Discussion of July 4 changes in England announced by Boris Johnson

[Huntergreed]

You haven't answered the question...

What do you say the government should do about the risk to people's health posed by them cycling while drunk?

If you are referring to the risk posed by people who cycle whilst drunk, then simply put if someone is caught cycling in a way that poses danger to themselves or anyone else, then they should be treated in the same way as a driver who is driving dangerously.

The point I'm making here is that we shouldn't be actively encouraging people to cycle whilst under the influence, and discouraging public transport use for 'non essential' reasons whilst installing cycle racks in public houses is, in my opinion, doing this.

The solution is simple, if you want to install cycle racks in pubs for those who are not planning on becoming heavily drunk then this is positive, but if we do so whilst restricting public transport use then this is going to make people cycle whilst under the influence.

 

[PHILIPE]

Boris Johnson said at PMQs that the police will break up large gatherings of people. How are they going to do that if they are incapable of doing it now.

 

[Huntergreed]

Boris Johnson said at PMQs that the police will break up large gatherings of people. How are they going to do that if they are incapable of doing it now.

They are permitted by the legislation to do this:

(9) Where a relevant person considers that three or more people are gathered together in contravention of regulation 7, the relevant person may—

(a)direct the gathering to disperse;

(b)direct any person in the gathering to return to the place where they are living;

(c)remove any person in the gathering to the place where they are living.

Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

 

[Starmill]

If you are referring to the risk posed by people who cycle whilst drunk, then simply put if someone is caught cycling in a way that poses danger to themselves or anyone else, then they should be treated in the same way as a driver who is driving dangerously.

So you think that the government should use its powers of communication and law to stop people from doing something risky towards themselves when it's on a bike?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Five mile is to be lifted in Wales on 6th July.

The limit might be "relaxed" but I doubt it will become a go-anywhere rule.
WG is very keen to stop crowding in honeypot tourist areas with limited NHS resources.

 

[Huntergreed]

So you think that the government should use its powers of communication and law to stop people from doing something risky towards themselves when it's on a bike?

I believe the government should use its powers of communication and law to stop people from doing something potentially risky towards others, which cycling under the influence certainly is.

 

[cactustwirly]

It is not compulsory to drink alcohol in the pub.

Yes but the whole point of a pub is to drink!

 

[cactustwirly]

You haven't answered the question...

What do you say the government should do about the risk to people's health posed by them cycling while drunk?

Don't encourage people to cycle or drive to pubs, I'd have thought this is blindingly obvious.

 

[Huntergreed]

It is not compulsory to drink alcohol in the pub.

This is like saying it's not compulsory to travel at a train station or it's not compulsory to shop in a supermarket, of course this is true, but without it the business would not survive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe the government should use its powers of communication and law to stop people from doing something potentially risky towards others, which cycling under the influence certainly is.

Not to a massive extent, you're going to do very little damage with a pushbike. But in the end, you could take a taxi (those don't seem to come under the same messaging), choose a local pub or only have one alcoholic drink (which would be legal to drive a car, so fine to ride a pushbike too[1]).

[1] A different law applies to cycling (though many Police officers don't know that) - the breathalyser is not relevant, merely if you are cycling competently.

This is like saying it's not compulsory to travel at a train station or it's not compulsory to shop in a supermarket, of course this is true, but without it the business would not survive.

Pubs make more on soft drinks and coffees (and food) than alcoholic drinks. But it's perfectly normal practice to go to the pub by car and for the driver to have only one or no alcohol. Pubs wouldn't have car parks otherwise. Similarly plenty of people cycle to pubs and moderate their consumption, and you've always the option of cycling there and pushing back. The important bit of a pub is the social aspect. If you just want to get drunk on your own, it's cheaper to do it at home.

Don't encourage people to cycle or drive to pubs, I'd have thought this is blindingly obvious.

It is fine to drive or cycle to a pub provided you moderate your consumption of alcohol to levels that you will not be breaking the law when you drive/cycle home.

 

[Starmill]

I believe the government should use its powers of communication and law to stop people from doing something potentially risky towards others, which cycling under the influence certainly is.

Ah, ah, hold on. I asked you

Just so we're clear: the issue you're drawing attention to here is the possibility that people might injure themselves if they cycle while very drunk?

And you replied:

Yes.

So which is it?

 

[Huntergreed]

And you replied:
So which is it?

I fail to see the contradiction here.

Pubs (and breweries) need people to consume alcohol in order to stay in business, travel companies are actively discouraging public transport because they are being paid to run fresh air by the government.

It would be dangerous to encourage people to use their own vehicle whilst under the influence, so we must stop discouraging public transport and make it clear that those who are under the influence are permitted to use public transport to get to/from the pub.

Otherwise what will happen is that we as a society will be encouraging people to consume alcohol by reopening pubs whilst discouraging public transport use for non essential reasons, this would mean that we are, indirectly, encouraging people to consume alcohol in a pub and then use their own vehicle to get home.

The issue I'm raising is not that we are needing to decrease the risk to those who choose to cycle to/from the pub whilst drunk, as this is a personal risk that they choose to take. My point is merely that we are not providing an alternative form of transport meaning that we are encouraging those who may not normally do so to control a vehicle under the influence.

 

[Starmill]

Don't encourage people to cycle or drive to pubs, I'd have thought this is blindingly obvious.

If it's blindingly obvious then Huntergreed would have clarified their views rather than posting many deflections of a straightforward question.

 

[Starmill]

I fail to see the contradiction here.

Pubs (and breweries) need people to consume alcohol in order to stay in business, travel companies are actively discouraging public transport because they are being paid to run fresh air by the government.

It would be dangerous to encourage people to use their own vehicle whilst under the influence, so we must stop discouraging public transport and make it clear that those who are under the influence are permitted to use public transport to get to/from the pub.

Otherwise what will happen is that we as a society will be encouraging people to consume alcohol by reopening pubs whilst discouraging public transport use for non essential reasons, this would mean that we are, indirectly, encouraging people to consume alcohol in a pub and then use their own vehicle to get home.

Yet another refusal to answer a straightforward question. About cycling. While drunk. Perhaps I can answer it for you given you won't.

You've made up a random, baseless objection by making out the risks of cycling to be far rather greater than they are so that you can pretend to have a justification for your criticisms of the TOCs. You've spent weeks complaining that the government aren't allowing people to choose an appropriate level of risk of Covid-19 for themselves, because they're choosing it for you by applying restrictions, but also you'll complain that the government aren't advising or restricting people from cycling while drunk, because you thought it would fit in with your views about public transport.

You clearly didn't come up with these arguments objectively based on the overall level of risk you're willing to tolerate - you're arguing for measures you want because they're in your interest, and inventing crazy justifications about how people can harm others using bikes just as much as they can with cars. Why are you pushing for people to be able to take as much risk as they like with Covid-19 (a genuine threat), but not satisfied for people to cycle while they're drunk (a trivial, near zero threat)?

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I think we seem to have wandered from the point of this thread. All I will say for now is that it's legal to get to the pub by any means of transport you like, including the train!

 

[Mag_seven]

Could we please try and be polite to one another and stay on topic when discussing yesterdays announcement. Thanks.

 

[317 forever]

I saw posts referring to the proposal that we give bars our contact details, for example by only ordering food and drink from an app.

This will enable a reduction of contact between staff and customers, and eliminate queueing at the bar and bar staff handling cash.

However, this puts people without smartphones, or fearing the fateful "you must self-isolate for 14 days" phonecall at a serious disadvantage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, this puts people without smartphones

Provided another way is provided, like writing it on a piece of paper or ordering from a person behind perspex, say, that doesn't matter.

or fearing the fateful "you must self-isolate for 14 days" phonecall at a serious disadvantage

If you are going to go somewhere with lots of people, you are clearly risking this (more so than you're risking catching it), and how important that risk is to you must be part of your decision in whether to go to such places or not at this stage, or whether, for example, sitting outside might reduce the risk of being asked to isolate.

Contact tracing is key to reducing restrictions, and if you're not willing to risk being contact-traced, you must take the decision not to go to places like pubs and to ensure 2m distance from others at all times. (They are not interested in over 2m). It's not a fear per-se, it's a rational decision you must consider and decide your position on it.

(One assumes they'll also note your table number so you won't be contact-traced if you sit in a totally different part of the pub)

 

[317 forever]

Provided another way is provided, like writing it on a piece of paper or ordering from a person behind perspex, say, that doesn't matter.



If you are going to go somewhere with lots of people, you are clearly risking this (more so than you're risking catching it), and how important that risk is to you must be part of your decision in whether to go to such places or not at this stage, or whether, for example, sitting outside might reduce the risk of being asked to isolate.

Contact tracing is key to reducing restrictions, and if you're not willing to risk being contact-traced, you must take the decision not to go to places like pubs and to ensure 2m distance from others at all times. (They are not interested in over 2m). It's not a fear per-se, it's a rational decision you must consider and decide your position on it.

In practice, I would probably time such visits to pubs etc with care. Suppose I book to go away for the August Bank Holiday, I could potentially go to the pub soon after but not soon before going away.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In practice, I would probably time such visits to pubs etc with care. Suppose I book to go away for the August Bank Holiday, I could potentially go to the pub soon after but not soon before going away.

Yes, that's the exact consideration I mean. If you work from home, it's just inconvenient, but if you're planning something important in the next 14 days you would be well-advised to be particularly careful. Or perhaps you have the stomach for the risk. It's a decision each person needs to make in an informed way based on their own situation.

 

[Fisherman80]

No, no matter how often you repeat it, you're wrong. It remains perfectly legal to use the train for leisure purposes if you can't make the journey by any other means.

I would urge anyone who wants to to ignore the TOCs' misleading advice and use the train to have a nice day out in the country or at the seaside. It will do your mental and physical health a world of good!

Couldn't have put that better myself CaptainHaddock!!!!

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Provided another way is provided, like writing it on a piece of paper or ordering from a person behind perspex, say, that doesn't matter.



If you are going to go somewhere with lots of people, you are clearly risking this (more so than you're risking catching it), and how important that risk is to you must be part of your decision in whether to go to such places or not at this stage, or whether, for example, sitting outside might reduce the risk of being asked to isolate.

Contact tracing is key to reducing restrictions, and if you're not willing to risk being contact-traced, you must take the decision not to go to places like pubs and to ensure 2m distance from others at all times. (They are not interested in over 2m). It's not a fear per-se, it's a rational decision you must consider and decide your position on it.

(One assumes they'll also note your table number so you won't be contact-traced if you sit in a totally different part of the pub)

This is my concern, how strictly will the pub contact tracing be enforced? Suppose you give your name and number and later it transpires someone who's since tested positive for the virus was in the pub round about the same time as you, how many people would be ordered to self-isolate? Anyone who was in the pub on the same date? Anyone who was sitting quite near that person? Anyone who used the toilets shortly after they did?

And if you go on a pub crawl such as the Transpennine Rail Ale Trail could you be asked to self-isolate if someone tests positive in any of the pubs you visited on the same day they did?

All things considered, I imagine most people, when asked for their contact details, will give a false name and number. Given the uncertainty about how this would be managed, I can't say I would blame them.

 

[Huntergreed]

This is my concern, how strictly will the pub contact tracing be enforced? Suppose you give your name and number and later it transpires someone who's since tested positive for the virus was in the pub round about the same time as you, how many people would be ordered to self-isolate? Anyone who was in the pub on the same date? Anyone who was sitting quite near that person? Anyone who used the toilets shortly after they did?

