Face coverings compulsory on public transport in England from 15 June

[NorthOxonian]

Face masks compulsory from tomorrow according to one of the Scottish newspapers. Scotrail refuse to say if I will be exempt with anxiety can anybody offer any advice?

Impossible to say prior to when Scotland release their regulations, but you would be covered in England so I suspect you'll be exempt.

 

[Dave91131]

Crystal clear ?

"Face coverings must be worn on our trains, and are encouraged in our stations"

Two lines further down (their bold, not mine): "Face coverings must be worn at stations and on board"


Edit: I am obviously not the only one confused by this "crystal clear" information.

Apologies, poor original post by myself.

Original post now amended to hopefully show more clearly that the "crystal clear" reference was one of sarcasm.

 

[sheff1]

Apologies, poor original post by myself.

Original post now amended to hopefully show more clearly that the "crystal clear" reference was one of sarcasm.

Ah. Good stuff.

I notice at least one person agreed with the original, not obviously sarcastic, version

 

[Journeyman]

Face masks compulsory from tomorrow according to one of the Scottish newspapers. Scotrail refuse to say if I will be exempt with anxiety can anybody offer any advice?

Arrgh, I could see that coming. Looks like I won't be using any public transport anywhere for the time being.

 

[Huntergreed]

Face masks compulsory from tomorrow according to one of the Scottish newspapers. Scotrail refuse to say if I will be exempt with anxiety can anybody offer any advice?

Where did you see this? It's certainly not been announced officially by Nanny Sturgeon. I think it will be tomorrow however, and it will probably come into force on Friday.

It does seem like, now that operators aren't allowed to scare off passengers, they're trying to make travel as unpleasant as possible (social distancing AND masks) to try and keep people away whilst they enjoying running a 100cm = 1m model railway.

 

[Journeyman]

Where did you see this? It's certainly not been announced officially by Nanny Sturgeon. I think it will be tomorrow however, and it will probably come into force on Friday.

It does seem like, now that operators aren't allowed to scare off passengers, they're trying to make travel as unpleasant as possible (social distancing AND masks) to try and keep people away whilst they enjoying running a 100cm = 1m model railway.

The Scotsman has it here.

Industry sources said the move is expected to be announced as part of the next phase of lockdown easing.
Demand for public transport is expected to increase, such as more shops are allowed to re-open.

ScotRail has already warned the currently recommended 2 metre distancing will not always be possible on its trains, even with their capacity reduced by as much as 80 per cent.

The development comes as Scottish Government-funded research is investigating how to double the carrying capacity of buses to 50 per cent, such as with screens between seats.

The move to compulsory face coverings follows First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announcing two weeks ago she would consider it.
‘Inevitable’
That was triggered by anecdotal evidence that people were ignoring guidance that they should be worn in enclosed public spaces.
Ms Sturgeon said: “It is something we are considering and I think that is inevitable”.

The change of approach comes after transport secretary Michael Matheson previously stating that the move would be difficult to enforce.
It is not clear whether the measure will also apply to ferries, which have open deck areas available to passengers.
There was speculation it could be extended to shops, but it is understood that has been resisted by retailers.
Confirmation of compulsory face coverings on buses and trains would bring Scotland into line with England, where they have been mandatory since Monday.

Passengers on cross-Border trains have been encouraged to keep them on for the whole journey.
One public transport operator said: “As people come back to using public transport, it is to increase public confidence.”

'Another boost to safety measures’
Up to 70 per cent of Scots questioned in weekly polls by passenger watchdog Transport Focus have said they would only use buses and trains if people wore face coverings.

Paul White, director of the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK – Scotland, which represents bus and coach operators, said: “This is another boost to operators’ existing safety measures which are keeping buses safe for passengers and staff.
“Passengers have worked with bus operators and with each other to maintain social distancing guidelines.
“We will be looking to them to work with us to ensure the policy is a success.”
A spokesperson for the Scottish Government’s Transport Scotland agency, said: “Our advice is clear – a face covering should be worn when travelling on public transport unless you have a valid health reason not to do so.


“Work is ongoing across the Scottish Government and with stakeholders on the use of face coverings.
“We are also keeping any future need to make them mandatory under review.”
Meantime, Mr Matheson has funded Falkirk-based bus maker Alexander Dennis Limited (ADL) to investigate how vehicles could be adapted to carry “significantly” more passengers while keeping physically distanced.
Buses can currently accommodate only about a quarter of normal capacity, with some double deckers reduced to 18 passengers.


An industry source said: “The hope is that modifications will allow an increase in capacity to closer to 50 per cent.”
One bus operator told The Scotsman: “Plastic screen dividers on seats backs could be a way of upping capacity.”
Firms are also hoping the 2m physical distancing guidance will be halved to 1m to further increase numbers carried.
They pointed to some countries dropping physical distancing on public transport altogether.


