Do You support Rule G?

[Anonymous]

Do you support Rule G it means you can't be drink at least 4 hrs. from going duty I think some one correct me if I'm wrong
I support becuase it besures you are mot drunk before going on duty when you responable for hundres of lives and We need it for Truck Drivers, all Airline Crews even ticket Agents, Taxi Cab drivers, and others

DOGGY

[Anonymous]

Railroaders, Airplane Pilots, Doctors, Taxi Drivers, Bus Drivers, Sea Captains...

I have no problems with those kinds of jobs getting regular drug testing, and by no means should any of the above be working while they are drunk.

It's a simple safety issue as far as I'm concerned.

Of course up here in Canada, the laws are really strict on drug testing....

Basically they can only test you when you apply for employment, and then again if you are involved in a crash or you break a cardinal rule resulting in disaster.

Seems the drug testing is much more liberal in the states, and as far as the occupations mentioned above, I would have no problems if they were going to get tested on a regular basis here in Canada.

[pmsteamman]

YES YES YES YES....

[kenneo]

Absolutely.

There are two really high-profile examples -- the AMTK/CONRAIL collision in Maryland and the EXXON VALDES stranding in Alaska --- both had "operating under the influence" as a major cause

[rrnut282]

This should be a no-brainer for those involved , but unfortunately, we have many examples of why there has to be a Rule G.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

By all means. Rule G or its equivalent applies to any transportation system when you stop to think of it. For example, most states consider drivers with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 legally drunk. I too would like to know how long railroad employees must stay away from alcohol before reporting for duty.

[Anonymous]

The only people that wouldn't support it are the guilty people. Nobody, from a fast food worker to a executive, should be drunk or under the influence of drugs while at work. It is unfair to everyone. Employers sufferer from a less productive, more hazardous workplace. Consumers don't get their money worth.

I also think smokers who smoke during working hours should lose their job. At a place I work, one guy smokes. Every 30-45 minutes he stops for 5 minutes to smoke. Ignoring the secondhand smoke and other problems, he works at least five minutes less than me an hour, and gets paid the same. Unfair.

I have nothing to hide, and you can test me any time you want for any drug or alcohol.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Doggy

Do you support Rule G it means you can't be drink at least 4 hrs. from going duty I think some one correct me if I'm wrong
I support becuase it besures you are mot drunk before going on duty when you responable for hundres of lives and We need it for Truck Drivers, all Airline Crews even ticket Agents, Taxi Cab drivers, and others

DOGGY

Aviation has had a much more stringent rule in place for decades Doggy. Many airlines have taken it a step further. For a private pilot ...just some guy that likes to fly not even for hire. A private pilot can lose his pilot's priviledges for a period of time for DUI in a car. For good if it happens again. Drug related one strike he's out. Airlines usually let them go on a first offense. This has been brought up before.

[Anonymous]

Some states have added driving laws for "driving while impaired"- that is, while you are under the influence of drugs, prescription or not. The old defense of "I'm a diabetic, I missed my pill or shot" is out now too. I suspect the airlines, shipping lines, and railroads are not far behind.

Erik

[BaltACD]

In years gone by the railroads operated on three subsatances....nicotene, cafeen and alachol....

Thanks to Ricky Gates and his MaryJane mistake the Feds got involved and put teeth into the Companies Rule G. The testing was long overdue when it began and in addition to testing the normal Conductor, Engineer, Trainman the testing also applies to Operators, Train Dispatchers and operating Officials. It was long overdue and sadly needed.

[Rick Gates]

For an average height person, weighing 160 lbs. one drink (12 ounce beer, one shot 86 proof whiskey, glass of wine -- all the same amount of alcohol), a liitle under 0.5 once of pure alcohol. End of an hour his blood alcohol level will be 0.02. 2.5 drinks will achieve a 0.05 BAL. Five drinks in an hour 0.10 BAL. The law at this point considers anyone drunk and it will take 5 hours to metabolize this amount to get the BAL down to 0.02 or less. Just an example. This varies according to the weight of a person and is different for women with a higher composition and distribution of body fat. The BAL in women will be higher than for men because more body fat in propoprtion to body fluid.The easiest rule of thumb is that it will take one hour of not drinking for each drink consumed, to metabolize it from your body. Marijuana, on the other hand, has THC which is fat soluable and can stay in the body for two months. This can be detected far longer that that if a hair folicle test is administered. And so on. Not going to say a whole lot more for those who are wondering how to use this info to keep from getting caught. I used marijuana, for example on my vacation and was tested over two weeks later and it would still show up on a blood test. There is not a level to indicate how much detected proves one is under the influence when it comes to drugs. Bottom line. If you work in the tranportation industry, or any dangerous occupation, don't do DRUGS! Just a suggestion from the results of experience! [banghead]

[Rick Gates]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

In years gone by the railroads operated on three subsatances....nicotene, cafeen and alachol....

Thanks to Ricky Gates and his MaryJane mistake the Feds got involved and put teeth into the Companies Rule G. The testing was long overdue when it began and in addition to testing the normal Conductor, Engineer, Trainman the testing also applies to Operators, Train Dispatchers and operating Officials. It was long overdue and sadly needed.

Rule G. The use of alcoholic beverages, intoxicants, or narcotics by employees subjuect to duty is prohibited. Being under the influence of alcoholic beverages, intoxicants or narcotics while on duty, or their use or possession while on duty is prohibited. Taken from Penn Central Rules For Conducting Transportation Effective April 28, 1968. This was the rule before I hired on the RR and was mandated by law. Long before I had anything to add! Pre-employment, crash, and suspicion testing was in use at that time as well.

[rixflix]

No,No,No.....I don't support Rule G. Along with recent legislation, zealous do-gooders. so-called family and friends, people at work, et cetera, it would be an intrusion on my God-given right to live as recklessly as I please. Lord help me from these people with axes to grind who aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed themselves.
Whether it's John Barleycorn, Irish Rose, PBR, PCP, meth, ecstasy, horse, crack, maryjane, nicotine, uppers, downers, whatever, I'm gonna do it if I want to. I live in a constant rush of substances and edgy events in which I run stop signs, skirt crossing gates, and the occasional old lady with shopping bags. People don't like to hear this, but I'm having a ball!!!
If I was in charge of something really large and mobile, like a train, I would have a cheap six-year scotch close at hand and run restrictives 'til the cows come home. Or was it until pigs fly?
Oink,oink....!!!

Serenity y'all

[csxengineer98]

lol rixfix
well said...lol

[eolafan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pmsteamman

YES YES YES YES....

YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES!

[tree68]

The question begs itself. Who would not support Rule G? (That's a rhetorical question - you need not reply).

In it's simplest form, the question has two answers, yes and no. Most people would reply yes. Those who reply no will usually fall into the same group as the folks who manage to get a third (or fourth, or fifth) DWI on the highway. They haven't figured out that alcohol (never mind other intoxicants) impairs their ability to function. Some of them never will.

Alcohol has the simplest and most reliable measure of its effect: BAC. To my knowledge, there is not much knowledge, and no reliable testing, regarding effects of other intoxicants on one's ability to drive, etc. That is to say, the cop who pulls you over doesn't have a test device to determine if you are too high to drive. Too drunk he can measure, but not too stoned. Even with blood testing, there are few or no established levels of intoxication for drugs. If you test .08, you're drunk. If you test positive for some drug or another, you're probably cooked, regardless of the amount. Plus, with the enormous number of potential intoxicants (legal and illegal) the task of being able to test conclusively is daunting. F'rinstance, next time you're in your medicine cabinet, see how many of the over-the-counter meds include the warning "do not operate heavy machinery."

