Transport operators should call out government advice to use cars?

[squizzler]

Whilst the UK government is advising against public transport use I feel that with the exception of certain periods and locations the use of trains and busses can be done in relative safely. Here I am fortunate to live in Jersey and, whilst stay at home orders are slackened but not dropped, there is no specific advice to use a car as an alternative to the bus, although the government still endorse active travel.

Most of us would agree that using the transport system in metropolitan areas during peak periods should be avoided if you have the choice to travel at another time or location. But these are tiny geographic areas: look at a map of the country and these areas of hazard would be mere spots of red in a sea of green. Logically this means that public transport should be encouraged, consistent with rules that remains in force to minimise travel generally.

My suggestion is that transport operators issue urgent clarification what areas people are advised to avoid transport services as a matter of course, providing reassurance and advise for the rest. They should point out that we should all minimise travel in line with government advice, but when allowed to legitimately travel, the off peak services are hygienic and remains less harmful than motoring. They could use such a rebuttal as an opportunity for educating the public what measures they have in place, how people can play their part in using the services safely, and pre-conditioning them with a desire to use transport services when able to do so at will, thereby locking in a strong recovery from the crisis.

 

[carlberry]

Whilst the UK government is advising against public transport use I feel that with the exception of certain periods and locations the use of trains and busses can be done in relative safely. Here I am fortunate to live in Jersey and, whilst stay at home orders are slackened but not dropped, there is no specific advice to use a car as an alternative to the bus, although the government still endorse active travel.

Most of us would agree that using the transport system in metropolitan areas during peak periods should be avoided if you have the choice to travel at another time or location. But these are tiny geographic areas: look at a map of the country and these areas of hazard would be mere spots of red in a sea of green. Logically this means that public transport should be encouraged, consistent with rules that remains in force to minimise travel generally.

My suggestion is that transport operators issue urgent clarification what areas people are advised to avoid transport services as a matter of course, providing reassurance and advise for the rest. They should point out that we should all minimise travel in line with government advice, but when allowed to legitimately travel, the off peak services are hygienic and remains less harmful than motoring. They could use such a rebuttal as an opportunity for educating the public what measures they have in place, how people can play their part in using the services safely, and pre-conditioning them with a desire to use transport services when able to do so at will, thereby locking in a strong recovery from the crisis.

The government is only interest is avoiding any more bad publicity about overcrowded tubes, and sending simple messages. Anything complex (off peak in some places, however some places are OK all the time) just isn't going to work. Just opening a few schools is already an issue so any attempt to change the message on public transport is just going to set off another barrage of complaints from unions, passengers groups and others in the papers.

 

[squizzler]

I am concerned that the transport operators are doing themselves a disservice by not robustly challenging the implication that their product is inherently unhygienic. This risks stifling a green travel recovery after the restrictions to travel are limited, and allowing the motoring lobby to steal a march.

Encouraging people to attempt their trips by car over public transport will also result in more deaths than coronavirus caught on transport networks. After September 11, 2001, one study estimates that there were over half again as many excess US deaths caused by road crashes (and no doubt many more again suffer life changing injuries) due to fear of flying.

September 11's indirect toll: road deaths linked to fearful flyers

German professor estimates an extra 1,595 Americans died in car accidents in year after September 11 attacks

The official death toll for the September 11 attacks stands at 2,996, including the 19 hijackers, but research suggests that there is a further, indirect toll as a result of behavioural changes induced by fear.

Similarly, the ongoing security measures are estimated to cause 500 US deaths per year due to reduced competitiveness vis-a-vis road.

Excess Automobile Deaths as a Result of 9/11
The inconvenience of extra passenger screening and added costs at airports after 9/11 cause many short-haul passengers to drive to their destination instead, and, since airline travel is far safer than car travel, this has led to an increase of 500 U.S. traffic fatalities per year. Using DHS-mandated value of statistical life at $6.5 million, this equates to a loss of $3.2 billion per year, or $32 billion over the period 2002 to 2011 (Blalock et al. 2007).

I would also stress these are only direct deaths, and in the case of abandoning transport in favour of driving, not including worse outcomes from people caused by bad air quality, global warming and poor physical health as a result of sedentary travel. As the second of the above quotes implies, failure to challenge an inaccurate perception of risks with conviction could result in a higher death toll being baked in for years.

 

[87015]

Transport operators (TOCs anyway) are all effectively bankrupt and on massive DfT bailouts, so going against instructions would seem a fairly stupid idea if they don't want to shut up shop.

