Forum menu
Its all very well middleclasstrackworld wanting the empty places to its self but why should those less fortunate be made to suffer? I cant rationalise this and a load of people saying yeah but rules doesnt help.
Travelling spreads the virus around. It amazes me that people don't seem to understand this.
Massive increase in the number of cyclists I saw on the trails today compared with an almost identical ride on Wednesday in the 30-odd km I rode. I saw 4 riders on Wednesday and a whole 12 today. Fewer dog walkers though and the car parks were almost empty.
I did have a laugh though. One guy drove into a car park, past the "This Car Park is Closed" sign, stopped at the payment meter and stuck in a couple of quid, got his ticket, then parked.
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49705265407_75e89021bf_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49705265407_75e89021bf_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2iJhtGB ]P1060429[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/druidh2000/ ]Colin Cadden[/url], on Flickr
I went for a ride with my boy up to Greenham Common on monday, it was busier than a normal weekend. We did some of the routes round the fringes and then rode home. Went elsewhere on his next to rides. Car parks locked today so we may be able to return.
Can someone correct this though if I'm wrong. Boris said run or bike or walk once a day and also said police would split up groups of 3 or more so I have been alternating walking dog with mrs and then the one that didnt walk dog can run or ride with boy and the other goes zwifting, but I see loads of families out and about. The dog is pissed off as she only gets one walk a day.
Travelling spreads the virus around. It amazes me that people don’t seem to understand this.
It may spread it geographically quicker but the infection rate would fall if people could stay away from each other.
Travelling spreads the virus around. It amazes me that people don’t seem to understand this.
The virus is already widespread. I doubt there is much virgin territory for it to occupy. What leads to greater rates of transmission. Staying close to your house but being in a busy area where it is difficult to maintain 2m separation , or going somewhere more quiet where you meet fewer people and maintain a greater space. Don't get me wrong, this isn't about driving across the country to a beauty spot, it's about driving for a few minutes to a locally less popular area.
Infections stay local which is the whole point of any sort of quarantine or 'lockdown'. It's not just about protecting the people locked-down but everyone else. It's also a fallacy that there are all these 'open pastures' where lone dog walkers can get away from it all. As we saw last weekend, when everyone does the same all these places are packed and you have people travelling from within maybe a 50 miles radius all to mix and infect each other and take virus back to their local communities. The lakes or peaks are only quiet right now 'cos people have been told to stay away.
Infections stay local
Even pandemics?
The lock-down is put in place to hammer down the peak letting the currently infected recover or die to in effect 'burn out' the epidemic. It's about containing and limiting transmission.
I suppose if you know of some super quiet secret place 10 miles from your door which for some reason isn't super attractive to other people thinking the same thing as you then there should be no problem.
I'd question about local streets being super busy. It's true I live in suburbia, almost the sticks, but there are several hundred km of streets around me which are quiet but If I go to the TPT it's rammed. I could walk around the block many times and avoid anyone by crossing rd. Every dog walker and numpty on a bike has the same idea to go to the TPT and a couple of local national trust woods right now.
you have people travelling from within maybe a 50 miles radius all to mix and infect each other
Can straw men get Covid-19?
Folk on this thread are talking about driving for 10 minutes or so and I don't think any of them are Lewis Hamilton.
Driving to ride would probably be more sensible for me in terms of passing fewer people at close quarters, but I accept the rule has to be broad enough to cover everyone and I'll take one for the team.
People flocking to honeypot areas may have been a bit dodgy from a disease POV, but it was probably more damaging in terms of the anxiety it was causing among internet users.
Seeing really good compliance round here now and people seem reasonably chilled, which is nice.
The pandemic will die down if infected people don't travel around spreading.
@imnotverygood you have a valid point there. I'm lucky in that I live in a small village in the sticks where I can easilly access trails from my front door. Usually meet a few locals out on the trails but not many. Anyway, a couple of days ago OH fancied coming for a ride with me but wanted to go on the moor where there would be less people. Normally we would do the mile and a half climb up the hill but her back was hurting so she asked me to take the bikes up on the car which I did. Didn't meet a soul all the time we were out. Since then I've been telling her I don't think we should use the car again for rides as it's against the rules. Today we went on the same route but as she felt better we did the climb on bikes. On our way out of the village and during the climb we met a few people who inevitably wanted to chat. Once up the hill we met no one again. So, which of those scenarios gives the most chance of catching or spreading the virus?
