They need to set it out with a limit one way or the other

They do.
It’s becoming an “othering” tool, and a lack of clarity or simple quantifiable numbers means it makes the law a bit of an ass in all of this…

But you most likely COULD in theory do a 40 mile loop without ever being more than 2-3 miles from home… Which is more within the spirit of the situation, sure it would be repetitive, sure it would be dull… but it’s exercise, not sight-seeing.

I guess I’m relatively lucky. I had a play with calcmap and a 5 mile radius gets me to Swinley, TunnelHill/Mytchett, Porridgepot, Frith, Minley.  I can live with that.

I’ve triangulated and I’ll be round to nick your bikes later.

Even better you can’t stop me because you aren’t allowed within 2m 😉

My 7 miles gets me to the A30 but not North so TH/PP OK, but I also get a bit of Surrey Hills instead. But I’m not MTBing during this phase cos I fall off too much. Back to riding my 15km lockdown loop, no more than 5km from home at any point.

Yes weeksy, where’s the law/rule explicitly compelling that?

If you give people autonomy and simply say “stay local” they’re going to stick to what they consider local.

I happen to consider a 10 mile radius local and thus far the law doesn’t contradict that (just some people’s opinion). Living in a busy town I find it easier to avoid interactions by heading out of town on a bike than running a 5k loop.

TBH I’d be fine with half of that radius or less. But they’ve actively avoided applying numbers for the last 10 months, so while you might want to criticise strangers for, in your opinion, riding too far what laws/rules have been broken?

I was surprised that 7 mile radius encompassed almost everything that I would consider worth doing and achievable from the door

I found the same. I am not a long distance rider and only do up to 30 mile rides in summer and down to as low as some 11 mile loops in winter and all my rides fit within a 7 mile radius.

I also ride at 8 in the morning so rarely see anyone let alone get within 10 metres of anyone so not really a concern for me anyway.

Glad so many people are exercising from their door… but let’s not forget…

There is a lot of chat about outdoor cycling and jogging.

But we need to focus on how to prevent transmission *indoors* – in care homes, workplaces, etc. That's where transmission takes place.

These are the latest weekly figures for number of incidents/outbreaks from @PHE_uk pic.twitter.com/92VXpFBATq

— Dr Duncan Robertson (@Dr_D_Robertson) January 12, 2021

…we don’t need stricter rules on exercise. Most people get it, and can apply the current guidance to avoid meeting up or unnecessary driving. What they need is support from their employers and/or the government to stay at home, and keep their kids at home.

Fixed rules about distance to exercise is a red herring. We don’t need it. Just exercise from your door if you can.

It also doesn’t really concern me as I live on the edge of a woodland anyway, but I don’t see how an arbitrary distance will resolve this. A 5 mile circumference for me probably means 50km of trails, but for some, that might not even get them to a bit of grass.

People who are bending or breaking the rules will continue to do so regardless. The vast majority of people are not outside exercising or doing things.

And they keep telling us the actual chances of catching it outside, when exercising, being sensible with social distancing is almost nil, when I have city based police friends breaking up full blown parties of people every night. That’s where the issue is.

Was thinking the same thing kelvin

Schools are an obvious and even tho ‘shut’ ours has a case from a key worker child

My work also has a case at the moment, so I’m isolating

Johnsons problem is that his 7 miles covers a lot more people than a 7 mile trip in Cornwall

A few days ago it seemed likely there would be a 5 mile limit on exercise, now to accommodate Johnson it has to be at least 7, surely someone on his staff must have pointed out that it wasn’t ‘in the spirit ‘

And like the Cummings thing, people looking for an excuse to go from one side of London to the other will happily just cite Johnsons trip, he didn’t even cycle there, he was driven 🙄

A seven mile radius for me prob has well over 100miles (prob over 200m of access) of different bridal and biways with out getting in a car.
Equally it has a vast increase on the recreation users for my village shop who wouldn’t normally stop for a coffee…. thankfully it doesn’t quite reach the two neighbouring city’s but does include the edges of one town (infamously filled with anti vaxers and deniers – Stroud).
I’ve no issue with the seven mile idea. As long as people stick to exercise and don’t use it as an excuse for visiting / parking in populated areas.

Yes weeksy, where’s the law/rule explicitly compelling that?

If you give people autonomy and simply say “stay local” they’re going to stick to what they consider local.

I happen to consider a 10 mile radius local and thus far the law doesn’t contradict that (just some people’s opinion). Living in a busy town I find it easier to avoid interactions by heading out of town on a bike than running a 5k loop.

