Forum menu
The guidance doesn’t define local.
Yes it does. BC and CUK have already commented on it.
Have the new regulations been published yet?
following the law rather than guidance is a perfectly reasonable thing to do even
Nonsense. You may not be breaking the law but you are behaving unreasonably by deliberately and knowingly breaking the guidance.
Have the new regulations been published yet?
The main areas covered in the guidance, but not in the law are: travelling between areas; length of exercise; and geographical limit on exercise. I therefore can't get too excited about people trying to get to somewhere a bit nicer to exercise.
The guidance contradicts itself so I'm perfectly happy to ignore it. The legislation has been published and as expected it's just an amendment to the existing tier 4 legislation.
There are no restrictions on travel within England if you've left home with a reasonable excuse. "to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation" is given as a reasonable excuse in the legislation.
The regulations have been published, but I can only find a version which is the edit of the original restrictions for tier 4, so its tricky to read i can't see any changes to how far you are legally allowed to travel (anywhere in England if you are here is my ubderstanding), nor reference to local area. All the changes seem focused on types of business and venue, nothing else. No restriction on duration of exercise either
Original..
Changes..
Tl:dr yes, you may legally ride your bike in the countryside
Nonsense. You may not be breaking the law but you are behaving unreasonably by deliberately and knowingly breaking the guidance.
Guidance is just that. I fundamentally disagree with the restrictions that have been put in place in law but will follow them. Do you personally follow all the other guidance the government publishes and insist others follow it too? Or is it just the ones you agree with that you expect everyone else to follow? We'd probably have better health outcomes overall if we ignored covid entirely and enforced the healthy eating and exercise guidelines, especially if we included the advice about smoking and alcohol consumption.
Yes I do my very best to follow both the law and the guidance. But then I am a civic minded individual not a selfish so and so
Fundamentally disagree with the restrictions - what an utter ( banhammer)
Lots of guidance in the highway code as well - like giving space to cyclists. Thats not law - its guidance - so I take it you deliberately drive as close to cyclists as you can?
How many people is it OK for you to kill by your selfish behavior?
Lots of guidance in the highway code as well – like giving space to cyclists
... and wearing helmets. Up to people to make their own choices within the law, best to leave the judging to judges.
It’s nothing like helmet wearing, is it. It’s about reducing transmission of a virus. We can not do this simply via laws, unless we introduce laws most people never want to see in the UK. Doing what needs doing is a civic duty, not a legal imperative.
But it has something to do with glass houses.
And dicks.
Fundamentally disagree with the restrictions
The government has no business legislating against people meeting other people.
Lots of guidance in the highway code as well – like giving space to cyclists. Thats not law – its guidance – so I take it you deliberately drive as close to cyclists as you can?
If there's evidence of a dangerous pass then the driver can be prosecuted. It would fall under careless driving. West Yorkshire police actually follow up on video submissions and even if there's not enough evidence to prosecute will issue warnings.
How many people is it OK for you to kill by your selfish behavior?
You see it as selfish. I don't. I'll travel to avoid people just as I normally would. I'll only shop at quiet times. I've travelled to work in Bradford throughout the pandemic and apparently haven't caught covid. No one I work with has and general sickness has been almost non-existent. Minimising contact with others is the best way to reduce the spread, travelling to quiet places does that, visiting the local supermarket on a Saturday afternoon doesn't.
If the legislation changes so I have to ride or walk from home I will as it's not really a hardship, but I'd feel very differently if I lived in central Bradford.
All the shops have been closed down.
Bands won’t play no more.
Free free free Nelson Mandela
...am I doing this right?
If there’s evidence of a dangerous pass then the driver can be prosecuted. It would fall under careless driving.
Are you proposing that we prosecute people who pass on the virus? I think asking people to avoid passing it on, and giving guidance beyond any legal restrictions on how to do so, seems a more reasoned approach, personally. It does rely on people understanding why we need to do this though, and being willing to act to protect others.
We’d probably have better health outcomes overall if we ignored covid entirely and enforced the healthy eating and exercise guidelines, especially if we included the advice about smoking and alcohol consumption.
Why do you need to “ignore covid” (and accept hundreds of thousands of deaths in the first year) to do any or all of the others?
