Man who had not eaten or drunk for hours - crashes train !
Discussion
One of the issues with legislation to protect people / groups employment rights are that it works against the very people it is supposed to help.
The idea of giving women all manner of rights during and following pregnancy is probably a good thing but it makes certain ages virtually unemployable. No small business in its right mind would employ a woman between 28 and 34. We as a large business find it a hassle, you just don't have people running at 20% capacity waiting to take up the slack.
The idea of giving women all manner of rights during and following pregnancy is probably a good thing but it makes certain ages virtually unemployable. No small business in its right mind would employ a woman between 28 and 34. We as a large business find it a hassle, you just don't have people running at 20% capacity waiting to take up the slack.
v8250 said:
1. I'm certainly no idiot. 2. nor am I in any way racist. The simple fact is that when any person is under nourished, with blood sugar levels way below the norm' and the body's natural energy levels below a healthy level people can not and are not able to perform. Put this condition of person, irrespective of background, in charge of xxxx tonnes of passenger vehicle and the situation is irresponsibly dangerous. In many working environments there are clearly defined safe working regulations that are designed to keep all persons safe at all times. These safety standards have a zero tolerance to accidents for the betterment and protection of all. No train driver should be permitted to operate any train if below par and/or not able to operate the train in all conditions ensuring absolute safety. If that person is fasting because of their religious belief and are not able to comply with safety performance then they should not drive. This is no different to people operating machinery or driving or piloting under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If they cannot do their job safely they should not be in the 'office'.
So you'd have to ask all drivers to confirm they've had breakfast before allowing them to drive the train? janesmith1950 said:
Call me a pragmatist, however I would wager the train companies lose more train driving man hours to dodgy sicknotes and other absences from across the workforce's religious and non-religious spectrum, than they ever would if they put devout Muslims on alternate duties for the short time they're fasting (when Ramadan falls into the summer months).
Personally speaking this doesn't seem a religious issue but one of fitness to work. That the employee is unfit could be incidentally down to their following religious practices. Other people might turn up worse for wear through drugs or drink. Others dangerously low from diabetes or other medical conditions.
I doubt if anyone would use a "dodgy" sick note as they would be up for the sack for fraud and a potential police investigation!Personally speaking this doesn't seem a religious issue but one of fitness to work. That the employee is unfit could be incidentally down to their following religious practices. Other people might turn up worse for wear through drugs or drink. Others dangerously low from diabetes or other medical conditions.
It seems to be a common idea to compare some other reasons for being unfit for risk critical work to one of religious fasting, they are all up for investigation, it doesn't mean that you can ignore an issue just because it is PC crowd's favourite religion?
rscott said:
v8250 said:
1. I'm certainly no idiot. 2. nor am I in any way racist. The simple fact is that when any person is under nourished, with blood sugar levels way below the norm' and the body's natural energy levels below a healthy level people can not and are not able to perform. Put this condition of person, irrespective of background, in charge of xxxx tonnes of passenger vehicle and the situation is irresponsibly dangerous. In many working environments there are clearly defined safe working regulations that are designed to keep all persons safe at all times. These safety standards have a zero tolerance to accidents for the betterment and protection of all. No train driver should be permitted to operate any train if below par and/or not able to operate the train in all conditions ensuring absolute safety. If that person is fasting because of their religious belief and are not able to comply with safety performance then they should not drive. This is no different to people operating machinery or driving or piloting under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If they cannot do their job safely they should not be in the 'office'.
So you'd have to ask all drivers to confirm they've had breakfast before allowing them to drive the train? Someone mentioned that the Muslim Driver could have been / should have been given alternative duties, but these days there's very little a Driver can do that isn't safety critical, even within the confines of his / her home depot.
Hope the above explains things a little.
Last year I posted up a rather worrying taxi journey I had coming back from Henley Regatta.
I posted here that after that experience I wanted to avoid being in a vehicle by someone fastidiously observing Ramadan - as their faith may be so blind it endangers road safety.
I think a response I got was "I was being disingenuous"
I know that if I don't eat/ drink sufficiently - I will get light headed.
Ditto the better half - has to eat at set times.
But going through the day with nothing....not even water.... IMO - it just isn't safe.
I posted here that after that experience I wanted to avoid being in a vehicle by someone fastidiously observing Ramadan - as their faith may be so blind it endangers road safety.
I think a response I got was "I was being disingenuous"
I know that if I don't eat/ drink sufficiently - I will get light headed.
Ditto the better half - has to eat at set times.
But going through the day with nothing....not even water.... IMO - it just isn't safe.
del mar said:
One of the issues with legislation to protect people / groups employment rights are that it works against the very people it is supposed to help.
The idea of giving women all manner of rights during and following pregnancy is probably a good thing but it makes certain ages virtually unemployable. No small business in its right mind would employ a woman between 28 and 34. We as a large business find it a hassle, you just don't have people running at 20% capacity waiting to take up the slack.
Absolutely outrageous statement to make. Its no wonder that with attitudes like that many women find it hard to get work. Thankfully some of us are more enlightened and more in tune with the abilities of our women folk to realise that they are quite able to work during and after pregnancy. My business is proud to employ these women.I do not hold you personally responsible for this outdated stance but do hope that many people will realise there are businesses that recognise womens abilities and talentsThe idea of giving women all manner of rights during and following pregnancy is probably a good thing but it makes certain ages virtually unemployable. No small business in its right mind would employ a woman between 28 and 34. We as a large business find it a hassle, you just don't have people running at 20% capacity waiting to take up the slack.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 22 August 20:30
techiedave said:
del mar said:
One of the issues with legislation to protect people / groups employment rights are that it works against the very people it is supposed to help.
The idea of giving women all manner of rights during and following pregnancy is probably a good thing but it makes certain ages virtually unemployable. No small business in its right mind would employ a woman between 28 and 34. We as a large business find it a hassle, you just don't have people running at 20% capacity waiting to take up the slack.
Absolutely outrageous statement to make. Its no wonder that with attitudes like that many women find it hard to get work. Thankfully some of us are more enlightened and more in tune with the abilities of our women folk to realise that they are quite able to work during and after pregnancy. My business is proud to employ these women.I do not hold you personally responsible for this outdated stance but do hope that many people will realise there are businesses that recognise womens abilities and talentsThe idea of giving women all manner of rights during and following pregnancy is probably a good thing but it makes certain ages virtually unemployable. No small business in its right mind would employ a woman between 28 and 34. We as a large business find it a hassle, you just don't have people running at 20% capacity waiting to take up the slack.
Edited by techiedave on Monday 22 August 20:30
Well done to you and your company for the enlightened stance on employing women of child bearing age, however, I can assure you many more simply do not take the risk.
I've known of it happen before several times. I don't think his being muslim was a factor. He assumed his next signal was clear, which it wasn't, and subsequently derailed himself. Sure, he was probably tired, but I'm often tired on shift and I don't participate in Ramadan. Signaller should really have explained exactly what was going on, but the driver shouldn't have preempted the move and the fault lies with him. It was a screw up on his part, and it'll keep happening on the infrastructure occasionally.
BIANCO said:
I think someone that calls someone racist for criticising someone's imaginary beliefs as racist is the idiot. You do know that religion has nothing to do with race?.
It has according to this judge. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
Troubleatmill said:
Last year I posted up a rather worrying taxi journey I had coming back from Henley Regatta.
I posted here that after that experience I wanted to avoid being in a vehicle by someone fastidiously observing Ramadan - as their faith may be so blind it endangers road safety.
I think a response I got was "I was being disingenuous"
I know that if I don't eat/ drink sufficiently - I will get light headed.
Ditto the better half - has to eat at set times.
But going through the day with nothing....not even water.... IMO - it just isn't safe.
The fare the taxi drivers change around Henley regatta would be enough to make me pass out. I posted here that after that experience I wanted to avoid being in a vehicle by someone fastidiously observing Ramadan - as their faith may be so blind it endangers road safety.
I think a response I got was "I was being disingenuous"
I know that if I don't eat/ drink sufficiently - I will get light headed.
Ditto the better half - has to eat at set times.
But going through the day with nothing....not even water.... IMO - it just isn't safe.
Alpinestars said:
It doesn't seem that clear cut, not everything the bloke said is in the article, plus he himself quizzed the cops over that 'Muslim' thing.Halb said:
It doesn't seem that clear cut, not everything the bloke said is in the article, plus he himself quizzed the cops over that 'Muslim' thing.
Now mention of race in this sentence, which does mention his in laws being Muslim. Certainly infers that his Islamophobia was considered racist. And racism is a subset of bigotry, so "Islam not being a race" is not a particularly compelling argument in any case. “His mother-in-law and sister-in-law are Muslims, he gets on with them very well. He has insisted he does not have racist sympathies, he struggles to explain it."
279 said:
I'm more surprised we're blaming just 15 hours without food for potenitally fatal negligence?
I imagine plenty of people go 15+ hours without food on a daily basis, its very easy to do if you don't eat breakfast and do long, busy hours on shift work. I don't eat breakfast and would often do 10-11 hour shifts after getting up without eating or drinking anything for the shift because I didn't have the time or desire to do so. I'd occasionally buy a bottle of water, but more often than not it would be nothing then a big meal when I got home, rinse and repeat. That was just my routine.
Never found it to affected my driving ability at all, certainly not to the point I'd plow through two red lights...
I used to think like that when I was 28. fI imagine plenty of people go 15+ hours without food on a daily basis, its very easy to do if you don't eat breakfast and do long, busy hours on shift work. I don't eat breakfast and would often do 10-11 hour shifts after getting up without eating or drinking anything for the shift because I didn't have the time or desire to do so. I'd occasionally buy a bottle of water, but more often than not it would be nothing then a big meal when I got home, rinse and repeat. That was just my routine.
Never found it to affected my driving ability at all, certainly not to the point I'd plow through two red lights...
king Mr Invincible! I'd overslept, fk breakie, cup tea, water etc, straight into the motor. 18 miles to work. Within sight of work, I approach last set of traffic lights... WTF! My head drops... bloody hell what's going on? I have only a few hundred yards to go (luckily)... 'Green' GO! I look left as you do and it feels like my head is totally f
ked... floor it (well 
I'm a PH'r! ) Drive into work park and open door and virtually roll and fall out. WTF is up with me? I struggle to stand... Very long story short.