Trains are going around with big essential travel only stickers in windows, you can't exactly have that and then put a star next to it for exemptions.

 

[carlberry]

I am concerned that the transport operators are doing themselves a disservice by not robustly challenging the implication that their product is inherently unhygienic. This risks stifling a green travel recovery after the restrictions to travel are limited, and allowing the motoring lobby to steal a march.

Encouraging people to attempt their trips by car over public transport will also result in more deaths than coronavirus caught on transport networks. After September 11, 2001, one study estimates that there were over half again as many excess US deaths caused by road crashes (and no doubt many more again suffer life changing injuries) due to fear of flying.


Similarly, the ongoing security measures are estimated to cause 500 US deaths per year due to reduced competitiveness vis-a-vis road.


I would also stress these are only direct deaths, and in the case of abandoning transport in favour of driving, not including worse outcomes from people caused by bad air quality, global warming and poor physical health as a result of sedentary travel. As the second of the above quotes implies, failure to challenge an inaccurate perception of risks with conviction could result in a higher death toll being baked in for years.

The advice at present is what it is and challenging it would be totally counter productive, unless you want all transport operators to follow the Ryan Air approach of just getting publicity for publicities sake and hope that newspapers report it that way. However they're just as likely to take the 'Big multi national companies want to make money by ignoring rules' approach. The advice will change and, longer term things will return to normal. Rail transport is basically protected anyway, it's worse for the bus industry and far far worse for coaches.

 

[6Gman]

Whilst the UK government is advising against public transport use I feel that with the exception of certain periods and locations the use of trains and busses can be done in relative safely. Here I am fortunate to live in Jersey and, whilst stay at home orders are slackened but not dropped, there is no specific advice to use a car as an alternative to the bus, although the government still endorse active travel.

Most of us would agree that using the transport system in metropolitan areas during peak periods should be avoided if you have the choice to travel at another time or location. But these are tiny geographic areas: look at a map of the country and these areas of hazard would be mere spots of red in a sea of green. Logically this means that public transport should be encouraged, consistent with rules that remains in force to minimise travel generally.

My suggestion is that transport operators issue urgent clarification what areas people are advised to avoid transport services as a matter of course, providing reassurance and advise for the rest. They should point out that we should all minimise travel in line with government advice, but when allowed to legitimately travel, the off peak services are hygienic and remains less harmful than motoring. They could use such a rebuttal as an opportunity for educating the public what measures they have in place, how people can play their part in using the services safely, and pre-conditioning them with a desire to use transport services when able to do so at will, thereby locking in a strong recovery from the crisis.

One obvious problem is that areas that are usually quiet can be very busy at specific times.

We are expecting a hot, sunny day tomorrow. With people furloughed and children off school trains to the likes of Southport, Scarborough, Windermere could be heaving.

 

[221129]

Transport operators (TOCs anyway) are all effectively bankrupt and on massive DfT bailouts, so going against instructions would seem a fairly stupid idea if they don't want to shut up shop.

Completely wrong. Please check your facts.

 

[87015]

Completely wrong. Please check your facts.

EMA = Bailout

 

[221129]

EMA = Bailout

Hardly. And can you provide a source for all the TOCs being bankrupt please?

 

[6Gman]

EMA = Bailout

It really isn't the same thing.

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

I am concerned that the transport operators are doing themselves a disservice by not robustly challenging the implication that their product is inherently unhygienic.

Meanwhile, back on the original topic, I don't think that is the implcation, it is simply that by minimising use by those who can avoid it, there is more space for essential users to travel in safety. The UK is of course completely different to your part of the world, with a big variation in peaks and off peaks between different areas.

 

[yorkie]

Whilst the UK government is advising against public transport use I feel that with the exception of certain periods and locations the use of trains and busses can be done in relative safely. Here I am fortunate to live in Jersey and, whilst stay at home orders are slackened but not dropped, there is no specific advice to use a car as an alternative to the bus, although the government still endorse active travel.

Most of us would agree that using the transport system in metropolitan areas during peak periods should be avoided if you have the choice to travel at another time or location. But these are tiny geographic areas: look at a map of the country and these areas of hazard would be mere spots of red in a sea of green. Logically this means that public transport should be encouraged, consistent with rules that remains in force to minimise travel generally.

My suggestion is that transport operators issue urgent clarification what areas people are advised to avoid transport services as a matter of course, providing reassurance and advise for the rest. They should point out that we should all minimise travel in line with government advice, but when allowed to legitimately travel, the off peak services are hygienic and remains less harmful than motoring. They could use such a rebuttal as an opportunity for educating the public what measures they have in place, how people can play their part in using the services safely, and pre-conditioning them with a desire to use transport services when able to do so at will, thereby locking in a strong recovery from the crisis.

At the current moment I don't think there is any option other than to deter people form using public transport.

People are still allowed to use public transport (see other threads for that) but the message has to be to encourage those who can travel by other means at the current time, so that those who do rely on public transport, can do so.

The message will need to change, there is no doubt about that, but not yet.

 

[squizzler]

At the current moment I don't think there is any option other than to deter people form using public transport.

The standing advice is to avoid travel at all (unless using dynamic forms of travel such as by foot or bike for exercise). My suggestion is that transport operators as a whole get the message through that their systems are hygienic and safe, and that by using them you are helping protect the NHS from having to deal with car crashes and keeping the citizenship healthy through better air quality. Strong messaging not for the purpose of drumming up trade now but to make their services the favoured means of travel when we are free to move about at will.

It is like a batsman, he wants to start swinging the bat before the ball gets to him, not wait till it is already arrived.

 

[squizzler]

The advice at present is what it is and challenging it would be totally counter productive, unless you want all transport operators to follow the Ryan Air approach of just getting publicity for publicities sake and hope that newspapers report it that way.

As you imply, all publicity is generally good publicity, and a properly informed debate into whether people want to keep the better air quality and healthy active travel they have been enjoying versus the unsafe, dirty status quo should favour transport operators, as it always has done.

 

[221129]

all publicity is generally good publicity

Not at the moment it's not. The message is simple and currently is the correct course of action, if you must travel, then walk or cycle if possible, otherwise drive. Only if none of those are possible should you use public transport.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Not at the moment it's not. The message is simple and currently is the correct course of action, if you must travel, then walk or cycle if possible, otherwise drive. Only if none of those are possible should you use public transport.

Technically you may be correct but it must also be stressed that it isn't actually illegal to use public transport for any of the reasons allowed for in the legislation, such as shopping or exercise, it's just that the government would rather you didn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All the way through the pandemic the law has been weaker than the advice - this is a typically British approach to this sort of thing and may well have been entirely deliberate, e.g. to allow for exceptions to the rules.

However, it would be wrong to go riding trains for a laugh at the moment.

 

[squizzler]

After a period when we have enjoyed clean air and people are starting to bike more frequently, I am unwilling to applaud transport users being encouraged to try motoring. I have yet to see any official studies to say that the policy will prevent more harm than that caused through a resultant increase in motoring. Genuine request, if anyone here has seen a comprehensive appraisal on those lines to back up this policy, please share!

Government advice on travel strikes me as analogous to smokers being implored by the government to inject heroin during the pandemic so their lungs are under less stress. Perhaps that analogy is more favourable than the actual situation, since heroin users, unlike smokers and motorists, don't inflict secondary harm through the effect of their fumes on people?

 

[yorkie]

After a period when we have enjoyed clean air and people are starting to bike more frequently, I am unwilling to applaud transport users being encouraged to try motoring. I have yet to see any official studies to say that the policy will prevent more harm than that caused through a resultant increase in motoring. Genuine request, if anyone here has seen a comprehensive appraisal on those lines to back up this policy, please share!

Government advice on travel strikes me as analogous to smokers being implored by the government to inject heroin during the pandemic so their lungs are under less stress. Perhaps that analogy is more favourable than the actual situation, since heroin users, unlike smokers and motorists, don't inflict secondary harm through the effect of their fumes on people?

For the majority of the population I agree it does more harm than good but I am prepared to tolerate it for a few weeks under the exceptional circumstances. However the situation is not sustainable for very long (see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lic-life-public-transport.203436/post-4586407 )

 

[MikeWM]

I am unwilling to applaud transport users being encouraged to try motoring.

But unfortunately that is exactly what is going to happen. I've never owned a car - through choice, for a number of reasons. But it is clearly apparent now that if I want to be able to *do stuff*, then a car is going to be required.

Given what has been done over the last few months - in response to a disease with an IFR of probably less than 0.5% - it is (very sadly) reasonable to assume we'll be seeing many more periods like this in my lifetime, and so it is no longer sensible to rely on public transport to do the things one wants to do in life. I should add that I am very unhappy to have to write that, but it is what it is.

