Mike Bristow wrote:

In article .com,
Kev wrote:
Then I suggest that the you and the driver are an ignorant tosser. He
was reprieved a sacking and got a suspended sentence. The choice is
his. If he doesn't run a red light he will be ok.

"Running a red light" to me implies a deliberate act; he knew the light
was red and decided to keep going anyway.

I very much doubt that that is the case: train drivers may accidentally
go past a red light, but I rather suspect that the last time a driver
may have deliberatly done so was in 1975 (and even then, it's hard to be
sure it was deliberate - he died, of course).

Why does whether the driver does or doesn't do his job
correctly make me ignorant.

Perfect, are we?

I would suggest that the driver has more to lose in a crash since he
would be at the front. Given that the drivers that strike don't give a
toss about the passengers why should the passengers give a toss about
the drivers.

Because a sense of justice means that the rules agreed between the
managment and the workers should be followed.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

Then maybe somebody needs to ask the question why so many drivers go
past red lights accidentally? I still don't see why I should feel
concerned for a driver who may pass another red signal and therefore
invoke a suspended sentence when drivers don't give a toss about
passengers when they go on strike. This driver has been given a second
chance. If it was me I don't think that I would complain.
I would say that makes drivers ignorant *******.

Kevin