Could we see a return to "essential travel only" messaging?

[squizzler]

At least you get health benefits from cycling which outweigh the risk of an accident. With driving it is a lose-lose situation. There is a greater risk of causing an accident to yourself and others, involving Covid spread through the emergency services and you get more unhealthy due to the sedentary nature of driving. For a negligible reduction in Covid spread.

Whilst a very succinct summary of the benefits of walking and cycling vis motoring (and to some extent transport use) you forget to mention the impact of air quality on society at large. One of the things about using a car is that - being in the thick of the pollution from yourself and fellow motorists - you will suffer the poor air quality to the greatest extent.

Anywhere where there are not other people is lower risk than anywhere where there are. It is as simple as that. If you are in an enclosed box, you can't get it off anyone. (my emphasis)

Wow, what an admission as to the costs of avoiding the Covid. Who wants to live their life in an "enclosed box"?

We have seen this outcome in children before the pandemic happened. I have a friend tasked with cycle training here in Jersey who confided that a worrying number of children lacked what he termed "physical literacy" to perform simple balance and co-ordination tasks like standing on one leg, let alone the toolkit of such skills needed for riding a bicycle. And yes, this is in Jersey, one of the wealthiest parts of the World.

A large factor of this is parental chauffeuring to school and other so-called "cotton wool" parenting where the children are protected from any risk.

There was the adage amongst progressive transport planners that they aim to create "a society where the rich use public transport, not one where the poor drive cars". It is egalitarian countries that this adage can apply to which seem to have been the relative winners in the crisis.

Living in an "enclosed box" might protect you for a bit, maybe you will get lucky enough to dodge the bug long enough for a remedy to become available. But maybe not. And what about when the next crisis hits your atrophied body?

The Mad Max films might suggest that survival in the apocalypse involves getting tooled up with a suitable motor, preferably one with bull bars and a V8, and the fashion for off-road styled cars suggests that many think that is what they need. I however think reality is more nuanced.

So either it is wrong or misleading, yes. I suspect the latter. This is not a time to push the environmental agenda; we can return to that once this more immediate threat is dealt with.

The environmental agenda is not separate from the public health agenda, in fact both are very much linked and there are scientific reports to that effect that this is a man-made crisis caused by exploitation of the natural world. In fact Sars-Cov2 is arguably just one emergency making up a broader (global) public health crisis.

I enjoy your posts but think you are wrong on this. Most of the crises of the modern world are caused by compartmentalised thinking where the economy, environment, and human welfare are put into silos. The statement that "using the car is better than public transport" falls into this logical trap. The Cars-Cov2 has totally exposed this fallacy and underlined the need for holistic thinking.

 

[radamfi]

I have a friend tasked with cycle training here in Jersey who confided that a worrying number of children lacked what he termed "physical literacy" to perform simple balance and co-ordination tasks like standing on one leg, let alone the toolkit of such skills needed for riding a bicycle. And yes, this is in Jersey, one of the wealthiest parts of the World.

There is hardly any need for a car in Jersey, given that most trips are less than 5 miles, there are lots of narrow roads with a 15 mph limit, ideal for cycling, and electric bikes are available for those who want or need a help up the hills.

 

[squizzler]

There is hardly any need for a car in Jersey, given that most trips are less than 5 miles, there are lots of narrow roads with a 15 mph limit, ideal for cycling, and electric bikes are available for those who want or need a help up the hills.

You would think so, as do I , but apparently we are wrong. What seems appropriate is a Cayanne from messers Porsche of Stuttgart, weighing in at something like two tones and 600hp (or whatever, frankly I don't care) and off road capability, with apparently excellent high speed roadholding. Or if you need something a little more reasonably priced, perhaps a Range Rover Sport from Jaguar Landrover of Solihull. With these imposing tanks at your disposal, you too can live out your Mad Max fantasies as you go to stock up on bog roll from the Waitrose!

 

[The Ham]

I'm not going to lie, your argument is literally all over the place. Coming up with new reasons whenever a previous argument is shot down just stinks of someone arguing for the sake of arguing and refusing to show any sort of impartiality. You've gone from having to interact with mechanics (how often does that happen?), to having to touch a petrol pump (gloves are provided), to paying for car parking (anti-bac your hands before and after use or use your phone to pay), to now suggesting that people driving cars increases Covid spread through emergency services because cars are bound to end up in an accident. I'm sure you don't need reminding of the extremely serious rail accident that occurred during the covid pandemic which lead to multiple emergency services working in close proximity, investigating teams working in close proximity, and then recovery teams working in close proximity - no-one, quite rightly, so much as mentioned the fact that this might increase the spread of covid.