TBH I’d be fine with half of that radius or less. But they’ve actively avoided applying numbers for the last 10 months, so while you might want to criticise strangers for, in your opinion, riding too far what laws/rules have been broken?

I never said rules or laws were being broken fella, i was simply pointing out, that if we were to be sensible we could still do as many miles as we wanted, but within a shorter actual range.

Regarding the toll on the NHS argument for staying close to home, what is the difference between falling off 10 miles from home and falling off 2 miles from home from a strain on the NHS prospective.

If you need an Ambulance then it makes no difference where you are* and if you just need your wife/partner/work colleague to pick you up then it’s just a longer wait.

*Riding deep into the Gnar is a separate discussion and can still be done locally.

I think it also depends on if you ride alot of road. A mate of mine considers a local loop to be within around 40miles of home. He does pretty much daily 80+ miles, but rarely does a coffee stop and if he does it’s at a regular cafe, who know him and he checks in with the NHS ap each time.

We have the NHS we code in my village shop, not once has anyone used it local or otherwise.

Fixed rules about distance to exercise is a red herring. We don’t need it. Just exercise from your door if you can.

I agree in theory. In practice, there’s a lot of finger pointing and othering, amongst cyclists and the wider public.

Some form of clarity might just tone down the debates, and let the message about indoor transmission get the attention it needs.

If you need an Ambulance then it makes no difference where you are* and if you just need your wife/partner/work colleague to pick you up then it’s just a longer wait.

*Riding deep into the Gnar is a separate discussion and can still be done locally.

Possibly a more important discussion. The main reason I’m not driving anywhere to ride at the moment is to avoid “the gnar”. Crashing and requiring medical attention would be bad for all involved, and on a selfish personal level I really don’t want an injury that ends up having an unnecessarily bad outcome due to insufficient capacity resulting in suboptimal treatment.

Regarding the toll on the NHS argument for staying close to home, what is the difference between falling off 10 miles from home and falling off 2 miles from home from a strain on the NHS prospective.

There might be a risk of being in another NHS area if you are near the edge so you don’t get taken to your local hospital, but another 20 miles in the other direction. Also depends on the fall. If it is minor or a mechanical then 2 miles is walk/hobble home, 10 miles means someone coming out to get you. It is all a lot of “what ifs?” though and any fall that needs an ambulance is a definite social distance fail.

…we don’t need stricter rules on exercise. Most people get it, and can apply the current guidance to avoid meeting up or unnecessary driving. What they need is support from their employers and/or the government to stay at home, and keep their kids at home.

Fixed rules about distance to exercise is a red herring. We don’t need it. Just exercise from your door if you can.

TBH I think you’re right, and I was probably getting drawn into the dickhead debate, arguing the toss about cycling/running distances when the rules are vague is absolutely a red herring. Outside of that making efforts to reduce/exclude unnecessary interactions with people have more value…

And the truth is most people are actually doing their best, it’s the exceptions that are making the news not the majority…

If some tubby old Etonian traveling 7 miles for a bicycle ride is a major news story clearly general social/exercise interaction aren’t as significant an issue as some think…

School/university/workplace infections are Perhaps a bigger worry, environments with people in closer proximity for longer periods with a new, more transmissible variant on the loose need greater scrutiny than Bozza pissing about on a bike…

Another dead cat?

Possibly a more important discussion. The main reason I’m not driving anywhere to ride at the moment is to avoid “the gnar”. Crashing and requiring medical attention would be bad for all involved, and on a selfish personal level I really don’t want an injury that ends up having an unnecessarily bad outcome due to insufficient capacity resulting in suboptimal treatment.

I think that’s a message that isn’t understood by a lot of my MTB mates. Most people do follow the social distancing bit and are ‘covid safe’. But it probably isn’t appropriate at the moment to chase KOMs, ride mega gnarly woods, or get up high. They are also putting themselves at risk of life changing injuries due to no capacity to treat at the local A&E not to mention the  increased risk to the mountain rescue teams that will be needed to carry them off the hill or out of the woods.

Many MTBers seem to conflate riding locally to riding at their local MTB spot. Not quite the same thing.

One of the biggest problems I have with this, is the logical inconsistencies.

I am in work today, 10miles from home. I should finish the work I’m doing today, so tomorrow I will move to another site to do the same work (this cannot be done from home). The next site I will be doing is 45miles away from home (over an hour driving) and I’ll be there for at least 2 days. Yet at the weekend, the guidance is that I cant drive for about 45mins (in the opposite direction) to a forest where I can ride somewhere I enjoy (I wont be as I’ve got the kids this weekend).  Next week I could (not on the plan at the moment, but it does change frequently) go to work driving PAST where I want to ride to get to another site that is further away. I could also be called to attend another site to fix a problem that’s nearly 2 hours away. this is all fine cos ‘work’.

This forest has no ‘car park’ like a trail centre, no toilets or café so no facilities I can potentially cross contaminate, I’ll take my own coffee in a flask for the journey there and back and have no need to stop en route. I’ll stay away from others using the forest and wont be doing anything even remotely gnar to reduce risk of injury if I do come off.

Even if I decided to go to a more local forest, which is closer but much busier, harder to social distance and with more types of forest users, I’d realistically need to drive there and park in the official car park with everyone else, and over the last 12months has got significantly get busier. From a Risk Assessment POV the further away forest is the best option from a control measure slant.

Edit: Remove formatting

If some tubby old Etonian traveling 7 miles for a bicycle ride is a major news story clearly general social/exercise interaction aren’t as significant an issue as some think…

I think the important point here is that the “man in charge of everything,” despite all the b0ll0cks that has gone before, went ahead and did this without thinking/caring that he would get called out for it.

The next site I will be doing is 45miles away from home (over an hour driving) and I’ll be there for at least 2 days. Yet at the weekend, the guidance is that I cant drive for about 45mins (in the opposite direction) to a forest where I can ride somewhere I enjoy (I wont be as I’ve got the kids this weekend).

If you can’t avoid those work journeys, but can avoid the journey to ride, then you only have one option to avoid unnecessary journeys.

If you can’t avoid those work journeys, but can avoid the journey to ride, then you only have one option to avoid unnecessary journeys.

Again, I understand the need to reduce the unnecessary (without going into details as a mental health issue, I’d argue there’s a potential for it not to be unnecessary) however it’s the fact there seems to be no reasoning why this is a transmission risk. There is no interaction between me and anyone else. No stopping for fuel, drinks, snacks etc. no meeting friends as I ride on my own unusually, no use of public facilities and its somewhere most “normal” people dont go so isnt crowded. All the other guidance I follow, as a minimum, as there is reasons for doing it that have been discussed, like reducing supermarket trips due to interactions, and wearing of a face covering. I understand the WHY for these. But “just because we say so” isnt something I believe to be enough as a reason.

I’m not saying I am/will do this BTW I just dont see the issue, or reasoning. When you have police breaking up large gatherings and parties indoors, villanising people being sensible in an outdoor location seems like arguing who’s responsible for unlocking the door when the house is burning down

I think the important point here is that the “man in charge of everything,” despite all the b0ll0cks that has gone before, went ahead and did this without thinking/caring that he would get called out for it.

But is it important, or is it just another slow news week distraction?

I don’t much like Boris, but he didn’t actually break any of the rules.
And looking at the figures for the last 2 weeks, there was a national spike on Friday but over the last 4 days both have apparently dropped? Too early to really say but is that indicative of wider rule compliance, more WFH and social distancing being the norm since the new year maybe?

Of course as a headline “Most people, largely doing the right thing!” isn’t such an attention grabber is it? So we get the “Everyone (including the PM) is behaving like a dick!” Narrative just to wind us all up…

Go for a bike ride in a responsible way if you can, ignore the anecdotes shocking news, it’s just bad for your mental health now…

Unhelpfully the policing minister – Kit Malthouse – is talking about local in terms of individual perception of local. It think it was something like local in a person’s own mind

When the government seems to come at this from Johnson’s Dodgers Charter, where accountability avoided appears to be the aim, it’s not really giving clarity. More do as I say not as I do rather than leading by example.

Am I the only one wondering if Boris’ Bike Ride is another dead cat. Tie the media up in knots talking about it to hide some other misdemeanour somewhere else…?

One of the biggest problems I have with this, is the logical inconsistencies.

Unfortunately, the rules can’t be set to meet every individual set of circumstances, so we have a vague blanket that does mean that some sensible can’t do what seem fairly sensible activities.

Neb
Full Member
Many MTBers seem to conflate riding locally to riding at their local MTB spot. Not quite the same thing.

however its exactly what Johnson has just done

Essentially any MTB off road ride is a luxury at the moment – pretty much anyone can do a local road ride from home to get their ‘daily’ exercise. If you you don’t live on top of the riding spot you want to get to and have to drive a significant length, either move house, or suck it up. The situation, hopefully is temporary, if all we have to complain about is less time on a MTB, great.
Over 2000 responses and people still, are moaning or tring to workout what the definition of acceptable is.

