The Welsh Government has updated its guidance on exercise during the lockdown – and says that “as a rule of thumb” people should only ride their bikes within walking distance of where they live, and that “cycling significant distances from home is not considered to be a reasonable excuse for leaving it.” However, questions remain over what that distance may actually be, with no specific mention of it in the legislation or the guidance, leaving scope for confusion.
While acknowledging that “cycling is a valid form of exercise and is also a suitable way of going to work,” the Welsh Government says the guidance aims to relieve pressure on emergency services due to a rider having an accident or mechanical issue, which may also require someone else to make a journey to provide assistance.
Cyclists are also “expected to only cycle alone or with members of their household, on routes they know well, and that are well within their ability level.”
Under Regulation 8 (1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020, “During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living or remain away from that place without reasonable excuse.”
The Regulations go on to define a “reasonable excuse” as including, at paragraph (b), “to take exercise, no more than once a day (or more frequently if this is needed because of a particular health condition or disability), either (i) alone; (ii) with other members of the person’s household; or (iii) with the person’s carer.”
As with similar regulations in force elsewhere in the UK, the legislation, aimed at containing the spread of coronavirus, places restrictions on the reasons people may leave their homes while the emergency continues.
> Cycling dos and don’ts in a time of pandemic – how to be a responsible cyclist
But while the legislation in England, for example, makes no reference to only being able to leave the home once per day, the Regulations in Wales do.
In common with the laws in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, much of the regulations have been left vague, which has led to confusion among members of the public about what they are and are not allowed to do.
In particular, lack of clarity about how long one should exercise for, or how far from home – note that reference in the Regulations to “rule of thumb,” whatever that is, that we mentioned at the start of this article – leaves room for people to be found to have broken the law when they did not intend to.
And already, one of the country’s major media outlets, Wales Online, has said that it “understands” that under the new guidance, cycling within 10 miles of home would be seen as a “reasonable distance” while being 20 miles away would not – although there is nothing in the guidance itself that backs that up.
(From a cyclist’s point of view, of course, a “reasonable distance” to enable them to get back home by foot in the event of a mechanical may be determined by whether they happen to be wearing cleated shoes, or trainers more suited to a lengthy walk).
In England and Wales, the decision to prosecute criminal cases investigated by the police and other agencies rests with the Crown Prosecution Service and the application of the law resides with the courts.
However, government guidance to legislation, while not forming part of it, can be a strong influence in determining what it is seeking to achieve and, ultimately, how it should be interpreted and enforced.
Here are the paragraphs in full relating to cycling contained in the Welsh Government’s latest guidance.
Cycling is a valid form of exercise and is also a suitable way of going to work. Cycling is generally a low-risk activity but with emergency services under pressure, it is important to take steps to manage risk wherever possible. An accident or a breakdown far from home would place additional strain on health services or require a further journey to be made by someone else to provide assistance.
People are expected to only cycle alone or with members of their household, on routes they know well, and that are well within their ability level. Cyclists on shared paths should be considerate of walkers, runners and other people cycling: they should stay two metres from others, slow their pace and stop to let people pass as appropriate.
Cycling should be local, as a rule of thumb limited to travelling no further than a reasonable walking distance from home. Exercising by cycling significant distances from home is not considered to be a reasonable excuse for leaving home.20. Cycling to work, or for work, is a reasonable excuse to be outside (so long as going to work, or doing the work, is itself justifiable).
As of yesterday, 8,358 people in Wales had tested positive for COVID-19, of whom 641 died.

83 thoughts on “Welsh Government says you can only cycle within walking distance of home”
What nonsense! Surely they
What nonsense! Surely they mean you can only walk a reasonable walking distance from home? You can’t compare the distances covered by cycling and walking. They just need to say ” keep your distance from others and cycle well within your capacity”. No one should be out pushing the barriers, but if 50 miles say is well within what you normally ride, then what’s the problem? We each have to assess the risk for ourselves, keeping in mind the reason for the guidelines and what our plan B would be if the unexpected happens. Remember cycling is a safe activity.
It’s moronic advice from an
It’s moronic advice from an increasingly irrelevant body of knobs.
