Rail still safer than road during Covid-19

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From the RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board)

Passengers can be a lot more confident about travelling by train safely according to RSSB – with the risk of Covid-19 infection being less than 0.01% on an average journey.

Rail safety experts worry that people may be assuming the roads offer a less risky alternative during the pandemic, when in fact trains are safer and greener.

Analysis by the rail safety body has shown the risk of contracting Covid-19 while travelling by train is about 1 in 11,000 journeys. This is equivalent to a chance of less than 0.01%, based on an hour-long train journey in a carriage with no social distancing or face coverings.

The report also shows that the risk more than halves if passengers wear a face covering. These have been mandatory when travelling by train since June, unless exempt.

On safety alone, for an individual traveller per kilometre travelled, the car is 25 times less safe than rail. Cycling is 403 times, walking is 456 times, and travelling by motorcycle is 1,620 times less safe.

When the effect of the virus is taken into account and compared against the average road safety risk, the risks are almost the same (road is 1.14 times the risk of rail). Across all transport modes risks of catching the virus are very low, and certainly tolerable. Experts accept that most people will want to use a combination of different modes of transport to get around.

The infection risk findings have now been published by RSSB and verified by the Chief Scientific Adviser’s team at Department for Transport in collaboration with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.

Public transport had been perceived as an infection hotspot due to the vast number of people being in a close proximity. However, research is challenging this, showing that passengers are not as prone to infection as previously assumed, certainly not given the current underlying national infection rates, and people generally conforming with government Covid-19 guidelines.

[Trowres]

I'm a little surprised that there have been no comments so far on the RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board)'s report (nor many views of this thread).

The webpage that grahame has quoted seems to go further in drawing conclusions than the PDF papers on numbers and methodology to which the webpage links. That is to say, the PDF article and methodology covers risk of infection, while the webpage refers to risk of dying.

I am wondering if the comparison has missed out one issue in its comparison of different modes - the difference between individual risk and community risk. One fatality in an accident is just that, but one fatality from CV19 picked up on a train implies 100+ non-fatal cases picked up on the train (depending on chosen fatality rate) and these 100+ would have been the start of a further chains of infections, which (depending on choice of R)  would have likely led to about 10 further fatalities.

Note also that the RSSB has based its fatality risk on the age profile of rail travellers, the majority of whom are well under 70 and assessed as low-risk of fatality. If you are 70+, your personal risk might be higher than the RSSB figures.

Nothing to do with Covid-19, but the personal vs. community hazard arises again in the comparison of risk for each transport mode. The community risk of driving is higher than shown because motor vehicles kill pedestrians and cyclists (in significant numbers) in addition to vehicle occupants.

[grahame]

I'm a little surprised that there have been no comments so far on the RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board)'s report (nor many views of this thread).

There is some evidence that lots of people read to be informed, and in that mode many regulars use "recent posts" which displays the article but does not include it in counts.     92 different people uses "action=recent" in the 24 hours to 03:30 this morning - 336 different people in the last 11 days.  Also some evidence that on 'heavy' topics that people read but offer fewer comments, not joining until until the subject has been softened up into commentable pieces.

Risk stats are riddled with issues, as you've highlighted, and are difficult to comment on raw of semi-raw for many of us.   Thank you for helping to start breaking them down and pointing out contexts and likely skews.  I noted that the article mixed journey numbers, journey lengths in distance, and time taken to travel at various points and that did not help me.   Having said which, the modes of travel differ and it's an unusual journey from Trowbridge to London on foot, or from Bradford-on-Avon to Avoncliff by train, and hard to know which unit type to use.

[TaplowGreen]

I'm a little surprised that there have been no comments so far on the RSSB^▸ (Rail Safety and Standards Board)'s report (nor many views of this thread).

The webpage that grahame has quoted seems to go further in drawing conclusions than the PDF papers on numbers and methodology to which the webpage links. That is to say, the PDF article and methodology covers risk of infection, while the webpage refers to risk of dying.

I am wondering if the comparison has missed out one issue in its comparison of different modes - the difference between individual risk and community risk. One fatality in an accident is just that, but one fatality from CV19 picked up on a train implies 100+ non-fatal cases picked up on the train (depending on chosen fatality rate) and these 100+ would have been the start of a further chains of infections, which (depending on choice of R)  would have likely led to about 10 further fatalities.

Note also that the RSSB has based its fatality risk on the age profile of rail travellers, the majority of whom are well under 70 and assessed as low-risk of fatality. If you are 70+, your personal risk might be higher than the RSSB figures.

Nothing to do with Covid-19, but the personal vs. community hazard arises again in the comparison of risk for each transport mode. The community risk of driving is higher than shown because motor vehicles kill pedestrians and cyclists (in significant numbers) in addition to vehicle occupants.

Tucked away in the footnotes

It is assumed that those in the vulnerable age bracket (60+) are not using the railway

Covid 19 fatality risk only includes the risk to those travelling, not knock on risk to others in the community

One huge assumption, one huge omission.

[Marlburian]

I have two friends (yes, honestly) who used to visit me by train. One lives in Southend and until last year drove, until I pointed out to her that she was often delayed by accidents on the motorway and that even when everything went perfectly it still took longer than by train. (She and I both live very close to convenient stations.)

This year, once visits to other households were allowed, both friends opted to use their cars, mainly to avoid the Tube. Just had a text from my Southend friend saying that, yet again, there are delays on the motorways and she'll be 90 minutes late.

The other lives in South East and would cycle to Paddington. But she has vulnerable family members and now doesn't want to risk the train, so she drives. (Having to get across London, it takes her almost as long to get here as it does the lady from Southend.)

[eightonedee]

It is assumed that those in the vulnerable age bracket (60+) are not using the railway

Sorry - that assumption is wrong - me for example.......!

[grahame]

It is assumed that those in the vulnerable age bracket (60+) are not using the railway

Sorry - that assumption is wrong - me for example.......!

One of the big pattern changes I have notice in a sample of journeys this week is the plummeting of numbers of car parked at stations for the day.  I suggest that a traffic that has not returned to the degree of others is the people who used to drive to the station then leave their car there while they commuted.   These pictures from Tuesday (29.9.20) - locations in which I would have expected to find more spaces taken than not back in February.  Decimations far worse that train passenger number drops.

[FarWestJohn]

And me!