Am I right to be a bit miffed by this, and by the fact that they refuse to give a proper explanation for it or any details of what it will take for this "request" to expire
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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!
LNER "requesting" people wear facemasks 100% of the time on their stations and trains
- Thread starter Bungle73
- 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
SargeNpton
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 1,397
Really no different to the signs outside many supermarkets suggesting that customers continue to wear masks.
Is not though is it? People don't tend to spend hours in supermarkets, and the railway is a fundamentally different setup from a 100% privately owned and run premises like a supermarket
The message being given by the rest of the industry is "wear one if stations or trains are busy", which is not what LNER are saying - why do they think they are special? In fact the message in the image they posted is one step away from being an order if you ask me.
“We understand if you are unable to wear a face covering due to medical reasons” implies that they do not understand if you do not wear a face covering due to personal preference. Awful messaging, I assumed it would have been refined since it was originally put out.
I find LNER's stance to be appalling; it is really putting me off travelling with them.
They talk of "respect" yet their messaging is very disrespectful.
They should be saying "Please respect others' decisions regarding the wearing of face coverings" or similar.
If there is a supermarket with a similar sign, please name and shame and I will be happy to make my views known to them.
I've not seen any such signs at supermarkets I use. And certainly no threatening announcements
Last edited:
SargeNpton
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 1,397
Not quite as bad as this, but such similar messages are most unwelcome and need to end.
The rail industry is shooting itself in the foot again.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Indeed; it really is awful. Who comes up with this stuff?!
DustyBin
Established Member
“This protects yourself”? Really? I thought you wore one to (allegedly) protect others? It looks like confused virtue signalling to me and I’m increasingly resentful of giving this company my custom.
Has anyone ever stopped to take a breath, calm down and think that maybe these signs are still on LNER trains because they operate into Scotland where masks are still mandatory? Or do people want the on train staff to run through the train taking the signs down every time they cross the border from Scotland into England?
GC class B1
Member
I think this thread is really over the top. Face masks have been proven to reduce the risk of spreading this awful virus. I find the message polite and asking passengers to think of others is a sensible line. We must all do what we can to control the virus which is increasing again.
Green tractor
Member
Your not alowed to say things like that. You have to get angry, state we are on the verge of mass civil disobedience, and claim that every where you go only a tiny minority of people (who are obviously wimps/bedwetters/guardian readers) are wearing face coverings.
Also state you are going to boycott LNER,even though the whole franchised rail service is effectively nationalised, and all the ticket revenue goes into the same pot.
The tweet doesn't mention anything about Scotland.
Who gave LNER the power to make that decision?
And if they're so great why can one look at a graph of infections in the UK since the beginning of last year, but one would be hard pressed to tell the point where they were mandated from.
And more to the point, we were told weeks ago by the government that were elected to make these decision, based on advice given them by the scientists to advise them, that mandating masks everywhere was not require anymore. Why does a person in an head office of a TOC know more about it than they do?
DanNCL
Established Member
A government owned company is telling people in a passive-agressive manner to wear face coverings. A company owned by the same government who have said wearing face coverings is a personal choice, and who's ministers have (many of them anyway) said they will choose not to wear them. I can't be the only one who sees the contradiction here? But then this is the Conservative party so hardly a surprise. 
Loads of TOCs still have messaging to this effect. Clearly LNER are in a slightly trickier position than others running across the border, so needs some form of compromise.
Beyond the standard feet-stamping on this thread from the usual suspects, few actual real people are actually bothered by this.
Beyond the standard feet-stamping on this thread from the usual suspects, few actual real people are actually bothered by this.
GC class B1
Member
Talk of boycotting LNER is ridiculous. I have found LNER Train Managers and customer hosts very pleasant and obliging even when I didn’t have a reservation. They all deserve our support as they have worked through the Pandemic.
Absolutely right.
Relax. No-one is saying otherwise!
They have not been proven to reduce the spread and therefore I completely disagree with your post but please post your reasons for thinking that in the appropriate thread, where we can debate this further: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...erings-and-the-mandating-of-their-use.219985/
It's true that most people are not wearing them, but if you wish to post your observations please use the appropriate thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/19th-july-lockdown-easing-observations-and-compliance.220043/
I would certainly not use LNER if it was as easy as there being a like for like replacement with a more appropriate attitude. But that is rarely the case on the railways!
Agreed 100%A government owned company is telling people in a passive-agressive manner to wear face coverings. A company owned by the same government who have said wearing face coverings is a personal choice, and who's ministers have (many of them anyway) said they will choose not to wear them. I can't be the only one who sees the contradiction here? But then this is the Conservative party so hardly a surprise.
All they need to say is "Face coverings are optional in England, and mandatory in Scotland (unless exempt). Please be respectful of others decisions and circumstances" or similar.
Most people are not othered because they simply know they do not have to wear them and are not fussed if it goes against the messaging.
But some of us don't want to be spoken down to like this, or be made to feel like we are doing something wrong.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
None of that is in dispute but this doesn't justify the appalling messaging by the company.
Of course the staff are not going to come up to people and say "please show respect and wear a face covering" so why should the company's posters say this?!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You support them SHOUTING an INSTRUCTION at people for something they admit people are entitled to ignore, and is personal choice? Any particular reason for this?
In what way is a bit of paper stuck to a train shouting?
Use of ALL CAPITALS is widely taken to be the written equivalent of shouting.
Killingworth
Established Member
I agree the signage looks OTT. I hate wearing a mask. I'm not convinced they make much difference. I've been in trains where almost everyone is wearing a mask, and others when hardly anyone is. It may depend on age of users, route and time of day. I usually wear one if the train is busy, and always if it's clear the majority are taking that approach. If I was terrified of infections I'd never leave home but I can understand the fears of some who may be more vulnerable than myself.
What bothers me more is being bookedin a window seat away from my wife to keep aisle seats free, and taped off empty sections of crowded carriages.
What bothers me more is being bookedin a window seat away from my wife to keep aisle seats free, and taped off empty sections of crowded carriages.
Paul Jones 88
Member
The issue of the wearing of masks is no longer covered by law so my strategy is to wear a mask on a busy train, however, I shan't wear a mask on a train where I have half a carriage to myself.
Then perhaps people who can't handle seeing a bit of paper with capital letters on it without having a fit should stay indoors wrapped in their comfort blankets.
It's no different from a sign saying NO SMOKING or NO ALCHOHOL or do these people run away when they see those signs as well?
I refer you to the reasoning I posted above; is there a part of what I posted you disagree with?
It would be better if you identified something I have said to disagree with, rather than come up with a strawman argument; a strawman argument is simply a sign that you cannot debate the actual matter in hand.
Are you suggesting people are allowed to smoke or drink where such signs are present?
At no point did I suggest anything. What I said was if a sign saying WEAR A MASK gets you all upset then signs saying NO SMOKING or NO ALCHOHOL must also have the exact same effect?
I wonder what percentage of posts made in this forum since it was created has been on the subject of face masks. Never a day goes by when there isn’t rage about a sign somewhere suggesting people where a mask.
People who want to wear a mask will wear a mask, and those who don’t want to, won’t, and we will all get on with our lives.
People who want to wear a mask will wear a mask, and those who don’t want to, won’t, and we will all get on with our lives.
About 90% these days I'd imagine. Mostly by people who will run away in hysterical fear because it says WEAR A MASK instead of Pwetty pwease wear a masky wasky.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
Maybe as two of them are against the law and one isn’t. I think you must know that though and you are just being a bit of a ....
- Status