I'm driven to GP. None of them can draw a conclusion, so it's a blue lighting ambulance for me to hospital.
Lying flat in the back of the Amby I feel slightly better (I even know the ambulance guy!
- he reasures me I'm not dying once he gets the results from me being all connected up over the chest etc. Well, it's not my heart anyway. Hospital... a few docs look me over. Confused. You will be! They are! Consultant asks for details. He also looks me over. More checks. He gets me to stand up ...and over I go! Back led down. More time passes. An enquiring Junior doc comes by. 'What's the matter?' I've no idea I tell him. 'Tell me what's happened?' So I do. 'Hmm, have you had a blood test?' Nope. He pricks my finger for sample and disappears. Comes back. 'Bingo my friend! Your blood sugar level is rock bottom!'
He gets a nurse to supply me with a drink and sarnies - I eat the lot despite them being damp cucumber and cheese.
About an hour later I'm 'walking' to work. Almost as if nothing happened. I felt odd for a week or so and was told to carry glucose tablets (I did) but most of it was simply worry it would happen again. It didn't. I have never ever missed breakfast again. You shouldn't. Don't think it can't happen, the junior doc told me it not only can, but does.
I hope I don't meet you on the road!
Worth remembering too, unlike me, who was able to get straight back into my car and continue with my life, today they'd have your licence like a shot I reckon, until you could prove you were fine and no longer a risk behind the wheel.
Edit. If it confuses how I 'walked' all the way to work, I was driven to 'my' GP's surgery (12 miles) then back the 12 miles in ambulance to the hospital (just down the road from my work place).
Edited by dandarez on Tuesday 23 August 00:21
Pickled Piper said:
techiedave said:
del mar said:
One of the issues with legislation to protect people / groups employment rights are that it works against the very people it is supposed to help.
The idea of giving women all manner of rights during and following pregnancy is probably a good thing but it makes certain ages virtually unemployable. No small business in its right mind would employ a woman between 28 and 34. We as a large business find it a hassle, you just don't have people running at 20% capacity waiting to take up the slack.
Absolutely outrageous statement to make. Its no wonder that with attitudes like that many women find it hard to get work. Thankfully some of us are more enlightened and more in tune with the abilities of our women folk to realise that they are quite able to work during and after pregnancy. My business is proud to employ these women.I do not hold you personally responsible for this outdated stance but do hope that many people will realise there are businesses that recognise womens abilities and talentsThe idea of giving women all manner of rights during and following pregnancy is probably a good thing but it makes certain ages virtually unemployable. No small business in its right mind would employ a woman between 28 and 34. We as a large business find it a hassle, you just don't have people running at 20% capacity waiting to take up the slack.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 22 August 20:30
Well done to you and your company for the enlightened stance on employing women of child bearing age, however, I can assure you many more simply do not take the risk.
As co -owner of www.lactatingbabesoncam.com I will pass on your nice comments to our staff and recruitment team.
dandarez said:
good stuff
I think your post highlights the point tbh, somehow the Mail has turned it into a Muslim thing and some have jumped on it as such when in reality just go look around you on the road and ask yourself how the heck do you have any idea what state any of these people are in?They screen airline pilots for booze, bet they don't screen to check they've drunk water or eaten.
Train drivers, I've no idea what they're checked for but I'm guessing there aren't random tests to check they've had a Snickers within the last four hours.
It's one element of the story and seems to have been seized on with a disproportionate focus.
Mark300zx said:
Sure there are always other factors when a crash happens it is rarely down to one cause but several factors in a very unfortunate combination, but we have a duty to reduce those factors.
I think if you are in a job where you have a responsibility for others and these jobs could be Doctors/Firefighters/Police/Pilots then how would you feel being in the care of those individuals, who haven't maintained their own welfare for whatever reason, so that they can not look after others?
Sure the Daily Mail may be gutter journalism, but if they raise a valid point it is still pertinent?
But the point may be the least valid of all the other crash factors, only they choose to gloss over the other factors in favour of concentrating on the one that gets their old, white sheep frothing most at the mouth.I think if you are in a job where you have a responsibility for others and these jobs could be Doctors/Firefighters/Police/Pilots then how would you feel being in the care of those individuals, who haven't maintained their own welfare for whatever reason, so that they can not look after others?
Sure the Daily Mail may be gutter journalism, but if they raise a valid point it is still pertinent?
Alpinestars said:
Now mention of race in this sentence, which does mention his in laws being Muslim. Certainly infers that his Islamophobia was considered racist. And racism is a subset of bigotry, so "Islam not being a race" is not a particularly compelling argument in any case.
“His mother-in-law and sister-in-law are Muslims, he gets on with them very well. He has insisted he does not have racist sympathies, he struggles to explain it."
Maybe the bloke is confusing the two subjects, or maybe his comments covered it all.“His mother-in-law and sister-in-law are Muslims, he gets on with them very well. He has insisted he does not have racist sympathies, he struggles to explain it."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff