Should train companies be allowed to say "essential travel only" now Government allows travel to undertake activities permitted in the guidance?

[yorksrob]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lic-transport-thus-increasing-capacity.205564

All of the advice around masks is that they will help to reduce transmission where social distancing isn't possible. This is how it has been used on public transport in countries that have been successful at controlling the virus.

Organisations that try to enforce it with strict social distancing are just pushing an agenda to depress public transport usage in defiance of any evidence or logic.

 

[Starmill]

Organisations that try to enforce it with strict social distancing are just pushing an agenda to depress public transport usage in defiance of any evidence or logic.

I don't think that this is true at all. However, even if it were true, there are many good reasons why companies might not want many people to be in confined spaces. It only takes one person not wearing a face covering who is contagious to potentially infect several others close by. It's also something many companies will be worried about legally. If there's a relevant legal duty of care and someone catches the virus in a confined space without social distancing, then dies, there's a big risk of claims that there was a 'gross breach' of that duty. Many organisations are clearly fearful of Corporate Manslaughter charges if there's a significant increase in infections again.

In the last 3 weeks (when I've had a decent amount of spare time on my hands) I've spent about £400 on diesel. If you like the outdoors, there are plenty of places to go. The railway would have had all of that (and probably more; I'll happily day trip far further by train than car, for instance the Lake District from MK is too long a day trip by car but I've done it by train before and would again) if they hadn't been telling me to get lost.

I had hoped the mask thing would result in that being permitted (by the railway) or even welcomed...but instead I'm going on another long trip tomorrow by car. That's another £80 or so the railway has not received.

To be fair, they're still getting nearly all of that money anyway, but from your taxes rather than your ticket purchases. They don't "need" it, as they did.

I’m happy to wear masks as a rule, but for god’s sake Boris, tell the public those without a car can use trains again. Are you saying those who don’t drive should forfeit trips to visit friends or nice places just because they have no car?!

That people are taking this sort of message home with them is not really that surprising surely? Governments hasn't been anti-car, or very pro-alternative for a very long time. Johnson hasn't ever strongly encouraged car alternatives, and his party has been pro-car for a long time.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think that this is true at all. However, even if it were true, there are many good reasons why companies might not want many people to be in confined spaces. It only takes one person not wearing a face covering who is contagious to potentially infect several others close by. It's also something many companies will be worried about legally. If there's a relevant legal duty of care and someone catches the virus in a confined space without social distancing, then dies, there's a big risk of claims that there was a 'gross breach' of that duty. Many organisations are clearly fearful of Corporate Manslaughter charges if there's a significant increase in infections again.

The requirement to wear the face mask discharges the duty of care. As you've alluded to in your post above, social distancing doesn't really work in a vehicle anyway, so how can it's lack of application be a gross breach of that duty if a more effective mitigation strategy (compulsory face masks) is already in place.

In terms of the agenda to push social distancing in defiance of logic, I will give some benefit of the doubt to the train companies themselves, as they've asked the Government to be able to drop the "essential travel only" message. Unfortunately there are others pushing the agenda strenuously.

 

[Enthusiast]

Many organisations are clearly fearful of Corporate Manslaughter charges if there's a significant increase in infections again.

For heaven's sake! Such an allegation would not even get over the doorstep of the CPS. To prove such an offence it would have to be shown that the company acted negligently and that their negligence resulted directly in the death(s). How do you think that the source of any particular Covid infection could be traced to the negligence of a single company? You can pick up a virus from anywhere and it's usually weeks before it manifests itself. Proving that the victim caught it in a particular place would be impossible. I'm afraid such a contention is a clear manifestation of the ridiculous state this country has descended into as a result of paranoia on an epic scale.

 

[MikeWM]

For heaven's sake! Such an allegation would not even get over the doorstep of the CPS. To prove such an offence it would have to be shown that the company acted negligently and that their negligence resulted directly in the death(s). How do you think that the source of any particular Covid infection could be traced to the negligence of a single company? You can pick up a virus from anywhere and it's usually weeks before it manifests itself. Proving that the victim caught it in a particular place would be impossible. I'm afraid such a contention is a clear manifestation of the ridiculous state this country has descended into as a result of paranoia on an epic scale.

Even if they were 'negligent' in some nebulous way, and it *could* be proved that the infection occurred in a particular place, it is a preposterous state of affairs if we think we should be able to hold a company accountable for someone catching a virus, unless they were deliberately employing people to cough in peoples faces or similar!

 

[Domh245]

If they couldn't prosecute for the death of Belly Mujinga after she was allegedly spat at by someone who claimed to have the virus, the odds of any corporate manslaughter charges being successfully being tried are next to nil.

edit: clarified that the spitting was alleged but no evidence was found of criminal offences. Similarly, the person who claimed to have the virus subsequently tested negative for antibodies meaning he hadn't had the virus. General point still stands however re difficulty of raising prosecutions around COVID

 

[Bikeman78]

I don't think that this is true at all. However, even if it were true, there are many good reasons why companies might not want many people to be in confined spaces. It only takes one person not wearing a face covering who is contagious to potentially infect several others close by. It's also something many companies will be worried about legally. If there's a relevant legal duty of care and someone catches the virus in a confined space without social distancing, then dies, there's a big risk of claims that there was a 'gross breach' of that duty. Many organisations are clearly fearful of Corporate Manslaughter charges if there's a significant increase in infections again.