Walk, run and cycle are given as examples of exercise. It’s not a limitation.
+1
I do wish people were capable of using common sense without demanding absolute granular detail on each rule, and thereby driving tighter restrictions.
It’s also a fallacy that there are all these ‘open pastures’ where lone dog walkers can get away from it all.
So do I walk the dogs on the narrow towpath by the river just by my house in the centre of a of an urban area, or do I drive a couple of miles to a place with open fields and woodland paths you can step off if you meet someone? I choose the latter because I think there is less chance of transmission. I'm not doing it because it is a beauty spot.
It's like the tragedy of the commons. A nice green field with nobody on it, graze all my cattle there, but then everyone else wants to do the same and next thing the grass is all grazed and soil depleted all the cattle die. What is good for me acting in naked self-interest is bad for the common good. What you are really asking is can you get away with being a free rider and taking advantage of everyone else sticking to rules.
So, which of those scenarios gives the most chance of catching or spreading the virus?
If in about whataboutery then theres the legitimate third scenario of where you cycle out the village without stopping to speak to anyone.
I choose the latter because I think there is less chance of transmission. I’m not doing it because it is a beauty spot.
The risk may be higher if the consequences are worse. Instead of the virus infecting someone across the road it may now jump 50 miles. We got into this problem by people taking international flights out of China don't forget.
As I said it's not all about you.
So do I walk the dogs on the narrow towpath by the river just by my house in the centre of a of an urban area, or do I drive a couple of miles to a place with open fields and woodland paths you can step off if you meet someone? I choose the latter because I think there is less chance of transmission. I’m not doing it because it is a beauty spot.
Agree 100%, but we can't do that because everyone got their knickers in a twist about those pictures from Snowdonia last weekend.
Well it’s been clarified now,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52062209/blockquote >Still vague. To play devil's advocate driving for a walk could still be considered 'local' and it says 'where possible' which, to me, is completely meaningless. Is this guidance anything other than that, guidance? It needs to be enshrined in law as every police service will have different a interpretation.
A point to make against driving is that if the police are having to set up checkpoints, people driving for exercise purposes are an unnecessary burden on their time. Yes, you could potentially be doing the UK a favour by choosing to exercise in a more remote location, but how are the police able to verify that for every car they stop? For efficient checkpoints they will want as few vehicles as possible and easily verifiable reasons for traveling.
@trail_rat talking to people isn't breaking any rules so long as the correct distance is maintained.
Is this guidance anything other than that, guidance? It needs to be enshrined in law as every police service will have different interpretations.
The legislation was published yesterday.
Ah yes of course. People need it spelled out for them
Its still riskier than not stopping.
You said your self it increases your risk.
Strava knocking out 40 to 70 miles a day, every day,
Be fec king great if the police demanded Strava hand over their data!!
I don't see the problem with this sort of distance. If you're on your own, from your door, not doing cafe stops (how could you), and it's a usual, manageable distance for you, knock yourself out. What is the argument against it?
The legislation was published yesterday.
Regular people are not going to be reading the legislation in full so the published guidance needs to reflect that and not use vague language. They need to specifically state that vehicular travel for exercise purposes is not essential and therefore contrary to the legislation. Otherwise the arguments will continue.
What is the argument against it?
Because it's meant to be for light exercise - not training for your next Sportive!!! FFS people!
In my parents town in France.
A couple walking their dog were fined outside my parents house.
Their crime ? Walking the dog together.
Its coming folks.
The risk may be higher if the consequences are worse. Instead of the virus infecting someone across the road it may now jump 50 miles
It isn't going to jump 50 miles because it is already there. I'll spell it out again. What represents the greater risk of transmitting the virus:
Walking 2 miles and meeting 50 people, half of whom wou have to pass close to because of the narrowness of the path. Or diving 2 miles walking 2 miles and meeting 5 people, all of whom you can pass at a safe distance?
