Is your bus journey necessary?

[neilmc]

Bus operators are still running, usually to something approximating a Sunday service, and timetables are enforcing the idea that these services are for essential workers only. OK, but given that lots of elderly people are entitled to free travel with the ENCTS scheme, is anything being done to enforce this? Police are checking motorways and trunk roads, and maybe mainline rail stations, but how do you stop people travelling to a nice beauty spot or scenic town by bus purely for a day out - they may claim it's a shopping trip, which o course is quite OK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We just don't have a high enough level of policing in the UK to even think about enforcing that.

 

[leightonbd]

Certainly in Edinburgh, buses have been cut back well beyond a Sunday service - my three closest routes have simply been stopped - meaning the scope for recreational travel is quite restricted.

Those buses I see (15 mins walk away, near my local shops) are mostly empty, so I suspect the debate is a bit academic in any event.

 

[yorkie]

Bus operators are still running, usually to something approximating a Sunday service, and timetables are enforcing the idea that these services are for essential workers only.

That idea is not the case, no matter what anyone says. The law is here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made (I won't quote from it because it's been quoted in previous threads e.g. this one and many others)

OK, but given that lots of elderly people are entitled to free travel with the ENCTS scheme, is anything being done to enforce this?

You can (theoretically) enforce the actual law, but you can't enforce a made-up law.

Police are checking motorways and trunk roads, and maybe mainline rail stations, but how do you stop people travelling to a nice beauty spot or scenic town by bus purely for a day out - they may claim it's a shopping trip, which o course is quite OK.

The answer is that it is impossible to enforce this law in all cases, but in some cases it may be obvious that someone is flouting the law

 

[johnnychips]

I have been doing a lot of circular walks from my flat in Sheffield, which has been fine. The buses here are mostly empty. It would be so nice if I got a bus to Derbyshire and then walked back, but of course I don’t because if it would be ok for me, then why not everybody else?

 

[yorkie]

I have been doing a lot of circular walks from my flat in Sheffield, which has been fine. The buses here are mostly empty. It would be so nice if I got a bus to Derbyshire and then walked back, but of course I don’t because if it would be ok for me, then why not everybody else?

It's not unlawful to do that, but in practise hardly anyone is actually interested & willing to doing that, and most people are currently voluntarily avoiding public transport. It's not uncommon in York to see buses with zero passengers on board at present. In practise if you did it that way round (rather than getting the bus back) you could gauge how busy the bus was before boarding.

 

[amateur]

As they no longer have to tap their oyster card in London, shall we be seeing an increase in passenger numbers?!

How would they monitor passenger count, if no-one is tapping?

 

[MCSHF007]

As they no longer have to tap their oyster card in London, shall we be seeing an increase in passenger numbers?!

How would they monitor passenger count, if no-one is tapping?

I've wondered the same about the figures for National Rail. If barriers are open and revenue protection is forbidden/discouraged do the quoted much reduced usage figures reflect the inevitable (and oft-reported) influx of unchallenged freeloaders/chancers/scumbags?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not unlawful to do that, but in practise hardly anyone is actually interested & willing to doing that, and most people are currently voluntarily avoiding public transport. It's not uncommon in York to see buses with zero passengers on board at present. In practise if you did it that way round (rather than getting the bus back) you could gauge how busy the bus was before boarding.

I quite like cycling to a distant station and getting the train back as a means of combining two things I like doing, I'm avoiding that at the moment too.

 

[JonathanH]

As they no longer have to tap their oyster card in London, shall we be seeing an increase in passenger numbers?!

How would they monitor passenger count, if no-one is tapping?

You might have noticed from the government briefing yesterday that the line for TfL-bus on the transport use chart has stopped - ie they don't have a way of monitoring numbers of passengers.

 

[111-111-1]

It's not unlawful to do that, but in practise hardly anyone is actually interested & willing to doing that, and most people are currently voluntarily avoiding public transport. It's not uncommon in York to see buses with zero passengers on board at present. In practise if you did it that way round (rather than getting the bus back) you could gauge how busy the bus was before boarding.

Yet again we have a post stating it is legal to do something which is beyond the guidelines that are continually being set out for our protection.

Public transport is running for essential journeys not for leisure journeys.

As a transport worker I am being put at greater risk, either getting to work or at work, if public transport gets a higher usage by non essential travel as are all the other essential travellers. In London there has been a spike in deaths of TFL workers many of who were bus drivers.

The difference between any public transport vehicle having enough room for all on board to have their social distancing space is quite a small number of people. On a bus that means people having to sit nearer the driver putting him at greater risk. The more people travelling means the greater likelihood of asymptomatic transfer of the virus.

It is disgraceful that anyone suggests that people can make non essential journeys whether they are legal or not. As I posted in another thread I accept that my role means that I am still at work, I have had the advantage over many years that had we been at war with conscription I would not have been forced to go to the battlefield to fight but now it is my turn to do my bit. What I can do without is being put at greater risk by people thinking because it is legal to do something it is fine to do it whatever the possible result.

 

[yorkie]

Yet again we have a post stating it is legal to do something which is beyond the guidelines that are continually being set out for our protection.

I was only answering what was posted with the legal position.

Public transport is running for essential journeys not for leisure journeys.