I much prefer travelling by train than car but @Bletchleyite has been spot on throughout his discussion with you - neither are 100% safe obviously, but travelling in a car by yourself or with people in your 'bubble' is quite obviously (without any need for science) safer than travelling amongst lots of strangers on public transport.

As I've highlighted earlier the risk from car travel is where you're traveling long distances and need to stop to use facilities.

Most rail travel people are doing would be limited to about 70 people who use the same coach as you (probably less, even allowing for people using the train for part of the journey). Most of whom will be from a fairly limited area which broadly follows the route of the train line and most of whom will be more than 2m away from you.

Conversely if you stop at a motorway services then there's a risk of coming in contact with people from anywhere in the country, quite a few could be much closer to you than your fellow rail passengers would be. Also any high touch points are likely to have been handled by a lot of people in the last hour.

Whilst car travel is likely to be safer for short distances, relatively few of those would be suitable for rail travel anyway (i.e. most travel up to 5 miles and quite a lot up to 10 miles) due to the simple fact that there's limited numbers of stations that close to each other.

Although all of that is rather acidemic as the main reason why we shouldn't be traveling longer distances (say 30+ miles) when there's high numbers of cases is so that we're not transmitting the virus between high and low risk areas.

As such it doesn't matter how you are traveling, the fact that you are traveling those distances should be avoided.

 

[Bikeman78]

They are bleating on about essential travel at Hunts Cross. In reality the number of passengers on Merseyrail seems to be similar to a few weeks ago.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Conversely if you stop at a motorway services then there's a risk of coming in contact with people from anywhere in the country

But fleetingly, which doesn't invoke track and trace. Whereas on a train you are likely to be within 1m for a non-fleeting period or within 2m for 15 minutes or more, which is long enough to invoke track and trace.

What does that tell you?

 

[The Ham]

But fleetingly, which doesn't invoke track and trace. Whereas on a train you are likely to be within 1m for a non-fleeting period or within 2m for 15 minutes or more, which is long enough to invoke track and trace.

What does that tell you?

It depends on how busy each are and how good you are judging your 2m distances. A train which was previously 60% full (assuming an even reduction in rail use) would view be about 30% full, assuming a few people traveling in pairs that about the level to achieve at least 1m+ if not getting on for 2m.

Anyway it's rather academic as the main reason not to travel even there's lots of cases isn't the risk whilst traveling but rather the movement between areas with the risk that brings with the spread of the virus.

 

[MDB1images]

Blackpool apparently next to have local restrictions from tonight and the council are advising the following.......

Residents in Blackpool & Lancs are also advised to adhere to the following to further reduce rates of infection:

● Only use public transport for essential purposes, i.e travelling to school / work

 

[Llandudno]

Blackpool apparently next to have local restrictions from tonight and the council are advising the following.......

Residents in Blackpool & Lancs are also advised to adhere to the following to further reduce rates of infection:

● Only use public transport for essential purposes, i.e travelling to school / work

I presume that they will have to switch the illuminations off, they are meant to be running until early January!

 

[johntea]

Soon you won’t even be able to have a trip to the seaside without having to quarantine on your return!

 

[williamn]

To be fair I wasn't saying we should have more of them - simply that the concept seems to be working well for controlling the virus in an urban area. Those are indeed serious flaws in the concept which mean there's unlikely to be another one.



I'll have to disagree here. Private motoring in your own household's car has the lowest risk of transmission outside your household - lower than even walking or cycling because you're in your own box - there is no comparison based on walking or cycling closely past someone. There are arguments against private motoring, but they are not relevant to COVID and should not be conflated with it as some are trying to do.

The main reasons for pushing walking and cycling elsewhere is to get people off public transport which is (despite the denial by some on here) pretty much by definition high risk compared with the various private modes.

Studies in Spain and Germany have found no transmission at all on public transport.

Even factoring in Covid, car transport remains far more dangerous than rail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Studies in Spain and Germany have found no transmission at all on public transport.

I wonder who commissioned those? RENFE or DB perchance?

It's inconceivable that that would be the case.

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder who commissioned those? RENFE or DB perchance?