I live in North Wales, but only 1/2 mile from the border with England, so my ride today in Wales will be a round trip of about a mile. Luckily in the middle of that I’ll be in England and will be having a more sensible ride of about 25 miles. All still local and around the Chester area, but without the pointless random restriction
To be fair, this does seem to
To be fair, this does seem to be relatively good advice as a rule of thumb.
My hourish route, admittedly mostly off road doesn’t take me much more than 4km from my home. Easily walkable. (Wouldn’t want to and carry my full toolkit on any length ride)
The most I have ever walked with an unrideable bike was 8 or 9 miles. 10 would be doable, very tiresome but acheivable.
But that’s me, my bicycle and a mechanical. An INCIDENT, requiring attendance of the emergency services could occur anywhere, even right outside my front door. Some could be because of my own incompetence, but the worst injuries I have had have been caused by motorists, and I have as much chance to be hit in the road outside my home as anywhere. Distance is moot.
I’m not normally moved to
I’m not normally moved to post comments, but can’t help but throw my 2p worth in on this one….
I live in Wales and can’t help thinking this leaves too much room for uncertainty. What we’ve again got is the actual legislation (as previously and in e.g. England) containing no clear limits and then various statements having to be made (when people rightly ask the question) of what that might mean in practice, which are ‘interpretations’ and naturally vary. For example, is 10 miles “reasonable walking distance”? Is 15 miles OK? Is that as the crow flies or by road?
I’m all for sensibleness in terms of riding at the moment and have been trying to keep it that way (in my opinion). Arguably restricting people to relatively close limits to home (especially in more populated areas) actually just keeps people that bit more on top of each other.
I know there is a need for some sacrifice at the moment. However, cycling does a lot of people a lot of good. Not everyone can afford or has the option to buy indoor trainers. It does seem there has been a bit of a ‘singling out’ of cyclists over the past few months and I can’t help feeling that these new developments (particularly given the interpretability of them) will potentially continue to fuel that.
It’s not completely clear to
It’s not completely clear to me from the above if this relates only to situations where ‘exercise’ is the reason for leaving home at all.
I mean, if the reason you are leaving your house is that you are going to neccessary work that cannot be done from home, and the reason that you are cycling that journey is that your journey to work is ‘further than a reasonable walking distance from home’, is that ok because it is sperately covered under ‘Cycling to work, or for work, is a reasonable excuse to be outside (so long as going to work, or doing the work, is itself justifiable)’?
This is my plan tomorrow, I
This is my plan tomorrow, I will be taking a very scenic route though.
Same in Scotland, however I
Same in Scotland, however I’ve heard they regularly walk 500 miles.
And have been known to walk
And have been known to walk 500 more. For a necessary journey of course
Simply to be the man who
Simply to be the man who walked a thousand miles to fall doon at your door?
David9694 wrote:
I think you’ll find that’s not considered a reasonable excuse for leaving the house.
Awww come on, ‘ave an ‘art
Awww come on, ‘ave an ‘art Ossifer!
“…aims to relieve pressure
“…aims to relieve pressure on emergency services due to a rider having an accident or mechanical issue,…”
I’d love to see some actual figures to back up these nostrums. In all my years I have never been to A&E following anything to do with cycling. How high up the admissions list is it, and what measures have they already taken to mitigate all the higher factors?
If they are really that worried about cyclists clogging up the NHS then the logical thing would be to get more bikes on the road – every one is a other car less on the road to cause the injury.
I have once after being
I have once after being attached by a van driver whilst walking back to my bike after a cake stop.
We should ban all vans from the road to save injuries then. Actually that’s not a bad idea as with less traffic on the road, already poor driving standards have dropped further.
Save the NHS…ban vans.
Good grief, now I’m really
Good grief, now I’m really confused. I live in England 9 miles from the Welsh border. If I cycle 12 miles in that direction it’s hard to tell if I’m following “Government Guidance” or not.
Don’t go bringing your
Don’t go bringing your English germs into our country ?. I live about 16 miles from the border so it is just too far for me to escape the madness which is the Welsh Government, to justify their existence they have to take what already works and tweak it slightly so they can sit back and feel good about themselves having “improved” things.
Welsh boy wrote:
Steady on! Like the doc, I’m an exile living 7 miles on the ‘wrong’ side of the border and I always look forward to crossing it to ride in the country (and county) where I grew up.
This is a very disappointing statement by the Welsh government. I wonder why they have specifically made this statement aimed at cyclists, who apparently may need to walk home. FFS.
