Long term social distancing: Impact on public life & public transport?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greenboy

On Moderation
Joined
29 Oct 2019
Messages
245
Location
Woking
According to the poster on here, there was no such qualification in the broadcast.

Infact I don't even think there's been any explicit mention of people being allowed to use public transport in the other circumstances you mention.

This is a big part of the problem. It's just not good enough, relying on people to assume things.
People are going to have to start using their own common sense, basically don't use public transport unless your journey is essential.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,808
Location
London
What's unbelievable about it? With greatly reduced capacity for the foreseeable future why shouldn't key workers have priority? Or do you want empty supermarket shelves?
What’s unbelievable is that today a government spokeswoman made a factually incorrect statement about the lockdown restrictions. Workers of all types have always been allowed to travel to work by public transport, not just “key workers”. Not that anyone seems to know who they are!

She also directly contradicted Boris Johnson’s message from a few weeks back that workers are now being encouraged to be going back to work if their businesses are open.

How the hell are they supposed to do that if they can’t use public transport?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,996
Location
Yorks
No one is going to check whether you are a Key Worker or not, in 8 weeks I've never been asked for my letter.

On Scotrail the Guards are rarely seen.

Once again can I emphasise the Trains are emptier than the majority of bus services I have seen in Scotland.
This is undoubtedly true, however officials shouldn't be giving out incorrect advice at the briefings.

People are going to have to start using their own common sense, basically don't use public transport unless your journey is essential.
This is simply not sustainable even in the medium term.

All of my friends and family live away from me. To see them will require some use of public transport.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
50,532
Location
Yorkshire
People are going to have to start using their own common sense, basically don't use public transport unless your journey is essential.
How do you define essential? Do you own, or have access to, a car? Are you asking me to stay in York until a vaccine is widely available?
 

Clayton

On Moderation
Joined
15 Apr 2018
Messages
201
I think if that was the case there would be mass disobedience, as it would destroy the economy completely to have another long period of full lockdown.

What I have heard talk of is making the flu vaccine available to all for free this year, which would, if the strains are predicted correctly, take it near enough fully out of the equation, albeit at a price.
Oh that is interesting! Lateral thinking at last. I’m not holding my breath for a vaccine but wonder if some treatments will emerge soon that can address the serious symptoms that some people suffer, thus making the virus genuinely not much more dangerous than flu.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,769
Location
Coach J Seat 39
When do you think they will start encouraging public transport use? (Just curious)
I can’t see them explicitly “encouraging” it for a good while yet.

I do think within the next month (or two at a push) they’ll need to open the network to allow people to travel for leisure, see their families and visit places. It’ll be open, but restrictions will be in place and there’ll need to be a rethink of the system to find the best way to achieve this.

But actively “encouraging” people onto transport would be quite reckless in the short term given the fragile nature of the progress against the virus we’re making.
 

BJames

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2018
Messages
731
People are going to have to start using their own common sense, basically don't use public transport unless your journey is essential.
But the guidance is that public transport can be used when you can't use another form of transport. The lockdown is beginning to be eased tomorrow, to start allowing some non-essential activities again. As yorkie has said many times above, if the rules allow for you to do something by driving there, but you don't have a car, you can use public transport for that purpose.
I assume the exclusive use bit applies to peak hours, obviously some people have to use public transport for shopping, medical appointments etc. I think the message is basically don't use public transport unless you have to, I know it goes against everything that we've been told in the past but such is the unprecedented situation that we're currently in.
There is no exclusive use... I know the line for TfL's services at the moment are "essential journeys only" (basically what you've said above) but this has to change once lockdown rules start being released.

Anyway, from reading comments elsewhere, it seems as if there are quite a few more people venturing out now onto public transport. People need to travel to see others at some point, and to get to work at another point (likely to be much sooner than the former). They're going to use public transport and there won't be anything that can be done about it.

As much as I hate to use this example, remember everyone has to pay for their train journey! Doesn't stop millions of pounds a year being lost to fare evasion. The point is, you can tell people they can't use it, and that's worked up until now, but people will use it if they want and pretending otherwise is wishful thinking that doesn't match up to reality, because we don't have the manpower to enforce this. And if we did, we'd have a lot more staff hanging around on stations and trains which reduces capacity for other travellers.
 

TheGarner

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
76
I can’t see them explicitly “encouraging” it for a good while yet.

I do think within the next month (or two at a push) they’ll need to open the network to allow people to travel for leisure, see their families and visit places. It’ll be open, but restrictions will be in place and there’ll need to be a rethink of the system to find the best way to achieve this.

