Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[Mintona]

Still as incensed at the idea of wearing one as I was a week ago. It isn’t happening.

 

[al78]

But it isn't. It has been proven, for example, that people who drink to excess are more likely become a burden on the health service than people with otherwise similar characteristics who do not.

My understanding is that parking which causes an obstruction on the public highway is an offence so not comparable at all to non-mask wearing under current legislation.

That is why we have tax on alcohol, to at least partly compensate for that increased (on average) burden to the NHS. The original point, I think, was that there is a big difference between guidance and law. The police can enforce the law, they cannot enforce goivernment advice. If wearing a mask is advised, but not legally necessary, the police can't demand you wear one, and they may be overstepping their authority if they advised you to wear one to the point where you felt uncomfortable or pressured.

 

[johntea]

I had to wear a mask yesterday as I was working in a ward, hated it after 8 seconds never mind 8 hours a day! (From Monday NHS staff no matter their role have to wear a mask at all times, or face disciplinary action...luckily I can work from home for the majority of my role...)

It gets very 'hot' rather quickly, and I end up not being able to see a thing due to my glasses steaming up...also it was very nice of the department to make me a cuppa but quite hard to drink that wearing the mask too! (I kept having to remove it to drink which rather seemed to defeat the object)

Then just to rub salt in the wound I get out of work and...oh joy have to wear one again to commute, good luck on a 158 with dodgy air conditioning!

 

[furlong]

oh joy have to wear one again to commute

No - you only have to wear a 'face covering' - it can be much thinner, poorly fitting and less uncomfortable - think of it a bit like being prescribed a placebo - or homeopathy.

 

[island]

If they're going to do it, it needs to go in the Coronavirus (Restrictions) Regulations 2020. Putting it anywhere else makes no sense, and is a fudge because I believe Bojo doesn't want it.

We are talking about the same thing. The regulations you mention are made under the Public Health Act 1984.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We are talking about the same thing. The regulations you mention are made under the Public Health Act 1984.

Sorry, I was referring to putting it in the NRCoT being a fudge.

 

[Jayden99]

Abellio have issued reusable ones to all staff at my TOC, to be worn when customer facing from Monday. In a spectacular work of genius, in trying to make a one size fits all mask, they've made them so that they don't fit anyone

 

[Mintona]

Is putting your hand over your face adequate? It’s a covering isn’t it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is putting your hand over your face adequate? It’s a covering isn’t it.

If you keep your hand over your face for the entirety of the journey without removing it, then yes, I'm sure it is. Meanwhile in the real world...

 

[philosopher]

How rigorously will the face coverings rule be enforced? Will passengers be allowed to take off their covering for short period to consume food and drinks?

 

[nedchester]

How rigorously will the face coverings rule be enforced? Will passengers be allowed to take off their covering for short period to consume food and drinks?

It can't be enforced if it's not enshrined in law.........

 

[Mintona]

If you keep your hand over your face for the entirety of the journey without removing it, then yes, I'm sure it is. Meanwhile in the real world...

You only have to be doing it when somebody can see you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You only have to be doing it when somebody can see you.

No, you have to do it all the time.

That's like saying you only have to have a valid ticket when there are inspectors on board or for barriered stations. Not getting caught does not mean an offence has not been committed.

 

[MikeWM]

It can't be enforced if it's not enshrined in law.........

I assume a change to the Regulations is going to arrive this weekend (no doubt via the usual highly dubious 'too urgent to ask Parliament' route). Unless I'm missing something, without an update 'non-essential' shops won't be able to open on Monday, nor the 'bubble' idea, as both aren't allowed under the current state of the regs.

It is deeply unsatisfactory, particularly for those who need to be medically exempt, to not be able to see what the rules actually say until they are almost in effect.

 

[Mojo]

So it’s now the last working day before the regulations are being introduced. Transport operators are issuing press releases warning of enforcement action and reminding customers that coverings are mandatory from Monday. But as of yet, I cannot see any detail on the TfL or National Rail websites about under what legislation or contract this rule will be enforced under, who is exempt and how someone falling under this category can prove it, what (if any) penalties there are for non-compliance, and where they are required to be worn.

The most useful is probably TfL’s press release, which confirms that they will expect them to be worn everywhere even on stations, but not by staff in enclosed areas such as driving cabs and control rooms. The press release says that however enforcement of the rules will not start immediately.

 

[nedchester]

So it’s now the last working day before the regulations are being introduced. Transport operators are issuing press releases warning of enforcement action and reminding customers that coverings are mandatory from Monday. But as of yet, I cannot see any detail on the TfL or National Rail websites about under what legislation or contract this rule will be enforced under, who is exempt and how someone falling under this category can prove it, what (if any) penalties there are for non-compliance, and where they are required to be worn.

The most useful is probably TfL’s press release, which confirms that they will expect them to be worn everywhere even on stations, but not by staff in enclosed areas such as driving cabs and control rooms. The press release says that however enforcement of the rules will not start immediately.

I have asked my local operator (Merseyrail) to point me to the NRCoT or by-laws where this regulation is placed. No reply yet.

I strongly suspect this is another half-arsed policy thought up by the Government. Not thought through.

What about those 'exempt' - the railway does not have a right to everyone's medical history.

That said I am generally in favour of wear coverings on trains (especially if they are crowded) but I am concerned that people could be unfairly treated.

 

[furlong]

not by staff in enclosed areas such as driving cabs and control rooms

So another case of "do as we say not as we do" regulartions? If they really want this to work somehow all staff visible to the public are going to need to comply. If the control room is out of sight, that's one thing, but if it has windows onto the concourse someone not wearing one can just point there and they'll risk social media and press ridicule. Try explaining the nicety of an exemption because someone is in a station control room when faced with a photo of a identifiable member of staff on duty without wearing one - in practice I suspect all such staff, including drivers, will end up wearing them because they won't want to risk it being their face circulating on social media for ignoring the "rules".

It's hardly a surprise - just imagine being a person made responsible for codifying this into law!

 

[AM9]

... What about those 'exempt' - the railway does not have a right to everyone's medical history. ...

If and when the appropriate legislative measures are taken, the railway will have the right to refuse those who don't wear face coverings onto their property. It would also have be able to waiver the wearing of face coverings by those who produce evidence of a valid reason not to wear them. That evidence would not need "everyone's medical history" on it, as you are trying to claim.

 

[nedchester]

If and when the appropriate legislative measures are taken, the railway will have the right to refuse those who don't wear face coverings onto their property. It would also have be able to waiver the wearing of face coverings by those who produce evidence of a valid reason not to wear them. That evidence would not need "everyone's medical history" on it, as you are trying to claim.

I await to see the 'appropriate legislative measures' and the massive can of worms that will open in regard of civil liberties and other matters. Dangerous times.

 

[furlong]

Which seems to confirm what I thought - the masks requirement is more likely to be designed to stress the discouragement of non-essential use rather than to send a message that it is 'safe to travel' now (as some people think).

 

[MikeWM]

Which seems to confirm what I thought - the masks requirement is more likely to be designed to stress the discouragement of non-essential use rather than to send a message that it is 'safe to travel' now (as some people think).

Exactly. The message being sent is 'public transport is so uniquely dangerous, compared to any other activity, that you're required to take special measures to protect yourself and others.' How that is supposed to get people starting to use it again - if that were the aim - is anyone's guess. At this rate we'll be lucky to have any public transport left once the funding tap is tightened.

 

[philosopher]

Exactly. The message being sent is 'public transport is so uniquely dangerous, compared to any other activity, that you're required to take special measures to protect yourself and others.' How that is supposed to get people starting to use it again - if that were the aim - is anyone's guess. At this rate we'll be lucky to have any public transport left once the funding tap is tightened.

If making face masks compulsory is an acceptance that with shops reopening, some people being allowed to visit others, etc leading to increased use of public transport making 2 metre social distancing no longer practicable then it would make sense. This seems to be the attitude taken in most other European countries.

However if it is a further move to discourage "non essential" travel then all it will do is permanently put people off using public transport.

 

[AM9]

I await to see the 'appropriate legislative measures' and the massive can of worms that will open in regard of civil liberties and other matters. Dangerous times.

There are many (potential) dangers in the UK, especially the issue of a second spike in infections. In practice, some measures intended to:

protect the NHS, (to deal with any health issues, - just look at the backlog of cancer treatment now facing everybody),​

and​

the economy, (however much the initial measures to limit the impact of the pandemic's first wave in the UK, a second wave would make the problems so far look like a mild recession)​

are designed to prevent far greater and long-lasting economic consequences.
So, in the great scheme of things, a temporary 'loss of human rights' by mandating the wearing of face coverings whilst in contained spaces like on public transport* is is way below anything worth running to the courts for, especially when it is the covering of faces that is designed to help everybody else rather than the wearer's own wellbeing.
* if the legislation is not in place by Monday, and as some expect, there are news clips reporting crowded commuter trains as was the case in March, there will be demands by a majority of the public for the law to be mandate it and for it to be enforced. This might even be the strategy of this weak administration - to promise to mandate it and get public pressure behind it.

