Trivia: unwritten etiquette as a railway passenger

[ComUtoR]

...and punish the worst of such conduct.

What should the punishment be ?

 

[JamieL]

What should the punishment be ?

Surely that depends on what the anti-social conduct is? We have plenty of enforced laws in city centres across the country to guard against anti-social conduct, so why can't it be done on trains?

 

[ComUtoR]

Surely that depends on what the anti-social conduct is?

If someone applied their makeup on board. What should the punishment be ?

Or ate an egg sandwich ?

 

[JamieL]

If someone applied their makeup on board. What should the punishment be ?

Or ate an egg sandwich ?

Perhaps you missed my comment that "not everything in this thread constitutes" anti-social conduct? To take you egg sandwich example, that would clearly not be criminal in itself (just inconsiderate). However, leaving the packaging or food remains though would align with littering fines that are in place in many locations:

Pay or challenge a fixed penalty notice for an environmental offence

Why you might be given a 'Fixed Penalty Notice' for an environmental offence by your local authority and how you can pay or challenge it

www.gov.uk

 

[ComUtoR]

Perhaps you missed my comment that "not everything in this thread constitutes" anti-social conduct? To take you egg sandwich example, that would clearly not be criminal in itself (just inconsiderate).

I didn't miss the comment. Anti-social is a very broad brush. And it's your desire to punish those people who do not conform to societies norms. Those behaviours will need to be defined. An egg sandwich may be deemed anti-social by some, but not others. Who gets to decide which norms are acceptable and which aren't ?

There is a big difference between what is anti-social and what is criminal. Criminal offences are already defined and people should act within the law and the law should be enforced.

However, you suggested that anti-social behaviours should be punishable.

 

[trainophile]

There are plenty more stinky things consumed on trains than egg sandwiches!

 

[JamieL]

I didn't miss the comment. Anti-social is a very broad brush. And it's your desire to punish those people who do not conform to societies norms. Those behaviours will need to be defined. An egg sandwich may be deemed anti-social by some, but not others. Who gets to decide which norms are acceptable and which aren't ?

There is a big difference between what is anti-social and what is criminal. Criminal offences are already defined and people should act within the law and the law should be enforced.

However, you suggested that anti-social behaviours should be punishable.

Anti-social and criminal are not mutually exclusive. The difference is criminal anti-social conduct is not adequately enforced on trains. It should be.

As for deciding what anti-social behaviour should be extended to become criminal, is something the UK legislature is quite capable of it had the motivation. Of course currently they don't because, circling back to the original point, the people that matter use cars not trains.

 

[43066]

Anti-social and criminal are not mutually exclusive. The difference is criminal anti-social conduct is not adequately enforced on trains. It should be.

As for deciding what anti-social behaviour should be extended to become criminal, is something the UK legislature is quite capable of it had the motivation. Of course currently they don't because, circling back to the original point, the people that matter use cars not trains.

Whether it’s eating an egg sandwich or something more serious that is prohibited, it’s completely irrelevant without effective enforcement. For example I worked a train late last night full of extremely rowdy and drunk students. The on board staff felt they had no option but to barricade themselves in the galley. The behaviour had fallen *just* short of the level where it would have been appropriate to insist on waiting for the police (and therefore delaying the train and everyone else on it).

In reality they were far too drunk to be on the train, were in first class almost certainly without correct tickets, drinking from open bottles of vodka etc. Most of which is already prohibited under by laws.

How do you suggest that behaviour should have been enforced against?

 

[Falcon1200]

There are plenty more stinky things consumed on trains than egg sandwiches!

Plus of course the results later on of having eaten stinky (or any) things; Not sure how intestinal emissions could be regulated or legislated against?!!

 

[Bantamzen]

I didn't miss the comment. Anti-social is a very broad brush. And it's your desire to punish those people who do not conform to societies norms. Those behaviours will need to be defined. An egg sandwich may be deemed anti-social by some, but not others. Who gets to decide which norms are acceptable and which aren't ?

There is a big difference between what is anti-social and what is criminal. Criminal offences are already defined and people should act within the law and the law should be enforced.

However, you suggested that anti-social behaviours should be punishable.

You also have to consider what is seen as anti-social. Being drunk and getting into fights, or putting feet on seats can certainly be seen as adversely affecting the rest of the passengers. But eating an egg sandwich, or putting on make up for example, are these really examples of what responders on here want to be cited as anti-social. And of course social conventions can change over time, so trying to figure out what should and should not be punished would be a hornet's nest to say the least.

