"the simple fact of the matter is; your employer can not make you drive a vehicle you THINK is unsafe".
Sometimes you lot don't listen so well!
Peterperfect has told you - succinctly and correctly, with a degree of modesty and technical assurance - what the position IS - not what he guesses it might be.
Here is one of those situations where, unlike many other facets of modern day life where 'your perception is your reality', the facts are simple and the perception irrelevant.
Your opinion is just that. Technically true to say your employer can't make you drive it if you THINK its unsafe - but he surely can make himself your ex-employer.
Retarders are optional extras and DO NOT make the vehicle stop quicker - they allow repeated or sustained braking without wear to moving wheel brake linings etc. To suggest they make the bus stop quicker is like saying the sidelamps make the headlamps brighter. (Yes, I KNOW that doesn't mean sidelamps aren't testable... but that's not my point!)
|
Technically true to say your employer can't make you drive it if you THINK its unsafe - but he surely can make himself your ex-employer.
Any dismissal for a health and safety related reason (not my phrasing here) is automatically unfair. What this means is that a refusal to breach health and safety rules cannot lead to a dismissal, although refusing to drive a roadworthy vehicle probably wouldn't be a pure health and safety issue.
Of course, that doesn't mean that an employer can't be subtle about it, but it is impossible to sack someone straightforwardly if the vehicle is unsafe or the driver at least reasonably believes it to be.
|
So... if I THINK using a telephone is going to give me a brain tumour, I can refuse to use the phone at work? No, thought not!
I agre with what you say, it just doesn't answer what I said earlier - which is that what the employee THINKS is irrelevant - if the vehicle IS safe, he can be required to use it... or face the alternative, no doubt after warnings etc - but ultimately the sanction is there and is used!
|
|
So... if I THINK using a telephone is going to give me a brain tumour, I can refuse to use the phone at work? No, thought not!
I agree with what you say, it just doesn't answer what I said earlier - which is that what the employee THINKS is irrelevant - if the vehicle IS safe, he can be required to use it... or face the alternative, no doubt after warnings etc - but ultimately the sanction is there and is used!
|
Is it right then, for a driver of a publicly-run bus, or indeed any other vehicle, to drive it when he/she KNOWS it is unroadworthy? Who is going to be held to blame in the unfortunate scenario of an accident? The company or the driver?
There are bus companies around that, honestly Neil, just take the P. They are told by their employees that the bus is unsafe, and yet they insist on sending the same bus out day after day after day (ferrying our schooolchildren) rather than doing something about it. The drivers are under threat - drive it or you are out!
I've learned a little from my time in the BR. And one of the things I've learned is that every time I step into a public transport vehicle I just might be taking my own life into my hands!
We have a few bus drivers on our site here, and I'd be interested to hear more of their views on this.
HF
|
HF - you're darned right. I'll not reveal who I work for as that would break the protocol of the site (and get me into trouble at work ;-) ), but I shall tell you a story, if I may?
The other day I had an elderly (F-reg) Leyland Olympian which had an automatic gearbox. This gearbox was clearly malfunctioning and had been for some time as I can distinctly remember reporting it before Christmas.
There were two things wrong - firstly the gearbox would hold onto gears (especially first) and not change up. The only way to get it to change up was to either lift your foot off the throttle, causing the bus to jerk violently, or use the kickdown on the throttle pedal which quickly becomes uncomfortable. The second problem was that occasionally, and without warning, there would be a four second delay between putting my foot on the throttle and the bus moving. This coupled with the first fault meant that, in my opinion, the bus was unsafe. I'd had several occasions when I was pulling out of a bus stop, thinking that I had plenty of time only for the throttle not to respond and the gearbox refusing to change up. Result - vehicle up my chuffer piloted by very annoyed person.
So, I refused to take the bus any further and requested a changeover. This was brought from the garage with bad grace, and off I went. On my way back, I passed the very same vehicle back out on the road. It had not been fixed, or even looked at, just given to the next poor sap.
This probably isn't going to reassure you, HF, but my company at least works on a 'run it til it breaks' policy. I have lost count of the amount of times a bus has gone out on the road leaking water, or with a dodgy turbo only for it to break down and need a tow in at a cost to the company of £300 a time - they scrapped the depot tug and refused to buy another one. It is this kind of logic that I find baffling.
Anyway, all being well I'm moving jobs soon. Same industry, different company. I just hope that they are better than the current lot. Couldn't be much worse....
Cheers
Rob
"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast."
|
I'd report them to your local health and safety executive anonymously. They should decide to do a random spot check ;-)
teabelly
|
|
Rob your company is a carbon copy of mine with regards to running buses till they break etc and palming off defective buses on newer drivers who are scared to rock the boat with the depot forman/supervisors. If the vehicle inspectorate were to pay a suprise visit one morning they would stop at least 1 in 3 buses leaving the depot for serious defects IMO.
I'm a loser, baby....so why don't you kill me?!
|
My my, what a lot of banter about buses, it's nice to know so many people are interested in this type of thread.
Rob I sympathise with your Olympian situation, we had a similar problem with a Lynx once which used to react to any throttle application when it felt like it, sometimes not at all!
I had a situation a few years ago when I refused to drive a Merc minibus which had a faulty horn, sometimes it worked, but the majority of the time it didn't and it got to the stage where some drivers, myself included, just refused to drive it point blank.
The horn button for those non Merc people out there is located on the end of the indicator/wiper stalk.
In the end they just bodged a separate horn button on the dashboard as they didn't want to spend £80 on a new stalk and that is acceptable on test.
The problem is that like most things these days, maintenance is done to a budget and it doesnt matter what the problem, that budget will not be exceeded. So when Rob's Olympian's air throttle finally gives up the ghost completely it'll get fixed - but not before. The phrase "let it develop" is something i've become accustomed to hearing throughout the bus industry when it comes to maintenance - sad but true.
PP
|
Having read all of the above postings i find it hard to believe the bus companies involved still have their operators licences. I am fleet manager for a medium sized haulage company , if we ignored drivers defect reports like bus companies seem to do we would have lost or had our licence suspended . I think a call to the VI or VOSA as it is now called's "tip off line" would start a move in the right direction.
|
We haven\'t even started on motor factors yet!
Just after I finished my MSc I had a short job driving for a well known national motor factor.
Such was the pressure to keep the vans on the road that I was asked to drive a van with a broken windscreen. Not your 5 inch crack either, this looked like it had been attacked by a baseball bat (or worst still Mark\'s aerial in that car wash!). I refused on the grounds that it was an unreasonable request to drive an unroadworthy vehicle. \"No problem Hugo\", I was given another van. A colleague who was not as assertive as me was told to stop messing about, get in a drive the ******* thing
If anyone feels pressured into driving a vehicle not fit for the road, he or she should contact the safety officer or rep for that workplace immediately. The Health and Safety at Work Act applies here and I\'m sure the HSE won\'t be too slow to at least serve improvement notices on the employers responsible.
H
|
Bighammerman,
I don't think that the VI would be interested in driver comfort items. They're only concerned about vehicle roadworthiness. An uncomfortable drivers seat wouldn't bother them - a loose one would! And as you know, drivers defect reports are sort of filtered, safety related items are usually dealt with promptly, others put back until time permits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|