BTW a large proportion of the patients in the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital live in mid-Wales; and a number of staff too, I believe.
Good to see the Labour
Good to see the Labour government have their priorities in order.
Days after abandoning their testing target they have clamped down on cyclists.
My wife works in the NHS,
My wife works in the NHS, daily coming into contact with Covid patients without being issued with appropriate PPE. The Welsh Government allow that. I want to go out on my bike on quiet country roads away from people. The Welsh Government won’t allow that.
I can only walk about 2 miles
I can only walk about 2 miles before my flat feet start to hurt, and that’s without cleats. On the other hand I rode 100 miles the day before lockdown started. Glad I don’t live in Wales, the idea of doing the same 2 mile stretch of road for over an hour is not hugely appealing.
If you cyle within 10 mile
If you cyle within 10 mile radius of home it easy to cycle 70 or miles e.g 20miles *3.14 plus 20 miles to and from outer radius.
iturner2 wrote:
Not if you live in the middle of a city!!!
iturner2 wrote:
Problem is, for the lazy gelatinous oafs who come up with nonsense like “only cycle within walking distance of home”, walking distance is about two hundred yards. Anything more than that and they’ll jump in the car.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Exactly what I was thinking. When asked by some at work how far I ride I nearly always get “I’d struggle to drive that far”. It’s always in jest but to look at them it’s perfectly believeable.
Last year sitting on the couch doing nothing but eat and drink got you called a lazy fat bastard. This year the same person is a responsible adult.
Rule of Thumb, your (well
Rule of Thumb, your (well mine) thumb, the top bit, is about an inch wide.
Educated under the metric system, wish I’d known about the inch thing many, many years ago, only found out about it a few years back. Allows fro a good guestimate.
The metric system is a wonderful thing, dependable, universal, based in base 10, but some in “imperial” does make sense in easy human scales. Some of it’s quite mad though, the way it changes bases, even though some of them are easily divisible.
Yeah the metric system is
Yeah the metric system is only a fraction of the imperial one. Base of ten is the least wholly divisible of all.
It’s one and the same word in
It’s one and the same word in French!
I live in Wales, four miles
I live in Wales, four miles from the border with England, So I can ride across the border ride where I want then come back into Wales and be within walking distance of home? Ludicrous.
If we are talking about trying not to clog up the health service then how about drivers being told not to drive further than a reasonable walking distance from home in case of accident or breakdown? It’s drivers that put on average 450 people a day into hospital, however I do understand these are not normal times and the majority are being responsible.
Just irksome that there is one rule for one set of people (cyclists) but something different for everyone else.
I also live in Wales and I’m
I also live in Wales and I’m afraid I reject that guidance for every reason as total rubbish.
Firstly cycling is less hazardous than spending long periods on a couch doing nothing more strenuos than operating a zapper, a cyclist is just slightly less likely to receive a serious injury than playing table tennis, it is many times less hazardous than using a ladder at home, it is far far safer than taking a shower or bath. In other words cycling is one of the very safest things you could possibly occupy yourself with. Therefore they have they figures completely versa visa – contrarily to what those half baked idiots say, the longer you spend cycling the safer you will be.
This. Per hour, doing DIY,
This. Per hour, doing DIY, mowing the lawn, trimming the hedge, clearing the gutters, etc, all more likely than cycling to land you in A&E. Where is the objective justification for this knee-jerk decision?
This is the first time I’ve
This is the first time I’ve thought it a bad thing that Welsh Government has “gold plated” Westminster legislation. It’s frustrating for keen cyclists who are riding in a responsible, socially distanced way, but ultimately the fact that we normally choose to ride 30, 50, 100 miles or more for fun doesn’t mean it’s objectively reasonable exercise in the current circumstances. Lots of other people’s hobbies have also been curtailed, and frustrating as it is, the exercise exception is about ticking over and not going stir crazy, rather than keeping your normal training routine. It is also completely normal practice for legislation to contain general principles by reference to objective criteria, rather than set out prescriptive rules (eg in this case distances) which may not work in every case. I have already become more of a runner than cyclist during lockdown, and that looks set to continue. I feel bad for a certain TdF winner who I have regularly seen out on the roads around here recently though. More Zwifting for him I guess.
Technically your local grand
Technically your local grand tour winner is cycling to work. His work is cycling.
That’s allowed.
Seriously though, the new legislation is a complete joke. What evidence is it based on?
When most of Europe are releasing lockdowns gradually those morons in Cardiff Bay decide to clamp down on probably the least harmful form of exercise still available.
Roll on the 2021 elections.
Fair point about the maillot
Fair point about the maillot jaune. No, the guidance (the bits about cycling are just that, not legislation) probably isn’t evidence based, but I figure I can still have an ok ride while staying within a reasonable distance of home, so I can live with it. And I suspect they won’t be actively pulling over many solo cyclists early in the morning to enquire as to their route plans.
Fortunately I don’t live in
Fortunately I don’t live in Wales, but this is the sort of thing which, if introduced elsewhere, could convert me from active follower (to the letter) of the lockdown legislation to someone who does his own thing, within reason, and avoids being seen contravening the rules. I firmly believe that a key element in maintaining the public’s adherence to the lockdown rules, especially if they are going to last many months, is total rationality in what we are being asked to do. As soon as the rules are irrational, people are no longer going to respect them.
Well said quiff!
Well said quiff!
Many people are missing the principle that you can only leave home for essential reasons with an allowance of daily excercises for health and well-being. Sunbathing on my local Llandudno beach is low risk but clearly not a valid reason for leaving the house. Cycling beyond walking distance from home and for more than an hour would also be viewed as not essential for health reasons. Even an hour could be seen as more than necessary. Obviously it is sensible that any activity you do at this time should minimise risk but that’s not the reason for limiting cycling. It is all about minimising the time, distance from and frequency of leaving your home.,
I’m sure that the people ‘rejecting’ this requirement would have a different view if they were on commitees responsible for reducing the spread of this virus.
Finally, I think any increased animosity to cyclists is due to seeing us indulging in a recreational activity rather than just taking essential excercise (even if it can be the same thing).
The problem with that
The problem with that argument is that the Welsh Government are loosening restrictions on other journeys.
More shops are being permitted to open up as a ‘click & collect’ service. This will inevitably lead to more journeys outside the home.
If more journeys for non essential items can be tolerated why on earth do they need to clamp down in cycling?
The new legislation is an absolute joke.
sparkimp wrote:
Is it ‘clearly’ not a valid reason, though? Taking some time to rest in a natural setting can do wonders for mental health, and we need to protect that as much, if not more than, physical health at a stressful time for many.
But that’s the thing – it shouldn’t be. That should only be an instrumental consideration in the main aim of minimising the chances of you catching or passing on the virus. Spending however much time you like outside the home, doing whatever you like, should be irrelevant, so long as you can do so without spending significant time in proximity to others.
sparkimp wrote:
Since there is really no way for a stranger in the street to know how far from home you have cycled or what time and distance you have covered, nor even how much exercise is your norm, that can not be the objective reason for any animosity. The “indulgence” has to be assumed, driven by the pre-existing animosity they harbour.
However I do think you are on to something. Clearly cyclist do get pleasure from their exercise, and that must grate with a section of the population who think misery is the only cure.
Kind of like the “rave bbq”
Kind of like the “rave bbq” of the crew of the sub, how dare they be in any way happy. I mean they can’t go back to their homes and families, they should be glum when stuck with the rest of their household, in a very confined space, with whom they live cheek by jowl.
ktache wrote:
I think families could be the driving force behind the surge in bicycle sales. Remember that book by John Cleese “Families and how to survive them”? I haven’t read it, but I’m sure it has a chapter about cycling.
I didn’t get the furore over
I didn’t get the furore over that either. Surely for the purposes of “stay at home” the entire crew qualify as a single household?
It is for these reasons that
It is for these reasons that I am wearing my Rapha Riding Trousers (bought when even the sale was having a sale) and a touring style top from Decathlon.
Now is not the time to flaunt.