If it's just guidance and has no legal underpinning, how come the police are able to issue fines for not following it?
You must not leave or be outside of your home except where you have a ‘reasonable excuse’
The reasonable excuse is exercise within the local area, the local area bit is up to the police to define if they stop you.
If you're 50 miles away, despite you thinking it's ok. Have a think about what officer plod might think if they pulled you over.
and wearing helmets
fundamental difference. Travel restrictions are about protecting others. Helmets about the illusion of protecting yourself 😉
Gribs selfish actions put others at risk.
Gribs
Fundamentally disagree with the restrictions.
The government has no business legislating against people meeting other people.
One of the primary roles of Government is to prevent harm from the population. If the public health and infectious disease experts say the best way to prevent harm is to stop people mingling then the Government does have a direct duty of care to legislate (if they feel / know the public won't follow 'guidance'). The vast, vast majority of infections come from meeting other people, possibly all infections come from that one simple behaviour.
We could be having the same discussion about the blitz in the second world war. That Government has "no business" imposing a curfew and telling people what they can and can't do in their own homes (e.g. turn off lights). There is no such thing as a safe person or characteristic, only safe behaviours - and in this instance that means not meeting other people. And I think it has to be legislated because people do not do what they are asked any more.
EDIT: So to remain on topic, as long as you don't see or speak to other people then I don't have a problem with people going for a long ride. But in the spirit of encouraging everybody to do the right thing, in terms of visibility, I wouldn't want a puncture 20 miles from home.
@5lab thanks for linking to the legislation, I've struggled to find it
@Gribs I'm with you. I'll be sticking to the law and following the guidance when I think it makes a difference. So I won't be staying within my town, but will stay local and won't restrict myself to one outdoor exercise a day
Those who believe these restrictions have even the slightest possibility of becoming permanent or representing the actions of a 1984-style government clamp-down have no idea how much we have had to fight to get the lockdown measures currently in place! This government is in it's essence opposed to any restrictions (see notes on Tory tax evasion and books about the new opportunistic man) and is doing it through force of necessity alone. Gribs, you are a sign of a portion of the population who have lost their way in terms of caring for your other citizens. This is a period of time that is tough but all you are being asked to do is follow some rules to protect other people. It is the difference between the child and the adult. A child always pushes back against restrictions when they don't understand the implications. An adult tries to understand and acknowledges the reasoning of the common good even if it doesn't suit their immediate purposes.
This government is in its essence opposed to any restrictions for their mates (see notes on Tory tax evasion and books about the new opportunistic man) and is doing it through force of necessity alone.
Just a wee correction required @speedstar.
This government is addicted to governing by Fiat and not allowing the sovereignty of parliament. New restrictions in law by SI process and not through act of parliament, plus sundry other legal changes by Ms Patel and others via the same scrutiny evading process. They are fundamentally opposed to democracy (except for their mates).
I don't disagree with the comments about the style of government but that is separate to the regulations surrounding the epidemic. They very much are a government that alters things for their mates, as the epidemic has shown. But within that is a desire to reduce government's reaches and decrease regulatory frameworks. Although this might not be in our favour these do not hasten an autocratic state. You could argue that Brexit might be more towards that style of isolationist politics that autocrats tend to love but this was of course voted into power democratically albeit against any notion of logic.
I don't understand the parties, that know the law/guidance, then proceed to do what they want and justify it to themselves through interpretation and bending of the rules/guidance.
The guidance is clear, stay at home, the smallest bit of common sense should get the spirit of it.
Is it really that hurtful to ones self to admit they're not doing what they're supposed to?
I personally don't care what you do, fill your boots, breach all thee rules you want, I just don't want to hear your weasling because you have the need to justify it to yourself.
We can not do this simply via laws, unless we introduce laws most people never want to see in the UK. Doing what needs doing is a civic duty
And there's the nub of the problem. "Civic duty" is a pretty alien and scary concept to a sizeable minority of the country, whether because they've never knowingly benefited from it, or because they assume for whatever reason it means Stasi style curtain twitching.
It's the basic "rights/responsibilities" education again. The Blitz analogy up there is very good, as is the Highway Code one. Just because you "can" doesn't mean that you "should".
I have no problem with the government reducing my rights for the greater good in a pandemic. If they don't give them back afterwards, then I'll happily take to the barricades and throw rocks* to regain them.
