Breath Test - Alcohol

Hello,
Heard recently of a chap who what some might call a habitual drinker....most evening in the local drinking more than a Police Official test in the Police Station. 5/6pints.

How many Heritage Railways do a random breath test on staff/volunteers?
What would be the correct procedure against such a habitual drinker?

Can putting people at risk ever be politely 'overlooked'?

Nick

 

D & A Test should be routinely done, without prior warning and at random.
And no it shouldnt be politely overlooked.
This isn't 1953 any more.

 

I have not drunk alcohol in nearly 20 years, I gave it up before the age of 20 and have not drunk since. I still have to have breath tests before driving. I was hit twice last year in just 20 operating days by the randomised system, unsurprisingly I passed every test I have taken, I am sure there are others who might not pass, not sure if everybody has been picked up yet by the "random" system?

 

I understand that in the past BR was becoming increasingly concerned about alcohol abuse by drivers and other staff

 

The 1992 Transport & Works Act, introduced in the wake of the 1991 Cannon Street accident, introduced random screening and it applies to heritage railway volunteers just as much as it does to full-time personnel working over Network Rail infrastructure.

 

Random selection can of course miss people.

I understand for example that trial jurors are selected at random from those available, but in the 40 years that I have qualified I have not been called once, whereas some have been called several times.

 

And therein lies the difference between real randomness (where you would expect something like that) and people's general expectation of randomness (that everyone would be included with little or no repetition).

 

At work (I work full time in the rail industry), staff are either 'safety critical' or not. 'Safety critical' staff can be random tested, but anyone can be tested if there is suspicion or an allegation that they may be under the influence. To what extent this is company policy rather than the law under the T&WA, I am not sure.

It's worth mentioning that the T&WA limits are considerably stricter than the drink driving limits.

 

The SVR has a drugs and alcohol policy which has provision for random testing, testing post an incident and on suspicion of abuse.

The policy also includes prescription drugs if they impair safety critical duties

 

Are they? See section 38 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/42/part/II/chapter/I these are the same as road driving, I have been lead to believe that an organisation may apply stricter rules though, this may be what you are bound by. I have no idea if this information is out of date though and I have no wish to find out what would happen to anyone involved in an accident within the law but still with drugs or alcohol in their system.

 

The SVR criteria are
● Above 30 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (or equivalent in urine or breath).

This limit is less than half that of road legislation. Re your statement above "within the (road) law" well if you are over 30mg you are not within RAILWAY LAW and should not be undertaking safety critical duties on a railway. The SVR alcohol policy is available to all staff so there is no excuse if caught. The limit is I understand the same as on the big railway

 

You may be right. So maybe there could be a case whereby I could get sacked but not end up in court. I don't think I'll test this.

 

I dont know why there is confusion and doubt. It is quite clear to me that as a guard on a heritage railway if I report for duty over the railway limit I may well end up in the magistrates court for something like endangering my passengers

see NR document. This whilst for one company is the same for others

 

You will only end up in court if you are over the limit prescribed in the Transport & Works Act 1992, which is 80 mg in 100 ml blood. Network Rail and, presumably the SVR, prescribe lower limits but this is a disciplinary thing, not criminal.

 

There are random tests on the West Somerset. If anyone is expected to produce a urine sample after firing for 80 miles then it could be a very long wait indeed.

 

Do all railway undertakins apply the lower limit? Well I did some searches and discovered the lower limit is in Railway Group Standards, the Railway rule book. I think therefore we can assume the lower limit is a general railway standard

 

The Railway Group Standards only apply to Network Rail. It has nothing to do with any heritage railway unless they decide to use it. They don't even apply to the NYMR away from Network Rail metals (although the NYMR applies the lower limit internally). I know of at least one railway which does not apply the lower limit and I reckon there will be others.

 

For BUPA; On a call out medscreen the urine sample is used to detect "drugs", but I've never found out what drugs.
Alcohol testing is by breathalyser, which is calibrated in the candidates presence.

 

I volunteer on two railways and the limit is different between them. As already stated, I think many heritage lines have chosen to adopt the (stricter than road driving) network rail limit, whilst other lines have not.

I personally drink infrequently and in modest amounts, so the limits have personally never concerned me greatly. It is of course wise for me to be aware of them though!

Sent from my HTC Desire 620 using Tapatalk

 

OK, the limuts are somewhat arbitrary. But basically don't drink and drive (or do anything else with) trains.

Perhaps a more relevant question is what is the procedure if someone "accidentally" has a drink before they're volunteering. I'm sure most people have had a beer or two that they originally intended to be orange juices.

Similarly, what happens if someone suspects that their drink has been spiked?

I imagine that there could be some pressure to work if there's no cover available for anyone waylayed by alcohol or maybe ilnness or something else.