Whats wrong with Kelowna transit?

[dcipher]

Have you ever ridden transit on the westside and witnessed the BS drivers put up with? How convenient - nothing mentioned about these poor innocent "kids" trying their best to intimidate passengers waiting at the exchange.

These appear to be two separate issues, so I do not think Castanet, nor any poster here, has any obligation to address this second issue.

However, let us entertain your logic:

Drivers have had to deal with kids trying to intimidate passengers. * THEREFORE, drivers should be allowed to talk on their phones and/or bar the person who took the video from a ride, as well as issue veiled threats.

Irrational.


* (unproven allegation by you, but we won't deal with that at the moment)

[Darren Schlamp]

A spokesperson for BC Transit said ""Our hope is that he will de-escalate the confrontational behaviour" which makes me question......... Is Nathan being confrontational and pushing drivers buttons to get a response , or is he just trying to ride the bus ? It makes a difference to me. If the later , then the drivers have the problem , if the former , then Nathan is the problem.

I am pretty sure that Nathan is not the problem, or if he is, he is only a portion of the problem. I commuted daily on the bus from Glenrosa to Kelowna between April 2003 and August 2012. I've seen Nathan Peters on the bus many times over the past few years, and cannot recall ever seeing an incident where he needed to be kicked off, or behaviour that would be a concern in any way for the driver or other passengers. He would often talk with friends on the bus, and in the summer he would sometimes have his bike along. While I talked with him a few times over the years, I had no idea what his name was prior to recognizing him in the video, so he doesn't even qualify as an acquaintance, let alone a friend.

While I strongly disagree with the original poster (sophie) in the way that she has tarred all bus drivers with the same brush, there is not doubt that some bad drivers exist. There are at least 4-5 drivers that I was unhappy to see behind the wheel when I entered a bus, but that is out of a driver pool of around 80 or more drivers. Given the amount of time I've spent riding the bus over the past decade, I have witnessed several incidents of poor behaviour from a small minority of drivers, from driving away from people running for the bus, to needless provocation of passengers, excessive speeding, unsafe driving, making personal phone calls while driving, using earbuds to listen to music while driving, and acting in a rude or disrespectful manner towards passengers. A year or two ago, I called one driver out at Stevens Exchange for texting while driving down the highway - he had the entire bus watching him for the rest of the drive and somehow survived the pressure.

However, it is not fair to characterize all drivers based on the negative incidents or the few bad apples. It would take a much, much longer list to include all the good things I've seen - the friendly welcome on entering, the waves goodbye, the drivers who take a few minutes to help someone figure out the schedule, the drivers who call ahead to hold a connection when we get stuck in traffic jams, the ones who call in about a lost wallet or purse, etc. I stopped taking the bus after the DWK council gutted service levels in September, but I miss several of the drivers, and made an effort to say goodbye to them at the end of August.

Most of the good drivers who I liked and respected tended to be as upset about the bad apples as any passenger. One bad driver makes all drivers look bad. The majority of the drivers enjoy their job, are good at dealing with the public in a professional and respectful manner, and tried to deliver as high a service level as possible, within the limits of the crappy schedule they get handed.

how would you feel if some little jerk was following you around all day video taping everything you did?

yes, nathan is deliberately trying to provoke a response so he can tape it. He threatens to sue transit every time.

I'd be curious to see a picture of you. I'd be willing to bet that you're on my list of drivers to avoid.

[gloryniights]

Deleted by Trip.

[dcipher]

.
how would you feel if some little jerk was following you around all day video taping everything you did?

This appears to be juvenile rhetoric. I'm not interested in name-calling ie. "jerk", it hardly furthers your argument, in fact, it reflects rather poorly on it. Furthermore, the "feelings' of neither myself (in your hypothetical), nor the bus driver (in reality) are at issue here. Of course your proposed scenario seems to differ radically from the scenario described by Castanet or the parties involved. If you are saying that this passenger follows the bus driver "all day" while taking video, then indeed, the bus driver may have a case for harassment, which I would suggest he take to the RCMP. Certainly the appropriate response IS NOT TO START making phone calls. I think it rather implausible that the passenger was the causal factor in the drivers violations.