How will the airlines cope then? In supermarkets, social distancing exists in name only. Almost no one wears a mask. The chances of anyone being able to prove where they caught Covid are rather slim.

 

[Starmill]

The requirement to wear the face mask discharges the duty of care. As you've alluded to in your post above, social distancing doesn't really work in a vehicle anyway, so how can it's lack of application be a gross breach of that duty if a more effective mitigation strategy (compulsory face masks) is already in place.

In terms of the agenda to push social distancing in defiance of logic, I will give some benefit of the doubt to the train companies themselves, as they've asked the Government to be able to drop the "essential travel only" message. Unfortunately there are others pushing the agenda strenuously.

The point I was making was that you and others here can do all of the complaining you like about allegedly poorly worded signs or what you think is an unacceptable web page, but fundamentally this is no different from me complaining for years on end about misconduct of staff, unlawful overcharging and poor customer service. It has roughly no effect unless they share your views.

To put it another way: train companies do not need people to be travelling on trains, but if people do it will cause cost, risk and work for them. Why is it then a surprise they act as they are doing, which is within the law? Especially now that the government are the paymasters.

 

[Starmill]

Another thing I don't understand is that those people who are getting the most angry about the choices of words on signs or FAQ pages seem to be the same as the group of people who have taken no heed of those words anyway? If that's the case, are they actually affecting you at all? If not, perhaps minding your own business is the way forward!

 

[yorksrob]

The point I was making was that you and others here can do all of the complaining you like about allegedly poorly worded signs or what you think is an unacceptable web page, but fundamentally this is no different from me complaining for years on end about misconduct of staff, unlawful overcharging and poor customer service. It has roughly no effect unless they share your views.

To put it another way: train companies do not need people to be travelling on trains, but if people do it will cause cost, risk and work for them. Why is it then a surprise they act as they are doing, which is within the law? Especially now that the government are the paymasters.

That is true in a very immediate sense. However, if the industry puts off too many people for too long, it might find itself in a very sticky situation indeed if enough of them don't come back. The commuter market will be smaller, that is for sure. Now is not a good time to be causing irreparable damage to all other types of travel.

 

[yorksrob]

Another thing I don't understand is that those people who are getting the most angry about the choices of words on signs or FAQ pages seem to be the same as the group of people who have taken no heed of those words anyway? If that's the case, are they actually affecting you at all? If not, perhaps minding your own business is the way forward!

That is a fair point. I go by the Government guidelines, so any drivel put about on company twitter feeds is background noise to me anyway.

I am, however, acutely aware that there will be people who are less assertive and informed than myself, who could greatly benefit from seeing their friends and family, yet who don't have access to private transport, and who are being greatly disadvantaged through no fault of their own except that they are trying to do the right thing. I believe that that is wrong.

 

[Starmill]

That is true in a very immediate sense. However, if the industry puts off too many people for too long, it might find itself in a very sticky situation indeed if enough of them don't come back. The commuter market will be smaller, that is for sure. Now is not a good time to be causing irreparable damage to all other types of travel.

I think there's no chance that they will all come back. The recovery growth will be slow, and is yet to begin. A return to 70% of 2019 levels in 3-5 years is one scenario for example (note it's not actually a forecast, it's still too early for that). Fundamentally then the rules right now, and for the next 6 months or so, while almost nobody is travelling anywhere and we are still tracking the disease and its treatments closely, just aren't that important.

 

[yorksrob]

I think there's no chance that they will all come back. The recovery growth will be slow, and is yet to begin. A return to 70% of 2019 levels in 3-5 years is one scenario for example (note it's not actually a forecast, it's still too early for that). Fundamentally then the rules right now, and for the next 6 months or so, while almost nobody is travelling anywhere and we are still tracking the disease and its treatments closely, just aren't that important.

If almost nobody is travelling anywhere, there's no reason to give out false messaging and disinformation then.

 

[Starmill]

How will the airlines cope then? In supermarkets, social distancing exists in name only. Almost no one wears a mask. The chances of anyone being able to prove where they caught Covid are rather slim.

They may simply have a very different attitude to risk, be more willing to defend against what they would consider illegitimate claims, or have received slightly different legal advice.

 

[Starmill]

If almost nobody is travelling anywhere, there's no reason to give out false messaging and disinformation then.

Presumably they're aware of the contingent who will chance it regardless and doing everything they can to get them off. They might even try pricing people off.

 

[yorksrob]

Presumably they're aware of the contingent who will chance it regardless and doing everything they can to get them off. They might even try pricing people off.

They might do. But then they'd also be pricing off all the phantom key workers who are currently occupying the empty trains.

 

[MikeWM]

I am, however, acutely aware that there will be people who are less assertive and informed than myself, who could greatly benefit from seeing their friends and family, yet who don't have access to private transport, and who are being greatly disadvantaged through no fault of their own except that they are trying to do the right thing. I believe that that is wrong.

I agree, the messaging is wrong and needs to change. Both about 'essential' travel and masks - in the latter case, it needs to be made clearer that there are legitimate exceptions. This is almost never mentioned in announcements/posters/publicity. I know someone who cannot wear a mask and is deeply concerned she'll never be able to get on public transport again for fear of how people may react. I don't think it is a bad thing for others to stick up for such people, and point out what is wrong with the current messaging.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree, the messaging is wrong and needs to change. Both about 'essential' travel and masks - in the latter case, it needs to be made clearer that there are legitimate exceptions. This is almost never mentioned in announcements/posters/publicity. I know someone who cannot wear a mask and is deeply concerned she'll never be able to get on public transport again for fear of how people may react. I don't think it is a bad thing for others to stick up for such people, and point out what is wrong with the current messaging.

Indeed. I agree with face coverings as a mitigation strategy - particularly to enable people to go about their lives within the guidance, however there needs to be provision for people who genuinely can't wear them.

 

[Skymonster]

Another thing I don't understand is that those people who are getting the most angry about the choices of words on signs or FAQ pages seem to be the same as the group of people who have taken no heed of those words anyway? If that's the case, are they actually affecting you at all? If not, perhaps minding your own business is the way forward!

Perhaps because it is human nature to campaign about injustice, unfairness and misguided information even if it does not impact us personally. Look at it another way: should those who are not directly affected by BLM issues ignore them and mind their own business on that too?

 

[Bikeman78]

The point I was making was that you and others here can do all of the complaining you like about allegedly poorly worded signs or what you think is an unacceptable web page, but fundamentally this is no different from me complaining for years on end about misconduct of staff, unlawful overcharging and poor customer service. It has roughly no effect unless they share your views.

To put it another way: train companies do not need people to be travelling on trains, but if people do it will cause cost, risk and work for them. Why is it then a surprise they act as they are doing, which is within the law? Especially now that the government are the paymasters.

We are in complete agreement on this point. But how long do the unions and the management think the government will pay for an empty railway? What do they think will happen when the subsidy is reduced?

 

[greyman42]

Train companies can say essential travel only all day for me. It does not mean anyone has to take any notice of them. Ignore them and enjoy your journeys.

 

[MrTurbostar170]

It's advice anyway. The word just needs to be spread around that people are allowed to take whatever journey they want, as there's very little the guidelines say you can't do now. It's not like services outside London are busy at all anyway.

 

[GB]

It's advice anyway. The word just needs to be spread around that people are allowed to take whatever journey they want, as there's very little the guidelines say you can't do now. It's not like services outside London are busy at all anyway.

I agree. The TOCs should be free to say only travel if its essential if they want, but I don't think it should actually be enforced. For a start its not up to them to determine what's essential but its also no different when there are weather warnings in place and the police say only travel if absolutely necessary. They don't actually enforce that advice.

 

[Starmill]

Perhaps because it is human nature to campaign about injustice, unfairness and misguided information even if it does not impact us personally. Look at it another way: should those who are not directly affected by BLM issues ignore them and mind their own business on that too?

Systemic racism has caused untold harm for centuries all around the world, up to an including death and killing. It's not clear to what if any harm the words quoted by train companies are causing. In other words this is clearly not a proportionate analogy.

 

[mmh]

I don't think the premise of the title of this thread is accurate - the government has not said travel for any reason and the guidance is still to avoid public transport.

 

[Starmill]

We are in complete agreement on this point. But how long do the unions and the management think the government will pay for an empty railway? What do they think will happen when the subsidy is reduced?

I quite agree that it will not be forever. The DfT is now almost a monopsonist on railway labour, however, so the power of the unions is much diminished. If the other tendering authorities, especially TfL, are in lock-step with them, even more so.

 

[Huntergreed]

I don't think the premise of the title of this thread is accurate - the government has not said travel for any reason and the guidance is still to avoid public transport.

Travel is permitted for any reason, provided you have considered other forms of transport.

I agree that we don't want an influx just yet, but in 2-3 weeks when leisure and tourism reopen it's going to be very difficult to allow these industries to make a profit if we are still at this point saying 'essential travel only'. Indeed it may be the case if we keep doing this that people may be able to fly on a plane internationally, but not use a train to get to the airport, which is discriminatory at best and downright ridiculous at worst.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think the premise of the title of this thread is accurate - the government has not said travel for any reason and the guidance is still to avoid public transport.

Duly amended

 

[Enthusiast]

I don't think the premise of the title of this thread is accurate - the government has not said travel for any reason and the guidance is still to avoid public transport.

So what travel is not permitted (in England) under the current legislation?

Travel is permitted for any reason, provided you have considered other forms of transport.

There is no proviso. If you turn up at the railway station and somebody asks you if you have considered other forms of transport (a) you have no obligation to provide an answer and (b) you could answer "No" and you cannot be prevented from travelling.

 

[squizzler]

Not as a network wide message but I feel there is justification in discouraging turning up for specific services or interchange nodes at certain times of day. The onus is on the operators to roll out apps that show people the less busy journey options and encourage them to reserve seats prior to travel.