further evidence you are making a false claim and pretty much to the point of being an outright lie. Pushing this kind of information as any degree of fact is dangerous and flat out incorrect. You are failing to understand the railway policy and how it was/has been/will be applied in this an any other case and continually spouting rhetoric without any evidence of truth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31372269
"Drivers on London Underground have voted to go on strike over the sacking of a colleague for failing an alcohol breath test."
Does it matter how much more than the limit they had drunk? Too much alcohol to safely drive a train is too much.
So why do train companies have alcohol limits? For fun? Apparently not as according to Nigel Holness of London Underground - "We operate a zero tolerance approach towards the consumption of alcohol in order to keep customers and staff safe.
"You wouldn't let someone who had been drinking alcohol drive your family in a car, and we don't let people who have been drinking alcohol drive people's families in Tube trains.
"As we have made clear, strike threats will not alter our commitment to safety, nor will they make us consider reinstating a driver who failed two alcohol breath tests."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...olleague-caught-drunk-at-the-wheel-twice.html
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,037
Except in both cases there is not a zero limit so actually they would.
True. But you can fail an alcohol breath test having drunk zero alcohol. That is why only a blood alcohol level test is definitive.
And, in any case, you still haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion that the driver in question was drunk.
No; they were unhappy that regardless of the fitness of this particular driver to be in his role, the employer had not followed the agreed disciplinary procedure.
Quite funny that you quoted me, but it was actually Nigel Holness of London Underground that said that (as per the link I posted)!
Not sure how many times I need to repeat this "London Underground (LU) said the driver had been dismissed for failing two random breath tests which were not affected by the condition." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31372269
The driver had consumed so much alcohol they were incapable of doing their job safely, aka 'drunk'.
Repeatedly saying the same thing doesn't make it true.
We do not know how much (if any) alcohol the driver consumed, nor by how much they were over the extremely low BAC limits set for train drivers. Nobody is denying that he tested over the limit, but there is zero indication that he was impaired.
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but it's possible to blow over the limit without drinking and we only have the employer's word that this wasn't a factor here: "It's okay Sarge, the murderer says he didn't do it."
He might have been impaired, but if he was then I'm very surprised to see the Union fight his case to the extent of coming out on strike action since an unsafe driver at the controls represents a direct danger to each and every member.
Last edited:
We go way off topic for this sub forum, but the politics of the Undergound are such that I am not confident of the last assertion, nor of the fairness of how Underground management apply disciplinary processes in these cases.
I do however agree completely that @sefton overstates his case in arguing that the breath test failure constitutes drunkenness in and of itself.
Most observant! This thread sought out to determine whether or not it was legal for passengers not to show their tickets. Any yet we've ended up talking about whether or not a driver had a drink. The substance of the thread hasn't been dealt with since the first page, so on the assumption there's not much more to say about it, I think there's no need for continued off-topic discussion.
If someone does have something of direct relevance to the topic as stated in the opening post, do feel free to get in touch with the forum staff who will consider whether to reopen discussion.
- Status