And if you go on a pub crawl such as the Transpennine Rail Ale Trail could you be asked to self-isolate if someone tests positive in any of the pubs you visited on the same day they did?

All things considered, I imagine most people, when asked for their contact details, will give a false name and number. Given the uncertainty about how this would be managed, I can't say I would blame them.

From what I presume it'll be anyone who was in the premises at the same time (could you perhaps have to 'sign in/out' of the pub and have the time written down?), otherwise the exercise of taking and storing these details will be pointless.

If this is true, it's completely unworkable and cannot happen in practice.

 

[Bantamzen]

Pubs make more on soft drinks and coffees (and food) than alcoholic drinks. But it's perfectly normal practice to go to the pub by car and for the driver to have only one or no alcohol. Pubs wouldn't have car parks otherwise. Similarly plenty of people cycle to pubs and moderate their consumption, and you've always the option of cycling there and pushing back. The important bit of a pub is the social aspect. If you just want to get drunk on your own, it's cheaper to do it at home.

Pubs make more money per unit of soft drinks & coffee than they do alcohol. However soft drinks and coffee are not their mainstay, far from it. While capacity is going to be limited, I'm pretty certain pubs are not going to want just hoards of soft drink customers clinging onto a cheap orange and soda water for hours when someone else might buy a few pints in the same time.

 

[DelayRepay]

So on the debate about the best way to get to the pub... A pub near me is asking customers not to go by car, because they have turned part of the car park into an extension of the beer garden, to facilitate social distancing. If you do want to take the car, you have to book a parking space in advance.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. A couple of soft drinks soon gets rather sickly, whereas good ale tends to be rather more-ish.

Also, don't forget that a lot of places a pint is £4 or thereabouts. That's more than a coca cola !

 

[Starmill]

Pubs make more on soft drinks and coffees (and food) than alcoholic drinks.

Exactly. That or a taxi. Or the local. This caters to almost all cases. One can argue against this all one likes, but all it really does is show how out of touch one is. By definition this is likely on a railway forum so generally it's understandable, but not to the point of fabrication of debate points about the harm caused by bicycling.

 

[Enthusiast]

This debate over "legislation" vs "guidance" is getting silly. It typifies the entire lockdown fiasco.

In England the situation is crystal clear. The legislation allows you to make any journey you like, to wherever you like, for whatever reason you like, by whatever method you like. The guidance asks you to consider a few things before you go (such as do I really need to go? Can I walk, cycle? etc.). But, there is nothing to compel you to undertake those considerations and there are no "correct" or "incorrect" answers on which you can be challenged. So, the TOCs have no legal basis on which to deny you travel.

Suggesting you may be removed from a station as a trespasser is fanciful. Unlike most other areas, trespass on the railway is a criminal offence. However, a person on a platform with a valid ticket (or even without one) does not become a trespasser because the TOC has decided to (unlawfully) deny him travel. To trespass on the railway you have to either be in an area with no public access or be behaving in an unruly or dangerous manner. Any train or station operators attempting to deny travel are operating unlawfully. It's as simple as that.

Nearly all the guidance issued is suffixed by "where reasonably/practically possible" (or similar). The problem is those words have been lost. We have the ridiculous situation where local authorities are narrowing roads in order to widen pavements and facilitate distancing. This is not "reasonably possible." In fact it's completely unreasonable by any measure (especially as the chances of contracting the virus from somebody you pass in the street are vanishingly small).

The idea of unlocking the lockdown is to enable the economy to get moving. It has been absolutely disastrous in that respect (and worthy of a separate thread to argue if it was the right call). There is no point in relaxing the measures if the "guidance" makes return to normal life practically impossible. In normal life people pop into a pub for a pint without an appointment, they pop in for a coffee without queuing on the pavement in the rain and they travel by train for leisure. They need to do all this and much more if the economy is to work. If large numbers of people are released from lockdown legislation only to see themselves unable to boost the economy because of guidance being interpreted as if it was law, then the economy will crash even further into the abyss.