 

[edwin_m]

Given what has been done over the last few months - in response to a disease with an IFR of probably less than 0.5% - it is (very sadly) reasonable to assume we'll be seeing many more periods like this in my lifetime, and so it is no longer sensible to rely on public transport to do the things one wants to do in life. I should add that I am very unhappy to have to write that, but it is what it is.

I think you're being unduly pessimistic about the likelihood of something like this happening again - though I accept I can't prove this and I may just be confusing hope with expectation. In the past 20 years SARS, MERS, Swine Flue and Ebola were all contained without the sort of widespread severe restriction we have currently, so Covid is the worst we've had in terms of the combination of infectiousness, asymptomatic infection period and mortality. Diseases with a higher mortality (like SARS and Ebola) tend to spread less widely, so there's some element of self-balance there.

I am however concerned about how the message is being put out that public transport is intrinsically dangerous, but we need more science on questions like what the risk would be if older people and those with underlying conditions avoided it, and all passengers wore masks.

 

[JonathanP]

I think you're being unduly pessimistic about the likelihood of something like this happening again - though I accept I can't prove this and I may just be confusing hope with expectation. In the past 20 years SARS, MERS, Swine Flue and Ebola were all contained without the sort of widespread severe restriction we have currently, so Covid is the worst we've had in terms of the combination of infectiousness, asymptomatic infection period and mortality. Diseases with a higher mortality (like SARS and Ebola) tend to spread less widely, so there's some element of self-balance there.

There might not be similar diseases, but now that people have become accustomed to a lockdown it will be easier and more tempting to implement it in the future even if it is not actually justified, and anyone opposing it will be told "do you want another corona?".

9/11 established the principle that any measure introduced to improve flight safety is incontestable, regardless of the ratio of benefit to cost and convenience. If 9/11 had never happened, I doubt that one nutter unsuccessfully putting explosives in the heel of is shoe would have resulted in millions of people per year having to remove and x-ray their shoes in perpetuity. Where as previously we joked about the government buying millions of vaccines for a pandemic that never happened, I can see the pendulum swinging the other way in future.

 

[MikeWM]

There might not be similar diseases, but now that people have become accustomed to a lockdown it will be easier and more tempting to implement it in the future even if it is not actually justified, and anyone opposing it will be told "do you want another corona?".

Precisely so. Whatever your opinion on the current measures, the precedent has been set.

The only way in my opinion that this wouldn't occur more often in the future is if the economic and social damage from the current lockdown is so severe that no-one would ever countenance trying another one, except in the most extreme circumstances. Which also may well happen, unfortunately (in which case, whether I have a car or not is probably going to be fairly irrelevant anyway).

9/11 established the principle that any measure introduced to improve flight safety is incontestable, regardless of the ratio of benefit to cost and convenience. If 9/11 had never happened, I doubt that one nutter unsuccessfully putting explosives in the heel of is shoe would have resulted in millions of people per year having to remove and x-ray their shoes in perpetuity.

Indeed so. We are lamentably poor at sensible risk assessment in recent times.

 

[squizzler]

I am however concerned about how the message is being put out that public transport is intrinsically dangerous, but we need more science on questions like what the risk would be if older people and those with underlying conditions avoided it, and all passengers wore masks.

Quite so. The government have claimed that their policy is guided by science and as a transport enthusiast I wish to see this underlying science. In the absence of the science, conspiracy theories are likely to fill the vacuum. Here are a couple of ulterior motives of my own imagination:

• For instance, I gather that those who took out "PCP" car loans are starting to hand back the keys in a big way. Advice to avoid public transport might be trying to encourage people to keep their cars and prevent the motor finance business from collapse.
• Or perhaps a suppression of desire to use public transport after the crisis will be a convenient way to get out of commitments to invest in transport infrastructure that had been made to the regions during the election.

Probably none of the above of course, but with insufficiently rigorous justification for this policy, people are likely to think the worse from a political party one of whose previous leaders is alleged to have described certain bus commuters as "failures". Even if Boris is apparently a bit of a bus and bike fan himself!

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

The government have claimed that their policy is guided by science and as a transport enthusiast.....

Therein lies the clue - what you really mean is a public transport enthusiast - as the car is the default means of transport for the majority of the population outside of the big cities and metropolitan areas. It matters not whether the government advises against the use of public transport, as outside of here, most don't ever consider using it unless they have to, because of the lack of a car/cycle for whatever reason, or because their destination makes public transport the only option. It has been explained many times why the current advice is as it is, but really the advice will have little effect on the long term split of transport modes. Those of us who enjoy public transport, specifically rail, for a multitude of reasons will soon return to it as soon as we can. I don't know anyone who has been scared off for health reasons. I seriously don't think the government has any concern about the motor finance business, and as to future investment, nobody knows at this stage what the demand will be for public or private transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I will certainly return to rail once I am no longer asked not to use it. I suspect this will come in time as we get closer to full timetables and have a better understanding of actual demand levels. We've just started cautiously now.

 

[hassaanhc]

But unfortunately that is exactly what is going to happen. I've never owned a car - through choice, for a number of reasons. But it is clearly apparent now that if I want to be able to *do stuff*, then a car is going to be required.

Given what has been done over the last few months - in response to a disease with an IFR of probably less than 0.5% - it is (very sadly) reasonable to assume we'll be seeing many more periods like this in my lifetime, and so it is no longer sensible to rely on public transport to do the things one wants to do in life. I should add that I am very unhappy to have to write that, but it is what it is.

Yes this whole thing has been a big eye opener for many who brought into the public transport utopia and decided against learning to drive. I'm seeing a some envy from my public transport enthusiast friends who have found themselves kinda stuck, although many of them are still heavily anti-car because they're so obsessed with their buses and cars get in the way of said buses.

At the same time, I'm also seeing the small but vocal group of passenger-hating public transport staff loving it because they've finally had their chance to legitimately be allowed to be annoyed with the pesky passengers daring to use their toys. They also rounded on the passengers as being the sole risk of them giving them the virus, completely ignoring the risks of getting it from their colleagues or from others while off work. Obviously that vocal minority was never going to be happy about the relaxation of restrictions . They don't realise how much damage they're doing to public transport as a whole, as they're reinforcing the idea that people are in grave danger of catching something simply by merely boarding a bus/train because they're dirty places to be. In addition, a lot of people are not going to forget the reactions of staff (and other people) towards passengers who have had no choice but to use public transport still, undoing years of work to reduce the stigma of not having a car.

Yes there are people who either struggle to afford a car, have absolutely nowhere at all to park, or unfortunately are not allowed to drive due to medical conditions, and sadly they're kinda stuck. But equally there are also many who could afford it but decided to spend the money elsewhere, and they'll now be regretting that extra holiday or whatever rather than at least learning to drive (even if they didn't get a car immediately).

In my case, I was lucky that my dad could save up for many years to ensure that I learned to drive as soon as I turned 17, because he knew how important that skill was in opening up freedom. He was never able to drive, and that limited him a lot. Luckily my mum did eventually learn to drive so that was some help in the meantime, and this opened up many more possibilities once I could drive too.

I may have passed at 17, but only recently at 25 I was finally able to afford my own car after getting my first full time job. I went for the opportunity even though it never made financial sense when public transport was just £27 per week (Monthly £103.70 or Annual £1080, Z3-4 Travelcard), had very little overcrowding, and the time saving in the car was just 15-30 minutes per trip (before everything went downhill and road traffic decreased significantly, reducing journey time by a third). But having a car helped me a lot by getting rid of the big anxiety of the bus-to-train connection with the 2tph to/from Acton Main Line, and in this era of being told we are in grave danger by using public transport it has only helped justify my decision from February. If a bus/train enthusiast can come to not just hate but actively despise public transport due to the image it has given over the last 3 months, imagine what those with less loyalties will be thinking of it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Agree about the car. Learned and passed as soon as I turned 17. I have on in the UK that both me and my wife share when home. We both have a car in the USA. I am seriously worried about the future of public transport.

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose the danger for public transport is that the electric/driverless car manages to nip in during the period before things return to some sort of normality.

Aside from the Governments peculiar advice, which is out of step with other countries, to my mind, to be frightened of being on public transport is akin to being frightened of all human proximity, including being in the pub or at the football match etc. Frankly I'm not prepared to be in that state for ever more.

 

[Neptune]

As a train guard I don’t want trains full of non essential travellers and then one of them passing this horrendous disease on to me putting my wife (who has asthma) at risk and making me lock down when I have elderly relatives to shop for.

The advice is to only use public transport for essential journeys (when there are no alternatives) for a good reason. To minimise spread. It is not saying that public transport is unhygienic, it is just to prevent large groups of people in a small space and thereby aiding social distancing.

Put it this way, when I am on shifts which would normally allow me to commute by train I am still driving into work as I have that option to help keep numbers down.

We must remember that this disease is a killer, one way of preventing it is to minimise contact with others.