1. Why do we use the word
1. Why do we use the word lock down? It has been no such thing. Restriction yes. Lock down. Nope.
I just don’t understand, or sympathise with those objecting. Yes a daft rule for many people but for some idiots its needed and we can’t have one rule some people and another for others. So many selfish gits are pushing the limits that lines have to be drawn. If we had ALL done exactly as was needed from day one restrictions would be less onerous. Some people can easily do huge mile ages seeing no one. I bet I could rack up 100 and see no more than a handful out of cars. Some people don’t have the space to do that . I can leave my house a hundred times a day and only my wife would know. No one else can see me walk into the woods. Some people seem to think that they should be trying to maintain normal life. Nope , you can’t. Why not respect the views of the majority rather than me first. Stop picking holes in things, contribute not take, do your bit and not just in one way. Cycling is approved for health. Not in readiness for the possible season ahead. Be nice not nasty.
Because lockdown is the
Because lockdown is the general term.
Nothing has changed in England regarding restrictions. The risk from cycling any distance is minimal. As katche pointed out you could have an accident within a mile of your home and need a &e.
As long as a cyclist is self sufficient for their journey, I don’t see distance makes much odds .
It’s worth remembering that I
It’s worth remembering that I’m not permitted to get in my car and drive unless I have a specific, defined, pragmatic reason and destination; but I can get on my bike and go for a ride just because I want to.
Doctor Darabuka wrote:
No. You can get on your bike for the same reasons as you can drive your car, +1; exercise.
I think we’re both right(ish)
I think we’re both right(ish). My point is that, on this rare occassion, cyclists are in a better position than motorists. Those who complain about the Welsh Government constraints should put them into context by comparing them with the constraints others face.
Maybe if there were
Maybe if there were legitimate scientific reasons to restrict cyclists in this way, people could understand it. England, which has seen the largest number of cases by far, see no reason to clamp down on those who exercise safely and responsibly, like the Welsh Government seek to do.
And any legislation that uses vague terms of ‘rules of thumb’ instead of talking in specifics, is obviously designed not to help the public but to catch them out.
There’s no science. Just the
There’s no science. Just the same attitude as ‘keep out of our village’. The people coming up with these rules are same people that believe phones can cause fires at petrol stations and rub potatoes on warts. Drown witches if they weigh the same as a duck.
But most garages still have
But most garages still have signs up saying don’t use your mobile on the forecourt…
The defined pragmatic reason
The defined pragmatic reason for going for a bike ride is exercise. Exercise is crucial to maintain good health. Pre-existing poor health, including obesity, is the main risk factor for death from Covid 19. You’re not exercising while driving a car!
I wholeheartedly agree. My
I wholeheartedly agree. My comment wasn’t a plea for more driving, it’s a request that rather than moaning that 100 mile rides are discouraged, we appreciate and enjoy that the freedom we have and see the restrictions on cycling in the context of the restrictions others face.
One of these activities is
One of these activities is for exercise (permitted) the other is not
Take a map and draw a circle
Take a map and draw a circle 10 miles in radius from where you live. That’s around 314 sq miles if I remember my geometry. For a few more weeks, are there really not enough roads to keep you happy for an hour or so?
Almost half of it is sea
Almost half of it is sea where I am, and lots more is city. Surely the spirit of this is for us not to encounter anyone else nor need the NHS (though A&E is historically clear right now). For me, that’s out into the countryside and a 10 mile radius is fairly restrictive. Though I will try.
Little Englanders are alive
Little Englanders are alive and well I see…… in Wales!
The lockdown is over.
The lockdown is over.
Little by little the lockdown is being flouted – people are now going for a drive, white vans are all over the roads, businesses are looking into how they can reopen. B&Q have started a rush that every garden centre will follow. Before we know it places will be awash with the very people we are trying to protect – pensioners.
Never did understand why solitary pastimes such as walking or sitting in a park was disallowed or why it wasn’t possible to social distance on a golf course. But it’s ok to wander around a supermarket with lines and arrows that many ignore clutching a trolley thats been touched by hundreds.
The NHS hasn’t been over loaded – is this because of sufficient measures or becuase it was an overreaction? Doesn’t really matter but it’s about time they woke up to the consequences of keeping empty wards whilst other serious cases are put on hold.
Furlough is a too generous joke. There’s no checks that companies who could have staff working from home do so. I can work from home yet we have all been furloughed to save our company money. Were it a less generous offer they would have tried to adapt to keep money coming in – instead they took the offer to not bother.
It would have been so much better to keep the economy going by enforcing social distancing where possible, maintaining normality where possible and offering support to those really needed it. Instead they chose wholescale shutdown which clearly isn’t sustainable and encouraged compliance by public shaming and threats.
