Ban drunks and drinking on trains

[pogofish]

Yes some places but often an utterly inadequate service. Our new night bus service - which First resisted for years, because "people might use it" is patrolled by wardens who will refuse carriage to drunks. It also costs a lot - partly because taxi firms also strongly resisted this threat to their monopoly.

Maybe but people thinking they can use it, with no respect toward/regardless of the consequences for anyone else, is more than a bit rich IMO.

 

[bikergrrl]

I am a nice drunk... I don't cause trouble, don't stare at people, don't harrass people, don't puke... why should people like myself have to pay the consequences for people who do cause trouble?

I think a better idea would be to increase policing on trains, and throw off the people who do cause trouble at the first station they will be able to get a taxi from.

 

[Roadkill]

Maybe but people thinking they can use it, with no respect toward/regardless of the consequences for anyone else, is more than a bit rich IMO.

No-one's arguing that should be the case.

There should be more effective means of kicking off people who are causing trouble, but people who aren't should be able to travel whether they've had a drink or not.

Besides, any ban on people who've had a drink using public transport would effectively kill off existing public transport provision in the evenings, much of which depends on people on nights out for most of its custom.

 

[irishshapes]

last time i got train down to london from birmngham, 4 guys were thrown off of the train for being annoying and abusive, personally i didn't give a fuck there were 4 of us, and......

but we drank solid for 2 hours as our build up to go out, and maybe we got loud, we were far from threatening
son't ban drinking on the train, what the fuck else is there to do anyway, it's fcuking boring

and if i'm on my own, i want a book, music and a beer, sometimes i'm gutted when the journey is finished

 

[pogofish]

I am a nice drunk... I don't cause trouble, don't stare at people, don't harrass people, don't puke... why should people like myself have to pay the consequences for people who do cause trouble?

Maybe because it is easier to target you, who is unlikley to be much bother than to take-on a beered-up thug?

 

[pogofish]

No-one's arguing that should be the case.

There should be more effective means of kicking off people

Besides, any ban on people who've had a drink using public transport would effectively kill off existing public transport provision in the evenings, much of which depends on people on nights out for most of its custom.

As it is, they have ample powers

Of course, we should maybe also be looking at the whole of the going-out & geting-drunk culture as well. Pissheads are a wider issue than just trains & frankly a whole lot of people restrict their social activities to avoid them, wspecially if they live in parts of towns which are riven with them at weekends. Remember, it is also quite illegal to be drunk in a pub or club too.

Yes, Taxi-drivers in particular know about this goldmine & we have one of the highest fare-levels outside London because of it. Personally, they have been taking the piss for so long that I don't have much sympathy for them screaming about being hard-done by.

 

[Roadkill]

As it is, they have ample powers

Ample powers, but by the sound of things not ample personnel. Maybe that's the solution.

Of course, we should maybe also be looking at the whole of the going-out & geting-drunk culture as well. Pissheads are a wider issue than just trains & frankly a whole lot of people restrict their social activities to avoid them, wspecially if they live in parts of towns which are riven with them at weekends. Remember, it is also quite illegal to be drunk in a pub or club too.

Maybe so, but let's keep this to the specific issue of public transport and take as a given the fact that there'll always want to be people who want to get home after a night out. And why not? I go out in central London, have a fair few drinks and get night buses home without causing trouble, as do most other people. No problem at all with drinkers until they get nasty. The laws about being drunk are frankly absurd anyway: no-one's ever arrested for being drunk, unless they're so drunk they can't function or start causing problems, in which case it's only right that someone intervenes, for their sake as much as anyone else's.

Yes, Taxi-drivers in particular know about this goldmine & we have one of the highest fare-levels outside London because of it. Personally, they have been taking the piss for so long that I don't have much sympathy for them screaming about being hard-done by.

Oh yes, they make a killing when there's no bus or train service and I've not a great deal of sympathy for them either. Fuck 'em - let the councils stick on cheap night buses where there's a market and watch the taxi firms go out of business.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

That is your problem to sort-out then, not for the transport provider. Public transport has to cope with all sorts of people, for all sorts of reasons & the only responsability you have is to be in a fit state to use it without being a liability to everyone else. Is that so bloody hard?

If that is the case, then the potential drunk driver should be kept away from cars & any form of PT altogether, as they are clearly a complete liability & unfit to be around the rest of society.

After all, you don't have to drink, do you?

OK then, we should just ban pubs, clubs and any form of enjoyment. People should be forced to attend Sunday school and read scriptures. Is that what you want?

A very, very large percentage of people under, say, 30 are going out and getting pissed on friday/saturday nights in the UK. It's a part of our culture, always has been. They need a way to get home. You can't just expect that to change just like that. YOu make it sound like it's a tiny amount of people who are getting drunk and then using public transport, but it's not, it's most young people. One way or another, if you completely stop anyone who has consumed alcohol from getting on public transport, you are going to end up with thousands of people stuck out on the streets and pissed off at closing time, which is hardly ideal.

