@dannyh - true.
We live in a rural location, in fact a BW runs right past the house and a footpath goes around the back of it so for us driving anywhere to "exercise" is taking the piss as we can ride or walk straight from the door. For someone who lives in a town or city then a twenty or thirty minute drive to get somewhere where they can do so without bumping into crowds makes sense.
The "hour" of exercise comment came from someone for whom an hour would be a death sentence!
Hmmm, hardly a definitive table.
And the thing it still lacks, that various numpties seem to be struggling with, is numbers.
It still uses terms like "short" or "a prolonged period" one person's "short" ride is another's Olypian effort...
I hate to say it but things might actually be a bit easier if there were some simple numbers applied.
Until the government does that there will be villagers erecting angry signs and arseholes driving 150 miles to walk their dogs, and they'll just go pointing out the law has not fully defined "reasonable"...
Actually if you look at what is seen as "unreasonable" then driving 150 miles is covered: basically if your drive (local) is longer than your exercise then it's unreasonable.
Numbers aren't ideal in this situation. What's "usual" "short", etc. Most on here would say their usual ride length was in the 2-3hr region being a quick blast around whichever trail centre they've gone to. For me a typical ride is more like five hours but is often ten hours or more. Put numbers on things: say an hour, and the social media curtain twitchers will be screaming if you so much as dare ride for 61mins.
Anyway, I'm heading out for a couple of hours. I'll be no more than 5km from the house and will probably meet a total of five people most of whom will be in the village I'll pass through.
This absolutely nails the whole puritanism thing that seems so prevalent at the moment.
Individuals see a ban, often subjectively interpret it, then judge others for not following it as overtly and faithfully as they are. It is as though some people are competing to see who can be the most hardline and unbending, and casting anyone less rigid as directly responsible for people's deaths.
hmmm. sound familiar anyone...
Hmmm, hardly a definitive table.
I hate to say it but things might actually be a bit easier if there were some simple numbers applied.
Couldn't disagree more.
So it seems long or multiple rides in a day seem to be fine in legal sense. There is still a moral argument whether you should be going on epic long rides or taking unnecessary risks but it's not the police's job to question these moralities.
Yes, the legislation can be abused and you can argue endlessly whether the law should be stricter at the expense of personal liberties and mental health etc. I think campaigns such as the "no car, no gnar, not far" are a great way of convincing people to give greater thought to how their take exercise without resorting to arbitrary daily exercise limits that would be impossible to police anyway.
The public shaming seems to be getting out of hand, sure some people are going to take liberties but you would have to be stupid to think putting up anti-cycling signage is an effective way of getting your message across. All it does is raise tensions and may have an opposite effect when it becomes "us vs them".
Making the law stricter should be backed up by statistics and thought given to the enforce-ability. I would be interested to know if people going on longish rides, and potentially not meeting a single person, is statistically significant when it comes to the spread of coronavirus. And if you expect the police to monitor the length of a ride give some thought to how they will police it. This is how you get police asking to see your phone gps history and other unnecessarily intrusive measures.
Shaming is not the answer but reasoned discussion and persuasion is.
Someone had put a sign up on a notice board at a local beauty spot, saying "If you have driven here you should be ashamed of yourself", they had really gone to town with the glue and stuck it to the plexiglass notice board window, the sign has been removed, but the notice board is a bit of a mess.
Part of the guidance spells out that it is acceptable to buy luxury items while shopping, and that driving somewhere to exercise is acceptable as long as "far more time" is spent walking than driving.
confused now
Meh, I've got used to riding to the hill now.
Couldn’t disagree more.
So it seems long or multiple rides in a day seem to be fine in legal sense. There is still a moral argument whether you should be going on epic long rides or taking unnecessary risks but it’s not the police’s job to question these moralities.
Your own first paragraph basically captures the dichotomy I'm driving at.
The whole puritanical "shaming" thing, and the further social division it drives comes in no small part from the vagaries in the current guidance. Morality doesn't come into it either have clear black and white rules or forget about trying to enforce the measures...
Saddly you can't rely on "common sense", it's not actually very common.
As I pointed out the other day, in the absence of a real number, it was bloody Gove idly musing on the idea of a one hour limit, that caused it to be ceased on as "The government ruled limit" by various impressionable and anxious individuals (including my missus) who will merrily berate people who've done nothing wrong...
TBH I actually don't think any of us really know for sure where we sit on this imaginary "reasonableness scale". I'd say keeping rides under ~35 miles from the door is "reasonable" (to me), but then I know mates who've been pushing ~45-50 and are probably not increasing their contact risk significantly. I'm sure there's a few taking advantage of the quieter roads to bash out centuries too, all actually within the rules as written, but bound to wind up some moralising angst monster. If you want some instant outrage, Screenshot a 100 mile bike ride on Strava and email it to a tabloid....
It's not so much that I really want limits placed on me or anyone, more that I want clearer 'boundaries' defined because the delta between perception and reality has become a bit "socially toxic" it seems.
Apply some numbers and both those trying desperately to interpret the vagaries in the harshest possible "Moral" terms, as well as those using "loopholes" to ignore the lockdown have less basis for their ongoing actions.
Tell me I can go for no more than a 50 mile ride/20 mile run, or any activity for a maximum of three hours and I'd happily comply, I think most probably would, and it would probably damp down the teeth gnashing from the "Campaign for shame" a bit too.
Tell me I can go for no more than a 50 mile ride/20 mile run, or any activity for a maximum of three hours and I’d happily comply
And what if "they" told you that you can go for no more than a 10 mile ride/3 mile run, or any activity for a maximum of one hour.
Then I'd have to accept it and work within the rules.
At least it would be clearly defined...
I totally see where you're coming from Cookeaa, but I believe the "rules" have been left intentionally subjective in order to be "one size fits all" and to avoid EVEN MORE angst.
Also, do you think people have been chilling out about the exercise thing a bit over the last week? I'm certain seeing fewer ranty outbursts from people I'd previously judged as relatively sensible on social media.
Fewer ranty outbursts but also a gradual stretching of what's acceptable. Not just as regards exercise though - lockdown fatigue is already setting in. The wee holes in the dam are getting a bit bigger.
Definitely more people out and about doing normal stuff, the initial wave of new riders, runners and walkers seems to have passed. I hope it's people adjusting to the new normal and settling into a new routine but I fear it's people realising the penalty for pushing things a bit is not there so they're less likely to stick to whatever time/distance limit they've used before. The fewer new runners/riders I'm putting down to them being a bit achey as their bodies start to complain about the new movements so they're all having a rest day or two forced upon them.
Roads are getting busier too but still well below normal.
I think we've seen increased compliance round here actually, certainly it was quieter up the hill at the weekend (one of the main beauty spots close to MCR) than during the week before.
And there were about half as many cars parked outside the closed car parks as midweek.
Might have helped that there was a bit of a publicity push telling people not to drive to the hill though.
I've not really been in a position to see other infractions though.