.
also, this was done as a setup with a transit supervisor phoning the driver. The supervisor here also received a ticket from rcmp for using his phone while driving a company vehicle. He then set the driver up using nathan as his weasel. This supervisor also drives nathan all over town in a company vehicle......hmmmm....what's going on here?

yes, nathan is deliberately trying to provoke a response so he can tape it. He threatens to sue transit every time.

Ahhhh...very good. I strongly suggest you take your information to Castanet, and the RCMP, if it true. So now you allege that not only do we have safety violations by bus drivers, but that a supervisor has commited violations and is out to "Get" a driver, by inducing him to commit safety violations! This certainly would represent an even more digusting, dangerous, and ugly problem than the systemic bullying of a passenger! Please do the right thing, both for public safety, and as a community member and taxpayer, and come forward with your story. It is your responsibility to do so.

[Captain Awesome]

Deleted /Trip

[Ken7]

dcipher-Ahhhh...very good. I strongly suggest you take your information to Castanet, and the RCMP, if it true. So now you allege that not only do we have safety violations by bus drivers, but that a supervisor has commited violations and is out to "Get" a driver, by inducing him to commit safety violations! This certainly would represent an even more digusting, dangerous, and ugly problem than the systemic bullying of a passenger! Please do the right thing, both for public safety, and as a community member and taxpayer, and come forward with your story. It is your responsibility to do so.

I have to ask you, what do you think the RCMP can do about a kid, possible young adult for riding a bus and video taping persons?

Help me understand what you line of thought is?

Thanks!

[Darren Schlamp]

So now you allege that not only do we have safety violations by bus drivers, but that a supervisor has commited violations and is out to "Get" a driver, by inducing him to commit safety violations! This certainly would represent an even more digusting, dangerous, and ugly problem than the systemic bullying of a passenger! Please do the right thing, both for public safety, and as a community member and taxpayer, and come forward with your story. It is your responsibility to do so.

One thing I will say in support of mxtaylor about cell phones is this: when a bus has a broken radio (which is more frequent than it should be) transit control will call them on the driver's personal cell phones when they want to reach the driver. Whether transit control has a policy that they would expect the driver to call back once bus has stopped moving is a question that I cannot answer.

[dcipher]

I have to ask you, what do you think the RCMP can do about a kid, possible young adult for riding a bus and video taping persons?

Help me understand what you line of thought is?

Thanks!

No problem Ken7!

If he is simply riding a bus and taking video of the driver, then I do NOT think they'll be able to do much! Nor should they; It is certainly his right (as far as I know) to ride the bus as much as he likes and/or take video.

However, if he is, as the poster stated, following the driver all day and taking video, then it will almost certainly qualify as criminal harassment! Don't get me wrong, I think the poster was simply lying by exaggerating this person's behavior, but if indeed, this actually was the case, then absolutely the RCMP should be informed. (NOTE: I'm ignoring age issues, as I'm not familiar offhand with how this would translate to a juvenile)

[gordon_as]

Somewhere there must be a written and specific set of guidelines as to when a driver is WITHIN HIS RIGHTS to refuse service to a rider. If this particular rider falls into that category , then drive right past him. If not , but he just pisses you off , too bad , suck it up and do your job.

I bet almost anybody who works in any service industry could tell you about customers that they wanted to tell to take a hike but couldn't and didn't because they didn't have elitist managers and "spokesmen" to back them up , and to hide behind.

[dcipher]

One thing I will say in support of mxtaylor about cell phones is this: when a bus has a broken radio (which is more frequent than it should be) transit control will call them on the driver's personal cell phones when they want to reach the driver. Whether transit control has a policy that they would expect the driver to call back once bus has stopped moving is a question that I cannot answer.

