Debate on the issue of Trimet bus driver assaults

Below the break you will see the debate between two activist Trimet bus operators on what constitutes an assault. One thing we know for sure, being a transit operator in a major city in the United States is dangerous work. The debaters are two gentlemen I have tremendous respect for, Henry Beasley and Dan Christiansen



The problem as Henry Beasley sees it.

Just to keep everyone in the loop of attacks on transit workers, we had yet 3 more.  Which will be 14th, 15th, and 16th so far this year and it isn’t even spring yet.

2/15 Menacing (thankfully riders were not having that).
2/16 Assault (spitting – in face).
2/17 Assault (physical).

Our collective thoughts and prayers go out to them for a speedy recovery.

Notable events:
Unwanted touching by a passenger to an operator (2/16).
Thrown ice balls at an operator that missed them, when they opened their doors (2/19).

Be vigilant be safe and always communicate.

Other Notable events, that needs to be said:

Said via Twitter:

“There were 70 altercations, not all are assaults.  There are a few demagogues spinning this lie because they think being a victim is more important than the truth.  As a bus driver I do(n’)t agree with the victim strategy.”

First off, using the phrase demagogues in your statement infers that there are people leading on this issue of reporting attacks on transit workers, “what are you doing?” in the recent past, you’ve stated that attacks were down last year, but provided no evidence. You accepted that 70 altercations happened but did not back up your statement that “all of them were not in fact assaults.”  You call for accuracy but have yet to provide even a shred of evidence to prove your argument.  Without evidence on your behave, this is a one-sided conversation; unfortunately you have nothing but negativity against your co-workers who choose to tell the truth about the realities of our occupation.

To tell the truth, you belong on a committee that is run by the district.  The information that you are given is from them, whether it is true or not, you have not provided anything of note. That committee where supposed to use information provided from, the Transit Cooperative Research Program entitled, “the practices to protect bus operators from passenger assault” which has some criteria for the committee to follow, why has it not been followed? Does the district’s committee and its members support the percentages they put out for 2016?  

They said that:

50% Bus Operators fault (captain of the ship).
19% Fares.
16% mental illness/ drugs
9% Sleeper/ welfare checks.
6% Random.

Since you belong to their committee, are you supporting these claims?  Blaming transit workers for attacks on them 69% of the time, without providing any criteria or evidence to support “any” claim. Is this something you are comfortable in backing? If you looked at the Transit Cooperative Research Program, (the 2011 version) they state that:

In physical assaults:

77% passenger misconduct; 60%, nonpayment of fares; 51%, alcohol or drugs; and 11% weapons.
In verbal assaults, contributing factors were the following:

80% passenger misconduct; 71% non-payment of fares; 50%, alcohol or drugs; and 9%, weapons.

What’s missing is passenger misconduct?  Why was it left out? Therefore, the issue is suspect coming from your position. I have asked you before, “how many calls have you listened to?”  “How many victim’s have you talked to?” lastly, you say that we are using victim strategy, but you have no evidence other than speculation and personal viewpoints and what is being fed to you by the district.  Next time you might want to look up “victim shaming.”

Too bad we could not work together on better solutions for our fellow co-workers.
—————-

And here is the response from Dan Christiansen



I shall address your questions numerical with one slight change to order with the first two items for clarity.

1:) Said via Twitter: “There were 70 altercations, not all are assaults. There are a few demagogues spinning this lie because they think being a victim is more important than the truth. As a bus driver I do(n’)t agree with the victim strategy.”

Response: Yes I said those words on twitter.


2:) First off, using the phrase demagogues in your statement infers that there are people leading on this issue of reporting attacks on transit workers,

Response: The word Demagogue means: A person who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than using rational Argument. This is the tools you employ.

3;) “what are you doing?”

Response: I think that was self-evident, I think I was clear so far. I’m not sure what is confusing. Please clarify.

4:) in the recent past, you’ve stated that attacks were down last year, but provided no evidence

Response: Yes there has been a slight decrease in Assaults. It is not significant at this time and the full information from last year needs to be compiled. I will await that information. Our committee was just a few meetings deep when this data was collected so who knows, I await more information.

