Drunk T drivers don't always lose their jobs
By adamg - 12/17/08 - 9:06 am
The Herald discovers that 54 MBTA bus and train drivers were not fired after testing positive for alcohol since 2006:
The T randomly tests employees in "safety sensitive" positions such as train operators. Those who fail get 40-day unpaid suspensions but are given second chances unless they've been involved in an accident.
Last month:
MBTA: Trolley driver who crashed train had coke in his blood.
Comments
"Drunk" verses "Testing Positive"
It isn't fair to say these people were "drunk" based on these tests. Alcohol can be tested in the blood stream at completely non-impairing levels. I believe the T considers "testing positive" to be 0.02 or greater?
There is a big leap between "testing positive" and "drunk on the job". In either case, there is a rule violation.
0.02 is like, one beer in two hours for a typically sized person. Not drunk or impaired, but a good level to set to keep people from three beer lunches and nip bottles.
for comparison:
at 0.04-0.06, people show motor impairment.
>=0.08 is "legally drunk" for auto drivers
0.l4-0.16 is roaring or falling-down drunk
0.2+ is potentially lethal (depending on individual response)
WHAT?!?!?
Look, I can understand if someone in a non "safety sensitive" position was given a second chance. I'd completely approve. But if you are operating a train or bus, there has to be a zero tolerance policy. Being under the influence once (or more accurately, being CAUGHT once) is enough to show that you lack the judgment and integrity to be entrusted with the safety of MBTA passengers. Period. There is no way the MBTA should have approved such contract terms, and frankly I'm shocked that the appropriate union's even required it. I would trust that most drivers do not show up to work under the influence, and I would have hoped that the honest drivers would have no patience for those whose approach to their jobs was so reckless.
Once more with feeling ...
"testing positive" and "under the influence" are not the same thing!
One may be "under the influence" or "drunk" if one "tests positive", but one is not necesarily impaired in any way if one tests positive.
The tight limits reflect potential variability in the testing and the possibility that a dose of cough syrup or other alcohol-based medication would produce detectible (but negligible) levels of alcohol. They are also designed to prohibit any drinking during working hours. That doesn't mean these guys were impaired (although some of them may have been impaired ...) - it means that they broke the the very strict rules one way or another (hadn't slept it completely off, had a beer at lunch, etc.). 0.02 blood alcohol is negligible.
But then it becomes an issue
But then it becomes an issue of the MBTA's policy, not the workers' behavior.
I agree that the policy is off. .02 is not a big deal. But then what should it be? At .08, which is the limit for driving a car, some people are definitely "impaired," while others are not. If I was in the latter category and got pulled over (let's say for something unrelated like a taillight being out... I know, but for the sake of argument), I would still get a ticket just like the guy who was driving on the wrong side of the road. I wouldn't want my potentially lightweight T driver at a .07. I don't have an answer for what the policy should be, but if they have a policy and then just let people off who violate it, it's obviously not a good one.
Secondly, T employees should know the policy as it stands, until it gets changed. If I knew that my company did random testing and I would get in trouble if I was at a .02, I wouldn't be drinking within however many hours of my shift. And you know the warning on cough syrup or whatever, "do not operate heavy machinery"? It's there because the company knows that their medication could impair reaction time/make the person tired/etc, and maybe it SHOULD show up on a sobriety test which is designed to prevent carelessness on the part of the drivers. (Personally, TheraFlu provokes a reaction in me which is very similar to how I feel after about 5 drinks, for example.)
I don't have an answer for
You mention .08 is the legal limit for passenger car drivers.
The standard must be higher for individuals who are being paid to drive a public transportation vehicle that can carry many people, not just because of their safety but also because of the liability of the T and the driver. The limit should be low enough that 95% of the drivers would fail if they drank one 12oz. beer, went to work, and were tested 45 minutes after they finished drinking. IMHO. That would mean, not drinking before or during work, and no big benders the night before. If you hit someone driving one of those big buses, they can get killed. Ok, I made up this standard. So who has a batter one?
Its too funny Gareth is insecure about your MPH and your science background. Gareth, You're smart guy, no need to show your insecurities on Uhub, you're among friends.
No, actually they ARE the same thing.
Maybe "drunk" and "testing positive" are different, but if there is a measurable quantity of an illicit substance in your system, then I think its reasonable to say you "under the influence". You can debate the measures of that "influence" all you like, but its fair characterization.
Furthermore, its completely reasonable to expect a higher standard for persons employed as vehicle operators and I don't see reasonable room to be tolerant of a beer at lunch or sleeping off a bender late the previous night. They don't know their blood alcohol level. They don't know if they are at 0.02 or 0.04. A far more consistent standard which would ensure the public safety is to have zero tolerance. The strict rule is there for good reason and I find it alarming that its enforcement is so generous. I'm sure the T can find people willing to not have a beer on their way into work to fill those positions.