Except B&Q could always open,
Except B&Q could always open, they just decided it was too much hassle.
Garden centres are not listed in part 3 of schedule 2 of the regs, so they won’t be opening.
My highstreet hardware shop
My highstreet hardware shop opened with restictions all through.
B&Q decidded to close, now it opened and there are massive queues. We should get proper scared when we get massive Bees.
If that is a current photo,
If that is a current photo, then that is farcical.
They only opened yesterday.
They only opened yesterday.
They weren’t queueing like that in the before times.
That photo shows those people
That photo shows those people are at a much higher risk than any cyclist doing 200k.
It’s a bit confusing because
It’s a bit confusing because it’s GUIDANCE on how to interpret the REGULATIONS.
Regulation = law. Guidance = a reasonable interpretation of that law, a block of information to allow you to obey the law. The fundamental principle is that people should stay at home as much as possible. However it then acknowledges that people will of course have to leave the house for essential reasons so it defines those in Para 2. (actually quite a long list including things like visiting a cemetary to pay respects to the deceased…)
The term “reasonable” is important. In law, it means “what the general population would consider OK” and it’s an objective term. It removes it from the other legal term of “subjective” which is what YOU consider is OK. This is where we get onto shaky ground because, as cyclists, I’m guessing most people on this forum are capable of 40+ miles quite happily, indeed to many that would be seen as a normal and reasonable ride. However, to the general public (most of whom cannot grasp the concept of riding bikes in the first place and look at any distance of more than a mile as a reason to get the car out), it is not OK. So in court, you’d be like “Yeah, 40 miles, no worries, knock that out in 2.5hrs, home in time for tea” while the general public would be like “40 miles?!! OMG, that’s not possible, that’s a week long cycle tour, you irresponsible twat”.
There’s enough leeway there to say about “significant” distance from home and “reasonable” walking distance. Again though, you come up against “reasonable”. Most people can’t conceive of walking for more than a few minutes. We saw in the anti-cyclist stuff around the Peak District village of Bradwell that the local shouty NIMBY said that people wearing Sheffield jerseys were 12 miles from Sheffield and he (personally) considered this unreasonable and a significant distance. I don’t – my commute is 15 miles! Subjectively, I consider 12 miles absolutely fine. Objectively, it clearly isn’t.
The answer, which I had to use in another Peak District village when accosted by a local asking where I’d come from, is to just name the nearest town. Only way that would fall down is if a police officer asked for ID (which I do carry in case I’m knocked off and someone needs to identify me and contact relatives). However you’re under no obligation to produce that for a random stranger.
I do think though that people should really be looking to obey (so far as reasonably possible) the lockdown because the alternatives are:
lockdown goes on interminably
the lockdown requirements finally go the way of Spain when they see that people can’t obey “reasonable” requests
there’s even more anti-cyclist feeling and the press will use extended lockdown to blame cyclists for going on long rides.
But this is a misuse and
But this is a misuse and abuse of the legal concept of ‘reasonable’.
Firstly, this would typically be used to assess whether you could ‘reasonably’ have foreseen some particular outcome of an action – e.g. “if I drove my car down a residential street at 70mph I could reasonably foresee that I might knock someone over and kill them” – not simply whether you would consider it ‘reasonable’ to undertake an act yourself.
Secondly, it assumes at least a basic grasp of the relevant facts of the situation. So if you were trying to assess whether it was reasonable for someone to cycle 40 miles, the test should be “given that this person is fit enough to cycle 40 miles without it being physically challenging, and has the mechanical knowhow to fix any issues that might occur with their bike [etc.] is it reasonable for them to cycle 40 miles?”.
If
then this is clearly not a valid situation in which to apply a test of ‘reasonableness’.
mdavidford wrote:
Oh I know! I absolutely agree with everything you’ve written – it’s an extremely shaky legal area. Sadly however, the media rarely bothers itself with minor things like facts and won’t hesitate to shame people who are perceived to be “unreasonable”.
That’s already happened to an extent, albeit they had to “fake” the photos (via use of telescopic lenses and specific vantage points) to get pics of those “disgraceful scofflaw cyclists” riding 400 abreast up Box Hill and in groups numbering several million around Regents Park. 😉
Not sure how you work out
Not sure how you work out that reasonable is an objective term. It is a judgement based on the time, background, circumstances, technology, individual.