Paul White of the Confederation of Passenger Transport said: “The safety of passengers and staff remains paramount.
“However, should a solution be identified that enhances Covid-19 protection while enabling buses to safely carry more passengers, this will greatly help the bus sector better meet growing travel demand through the relaxation of lockdown.”
A Transport Scotland spokesperson said: “We and Scottish Enterprise are supporting ADL, who are carrying out work to design and test ways of retrofitting bus interiors to enhance Covid-19 protection for both drivers and passengers.
“If a successful solution is found, either by ADL or other companies currently looking at protection measures, retrofitted buses may be able to operate at enhanced capacity while physical distancing rules are in place.”

 

[Bantamzen]

Absolutely. No-one is willing to be accountable for this, or explain how we're going to deal with the potential negative consequences. It might "reassure" some people, but ultimately it's absolute nonsense, and now it's been implemented, it's going to be almost impossible to reverse. People will continue to think that wearing masks is the only safe thing to do, and lo and behold, it'll become entrenched in society.

And herein is the potentially real reason why mask wearing is suddenly so important on public transport, liability. Now that its in place what company is going to want to be the first to step back and take the risk of being sued because someone thinks they caught the virus on one of their vehicles? It would take the government to come out and say that masks are no longer required for there even to be a chance, and there is guarantee that even they would be willing to take that step back, instead hoping others do it for them

​

Like it or not, herd immunity is the only game in town.

Hey! No spoilers!

Seriously though, its a fact. It was one before this pandemic, it is one during it, and will be one in the future. For as long as we as a species have walked on two legs, and indeed long before that too, we have been under attack from all manner of viruses. And thanks to our ever evolving immune systems we have come through. What is different in 2020 is that we now have the ability to spread unqualified fear and panic right across the globe in a manner of seconds.

That is not what symptomatic means, is it? Else there would be no asymptomatic spreaders and less need for everyone to wear masks.

It's hay fever season, and so a good many people with COVID19 who are not symptomatic of COVID19 will be spreading it through those symptoms.

You mean people with the virus yes? Displaying no symptoms of covid does not necessarily mean the person has it but not badly enough to induce symptoms. In fact its quite the opposite, someone displaying no symptoms almost certainly does not have the virus at all, and is therefore incapable of spreading it. And even the few that might, the scientific community still has yet to even come close to concluding that

asymptomatic carriers pose even a minimal risk.

As for hayfever sufferers (and being one myself), its really not that difficult to mitigate for at least most of the symptoms by taking some treatment, or making sure you carry enough issues around to be able to absolutely minimise your sneezing. Which frankly people should have been doing even before this crisis, let alone during it.​

 

[nedchester]

And herein is the potentially real reason why mask wearing is suddenly so important on public transport, liability. Now that its in place what company is going to want to be the first to step back and take the risk of being sued because someone thinks they caught the virus on one of their vehicles? It would take the government to come out and say that masks are no longer required for there even to be a chance, and there is guarantee that even they would be willing to take that step back, instead hoping others do it for them

That's my worry, once these restrictions are in place it is difficult to remove them due to risk averse managers scared of being sued. They rarely think logically because in the event of someone contracting Covid-19 how could they actually prove that it had been caught on the train, bus, supermarket etc.

 

[nlogax]

That's my worry, once these restrictions are in place it is difficult to remove them due to risk averse managers scared of being sued. They rarely think logically because in the event of someone contracting Covid-19 how could they actually prove that it had been caught on the train, bus, supermarket etc.

Which is why the ending of face covering policies should be officially announced to the country by someone of high profile within government, probably the PM. "As of blah de blah at 10pm, there will no longer be any requirement to wear face coverings in public places, on transport, in businesses etc etc".

Not that it'll happen. Right now I wouldn't trust anyone in government with a pet goldfish, let alone the responsibility of navigating us through this.

 

[westv]

I'll be watching out for what Germany does regarding removing the requirement. Covid 19 appears to have had far less impact there than here and they brought in face covering requirements before we did.

 

[Class 33]

I think while this face covering on public transport rule is still in force, it will put many people off long distance leisure journeys by train or coach. Can you imagine say a 4 hour journey having to wear a face covering throughout?! And what about much longer journeys, i.e. on Flixbus or National Express coaches between London and places like Amsterdam, Cologne, etc where journeys are about 11 hours! Can you imagine being on a coach journey for that amount of time having to wear a face covering for the entire journey??!! I usually do a couple of short breaks over to the continent by coach every year. But I don't intend to do any more such journeys whilst this face covering rule is still in force, as 11 hours wearing a face covering would not be comfortable!

I also think that this could kill off the coach holidays industry too. Hardly anyone will want to be on a coach for hours and having to wear a face covering!

Hopefully in 2 to 3 months time things will have improved and this face covering rule will be scrapped.