Anti-social and criminal are not mutually exclusive. The difference is criminal anti-social conduct is not adequately enforced on trains. It should be.

As pointed out above, by whom? The railways aren't staffed anything like enough to even make a small dent in such enforcement, and before you say it neither are the police.

As for deciding what anti-social behaviour should be extended to become criminal, is something the UK legislature is quite capable of it had the motivation. Of course currently they don't because, circling back to the original point, the people that matter use cars not trains.

So what you are almost suggesting is a Chinese style "social credits" system, whereby politicians decide what is, and what isn't "socially acceptable" & punish those people that fall into the latter category? That's not a slippery road to go down is it?

 

[43066]

Being drunk and getting into fights, or putting feet on seats can certainly be seen as adversely affecting the rest of the passengers. But eating an egg sandwich, or putting on make up for example, are these really examples of what responders on here want to be cited as anti-social. And of course social conventions can change over time, so trying to figure out what should and should not be punished would be a hornet's nest to say the least.

I find children annoying and highly anti social, but even I can understand why it wouldn’t be right for children to be banned from trains…

 

[TUC]

Cane we add

I think that you missed the sarcasm in the original post.

if there's one thing I get weary with regularly on this forum, it's when people don't get sarcasm and jokes, and respond to every comment literally.

 

[JamieL]

So what you are almost suggesting is a Chinese style "social credits" system, whereby politicians decide what is, and what isn't "socially acceptable" & punish those people that fall into the latter category? That's not a slippery road to go down is it?

Do you think the same about every law coming out of Westminster then?

 

[zwk500]

Do you think the same about every law coming out of Westminster then?

Legislating of social etiquette IS a slippery road to go down as it will inevitably begin to infringe on individuals' rights. That's why its important that such legislation is scrutinised in public (through transparency, media reporting and public debate) and that we have regular opportunities within the political process to tell MPs when they've gone far enough/too far such as Constituency surgeries, public protest or elections.

 

[ComUtoR]

Maybe @JamieL is correct. Therefore I propose the following fines/custodial sentences for the following offences :

Fines :
Eating smelly food (subject to OAS testing) - £23.99
Grooming - (Nail clipping, makeup etc) - £100
Not having ticket ready - (double the ticket price)
Loud telephone calls (> 80 dB) - Means tested by phone price
Single seat occupation on table set - (average ticket per journey per unoccupied seat) or £50 minimum fine
Sitting next to someone you don't know - £10
Sniffing - £2 per sniff, £1 per sneeze, £5 per cough
Leaving seat tables down - £150
Using the wrong ticket gate - £38

Community service :
Leaky headphones
Media audio (>90dB)
Feet on chairs


Custodial :
Crying babies
Bad parenting
Sounds (>10dB) emitted whilst in the quiet coach

 

[185143]

Maybe @JamieL is correct. Therefore I propose the following fines/custodial sentences for the following offences :

Fines :
Eating smelly food (subject to OAS testing) - £23.99
Grooming - (Nail clipping, makeup etc) - £100
Not having ticket ready - (double the ticket price)
Loud telephone calls (> 80 dB) - Means tested by phone price
Single seat occupation on table set - (average ticket per journey per unoccupied seat) or £50 minimum fine
Sitting next to someone you don't know - £10
Sniffing - £2 per sniff, £1 per sneeze, £5 per cough
Leaving seat tables down - £150
Using the wrong ticket gate - £38

Community service :
Leaky headphones
Media audio (>90dB)
Feet on chairs


Custodial :
Crying babies
Bad parenting
Sounds (>10dB) emitted whilst in the quiet coach

So what do you propose someone in need of a plug socket on an unrefurbished Pendo, for example, does then?

 

[ComUtoR]

So what do you propose someone in need of a plug socket on an unrefurbished Pendo, for example, does then?

Charge before leaving home, carry a power bank, get a different train, use the car. Other options are available.

 

[LowLevel]

So what do you propose someone in need of a plug socket on an unrefurbished Pendo, for example, does then?

Obviously if not part of a group they will be plugged directly into the traction bus bar as punishment for their transgression.

Persons not in possession of a sarcasm detector will also face the same fate.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Fines :
Sniffing - £2 per sniff, £1 per sneeze, £5 per cough
Leaving seat tables down - £150

This latter tariff seems particularly arbitrary and disproportionate.