 

[Huntergreed]

This debate over "legislation" vs "guidance" is getting silly. It typifies the entire lockdown fiasco.

In England the situation is crystal clear. The legislation allows you to make any journey you like, to wherever you like, for whatever reason you like, by whatever method you like. The guidance asks you to consider a few things before you go (such as do I really need to go? Can I walk, cycle? etc.). But, there is nothing to compel you to undertake those considerations and there are no "correct" or "incorrect" answers on which you can be challenged. So, the TOCs have no legal basis on which to deny you travel.

Suggesting you may be removed from a station as a trespasser is fanciful. Unlike most other areas, trespass on the railway is a criminal offence. However, a person on a platform with a valid ticket (or even without one) does not become a trespasser because the TOC has decided to (unlawfully) deny him travel. To trespass on the railway you have to either be in an area with no public access or be behaving in an unruly or dangerous manner. Any train or station operators attempting to deny travel are operating unlawfully. It's as simple as that.

Nearly all the guidance issued is suffixed by "where reasonably/practically possible" (or similar). The problem is those words have been lost. We have the ridiculous situation where local authorities are narrowing roads in order to widen pavements and facilitate distancing. This is not "reasonably possible." In fact it's completely unreasonable by any measure (especially as the chances of contracting the virus from somebody you pass in the street are vanishingly small).

The idea of unlocking the lockdown is to enable the economy to get moving. It has been absolutely disastrous in that respect (and worthy of a separate thread to argue if it was the right call). There is no point in relaxing the measures if the "guidance" makes return to normal life practically impossible. In normal life people pop into a pub for a pint without an appointment, they pop in for a coffee without queuing on the pavement in the rain and they travel by train for leisure. They need to do all this and much more if the economy is to work. If large numbers of people are released from lockdown legislation only to see themselves unable to boost the economy because of guidance being interpreted as if it was law, then the economy will crash even further into the abyss.

Precisely, this 'guidance' is mostly useless.

If ministers deem it necessary to public health to implement certain measures, then this must be important enough to warrant new legislation, which should be scrutinised through parliament as per the normal process. There's so many different 'rules' now that I know many people who are confused and as a result, just don't comply. 'You can meet X numbers from Y different households if you keep Z metres apart, but from 4th July you can keep A+ m apart if you mitigate, you can nominate one household to be in a bubble with, then you don't need to keep Z metres apart, but only if you're alone or a single parent...' and it goes on. I appreciate that for us who discuss and debate the guidance on a daily basis it's quite easy to understand and remember, but to Joe Bloggs out on the street who doesn't read government guidance and only watches the news once a day, I can imagine it is difficult to keep up with.

We need clarity , we definitely need measures to prevent the spread of this virus, but in my opinion, these should be communicated much more clearly and, if they are deemed so necessary that they prevent a threat to public health, they should be made legislation.

 

[Mag_seven]

In England the situation is crystal clear. The legislation allows you to make any journey you like, to wherever you like, for whatever reason you like, by whatever method you like. The guidance asks you to consider a few things before you go (such as do I really need to go? Can I walk, cycle? etc.). But, there is nothing to compel you to undertake those considerations and there are no "correct" or "incorrect" answers on which you can be challenged. So, the TOCs have no legal basis on which to deny you travel.

To discuss the legal issues surrounding this I have created a new thread here:

Can a TOC legally stop a passenger from travelling given that passenger's reason for travelling?

Moderator Note: Posts #1 - #4 originally in this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/discussion-of-july-4-changes-in-england-announced-by-boris-johnson.205754/ In England the situation is crystal clear. The legislation allows you to make any journey you like, to wherever you like...

www.railforums.co.uk