In article , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
In article , Andrew P Smith
writes
(4) The person has an intermittent eyesight problem that doesn't stop
them playing a game but isn't safe for something like train driving.
For example, temporary blindness in one part of the retina, or
temporary blindness in low light.

But they can see a squash ball whizzing around a brightly lit white
court at 35 mph.........

To continue with this one as an example:
(1) I said "one part of the retina", or "low light"; neither case would
prevent you seeing a brightly lit squash ball in continual motion
relative to your sightlines.


I didn't realise all tube tunnels were lit. If you can see a moving
squash ball then you can see a signal.

(2) If they fail to spot the ball once, the worst they get is a clonk
from it. If they fail to spot a signal or other hazard once, people can
die.


Signal is a red herring, I believe you know all about tripcocks. If the
drivers eye sight is defective then they will be rumbled at the medical
each year and stop driving trains.

Sheesh. Do I have to make the difference any clearer?

When in a hole Clive, stop digging.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:17:55 +0000, "I@n" -uk wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 22:15:23 +0000, woutster
wrote:

snip

I don't care what anyone says, doctors note or not, there is no way
someone can be well enough to play squash but be unable to push a few
buttons on a train, or perform lesser duties for a while if necessary.

The union want to watch themselves on this one unless they are
deliberately out to lose what little credibility they've got left with
the public.

In The Times today there is an article... apparently this person
started working on the Tube in 1998... now how many days off sick
would you expect for someone over 5 years? 10, 20, 30, 40, 50... how
about 218? This guy is taking the p*ss.. thats 1 in 5 working days!

In article , Mark Blewett
writes
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:17:55 +0000, "I@n" -uk wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 22:15:23 +0000, woutster
wrote:

snip

I don't care what anyone says, doctors note or not, there is no way
someone can be well enough to play squash but be unable to push a few
buttons on a train, or perform lesser duties for a while if necessary.

The union want to watch themselves on this one unless they are
deliberately out to lose what little credibility they've got left with
the public.

In The Times today there is an article... apparently this person
started working on the Tube in 1998... now how many days off sick
would you expect for someone over 5 years? 10, 20, 30, 40, 50... how
about 218? This guy is taking the p*ss.. thats 1 in 5 working days!




I've now gone 2yrs and 1 week without any time off sick from work.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

In message , Andrew P Smith
writes
I've now gone 2yrs and 1 week without any time off sick from work.

A new slant on the old willie-waving contest maybe?
--
Kat Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea - Robert A. Heinlein

In article , Kat
writes
In message , Andrew P Smith
writes
I've now gone 2yrs and 1 week without any time off sick from work.

A new slant on the old willie-waving contest maybe?

Nothing old about my willie.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

In article ,
(Boltar) wrote:

wrote in message
...
A driver doesn't have to be fit to drive the train - he could be
carried into the cab and plonked on his seat and still drive the
train. However the driver does have to be fit to deal with anything
(emergency or non-emergency) that may occur while he is in charge of
the train. This often seems to get overlooked. One such thing could
be detraining passengers and/or walking along the track. Drivers have
a yearly mobility test for just this purpose (together with a basic
eyesight test).

That may be true but it hardly applies in this case.

B2003

True. It was more of a general observation.

Roger

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 22:16:51 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In article ,
(Boltar) wrote:

wrote in message
...
[snip]
That may be true but it hardly applies in this case.

B2003

True. It was more of a general observation.

Roger
I hope the eyesight test is rather more than basic - signal sighting
is fairly critical!


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

in article , Clive D. W. Feather at
wrote on 12/11/03 6:06 PM:

In article , "I@n"
-uk writes
I don't care what anyone says, doctors note or not, there is no way
someone can be well enough to play squash but be unable to push a few
buttons on a train, or perform lesser duties for a while if necessary.

Irrespective of the facts of the original case, that statement is
rubbish.

Four examples off the top of my head:

(1) The person is short of stamina and can only stay active for an hour
or two. Fine for playing squash but not for driving trains.

(2) The person has an injury in an area which doesn't affect them
playing squash but does affect train driving (e.g. left wrist of a
right-handed person, or a hip problem preventing them sitting in one
position for long periods.

(3) The injured area is reliable enough for unimportant tasks but not
for critical ones. Exercising an injured ankle through playing squash
might be recommended; if it starts to hurt, the person can stop playing,
whereas if it plays up while driving a train, they can't just stop.

(4) The person has an intermittent eyesight problem that doesn't stop
them playing a game but isn't safe for something like train driving. For
example, temporary blindness in one part of the retina, or temporary
blindness in low light.

And finally there's one that's happened to me: "don't you dare go back
to work until everything's been fine for a few days".

Jesus Christ. So in defending the strike actions, you are basically saying
that the ability to play vigorous squash is not just a valid but a near
essential way of assessing if someone is fit to work for London Underground
since it covers all those hypothetical 'safety issues' you mention above.

Let me ask you:

Are you claiming that every LU employee is in a fit enough physical
condition to play a vigourous squash match? That's quite a claim.

Do you think the unions would like it if LU managers introduced a new
medical exam where all employees had to play a vigorous game of squash, and
anyone unable to do so was sacked, on the basis of the 'safety' reasons you
have given above?

I presume you're answer must be 'yes' to both of those questions.

Finally, if someone is unfairly dismissed, there are proper legal channels
that individual can take. If the guy wants to take LU to court there is
nothing stopping him. I'm sure Bob Crowe and his union, who believe the man
is right and the management is wrong, would be happy to fund his court
action and save us all a lot of hassle.

In article ,
(Robert Woolley) wrote:

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 22:16:51 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In article ,
(Boltar) wrote:

wrote in message
...
[snip]
That may be true but it hardly applies in this case.

B2003

True. It was more of a general observation.

Roger
I hope the eyesight test is rather more than basic - signal sighting
is fairly critical!


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

The yearly one generally involves reading a number plate (or similar) at a
certain distance and stating what colour aspect is being shown from a
handlamp.

This covers being able to see a signal and identifying the aspect
correctly. If at a medical, then the eyesight is tested more thoroughly.
The eyesight may also be tested, using standard opticians charts, when
applying for a second pair of glasses following an eye test at a local
opticians and it is necessary for the prescription to be changed, or if it
is identified via an optician or from the yearly test that glasses must
now be worn. (T/Ops must provide a second pair of glasses and keep them
with them at all times - LU refund some of the cost of this (I think it's
around £50-60))

Roger

What happened to this. Did the union come to their senses and realise
they were on to a massive support loser with this one as far as the
travelling public were concerned?