kylemore
Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 1,047
So without wishing to be flippant - a suitably modified pair of Y-fronts (clean and new of course) so that they cover nose and mouth will comply?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June
- Thread starter Saint66
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If you want to wear a pair of Y-fronts over your mouth and nose, yes, though the WHO has suggested that a 3-layer covering is most effective, so you may prefer to use a thinner fabric e.g. a teatowel in 3 layers.
I have a spare mankini I will use.
Nicholas43
Member
Yes; and the Regulations, as such, do not require that they be clean and new.
A suitably-sized pair of boxer shorts (put your head through one of the leg holes) does the job quite nicely - you can add a clip if the leg hole is too big. It's what I'm going to do, I've found I need more space around my mouth and chin than a medical-style mask gives, else my breathing starts to be affected in a fairly unpleasant way.
MrTurbostar170
Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 233
Seen this going around on twitter a few times:
Would this be an acceptable loophole people could use?
Would this be an acceptable loophole people could use?
nlogax
Established Member
If you hide underground for an hour on a subway system that confuses the hell out of it!
Fewer? How many do you normally get? I haven't had a cold this year.
We're obviously going to need pictures
You'll be disappointed
But if the idea doesn't catch on, and you see someone on a train with a pair of boxer shorts on their head, could well be me 
I’m on train Paddington to Plymouth. Ten passengers from Paddington.
One not wearing a mask.
Chose front coach as no other passengers to share aircon with but then wondered if this is a bad choice if cab shares coach aircon and driver doesn’t have mask.
One not wearing a mask.
Chose front coach as no other passengers to share aircon with but then wondered if this is a bad choice if cab shares coach aircon and driver doesn’t have mask.
Assuming it is true, yes. If it isn't true, I suppose it depends how willing you are to stand your ground on a lie if authorities try to verify if it is the case (and how you think they may try to do so).
After the introduction today of a law requiring all passengers to wear a face covering onboard, I am seeing train company twitter accounts giving out incorrect information about what is legally required of passengers and staff onboard trains at stations.
TPE twitter handle ^JL has been coming out with some rubbish today, so has Northern's tweeters. Surely this needs to be stamped out to reflect the LAW and if they want to quote government rules, they should get it correct.
What are peoples thoughts? I don't want this to become a discussion about whether or not wearing a mask is correct but TOCs have a duty to get their facts straight.
TPE twitter handle ^JL has been coming out with some rubbish today, so has Northern's tweeters. Surely this needs to be stamped out to reflect the LAW and if they want to quote government rules, they should get it correct.
What are peoples thoughts? I don't want this to become a discussion about whether or not wearing a mask is correct but TOCs have a duty to get their facts straight.
alistairlees
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 4,409
What are you alleging is incorrect? You have not provided any facts at all.
Skymonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 2,061
This is the regulation concerned:
I presume it is (ii) that is being referred to.
kylemore
Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 1,047
I work in retail in Scotland, so not back yet, but will oblige when the time comes - if the regulations in Scotland are made the same.We're obviously going to need pictures
Interestingly/alarmingly, it appears TfL have gone rather further than the government regulations and actually amended their byelaws:
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/terms-and-conditions/byelaws#on-this-page-1
It has a tighter definition of face covering, and a broader definition of when they must be worn:
And has a maximum fine of £1000, as opposed to £100/£50 in the government regulations.
Yet more reasons to avoid London for the forseeable, I guess.
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/terms-and-conditions/byelaws#on-this-page-1
It has a tighter definition of face covering, and a broader definition of when they must be worn:
And has a maximum fine of £1000, as opposed to £100/£50 in the government regulations.
Yet more reasons to avoid London for the forseeable, I guess.
kylemore
Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 1,047
Perhaps we should destroy the economy permanently through permanent lockdown so that in six months although millions are dying from famine and mass suicides they at least weren't inconvenienced by colds during their final agonies?
Skymonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 2,061
Note also the regulation says:
Which effectively means masks are not compulsory on station concourses and platforms.
Which effectively means masks are not compulsory on station concourses and platforms.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If you want to kill people, use a loophole. Otherwise, have a bit of basic consideration for others and wear one unless you are genuinely precluded from doing so by a physical or mental health condition, and not because you just can't be bothered or don't like the idea.
The new ‘England’ regulations prescribe an unlimited fine on summary conviction.
The £100/£50 figures relate to fixed penalty notices which are an administrative resolution.
neontrix
Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 35
Well you've still not provided any specific examples of what you're claiming is wrong. While the law may only apply in England, I assume TOCs are free to make their own policy regarding whether masks are required on the entirety of their network or not. For simplicity's sake I think they're doing the right approach - 'you need to wear a mask on our trains, wherever you are' is a lot easier to understand.
CaptainHaddock
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 2,721
Quite a claim! What evidence do you have that not wearing a mask will kill other people?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Interestingly, TfL's rule appears to have excluded Buffs/snoods which seem ideal for the purpose, because they don't tie behind the head.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If spread occurs because you do not wear a face covering, it is likely that one or more deaths will result from that spread, even if a considerable way downstream.
You are doing this for other people. Please do not take the mick by finding loopholes. The exceptions are to accommodate "can'ts", not "won'ts". "Won'ts" should never be accommodated in any form ever, but certainly not in any form of public health regulation.
Just wear one as billed, or exercise your choice not to use public transport, unless you would encounter a medical issue (vague displeasure/discomfort is not a medical issue) from doing so, and if you would encounter a medical issue, be super-conscientious about distancing on board.
It would appear that the byelaws have not in fact been amended.
Whether this purported notice is valid and enforceable is a different matter.
Skymonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 2,061
Don't be so melodramatic - its comments like this that fuels fear. If a person who was not wearing a mask was likely to kill someone else, NO ONE would be allowed to go without a mask.
- Status