5:) You accepted that 70 altercations happened but did not back up your statement that “all of them were not in fact assaults.” You call for accuracy but have yet to provide even a shred of evidence to prove your argument.

Response: Not all alterations are assaults, Altercations covers a wide definition of hostile activity and is not a legal term as in we don’t see a crime listed as an altercation. Assaults are different from altercations in this one important fact and that is Assault is a legal definition that has to do with injury. This is set down by the state legislature of Oregon and applied by the DA. It is not something interpreted by Trimet. They go by the same data the DA goes by and the same information required by the FBI and the Justice Department. If I was commenting on Medical information I would use accepted medical terms. If I was commenting on math, I would use math terms, If I’m commenting on assaults I use legal definitions accurately. That’s the accuracy I was directly speaking to.

6:) Without evidence on your behave, this is a one-sided conversation;

Response: It is simple, Take any time set you have produced,. So say assaults for the three months or six months whatever time frame. Let’s call that X then take the police information for that same time and call that Y. If X is greater than Y then it is clear that you are including non-assaults in your “Assault Data” All of this has a degree of error but ruffly it can be deduced from the data you provide and the data provided by the Transit Police department. You can contact them for the details. I’m waiting until all four quarters are compiled for last year to know more.

There is another very important factor missing out of your data that is included in police data and that is not all Alterations are initiated and carried out by riders, Some are caused by drivers. How many? I don’t know. It’s more than zero and less than all. The bottom line is it’s not my job to determine this factor, they simply fall under the data of altercation but not assault. I don’t have insight all this data nor do I to see this trend., I’ve heard some accounts of this but I refuse to discuss any specific drivers specific issue. It’s a factor but I do not have any data or specifics on this. So I would only be speculating.

8:) unfortunately you have nothing but negativity against your co-workers who choose to tell the truth about the realities of our occupation.

Response: That is your point of view. I have had no driver come to me and say you are being negative. Like a doctor, I am looking at evidence and using medical terms to find a solution. It’s not easy. The data can be off a little either way and it takes time to be compiled and researched. Do doctors have negativity for a patient when they tell them the truth? Would you want your doctor to lie just to make you feel better? That would not be a good doctor.

Most drivers that have sought me out and talked to me about the issue understand when I’m done. Only one has chosen not to. You cannot make people use reason, you can only show them reason and no one can make everyone happy. (Page one of the welcome to adulthood handbook)

I have no negativity for anyone, I’m just snooping along the data trying to sift out the facts and make the best call I can.

9:) To tell the truth, you belong on a committee that is run by the district.

Response: That truth is self-evident I am on a committee, yes that is truthful, Yes it is headed by Harry Saporta and is a TriMet Committee. Yes that is true but I don’t belong to any committee. Here is the limit of your knowledge as someone who is not on this committee who is speaking From the outside, you may think I “belong to a committee” but ask anyone on that committee who speaks the truth, who rails when they wander off track. When high-level managers come in and drag us off into the weeds I speak up with force… so much so that one of the station managers said “I should probably apologize.” I refused to do it and we quickly got back on track. I’m nobody’s shill, I don’t shill for Tri-met, For the Union, for no one. I work for the drivers, full stop, period. To tell the truth, I don’t know anyone on the Committee who is not working hard, most wish we could work harder, have more meetings. This is all invisible to you so your assumptions cannot be accurate. But ask anyone on the committee if Dan stands up and speaks his mind, they will tell you.

10:)The information that you are given is from them,

Response: When we started one of the challenges we faced is what data to use. Again since you were not there, you have no idea of this choice and what we talked over. You have a choice and lets make this simple to understand so here is an example, one I use when I talk to drivers who are confused by your list of altercations.

Say you are a judge

Would you use 911 incoming calls to determine your case? Meaning whatever is said on a call you would accept. If someone said they were assaulted the attacker would be instantly guilty,no matter what. Let's call this the “George Zimmerman” system. When he shot Trayvon Martin he was making the 911 calls. This is what you propose we do.

Now there is another way to judge.

Would you base your case on the end result, after investigations, testimony and, evidence Let's call this “Homicide life on the streets” method, because they all wrap up their case in one hour (If Only it worked that way) THis is what we are using.