Essentially any MTB off road ride is a luxury at the moment – pretty much anyone can do a local road ride from home to get their ‘daily’ exercise. If you you don’t live on top of the riding spot you want to get to and have to drive a significant length, either move house, or suck it up. The situation, hopefully is temporary, if all we have to complain about is less time on a MTB, great.
Over 2000 responses and people still, are moaning or tring to workout what the definition of acceptable is.

Im sorry but Johnson has just done this very thing: driven to a cycling loop out of his area

It think it was something like local in a person’s own mind

You can’t really put a fixed distance on it though as depending on where you live different opportunities exist and for some actual driving somewhere could be lower risk than exercising from their door.

One of the biggest problems I have with this, is the logical inconsistencies

;

I don’t see that there are any. A unnecessary trip adds avoidable risk.
The fact that the risk was higher to start with due to work is irrelevant.

driven to a cycling loop out of his area

how big an area is an area?

the argument that will go round and round and round and round more times than a flywheel on a zwift trainer, and we still won’t know what radius is “acceptable”.

least I don’t live in London now, cos I’d be called breaking the law for daring to ride my bike around the park at the end of my street ffs! Cos Richmond par 200 yards away was the other side of a local council boundary.

fortunately I’m now in Germany where they thought it wise to declare “area” as 15km radius from place of abode or place of work which is very clear in deed, and pretty difficult to interpret differently (but still made it more confusing by making that only for those in extra curfew, not those merely in lockdown).

drive a few miles away is perfectly fine in my book. it’s the cops on commission to declare people going on a picnic in the middle of frickin’ winter who’s book is the one that counts though.

You can’t really put a fixed distance on it though as depending on where you live different opportunities exist and for some actual driving somewhere could be lower risk than exercising from their door.

Other home nations seem to be trying to give some guidance on distance but you have a fair point.

The rally round Boris seems to be building on people need to use their common sense and judgment. The take personal responsibility defence. I’m not sure what part of personal responsibility and commons sense fits with visiting a busy park several miles away whilst ignoring the one outside the back door.

Unfortunately, the rules can’t be set to meet every individual set of circumstances, so we have a vague blanket that does mean that some sensible can’t do what seem fairly sensible activities.

That is a good point Morecash, and something I do struggle with. Too many people in this country don’t act like adults and so cant be treated as such, so those who could actually be ‘sensible’ cant be cause ‘guidance’

I don’t see that there are any. A unnecessary trip adds avoidable risk.
The fact that the risk was higher to start with due to work is irrelevant.

Again Horatio, what is the avoidable risk? That’s the part I find weird, no social contact=no transmission risk surely?

In my mind it comes down to “how comfortable  are you explaining your choices to an imaginary cop”

if what you’re doing seems reasonable to you, then crack on, if you’re thinking “this might look a bit dodgy from a cop’s perspective” or “I might have difficulty explaining it”  then you probably need to make a different choice about where to ride

Again Horatio, what is the avoidable risk? That’s the part I find weird, no social contact=no transmission risk surely?

In a someone has to win the lottery way – for every X thousand avoidable car journeys one is going to end in a prang (arguably this is cumulative as the more avoidable journey cars are removed the harder it is to have a prang with another car), a trip to A&E, an AA man faffing with your car. For every X number of avoidable car journeys you are going to make an avoidable trip to a petrol station. For every x thousand avoidable fill ups another tanker is on the road.

It’s all very marginal gains and far removed from some fat lad pedalling around an empty wood (how many X thousand fat lad solo bike trips before one ends up in hospital?) but in a ‘Dig for Britain’ kind of way it all adds up.

Scotland’s rule seems sensible…. maximum 5 miles beyond your local authority boundary. That to me would allow a decent ride on road for the majority and for quite a lot of people a decent off road ride too

Im sorry but Johnson has just done this very thing: driven to a cycling loop out of his area

It’s irrelevant what anyone else does, no matter of position, job or importance. If you want exercise, go for a bike ride – ideally from your house. If you want a MTB ride try to reduce your risks to an absolute minimum. Take personal responsibility rather than pointing the finger.

It’s irrelevant what anyone else does, no matter of position, job or importance…. Take personal responsibility rather than pointing the finger.

It’s not pointing the finger, its showing that is an acceptable thing to do. It is within the current guidelines. And their position does matter because it was one of the people setting the rules, the Secretary of State for Health then went on the news and also said it was OK. By all means make your own rules up, I think most of us are generally sticking to tougher rules than is allowed, but don’t go “pointing the finger” when someone doesn’t follow your version of the rules

crazy-legs
Full Member
Am I the only one wondering if Boris’ Bike Ride is another dead cat. Tie the media up in knots talking about it to hide some other misdemeanour somewhere else…?

+1

Not the only one.