Police have issued warnings to ‘large groups’ of cyclists riding in the Cotswolds.
Gloucestershire Police say the cyclists were in breach of coronavirus regulations when they were pulled over yesterday,
The riders admitted they were not from the household and were issued with a warning.
The Cotswolds Police team tweeted shortly before 2pm: “We have stopped cyclists today in the North Cotswolds today for riding in large groups.
“Current Covid regulations state exercise must only be done with one person from another household.
“Asked if they were family groups? They said they weren’t. Warnings given.”
Gloucestershire Live report that the force did not specify how many people were riding together, nor where exactly they were pulled over.
Although lockdown has gradually started to lift, the rules on exercising have not yet changed.
The government’s website states: “You can leave your home to exercise or to visit a public outdoor place for outdoor recreation, such as a coffee on a bench or a picnic in a park.
“This can be on your own, with one other person when in a public outdoor place, or with your household or support bubble.
“You should minimise the time you spend outside your home, and you should not travel outside your local area.
“Stay two metres apart from anyone not in your household or support bubble and follow the guidance on how to stop the spread of coronavirus at all times.”
From March 29 the rule will change to: “Outdoor sports facilities such as tennis and basketball courts, and open-air swimming pools, will also be allowed to reopen, and people will be able to take part in formally organised outdoor sports.”
> The ‘Roadmap out of lockdown’ – what does it mean for cycling?
It advises that it will not be until May 17 at the earliest that recreational group and club riding in any numbers will be able to resume; although as outlined in British Cycling’s ‘The Way Forward’ framework, British Cycling-affiliated club rides for up to 15 people can be organised on highways, trails or tracks from March 29.
76 thoughts on “Police issue warning to ‘large group’ of cyclists”
So many motorcyclists with
So many motorcyclists with essential journeys in Hampshire today.
Exercise innit.
Exercise innit.
So many motorcyclists with
So many motorcyclists with essential journeys in Hampshire today
Along with people who suspiciously identify on here with their motorised vehicles.
The Rule of Six is the second
The Rule of Six is the second part of the first step of the plan, which will come into force on Mar 29.
It will mean that family and friends can reunite in groups of no more than six outdoors
sounds like groups of 6 from 29th March, pending British cycling advice if you are riding for an affiliated club, of if it’s just you and five friends interpret that rule as you see fit.
I’m not sure the rule of 6 is
I’m not sure the rule of 6 is in the new rules. Our local club is going to run rides after March 29 with 15 following British Cycling guidance
We’re keeping our group rides
We’re keeping our group rides to six from the 29th, despite what BC say. Honestly I don’t tend to enjoy leading rides that are more than about ten people anyway. 8 is the sweet spot for me. I think it’s too soon now, and it’ll still be too soon at the end of the month to have groups larger than 6.
How is 15 people riding in a tight pack supposed to be safer than 6 socially distanced people walking in a group? Sure the person at the front of the riders will be fine, but assuming the group rotates I’m not convinced being right behind too people talking fairly loudly on a club ride is particularly risk free, certainly when you’re doing it for 3-4 hours. So like I say, we’ll be sticking to six. I’m inclined to let the cap off once people are allowed in cinemas, or something like that.
The rule of 6 seems entirely
The rule of 6 seems entirely arbitary.
I suppose they had to pick some number.
Rule of six is in the new
Rule of six is in the new rules from 29th March
Despite being a cyclist who
Despite being a cyclist who enjoys riding with friends myself, I have to admit that I’ve been relieved that through the COVID-19 restrictions we’ve not had to negotiate the groups of 20+ cyclists on roads which make overtaking (safely) all but impossible. I’m really not looking forward to those large group rides starting again and impeding the timely progress of other road users purely so a group can have a jolly.
Ah. The old “I’m a cyclist
Ah. The old “I’m a cyclist myself” line. You must be some cyclist if wanting to overtake a group of 20 is a frequent thing.
Oddly, despite being a motorist myself, I have to admit that I’ve been relieved that through the COVID-19 restrictions we’ve not had to negotiate the groups of 20+ cars on roads which make overtaking (safely) all but impossible. I’m really not looking forward to those large group drives starting again and impeding the timely progress of other road users purely so a group can pollute the atmosphere, avoid active travel, risk the lives of those who aren’t surrounded by metal or who have breathing issues, and not slum it with the pox-ridden proles on the bus.