So, in an effort to reduce the number of replys necessary, perhaps Doggy's question should be rephrased "Are you opposed to Rule G?" Commentary notwithstanding, I suspect there will be no replies, since virtually no one is opposed...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

lol rixfix
well said...lol

CSX
What are you talking about? IF THIS IS MORE TRA***HIS IS GETTING OLD

DOGGY

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rixflix

No,No,No.....I don't support Rule G. Along with recent legislation, zealous do-gooders. so- called family and friends, people at work, et cetera, it would be an intrusion on my God-given right to live as recklessly as I please. Lord help me from these people with axes to grind who aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed themselves.
Whether it's John Barleycorn, Irish Rose, PBR, PCP, meth, ectstasy, horse, crack, maryjane, nicotein, uppers, downers, whatever, I'm gonna do it if I want to. I live in a constant rush of subtances and edgy events in which I run stop signs, skirt crossing gates and the occasional old lady with shopping bags. People don't like to hear this, but I'm having a ball!!!
If I was in charge of something really large and mobile, like a train, I would have a cheap six-year scotch close at hand and run restrictives 'til the cows came home. Or was it until pigs fly?
Oink,oink....!!!

Serenity y'all

Sounds like the airline a friend of mine and I want to start up...Glenlivet Air Express.....The Neat Way To Fly.....scotch all night, coffee in the morning, a can of dip for the afternoon.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Doggy

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

lol rixfix
well said...lol

CSX
What are you talking about? IF THIS IS MORE TRA***HIS IS GETTING OLD

DOGGY

Then why do you keep bringing it up........as Rix brought up in the "Whats up" thread... started with the Rick Gates thing....., then on to Casey Jones, now rule G......you keep bringing this stuff up......

I think you can rest assured that: A) all of us support Rule G or something to that effect, and B) Many other communites (particularly aviation) have the same sort, if not more stringent rules than rule G.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

lol rixfix
well said...lol

Seems Like Every Time Doggy has a valid Question, both of you Team up and Take up acting like Three Stooges, two person style.

So as that fast food chain put it, Wheres the Beef?

What's your Beef with Doggy?

Railfix, You display behavioural traits that would make even the common idiot know you have something Against Doggy, So what is it...?

Put it out in the open.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rixflix

No,No,No.....I don't support Rule G. Along with recent legislation, zealous do-gooders. so- called family and friends, people at work, et cetera, it would be an intrusion on my God-given right to live as recklessly as I please. Lord help me from these people with axes to grind who aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed themselves.
Whether it's John Barleycorn, Irish Rose, PBR, PCP, meth, ectstasy, horse, crack, maryjane, nicotein, uppers, downers, whatever, I'm gonna do it if I want to. I live in a constant rush of subtances and edgy events in which I run stop signs, skirt crossing gates and the occasional old lady with shopping bags. People don't like to hear this, but I'm having a ball!!!
If I was in charge of something really large and mobile, like a train, I would have a cheap six-year scotch close at hand and run restrictives 'til the cows came home. Or was it until pigs fly?
Oink,oink....!!!

Serenity y'all

Satire at its very best.

[Mookie]

Doggy and Kevin - I have to go home for the weekend, so will miss all the pleasantries, but I am with Tree - I think it was satire, not a slam. And Doggy - I get the feeling you are a fairly young person. Even I would be interested in what your thinking is, unless you are just like the Mookie - full of questions?

No harm, no foul.

Y'all have a good weekend - I am going to look for our rain!

Mookie

[DTomajko]

One would have to be a fool for not supporting any rule that restricts or contains a chemically impaired person from injuring or killing another with their irresponsible actions. The only thing that disturbs me is the uneven application of the law. An engineer or conductor, commercial pilot, or truck driver can only have a blood alcohol content of .004 versus everyone elses .008 or .010 level. I don't condone raising the level for the .004 group, but why can't everyone else be held to the same standard? No one applies or even suggests that the lower level be applied to the folks that repair the airplanes, locomotives, tracks, roads, or trucks, who could possibly have just as much influence over their performance. Recently in Pennsylvania, the federal DOT had to threaten the state with a reduction in highway funds to have them reduce the DUI level from .010 to .008. Some legislators claimed that bars and resteraunts would suffer massive business losses from the lower level. Does this kind of thinking seem skewed only to me? Now before I am derided or insulted for this commentary, a little background; I have been a trailer mechanic for 23 years and hold a Commercial Drivers License, haven't suffered from DUI arrests or injuries, am not anti-alcohol, and certainly don't believe in the seemingly increasing intrusion of government in our daily lives. I have worked with persons who have been "stoned" or "tanked" and am insulted by their casualness of taking a chance with my and others safety. I do believe in people being responsible and having the decency to work or enjoy themselves with a little concern for what their actions can or could do to others. This is only presented to my fellow members as food for thought and is not intended to pass judgement on anyone. Good luck and enjoy yourself,(responsibly).