Is it reasonable that I could cycle up ventoux – no. It is reasonable that Thomas could a few times in a row – yes.
hirsute wrote:
In legal speak, it is a definitive term – a generic and relative one and applies to that which is appropriate for a particular situation. In the law of Negligence, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances. (the example above about speeding down a residential street is a good one).
It’s why you have the really shit defintion of careless/dangerous driving of “below reasonable standard” and “far below reasonabe standard”. I never said it was any good, I just said it was a legal defintiion!
All exersise within a 2km
All exersise within a 2km radius of home here in Ireland. Had 3 weeks of it now. The main problem with it is that even in very rural places like here you end up with everyone out in the same area. It’s lunacy around towns. If you could go a bit farther you’d be away from people. A 10 mile radius would be luxury.
New guidance – an accident a
New guidance – an accident a long way from home could disrupt dance practice.
yes but walking distance to
yes but walking distance to us is very different to non cyclists. I once walked up my road to my local shop, at the same time, my 4by4 driving neighbour waddled out, climbed up into said vehicle, drove downthe same road, parked and went in the shop next door. We exited at the same time, and she had only just parked up by the time i got to my driveway. Talking a three minute walk here. So she’s afraid of walking 0.3 miles, whereas i once walked 12 miles in three hours and felt fine afterwards. So a walking distance for me is potentially up to 30 miles, as thats what, 4 miles an hour, a good 8 hours walk. So i can go anywhere i like, as long as its not outside 30 miles from my house. Coolio! The stupid part is interpretation. The max i will actually go is 15 miles from my house, a good hour away, then i’ll head back home. The more you push people NOT to do something, the more they will try to do it, or beat it. A bit like if you made someone a prisoner, they would try to escape. Or told a slave to work on the plantation. Better bet is treat us all like people, not a group, as long we’re sensible and dont mix with others or go round in a group right beside eachother, something im yet to see on the roads during recent times, i see no issue with cycling as far as you want.
I always do the school run by
I always do the school run by bike or on foot. And I am always shocked when I see my neighbors drop / collect their kids in the car. It’s like 500 meters. So I also don’t understand what ‘walking distance’ means. It’s so subjective that it’s meaningless.
+1 on the short journeys in
+1 on the short journeys in favourable conditions (weather, terrain, time of day) done by petrol car.
Only thing to add is that cars parked on the pavements don’t help on this.
Seeing it has long been known
Seeing it has long been known that cycling reduces the strain on the NHS, this new guidance only shows the complete lack of ignorance about what the Welsh Government are ruling on.
This is aside from the lack of context any such ‘guidance’ has. I can cycle 5 miles in one direction and be 15 miles from an A+E I can cycle 15 miles in another direction and be only 5 miles from an A+E.
This is aside from the point that if you need NHS because of something that happens when you are out, then you very unlikely to be walking anywhere, particularly not home.
As it happens if I cycle locally, I struggle to avoid other people because the cyclepath/footpath opposite house is very busy with walkers, joggers, skateboarders, dogs etc, but head away from home and suddenly no-one to be seen. I will see more wild horses than people or cars if on road.
Great article, and so
Great article, and so prescient. Published in 2017 yet prefigured the slogan of 2020:
“There is a credible argument that encouraging bike use to Dutch or Danish levels could do more than perhaps any other single intervention to[b] save the NHS[/b]”
North Wales police out in
North Wales police out in force near Loggerheads, Mold checking on cyclists and talking down to them in the usual way. Pity they aren’t always this keen.
Os credwch fod y Rheol hon yn
Os credwch fod y Rheol hon yn ddrwg, mae’n debyg na chaniateir imi gerdded mwy na phum milltir i ddod o hyd i ddafad i siag!
I ran this through google
I ran this through google translator. Hmmm…
I presume you are Welsh and that would excuse the casual rasist trope. Self deprecation is a very acceptable form of comedy.
What is confusing is how far
What is confusing is how far are you allowed to cycle?
They mention an interpretation of a ‘reasonable walking distance’ from home being 10 miles. Now does that mean 10 miles as the crow flies or 10 miles actual distance travelled? And if it’s 10miles travelled does that mean that you are actually only allowed to cycle 5 miles out and 5 miles back?