 

[Mojo]

I'll be watching out for what Germany does regarding removing the requirement. Covid 19 appears to have had far less impact there than here and they brought in face covering requirements before we did.

Taipei removed the requirement to wear a mask on the 7th June.

 

[Journeyman]

I think while this face covering on public transport rule is still in force, it will put many people off long distance leisure journeys by train or coach. Can you imagine say a 4 hour journey having to wear a face covering throughout?!

Under normal circumstances, I regularly travel from Edinburgh to London, and spend about half my working life in Kent, with some travel between the office there and client sites. That's all on hold and I haven't travelled since mid-March. Given that currently both rail and air options involve having to wear masks, I'm going to drive if I have to resume travel before the mask requirement is lifted. I just can't be bothered with having to be so uncomfortable and stressed for such a long period. I don't relish the idea of spending an entire day driving at all, but at least I'll be in my own space and not constantly bombarded with propaganda and pettiness.

 

[Enthusiast]

There is a graphic which says "Face coverings must be worn on our trains, and are encouraged in our stations."

It says on a blue banner "Face coverings must be worn on our trains and encouraged in our stations" and then contradicts below with what you've said.

Thanks both. Got it now.

 

[Enthusiast]

But beware. Fresh from introducing a byelaw for London Underground which mandates the use of face coverings on stations as well as trains, Mayor Khan has now written to the PM asking that face coverings be mandatory in all shops:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53091111

The lunacy continues unabated.

 

[Journeyman]

Face coverings compulsory on public transport in Scotland from Monday.

 

[Mag_seven]

But beware. Fresh from introducing a byelaw for London Underground which mandates the use of face coverings on stations as well as trains, Mayor Khan has now written to the PM asking that face coverings be mandatory in all shops:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53091111

The lunacy continues unabated.

I would accept that but if and only if social distancing was scrapped in said shops. It has to be one or the other, not both!

 

[mmh]

Face coverings compulsory on public transport in Scotland from Monday.

As I predicted. A suitable length of time to show independence. I said three days, and I was spot on. Time to go and buy a lottery ticket.

As with England, the farce is plain to see. "It's a vital public health measure to save lives." "Blimey, when should we do it?" "Sometime next week?"

 

[Journeyman]

As I predicted. A suitable length of time to show independence. I said three days, and I was spot on. Time to go and buy a lottery ticket.

As with England, the farce is plain to see. "It's a vital public health measure to save lives." "Blimey, when should we do it?" "Sometime next week?"

I know. Scotland is implementing the social bubble idea, but is calling it something different just to be contrary. It's called McSocial Bubble, and participants need face masks made out of Saltires.

 

[Butts]

Face coverings compulsory on public transport in Scotland from Monday.

Does this mean the Guards are actually going to appear in order to enforce it ?

Is it just on the Trains or at Stations as well ?

 

[LowLevel]

Does this mean the Guards are actually going to appear in order to enforce it ?

Is it just on the Trains or at Stations as well ?

Guards can't enforce it. They can refuse people access but the actual "drag them off and fine them" powers are only available to a police officer.

To be fair not much enforcement seems to be required. The appearance of the guard even wandering laconically through in their own mask (bitter experience, I find it hard to be excited about the task) usually has people scrambling for masks in pockets and bags.

I had a jovial enough conversation about the facts of life in relation to the Public Health Act yesterday with two teenage girls I found hilarious who boarded wearing surgical masks and then everytime I walked past had a minor panic attack attempting to cover their faces.

On about the third occasion I pointed out that I had no intention of throwing them off the train but that wearing a mask on an open platform and then chucking it as soon as you board the train is really a bit daft and illogical.

 

[island]

But beware. Fresh from introducing a byelaw for London Underground which mandates the use of face coverings on stations as well as trains, Mayor Khan has now written to the PM asking that face coverings be mandatory in all shops:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53091111

The lunacy continues unabated.

He needs to stick to his knitting.

 

[PupCuff]

Guards can't enforce it. They can refuse people access but the actual "drag them off and fine them" powers are only available to a police officer.

It's worth noting that a train operator has to specifically authorise its staff for it to be legally permissible for a conductor or other member of rail staff to enforce the regulations by refusing someone access for non-compliance with the face covering regs. I wasn't aware any TOCs had actually chosen to do this, it's rail industry policy that rail staff are only Engaging, Explaining and Encouraging, not enforcing; though it would be permissible for a TOC to do that if it wanted to go away and do it's own thing (I would expect IR issues). In the majority of cases therefore if a conductor tried to refuse someone access it would be a request not an instruction and they'd be unable to do anything at all other than delay the train and call the police if the customer simply chose to ignore them and sit down, of course if the customer did not have a ticket or suchlike there are other options for their removal by an 'authorised person' under the byelaws, which is different to a 'relevant person' under the face covering regs.