 

[pogofish]

OK then, we should just ban pubs, clubs and any form of enjoyment. People should be forced to attend Sunday school and read scriptures. Is that what you want?

Interesring you make the assumption that not drinking equals religion?

Thousands of drunks of any age on the streets at closing time is hardly unusual in itself is it? That's more the issue IMO, if you can't keep control of yourself when drunk, you simply don't have any buisness on public transport or making anyone elses life hell in any other way because of it.

Despite it maybe being part of the culture, it is not a requirement or even an excuse for taking leave of leave of your basic responsabilities to others - plenty of other similarly aged folk manage a good time without impinging much on anyone else BTW & is largely your choice to get pissed in the first place. Why should you expect others to have any interest in sweeping up after you because of it?

 

[Roadkill]

But his point is that most people who go out of an evening don't cause trouble and don't need to be swept up after, so why should they be penalised for the actions of those who do?

It's not only going out of an evening anyway. The sort of blanket ban on alcohol on trains would cover everything from the sort of scenarios you've described (where something does need to be done), to people having a glass of wine with a meal on a long-distance train.

 

[pogofish]

But his point is that most people who go out of an evening don't cause trouble and don't need to be swept up after, so why should they be penalised for the actions of those who do?

Maybe this could yet another restriction the rest of us just have to put-up with for the greater good, even if we don't like it, because the idiots are unable to moderate it/have brought it on themselves? Although yes, i would hope it is applied with some discretion but equally, the discretion they have at the moment dosen't seem that effective.

 

[Roadkill]

Maybe this is yet another restriction the rest of us just have to put-up with for the greater good, even if we don't like it, because the idiots are unable to moderate it/have brought it on themselves?

I don't accept that. I don't see why the many should suffer for the mistakes of the few.

Besides, again that's an argument deployed in favour of the smoking ban, except in that case it makes more sense because passive smoking is directly harmful, drinking is indirectly so.

Tbh this is a bit of a futile debate anyway now. We've worried all around the problem and not come up with any solutions, and in any case, the idea was raised last year and then quietly dropped when it proved unpopular for all the reasons the 'anti-ban' camp have outlined above.

 

[pogofish]

Besides, again that's an argument deployed in favour of the smoking ban, except in that case it makes more sense because passive smoking is directly harmful, drinking is indirectly so.

It may be an extreme one but what about drunk driving? Few now dispute that we have to control our drinking in order to be safe on the roads & only a few utter idiots will now try & argue that a few drinks won't affect their driving. Don't kid yourself that drunks on train do not make it a potentially dangerous environment either.

I think you will find that this is quite the other way round, compared to secondary alcohol damage, any risk from passive smoking is pretty insignificant & rendered pointless by a whole load of other factors/potential risks. Indeed even the most extreme claims made about the risk from passive smoking don't add-up to one tenth of the generally accepted level for alcohol.

Besides, with the current attitudes to drinking, there won't be an answer short of a ban that will not offer some sort of parachute for the irresponsable ones.

 

[Giles]

As for them being "inconvenienced" - well that's all it is. A minor inconvenience. Like not smoking on the tube or on a flight. Because it makes the surroundings generally nicer for the majority of people.

Go and sit in another carriage, and stop whinging. I've travelled on loads of trains over a period of 20 years or so, and even been drunk on a few trains. On a handful of occasions I have been mildly irritated by a loud group of drunk people. But then I've felt threatened sometimes by a group of aggressive lads who did not seem drunk, just looking for trouble. I've also gone and sat elsewhere when the carriage I was sitting in filled up with screaming schoolkids chucking stuff at each other and running about.

Why should everyone else be banned from doing something just because you don't like it?

Anyway, if someone is *really* behaving badly, call the staff and get em chucked off or arrested.

Giles..

 

[killer b]

they'll never ban drinking on the trains - too many of the people who travel first class like to drink a nice bottle of wine to help the journey go by - and it's generally them who make the decisions on what gets banned...

 

[subversplat]

As for them being "inconvenienced" - well that's all it is. A minor inconvenience. Like not smoking on the tube or on a flight. Because it makes the surroundings generally nicer for the majority of people.

The rules about smoking on the tube and aircraft are purely because they're both firetraps waiting to happen Customer enjoyment has nothing to do with it, else there'd still be smoking sections for people that wanted to section themselves off and indulge.

Anyway yes, there are rules about acting the twat on public transport as aready stated, so all you need is more security. Perhaps a "naughty carriage", fully segregated from the main ones, would be good as well because I don't like the idea of throwing people off in the middle of nowhere on the assumption they've got the money for a cab to wherever they're going.

 

[pogofish]

Whilst the tube had a genuine fire risk, the rules about smoking on aircraft have sod all to do with fire BTW. Instead, they were politically/financially motivated so carriers wanting access to the US had to comply & airlines liked the fuel saving due to the much lower air-change rate.