This absolutely isn't about trying to bend or interpret the rules so as to get a nicer walk, let alone driving 50 miles to go mountaineering. I don't want to catch it. I don't want to spread it. I want to stay within the government's guidlines to achieve that, you are being masssively simplistic. You need to look at the rules and understand what they are trying to achieve and act accordingly.
I don’t see the problem with this sort of distance. If you’re on your own, from your door, not doing cafe stops (how could you), and it’s a usual, manageable distance for you, knock yourself out. What is the argument against it?
Premier Icon
dangeourbrain
Subscriber
To put it simply, there’s no end of what ifs, eg what about the dog that brushes against the tree you coughed at, gets stroked by its owner who then ends up in hospital.
It isn’t going to jump 50 miles because it is already there
Stoping any viruses that you are shedding from spreading miles around is how the pandemic is contained. It can't die down anywhere if it keeps getting reintroduced. This is why borders and air travel is shutting down.
What represents the greater risk of transmitting the virus:
Walking 2 miles and meeting 50 people, half of whom wou have to pass close to because of the narrowness of the path.
You appear to be confusing transmission with spreading
I agree with the point you were making but it does not mean the car is the solution
I can’t believe folk can be arguing for traveling any distance to go for a walk. ****ing insane. You are allowed out of you house to get some exercise and to stop you going a bit mad being cooped up with your family the whole day. If your current understanding of a walk or a bike ride includes driving anywhere then you’ll need to adjust your understanding. There is a life threatening infection on the loose with no cure. The sooner it is brought under control the sooner folk can return to work to and generate some money for the country. This is likely the first of a series of lockdowns until a vaccine or cure is found. People need to get used to it and do what they are bloody told.
Not vague.
Stay at home.
Short exercise from your door.
Don’t be a dick, or they’ll stop us getting out at all.
diving 2 miles walking 2 miles and meeting 5 people
driving comes with risks. You may crash or be crashed into. This will need to be dealt with by people who have better things to do than treat the selfish.
You appear to be confusing transmission with spreading
enlighten me
People need to get used to it and do what they are bloody told.
yeah but that's not what we are being told.
Short exercise from your door.
by that logic, have you got a garden ? if so exercise there.
As someone pointed out earlier you only drive when it necessary to do so. Walking or cycling in your preferred location is not necessary.
admittedly the government are out of touch with the common man. This may be the problem. A lot of folk aren’t capable of making a simple deduction or they are wilfully ignorant.
by that logic, have you got a garden ? if so exerciese there.
That is part of the gov advice… if you have a big enough garden to exercise in, you should use that.
Don’t drive or get public transport to somewhere to exercise. Just don’t do it. Please.
this will need to be dealt with by people who have better things to do than treat the selfish
The chances of being in an RTA are pretty small in thecircumstances. Check out the stats for people tripping on paving slabs. Everything we do has some element of risk. What has a higher risk. Driving a short distance to walk the dogs or riding a bike from my front door? According to some people the latter is also too dangerous to contemplate despite being officially encouraged.
I'm not being selfish. I am trying to reduce the chance of meeting someone who has the disease and thereby propagating the virus. I'll add that I am married to a surgeon who will end up in the front line when this gets going. She's not exactly keen on doing anything that is going to make the situation worse funnily enough.
The only good thing about all this is that it has certainly shut up the 'Keep Calm & Carry on Brigade'
admittedly the government are out of touch with the common man.
I bet most of the government would be astonished to learn that the general population does not have 2 or 3 homes with moats and duckhouses and 4 spare bedrooms per person....
if you have a big enough garden to exercise in, you should use that.
it makes no mentiion of size, you're just making shit up.
For **** sake.
STAY AT HOME
Do not travel to ‘somewhere quiet’, as your selfish ****tery will result in all of us having to stay in doors, all the time.
extend over a large or increasing area.
the action or process of transmitting something or the state of being transmitted.
"the transmission of the virus"
Between two locals it's transmission.
Between two people from different areas having a transmission of the virus and taking it back to their respective areas....spreading.
Both definitions taken from dictionary . Com
That is why staying local is important.
As for the its everywhere already defence. - that's just ignorance.