 

[NorthOxonian]

If making face masks compulsory is an acceptance that with shops reopening, some people being allowed to visit others, etc leading to increased use of public transport making 2 metre social distancing no longer practicable then it would make sense. This seems to be the attitude taken in most other European countries.

However if it is a further move to discourage "non essential" travel then all it will do is permanently put people off using public transport.

I think the intention is the former, but the outcome will be the latter. Most people will only make journeys they absolutely have to by public transport, because wearing a mask is unpleasant as is seeing others wearing masks.

 

[nedchester]

There are many (potential) dangers in the UK, especially the issue of a second spike in infections. In practice, some measures intended to:

protect the NHS, (to deal with any health issues, - just look at the backlog of cancer treatment now facing everybody),​

and​

the economy, (however much the initial measures to limit the impact of the pandemic's first wave in the UK, a second wave would make the problems so far look like a mild recession)​

are designed to prevent far greater and long-lasting economic consequences.
So, in the great scheme of things, a temporary 'loss of human rights' by mandating the wearing of face coverings whilst in contained spaces like on public transport* is is way below anything worth running to the courts for, especially when it is the covering of faces that is designed to help everybody else rather than the wearer's own wellbeing.
* if the legislation is not in place by Monday, and as some expect, there are news clips reporting crowded commuter trains as was the case in March, there will be demands by a majority of the public for the law to be mandate it and for it to be enforced. This might even be the strategy of this weak administration - to promise to mandate it and get public pressure behind it.

I find your support for a 'temporary loss of human rights' as a very worrying phrase to use. I also don't like being told that 'something is being done for my safety'. I'll decide for myself thanks.

As I say I'm happy (in most cases) to wear a face covering........

 

[Bantamzen]

There are many (potential) dangers in the UK, especially the issue of a second spike in infections. In practice, some measures intended to:

protect the NHS, (to deal with any health issues, - just look at the backlog of cancer treatment now facing everybody),​

and​

the economy, (however much the initial measures to limit the impact of the pandemic's first wave in the UK, a second wave would make the problems so far look like a mild recession)​

are designed to prevent far greater and long-lasting economic consequences.
So, in the great scheme of things, a temporary 'loss of human rights' by mandating the wearing of face coverings whilst in contained spaces like on public transport* is is way below anything worth running to the courts for, especially when it is the covering of faces that is designed to help everybody else rather than the wearer's own wellbeing.
* if the legislation is not in place by Monday, and as some expect, there are news clips reporting crowded commuter trains as was the case in March, there will be demands by a majority of the public for the law to be mandate it and for it to be enforced. This might even be the strategy of this weak administration - to promise to mandate it and get public pressure behind it.

It may have escaped your attention, but the economy just took a 20.4% hit in April, and the rest of Q1 isn't likely to look much better. The damage has already been done, and frankly the more that people are discouraged from using public transport, the deeper that damage will be. Face coverings are little more than a placebo for the public, a measure that applied so late in the day that it is increasingly unlikely to have any effect on a spread already rapidly diminishing. At this rate it will be about as effective in helping the NHS as standing outside our houses banging pots.

 

[yorkie]

Can we stick to Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June in this thread please

i have split some posts here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/can-train-companies-enforce-any-rules-they-like.205378/

 

[dk1]

Just seen advice for my particular TOC. Staff should wear face coverings at all times when on trains, stations or in any public area unless protected by a screen or glass. In addition traincrew may refrain from wearing them when in a driving cab.

It has also been mentioned that the public may have medical reasons for not wearing such face coverings & that at no time must a train be delayed because any passenger is not seen to be using one.

 

[Pat1105]

I saw a Youtube video the other day and it got me thinking....

A man, who was wearing a face covering, was attempting to board a bus. However, his concessionary pass did not work. The driver asked him to remove his face covering, so that he could check the picture on the photocard against the passenger. He refused to remove his mask.

In cases like this, which are more than likely to occur in the coming weeks, what is the driver supposed to do? Do they simply refuse travel if the passenger won’t co operate, or would they have to charge the passenger full fare as the driver has no proof that the passenger is who they say they are? Or, would they just not bother to avoid the hassle at the roadside?

 

[packermac]

Maybe they don't have any other means.

Or like me have a partner in the Critically Vulnerable Category so any little extra I can do to protect her I will do. Still bizarre waling into the Post Office looking like a robber.