*Not very big rocks, and not very far, with my back, at my age. 🤣
It’s not the government really, is it, it’s us.
We’ve known since March to keep away from each other but a huge percentage of the general pop still don’t, and have a very casual attitude to it all. At time, me too - mostly through complacency. No amount of guidance matters - other than actually locking us down which I think we should do for a few weeks, but we won’t.
I went for a run around the area I live last night at 6ish, and my wife and I ran past around 30-40 people out walking/running in close proximity down 2m wide paths in the space of 30 minutes. If I’d gone on a 25 mile road ride from the front door I’d have been close to far fewer people. I know which one I feel is more responsible.
I’m not sure heading to the local woods 8 miles away, is responsible. I suspect they’ll still be busy with people meeting up, and honestly I’m struggling with not going myself, but I think it’s important over the next few weeks to play my part and stay away.
TLDR: unless we actually lock down, there’ll be a lot of people interpreting the rules to suit. Mostly without malice, and because they’ve made a judgement call on what’s safe: it’s pointless arguing over it, as it’s been left open.
Of course, some people couldn’t give a **** too, and it’s pointless arguing with them too.
Ransos, in an effort to try and understand where you're coming from why has my bike ride got you so angry and lead to you calling my actions "perverse" "selfish" and claiming im "part of the problem."? Despite my extensive hours at home every day apart from a few hours on a Saturday where i enjoy a solo bike ride? My morning bike ride at 6am today I went from Lewisham to Bexley in your eyes that means I haven't stayed local and is against the law (or at this point in time should we say guidance). You seem to have come up with your own definition of local and believe thats gospel and everyone must follow your definition. I understand these are extremely stressful times but your reaction to my bike ride seems a little excessive.
Feel free to reply, but I wont. I have done my daily exercise and apart from getting a coffee when the rain stops from my LOCAL coffee shop im going to spend the next god knows how many hours sat in my kitchen working or living room watching tv.
^^agree both
Stay local has no logic now that the virus is everywhere.
But if that’s made the rule, that’s what I’ll do.
TLDR: unless we actually lock down, there’ll be a lot of people interpreting the rules to suit. Mostly without malice, and because they’ve made a judgement call on what’s safe: it’s pointless arguing over it, as it’s been left open.
Do you not think following the "rules" works both ways some are extremely strict, some less so "interpreting the rules to suit" as you say? Technically 8miles could be local within 8miles I can stay in lewisham so by Ransos definition thats fine. Nothing currently says you couldn't ride 8miles to the woods meet one friend and go for a bike ride outside im sure the police wouldn't question that behaviour.
My biggest issue with these rules / guidance is that some people feel the need to exert their alpha male on others shout them down, berate them and blame them for killing people. Its ridiculous.
@Gribs:
We’d probably have better health outcomes overall if we ignored covid entirely and enforced the healthy eating and exercise guidelines, especially if we included the advice about smoking and alcohol consumption.
This. I've been saying from as soon as comorbidity data started coming out that governments globally would save more people, and more money, if they simply banned McDonalds (and similar) and tobacco. There's a direct correlation between the fattest countries (UK, USA, Brazil, etc) and the highest death rates.
And I say this an at-risk overweight male in the 50+ age range.
Nothing currently says you couldn’t ride 8miles to the woods meet one friend and go for a bike ride outside im sure the police wouldn’t question that behaviour.
I agree, but although it could easily be interpreted as allowed, I know the car parks and the woods themselves will be busy with people thinking the same, and I’m going to take a view for a few weeks that that isn’t what is needed.
Everybody has a different take on civil duty, or indeed perceived personal risk. Unless somebody is disregarding or flouting the rules, as opposed to exploring the grey, then I think it’s not helpful to get angry about it.
The trails are really sloppy and cut up at the moment anyway, and I’m hoping some people staying away will stop some of the erosion continuing during winter - which I reckon is worse this year than ever before - pretty much everywhere I ride.
This really has moved on from Page 1, hasn’t it?
45 pages for what was essentially a Yes or No answer.
Most of the transmission happens indoors, with poor ventilation. Places like schools for example.