It's inconceivable that that would be the case.

It's unlikely that there would be no cases of transmission on public transport. But equally, if it were a major source of transmission it seems unlikely that none would be picked up.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's unlikely that there would be no cases of transmission on public transport. But equally, if it were a major source of transmission it seems unlikely that none would be picked up.

This sounds pretty plausible, it would be interesting to line up the increase in use against the cases rate to see if there was any correlation.

 

[yorksrob]

This sounds pretty plausible, it would be interesting to line up the increase in use against the cases rate to see if there was any correlation.

It might be more trouble than it was worth if people assumed correlation meant causation.

 

[Bantamzen]

It might be more trouble than it was worth if people assumed correlation meant causation.

That would depend on what the data tells us. I have a sneaking feeling that the data for transport use and infection rates won't marry up.

 

[route101]

I dont have any problem using the buses and trains, i drive but dont have a car.

 

[Bikeman78]

It's unlikely that there would be no cases of transmission on public transport. But equally, if it were a major source of transmission it seems unlikely that none would be picked up.

I think it's quite telling that there are thousands of posts about every aspect of Covid but the "Have you had the virus" topic has a meagre 115 posts. That's on a forum full of people that like travelling by train. I've made several multi day trips since July.

 

[yorkie]

I think it's quite telling that there are thousands of posts about every aspect of Covid but the "Have you had the virus" topic has a meagre 115 posts. That's on a forum full of people that like travelling by train. I've made several multi day trips since July.

Yes good point.

Of the people I know who have tested positive since mass testing became available (including a combination of forum members and non-forum members), none have yet been symptomatic (which is not surprising as most people infected with Sars-Cov-2 are asymptomatic and do not develop Covid19 symptoms). I am not aware of any of them who likely got it while on public transport.

Over the past few months I have gone back to my usual lifestyle of travelling extensively on public transport and have visited many pubs/restaurants and have met many people, just as I have done for years, yet I have not been seriously ill for a very long time and that remains unchanged. I am not in the slightest worried about getting this, or any other, virus.

However if "essential travel only" became law, my mental health would suffer and this would put me at increased risk from viruses. I know of many others who feel the same way. If people wish to disagree with me, that is their right, but I'm absolutely up for an argument with them!

 

[Dai Corner]

Yes good point.

Of the people I know who have tested positive since mass testing became available (including a combination of forum members and non-forum members), none have yet been symptomatic (which is not surprising as most people infected with Sars-Cov-2 are asymptomatic and do not develop Covid19 symptoms). I am not aware of any of them who likely got it while on public transport.

Over the past few months I have gone back to my usual lifestyle of travelling extensively on public transport and have visited many pubs/restaurants and have met many people, just as I have done for years, yet I have not been seriously ill for a very long time and that remains unchanged. I am not in the slightest worried about getting this, or any other, virus.

However if "essential travel only" became law, my mental health would suffer and this would put me at increased risk from viruses. I know of many others who feel the same way. If people wish to disagree with me, that is their right, but I'm absolutely up for an argument with them!

We've heard about outbreaks traced to workplaces and pubs but not, as far as I'm aware, a train or a bus.

Having qualified for free bus travel and a third off my train fares in May I've been using public transport more than I ever have before and eaten/drunk out most days. I have had no symptoms and, if anything, feel less at risk of catching something than I did pre-pandemic given the better social distancing and hygiene.

Going out is 'essential travel' as far as I'm concerned.

 

[squizzler]

I think you are quite representative of many people. Here in Jersey the busses have gone from almost empty during "lockdown" to pretty normal ridership. When I rode a bus during the lockdown itself I found it an anxious experience, even though the logical part of my brain knew there were almost no passengers using the service and the operator was running a more intensive cleaning regime. Since lockdown I am using the service without great concern or inconvenience, other than the hassle of ensuring I have a clean mask to hand.

Those who have drifted back to using transport services since lockdown will also have regained confidence with each trip unless they were unfortunate enough to contract Covid. Telling this audience not to use transport again - in the absence of compelling evidence it is unsafe to do so - would I suspect be seen by those using it presently as crying wolf and be disregarded by most.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Going out is 'essential travel' as far as I'm concerned.

The criteria for what constitutes essential travel is spelt out. Unless you're Dom Cummings, the guidelines are clear.

There is no distinction between public or private transport.

