RkFast Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 I dont where to start with that DRIVEL....the state park thingy, comparing this to a law that affects National Security (wow!!!) or just the ranting style of the whole thing. And I looooove the whole "do it behind closed doors" thing. Ah yes. Ya know, the thought process that if some like me tried to apply to some of the favorite causes of EiI's party, such as teaching about homosexuality to 13 year olds, youre called all kinds of names, none of them too kind. Hypocrisy???? Of course not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 I dont where to start with that DRIVEL....the state park thingy, comparing this to a law that affects National Security (wow!!!) or just the ranting style of the whole thing. And I looooove the whole "do it behind closed doors" thing. Ah yes. Ya know, the thought process that if some like me tried to apply to some of the favorite causes of EiI's party, such as teaching about homosexuality to 13 year olds, youre called all kinds of names, none of them too kind. Hypocrisy???? Of course not! 868919[/snapback] Ya... I was ranting... Sorry. You just know you are wrong ... And there is no hypocrisy... Don't muddy the water with the homos... I am a lot more conservative than you think... Answer the question, were people bringing their own booze (bought elsewhere) onto the trains and then slipping them into "paper bags"... Or were those "tall boys" bought on the MTA trains? Answer that question in a way that goes against my "hunch" and you might change my viewpoint... To ME that is a big question that the MTA "task force/study" of the issue prior to the ban took into consideration... Again... Sorry for the rants... IMO, this is a slam dunk argument that has more to do with what and where THE MTA wants to go with the authority and their mission, than a societal one... This is purely an MTA and their autonomy thing... Doesn't stop the Rock Island Line here in Chicago from doing the same... There is no problem here, yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Im glad you didnt take the bait. Youre better than I thought and Im glad for that. YES, people bring their own booze, bought in delis and what not located around the train stations. They also buy beer and drinks ON the platforms and bring them aboard. But again....the "problem" is not people who buy a beer in Penn Station for their ride home..or the crew of fellas who pick yp a twelve for the ride in to NYC on a Sat. night. Its the people who show up at Penn blitzed from a long night out. So this "ban" is to stop those who are NOT the problem, those who are usually sober and bring a drink or two aboard for their ride! And frankly, although annoying, I dont have a huge problem with those who are tanked on the trains from drinking elsewhere. Thats where they SHOULD be...on a train. NOT on the roads. Its people "doing the right thing"....those who cose to get lit and take a train home, not drive. Yeah...they are loud...and sloppy. but they are also something else... Harmless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Im glad you didnt take the bait. Youre better than I thought and Im glad for that. YES, people bring their own booze, bought in delis and what not located around the train stations. They also buy beer and drinks ON the platforms and bring them aboard. But again....the "problem" is not people who buy a beer in Penn Station for their ride home..or the crew of fellas who pick yp a twelve for the ride in to NYC on a Sat. night. Its the people who show up at Penn blitzed from a long night out. So this "ban" is to stop those who are NOT the problem, those who are usually sober and bring a drink or two aboard for their ride! And frankly, although annoying, I dont have a huge problem with those who are tanked on the trains from drinking elsewhere. Thats where they SHOULD be...on a train. NOT on the roads. Its people "doing the right thing"....those who cose to get lit and take a train home, not drive. Yeah...they are loud...and sloppy. but they are also something else... Harmless. 869849[/snapback] No they are not harmless, they are affecting the MTA liability... And from a business standpoint and taxpayer standpoint that is just plain foolish to look the other way... Face it, the MTA is liable for its passengers... Like it or not your approach is just foolish... Yet, it appears noble I guess... Would you want to assume the liability if you were the MTA? Just as I noted about this phenom of the alcohol culture on the water... Were needless taxpayers dollars are wasted (by the USCG and state authorites) because of people's inabilty to control alcohol intake... It seems to also be here with regards to the MTA... Yes, the good are suffering for the bad apples... That is too bad... Maybe if riders would have "policed" themselves?... The ban wouldn't have been needed?... I get people to "police" themselves all summer long on the river... One bad apple does something stupid... ALL PAY... And people don't like to be delayed... All the sane ones start singing the tune "sit down, you are rocking the boat". The day the Corps of Engineers takes away my ability to do that is the first day towards an alcohol free zone while transitting the lock and dam. It is a flat out safety issue. Now that they got the ban on all alcohol... Now they can crack down on the ones that get "blitzed". And Bill before you scream "slippery slope"... How do you think they would crack down on the people getting "blitzed" by selling and promoting the stuff themselves? There is no "slippery slope"... Just one step in cleaning up the trains... Again... Before you guys get all uppity with me and rage about me saying the previous thought... I don't mind about the drunks there... The MTA does and don't want to deal with the liabilty and other things (clean-up I suppose)... Sure they push them to the roads, but that isn't their problem... I know this sounds cold, but that is life in America... The MTA doesn't want to deal with it. I do think their drunk-driving reason is crazy... We just have to see if the numbers of drunks on the road goes up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Safety issue, don't know, an angry sober alcholic is more or less a safety hazard then a passed out drunk? MTA just needs to ensure that all drinkers have enough to pass out and not cause trouble on the train, or at least have a designated sober chaperone. My advice, either way don't get caught or get ready to say Betty Ford! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Any people out there that don't like this ban did you ever consider this scenario? I know the village that my wife works for carries insurance in case of lawsuits dealing with injuries/liability and stuff like sexual harassment among others, etc... But... To stay on track... Maybe, just maybe the MTA's insurance company had these choice words after the girl from Minnesota died???... "We aren't going to cover you unless you stop selling alcohol and ban its consumption." I know there are more carriers out there that would cover them... But, at what cost to the Authority? Sure this is all conjecture... There has to be a lot behind the task force/study that isn't being said... We the public just get "the few spoiled it for the many good ones." At the top you can blame lawyers like others have said, but you can't dispute that there is a certain amount of basic liability that MTA has to its patrons... Where do you draw the line? What happens if a "good" drunk never effs up and still gets hurt? Simply by eliminating alcohol... You eliminate a lot of headaches. Has the "horse" been officially beat to death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Yeah...well that would work...except for the fact.....again.... that the problem is not people drinking ON the train, its those that show up TO them already drunk. That girl who died wasnt even ON the train, she was trying to board . So unless you plan to check for people drinking before they even step onto MTA property, your idea hold no water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Yeah...well that would work...except for the fact.....again.... that the problem is not people drinking ON the train, its those that show up TO them already drunk. That girl who died wasnt even ON the train, she was trying to board . So unless you plan to check for people drinking before they even step onto MTA property, your idea hold no water. 870778[/snapback] I agree. Now alcohol is totally eliminated from the equation... They can now check for public intoxication... See what I am getting at? Like it or not, and I don't like it...Everybody has to be treated equal... I agree it is screwy arse country that we live in. Kinda the same at my work... Everybody has to be warned and or suffer, I can't "cherry pick"... One person keeps on acting up, they all get lumped into that group... That was one of my biggest things early on... Even if one screwball is acting up... All gotta be warned or suffer... Again, I know it doesn't make any sense and I don't like it. Hence, my "self-policing"... The others should have made sure she didn't spoil it for the good ones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Sorry for the multiple posts... I had to run out for a sec... I am responding so much because I feel deeply about this... I actually feel and think a lot like you on this subject RK... Yet, my viewpoint has been changing through the years. The only correlation that I can relate to is what I do at work and how I have to deal with 10's of thousands of pleasure craft a year at the lock... And alcohol is a very, VERY BIG part of the equation... So much so, it is beyond belief how much it plays a part on the water... I know to many this is just plain drivel... But, I feel passionately about it... Thanks for understanding why I post so much on it. I assume it would be the same for people getting on trains as it does where I work. The big thing is that we don't sell alcohol (and shouldn't)... And now the MTA doesn't either. By selling alcohol in the past, how could they pick and choose which drunk to eliminate?... I know that may sound easy, IMO, legally it is a mess... Some might be very well behaved yet, all of sudden get uncoord. and not "watch the gap". It would be the same as saying: "I don't like the way you are acting boater A, you can't lock with this towboat, But... The other pleasure craft that are engaging in the same recreational activity (drinking and acting unsafe beyond my view but not the excluded boat's view) can come on in." Unfortuantely as a group (certain types of vessels have varying priority over the others) all have to be exluded because of the one bad apple... That is the hardest thing I had to learn... Same goes for "tie" ups... I make one tie off to the wall, they all got to... And believe me, I don't like that... I would rather not punish the safe/good one's... In this case, one person (unfortunately underage to boot) couldn't handle their liquor and got killed... It spoiled it for all... I am not really sure if I am touching on the negative effect of "equal protection" here???... All I know is from working and dealing with this screwy system, government and law. Now do you see the problem with what I explained above if the actual site I worked at was selling and serving too? I would have to let all pass, no matter how blitzed they were... Afterall, I am promoting the very same acts that I am trying to exclude. It is called leading by example... It unfortunately hurts a lot of good people... This concept was the hardest for me to learn throughout the years... By not learning it you can open yourself to a whole other set of legal issues... Basically, the gov't sucks... Again, sorry for the "deep" drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Trying to recall all the incidents througout the years (15). One comes to mind... "Blitzed" boaters come in and on their own chooses to "tie off", literally ties off... Knots and all... No way to "pay out" or "pay in" while the millions of gallons of water is filling the chamber... So as the chamber starts to rise the boat hangs up and starts to "swamp"... It is is a smaller type boat with an outboard... so the drunks start screaming and yelling... The lockman hears this and immediately starts to lower (close) the filling valves back down... Which doesn't meaning anything because water is still rushing in while the 2 ton "sluice" type valves are slowly closing... But, it will slow the whole swamping process... What do the "blitzed" boater do? They go to the stern of the boat by the motor and attempt to burn the the line off with a Bic lighter, real brain surgeons!... To make a long story short, the boat and motor swamps, pukes the motor and the inside of the vessel... What do they do one day later? Call and attempt to sue the USACE for damage to their vessel and motor... You know how much money they get? Not a penny... Gets totally dismissed. There has even been some deaths that occured and nothing went forward (note, those were all OUTSIDE the chamber)... Same thing will likely happen now if a drunk kills themselves on a train... The MTA will most likely win in court on these types of safety issues... Why? Because they aren't engaging in the selling and serving of the booze... People know the policy about alcohol and public intoxication... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts