[RipThorn]

So with lockdown 3, in regards to exercise, the Gov.uk website states “you should not travel outside your local area.” and “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”

Does that mean I can only ride around my village?

It appears to indicate a car when it’s talking of travel but someone on their bike could ride 50 miles away from where they live, which then means your not staying local.

What is the official stance on this, as that’s the only one that really counts? 

Topic

[Daveyraveygravey]

hirsute wrote:

The further you ride, the more interactions you have so in the long run you are increasing your chances of an accident.

I would add that the further you ride, the more tired you get, which will also increase the likelihood of an accident.  

On the flip side, nobody here has mentioned the mental health benefits of an activity you love.  I know if I stay indoors for a week, my mood goes downhill and I am more likely to be an arsehole to anyone I encounter.  I will carry on cycling 3-4 times a week, I’ll try to take more care and less risk, I may not do a 100km single ride this month, but I am not stopping altogether and unless there is a clear guideline on what is local or what an acceptable distance is, I’ll ignore Joe Public whataboutery.

[Hirsute]

Distance from home and the
Distance from home and the likelihood of an accident needs to take account of the area you are in and how you got there. You are using the probability of a discrete area but not taking account of the risk taken to get there.

[Chris Hayes]

Someone will have to scrape

Someone will have to scrape you up from the road though….so you’d be taking up paramedics’ time and ambulance space…

We all have very different appreciations of risk and responsibility and there’s little point in trying to convince someone with a different risk appetite to increase or decrease their profile.  

I won’t change my behaviour – or my riding. I had a quick spin down to Richmond Park today…very litte traffic, though for London that means that it is actually moving so possibly more dangerous…. 

Empty roads are a sliver of silver in these f**d-up times. 

[Recoveryride]

Erm, no. I said this,

Erm, no. I said this, originally: “distance from home doesn’t affect the probably of an accident and thus the likelihood of ending up in A&E. You might well argue that you are less likely to end up in a bike vs car in an area further from your home, if you live in a busy urban area.”

Bold and italics. Not saying anything different at all.

On a side note, if I suffer a fatal accident, I won’t be using up hospital space, will I?

[Hirsute]

You are now saying something

You are now saying something different that the risk is related to the type of area you are in and not the distance. Although there are different risks in different areas and you are more likely to suffer a fatal accident in a rural area than an urban one.

[don simon fbpe]

Yes, unfortunately there are

Yes, unfortunately there are some real cockends out there who struggle to think outside their own bubble. I hope you’re all good now.

I have changed my view on helmet wearing, on the basis of a freak accident, but I wouldn’t demand that others wear helmets. I just know that I will always wear one, and a bloody expensive one at that (because it was a brand that saved me from a more serious head injury).

[wycombewheeler]

Recoveryride wrote:

It is also not lost on me that 2 of the biggest risks linked to death/hospitalisation from Covid are obesity and diabetes. Takeways remain open, yet people lecture others about taking exercise.

Quite, and being under 50 with a job am I able to do from home puts me right to the back of the vaccine queue (as it should be), so my most sensible course of action is to keep myself out of the high risk groups, as chances are high I will end up catching the virus before being vaccinated, given the prevelance of the virus and the desire to open up as much of the economy as possible once the high risk groups have been vaccinated.

[Kapelmuur]

At the time of the first

At the time of the first lockdown in March I pulled out of a cycling challenge organised on another site on the basis that I didn’t want to risk a fall and consequent NHS treatment.   This was about a year after a crash that resulted in short spell in hospital.

The amount of hostility this generarated was an unpleasant surprise and the selfishness of some of the respondents resulted in me deleting my account.

[Recoveryride]

Simply not true. It totally

Simply not true. It totally depends where you ride. I might very well have more ‘interactions’ with cars/pedestrians in 5 minutes riding in central London than in 2 hours in a remote area. That is why those who seek to put arbitrary limits on distance or time are missing the point. I go back to the point I already made that choosing a rural ride that is longer (in time or distance) may be safer than a shorter one in an urban area.

If I am riding longer, I also have fewer opportunities to fall down the stairs, scald myself from a kettle, get strangled by my Mrs who is not used to me being home all day… I could go on.

[Sriracha]

hirsute wrote:

hirsute wrote:

The further you ride, the more interactions you have so in the long run you are increasing your chances of an accident.

As always, you need to consider upsides as well as downsides. Only looking at one side results in flawed decisions.
Here is just one study looking at health risks [b]and [/b] benefits of cycling:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200311204655.htm
They found that

To put this into context, if 1000 people changed their mode of commuting to include cycling for 10 years, this would mean an estimated 26 additional hospital admissions for a first injury (of which three would require a hospital stay of a week or longer), 15 fewer first cancer diagnoses, four fewer cardiovascular disease events, and three fewer deaths.

And that is commuting, rush hour traffic. Here we are considering a much safer cycling activity, so the downside risk of injury is much reduced, whereas the health benefits only increase with distance cycled.

On balance, I’d say cycle as much as you want.
In the long run you are reducing your impact on NHS resources.

[Hirsute]

The further you ride, the

The further you ride, the more interactions you have so in the long run you are increasing your chances of an accident.

[Recoveryride]

I have said this before, and

I have said this before, and will say it again: all things being equal, distance from home doesn’t affect the probably of an accident and thus the likelihood of ending up in A&E. You might well argue that you are less likely to end up in a bike vs car in an area further from your home, if you live in a busy urban area.

Quite why people seem so convinced of the idea that going out for a bike ride, on your own, is at all relevant to the spread of CV19 is utterly beyond me.

It is also not lost on me that 2 of the biggest risks linked to death/hospitalisation from Covid are obesity and diabetes. Takeways remain open, yet people lecture others about taking exercise.

Sadly, CV19 has brought out the great British traditions of curtain-twitchers and holier-than-thous, both of whom make up in outrage for what they lack in logical thought.

[bobbinogs]

“In the UK every year, almost

“In the UK every year, almost 6,000 people die in home accidents and 2.7million visit their local accident and emergency departments seeking help.” 

On that basis, going out for a sensible ride seems to be a good thing to do as it lessens the overall risk/impact to the NHS.

[Recoveryride]

Solo outdoor cyclists are why

Solo outdoor cyclists are why Covid is spreading? I never knew! Well, that’s our problem solved!

[don simon fbpe]

Good stuff. Parks like that

Good stuff. Parks like that keep you on your toes.

[Author]

Replies