Facemasks. Change to attitudes (passengers and staff) on public transport?

[whole diary]

[LiskeardRich]

The Statutory Instrument bringing this into force has been published:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

Employees of the operator of the relevant public transport service are exempt from wearing them under the law, as are the police, PCSOs, "emergency responders", and "relevant officials", although I daresay they could have their own working requirements.

In force for 12 months, reviewed in six.

Eh? Why are employees exempt?

It’s said to be dangerous to drive in a mask, for various reasons .
Also where an operator is following guidance we are behind a 6mm Perspex screen, which is more effective than a 1mm fabric mask

Effective communication, Many passengers need to lip read

[IndustryInsider]

It should be noted that whilst the law makes them exempt, GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) policy (and probably most/all other TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s) requires all staff to wear masks in public areas. 

Specifically:

'All colleagues, contractors and tenants should wear face coverings when they are at work in stations and on train (where there is no physical barrier between customers and colleagues/contractors/tenants), unless they are exempted from wearing coverings for medical reasons.

Face coverings will be expected to be worn by all colleagues:

* when in a train carriage whether workings (including travelling pass) or travelling to work
* on station platforms
* on station concourses
* information points/booking offices without a glass or Perspex barrier
* travelling in road transport such as taxis/buses/coaches.

General use of face coverings will not be expected to be worn by colleagues:

* when behind glass or Perspex barrier such as in a booking office/information point when social distancing can be achieved
* in train cabs - front, mid or rear when on own
* in offices and mess rooms away from customer view
* where there is a medical restriction that prevents wearing face coverings
* in non-customer facing locations such as siding and maintenance depots including walking routes."

[grahame]

It should be noted that whilst the law makes them exempt, GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) policy (and probably most/all other TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s) requires all staff to wear masks in public areas. 

Totally appropriate (IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion)) for staff rules to be handled through and set by the rail industry profession (with medical advise of course) and not set in law by our MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) in parliament.

From The Grimsby Telegraph

Rail workers’ leaders have warned that the compulsory use of face coverings on public transport in England from Monday must not be seen as a green light for wider use of trains and buses.

Union officials also made it clear that police, rather than frontline transport workers, must ensure the new rules are adhered to.

Coverings must now be worn by most people on buses, trams, trains, coaches, aircraft and ferries, a move welcomed by workers.

Manuel Cortes, general secretary of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA^» (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association - about)), said: “The changes in the rules are welcome as they are likely to lower transmission of the virus on the transport network.

“However, this must not be seen as a green light among the wider population to use public transport.

“It must remain the case that only the key workers who are keeping us safe during the pandemic continue to use public transport. ...

That (highlighted) strikes me actually as a tightening of conditions - my understanding was / is that public transport can be used at present by:
* key workers (but only to / from / in process of their key work)
* people who have to use public transport to reach essential shops
* people who are traveling on medical grounds - for example to or from their doctors's
* people travelling to escape domestic abuse.

Has Manual Cortes picked up on something I missed that tightened the rules, is he trying to reduce use by overstating the limits, or did some of his words get lost on the way up to sunny Grimsby and back?

[Robin Summerhill]

Has Manual Cortes picked up on something I missed that tightened the rules, is he trying to reduce use by overstating the limits, or did some of his words get lost on the way up to sunny Grimsby and back?

I don't believe he's picked up on something you missed. He has, as so many people have been prone to do, misinterpreted the situation.

As we have discussed on here before, "essential travel" does not necessarily equate to "key workers only." If it did, for example, then we wouldn't have local town bus services running off peak only. Whilst I suspect that using a train service to get to the shops for those who can't drive or don't have access to a car is limited, there may well be examples around the country.

In addition we have now been told that we can have "family hubs." I heard story on the radio over the weekend about a woman who was planning to go from Kent (I think) to Stockport to see her sister for the first time in months. She was planning to go by train, presumably because she didn't have access to a car.

Some of my older readers may remember the comedian Billy Burden who always ended his act with: "I must be off. 'Tis a long walk to Dorset" It's an even longer bloody walk from Kent to Stockport...

[JayMac]

[grahame]

Ah yes, the BigNoseFamily.   Some competition in the nasals there!

[SandTEngineer]

This is turning into another (English) government fiasco.  I catch a through train from Taunton to Cardiff with various other passengers making the same trip with me (socially distanced of course).  Put my mask on.  Once through the Severn Tunnel the English law no longer applies and I can take the mask off.  I'm still with the same passengers, so how has wearing a mask lowered the risk?  I can understand it on a packed commuter train where you are likely to be standing (literally) 'face to face' but.......

END OF WHINGE

[LiskeardRich]

This is turning into another (English) government fiasco.  I catch a through train from Taunton to Cardiff with various other passengers making the same trip with me (socially distanced of course).  Put my mask on.  Once through the Severn Tunnel the English law no longer applies and I can take the mask off.  I'm still with the same passengers, so how has wearing a mask lowered the risk?  I can understand it on a packed commuter train where you are likely to be standing (literally) 'face to face' but.......

END OF WHINGE

When England’s government announced the compulsory face masks they said it was because social distancing isn’t possible on public transport. Yet all but one large bus operator has reduced capacity on their vehicles, and display bus full on the front when it hits that number, and then doesn’t pick any more up until 1 off 1 on applies.
If the companies are still enforcing social distancing so strongly then social distancing is possible, and therefore disregards the governments explanation for the ruling as false.

The ruling will not be reviewed for 6 months!

[ray951]

Having seen that Easyjey started flights today and with no social distancing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53049338; how is it that social distancing isn't required on planes but is on trains and buses?

It seems to me that it can have little to do with any medical/scientific reason and more to do with the financial support from the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) for trains and buses have but planes don't i.e. he who pays the piper calls the tunes.

