Facemasks. Change to attitudes (passengers and staff) on public transport?

[whole diary]

[RichardB]

Graham, the Community Rail Network is involved in the "Journey Makers" scheme.  This is from the Community Rail Network guidance note -

"Please note that Community Rail Network is also involved in the national ‘Journey Makers’ scheme deploying volunteers as marshals at some transport interchanges. We will contact members directly if there are relevant volunteer opportunities through this scheme in your area"

The full guidance note is here.  https://communityrail.org.uk/coronavirus-guidance-2/

[grahame]

Graham, the Community Rail Network is involved in the "Journey Makers" scheme.  This is from the Community Rail Network guidance note -

"Please note that Community Rail Network is also involved in the national ‘Journey Makers’ scheme deploying volunteers as marshals at some transport interchanges. We will contact members directly if there are relevant volunteer opportunities through this scheme in your area"

The full guidance note is here.  https://communityrail.org.uk/coronavirus-guidance-2/

Much appreciate that, thanks, Richard ... noting my earlier comment "to read in detail later today" to yesterday's advice.

It would be something of a stretch just yet to describe Melksham as a "transport interchange", so I don't expect MRUG^» (Melksham Rail User Group - site) will be contacted.

[RichardB]

Much appreciate that, thanks, Richard ... noting my earlier comment "to read in detail later today" to yesterday's advice.

It would be something of a stretch just yet to describe Melksham as a "transport interchange", so I don't expect MRUG^» (Melksham Rail User Group - site) will be contacted.

Thanks Graham.  Yes, I did note that you were going to read the guidance note in detail later today but just thought I'd nip in and highlight the bit about "Journey Makers" and volunteers.

Edit to clarify quoting - Grahame

[Visoflex]

Taking a slightly different angle - station security.

When I visited a control room, it was sometimes necessary to identify an individual possibly for some misdemeanour such as fare bilking or anti social behaviour.  With everyone covering their faces, is this going to lead to cases of mistaken identity and the potential negative fall out on social media etc.  "I was stopped by an officious BT policeman when I was doing nothing wrong etc..."

[Ralph Ayres]

I'm surprised we haven't heard from Bruvver Cash on this yet? Surely it's worth a strike ballot? Or at least a pay rise to reflect the additional effort of putting on/taking off a mask?

But we have:-

RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) Press Office:
RMT responds to Government and Rail Delivery Group on face masks this morning
RMT general secretary Mick Cash said:

“There is a real danger that the Government and the Rail Delivery Group are sending out a signal that as long as you cover your face you are safe to ‎head back onto the tubes and trains regardless of whether you are an essential worker making an essential journey. That risks a surge in passengers as we saw last weekend with the principles of social distancing blown apart with huge risks to staff and passengers alike.

“It's also clear that the Government and industry bosses are expecting our members to police this policy. That will put over-stretched rail workers right in the front line once again and will leave them at risk of being abused, assaulted and spat at by aggressive passengers refusing to comply. This policy must be properly risk assessed with staff fully protected.

“If this policy had been introduced sooner and the principle of covering your face established earlier some of these risks our members now face could have been avoided.

So Bruvver Cash wants the railway to continue to run with as few passengers as possible, whilst all his members, many on trains simply because the RMT has fiercely resisted proposals to do away with their roles, carry on being fully paid whilst providing a service to almost nobody.  Good job NHS staff and other key workers didn't have the same attitude at the height of the pandemic. 

There is some validity in the first paragraph of the RMT statement. The various Government announcements about easing the "lockdown" give a very mixed message. Effectively they're saying that if you're a car user you can go where you want but if not you're still trapped in your local area.

Edit to clarify quoting - Grahame

[LiskeardRich]

I had a passenger today, thank me for not wearing a mask as he is deaf and couldn’t communicate with the previous driver who was wearing a mask (today’s policy is drivers must not wear masks whilst driving, I don’t know whether that changes next week)
I have a full 6mm Perspex screen across my cab so a mask isn’t doing a lot whilst I’m in the cab.

[Celestial]

There is some validity in the first paragraph of the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) statement. The various Government announcements about easing the "lockdown" give a very mixed message. Effectively they're saying that if you're a car user you can go where you want but if not you're still trapped in your local area.

I agree that the messaging is as you say. However, remember that we are still in a public health emergency, so some of the government messaging may be unpalatable, and may seem unfair, but if it saves lives and drives the infection rate down then it is not unreasonable. When the first easing of the lockdown was announced, the messaging could best be phrased as this.