[usual disclaimer applies for those who need to use cars due to disability / shielding / genuine lack of alternative]
TheBillder wrote:
I’m stealing that.
I very much doubt there are
I very much doubt there are so many large groups in any part of the UK (cycling still isn’t that popular here) that you encounter multiple large groups in one journey. And if you can’t overtake safely then you shouldn’t try to overtake at all!
But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a blindly prejudiced rant, which wouldn’t look out of place in the Daily Mail. There’s a whiff of the banned shit-stirrer ‘Socrati’ about your comments on here.
As for large groups of road users, you obviously don’t have to travel anywhere near schools at the start or end of the day – loads of parents (many in SUVs) arriving at the same time, playing havoc with the people who have jobs to do, parking on pavements and zig-zags just so their precious darlings avoid walking further than is necessary to get to their classrooms.
Regarding group rides, British Cycling has said this week:
“From 29 March, under the Government’s roadmap formally organised outdoor sport and physical activity in England is able to restart and will not be subject to the ‘Rule of Six’ gatherings limit. As a result of this, British Cycling is pleased to say that at this stage our affiliated club and recreation programme rides, which adhere to our Covid-secure guidance, will be able to take place in groups of up to 15 people.
“Please note that informal group rides (i.e. groups of friends meeting up to ride together) must follow the Rule of Six, as this falls outside of the Government’s definition of formally organised outdoor sport and physical activity”.
Cycling UK have also updated their Coronavirus Q&A page at https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/coronavirus-qa-cycling-guidance
The big groups of riders
The big groups of riders really are out there; I’ve seen them myself. It’s not cycling-specific though; some minority of riders are arseholes just like a minority of car-drivers, a minority of people in supermarket queues, a minority of people waiting outside the school gates, and so on.
Every weekend, my local hipster cafe has a crowd of riders wearing jerseys from the nearest big-city club, definitely not standing 2m apart; it seems unlikely that they’re all one household. At the same time there are lots of other hikers and tourists with questionable spacing (or questionable importance for their journey).
Personally, I’d rather ride alone on quieter trails, so the lockdown didn’t affect me much – but there I saw several new/returning riders who obviously chose somewhere quiet to get into cycling with a cheeky little solo ride up the moors. That’s really heartwarming, and it’s not posing much Covid-19 risk, so good for them, I guess…
Simon E wrote:
I did wonder – his unbelievable statement over on the road rage thread that recreational and leisure cyclists should stay off the roads in case they hold cars up certainly had a whiff of the late unlamented.
File that under things that
File that under things that never happened
If it’s not safe to overtake
If it’s not safe to overtake them then don’t. You’ll still get to your destination in comfort and safety a lot more quickly than walking. You will also do less damage to the environment and to the roads and save fuel, tyre wear and brake wear. Just relax and enjoy the drive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RSKUMlvo1M
what about here? should i have still waited?
[the three at the end]
how to deal with cyclists
anyone want to help me out- is there anything i could have done better here? it would have been way easier if they were three abreast. single file made it harder to overtake safely. or should i have still waited behind until the turn off?
Gary’s bike channel wrote:
My first thought is that you’ll get a crooked neck driving like that, or is that just the camera?
I think your video shows how
I think your video shows how much drivers can exaggerate in their minds the time “lost” waiting to overtake. You overtake the first cyclist at 19:31 and you make the left turn at 20:05 on your dashcam clock. 35 seconds is absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of a journey. If you knew you were turning left, you probably shouldn’t have overtaken the first cyclist, although he seems to be going slower than the others.
I can’t work out if these three are together. They may well not be (shouldn’t have been if they were complying with restrictions!) so that could be one reason for not cycling abreast. The other could well be that, although it’s true that it’s easier to overtake people cycling abreast, many drivers seem to get annoyed with it and you risk being the victim of a close pass as a result.
I’m not sure you could have
I’m not sure you could have done anything better. I think most cyclists leave gaps so that overtaking cars can slot in to the gap. Personally I would have waited behind but I always leave plenty of time for the journey so I don’t get stressed. As for the aggressive van behind I usually slow down until they back off or overtake me. I usually catch them up at the next junction, roundabout or lorry.
Gary’s bike channel wrote:
The van hassling you is not a reason to do an overtake you are not comfortable with. But nothing you did was dangerous as you slotted into a gap and presumably indicated when you turned later, giving the cyclist behind plenty of warning, and enough time elapsed that had oncoming traffic been different you could have overtaken all the bikes. Had I been the cyclist behind I might have felt mildly inconvenienced if I’d had to slow for you to turn, but certainly not in danger. You leave plenty of space, so no cyclist would feel in danger from you.