 

[Bantamzen]

The criteria for what constitutes essential travel is spelt out. Unless you're Dom Cummings, the guidelines are clear.

There is no distinction between public or private transport.

Is it? Would you care to offer a link?

 

[bramling]

The criteria for what constitutes essential travel is spelt out. Unless you're Dom Cummings, the guidelines are clear.

There is no distinction between public or private transport.

Wales doesn’t seem to have made a distinction, but there’s quite a lot in the way of posters on both railway stations and bus stops strongly promoting essential journeys only. There’s enough about that it doesn’t seem like just the remnants from earlier in the year.

Of course in practice there’s no real way of preventing car use.

 

[Dai Corner]

Wales doesn’t seem to have made a distinction, but there’s quite a lot in the way of posters on both railway stations and bus stops strongly promoting essential journeys only. There’s enough about that it doesn’t seem like just the remnants from earlier in the year.

Of course in practice there’s no real way of preventing car use.

I'm in Wales and can't say I've noticed such posters.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Is it? Would you care to offer a link?

Certainly. If you live in a lockdown area, and I've chosen Caerphilly as an example, it says:

Travel to and from Caerphilly
The travel restrictions mean people cannot enter or leave Caerphilly County Borough area without a reasonable excuse – this includes travelling to work, if you are unable to work from home; travelling to and from school if it is outside the borough or making a compassionate visit to a loved one or to give care.

Those living in the Caerphilly County Borough area should not leave the area to do anything they could be reasonably expected to be able to do within the area. Similarly, those living outside the area should not enter the area to do anything they could be reasonably be expected to be able to do outside the area.

People who live in the Caerphilly County Borough area must work from home unless it not reasonably practicable to do so.
If you are unable to work from home, you should maintain the physical distancing rules at your workplace – these are in place for all workplaces in Wales. This includes keeping 2m apart and washing your hands regularly. Your employer is obliged to do whatever they reasonably can to keep you and others safe.

Coronavirus firebreak: frequently asked questions | GOV.WALES

Guidance about the firebreak rules which have replaced previous local and national rules.

gov.wales

So it does tell you what constitutes essential but makes no distinction as to public or private transport. Similarly, the enabling legislation in England similarly does not discriminate between public and private transport https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made

 

[Bantamzen]

Certainly. If you live in a lockdown area, and I've chosen Caerphilly as an example, it says:

Travel to and from Caerphilly
The travel restrictions mean people cannot enter or leave Caerphilly County Borough area without a reasonable excuse – this includes travelling to work, if you are unable to work from home; travelling to and from school if it is outside the borough or making a compassionate visit to a loved one or to give care.

Those living in the Caerphilly County Borough area should not leave the area to do anything they could be reasonably expected to be able to do within the area. Similarly, those living outside the area should not enter the area to do anything they could be reasonably be expected to be able to do outside the area.

People who live in the Caerphilly County Borough area must work from home unless it not reasonably practicable to do so.
If you are unable to work from home, you should maintain the physical distancing rules at your workplace – these are in place for all workplaces in Wales. This includes keeping 2m apart and washing your hands regularly. Your employer is obliged to do whatever they reasonably can to keep you and others safe.

Coronavirus firebreak: frequently asked questions | GOV.WALES

Guidance about the firebreak rules which have replaced previous local and national rules.

gov.wales

So it does tell you what constitutes essential but makes no distinction as to public or private transport. Similarly, the enabling legislation in England similarly does not discriminate between public and private transport https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made

Thank you, however the Welsh instructions don't seem to quantify what "essential travel is", and the gov.uk reference seems to be what was mandated nationality back in March.

 

[Whistler40145]

I'm up in Blackpool, the advice given is that use of public transport is only for travelling to work, medical appointments etc, but not worded in such a way to say that travel is banned

 

[317 forever]

There shouldn't be a need to discourage non-essential travel really. To some extent the virus spreads if someone has Covid (even if unknowingly) then spends a long time talking to someone who doesn't, especially indoors. Then they can while exhaling and talking let Covid droplets out of their mouths.

Conversely, when travelling we are usually not talking but wearing our masks. So, travel is safe by comparison.

Besides, the government want minimal disruption to the economy. So, if travel includes brief visits to shops, cafes etc this is surely good news in their eyes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is only any sense restricting travel to/from places which have case rates much higher than elsewhere (same as abroad). That's increasingly not the case.