I can't help feeling that the difference in R we might get from people exercising alone outside within 1 mile of their front door (what I would do with a strict interpretation of the guidance) or 20 miles of their front door alone is going to be lost in the noise.
It's just making people miserable for the sake of it.
Was out for a ride last night with my Dad and we were moaning about lockdown. I thought about it for a while on a silent uphill and realised that we're extremely lucky. We live a few doors from each other (and other riding buddies within same town), have some really good trails all around and live on a small rural island so can ride absolutely anywhere as it's all from the door and local.
For a brief while I started thinking along the lines of 'well, city folk choose to live there so that's their choice', but not everyone chooses it and I'm pretty sure very few saw this coming. I'm also extremely lucky living where I do and working for a large international company allowing me to travel (well, maybe not lately) and afford new bikes.
I really feel for people crammed in cities and to be honest fully understand alot of the bitterness on here. The positive note is that I'm seeing alot more people outdoors still despite the cold, I thought the McDonald's patrons forced outdoors over the summer would give up come winter but it is good to still see so many people out
Get excercise, keep calm and give each other some damn slack, someone pushing the rules for a solo ride is hardly going to 'cost lives' and may be the difference between someone loosing their mind and remaining sane
jodafett
This really has moved on from Page 1, hasn’t it?
45 pages for what was essentially a Yes or No answer.
No!!!..........er maybe...Yes!..........Depends....
This really has moved on from Page 1, hasn’t it?
Yes it has. The law has changed, the guidance has changed, people's attitudes to lockdown in general have changed. There are some interesting points being raised. Out of interest did you draw your conclusions without reading everything or did you read the whole of a thread that you claim is irrelevant and pointless? If fact, why did you even open it... again?
. I have done my daily exercise and apart from getting a coffee when the rain stops from my LOCAL coffee shop
Which is possibly more of a breach of the lockdown restrictions than cycling to Bexley 😉
I can confirm after this morning ride that a) the traffic is no lower than it has been over the last months and b) there are just as many ****er drivers on the roads.
Disappointed as for me as that was an actual benefit in lockdown that was seen clearly during last lockdown but that doesn't seem to be happening this time. Not sure what the difference is and why people are driving around more than they did in April?
I have no issue with people using a loose definition of local
I have huge issues with the selfish gits who insist that they are going to ignore the guidance. there is a huge difference.
I am particularly sensitive to this because I have been put at risk in an outbreak that can only have been caused by people ignoring the guidance ( although in a very different situation)
Not sure what the difference is and why people are driving around more than they did in April?
See my earlier post, our factory and installers shut down for 3wks in April to work out how to carry on in a covid secure way, no need to do that now as already in place so business is carrying on as normal - there will be many similar situations.
traffic is hugely less than usual around here - back to april levels I would say. I live on a main road and there is not a single car visible on it right now
I am particularly sensitive to this because I have been put at risk in an outbreak that can only have been caused by people ignoring the guidance ( although in a very different situation)
But the problem is the guidance not people following it or not. Guidance was a few weeks ago (well in london any way) go to the pub with 6 people max, clearly that was a stupid bit of advice from the gov, but if your gripe is people not following guidance you're fine with that at that point in time? But a solo loop outside of a local area you are not ok with because its not inline with guidance? The only way to stop this virus spreading is everyone stay inside and don't interact with anyone you dont live with, but thats not possible for many reasons such as mental health and even the economy.
As above - my objection is to people who say " I am going to ignore the guidance"
If fact, why did you even open it… again?
Honestly? Morbid fascination. It amazes me that people vehemently argue the toss over something like this. As I said before, there are basically two camps in this thread; "the rules are clear, you must follow them" and "the rules are vague and I'll interpret them as I see fit". Both camps vehemently argue their point, neither side will be persuaded by the other, everyone involved is just wasting the skin on the ends of their fingers typing out their replies. It's madness, and it's got me hooked.
But, you're right. Each to their own, what you choose to do with your bike in the counbtryside, or indeed with the skin on the end of your own fingers, is up to you, so I'll leave you to it.
As above – my objection is to people who say ” I am going to ignore the guidance”
So let's just get this straight, your ok with someone having dinner in a pub surrounded by people because its within guidance, but a solo bike ride out of guidance is wrong? Despite one clearly having a higher risk of transmission than the other? Can you not see the really odd logic in that?