But actively “encouraging” people onto transport would be quite reckless in the short term given the fragile nature of the progress against the virus we’re making.
I believe the whole "if you can work from home, do so" still applies at the moment? I assume that would also be dropped at he same time they want more people to use public transport. I supposed we would have to wait for the 2m to either be dropped or reduced? As I can't see a lot of people wanting to tackle trains during normal rush hours if the distancing rules are in place.
 

xc170

On Moderation
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
815
Finally it would not surprise me if there was a lockdown from around October this year until around April next year (approximately) to enable the NHS to manage the Winter Flu season without Coronavirus on top of it, in which case again services would reduce to deter and also manage staff sickness levels against what can be provided because of it.
This cannot and will not happen.

We simply cannot afford another lockdown, the economy would be obliterated, as I've posted in another thread, if the economy collapses, the NHS goes with it...
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,996
Location
Yorks
I believe the whole "if you can work from home, do so" still applies at the moment? I assume that would also be dropped at he same time they want more people to use public transport. I supposed we would have to wait for the 2m to either be dropped or reduced? As I can't see a lot of people wanting to tackle trains during normal rush hours if the distancing rules are in place.
That will be the last to go. If people are working from home, there's there's little to be gained from cramming them onto trains and into offices to justify the increased risk.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
50,532
Location
Yorkshire
I do think within the next month (or two at a push) they’ll need to open the network to allow people to travel for leisure, see their families and visit places. ...
It is already the case that you can travel to see families and visit places.
This cannot and will not happen.
Agreed and it's not really a topic for this thread, so if anyone wants to propose it they will need to do so in a different thread.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,207
In UK it is true, other country do different thing but in UK public transport not to be used for non essential jouneys.
That is going to be increasingly unrealistic as overall disease rates keep falling and estimated survival rates keep increasing (possibly as the worst strains die out first).
 

CaptainHaddock

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
1,734
People are going to have to start using their own common sense, basically don't use public transport unless your journey is essential.
Yes, so you keep saying but it remains the case that if you feel that it's essential for the sake of your mental or physical health to make a train journey to the country or the seaside for leisure purposes then that is very much permitted
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
50,532
Location
Yorkshire

alex397

Member
Joined
6 Oct 2017
Messages
546
Location
UK
It is already the case that you can travel to see families and visit places.
Really? Government and operator advice still seems to be that you should only travel for essential journeys. Unless that is to change tomorrow? I have been looking online for clarification about this but can't seem to find any .
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,207
This cannot and will not happen.

We simply cannot afford another lockdown, the economy would be obliterated, as I've posted in another thread, if the economy collapses, the NHS goes with it...
Exactly; whereas Cuba runs well as a low-tech system they have top notch sanitation and a relatively closed immigration system that could not be reproduced in the UK. A second lockdown would kill the parts of the economy that pay for running the ventilators.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
50,532
Location
Yorkshire
Really? Government and operator advice still seems to be that you should only travel for essential journeys. Unless that is to change tomorrow? I have been looking online for clarification about this but can't seem to find any .
Yes, really.

The term "essential" is a misnomer; what matters is whether the journey is permitted by the relevant legislation.

The legislation can be found at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6

(note there is an upcoming change to the legislation to allow gatherings of up to 6 people, but there is no material change to the types of journey that is permitted)

Any journey that is not permitted under the legislation is not permitted by any transport mode.
 

Greenboy

On Moderation
Joined
29 Oct 2019
Messages
245
Location
Woking
How do you define essential? Do you own, or have access to, a car? Are you asking me to stay in York until a vaccine is widely available?
I think it's up to each individual to decide whether their journey is essential, my partner and I have a car although she gets priority. Normally I would use public transport regularly although I've stayed off it for the last couple of months.
 

alex397

Member
Joined
6 Oct 2017
Messages
546
Location
UK
Public transport is not mentioned there at all, which is why it appears unclear.

I totally understand that technically it isn't illegal to travel on public transport for leisure, but it still appears to be against government and operator advice.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
50,532
Location
Yorkshire
I think it's up to each individual to decide whether their journey is essential
Agreed.
my partner and I have a car ....
I see; do you agree that doesn't - and nor should it - give you any additional rights?
Public transport is not mentioned there at all, which is why it appears unclear.
That's because there is no additional restriction on the use of PT; it would be illegal to discriminate towards car owners.
I totally understand that technically it isn't illegal to travel on public transport for leisure, but it still appears to be against government and operator advice.
It's also against the advice to drive a car if you can walk or cycle.

The advice is to walk or cycle if possible; if it's too far or not possible, then to go by car if possible. But if you don't have a car, that's not possible, and you cannot be discriminated against.
 

