Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

I think that last statement reveals your position.

My position has always been that the RMT are dangerous extremists. Only such people would want drunks driving trains. I'm surprised that you hold the same position.

purch

It is amazing how gullible some are.

The breathalyser equipment used by TfL/LU will be the same as that used throughout the Rail industry, Bus industry, Coach industry, Airline industry and a huge number of other non transportation industries.

Challenging it's use or it's accuracy means that in all the other industries will have to make massive changes in the way they work, and the way they manage safety.

The public transport industry as a whole has a lot to lose if LU give into these tactics.

It's pretty clear to see what the agenda is here.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

My position has always been that the RMT are dangerous extremists. Only such people would want drunks driving trains. I'm surprised that you hold the same position.

I think there may be extremists in RMT but I don't think that applies to the whole union, I also think that TFL can be antagonistic.

chewmylegoff

ukcarper wrote: »

I think there may be extremists in RMT but I don't think that applies to the whole union, I also think that TFL can be antagonistic.

Of course they can and have been on numerous occasions - however sacking a tube driver who turned up to work intending to drive a train for having too much alcohol in his system is not antagonism. Would you want someone over the limit driving you around? This was on the northern line by the way where the drivers actually drive the train rather than just sitting in the cab pressing the button to operate the doors.

The antagonists in this case are the union lunatics who are calling for strikes in order to attempt to reinstate a treasured colleague who tried to drink-drive a passenger train on a line which regularly sports trains 1 minute apart.

ukcarper

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Of course they can and have been on numerous occasions - however sacking a tube driver who turned up to work intending to drive a train for having too much alcohol in his system is not antagonism. Would you want someone over the limit driving you around? This was on the northern line by the way where the drivers actually drive the train rather than just sitting in the cab pressing the button to operate the doors.

The antagonists in this case are the union lunatics who are calling for strikes in order to attempt to reinstate a treasured colleague who tried to drink-drive a passenger train on a line which regularly sports trains 1 minute apart.

But we don't know for sure if he was drunk.

Aberdeenangarse

ukcarper wrote: »

But we don't know for sure if he was drunk.

Thats's right dearie. It must have been those bag of wine gums he had for his breakfast

chewmylegoff

ukcarper wrote: »

But we don't know for sure if he was drunk.

We know (I) he failed two breath tests (II) that the breathylser used was a fuel cell breathylser which is not affected by acetone and (III)that the RMT successfully called for a strike and in the process circulated material to its members which stated that the reason he had failed the test was that he is diabetic which can cause false positives due to the presence of acetone in the blood.

Whether he was drunk or not is irrelevant. He was over the limit.

ukcarper

chewmylegoff wrote: »

We know (I) he failed two breath tests (II) that the breathylser used was a fuel cell breathylser which is not affected by acetone and (III)that the RMT successfully called for a strike and in the process circulated material to its members which stated that the reason he had failed the test was that he is diabetic which can cause false positives due to the presence of acetone in the blood.

Whether he was drunk or not is irrelevant. He was over the limit.

I believe that the accuracy of the fuel cell breathalyser has be question as there are other forms of alcohol that can be produce naturally and can give positive results. You would not lose your driving licence on the strength of a hand hell breathalyser which is what I believe LU used.

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

I believe that the accuracy of the fuel cell breathalyser has be question as there are other forms of alcohol that can be produce naturally and can give positive results.

So now the position is that breathalyser tests are just inherently unreliable? What are you basing that belief on exactly?

ukcarper wrote: »

You would not lose your driving licence on the strength of a hand hell breathalyser which is what I believe LU used.

He didn't lose his driving licence, he lost his job.

chewmylegoff

ukcarper wrote: »

I believe that the accuracy of the fuel cell breathalyser has be question as there are other forms of alcohol that can be produce naturally and can give positive results. You would not lose your driving licence on the strength of a hand hell breathalyser which is what I believe LU used.

All that may be true but none of it appears to be relevant to this case as it is claimed by the RMT that a false positive may have been caused by the presence of acetone as a result of the individual having type 2 diabetes.

I am not quite sure how you think a test of blood alcohol would be able to discriminate between alcohol which had been drunk or alcohol which had been produced by some kind of freak medical condition which appears to be what you are implying. I presume you don't think that we should just not bother to check whether people who drive trains, cars of planes have been drinking on the basis that we can never be 100% sure how they ended up with alcohol in their blood?