Neither system is perfect! but, of the two we went with the second when it comes to Assaults, Harassment and Interfering with Transit.

11:) whether it is true or not, you have not provided anything of note.

Response: You are right! I have spoken mostly to methodology and how we have proceeded something you have only assumed to know about from afar. Using reason and deduction even with scant data you can start to resolve facts. I tell people how that is done and in your case how we do not do things. Just like my example above it is methodology, that turns data into facts and facts into effective, decision. The George Zimmerman method uses data to create Methodology and by this we mean convictions.

We do not produce data. In our work, we do study data from assault and altercations. Data that is provided to us by the Transit Police and DA representative. Again not the Zimmerman method that you prefer.

My focus is on solving the issue of making drivers safe and providing understanding on how we are doing this to any driver who asks.

12:) That committee where supposed to use information provided from, the Transit Cooperative Research Program entitled, “the practices to protect bus operators from passenger assault” which has some criteria for the committee to follow, why has it not been followed?

Response: I do not know about that. Sorry, I’m unclear, It’s been over the year but I’m more involved in process and communications with drivers about what we are doing. Anyone it free to talk to me anytime. I don’t hide.

As for myself, I find the pursuit of exact numbers using any specific methodology as a fools game. Passengers in a car may argue back and forth about how many miles it is from Portland to Seattle, I’m the guy who drives the passengers there. Once you're there the exact mileage is of little importance.

What is important is actions being taken. granted, It’s never fast enough for me but I can see the movement has picked up.

13:) Does the district’s committee and its members support the percentages they put out for 2016?
They said that:
50% Bus Operators fault (captain of the ship).
19% Fares.
16% mental illness/ drugs
9% Sleeper/ welfare checks.
6% Random.

Response: I don’t recall the committee coming up with those numbers. I have missed a few meetings but I do not think that would fall within our purview. We are not a data generating body as far as I have seen. I would be surprised if this was generated by us.

14:) Since you belong to their committee,

Response: I do not belong to any committed, I am serving on a committee. Just like you operate a bus and do not belong, to the bus. I understand this little verbal trick and smiled when I read it but I doubt that’s fooling anyone.

15:)are you supporting these claims? Blaming transit workers for attacks on them 69% of the time, without providing any criteria or evidence to support “any” claim.

Response: Again, painfully obvious you have zero insight as to what we are doing. As I said above I have no recollection of us producing any specific data like this.


16:) Is this something you are comfortable in backing?

Response: I’m a natural born skeptic. There is information, Data and Facts , they are not all the same thing. I’m always dubious about data when I do not know how it was collected. I have no specific information about how things breakdown as to causes. My guess is that they are not using the same criteria but again I file this under unverified data. Doesn’t mean anyone is wrong because I don’t know the why and how.

What I can gather from the data is drivers are being put at risk. My job is to mitigate that risk as much as I can. I may tackle this data at a later time if needed be but thus far it has not been instrumental to our mission.


17:) If you looked at the Transit Cooperative Research Program, (the 2011 version) they state that: In physical assaults: 77% passenger misconduct; 60%, nonpayment of fares; 51%, alcohol or drugs; and 11% weapons. In verbal assaults, contributing factors were the following: 80% passenger misconduct; 71% non-payment of fares; 50%, alcohol or drugs; and 9%, weapons. What’s missing is passenger misconduct? Why was it left out?

Response: I do not know because I have not inspected the methodology. Just looking at Data can be a terrible trap. Collecting data is easy, understanding it is very hard.


18:) Therefore, the issue is suspect coming from your position.

Response: This is called a strawman argument. That's when you assign someone a position they do not hold and it fits your predetermined argument to refute them. You have used it twice. It’s a common fallacy. This is why I have said on numerous times "I have no idea why you do what you do or say what you say…" because I don’t use the strawman argument.


19:) I have asked you before, “how many calls have you listened to?” “How many victim’s have you talked to?”

Response: I have known many drivers from Powel that have been assaulted over the last ten years. I have listen to two or so calls to our dispatch and accidentally heard a few other from other transit agencies. I find them horrifying as I do all violence and when I hear people in that type of distress it effects me deeply. Part of the reason I am doing this job because I don’t want a single driver to have to make a call like that. That dedication would be there if I only had heard one of those calls.