I understand the current cost of running all these empty trains is almost £600m a month, what happens when the Treasury says we are not going to pay that anymore?

[Electric train]

It should be noted that whilst the law makes them exempt, GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) policy (and probably most/all other TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s) requires all staff to wear masks in public areas. 

Specifically:

'All colleagues, contractors and tenants should wear face coverings when they are at work in stations and on train (where there is no physical barrier between customers and colleagues/contractors/tenants), unless they are exempted from wearing coverings for medical reasons.

Face coverings will be expected to be worn by all colleagues:

* when in a train carriage whether workings (including travelling pass) or travelling to work
* on station platforms
* on station concourses
* information points/booking offices without a glass or Perspex barrier
* travelling in road transport such as taxis/buses/coaches.

General use of face coverings will not be expected to be worn by colleagues:

* when behind glass or Perspex barrier such as in a booking office/information point when social distancing can be achieved
* in train cabs - front, mid or rear when on own
* in offices and mess rooms away from customer view
* where there is a medical restriction that prevents wearing face coverings
* in non-customer facing locations such as siding and maintenance depots including walking routes."

NR^» (Network Rail - home page) have the same requirements for ALL staff and contractors when travelling on trains and on stations this applies for commuting and business.

Whilst railways staff have exceptions under the law these have been put in place to allow staff flexibility to carryout their duties without the fear of prosecution or being reported to the media by a member of the public.  The exemptions under the law were agreed with the Government by the employers and Trade Unions.

[Robin Summerhill]

Some very good points raised above regarding cross-border travel and social distancing measures already being taken by public transport operators. These go to confirm the conclusion I have slowly been reaching that this measure, like 14-day quarantine on arrival in the country, has a minimal impact on virus control and a lot more to do with the government trying to create the illusion that it has got a grip on the situation.

I have been on two buses today, both operated by Optare Solos, seating capacity around 35. As usual, I tend to sit in the first seat in the raised section towards the back. This morning the 44B Chippenham town service had two other passengers, and elderly couple known to me, and they sat in the front seat (which is often taped off those days but not on this bus). Journey time was about 4 minutes.

This afternoon I took the 92 Malmesbury-bound service from Chippenham bus station to the Ambulance Centre in Malmesbury road, journey time about 8 minutes. There was only me on the bus.

On both buses the windows were open so, presumably, if I had been inadvertently leaving virus spores behind they would have been dispersed within a few minutes if not seconds.

I did of course dutifully wear my mask, all 59 pence worth of it from B&M,

To me this is an example of the utter pointlessness of blanket rules. Other views may of course be available.

[Bmblbzzz]

Having seen that Easyjey started flights today and with no social distancing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53049338; how is it that social distancing isn't required on planes but is on trains and buses?

It seems to me that it can have little to do with any medical/scientific reason and more to do with the financial support from the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) for trains and buses have but planes don't i.e. he who pays the piper calls the tunes.

I understand the current cost of running all these empty trains is almost £600m a month, what happens when the Treasury says we are not going to pay that anymore?

I understand, from a commercial pilot (not Easyjet), that the air circulation in passenger planes is from ceiling to floor rather than horizontally and to standards which actually exceed those applicable to an operating theatre. That might be an exaggeration, I don't know, but certainly they have safer air circulation, in this regard, than buses and trains, or cars for that matter.

[stuving]

I think we''re all falling into a trap set by our own human psychology (but helped by the lack of coherent explanations of why we're doing these things). We all think automatically that fairness and uniformity of behaviour matter, because they matter to us. However, if you are a virus they really don't have any importance.

We all, I presume, have the collective aim (corresponding to the public policy objective) of keeping infection levels going down not up. So, if we see someone else having a high level of contacts with others (for any reason at all), and thus offering viruses a lot of opportunity to jump hosts, what should we do? Rationally, we should try harder to reduce our own level of contacts to compensate. After all, the population-wide factors that matter are (roughly) fraction of people who are infectious and not isolated times the number of people they come across who can be infected times the "closeness" (defined in the virus's own terms). But our brains don't work that way.

I saw one reflection of this a few days ago, with managers from the shops now opening complaining that their rules are much stricter than the ones supermarkets have always applied. Well, tough. There is a primary requirement to maintain the throughput of the big shops where we get most of our food and other basic needs, but only a secondary one even to buy the kids new shoes. We have a choice where we allocate the extra contacts we reckon we can now safely allow ourselves, and that choice can quite reasonably be biased by practical considerations.

[Electric train]

On both buses the windows were open so, presumably, if I had been inadvertently leaving virus spores behind they would have been dispersed within a few minutes if not seconds.

I did of course dutifully wear my mask, all 59 pence worth of it from B&M,

To me this is an example of the utter pointlessness of blanket rules. Other views may of course be available.

It is less confusing to us the travelling public to have a sleight and simple rule of if you travel on public transport you wear a face covering.  It would be very messy and open to interpretation to say if you are x distance from another passenger and if the windows are open

[Robin Summerhill]

It is less confusing to us the travelling public to have a sleight and simple rule of if you travel on public transport you wear a face covering.  It would be very messy and open to interpretation to say if you are x distance from another passenger and if the windows are open

I agree in principle but my major query for both face naskes and 14-day quarantine for arriving international passengers is "why now?" If it is now safer to sit on a bus with a face mask why wasn't safer when 800 people a day were dying of the disease?

I have not for an issue with with wearing a mask as such but, if the real reason is to build public confidence in public transport back up (which would in my mind be a nore logical reason) then why can't we be told? Is Dominoc Cummings afraid that people will take as much notice of the rules as he does if they're told the truth?