Fines :
Sitting next to someone you don't know - £10

That'll be a nice little earner should commuter trains ever get busy again! (Or should that be 'ComUtoR' trains?!)

 

[JamieL]

Legislating of social etiquette IS a slippery road to go down as it will inevitably begin to infringe on individuals' rights. That's why its important that such legislation is scrutinised in public (through transparency, media reporting and public debate) and that we have regular opportunities within the political process to tell MPs when they've gone far enough/too far such as Constituency surgeries, public protest or elections.

And happens all the time...

The issue is we seem to accept a much lower standard of social responsibility on the railways that would be tolerated in our urban centres. Which is remarkable really.

 

[TUC]

Legislating of social etiquette IS a slippery road to go down as it will inevitably begin to infringe on individuals' rights. That's why its important that such legislation is scrutinised in public (through transparency, media reporting and public debate) and that we have regular opportunities within the political process to tell MPs when they've gone far enough/too far such as Constituency surgeries, public protest or elections.

I hope that no one is seriously proposing legislation for social etiquette at all are they? It's not a role for government.

 

[Ken H]

And happens all the time...

The issue is we seem to accept a much lower standard of social responsibility on the railways that would be tolerated in our urban centres. Which is remarkable really.

Its private property. Its up to the railway to police passenger behaviour. They have to make a decision as to whether they are happy for some people to not travel by train because of the behaviour of other passengers, or they put staff on trains with the power to sort out the truly anti-social.

 

[ComUtoR]

This latter tariff seems particularly arbitrary and disproportionate.

With any kind of fine, there has to some form of yardstick to measure by. With coughs and sneezes I think it would be unfair to punish sneezing as its an automatic response but continual sneezes or those caused by yucky diseases should be punished. Accordingly, sniffs and coughs are spreading germs so should incur a slightly higher penalty that would also stack.

The table fine is based on the level of outrage. Anti-social acceptance is based on the level of outrage and annoyance. It may appear arbitrary but the punishment should fit the crime.

That'll be a nice little earner should commuter trains ever get busy again! (Or should that be 'ComUtoR' trains?!)

It would be a very complicated law. Certain trains would obviously be exempt and you could adjust the scale of the offence by the number of occupied seats in each coach.

The issue is we seem to accept a much lower standard of social responsibility on the railways that would be tolerated in our urban centres.

Do we ?

Which is remarkable really.

And isn't specifically true.

The standard doesn't really "lower"; it "changes" Society has different social rules for different places. Smoking in a wide open public park would be accepted but smoking in a restaurant wouldn't be. Same with a train. Smoking on a Train Station platform is not allowed but the level of tolerance and acceptance is where they are standing whilst doing it. However, smoking in a train carriage is completely frowned upon. Smoking is dictated by various laws and the social acceptance very much depends on accepting the level of which you believe the law is both enforceable and acceptable.

Behaviour changes with your environment. I wouldn't specifically say its better or worse, just different.

 

[zwk500]

I hope that no one is seriously proposing legislation for social etiquette at all are they? It's not a role for government.

It depends on your definition of Social Etiquette I suppose. the Smoking ban is one example of legislation I was thinking of.

 

[contrex]

I was on a GWR train the other evening from Bristol TM to Sea Mills and someone got on at Lawrence Hill with a doner kebab, and sat near me to eat it. The smell made me really want one. I wasn't able to get one that evening, but I had one the next night for my tea and was well pleased. So thanks that guy.

 

[XAM2175]

If it's any consolation one thing I do when changing ends and tidying my trains as a conductor is survey abandoned newspapers - decent ones get folded and placed neatly on tables, wrecked ones get binned. Little things no one probably notices

Definitely appreciated by myself, so cheers!

 

[JamieL]

Its private property.

Which receives substantial public money and, ultimately, delivers a public service. It also has dependencies and consequences for other forms of transport. So I am not sure that it can be argued their isn't a public interest perspective here.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I find children annoying and highly anti social, but even I can understand why it wouldn’t be right for children to be banned from trains…

Perhaps a "no children on trains after 7pm" rule, like some pubs and restaurants have?

 

[87electric]

Perhaps a "no children on trains after 7pm" rule, like some pubs and restaurants have?

Seconded.

 

[py_megapixel]

Perhaps a "no children on trains after 7pm" rule, like some pubs and restaurants have?

I assume this is sarcastic, as it's an utterly unworkable suggestion!