We’re allowed legitimate club
We’re allowed legitimate club rides of up to 15 riders from the 12th March.
SC recommend capping at 9.
Club rides have already started again for us, North of the border.
Do you still need to distance
Do you still need to distance during the ride, and do you have to stay within a single level 4 area? For me, these are still issues that make club rides difficult.
TheBillder wrote:
In line with the guidence for the oldest participant. If SD cannot be adhered to, then it’s in accordance with the CoVid Coordinator Risk Assessment.
Passing through other T4 is allowed for recreational, but not for group
Is any reference to tiers
Is any reference to tiers still valid? Isn’t everything now ‘national restrictions’?
muhasib wrote:
Not according to Scottish Cycling.
Also, ‘national restrictions’ have kinda depended on what nation your are in, as all 4 UK members have their own rules, although ‘national’ seems to be based on England only as far as the press go.
In England at least, the
In England at least, the ‘national restrictions’ basically consisted of putting everywhere in to Tier 4 (rather than having a new, separate lockdown).
In theory, that could leave it open to some areas moving down tiers at different times, but politically the goverment would probably be very reluctant to do that, as it would undermine the whole ‘irreversible roadmap’ rhetoric.
There is no way out of 2m
There is no way out of the 2m physical distancing rule in mainland Scotland Club group rides at the moment.
Scottish Tiers are still with us, just that all of mainland Scotland is in Tier 4 at the moment
There is a Q&A for clubs being run by Scottish Cycling Monday evening in which I will test my knowledge.
Oldfatgit wrote:
Do you mean March 29th?
British Cycling-affiliated club rides for up to 15 people can be organised on highways, trails or tracks from March 29.
https://whencanwerideagain.com/
996ducati wrote:
Do you mean March 29th?
British Cycling-affiliated club rides for up to 15 people can be organised on highways, trails or tracks from March 29.
https://whencanwerideagain.com/— Oldfatgit
No, that link is not applicable to Scotland. It even says England only at the bottom,
If you go to the BC Covid page you will see links to Scottish (and Welsh) cyclng guidance.
Devolution has been with us since the last century.
Thank you for clarifying it’s
Thank you for clarifying it’s Scotland only, saves confusion.
I won’t comment on the sarcasm
Have a lovely day
996ducati wrote:
You too, no slight intended.
Wasn’t there some guy here
Wasn’t there some guy here who used to say that riding in club rides of more than six should be outlawed at all times anyway?
Have to say I do find large groups of cyclists pretty annoying on smaller country lanes as they tend to spill out right across the road and just assume no one is coming either behind them or in the opposite direction… and yes I was riding a bike not driving a car before anyone pretends otherwise!
If a group ride spread out
If a group ride spread out into smaller groupings of six, would that help?
grOg wrote:
Depends where they are on the road – really it’s less about the sheer numbers than their positioning and awareness of the environment.
For example, if I’m riding in the opposite direction I’ve noticed groups tend to be self-absorbed and not notice my presence, which means I’ve had to shout on small country lanes to avoid a collision. If I’m riding behind a group, again they will tend to not notice other cyclists approaching from behind making it impossible to pass without shouting. And if you shout from behind you can make people jump – luckily I have a really loud freewheel so that does the job most of the time, but even still people sometimes don’t react to (ignore?) it.
One of the worst things about
One of the worst things about the pandemic is it’s turned me into a judgemental wa****. I’ve seen tons of groups out over the last few weeks and find myself feeling a little disappointed each time I do.
I just keep thinking as cyclists we’ve been so lucky to have so few restrictions on riding (in England) even in the worst of the lockdown so what will a few more weeks hurt?
I think I need to relax and just enjoy my own riding.
They should have said they
They should have said they were on a vigil, apparently the virus doesn’t spread if you gather for noble reasons so the law shouldn’t apply.
From recent events, claiming
From recent events, claiming that would result in you being tackled to the floor, cuffed and slapped with a fine.
HoarseMann wrote:
Nah, they only do that to women protesting against….er, violence against women. But they were forced to do it and it was for the women’s own safety.
yes the local hospital had
yes the local hospital had trouble handling the injured. Oh wait. There where 0 injuries (apart from feelings)
nicmason wrote:
Oh really Nic, yet again.
We were talking about cuffs and fines. there have been several arrests using physical force during a peaceful vigil, and subsequently a peaceful protest. If the best you can say under these circumstances is “but no one ended up in hospital” then your bar for police behaviour is low indeed.
my point stands . No one was
my point stands . No one was injured. the hospital ref was a joke.
As I understand the police moved in when speeches started from the bandstand casuing crowding and asked peope to move. They didnt so they where moved.
nicmason wrote:
Your point is irrelevant. We were talking about women forcibly cuffed and fined for peacefully protesting violence against women. The police (the majority male, and mob-handed) responded with violence. Even you can’t have failed to see images of women with more than one male police officer on top of them.
To repeat slightly differently, regardless of the “justification”, peaceful protesters, the vast majority women, were assaulted by men (the presence of uniform doesn’t make it ok) for protesting against assault.
That was the point at hand. Many, probably most, abused women don’t attend hospital. That doesn’t mean there is no problem.
They weren’t assaulted they
They weren’t assaulted they where arrested in the usual non violent manner the police use for these things. Pretty much the same as carting off XR protestors last year.
And Im sure if there had been any injuries at all the press would have been all over it like a rash.
nicmason wrote:
Wrong. The difference between what the officers did and common assault in term of outcome was nothing. As I said uniform does not justify force.
You keep talking about hospitals and injury. I never said injuries were reported – injury is not required for assault to be assault.
So what was the justification of the forceful police break up of a peaceful, socially distanced protest by individuals? were they inconveniencing anyone? no. Were they otherwise breaking the law? No. Were they preventing people from going about their lawful business? No.
So whence the necessity of the use of force? Again, men using force to disperse a crowd of peaceful women who were guilty only of protesting about men using force against women.
Jesus, that this has to be spelled out reflects abysmally on our society, and underlines exactly the misogyny that tolerates the staggering disparity in freedoms between men and women.
its got nothing to do with
its got nothing to do with men and women. Its related to law and order.
some of the police where women as is the head of the met and the home secretary
the organisers went to court and lost.
So you think law should only apply when you’re good with it. Cant see that being a problem at all.
nicmason wrote:
TBH I’m still not convinced that our Home Secretary is even human…
nicmason wrote:
It’s everything to do with misogyny
Look at this picture. What was this young woman actually doing to be assaulted in this way by two men who individually are much stronger and heavier than her?
Or not doing what she was told whilst in possession of an offensive candle….
No Nic, this cannot be described as anything else than assault and physical violence, and there is no justification other than she didn’t so what she was told.
I think your describing being
I think your describing being arrested. they arent arresting her because shes a woman with a candle they are arresting her because what shes doing is currently(rightly or wrongly) against the law.
Personally I would have hoped the police had let that vigil go but somewhere between Cressida Dick and Patel the decision didnt go that way.
if you want to change that get out and vote.
nicmason wrote:
The arrest was incidental. The method was violent asault
I’m glad to see that you agree that no harm was done by the protest. Therefore no arrest was necessary, and so use of force was indefensible. That is exactly the point. It’s not as if the police needed to make the decisions they did.
To fob off legitimate criticism of police brutality with “put a cross on a bit of paper every 4 years” is laughable. Change is what these women were after, and peaceful protest is a legitimate strategy. In this case the police forcefully dispersed a peaceful protest which was not causing any issue. At risk of labouring the irony, men quelled women’s dissent against violence, by use of violence against those women.
It seems Nic, that at heart you know this to be correct. You accept that the vigil was peaceful and didn’t need to be stopped, and so any use of force was by definition a disproportionate response.
That the Commissioner, HS and some officers are female is irrelevant – the violence was perpetrated by men on women, in front of the world’s press. At best this was a gross miscalculation. At worst a calculated show of force to quell dissent against, at risk of repetition, male violence towards women.
In no way do the police come out of this looking good. Hence my OP
Have a great day Nic
I notice anthing you dont
I notice anthing you dont like you dismiss as irrelevant. You want to get out a little .
Go to a country where the police would have been in there with batons, pepper spray water cannon etc. We are extremely lucky to have the police force we do
people like you are actually responsible for damaging policing in this country with your constant exaggeration of events.
nicmason wrote:
No, I dismiss anything that’s irrelevant as irrelevant.
Again, irrelevant – to be more specific you are indulging in whataboutery.
Legitimate criticism of the police does not damage policing. Police brutality damages policing, as does playing down events and refusing to accept accountability.
If I were to resort to lazy finger pointing I might say that people like you would rather Stephen Lawrence had remained another forgotten victim, and the Hillsborough coals remained unraked. But that would not be fair…. I hope.
As I said Nic, have a great day. I’ll not be responding further on this one
“No, I dismiss anything that
“No, I dismiss anything that’s irrelevant as irrelevant. ” LOL
For a contrast between A&S
For a contrast between A&S and Met police have a look at this: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/gallery/sarah-everard-stark-contrast-between-5168285
hawkinspeter wrote:
Wow, thanks for the link HP
They should have said they
They should have said they were cycling together for safety. For many of us of a male persuasion, cycling on the road with constant awareness of unprovoked attack and often a poor response from authorities to our concerns for safety must be the closest (though not even in the same ballpark) we get to understanding what the Sarah Everard protests are about.
True enough, although those
True enough, although those of us of a male persuasion should remember that whether on or off the bike we are twice as likely as women to be killed unlawfully, and four times as likely to be killed unlawfully by a stranger.
None of which is about cycling or makes violence against women remotely acceptable, so I’ll get off my high horse (and cycle carefully past it).
Barnards Castle sounds like a
Barnards Castle sounds like a better excuse to me.
They should have all got off
They should have all got off their bikes and taken the knee.. the coppers would have scarpered quick smart.
Has anyone else got the “anti
Has anyone else got the “anti cycling” vibe from the comments sections on road.cc in the last few months or is it just me?
Zjtm231 wrote:
There does seem to have been two or three posters that are pushing that agenda. We should be agreeing on the cycling and disagreeing on the helmets, disc brakes, tubeless etc.
Zjtm231 wrote:
Definitely, despite the apparent removal of two of the worst offenders there are still one or two egregious trolls using the well-worn “I’m a keen cyclist myself” trope to push their obvious anti-bike agenda.
Do you mean user
Do you mean user “blackcab4ever”
/s
You sound like the dim bulbs
You sound like the dim bulbs on lefty sites like the Guardian, that want anyone with a dissenting opinion banned for ‘trolling’.. only echo chamber comments allowed.
grOg wrote:
Dissenting opinions and deliberately attempting to cause disruption to discussion and offence by throwing in moronic comments are two different things; your comments are almost always a textbook example of the latter,
Yes, it feels distinctly like
Yes, it feels distinctly like it’s gone soft. It seems strange to want so much to be on the wrong side of history, pushing for something that offers no future, the bigger it gets the more it disappears up its own exhaust pipe.
It is not hard to understand
Surely It is not hard to understand for the entitled gents. The rules still apply, just need to hold out on comparing bikes for a few more weeks !
But of course let’s reference some other stuff that matters to try and contextualise why breaking the law on this occasion was less naughty. Ah Mondays
Ihatecheese wrote:
You’re just going to assume they’re lying then? I don’t expect the police will be pulling over car drivers and asking them if they’re driving as part of a group, just because there are other car drivers nearby?
That analogy makes sense..
That analogy makes sense..
An update re. group rides.
An update re. group rides. Although I previously quoted the BC weekly email sent to members, I was told this evening (Monday) that in fact the rules regarding group rides and BC sanctioned events from 29 March is not set in stone and that a firm decision will be made by the DCMS on 22 March.
“We are expecting to receive definitive guidance for grassroots sport from Sport England and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on the week commencing Monday 22 March.”
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20210309-about-bc-news-British-Cycling-update–The-Way-Forward-0
It’s not hard to understand
It’s not hard to understand why Covid has been so devastating in the UK. It’s the bloody-minded sense of entitlement Pommies have. Here in oz,at least in my area,group rides ceased at the first hint of lockdown,and they haven’t resumed.
It’s only a bike ride FFS. When it’s all over,we can start again.It’s not worth spreading a fatal disease over. Remember the precautionary principle?
We can only blame the Criminally Negligent Boris for so long.The British Public carries it’s share of the responsibility.
Quick, somebody sound the
Quick, somebody sound the Bitter Aussie Klaxon, we’ve got a live one
We’ve got loads of pommie
We’ve got loads of pommie whingers over here.. want ’em back?
Sorry, can’t, Covid and all
Sorry, can’t, Covid and all that. Maybe next year.
Have they finished their
Have they finished their sentence already, etc