"We're now loosening the restriction for exercise to enable you to travel further, but only if you can get there without increasing the amount of contact with other people as that is too much of a risk, so not by public transport, which should remain for key workers who need to travel as safely as we can make it."  Did that cause unfairness? Yes, possibly, although one's right to pop down to Durdle Door for a walk, sunbathe or base jump, is not a human right in my mind, particularly in the current situation.

The imposition of masks from Monday is a recognition that public transport does need to be opened up to more people going forward, and they are one way of minimising risk. I think that's a good thing. Though I still think we should all be restricting unnecessary journeys rather more than would appear to be the case, so won't be popping down to Barry Island for an ice cream or over the bridge to Cribbs Causeway for some retail therapy at the earliest possible opportunity.  (Actually Barry Island still isn't allowed, so maybe read Weston instead.)       

[didcotdean]

The Statutory Instrument bringing this into force has been published:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

Employees of the operator of the relevant public transport service are exempt from wearing them under the law, as are the police, PCSOs, "emergency responders", and "relevant officials", although I daresay they could have their own working requirements.

In force for 12 months, reviewed in six.

[eightonedee]

There's a practical problem though - if you do have a medical condition which makes face masks unsuitable, of which asthma is I would imagine the commonest, how do you make this known?

There has been an unfortunate tendency for some to react precipitously in the face of what they perceive as breaches of guidelines or regulations, without giving those at whom they are directing their behaviour the chance to explain - attacks on NHS staff going to work being an example . The reality is that asthmatics will avoid public transport as a result. This may be unavoidable, but should not be overlooked as an unintended result of this measure.

[IndustryInsider]

There's a practical problem though

I think there's practical problems with most of the emergency legislation brought in to deal with the pandemic national emergency.  For me it comes down to it being for the greater good and we have to accept that in a small number of cases there might be people who either don't abide by it or are potentially negatively affected by it. 

If it becomes more than a minor problem, perhaps the rail/bus operators could issue exemption cards for those who will be affected, as some do now for similar conditions?

[Electric train]

There's a practical problem though - if you do have a medical condition which makes face masks unsuitable, of which asthma is I would imagine the commonest, how do you make this known?

There has been an unfortunate tendency for some to react precipitously in the face of what they perceive as breaches of guidelines or regulations, without giving those at whom they are directing their behaviour the chance to explain - attacks on NHS staff going to work being an example . The reality is that asthmatics will avoid public transport as a result. This may be unavoidable, but should not be overlooked as an unintended result of this measure.

The advice is, if you are that critically ill or have such chronic condition then you should not travel on public transport

[IndustryInsider]

I believe 800321 is entering service tomorrow in ‘face mask’ livery.  A clever idea!

[stuving]

There's a practical problem though - if you do have a medical condition which makes face masks unsuitable, of which asthma is I would imagine the commonest, how do you make this known?

There has been an unfortunate tendency for some to react precipitously in the face of what they perceive as breaches of guidelines or regulations, without giving those at whom they are directing their behaviour the chance to explain - attacks on NHS staff going to work being an example . The reality is that asthmatics will avoid public transport as a result. This may be unavoidable, but should not be overlooked as an unintended result of this measure.

The text of the regulations does allow, and define, a reasonable excuse:

Reasonable excuse
4. For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where—
(a) P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—
(i) because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(g)), or
(ii) without severe distress;
(b) P is travelling with, or providing assistance to, another person (“B”) and B relies on lip reading to communicate with P;
(c) P removes their face covering to avoid harm or injury, or the risk of harm or injury, to themselves or others;
(d) P is travelling to avoid injury, or to escape a risk of harm, and does not have a face covering with them;
(e) if it is reasonably necessary for P to eat or drink, P removes their face covering to eat or drink;
(f) P has to remove their face covering to take medication;
(g) a relevant person requests that P remove their face covering.

The section on "enforcement" does not contain the word "excuse" in that sense, so the point about who decides what's reasonable and how that might be applied consistently remains.

[Electric train]

The section on "enforcement" does not contain the word "excuse" in that sense, so the point about who decides what's reasonable and how that might be applied consistently remains.

I would expect the enforcing officer will have some discretion, the fine is by way of a fixed penalty which will have an appeal process

[TaplowGreen]

The Statutory Instrument bringing this into force has been published:

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

Employees of the operator of the relevant public transport service are exempt from wearing them under the law, as are the police, PCSOs, "emergency responders", and "relevant officials", although I daresay they could have their own working requirements.

In force for 12 months, reviewed in six.

Eh? Why are employees exempt?