PDA

View Full Version : Richmond A/C Transit drivers ask for more security, and are told...


Window_Seat
06-18-2010, 11:11 PM
"Sorry, we can't afford it."

This is another reason why CA needs to go shall issue CCW or make the good cause requirement defined as SD/SP. This is why I'm looking forward to Sykes moving forward after McDonald...

KTVU reported that in Richmond, the A/C Transit drivers traveling a particular route want the bus system to be pulled from that route because of the dangerous crime element. The Transit company says "NO" to more security because of a "$56 million deficit", but seem to think that "extra patrols and security cameras" will solve the problem.

The Law Enforcement (with respect to LEOs here) can't ride the bus all the time, and can't follow them everywhere they go, and the criminals know that very well, and they take full advantage of this issue by exploiting the drivers & the passengers by doing what they do best, being thugs.

Since these issues won't go away, there is only one alternative, and that is to arm the drivers & allow law abiding passengers to ride while armed, but since that will never happen here in CA as long as we continue voting in the same hoplophobic Government that we have, Richmond A/C Transit drivers & their passengers will have to fend for themselves and hope & pray that they are not the next victim of the California Legislature's effort to victimize law abiding citizens.

Sorry for the rant, here's the link:

Bus Drivers Want AC Transit To Drop Dangerous Route (http://www.ktvu.com/news/23959952/detail.html)

Erik.

Gray Peterson
06-18-2010, 11:16 PM
Ah, Alameda County. Home of unlawful liability insurance requirements and other assorted asshattery, we'll be coming for you. :)

berto
06-18-2010, 11:55 PM
Ah, Alameda County. Home of unlawful liability insurance requirements and other assorted asshattery, we'll be coming for you. :)

Contra Costa too please. It's where the line in question runs.

Gray Peterson
06-19-2010, 12:00 AM
Contra Costa too please. It's where the line in question runs.

I feel stupider, already. I keep forgetting AC doesn't mean Alameda County , rather it means Alameda/ContraCosta Transit.

Bill_in_SD
06-19-2010, 12:12 AM
Don't forget that the transit authority Chief of Police can issue as well. This seems like the right time to see them issue legitimate CCWs.

NOT like this guy, when he crashed his (not really his) Ferrari Enzo - he was a part of the San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Eriksson

SJgunguy24
06-19-2010, 12:26 AM
Even if they could carry the union will not let them. MIL is AC bus driver and they are not even allowed to defend themselves if under attack. I offered her pepper spray and she refuses to take it, "my job is worth too much" she says. "Worth more then your life?" , good lord now I know where the kids mother gets her attitude.

Window_Seat
06-19-2010, 12:57 AM
...they are not even allowed to defend themselves if under attack...

Can she provide something in writing that states this?

Erik.

Cobrafreak
06-19-2010, 8:10 AM
I am a veteran Regional Transit Operator in Sacramento. We are currently undergoing the same 56 Million deficit as AC, MUNI, Yolo, Elk Grove, etc. Monday we begin our drastic service cuts to make up for Arnold's stealing of our measure A tax revenue earmarked for Transportation for the next 30 years. Anyway, they teach us in training how to defend ourselves legally. It's like defending yourself in your home. The moment you cease being the defender and become the aggressor you are breaking policy. So basically you can use your arms or legs to defend yourself from harm just to the point that it stops the attack. But realistically, the Operators that do get into fights seem to have attitude problems and do not diffuse the situation, something at which I am very good at. We do not have access to the cash box and we have four frakkin video cameras on board, and it is the same legal penalty to do harm or threat to a bus or train operator as to a policeman, and it is well posted on the busses. Route 51 in Sacramento which is from Downtown/Broadway to Stockton/Florin Mall is about the worse we have to offer. High crime area. If you just know how to treat ANYONE with respect regardless of how abusive they get, and know what not to say you are fine. I avoid it myself because I tend to pull my hair out,Lol.

creekside
06-19-2010, 9:47 AM
Taser. The driver is trapped in a small area, but this is one case where the limited range of the Taser is irrelevant.

I would not be cheerful about using pepper spray on a bus, particularly because innocent passengers would be affected. Pepper foam is a much better pick.

(Waves to RT operator. Isn't it nice to have competent police running your system security instead of bureaucrats?)

BKinzey
06-19-2010, 10:47 AM
Even if they could carry the union will not let them...

Could you substantiate that?

SJgunguy24
06-19-2010, 11:52 AM
Can she provide something in writing that states this?

Erik.
I'll ask her next time I see her.


Could you substantiate that?

I ride public transit everyday and I have a few freinds who are operators as well (VTA) and every singlke one of them has told me that if they fight back at all when attacked they will be fired.

Window_Seat
06-19-2010, 12:17 PM
I'll ask her next time I see her.




I ride public transit everyday and I have a few freinds who are operators as well (VTA) and every singlke one of them has told me that if they fight back at all when attacked they will be fired.

I believe this to be true, unfortunately it's very unlikely that such a written policy would ever be published, and that is why transit workers, truck drivers, and like professions are held with one hand tied behind their backs. This is also why I'm so gung-ho about trucking industry and trucker safety issues related to CCWs.

The only way to get this changed is to expose it, and this might not be a bad place, yes?

Erik.

Bizcuits
06-19-2010, 12:23 PM
I am all for CCW, but they would never allow it. That'd be like letting firefighters and EMT's conceal carry... It opens away to much liability.

Gray Peterson
06-19-2010, 12:25 PM
I am all for CCW, but they would never allow it. That'd be like letting firefighters and EMT's conceal carry... It opens away to much liability.

No it doesn't. Government Code 818.4 and 821.2 exempts them from liability in situations like this.

Gray Peterson
06-19-2010, 12:29 PM
I'll ask her next time I see her.




I ride public transit everyday and I have a few freinds who are operators as well (VTA) and every singlke one of them has told me that if they fight back at all when attacked they will be fired.

Except the substantiation that we were asking for had nothing to do with employer policy. I am wondering why you're saying "Not allowed by her union". Unions don't fire, employers do.

bigcalidave
06-19-2010, 12:46 PM
What's wrong with firefighters and emts carrying? Or anyone else for that matter? If your life is in danger you always have the right to defend it. When being attacked by someone with a gun, you need to have a gun. It's absurd how many people wander around oblivious to the dangers and dangerous people around them.

If these drivers are being assaulted or killed, the state needs to let them defend themselves. I can't imagine sitting back and taking a beating because my supervisor said I'd lose my job. How is that acceptable?

yellowfin
06-19-2010, 12:50 PM
I am all for CCW, but they would never allow it. That'd be like letting firefighters and EMT's conceal carry... It opens away to much liability.Then the departments who disallow it need to be held to equal or greater liability because they don't.

Wicked Pete
06-19-2010, 1:06 PM
There was one suggestion some time ago, to make a bullet proof cage around the driver. Even, to seal off the driver and put another door for them.

Much like the taxi drivers in N.Y. City, no passenger access, you pass the money through a porthole. Sign of the times?

N6ATF
06-19-2010, 5:34 PM
No it doesn't. Government Code 818.4 and 821.2 exempts them from liability in situations like this.

:43:

dantodd
06-19-2010, 7:44 PM
Except the substantiation that we were asking for had nothing to do with employer policy. I am wondering why you're saying "Not allowed by her union". Unions don't fire, employers do.

To bad this isn't true. In too many shops the union has much more ability to have a person terminated than the "employer." I've seen this in SEIU grocery shops and I am suspect it is even worse in government shops.

SJgunguy24
06-19-2010, 9:58 PM
Except the substantiation that we were asking for had nothing to do with employer policy. I am wondering why you're saying "Not allowed by her union". Unions don't fire, employers do.

The union won't do anything to help them if they are fired for self defense. So yes the union will not allow their members to carry even if they had a CCW. This is all back handed policy with no care for the operators safety. Drivers are easy to replace.
How much would a transit agency and or union have to pay out because one of their operators shot somebody in self defense? Millions I would care to guess, but if that driver is killed on the job? Maybe 50K-100K

creekside
06-20-2010, 3:21 PM
What's wrong with firefighters and emts carrying?

EMTs are often prohibited by each county's EMSA (Emergency Medical Services Agency) protocol from carrying weapons, including firearms, in the course of their duties. Only law enforcement EMTs (i.e. tactical medics, flight crews, etc.) are exempted. EMTs are expected to walk away and call for the police if their safety is threatened. Some wear body armor, but weapons are both prohibited and incompatible with the culture.

Sunnyvale Public Safety is a combined police/fire agency where in fact the firefighters are fully certified peace officers and do carry firearms. The protection for other fire agencies is that their crews travel in numbers and have hand tools readily available. :)

Neither EMTs nor firefighters are 'unaware' of the hazards of their profession, including the human hazards. Both may use force to defend themselves, typically as a last resort. Both have immediate radio contact with dispatchers who will send police at high priority.

It's very unfortunate that many bus drivers have only the radio, and are not allowed either to abandon a hazardous situation or to defend themselves appropriately if words fail.