![]() |
New boarding on London's buses
|
New boarding on London's buses
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. |
New boarding on London's buses
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. |
New boarding on London's buses
|
New boarding on London's buses
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 |
New boarding on London's buses
|
New boarding on London's buses
"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 |
New boarding on London's buses
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 |
New boarding on London's buses
David Jones wrote:
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 In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The WHO recommends at least 1m. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk