The escalation in the number of cases of coronavirus over Christmas and New Year has led Prime Minister Boris Johnson to announce a new lockdown in England, effective from today; while in Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has outlined new measures that have come into effect there today. British Cycling says it is seeking urgent clarification from the government about what “Stay local” means for people in England when it comes to riding bikes for exercise; but according to the latest amendments this appears to be guidance, not law.
> Recovering from long COVID – a cyclist’s guide
Here’s a brief summary of what the latest rules in England and Scotland, plus the existing ones in Wales and Northern Ireland mean for cycling, with a focus on exercise and leisure – with active travel encouraged for those who have to commute to work, or when undertaking essential shopping.
England
There is a summary of the rules on the Gov.uk website, which includes guidance and also outlines most things which are against the law. On Tuesday evening a full set of amendments were published which laid out the new laws that have now come into effect. Here are the rules relating to exercising and meeting other people.
Exercising and meeting other people
You should minimise time spent outside your home.
It is against the law to meet socially with family or friends unless they are part of your household or support bubble. You can only leave your home to exercise, and not for the purpose of recreation or leisure (e.g. a picnic or a social meeting). This should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.
You can exercise in a public outdoor place:
by yourself
with the people you live with
with your support bubble (if you are legally permitted to form one)
in a childcare bubble where providing childcare
or, when on your own, with 1 person from another household
Public outdoor places include:
parks, beaches, countryside accessible to the public, forests
public gardens (whether or not you pay to enter them)
the grounds of a heritage site
playgrounds
Outdoor sports venues, including tennis courts, golf courses and swimming pools, must close.
When around other people, stay 2 metres apart from anyone not in your household – meaning the people you live with – or your support bubble. Where this is not possible, stay 1 metre apart with extra precautions (e.g. wearing a face covering).
Additionally, in the ‘travel’ section of the guidance document it says: “This [outdoor exercise] should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel a short distance within your area to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space)”.
British Cycling has provided updated guidance on its website, where it acknowledges that some people may be confused by what constitutes their local area, and says it is seeking clarification on the issue.
“We know many of you will want to know what is meant by ‘staying local’. The government’s definition of this is stated as ‘your village, town or the part of a city where you live’,” the organisation said.
“We understand that this definition is particularly restrictive for cycling, and we are working to seek further clarification on this. We will provide a further update as soon as we are able.
“In the meantime, we recommend that you follow the advice to stay local, ride well within your ability and ensure that you are self-sufficient.”
Update, January 6th: as mentioned above, it’s now become clearer that exercising once per day and ‘staying local’ is guidance, and not the law. Does this mean it’s sensible to go/ride against the spirit of the guidance? Probably not in most cases, and we’ll be giving a more holistic answer to this question in our soon-to-be-updated guide to being a responsible cyclist in a time of pandemic.
Scotland
The mainland, and some islands including Skye, have been placed in Level 4. Some islands remain in Level 3, and you can find a list of those here.
For areas falling within Level 4, people are told to stay at home “as much as possible” and to “Travel no further than you need to reach to a safe, non-crowded place to exercise in a socially distanced way.”
The Scottish Government says: “A maximum of 2 people from 2 separate households can meet outdoors for sport or exercise. Children under the age of 12 from these households do not count towards this number.
“The members of an individual household or extended household [similar to a support bubble – Ed] can meet outdoors for sport or exercise.
“You can travel for local outdoor sport or exercise such as meeting another person, walking, cycling, golf or running that starts and finishes at the same place (which can be up to 5 miles from the boundary of your local authority area), as long as you abide by the rules on meeting other households.
“Indoor sports facilities are closed.”
Scottish Cycling last month produced a detailed guide to what informal and formal (ie organised) cycling is permitted under each of the country’s five tiers, which range from Level 0 (lowest) to Level 4 (highest).
You can find the guide here, but the Level 4 restrictions announced yesterday appear more restrictive than those that previously applied.
Wales
Wales has been in an Alert Level 4 national lockdown since 20 December, with the Welsh Government’s guidance available here. In response, Welsh Cycling said:
With the new regulations and guidance coming into place, this will mean a change in organised sporting activity. The new regulations mean you must adhere to the following:
All group activities are suspended until advised otherwise by Welsh Government
Ride on your own or with members of your household*.
Your ride has to start/finish at home.
Keep to social distancing measures of two metres apart.
If you live around borders into England please be aware of that regulations differ so please check the latest advice, we urge you to ride responsibly and within your ability to help protect the NHS [nb The latest rules in England mean that people in Wales will not be allowed to cross into the country – Ed].
It is also important to be self-sufficient by carrying the tools you need (i.e. inner tubes, chain tool and a working pump).
Welsh Cycling added: “As we enter another difficult period, we understand the physical and mental benefits exercise and cycling can have. We encourage you to continue to cycle but urge people to do so responsibly during this upcoming period and to follow Welsh Government regulations and guidance.”
Northern Ireland
As outlined on the regulations guidance page on nidirect.gov.uk, tougher restrictions were introduced in Northern Ireland following an increase in coronavirus cases on the 26th December, which meant the closing of all non-essential retail. From Friday NI will enforce a ‘stay at home’ law, however residents will still be allowed to take exercise outdoors. Here is the current guidance for sports on NI Direct.
Indoor and outdoor sport is not permitted, other than at elite level.
Elite training and competition can continue, both indoors and outdoors.
Elite sporting events must be held behind closed doors without spectators.
The definition of an elite athlete is set out in the regulations.
Horse racing can take place behind closed doors, in line with the elite sport regulations and animal welfare considerations.
All sports facilities such as leisure centres, gyms, health clubs, swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses, fitness and dance studios must close.
Other exercise facilities, including activity centres, equestrian centres (access for the purpose of animal welfare is permitted), marinas, and venues relating to motor sport and water sport must also remain closed.
Only individual or household outdoor exercise is permitted. Physical activity such as walking, running, cycling, horse riding, or just walking the dog, bring many health benefits.
You cannot participate in personal one-to-one training sessions or group activities such as running or cycling.
Physical education delivered by or for schools, pre-schools and other education providers is permitted to continue.
153 thoughts on ““Stay local” – What the latest lockdown laws and guidance mean for you and cycling”
So in England “you can
So in England “you can exercise in […] parks, beaches, countryside accessible to the public, forests” yet seemingly have to stay in “your village, town or the part of a city where you live.” ¯_(ツ)_/¯
The sanctimonious policing of ‘local’ on social media is doing my head in, but I don’t see an easy solution beyond stipulating time or distance restrictions.
ped wrote:
I think a bit of common sense is all that’s needed. Are you able to get back home if you have a mechanical without having to get someone outside of your household to pick you up?
Do multiple short loops, rather than a big 100 mile loop.
People have different ideas
People have different ideas over common sense though.
I don’t think I would stick to the letter of the guidance if I had a choice of a 5m trip to a supermarket within my borough or a 2m trip ‘over the border’ . Better to do a 2m trip.
It’s lose/lose for cyclists as most people have no idea of what distances fit cyclists can manage.
hirsute wrote:
I think common sense is what brought most countries to their current situation.
Yep. Common Sense – the least
Yep. Common Sense – the least common of the senses!
exactly, weve discussed on
exactly, weve discussed on here before what should be a common sense approach for cycling in this situation, and afaic again nothing has changed since lockdown 1 in that respect, so I wont treat how Ill approach lockdown 3 any differently from lockdown 1. I dont really understand why its so difficult for the government not to just copy & paste the last set of lockdown stuff (which worked to their satisfaction as far we can tell) and just change the dates, they seem to be perpetually reinventing the wheel on this and forever creating confusion and requiring more clarifications, it should be simple remember what you did between March & June, just do that again, please.
But aside from all that, i know full well there will be politicians (local or national), media commentators, local busybodies, maybe even the police, who would pick up things like that “local” area part and insist it meant all manner of limitations on cycling and how far or for how long you could ride, Ive already seen people claim because other guidance says no households mixing at all, that you cant exercise with 1 person from another household even though the guidance clearly then says you can, and the Telegraph were already reinventing the Gove 1hr limit last week, and its not because they cant interpret the guidelines properly, its just because they want to inflict the misery they are experiencing onto everyone else, its the if Im stuck at home why should others be allowed to go anywhere at all outlook.
A 100 mile loop might only
A 100 mile loop might only take you ~16 miles from home, which remains pretty local to my mind, although stretching your permitted exercise outing for the 6 hours or so could be seen as contentious!
FWIW, I was stopped by the filth during the first lockdown who didn’t think a 45 min’s ride distance from home constitued local, but obviously couldn’t back this up with any legislation.
I aim to be self-sufficient during these times. Carrying enough spares and food, taking it steady and riding only routes I know, and wearing SPD shoes so as to still be able to walk home should it come to it.
Ah yes, good old common sense
Ah yes, good old common sense. A 100% subjective term that you can define by whatever suits you or me. And that’s usually me. We use common sense in Westminster often, which of course is common sense.
Regards
Dom
ped wrote:
I’m waiting for my neighbour to call for a ban on bicycles, as she did last April…
Hang on, does that mean we
Hang on, does that mean we will see Pill (?) people protesting at the end of the cycleway/village cut through to say ‘cyclists keep out’ ? Whilst practising no social distancing of course.
Watch this space…
Watch this space… 😉
hirsute wrote:
If that happens I’ll very happily turn up to laugh at them. From a distance of 2 pitchforks, obviously.
I can do a local 3hr/50mile
I can do a local 3hr/50mile ride with 30 laps of my village. During which I’m gently spluttering into air occupied by other people.
Or I can ride for 3h/50miles in the countryside, where there are few/no other people. In the unlikely event I have a mechanical and can’t fix it, I can call other members of my household to come rescue me.
I’m pretty confident that the latter is better for others, and for me. So that’s what I’m going to do.
You can only leave your home
You can only leave your home to exercise, and not for the purpose of recreation or leisure (e.g. a picnic or a social meeting). This should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.
I’m sure we’re all familiar with the difference between these words from our knowledge of the HC. Once per day and local area are guidelines, not the law (in England). Not that I’m suggesting that the aim shouldn’t be to be sensible about this, but we don’t need to be hung up on it like everyone was with the “one hour” last spring.
I think the particular
I think the particular interpretation of must (law) and should (advice) is a formula that applies to the HC, and is not the general application of these words. In any case, the legislation has yet to be enacted, so for the immediate time it is all “advice”.
Sriracha wrote:
The use of must and should (and may) is also well understood by anyone who’s written/read specifications, requirements, and many other texts. It’s not restricted to the HC; I was using that as an example we all here will likely be familiar with.
Looks like it is all in here
Looks like it is all in here
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/schedule/3A
This is the base document which is updated by amendments rather than a brand new document.
If I have followed things correctly, the latest SI https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/8/contents/made
updates this one
Looks like the lockdown is
Looks like the lockdown is law to me.. why do so many try to interpret the rules as guidance, therefore optional? maybe just follow the rules folks.
grOg wrote:
Because the UK has done things a bit differently from Australia. In the UK, the law has a few general principles but not so much detail. The detail tends to be lots of guidance, often contradictory, which comes out in dribs and drabs as different ministers speak to the media. It means that if/when things go wrong, the Govt won’t be blamed and don’t have to take responsibility because they can just blame the population for not following “common sense”.
Even if you take the ‘should
Even if you take the ‘should nots’ as being requirements, it says that you ‘should not travel outside your local area’, and when you look at the detailed guidance ‘travel’ seems to refer more to the getting somewhere to do the exercise, rather than the exercise itself – e.g. you can drive 5 minutes to the park for a walk, but don’t drive 30 miles to the coast.
It doesn’t look like anyone’s considered the possibility that the exercise itself might cover a significant distance, so there’s no particular guidance on it.
Good spot.
Good spot.
Victoria, Australia didn’t
Victoria, Australia didn’t mess around with their lockdown; 5 km travel limit and that was for strictly limited needs, such as one hour exercise, shopping and medical; non essential business had to close and essential workers had to carry work permits to travel to work and back home.
grOg wrote:
Plus it was policed, my ID was checked a couple of times while riding Kew Boulie and a friend had the Police show up at her house just over an hour after she’d been checked on her daily ride.
British Cycling seem to be
British Cycling seem to be incapable of remembering the basic rule:
“Don’t ask a question you don’t want to know the answer to”
Regardless of guidance, if it isn’t written into law there’s nothing to stop you riding for miles. Wish we could just rely on common sense – don’t take risks, ride prepared with spares/tools/snacks/drinks, and perhaps cloverleaf from your residence so a non-fixable mechanical only means a short walk home.
I’m fortunate where I live but for lockdown 1 I set up 5 mile routes to all four compass points that I could then link together for longer rides. Carried two spare tubes, pump, chain tool, allen keys, tyre boot, quick link which meant I could get home from almost any common mechanical.
Another great example of why
Another great example of why elite sports governing bodies, like BC, should butt the hell out of everything that isn’t professional sport.
Not really that simple though
Not really that simple though, is it?
The FA governs all football from the pros right down to school age Sunday League stuff, and at present there are different rules around whether they can continue or not, and how they do so.
Likewise, although BC is best known as the governing body for the professional racers etc., it has whole categories of membership for people, like me, who just ride, never race, and they will get questions from those types of rider about what they can and can’t do, so they very much do want to know the answer because their members will expect them to.
There are no distance limits
There are no distance limits because people must be able to travel for:
Work – e.g. I used to have a 20 mile commute
Essential shopping – it’s 6 miles to the nearest supermarket for me
Support bubbles – 8 miles to the person in our bubble
Medical visits – approx 8 miles to the nearest hospital.
And I’m by no means living in a rural backwater.
Fundamentally, if there’s nothing written into law there’s nothing that can be done to prevent reasonable travel for exercise. The challenge for everyone is not to be a such an idiot about it so that the govt isn’t encouraged to legislate for hard limits. That means no group rides, no all day epics, and so on.
A work colleague has just
A work colleague has just bought a property on a remote Highland Island and is in the process of moving there. The nearest shop is a 56 mile round trip.
Is Barnard Castle allowed
Is Barnard Castle allowed this time?
Depends who does it. Certain
Depends who does it. Certain people have left the Protection Bubble of Downing Street.
Only if you’re worried about
Only if you’re worried about your eyesight.
Hey guys, I only did what any
Hey guys, I only did what any good father would do and test my vision by driving my wife and child to see Barnard Castle and the bluebells without the usual crowds of plebs. We had a 250+mile drive back to our London home and I didn’t want to take any chances. Let’s keep these comments constructive, we’re all in this together.
Stay home, obey the rules.
Regards
Dom
There are three things at
There are three things at play here:
1. what cyclists think the rules are
2. what the vaguely defined government rules/guidelines might be
3. What cyclist haters think the rules are
You missed one:
You missed one:
4. What the police think the rules are when they stop you to ask, “Are you local?”
Reiver2768 wrote:
Us out of towners never see a policeman.
For me it is the difference
For me it is the difference between “should” and “must”. The former is guidance, the latter is law.
I too intend to treat it like the first and second lockdowns until told I “must” do otherwise. Be self-sufficient, ride within my limits and try not to be a burden to the emergency services or anybody else. Just like every other ride I’ve ever done in other words.
As I’ve spent the morning
As I’ve spent the morning going through the badly worded document. I’ll give you my opinion. You need to concetrate on the section “Travel”. Unfortunately, in the advice they use three terms which seem to have different meanings “area”, “local” and even “local area”. This makes everything even more ambiguous than it needs to be.
I hope you’re paying attention at the back…..
Local is defined: “If you need to travel you should stay local – meaning avoiding travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live”.
It then goes on to say “The list of reasons you can leave your home and area include, but are not limited to:……outdoor exercise. This should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel a short distance within your area to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space)”
It basically says that you can leave your area for exercise but you should only travel within your area for exercise.
Stay at home, don’t stay at home.
Hope this helps.
IanMK wrote:
None of the stuff on travel or on staying local is in the law.
Riding outside is not just
Riding outside is not just cold and miserable this time of year, it is now fraught with all manner of Covd restriction-related possibilities. I spent a lot of money on equipment so I can ride indoors. I now expect to get excellent value for money.
As far as I am aware, the
As far as I am aware, the regulations (ie the law) have not been published yet, so it’s not possible to say yet what is ‘must’ and what is ‘should’.
Steve K wrote:
The regulations have now been published. They are very un-user friendly, in that they work by amending the tier 4 regs rather than work as stand alone regs. But – and with the proviso that I’m not a lawyer – I don’t think they make any changes to exercise rules. In particular, there is no mention of once a day, or of staying local.
Yep Adam Wagner human rights
Yep Adam Wagner human rights lawyer pointed out “here’s what’s not in the law which is in the guidance :
– Time limit on outdoor exercise;
– Geographical limit on outdoor exercise
– Travel between areas.”
Alf0nse wrote:
You may have spotted my source! (Though I did actually do my own analysis before he’d tweeted his.)
There is one slightly tricksy
There is one slightly tricksy difference this time around. The original lockdown mk 1 legislation just said that various things, including exercise, were ‘reasonable excuses’ for leaving home. So that was that – if you were exercising, you were allowed out. In the latest version, what constitutes a ‘reasonable excuse’ is that it’s ‘resonably necessary’ to do varoius things, including exercise. So if you’re exercising, but the authorities decide that you didn’t have a reasonable need to, it appears that you could still, theoretically, be charged with an offence.
mdavidford wrote:
Interesting – I hadn’t spotted that change. Very difficult to define what is ‘reasonable’ in this case, I would have thought. Though generally, something being ‘unreasonabe’ is a pretty high bar (Wednesbury is the case law, I think).
Steve K wrote:
There is one slightly tricksy difference this time around. The original lockdown mk 1 legislation just said that various things, including exercise, were ‘reasonable excuses’ for leaving home. So that was that – if you were exercising, you were allowed out. In the latest version, what constitutes a ‘reasonable excuse’ is that it’s ‘resonably necessary’ to do varoius things, including exercise. So if you’re exercising, but the authorities decide that you didn’t have a reasonable need to, it appears that you could still, theoretically, be charged with an offence.
— Steve K Interesting – I hadn’t spotted that change. Very difficult to define what is ‘reasonable’ in this case, I would have thought. Though generally, something being ‘unreasonabe’ is a pretty high bar (Wednesbury is the case law, I think).— mdavidford
And in tinfoil hat territory, “reasonable” means it’s all entirely at the discretion of the attending police officer.
Did anyone see the police commissioner calling for his force to have power of entry even if there’s no warrant and the homeowner refuses, just to check on Covid rulebreakers?
Because obviously that will get rolled back once the Covid emergency passes and won’t just get kept on as a general police power…
The police already have power
The police already have power of entry, without a warrant, for a variety of reasons. See section 17 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
velochris wrote:
I can assure that the police cannot access your property without either a warrant or justified grounds that a crime is in progress. If you answer your door they will find a reason to enter. If you don’t answer your door they cannot force entry without a warrant.
I agree that ‘local area’ is
I agree that ‘local area’ is guidance not law. There’s a little summary of guidance vs regulations here.
My garage, front door and
My garage, front door and back door are all in different Counties (seriosuly), so I’m pretty much covered with all of Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire to go out…
Actually, in the last tier roundup, Staffs was twinned with Birmingham and Cheshire with Manchester; I’m not sure I’m fit enough to stay local!
alansmurphy wrote:
I call bullshit. The triple point of Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire is in the middle of Wrinehill Wood, at 52.99811, -2.381393
The nearest buildings are Checkley Wood Farm (in Cheshire), Whitemoor Farm and surrounding buildings on School Lane (in Staffordshire) or Blake Hall Farm and surrounding buildings on Holders Lane (in Shropshire). All of these buildings are at least several hundred metres from the county borders.
Oh for goodness sake, just
Oh for goodness sake, just use some common sense – why do people need every single tiny detail explaining to them?
– ride at home on a turbo trainer if you can
– if you ride outside don’t go so far away from home you’re going to be stranded if you have an accident or a mechanical. That’s just obvious and what they mean by “local”
– don’t ride with other people who aren’t in your household or like a complete idiot
– take tools and sustenance with you.
Not exactly rocket science is it? Stop being so helpless.
Your rules are fine as rules
Your rules are fine as rules for you, if you choose them. They aren’t the national rules.
The new Lockdown is big news, and affects all our lives. It’s only natural that people are going to look into the details of the rules, see what is law and what is guidance, then make personal decisions about their behaviour.
Agreed – most people want to
Agreed – most people want to do the right thing, and don’t want to inadvertently break the law. The risk of catching the virus outside is low, otherwise the govt wouldn’t specifically be allowing exercise. As we’ve seen in the past the uncertainty around the law/guidance has led to conflict, and that’s particularly worrying for cyclists who are vulnerable road users.
Not everyone has funds, space or neighbours friendly enough to be able to ride on a turbo and exercise is important for physical & mental wellbeing, which is important if you do end up catching it
HarrogateSpa wrote:
You have more chance catching covid and therefore spreading the disease cycling outdoors than indoors on a turbo. There is growing evidence the disease is spread aerosolised and even though research is focusing on indoor settings it stands to reason that outdoor settings won’t be 100% free of risk.
You’re quite right that it isn’t the law at this time, but it’s just what I follow.
You do know that Nigel
You do know that Nigel Garrage is Socrati?
This is the definition of
This is the definition of ‘local’ from the guidance summary: “Stay local means stay in the village, town, or part of the city where you live.”
dassie wrote:
Yeah? So I live in a village without a shop. Do I a) Die of starvation following the rules or b) Go a short distance to a larger town with a shop?Answers on a postcard… just use common sense, none of this should be controversial at all.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
This is the definition of ‘local’ from the guidance summary: “Stay local means stay in the village, town, or part of the city where you live.”
— Nigel Garrage Yeah? So I live in a village without a shop. Do I a) Die of starvation following the rules or b) Go a short distance to a larger town with a shop?Answers on a postcard… just use common sense, none of this should be controversial at all.— dassie
Yes, clearly for essentials shopping or e.g. commuting, people have to go where they have to. If one can cycle all well & good. Leaving home for the purpose of exercise alone (rather than, say, shopping) has to be done “in the village, town, or part of the city where you live”.
dassie wrote:
so to be clear, better to excercise in the town (where there are many people) than the rural roads around the towns (where there are very few people)
?
wycombewheeler wrote:
Unfortunately, yes, that is the current rule on exercise. So in terms of cycling for exercise, if one lives in a town which otherwise has all the essentials of food, work etc, then one has to stay in said town…
I just hope no one suddenly
I just hope no one suddenly argues that you shouldn’t go out for exercise if you could get injured or have something happen which means you can’t get back under you own steam as an anti cycling rant.
Simply because that rules out any exercise and also doing anything at home as most accidents happen there.
We had that last time. I
We had that last time. I remember one bloke calling his wife for rescue because he had 2 severe punctures due to illegal traps set in the bridleway. Apparently it was his fault for not having 2 spare tyres with him !
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
alas your hope is in vain
I know. I posted that knowing
I know. I posted that knowing the troll had done just that to be anti cycling even though those exact arguments could be used for any of the options for exercise allowed including travelling to a green space
I was going to also post the full quote from Mayer Hillman from that newspaper article where the line he likes to use is preceded and followed by needing to remove burning of ALL Fossil fuels and not just the travel ones. Of course as of the late 2016 he was still posting the benefits of cycling over every other transport form. I’m sure troll won’t like that though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4pynYYnNpo&feature=emb_logo
Here’s the original local
Here’s the original local article.
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/first-picture-shocking-makeshift-nail-18194998
Nigel Garrage wrote:
If you already own one, or can get one (Easier said than done at the moment). I am back to my lockdown I paranoia about my turbo trainer breaking down.
All my rides for 2021 have
All my rides for 2021 have been on the trainer so far due to the ice/snow on the roads. When I do manage to get out I’ll be sticking to the same short 20 ish mile route I did in the last lockdown. Can’t wait to get back out there. Cycling has been my therapy throughout the pandemic. Hopefully the folks in little bollington will be a bit more friendly this time
It may be a surprise to your
It may be a surprise to your editors, but the UK still includes Northern Ireland and their rules can be found here:
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/coronavirus-covid-19-regulations-guidance-what-restrictions-mean-you
We’ve now added Northern
We’ve now added Northern Ireland’s latest guidance.
Craggie
Craggie
I thought we had traded Northern Ireland and fishing rights to the EU for the Brexit trade deal? Are you still part of UK?
Regards
Dom
Rather than banning cycling
Rather than banning cycling or walking/running, which have clear physical and mental benefits, we should just ban driving.
Driving clearly makes a lot rather crazy. Is often anti-social, and causes pollution and studies have proven that the pollution particles can and do give the damned vaccine a lift and help.
Damned vaccine or damned
Damned vaccine or damned virus?
OK guys, I need you all to
Does anyone know if the Barnard Castle car park is open and takes card payments? Asking for a friend.
You are Socrati and ICMFP
You are Socrati and ICMFP
Nige
Nige
I am Spartacus.
Regards
Dom
Why did this need
Why did this need clarification? I think British Cycling must be illiterate if they cannot understand the sentence “but you can travel a short distance within your area to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space)” . This obviously means travelling to start your exercise, i.e. using a vehicle to get to an open space and run about in that open space. The Government are trying to prevent idiots from getting in their car and driving 100 miles to the coast for a swim, or the Lake District for a brisk walk. Cyclists setting off from their house and heading off on a 3hr cycle to the middle of nowhere present no greater risk than someone riding 3hrs around their local streets. In fact, given that there is likely to be more people walking, jogging etc. on local roads I’d say they present a greater risk doing it local.
Rose tinted bollocks.
Rose tinted bollocks.
You breakdown within say 5 miles you can walk home. Breakdown over 5 miles and you create an unneeded journey for someone to collect you.
Stop the wishful thinking. It’s selfish.
Breakdown anywhere and you
Breakdown anywhere and you fix it. If you can’t fix any reasonably foreseeable breakdown (puncture, broken spoke, snapped cable, broken chain etc) you shouldn’t be out on your own at all, especially at the moment.
In the last 5 years and about 50,000km I’ve had one breakdown which has required vehicular assistance – a split tyre (and I could probably have bodged that if I’d had to). On that basis, on a 50km ride, I’ve got about a 1:10,000 of not making it home alone. I’ll take those odds, even in a pandemic.
You can conjur up any “what
You can conjure up any “what if?” you want in order to prohibit whichever activity you choose. Accidents happen, even in the home – should we therefore all sleep downstairs lest we trip on the upstairs landing? And so on.
So you need a sense of how likely something is to actually happen, and the consequence if it does. In all my years of cycling I have never needed assistance getting home. Never.
That’s not to say that tomorrow it doesn’t happen. And if it does the consequence is almost insignificant, a family member collects me. The probability multiplied by the consequence, it’s nearly zero. I don’t believe it is worth the cost to my quality of life and mental health just doing circuits round my postcode.
Utter nonsense. It would
Utter nonsense. It would reduce the risk for me to get a lift from whereever I’ve had this unfixable breakdown than to walk with a bike any distance past potentially other people out walking/jogging etc. As someone said earlier, it is about risk. I reduce the risk of needing assistance, but if it does happen then it’s better my rescuer comes direct to me in an isolated location for a straight here and there rescue. The whatiffery could be applied to anything, to the point that I’d best not leave bed in the morning.. except of course that would increase my potential burden on the NHS through an unhealthy lifestyle. There are far too many people that are thrilled about being paid to binge on Netflix.
The guidance clearly states
The guidance clearly states stay local. It says nothing about roaming further if you judge it low risk.
To paraphrase what most people are saying on here -“staying local is too short/too much hassle/unfair” so I’m going to roam a bit further on the basis of my own “risk assessment”.
By all means do roam further, so, but dont pretend you are using anything other than your own selfish interpretations to get a decent length ride in.
90% of the posters on here seem to be attempting to “rules lawyer” the guidance so it suits them rather than trying to abide by the clear spirit of it.
You may think its warranted but in the end it just makes you a lesser case of the idiots who drove from London to Snowdon.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between going from A to A, and from A to B.
It is not about getting a
It is not about getting a decent length ride. If you actually rode a bike regularly you might understand why cyclists prefer not to ride around town streets, and would seek to ride outside of town on quieter roads. Safety. The quieter roads reduce the chances of close passes, junction ignorance, and general anti-cycling behaviour from drivers nipping out to get their essential newspaper and fags. I ride outside of the local area to get to a safer area. I do not drive there, I cycle there because I am also conscious of the impact of using fuel to get me to a place for exercise (I also don’t get why gym goers drive their car to the gym when they could get an extra exercise hit by running/walking/cycling to the gym). In the last lockdown there were many drivers who thought it was ok to drive 100 miles to a nice place and go for a walk, and call it exercise. My suggestion to you is to get yourself a bike and try riding, it will improve your physical and mental health and better prepare you for when the virus inevitably comes knocking.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I’ve had a poke around the legislation and it says nothing about roaming at all. I can’t find anything in the law that is asking you to stay local, or even defining what local means. Staying local only seems to be mentioned as a ‘should’ in the guidance.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I tried searching for ‘travel’ across the whole instrument and found nowt:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374
The specific bit that mentions exercise has no requirement of it being local either:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374/schedule/3A/paragraph/2
Edit: Just seen Steve K’s comment on this and I must say I agree. There seems to be no legal requirement for once a day or staying local when exercising. If that is true, then it’s not illegal and you cannot be fined for it.
The basic requirement is to
The basic requirement is to stay at home. mdavidford pointed out the subtle change of wording though that it now says
Exception 1: leaving home necessary for certain purposes
(2) Exception 1 is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside the place where P is living
You then have a subjective judgement over whether it is ‘reasonably necessary’ to exercise twice or to travel 5/10/15 miles for a walk.
I don’t really take much notice of the guidance (well, only to argue about it !) – if they want people to only go out once, then they should have said that in the SI. If I had a dog, I would be walking it twice a day not once simply because the guidance does not fit the SI.
It’s no wonder people break the rules, make a sub optimal choice when there is such a mixed message about what is permitted.
Ah, good point – I’d missed
Ah, good point – I’d missed the subtle ‘reasonably necessary’ catch-all.
Was this the same subjective judgement that led to the police inspecting the contents of supermarket trolleys in the first lockdown?!
I think I could quite successfully argue the case that my usual training route is reasonable. Mind you, it’s going to depend on how ‘keen’ the police officer is in the unlikely event I get stopped!
Edit: actually, I think I could just point out my beer gut and I’m sure they’d agree exercise was totally necessary in my case.
I can’t take the credit for
I can’t take the credit for that one as it was mdavidford that spotted it.
There were certainly a few policemen who were over zealous the first time and really didn’t know the law.
I do remember someone from Wales (where is has always been stricter) posting on here earlier in the year that they did get grilled by an officer as to how long he’d been out and where he had come from ( I think the officer did not appreciate how fast soem cyclists can go).
I think the bollocks are all
I think the bollocks are all yours mister squirrel. I agree with the others here that the risk is extremely low. In fact, I ignore it because I haven’t needed a pickup due to a mechanical in decades of cycling. As for risk re the NHS, I don’t think a cyclist poses a greater risk than any of those people clambering around on step ladders to catch up on their diy jobs or even weilding a knife in the kitchen.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Apart from the fact that i have never needed to be collected, what’s wrong with having to be picked up. I cycle over the M40 and several major A roads regularly and I can tell you traffic is not reduced. Taxis are still working so how on the off chance that I might need one any more risky than someone else using one to get to the supermarket?
Exactly. I interpretted the
Exactly. I interpretted the word ‘travel’ as going somewhere in order to exercise, rather than the exercise itself – let’s face it the majority of people who get out for exercise will be doing it on foot, and mostly walking.
You’re all missing the point.
You’re all missing the point.
Ignoring the guidance because its not the law is rules lawyering. You’re doing it because you think the guidance shouldnt apply to you. Its a fundamentally selfish act that lies on the same spectrum as any other deliberate decision to ignore the advice, be it on mask wearing, non-essential “shopping” or anything else.
By all means carry on with it – but dont delude yourselves you’re doing it for anything other than you think cycling and cyclists are somehow “special”. Just like everyone else thinks their reasons make them special.
Everyone else is doing it – so why don’t we?
It is not rule lawyering (is
It is not rule lawyering (is that a thing now?). It is applying common sense to get some much-needed exercise while not spreading any viruses. Clearly whoever wrote the guidance has no clue about cycling and couldn’t be bothered (or didn’t have time – rushed legislation is usually bad legislation) to consult anybody who did. I really don’t see how riding in a one-mile loop around my village (which would have to include a section on a major A road) 50 times is any more likely to spread Covid than if I ride out for 25 miles and back for 25 miles. In fact, I’m likely to ride past more people doing the former, possibly repeatedly.
In the unlikely event I have a mechanical I can’t fix, my wife would have to get in the car and come to get me. She wouldn’t be encountering anybody or talking to anybody, and we would drive straight back home. Where is the risk in that compared to say jogging around a park with a few hundred other people?
It’s been in the news that an
It’s been in the news that an overzealous police officer told an elderly lady that she couldn’t drive to Tescos to do her shop as Sainsburys was a mile closer to her house. Now that’s clearly ridiculous – the police force in question have said their officer was ‘a bit too keen’!
I don’t think anyone has said cyclists are ‘special’, just that it’s not reasonable, or sensible, to do laps of the town ring-road or local park. I’ve just got back from a short local 12 mile loop around some rural roads and villages. I was thinking to myself how on earth I could have covered that distance, breathed fresh air, got in the hill climbs and maintained social distancing by staying within the confines of my small town.
This lockdown is going to be on for a while – exercise is important. I had covid a few weeks ago, very mild symptoms thankfully, which could be because I’d lost 2 stone by increasing my cycling over the past six months. As a household we had been almost shielding as I’m classed as vulnerable; doing all our shopping online, not seen any relatives, not been on holiday, no clubs etc. But we couldn’t keep the kids off school.
You can’t make me feel bad for keeping on riding outdoors.
HoarseMann wrote:
Don’t underestimate this factor. Shedding weight and getting/staying fit (and getting some vitamin D outdoors) are all known factors in fighting covid. People are very quick to visit their own misery on cyclists who appear to be enjoying themselves, but if for no better reason than it frees up a hospital bed for their own use they might want to bite their lip.
When the guidance does not
When the guidance does not match the law, there will be problems.
If you follow the guidance, you could spend 30 minutes battling your way to a supermarket instead of an easy 10 because the 10 is ‘over the border’. How is that sensible?
You would spend time in a more densely occupied park rather than drive 2 or 3 miles further to a more accessible and less densely populated open space.
How is that sensible?
This isn’t about risk, DC’s
This isn’t about risk, DC’s Barnard Castle visit was probably a negligible risk, same as a 100 mile solo bike ride. But rightly there was an outcry, one rule for us etc. It’s about perception, were all in this together – let’s not give the haters another reason to hate.
Apart from his own
Apart from his own (bullshitish) admission that his wife and child were in the car and his eyesight wasn’t up to much, being quite affected by the Covid.
(motorvehicles not ever being responsible for the death or injury of the occupants or innocent bystander, cars being big and heavy and capable of high speed)
So not really anything like a bicycle ride.
So affected that he couldn’t drive home back to London.
Or that’s the best this so called genius could come up with to explain a daytrip out to somewhere nice to mark his wife’s birthday, because unfortunately someone had managed to recognise him and had the good sense to take a note of the numberplate.
Then he lied about predicting the pandemic in his blog, forgetting that someone would be able to check if any alterations might have been made later.
This is all about risk. It’s
This is all about risk. It’s not a PR opportunity to win non-cyclists hearts and minds. It’s to stop the spread of the virus whilst staying healthy.
I’d far rather do my usual quiet rural road loop than laps of the local park (which is now rammed with people). As far as I can see it’s within the law and the spirit of the guidance.
This is so true. The local
This is so true. The local parks and paths are rammed again. The usual back lanes I use to cycle are as empty as they usually are so far easier to keep to myself.
JMark wrote:
The Barnard Castle visit wasn’t, despite the publicity and derision it attracted (rightly), the most heinous offence, that was driving all the way from London to Durham whilst he and his family were displaying Covid symptoms (a journey he couldn’t have made without at least one service stop). Yes, the Barnard Catle trip could be seen as equivalent to a long ride, but nobody who’s symptomatic or tested positive should leave the house for any reason whatsoever (unless it’s on fire, I suppose).
Not sure what it’s supposed
Not sure what it’s supposed to achieve restricting solo activities for fit and healthy people.
And why on earth are golf courses closed? I don’t play but surely it’s easy to socially distance and a healthy pursuit both physically and mentally for those that enjoy it.
Meanwhile ‘vulnerable’ pensioners continue to visit open garden centres and think nothing of going for a drive as their daily exercise.
I’m fed up of my activities being restrcted to protect a minority who should shield themselves.
youd think so, like you also
youd think so, like you also cant play tennis now even with someone who lives with you/same support bubble though you can exercise with them, why is tennis suddenly more risky than exercise…but the latest round of rules seem to be of the well we heard some people might be getting away with doing this,and weve no proof they did but we’ll make darn sure people know they cant do that now.
there might also be a concern with golf courses in terms of the distances people might travel to play at a course they were members at, which then breaks their “stay local” guidance.
Although in Scotland
Although in Scotland
‘Outdoor gyms can remain open.
Outdoor non-contact sports such as golf and tennis are permitted for all age groups provided this is within a single household group, or the group contains no more than 2 people from 2 different households. Children under the age of 12 from these households do not count towards this number.’
I’d have thought travel to golf courses in Scotland would be further than in England.
hirsute wrote:
Depends where you’re starting out from:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/04/trump-biden-inauguration-plane-flight-scotland
youd need to be a hardy sort
youd need to be a hardy sort to want use an outdoor gym in Scotland at the moment 🙂
and I dont doubt the distances are further for travel, but I dont get the impression theres been much thought put into these rules around how things could operate in Covid secure ways anymore, theyve gone for a well there could be greater risk if people behaved in this certain way, but we’ll just say no-one can do it as the mitigation instead of bothering to think of the logic to it.
Tennis uses balls, very
Tennis uses balls, very difficult to sterilise.
The level of fomite transmission has somewhat been downplayed for this virus, but for other respirtory infections it can be very high.
1 lift button caused a great many cases of SARS.
Generally people touch the mucas membranes around the eyes and nose (and ears) a lot.
So why isn’t health and
So why isn’t health and safety doing more to police sanitisation? Simple things like supermarkets not scrimping on their sanitiser by removing it from exits, sanitising trolleys, baskets, regularly wiping surfaces, door handles etc I could go on and on. We havev been informed that surfaces can transmit this so we have to accept the responsibility and sanitise our own hands regularly, lift buttons included.
As for tennis balls – a game within two of the same household isn’t gong to present anymore risk than sharing the same living space.
How about fishing? Or have you got some crap story about how that causes untold cases?
Staying local isn’t really about the risk of car accidents, cyclist breakdowns etc, it’s about restricting movement. A population predominately housebound is much easier to police.
The bottom line is the govt have changed the rules/guidance so many times that they’ve lost goodwill and now have to micromanage us. This micromanaging has scooped up lots of perfectly safe and low risk activities.
bikeman01 wrote:
Does anyone else remember that during Lockdown #1, supermarkets actually had their own staff wiping down baskets/trolleys, while wearing PPE, and making a point of handing you a newly cleaned one?
Now, you the customer are expected to hand-sanitise, then clean the basket, then hand-sanitise again, then use your own hand sanitiser because let’s face it, all those cleaning stations at the entrances to supermarkets are absolutely disgusting…
I wonder what proportion of customers actually bother?
brooksby wrote:
I sanitise on the way in and again on the way out. Too many things to touch in the supermarket to worry about the trolley or basket handle. Unknown if any items have been touched, need to touch the vegetable scales and the self pay till.
Remember not to touch face or phone until after santising hands.
But that’s a perfect example
But that’s a perfect example of what I’m saying, tennis balls may well be very difficult to sterilise,fine dont play with other peoples balls is advice we can all get behind, but why is that a problem if the two people using their own tennis balls came from the same household.
Ah but if you created an exception to handle that theyd say people would abuse it,so we create a rule to stop people abusing the rules we didnt create because we couldnt trust them to follow them anyway, hence its near impossible to apply any reasoned logic to most of them.
Thise in Derbyshire watch out
Those in Derbyshire watch out – over zealous plod about!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814
Actaully that is a tricky one
Actually that is a tricky one. I think the Police may well be worried about a repeat of Wales where loads of drivers thought they could drive to snowden and there was the doctor in Devon
https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/dartmoor-road-closed-exceptionally-poor-4845954
He needed an escort due to blocked roads.
I wonder if they are coming down hard to deter too many people being packed in to a small parking area. Plus the potential for nearby roads to be jammed up.
Turning up with a take away coffee didn’t help their cause though as they can’t really claim that journey was ‘reasonably necessary’.
If it’s a location that they
If it’s a location that they’re worried about getting busy it seems reasonable to turn them away, but the approach seems heavy-handed – on what’s reported, they appear to have skipped over the Engage, Explain, and Encourage steps and jumped straight to Enforce.
And whether or not they should’ve stopped to buy coffees, claiming that they’re classed as a picnic just smacks of the ‘make up a bunch of extra spurious offences if you’re challenged on what you’re doing’ approach to policing.
I agree it appears heavy
I agree it appears heavy handed but their defence is
Derbyshire Police said in a statement: “Driving to a location – where exercise could easily have been taken closer to a person’s home – is clearly not in the spirit of the national effort to reduce our travel, reduce the possible spread of the disease and reduce the number of deaths.”
I can’t agree with your second para. The basic requirement is to stay at home “No person who lives in the Tier 4 area may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse”.
The use of the phrase ‘picnic’ isn’t the right one but driving for a walk and takeaway drinks is stretching the concept of ‘reasonably necessary’ for not being at home.
I’m not saying that they
I’m not saying that they shouldn’t have been challenged on whether they should have gone to buy coffees, but that isn’t what happened.
If they’d stopped to buy coffees on their way to the supermarket, I doubt whether the police would have pulled them up on it (even though there should be a special place in hell reserved for people who do this anyway, virus or no virus), and they certainly wouldn’t have claimed that it was because it was a picnic.
Claiming that a coffee counts as a picinic is getting back into the realms of people getting stopped because they’ve taken sandwiches out on their walk.
I see the derbyshire police
I see the derbyshire police have rolled back a bit claiming revised guidance
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55594244
But in a statement, the force said further guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) had “clarified the policing response concerning travel and exercise”.
The guidance said: “The Covid regulations which officers enforce and which enables them to issue FPNs [fixed penalty notices] for breaches, do not restrict the distance travelled for exercise.”
The NPCC added that rather than issue fines for people who travel out of their local area “but are not breaching regulations, officers will encourage people to follow the guidance”.
The force has now said it will be “aligning to adhere to this stance”.
Assistant Chief Constable Kem Mehmet said: “We are grateful for the guidance from the NPCC.
That said, leaving home to drive to get a takeway drink does not qualify as a reasonable excuse from not being at home.
well I note they arent
well I note they arent exactly apologising for the opportunity they created to need to align to further guidance…but if a coffee shop that serves takeaway coffee is deemed by the government to be an essential shop and is allowed to open & operate for the purposes of selling takeaway coffee under this lockdown, which it is,
how is anyone meant to buy a takeaway drink from them if its not a reasonable excuse to travel to them to buy a takeaway coffee ? I mean it does seem sometimes like theres a coffee shop on every street corner, but they arent, some aspect of travel is required to use them.
Your local park has a cafe
Your local park/open space has a cafe that supplies take away; you are an essential/key worker; you cannot work from home and you buy a drink from a cafe next (or near to) to your place of work.
Apparently drinking coffee
Apparently drinking coffee while walking is now illegal:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814
Not sure what this means for bidons and energy bars…
Probably interrupted an
Probably interrupted an unofficial uniformed dogging meet.
Had they exercised themselves
Had they exercised themselves the entire distance by walking instead of driving there, I wonder if the outcome would have been different. They were arrested before they started their exercise, so they were not arrested for exercising, but for travelling.
The legislation allows you to be outside to go to a supermarket. It allows you to be outside to exercise. But it does not allow you to be outside to go to a place, there to exercise.
Well, strictly speaking, it
Well, strictly speaking, it allows you to leave home or be outside if it is ‘reasonably necessary’ for the purposes of shopping, exercising, etc. That could include travel that is reasonably necessary to do the thing you left home to do.
Obviously if you need to buy things in a shop, it will be ‘reasonably necessary’ for you to travel to that shop. Whether it would be ‘reasonably necessary’ to travel to your preferred shop if there’s an alternative shop you could have gone to would be open to question. Is the distance the overriding factor (if so, why?) or would other factors – like one of the shops being less likely to be busy – come into it?
Similarly for exercise – maybe you could have exercised from your front door, but it would have involved busy streets where you’d have come into contact with a lot of other people. Would it then be ‘reasonably necessary’ to travel to a quieter location? Do the added benefits of exercising amongst nature make it ‘reasonably necessary’ to travel to a greener location?
I take your point, but not
I take your point, but not sure I agree with the activity (driving/travelling) to which you ascribe the “reasonable” qualifier.
So, the “reasonably necessary” applies directly to [b]being [/b]outside to [b]take [/b]exercise, not driving to take exercise.
For example, doing press ups in the street; not reasonably necessary to be outside, you could do press ups indoors. Going for a walk, reasonably necessary to be outdoors, you can’t reasonably go for a walk around your living room.
Once you start considering secondary activities ancillary to taking exercise, such as driving somewhere, I think you have gone beyond the remit of the exception.
In short, the question is, is it reasonable that you need to be outdoors in order to undertake that exercise. Whether it is reasonable to drive somewhere for exercise, that is not the question.
But you’re missing out the
But you’re missing out the ‘for certain purposes’ bit.
So if the travel is reasonably necessary for the purposes of exercising, then its covered.
The certain purposes are
The certain purposes are limited to those listed. Here we are considering the listed purpose of exercise.
I agree it could be better written. And the “guidance” only makes it worse when it adds, “you should not travel outside your local area”. This is just another prohibition. It does not contradict the prohibition on leaving home, and does not add any permission of itself. But of course it will be read in the inverse – you should not travel outside your local area ergo you may travel within your local area. But on a strict reading it only says the former, not the latter.
Yes, but the ‘purpose of
Yes, but the ‘purpose of exercise’ would include anything you needed to do in order to be able to exercise. In the same way, for example, that processing data for the purposes of legitimate interest wouldn’t require you to be exercising that interest at that time, only that the processing was to enable you to exercise that interest.
Had they exercised themselves
No, there is no such legislation. As the article says, there is actually no law against travelling to exercise, or how far you can go.
‘Human rights barrister Adam Wagner said: “There is no law against travelling to exercise. The guidance is not legally binding and the police have no power to enforce it unless it is reflected in the lockdown regulations which in this case it is not.” ‘
Besides – I would class 5 miles as very local.
Unfortunately this
Unfortunately this ‘reasonably necessary’ is wide open to interpretation. The only way this is going to get solved is as every other woolly law does, by the courts.
Until such time enough people have contested these fixed penalty notices and there is an established case law, we’re going to see a lot of eager police being a bit silly.
Also, I wonder if for the police, new law = new toy. They’re all over it until the honeymoon period wears off.
There is a law against
There is a law against travelling outside. Because the law says[b] you may not be outside, except [/b]for listed reasons. Travelling is not one of them.
Exercising, and only where it is reasonably necessary to be (the verb is [i]be [/i]not [i]travel[/i] or [i]drive[/i]) outside to exercise, is allowed.
You are right about distance, it is not mentioned in any context, but distance being not mentioned does not therefore introduce a permission to travel.
Edit
OK, there is a possible way out. The law says the exceptions “include” (but crucially does not say “limited to”) those listed:
So I suppose you can add your own to the list given and hope they are deemed reasonable. But don’t rely on any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 2 to give excuse to travel for exercise.
The law indeed does not
The law indeed does not specify travelling as one of the exceptions to the prohibition. However the guidance – which states how the law may be interpreted – explicitly covers travelling to exercise, as long as it is within your local area.
You will be hard put to find a court that would convict someone of committing an offence if they demonstrated that they were acting within the government’s own guidance on the law and travelling to a nearby place to exercise.
The law also does not place limitations on the length of time you spend or the the distance that you go while you are exercising.
Velo-drone wrote:
It only states that you should not travel outside your local area. [I]Explicitly[/i], it does not say the inverse. Nor does anything else say you may travel any distance to exercise.
Quite so. In fact it is not the exercise which has to be deemed reasonable, only that to undertake such exercise it is reasonably necessary to be outside.
So it is not for the copper to say that a century is not reasonable exercise, rather that to complete a century it is reasonably necessary to be outside!
Sriracha wrote:
Pedantically, this is correct. But the point remains that I can’t see any court convicting someone for doing something that [b]*is*[/b] [i]implicitly[/i] covered by the guidance.
Agree 100% with the pedantry.
Agree 100% with the pedantry. But now you are exposed two steps removed from the letter of the law, so tread carefully.
And I can see how the police will use this as a deterrence to prevent popular locations becoming clogged with cars and exercisers. Over to you and your lawyer to challenge it, but the police’s purpose is by then served.
In some ways, it makes sense, if exercise (being human powered) starts and ends from your front door, then time and distance become self-limiting, so no need to enact prescriptive limits. Up to the police to allow a certain leeway beyond that, until things stop being reasonable.
Indeed – however, the
Indeed – however, the guidance recognises – as it should – that not everyone has the means to exercise safely and effectively from their front door. The intent is abundantly clear, which is that travelling a short distance in the local area to exercise is permitted.
There’s never any shortage of
There’s never any shortage of police when it comes to clamping down on minor misdemeanours or major sporting events.
Dealing with actual crimes is far too dangerous for todays police forces.
And no I’m not clapping.
mdavidford wrote:
I doubt they will actually get a fixed penalty as this is not against the regs.
Personally I have no trouble with them driving 5 miles for a walk, as it is in their local area. Unfortunately as their local area is the peak district the police will be on the lookout for people arriving by car from much further away.
The guidance does specifically allow walking with one other person, as long as distancing is maintained.
However, it seems that they did both stop at starbucks on the way, and that will clearly have involved unneccesary contact. I don’t see how these places are allowed to stay open, there is nothing essential there.
I think some attention is on
I think some attention is on this site as it was badly affected with being over ran during first lockdown (and just after) with people travelling some distance from Manchester or Nottingham to visit. The area is pretty scenic and relatively quiet but with some large villages and cities such as Ashby or Derby nearby. In the earlier lockdown all local roads were blocked or affected by parked cars and litter with some people their to just cruise up and down (in cars) as opposed to getting out and excercising. It is also near Caulke Abbey a National Trust venue but is normally a good place to cycle. I do feel sorry for the women affected who seem from the report to be sensible responsible people and a warning may have sufficed. Perhaps the police were wishing to send a keep away message to prevent the issues that happened last year.
I don’t really understand the
I don’t really understand the need to find the very limit of what the guidance suggests or what is quite so challenging about following it.
It’s quite scary hearing about hospitals and ambulance services struggling to cope and while an accident/incident could happen at any time pandemic or not, I would feel a complete twit if I was to end up in a hospital bed as a result of being out on a bike at the moment.
Wanting to spend more time on the bike is nothing new for me. Almost every time I go out I’d like to ride for longer but I don’t think the family would be too happy if I was out for hours each ride.
It might not be ideal, but an hours ride/run/walk should be enough for anyone at the moment.
Not sure I agree with you
Not sure I agree with you there, its all about risk. If someone can run or cycle outside or walk with no risk to others why place a limit of one hour? If I ran around my local park for 65 minutes am I being irresponsible? If I cycle for 2 hours around my local roads is that irresponsible?
Any non legal arbitrary ‘about an hour’ is nonsense. Especially as it came from Govey McGoves upper anal orrifice 🙂
So are you saying you will
So are you saying you will ride a bike but only for an hour, or not ride at all for fear of ending up in hospital?
Awavey wrote:
Those are both examples to demonstrate a point. You can get a decent amount of exercise in an hour. I also think it’s always sensible to adjust your riding to the circumstances around you in the same way that you might avoid manhole covers in the wet, or muddy or icy lanes in winter, that kind of thing.
The guidance is purely there to give examples and can’t be expected to have a particular set of scenarios for every single person, for each town in the country and our riding ability.
No I wouldnt expect it to,but
No I wouldnt expect it to,but you started off sounding like you thought it was too risky to ride bike for fear of impacting the NHS, but then finished by saying youd ride a bike for an hour. I wasnt sure which side of the stay at home vs manage your risks debate you were coming from 🙂
I think it’s important not
I think it’s important not get out on the bike. I would just be a bit embarrassed big I came off and broke some bones while in the middle of a 100 mile epic ride at the moment ?
cyclefaster wrote:
If you assess the purchase of a bike only in terms of its cost being considerable, and ignore the benefits being manifold, then the only logical conclusion is not to buy a bike – because they cost money.
To assess any proposition, you must consider cost and benefits.
So take the proposition of cycling and the effect on the NHS. There is a cost and a benefit to the NHS. You consider only the cost. No surprise then that you come to the conclusion you do.
Sriracha wrote:
It’s easy to come to the wrong conclusion
Not advocating trying to push
Not advocating trying to push the rules to their limit, but this is certainly open to interpretation:
“If you (or a person in your care) have a health condition that routinely requires you to leave home to maintain your health – including if that involves travel beyond your local area or exercising several times a day – then you can do so.”
Just wondering what the interpretation of a health condition is, e.g. if I decided my mental health will suffer if I don’t exercise more than once a day, or if I don’t get out into the countryside, is that permitted? Not planning to, just wondering.
I imagine that if you do have
I imagine that if you do have an issue with your mental health, and can point to a diagnosis of something in particular or a definite history then if you find yourself in front of a magistrate then that would hold water. Otherwise it’s just special pleading.
Another uneventful local loop
Another uneventful local loop done. Scoring highly on the reasonable and necessary indexes IMO.
Although in one village they had set up a pyre, I assume for incinerating any non-local covid breathing cyclists (well anyone non-local probably).
I’m not sure that stopping to
I’m not sure that stopping to take photos is reasonably necessary to your exercise…
Dammit! You got me – where do
Dammit! You got me – where do I pay the fine?!
Stock image m’lud
Stock image m’lud
From my helmet cam m’lud
‘Stay local’ is guidance,
‘Stay local’ is guidance, according to Jonathan Sumption. As long as your purpose for travelling is to take exercise, then travelling to exercise is within the law as currently drafted. No question.
There has been some muddled (Derbyshire Police) thinking that certain types of exercise are somehow ‘recreation’ and so illegal, allowing them to administer warnings and a fine (as per the two women fined in Derbyshire).
Lord Sumption disagrees with this as there is no mention of recreation in the drafting and under English law you can do things that are not prohibited. There is also no restriction on the distance you travel to take exercise – though he did say that some Courts may take a dim view of someone who travels 200 miles for a walk…as it stands this is not illegal.
So, if you are stopped by the police you can refuse to accept their fine and appeal at Magistrates Court which may also award you costs.