wrote:
Received this in e-mail on Friday. I wonder if this is due to softening
of restrictions, the fact that TfL is cash-strapped or a combination of
both.

Those two, plus probably central government pressure.


I note that each of the busses will have restrictions on the amount of
passengers they can carry.

I wonder how that'll be implemented (and for how long)?

On Fri, 29 May 2020 15:13:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Received this in e-mail on Friday. I wonder if this is due to softening
of restrictions, the fact that TfL is cash-strapped or a combination of
both.

Those two, plus probably central government pressure.


I note that each of the busses will have restrictions on the amount of
passengers they can carry.

I wonder how that'll be implemented (and for how long)?

Until passengers cause so much trouble after not being allowed on that TfL
just give up and realise that treating people as adults and allowing them
to make their own decisions wrt crowding is the better approach.

On 01/06/2020 09:31, wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2020 15:13:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Received this in e-mail on Friday. I wonder if this is due to softening
of restrictions, the fact that TfL is cash-strapped or a combination of
both.

Those two, plus probably central government pressure.


I note that each of the busses will have restrictions on the amount of
passengers they can carry.

I wonder how that'll be implemented (and for how long)?

Until passengers cause so much trouble after not being allowed on that TfL
just give up and realise that treating people as adults and allowing them
to make their own decisions wrt crowding is the better approach.

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people. I'm fed up with the lycras around here
who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:07:56 +0100
wrote:
On 01/06/2020 09:31, wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2020 15:13:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Received this in e-mail on Friday. I wonder if this is due to softening
of restrictions, the fact that TfL is cash-strapped or a combination of
both.

Those two, plus probably central government pressure.


I note that each of the busses will have restrictions on the amount of
passengers they can carry.

I wonder how that'll be implemented (and for how long)?

Until passengers cause so much trouble after not being allowed on that TfL
just give up and realise that treating people as adults and allowing them
to make their own decisions wrt crowding is the better approach.

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people. I'm fed up with the lycras around here
who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

And how long should your fear restrict the lives of the rest of us? If you're
scared wear a full face mask + visor or better yet just stay in your house but
don't expect others to pander to your insecurities.

wrote:
Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people. I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

And how long should your fear restrict the lives of the rest of us?
If you're scared wear a full face mask + visor or better yet just
stay in your house but don't expect others to pander to your
insecurities.

Which is an interesting pair of perspectives, which somehow people need
to work around with some modicum of sense and politeness. How much
time should a "lycra" allow before giving up and just passing a
headphone-oblivious or uncooperative "insecure" (or indeed anybody
not reacting) on a restrictive pathway?

I have to say, having been on both sides of this, that almost
everybody I've passed/ been passed by seem to be quite pragmatic and
will move to the side of the path to the extent possible without fuss.
You can always (also) hold your breath for a pace or two, or turn your
face away, when passing ... although this can make it difficult to say
"Thanks".

#Paul

On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around here
who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than
2m*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else

On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.

"MissRiaElaine" wrote in message
...
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people. I'm fed up with the lycras around here
who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry to
force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap.

I with you on that :-)

tim