The law is here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made (I won't quote from it because it's been quoted in previous threads e.g. this one and many others); I am well aware you do not like the legislation, from discussions in previous threads. But that doesn't change what the legislation says.

As a transport worker I am being put at greater risk, either getting to work or at work, if public transport gets a higher usage by non essential travel as are all the other essential travellers. In London there has been a spike in deaths of TFL workers many of who were bus drivers.

Let's be clear: as discussed in other threads (so let's not go into detail on this one) we are going to have to live with this virus. There are various sources for this (for example see the video posted here and here )

The difference between any public transport vehicle having enough room for all on board to have their social distancing space is quite a small number of people. On a bus that means people having to sit nearer the driver putting him at greater risk. The more people travelling means the greater likelihood of asymptomatic transfer of the virus.

Discussion taking place in this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...n-public-life-public-transport.203436/page-10

It is disgraceful that anyone suggests that people can make non essential journeys whether they are legal or not.

This doesn't make sense. I again refer you to what the legislation actually says. I am aware the Countryside Alliance and other groups do not like the legislation either. But the legislation is not going to be tightened; sooner or later it is going to be eased.

As I posted in another thread I accept that my role means that I am still at work, I have had the advantage over many years that had we been at war with conscription I would not have been forced to go to the battlefield to fight but now it is my turn to do my bit. What I can do without is being put at greater risk by people thinking because it is legal to do something it is fine to do it whatever the possible result.

I refer you to other threads; we are going to be "on the battlefield" for many many months, maybe even a year or more.

I'm not sure there is much further point to this thread; it was created based on a misunderstanding, and the topics are already being debated in other threads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet again we have a post stating it is legal to do something which is beyond the guidelines that are continually being set out for our protection.

It's a fact. The law is weaker than the guidelines. The guidelines are what people should be following, and mostly are. But there is nothing whatsoever wrong with @yorkie's point, it's just a statement of a fact which is clearly and demonstrably true.

 

[111-111-1]

It's a fact. The law is weaker than the guidelines. The guidelines are what people should be following, and mostly are. But there is nothing whatsoever wrong with @yorkie's point, it's just a statement of a fact which is clearly and demonstrably true.

I did not state that yorkie was not correct.

If you read the hole post I give reasons why I believe nobody should suggest that people should use public transport for other than essential journeys.

 

[Llanigraham]

The bus company around here is checking on why people want to go to the coast, and if it isn't for work they are refusing to carry them.

 

[Busaholic]

The bus company around here is checking on why people want to go to the coast, and if it isn't for work they are refusing to carry them.

Some of us live on the coast! Both my wife and I have had to separately make the 50 mile return journey to our nearest local hospital that deals with major ailments in the last fortnight, and my wife has to go again on Tuesday - I wouldn't expect to have to get permission from the bus driver to be allowed to travel, or even queried as to the reason for it. I would be prepared to indicate to the driver that I was going to the hospital, which I wouldn't normally do given that ENCTS pass holders don't have to give a destination in my area.

 

[LowLevel]

I've wondered the same about the figures for National Rail. If barriers are open and revenue protection is forbidden/discouraged do the quoted much reduced usage figures reflect the inevitable (and oft-reported) influx of unchallenged freeloaders/chancers/scumbags?

My train operator has a guard on all services and we are sending in passenger figures for every train service to send up the chain, even though we aren't conducting revenue checks we can still easily count people boarding.

 

[Llanigraham]

Some of us live on the coast! Both my wife and I have had to separately make the 50 mile return journey to our nearest local hospital that deals with major ailments in the last fortnight, and my wife has to go again on Tuesday - I wouldn't expect to have to get permission from the bus driver to be allowed to travel, or even queried as to the reason for it. I would be prepared to indicate to the driver that I was going to the hospital, which I wouldn't normally do given that ENCTS pass holders don't have to give a destination in my area.

Note that I did state "to the coast", and perhaps should have said "essential journey" not work, but was unable to edit the posting.

 

[111-111-1]

Some of us live on the coast! Both my wife and I have had to separately make the 50 mile return journey to our nearest local hospital that deals with major ailments in the last fortnight, and my wife has to go again on Tuesday - I wouldn't expect to have to get permission from the bus driver to be allowed to travel, or even queried as to the reason for it. I would be prepared to indicate to the driver that I was going to the hospital, which I wouldn't normally do given that ENCTS pass holders don't have to give a destination in my area.

Despite others taking offence to me imploring people not to travel for non essential reasons or make comments that certain non essential use of public transport is not illegal I would consider it exeptionaly bad if someone was denied travel who needed it for essential reasons.

Travelling in civvys especially casual civvys will at times cause questions to be asked, but if there is a valid essential reason to travel other than a quick check on your reason for using the public transport there must be no obstacle put in your way, which in your case is just telling the driver you are going to hospital or returning home, which of course is in the list of excuses for leaving the place you live.

 

[Mojo]

In a fashion it is irrelevant as to what the law says; public transport operators are (supposed to be) gearing their services to provide a service for essential workers to undertake journeys to work.

Whilst people may be allowed to use public transport to do things like facilitate exercise, or provide access to shops/medical institutions, this is rightly strongly discouraged, to ensure as few customers are travelling as possible.