Of course this saving also pushed up the number of folk catching airborne bugs instead. A few strong ones would probably be a good idea there, for disinfectant purposes!

 

[geminisnake]

A very, very large percentage of people under, say, 30 are going out and getting pissed on friday/saturday nights in the UK. It's a part of our culture, always has been.

The bit in bold that's bollocks that is(IME). It has only been a bit of UK culture for about 30yrs. Most folk couldn't afford to go and get pissed every weekend before that, many still can't today and even 20 yrs ago round here it wasn't the majority that could afford it.

I think(but I could be wrong) gettting totally shitfaced at the weekends became more common with the rule of the wicked w/bitch(1979 ish)

 

[subversplat]

Drinking huge amounts has been a part of "Britishness" for centuries. It might have gone through a bit of a lull with The War and all that, but it's in our blood.

It was only in the 70s that the Navy stopped giving rum to sailors as a matter of course ffs!

 

[Yossarian]

They were drinking gallons of ale for breakfast in the 12th century! There's a proud tradition of 'immoderate quaffing by fools' going back many centuries...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4455912.stm

 

[subversplat]

Celts - massive pissheads
Vikings - massive pissheads
Germanic Tribes - massive pissheads

Add them all together and you've got the modern Anglo-Saxon

 

[geminisnake]

They were drinking gallons of ale for breakfast in the 12th century!

That's because it was safer to drink than the water though

 

[subversplat]

That's because it was safer to drink than the water though

You've obviously not seen the stuff that comes out of the taps around here!

 

[pogofish]

They were drinking gallons of ale for breakfast in the 12th century!

Except that the sort of ale folk drank back then was a very low-alcohol brew & you would probably need a gallon or two to get mildly merry. Where do you think the origins of the saying "small-beer" lie?

Strong ales, wines & spirits were expensive luxuries even back then & tended only to be brewed by specific brewers who were either licenced or owned/patronised by the ruling classes & often, large-scale drinking was only kept to seasonal or specific celebrations, eg Wassails or the various Fair Ales brewed for markets, hiring fairs or other such major gatherings.

I'd suggest that the nearest paralell might have been the Gin-years in the 18th/19th centuries & whilst I'd also agree that there was never a shortage of more recent pissheads, I'd also agree that there was a bit of a change in the drinking culture during the Thatcher years & again in the late 80s. Each time, for the worse.

 

[George & Bill]

It may be an extreme one but what about drunk driving? Few now dispute that we have to control our drinking in order to be safe on the roads & only a few utter idiots will now try & argue that a few drinks won't affect their driving. Don't kid yourself that drunks on train do not make it a potentially dangerous environment either.

[/QUOTE]

having had a drink, I feel emboldened to point out that this remark does an accute injustice to your powers of reasoning, PF.

Only a fool will claim to be able to drink and drive safely; on the other hand, many a wise man can truthfully claim the ability to get royally blotto'd on board a train with no negative effect on its safety.

 

[pogofish]

Many maybe but you can't deny that there are some who are an utter liability to other passengers & staff once they have had a few & those are the folk who could attract the legislation, not the rest of us.

Not that many years ago, there really were plenty of folk who would argue with conviction that a few drinks made them a better driver & that the legislation shouldn't apply to them because they were careful & could handle drink well, so I'd suggest there is some similarity?

 

[Yossarian]

I don’t see that much similarity there, unless you’re talking about the train drivers getting pissed!

 

[Giles]

The rules about smoking on the tube and aircraft are purely because they're both firetraps waiting to happen Customer enjoyment has nothing to do with it, else there'd still be smoking sections for people that wanted to section themselves off and indulge.

The general ban on smoking on planes is nothing much to do with fire safety, and more to do with passenger preference and the whole "passive smoking" thing.

Giles..

 

[aylee]

In some countries they have women only carriages on trains. I don't think though that women and men should have to separate because of the threat presented by drunks. I know that banning drunks and drinking is a restriction on liberty but surely it's justified? My option is to avoid trains for inter city travel altogether and drive my own car - that is a restriction on my own liberty.

Killjoy woz ere.

 

[Roadkill]

Anyway yes, there are rules about acting the twat on public transport as aready stated, so all you need is more security. Perhaps a "naughty carriage", fully segregated from the main ones, would be good as well because I don't like the idea of throwing people off in the middle of nowhere on the assumption they've got the money for a cab to wherever they're going.

Or a device like they have for nutters on aeroplanes that pins them to the seat with their arms by their sides?

Tbh, if someone does kick off on a train then IMO that's their look-out and if they end up being booted off in the middle of nowhere it's their problem. I don't see why train staff should have to be responsible for supervising people who've kicked off.

The fact is, that if there were effective means of getting rid of people who do cause trouble on public transport when pissed, we wouldn't have a few people suggesting that everyone should be barred from having a drink, troublemaker or otherwise.