I have found when building or constructing you do not always need to personally experience a negative to provide a positive. You need not crash an airplane, or even fly in one to be a dedicated aerospace engineer, You need not collapse a building to learn to build one. You need not have to be at an accident or hear the cries of the burned to be an awesome burn doctor in a surgery.


20:) lastly, you say that we are using victim strategy, but you have no evidence other than speculation and personal viewpoints and what is being fed to you by the district.

Response: Oh boy how to unpack this… hmmm. Ok.

a:) victim strategy is simply exaggerating or conflating data to support your claims.

b:) The victim strategy does not assume a reason or a viewpoint. (Again with the strawman I have gone out of my way to say “I have no idea why you do what you do"”. I can comment on the integrity of your debate. Strawman argument, claiming I’m controlled by some committee, such tricks define you more than it defines me.

c:) I learned long ago to speak to the facts, search for facts, be skeptical of data and protect life. I don’t assume anyone's reasons but I do look at how they operate. Methods matters.

d:) As far as personal viewpoints if you read above I have no problem stating where I am speculating and the limits of my knowledge. There is still way more I don’t know then I know and that’s for sure but My dedication to my mission of protecting drivers in 100% Again ask anyone on the committee and they will tell you I’m skeptical and challenging if I sniff something wrong.

e:) deduction and speculation are not the same.

21:) .Next time you might want to look up “victim shaming.”

Response: Shame? So someone has come to you and said they talked to me and I shamed them? That is BS. . You are creating a false narrative here. You are dressing your personal data as up in the cloak of all the real victims. By doing this, it means to challenge you is to shame victims. This is a huge false association and is yet another trick of the demagogue. Like wrapping yourself in the flag, or bringing out your dog checkers. Or saying “Only A communist would attack me” "Or anyone who attacks my plan is false news" all the same. please, you have to do better than that. Sheesh.

22:) Too bad we could not work together on better solutions for our fellow co-workers.

Response: I will work with anyone, anytime unlike you I exclude no one.

It helps if you take reality as it is, but that’s not a condition of me talking and working with anyone. Ideas matter more than your data.

I think you could be constructive. I don’t see you on the committee but I will gladly bring up anything you want the committee to take on. I will do that for any operator all they have to do is Email Facebook twitter or call me and I’m on it. I will not, however, push your counterproductive data. I will not get sidetracked into anyone’s data but I will continue to make the best decisions I can and promote what I believe will make drivers safer.

To that end I would work with anyone anytime. I believe it is revealing that you feel that “we can not work together” We both want the same thing. Only you are virtually saying “I will only work with those that embrace my data” That is all on you. Not me. You want to be right not effective. That has nothing to do with any victim that is your hubris.


One of my favorite heroes said

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”

I think of that every day. I live it. I worry about it. I question and probe and question more. I do not get married to my data as you have, You obviously take it personally, I deduce that by your methods of argument and your incorrect assertions as what I am and what I’m doing.

It’s obvious that I seek the difficult questions that are hard as hell to answer.

While you are obviously seeking to prove an answer that no one can dare question.

Thus the “we can’t work together approach” well you are free to take your toys and go home. I believe that everyone is free to do as they wish. I never exclude anyone I have worked with all manner of people on hard problems, I don’t run away..

I will work as hard at this mission of safety regardless of the number of assaults or altercations even if it was one, I can promise all who read this that I will work with anyone, anytime on anything. No one can change that, not TriMet, not the union, not even if every driver at TriMet disowned me and turned their back on me. I’m not doing for the love of others or to get ahead at Trimet, If I was I would do a lot less challenging, I’m doing it to save people from injury, harm and given enough time maybe even loss of life. I will suffer anything in thethat mission.

Your “I can’t work with you” attitude tells me what I need to know about your dedication to really improving safety. It also explains your deep and loving marriage to your data and need to be right.

BUT IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU! It’s not about you or your data. Stop sniping from the sidelines and man up. Or stay safely back in the inconsequential zone and take your shots. Up to you. I’m here when you want to make a difference.

Sheesh am I tired, all I did was respond. I didn’t even get to put forth my points. Ok off to bed. You all be safe and roll easy.