Greenboy

On Moderation
Joined
29 Oct 2019
Messages
245
Location
Woking
Yes, so you keep saying but it remains the case that if you feel that it's essential for the sake of your mental or physical health to make a train journey to the country or the seaside for leisure purposes then that is very much permitted
I can think of a few train journeys I'd like to make but I haven't, each to their own decision on the matter.
 
Joined
31 Dec 2019
Messages
109
Location
Uk
appears to be against government and operator advice.
And it is solely that: advice

What you can do is dictated by legislation, not advice. You can legally use any mode of transport (be it car, or public transport) for any distance in England provided you meet the criteria in the aforementioned law.
 

northernchris

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2011
Messages
1,228
Public transport is not mentioned there at all, which is why it appears unclear.

I totally understand that technically it isn't illegal to travel on public transport for leisure, but it still appears to be against government and operator advice.
The way I understand it is although leisure travel is permitted it's not encouraged due to the limited capacity. I travelled on Friday to visit family and wasn't stopped at all despite at Leeds having walk past plenty of security staff and take an extended route to reach the platform
 

alex397

Member
Joined
6 Oct 2017
Messages
546
Location
UK
That's because there is no additional restriction on the use of PT; it would be illegal to discriminate towards car owners.

It's also against the advice to drive a car if you can walk or cycle.

The advice is to walk or cycle if possible; if it's too far or not possible, then to go by car if possible. But if you don't have a car, that's not possible, and you cannot be discriminated against.
Thank you for your posts Yorkie - you're giving more clarification than any official sources, it seems.

I have been wondering about travelling again. I will probably avoid it for the time being, but that clarification is good to be aware of.
 

Greenboy

On Moderation
Joined
29 Oct 2019
Messages
245
Location
Woking
Agreed.

I see; do you agree that doesn't - and nor should it - give you any additional rights?

That's because there is no additional restriction on the use of PT; it would be illegal to discriminate towards car owners.

It's also against the advice to drive a car if you can walk or cycle.

The advice is to walk or cycle if possible; if it's too far or not possible, then to go by car if possible. But if you don't have a car, that's not possible, and you cannot be discriminated against.
As you said, you have the option of a car
Yes although at the moment I'd only make car journeys that are essential, any breakdown or accident and others are put at risk. Of course there aren't many options of places to go anyway, I wouldn't visit anybodys house and pubs, restaurants etc are closed.
 
Last edited:

Skimpot flyer

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,014
Reducing the death rate could have been achieved just as well by asking the elderly and vulnerable to shield... There was and is no need for millions of low risk people to be locked up at home!
This graphic from the BBC shows how absolutely true that statement is
D5086717-367E-4516-AB00-D822B93917FF.jpeg
and is backed by earlier reporting on the same subject
As Britain edges back to work and employees consider the risks of moving beyond lockdown, official figures underscore that over-65s are 34 times more likely to die of coronavirus than working-age Britons.
About 12% of all deaths relating to Covid-19 have occurred among those under 65 – a total of 4,066 deaths. Most victims have been in the over-65 category, accounting for 30,978 fatalities.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,769
Location
Coach J Seat 39
This graphic from the BBC shows how absolutely true that statement is
View attachment 78802
and is backed by earlier reporting on the same subject
I would argue that the under 45's should be let out almost immediately looking at that evidence.

I don't see why this wouldn't be a good approach forward. There are issues surrounding staffing admittedly, but I would imagine letting the younger half roam more freely whilst maintaining (or perhaps advising) the older half to stick to the lockdown rules for their own safety would be a good approach to get the economy much more healthy and still prevent overall damage from this virus. In Scotland Sturgeon has strictly ruled out varying restrictions by age, but I do need to ask if there's a reason to be so quick as to dismiss the idea.
 

CaptainHaddock

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
1,734
I would argue that the under 45's should be let out almost immediately looking at that evidence.

I don't see why this wouldn't be a good approach forward. There are issues surrounding staffing admittedly, but I would imagine letting the younger half roam more freely whilst maintaining (or perhaps advising) the older half to stick to the lockdown rules for their own safety would be a good approach to get the economy much more healthy and still prevent overall damage from this virus. In Scotland Sturgeon has strictly ruled out varying restrictions by age, but I do need to ask if there's a reason to be so quick as to dismiss the idea.
Because the age groups seem to be conjured up rather arbitrarily. I'm 52 but according to your argument I should be bracketed with people in their 60s even though I'm as healthy as any 45 year old!

I see no good reason why anyone without a pre-existing health condition that puts them at risk should not be allowed out any time they like now the rate of infections is falling significantly week by week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top