(21 Jun 2020, 2:38 pm)deanmachine They may have said that, but they've given them no powers to enforce it, and I don't think they've actually told anybody else with the correct powers (council or police) to enforce it either.

(21 Jun 2020, 2:50 pm)streetdeckfan The power they have given them is the ability to refuse travel, unfortunately operators and unions have decided to ignore that because it's between passengers and their drivers are protected behind a screen.
MG even said as much during his updates on Facebook Live.

Like I said, if someone got on the bus without paying, they'd have no issue reporting them to the police, but not wearing a face mask (which is against the law) is a free pass.
Goes to show they're only interested in enforcing rules when their bottom line is at risk, and refusing travel means not making money.

I'm usually quick to defend operators in situations like this, but I think it's ridiculous

(21 Jun 2020, 2:50 pm)streetdeckfan The power they have given them is the ability to refuse travel, unfortunately operators and unions have decided to ignore that because it's between passengers and their drivers are protected behind a screen.
MG even said as much during his updates on Facebook Live.

Like I said, if someone got on the bus without paying, they'd have no issue reporting them to the police, but not wearing a face mask (which is against the law) is a free pass.
Goes to show they're only interested in enforcing rules when their bottom line is at risk, and refusing travel means not making money.

I'm usually quick to defend operators in situations like this, but I think it's ridiculous

(21 Jun 2020, 3:20 pm)Stanleyone Of all the shifts I have done since the policy was introduced, personally I've only had to ask 3 people to wear a face covering, 99% are accepting this new phase. Mixed messages from government I'm afraid, can't remember seeing a BTP officer on buses who can enforce the fine.

(21 Jun 2020, 3:23 pm)James101 It’s disappointing it’s been so easy to self-exempt. I would have thought face shields would have been suitable for most who are medically except from a mask?

Possibly not effective as a mask but better than nothing and sports direct sell them for £3.

(21 Jun 2020, 4:10 pm)deanmachine If we were to enforce it, it's not something that, as a driver, I really want to be doing. I don't want to put myself into a conflict situation at all, I don't come into work to boss around grown people. It's bad enough having to drive past people standing at bus stops when you've got a bus that's not even at 25% capacity, never mind tell someone they can't travel home because they don't have something covering their face.

(21 Jun 2020, 4:13 pm)streetdeckfan I get that, but it's the exact same situation as if someone doesn't have any money, most drivers wouldn't let them on anyway would they?

(21 Jun 2020, 4:18 pm)deanmachine Much less likely to encounter someone without any money. Even currently with no change given, there's nearly always some way for them to pay. Honestly, my biggest worry about is making someone with a hidden disability have to disclose something they'd rather not with a random bus driver. Most people are compliant however. (At least when we're looking)

(21 Jun 2020, 4:54 pm)streetdeckfan Which is why they can make use of the different card schemes that they can just show the driver.

I know when I was travelling without wearing a mask I purposely didn't say anything to the driver to see if I would be asked about it, and I wasn't (I did try on the first bus I got but I had to take it off as I literally couldn't breathe)

I'd be interested to see what would happen if a load of people on a bus caught COVID from a passenger not wearing a mask and the driver hadn't questioned it, who would be at fault? (hypothetically speaking of course!) I'd lean towards the operator being at fault as it is a condition of travel to wear a face covering, and the passenger was not, so they shouldn't have been allowed to travel

(21 Jun 2020, 6:11 pm)Stanleyone There's 2 current drivers telling you how it is in the real world of public transport. It's not part of our conditions of travel, I know you've highlighted what government said, but it's simply not the case.

(21 Jun 2020, 6:20 pm)streetdeckfan The fact of the matter though is it is against the law to not wear a face covering on public transport (without a valid reason), the operators are choosing not to enforce it.

If them choosing not to enforce it (when they have the right to) causes people to die from COVID then I think they should be held responsible.

(21 Jun 2020, 6:20 pm)streetdeckfan The fact of the matter though is it is against the law to not wear a face covering on public transport (without a valid reason), the operators are choosing not to enforce it.

If them choosing not to enforce it (when they have the right to) causes people to die from COVID then I think they should be held responsible.

(21 Jun 2020, 4:18 pm)deanmachine Much less likely to encounter someone without any money. Even currently with no change given, there's nearly always some way for them to pay. Honestly, my biggest worry about is making someone with a hidden disability have to disclose something they'd rather not with a random bus driver. Most people are compliant however. (At least when we're looking)

(21 Jun 2020, 6:20 pm)streetdeckfan The fact of the matter though is it is against the law to not wear a face covering on public transport (without a valid reason), the operators are choosing not to enforce it.

If them choosing not to enforce it (when they have the right to) causes people to die from COVID then I think they should be held responsible.

(21 Jun 2020, 7:07 pm)Storx The person not wearing the mask would be held responsible...

I'd like to see you tell a toned 40 year old bloke or a group of 5 chavs who have no interest to wear a mask, actively saying he's / they're not wearing a mask to either put one on or get off the bus with the police having no interest in solving the issue as it's petty at best.

That's the position some driver's would end up being in. It's all good saying stuff like that behind a keyboard but it's different in the real world.

(Don't mean to be rude there but it's the point 2 drivers have told you and you ignored it)

(21 Jun 2020, 7:08 pm)Andreos1 I made a similar point a week or two back. 
Barely above minimum wage, but having the responsibility of a vehicle carrying x number of passengers. To then potentially face the challenge of a disability discrimination claim thrown at you... 
No thanks. 


So it's against the law? Which law is this? How would you prove that you caught coronavirus on the bus and not off someone leaning over you at asda?

(21 Jun 2020, 3:23 pm)James101 It’s disappointing it’s been so easy to self-exempt. I would have thought face shields would have been suitable for most who are medically except from a mask?

Possibly not effective as a mask but better than nothing and sports direct sell them for £3.

(21 Jun 2020, 8:20 pm)streetdeckfan My issue isn't with the drivers, my issue is that it's company policy that drivers aren't allowed to refuse travel to someone for not wearing a face covering. I get that drivers may not want to interfere, and that's fine, but if a driver does, they're not allowed.


I would imagine one of the questions contact tracers ask is if they've used public transport, if a number of people respond that they'd used the X21 on a certain day then it could be concluded that is where the outbreak occurred. Then I would assume they'd want to check who else was on board, and if in that situation they find out it's company policy to not make passengers comply then I would expect something to happen 

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

(22 Jun 2020, 1:42 pm)Andreos1 But definitely on the X21 and not the bus stop or the shops? That's some drilling down that mind.
Then when the police get involved to chase it all up like you suggested...