Uh-oh, now you've done it
Didn't you know Swirly wrote a dissertation about that at the Sorbonne?
zero tolerance
I don't know about you but the only person I want driving any vehicle I'm in, be it a plane, train, boat or whatnot, is a person with 0.00 blood alcohol level.
Not possible
Even the most sensitive methods available cannot accurately measure blood alcohol levels below 0.01 (the "limit of quantitation", or LOQ).
Even a 0.02 limit will likely snag somebody who had a beer for lunch or has been sipping during their shift. You have to work really hard to beat that level if you have been drinking at all.
misunderstanding.
I'm not arguing the testing. Would you want a surgeon to have a beer before an operation or be "sipping" during one? Of course not...and that is what I am getting at. Some of these T personnel have lives in their hands while on duty. I don't want them to have a drop (no matter how accurate the test is to discover it) of alcohol in them before or during duty. Don't you?
One Drop
Hysteria that "OMFG ALCOHOL IS A DRUG NO NO NO" doesn't counter basic physiology or make good policy. The real question is: are drivers impaired in any way? 0.02 is really the lower line to even detect any impairment at all, but at the lower threshold of detection for most tests. The NHTSA studied this exact issue, and found that meaningful and significant impairment for driving tasks at around 0.04 BAC. This study evidence means 0.02 is a very good standard for keeping drivers unimpaired and very protective of the public.
(I won't get into how much alcohol our friendly gut microbes produce here on a typical basis.)
There are far worse things that they could have in their systems than "one drop" or even this very low level of alcohol - legal ones like prescription codeine. I personally am very sensitive to zyrtec, benedryl and dextramathorphan and don't use them if I have to be vertical, but these are also quite legal and I believe their use is permitted by the T.
Whether the guy driving the MBTA train that hit the BC student
Whether the guy driving the MBTA train that hit the BC student was impaired or sober, there was still no excuse for hitting the student. Maybe the student was a bit careless, and made the mistake of listening to his iPod or whatever while walking across the tracks, instead of paying attention to what was happening, but the driver of the MBTA really does bear the responsibility. There's a pecking order here; pedestrians do have the right of way. There was no excuse for the MBTA driver going derelct on his responsibility.
I also agree that if a person has a job operating a bus or train that's used by the public, there really should be a no-tolerance policy for being impaired in any degree at all by either drugs or alcohol, first because the overall safety, welfare and wellbeing of passengers are at stake, and secondly, because operating any kind of motor vehicle requires full, unimpaired concentration by the operator.
All of the above having been said, coordination and judgement begin to break down with the first drink or so, which also must be taken into account.
Clarification
There were two Green Line accidents that week.
The T says the driver in the Boylston Street accident tested positive on a drug test.
The T says the driver in the BC accident was OK; it was the guy in the second car who tested positive.
You may now resume arguing over whether the kid should have been on the tracks at that particular point to begin with ...
Wait, pedestrians have the
Wait, pedestrians have the right of way!?
I'm gonna go jaywalk in front of a bus on Comm Ave and then blame the bus driver who hits me for not giving me my right of way.
Not true
Pedestrians have a right-of-way...where they belong.
I live by BC. The location where this happened is the cross-track which allows the MBTA to reverse the direction of trains without having to use the end-of-line loop track. Because there's a cross-track there, the large black metal fence that normally keeps people from crossing where they don't belong is absent (so the trains can go through the middle of the cross track). The MBTA has even gone so far as to put up cement barriers at the curb that extend before and after the missing fence piece to discourage pedestrians from attempting to use the cross-track as a cut-through. This isn't near any crosswalk or intersection, it's just in the middle of the track.
Any pedestrian who uses that as a crossing point for the track is a fool. There is NO expectation for a train to be able to stop in time at that location, ESPECIALLY since any pedestrian will be coming from beyond a blind spot on the other side of the fence. Even worse is if the cross-track were in use where a pedestrian would never even be expecting a train to be switching directions there at the time (and the train would be routed directly at them as they stood in the middle of the crossover point).
If a train hits someone at a natural intersection, you *might* be able to say that it never should have moved even if the pedestrian was stupid to test fate. Where the BC accident occurred, it was absolutely NO fault of the MBTA..I don't care if the driver was overdosing on sleeping pills at the time.
Further clarification on pedestrian right of way
Chapter 89, Section 11 of Mass. General Laws states in part:
"When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk marked in accordance with standards established by the department of highways if the pedestrian is on that half of the traveled part of the way on which the vehicle is traveling or if the pedestrian approaches from the opposite half of the traveled part of the way to within 10 feet of that half of the traveled part of the way on which said vehicle is traveling."
This was NOT the case at the location where the BU student walked directly in front of a moving T train.
BU != BC
Just sayin'. Also, there is no way that the operator of a rear car in a Green Line train has any responsibility for hitting, or not hitting, a pedestrian. No matter how drunk or sober the operator was.
oops
Thought BC, but typed BU. Thanks for the correction.