Certainly true. If an exception to the rule is allowed then he shouldn't be disciplined. (it doesn't appear he has an excuse given the action administration has taken). However, it should be noted that this in no way makes the actions of Nathan inappropriate, nor does it validate the barring and threats he has now received from other drivers.

I don't know why you say that supports mxtaylor though. mxtaylor has claimed something entirely different: that this safety violation was caused purposefully by another worker as the result of some kind of personal feud. If mxtaylor is telling the truth, then we have a supervisor purposefully inducing safety violations, hiring a person to follow the driver around....asinine behavior to say the least....when you combine this with the childish antics of the other drivers ie. barring and threatening Nathan as some kind of "pay" back, then perhaps the entire house needs to be cleaned. Everyone involved in any of this, as well as anyone who knows about these antics, and does not come forward. Sounds like behavior worthy of obnoxious teenagers indeed....very ironic.

[mxtaylor]

Somewhere there must be a written and specific set of guidelines as to when a driver is WITHIN HIS RIGHTS to refuse service to a rider.

drivers have the right to refuse a ride to anyone they feel may compromise the safety of their vehicle.


also, many drivers have befriended nathan over the years by loaning him money, giving him rides when he has no pass and/or no money.

[Andy S]

Darren S wrote;
Most of the good drivers who I liked and respected tended to be as upset about the bad apples as any passenger. One bad driver makes all drivers look bad. The majority of the drivers enjoy their job, are good at dealing with the public in a professional and respectful manner, and tried to deliver as high a service level as possible, within the limits of the crappy schedule they get handed.
mxtaylor wrote:how would you feel if some little jerk was following you around all day video taping everything you did? yes, nathan is deliberately trying to provoke a response so he can tape it. He threatens to sue transit every time.

I'd be curious to see a picture of you. I'd be willing to bet that you're on my list of drivers to avoid.

Darren makes a good point. Hope that everyone calms down a bit. Cell phone use by any vehicle operator is a no no. A recalcitrant moment ie "Having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority" happens.
This is not a big city. Frequent bus riders are remembered pretty quickly here. Thus the drivers have sharp memories and good rear view mirror 3rd eyes.

[Trunk-Monkey]

As he should be. One can only hope.

The ridiculous part is that, this rule is not some onerous, purely bureaucratic fluff. Most people in their jobs have to follow more burdensome rules than not talking on your phone while driving a bus. Moreover, studies have shown that talking on a phone, even a hands-free phone does indeed slow reaction time considerably. It's a good rule, and compliance should be the least we expect.

You really think a person should loose their job, their livelihood for taking on the phone? Hands fee no less? I know its against company policy but dont you feel being fired is a bit excessive? How about a warning or a repremand...not a total loss?

[Pacific]

I certainly don't think he should be fired over talking on the phone, but it's stuff like this that gives unions a bad name. They stick up for staff no matter what, even when they're in the wrong. It's the same crap in health care, someone could practically kill somebody due to negligence and the union will defend them to the death if they're getting punished at all.

I get looking out for your members when it's justified if you're actually being bullied by your boss or something but you do them all a disservice if you defend them when they are actually wrong just for the sake of fighting it. Employ some common sense for pete's sake... if a charter bus driver was in the same position and they kicked a customer off the bus the business would correct it.

Ultimately they make themselves more and more unsympathetic to the general public with moves like this. Probably in another year or so they'll be out on the sidewalk picketing for more money and rights somewhere asking us all to support them. Slowly working their way to non-existence if you ask me.

[gordon_as]

[/quote]


drivers have the right to refuse a ride to anyone they feel may compromise the safety of their vehicle.


[/quote]

So why are they refusing to let Nathan on ? He is not compromising the safety of the vehicle , only the job security of drivers who compromise the safety of their passengers.