[vsmith]

Drinks are on me at the Roundhouse![(-D][:-,][oops][D)][oX)][:-^]

[espeefoamer]

I most definately do support rule G.Once, in the 1970s I was watching trains along a railroad which shall remain unnamed,a frieght was waiting at a signal, and a brakeman walked up and asked if I wanted to buy some weed.[:0] I declined his"offer"!!

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Drinks are on me at the Roundhouse![(-D][:-,][oops][D)][oX)][:-^]

Well since it is getting close to happy hour out here.......

Is that lube oil yur drinkin or Guinness??

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Drinks are on me at the Roundhouse![(-D][:-,][oops][D)][oX)][:-^]

Well since it is getting close to happy hour out here.......

Is that lube oil yur drinkin or Guinness??

Sorry, I only have Murphy's Irish Stout in the fridge at the Roundhouse....

.....and I drive my trains as drunk as I want !





...of course their out on the benchwork in the garage....[D)][%-)][(-D][:-,][:-^]

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rixflix

No,No,No.....I don't support Rule G. Along with recent legislation, zealous do-gooders. so- called family and friends, people at work, et cetera, it would be an intrusion on my God-given right to live as recklessly as I please. Lord help me from these people with axes to grind who aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed themselves.
Whether it's John Barleycorn, Irish Rose, PBR, PCP, meth, ectstasy, horse, crack, maryjane, nicotein, uppers, downers, whatever, I'm gonna do it if I want to. I live in a constant rush of subtances and edgy events in which I run stop signs, skirt crossing gates and the occasional old lady with shopping bags. People don't like to hear this, but I'm having a ball!!!
If I was in charge of something really large and mobile, like a train, I would have a cheap six-year scotch close at hand and run restrictives 'til the cows came home. Or was it until pigs fly?
Oink,oink....!!!

Serenity y'all

TROLL !

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

Doggy and Kevin - I have to go home for the weekend, so will miss all the pleasantries, but I am with Tree - I think it was satire, not a slam. And Doggy - I get the feeling you are a fairly young person. Even I would be interested in what your thinking is, unless you are just like the Mookie - full of questions?

No harm, no foul.

Y'all have a good weekend - I am going to look for our rain!

Mookie

Nope, I don't agree-

Railfix is stirring something up, And i am not liking it.

Railfix, I want to know why you don't like Doggy, and why you have this certain fixation towards him, all your remarks in your posts indicate that you don't like Doggy for one reason or another.

So, out with it, then.

If i though that was Sarcasim for one minute, I wouldn't be responding to this, and on the outside of your post it looks like it is Sarcasim, but i'm using deep and critical thinking and I can see that in your post, not solely this one, the many others you have responded to him that you blatently don't like Doggy.

So, your turn to answer.. why?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxengineer98

lol rixfix
well said...lol

Seems Like Every Time Doggy has a valid Question, both of you Team up and Take up acting like Three Stooges, two person style.

So as that fast food chain put it, Wheres the Beef?

What's your Beef with Doggy?

Railfix, You display behavioural traits that would make even the common idiot know you have something Against Doggy, So what is it...?

Put it out in the open.

Kevin,
Thnaks for defending me and They act like the 3 stooges. I do have vaild Questions but you 2 dharmon and CSX you treat me like President Bush with Iraq din't I HAVE MY EVERY RIGHT TO BRING UP THESE ISSUES? Yes I do so CSX and Dharmon STOP PLAYING THE 3 STOOGES

DOGGY
THANKS AGAIN KEVIN