And how long are you allowed to exercise for? People keep mentioning that you are only allowed out for an hours exercise but where is that in the laws/guidelines?
Iy would be so much simpler if they wrote the law down so that it isn’t open to interpretation. Surely it would have made sense to state that you can only exercise for no more than an hour and be within 5 miles radius of your home (or similar time/distance restrictions). That would have made it so much clearer and everyone would know exactly what they are allowed to do!
It’s all very confusing still!!
Quote:
Seems pretty clear to me – their concern is whether you would be able to walk home if necessary, so you can cycle as far as you want, as long as you do so within the radius of a ‘reasonable walking distance’ from your home.
What’s less clear is what a ‘reasonable walking distance’ means. The 10 miles thing appears to be made up / chinese whispers, and the legislation & guidance don’t specify what that distance should be.
In theory, that seems a fairly sensible stance, in that what’s a ‘reasonable walking distance’ for me may not be the same as what is for you, so specifying a set distance wouldn’t make sense.
In practice, because they haven’t explained this, there’s going to be a lot of people thinking “I can’t possibly envisage walking further than a mile, so all these cyclists are being irresponsible travelling further than that from home”. Most worryingly, that may include some of the police officers tasked with enforcing the rules.
What it needs is some guidance to the guidance…
“…their concern is whether
“…their concern is whether you would be able to walk home if necessary,…”
To which I would say, yes, but what about the plant pots?! Read on…
I am heartily sick of all these meddlers who imagine up some risk and then hedge us about with mitigations. I have never, ever had to walk home. Not once. Ever. I can only suppose these scenarios are dreampt up by people who once rode a bike, got to the end of the street and had to walk back because the chain fell off – terminal.
I’m not going to say it [i]can’t[/i] happen, but you can’t regulate life on the basis of avoiding all and every risk; there is risk in just sitting at home waiting for a heart attack.
So for all those H&S ‘rule makers’ who love nothing better than an imagined risk against which they can concoct a rule of prevention, here is a good source of actual quantified risks from just staying home. I kid you not, plant pots is in 2nd place, you have been warned:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1563988/Gardening-lands-87000-a-year-in-hospital.html
Can’t read that. It wants me
Can’t read that. It wants me to subscribe. To the Telegraph of all things.
I don’t disagree. I wouldn’t say their stance is necessarily correct – just that I think it’s clearer and more flexible than has been suggested.
As I say it doesn’t go far enough in explaining itself, and that’s the fundamental problem with all the guidance that’s come out so far – it’s fixated on the idea that you need to treat the public like children by giving them simple black-and-white rules to follow, and not worry their pretty little heads with giving an explanation how and why you arrived at them, or having a grown-up conversation about the management of risk.
And then of course people start pointing out the flaws in the simple rules, so you have to keep adding on addendums, so that the supposed simple message gets ever more muddied and confused anyway, and you end up worse off than if you’d just engaged fully with the subject in the first place.
For all you Telegraphophobes,
For all you Telegraphophobes, here is the source;
https://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail/?id=80
Skimmed through it again – 115,000 people just plain fall over in their garden requiring hospital treatment. It wouldn’t have happened if they were clinging on to their bike for support!
Well 115,000 people have a
Well 115,000 people have a fall, but I don’t think they’re just dropping to the ground out of nowhere – more likely leaning too far off a ladder while clearing gutters, children climbing trees and falling out of them, tripping down steps in the garden, etc., etc.
Damn you, you made me read
Damn you, you made me read some Telegraph, I get it free from Waitrose for mud catching and bike cleanning, but try to not look at the words.
Last walk home I remember, 4-5years back, old job, noticed rear wheel a little loose when getting it out, tightened it up a bit, wish I’d swapped bikes, but group meeting so didn’t want to be late. About 2/3 of the way in rear hub rips itself apart, Shimano’s newish big pipe and more dodgy freehub. Pushed bike up hill to work, very late and after a day at work walked all the way home, grrr. Luckily I had the 14mm hex at home (new dodgy freehubs) and spare internals as the cone didn’t exist any more. I should have notice, my fault, but it does happen. It could have happened the day before of course. Probably stiffer, no doubt lighter but I did prefer the old narrower shimano spindles and the near bomb proof freehubs.