It's also worth noting that a member of rail staff, who has been specifically authorised by their employing operator, can only legally refuse access to a vehicle (so not a station or similar facility), and only a vehicle of their employing operator (so using my local station as an example, EMR staff at Nottingham would have no legal basis under the face covering regs to refuse someone access to a Northern service; I don't know if Northern are running services from there again yet).

 

[island]

The “wrong company” thing is probably one that is true in theory but not in practice.

 

[PupCuff]

The “wrong company” thing is probably one that is true in theory but not in practice.

Indeed, but it's a worthwhile thing to note if for instance a member of NR staff tries to refuse you access to the station as was reported upthread - of course I won't encourage people to tell them to eff off or whatever but simply engaging with them and explaining the regulations to them is likely to be a less confrontational approach as to why you are not following their advice.

 

[LowLevel]

It's worth noting that a train operator has to specifically authorise its staff for it to be legally permissible for a conductor or other member of rail staff to enforce the regulations by refusing someone access for non-compliance with the face covering regs. I wasn't aware any TOCs had actually chosen to do this, it's rail industry policy that rail staff are only Engaging, Explaining and Encouraging, not enforcing; though it would be permissible for a TOC to do that if it wanted to go away and do it's own thing (I would expect IR issues). In the majority of cases therefore if a conductor tried to refuse someone access it would be a request not an instruction and they'd be unable to do anything at all other than delay the train and call the police if the customer simply chose to ignore them and sit down, of course if the customer did not have a ticket or suchlike there are other options for their removal by an 'authorised person' under the byelaws, which is different to a 'relevant person' under the face covering regs.

It's also worth noting that a member of rail staff, who has been specifically authorised by their employing operator, can only legally refuse access to a vehicle (so not a station or similar facility), and only a vehicle of their employing operator (so using my local station as an example, EMR staff at Nottingham would have no legal basis under the face covering regs to refuse someone access to a Northern service; I don't know if Northern are running services from there again yet).

As far as I am aware at least formally all TOCs have washed their hands of enforcement - the approach where I am is to compile statistics on compliance (using the guard's casual observations rather than grilling people) and then request BTP intervention at a more senior level for pre planned operations where a perceived issue may exist.

This would seem to be a sensible approach - I have little interest in having arguments with people about it though if people ask me (a few have) about what the guidance and actual rules are I'm more than happy to have a chat about it.

Incidentally a gent who apparently has been living in cloud cuckoo land for a few days and missed all the furore came running up to me at a rural station earlier to explain that he hadn't realised that this had all been introduced and asked if he could still travel without a face covering.

My response was simply that I wasn't going to stop him but if he encountered a constable he may fall foul of a £100 fixed penalty. He was now fully aware of the onus on him and enforcement is someone else's problem. Job done.

 

[PupCuff]

As far as I am aware at least formally all TOCs have washed their hands of enforcement - the approach where I am is to compile statistics on compliance (using the guard's casual observations rather than grilling people) and then request BTP intervention at a more senior level for pre planned operations where a perceived issue may exist.

This would seem to be a sensible approach - I have little interest in having arguments with people about it though if people ask me (a few have) about what the guidance and actual rules are I'm more than happy to have a chat about it.

Incidentally a gent who apparently has been living in cloud cuckoo land for a few days and missed all the furore came running up to me at a rural station earlier to explain that he hadn't realised that this had all been introduced and asked if he could still travel without a face covering.

My response was simply that I wasn't going to stop him but if he encountered a constable he may fall foul of a £100 fixed penalty. He was now fully aware of the onus on him and enforcement is someone else's problem. Job done.

This, of course, is a very sensible policy and I'd be particularly happy (I might even go as far as to say it would make my day) if all conductors (and other rail staff etc) were working to it!

 

[LowLevel]

This, of course, is a very sensible policy and I'd be particularly happy (I might even go as far as to say it would make my day) if all conductors (and other rail staff etc) were working to it!

So would I - if you can't stop the "free radicals" from making up their own ticketing rules you've got sod all hope of getting them to leave something alone that they perceive rightly or wrongly impacts on their safety.

 

[Gadget88]

So face masks forced in Scotland. I have anxiety so I believe I am exempt.

However still little word on Eurostar relaxing rules and even though I have anxiety they still discriminate?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would accept that but if and only if social distancing was scrapped in said shops. It has to be one or the other, not both!

It de-facto already has been in most shops. They might be managing crowds, but inside shops everyone is now pretty much without exception ignoring it.

So face masks forced in Scotland. I have anxiety so I believe I am exempt.

However still little word on Eurostar relaxing rules and even though I have anxiety they still discriminate?

French law, this has no exceptions, unfortunately. It was only introduced when the French made it law. I suspect it's something like "on any train arriving in and/or departing from French soil", a bit like a lot of air travel related law.