Enforcement of the new rules on social distancing, unnecessary journeys etc.

yorkie · 4 Apr 2020

@111-111-1 I think you should look at what the law actually says.

111-111-1 said:
...How you can consider it to be reasonable, in the examples in this thread Nottingham or Grantham to Skegness, to travel such distance for the purpose of exercise ...

Did anyone actually say that? If so can you please provide a quote as I don't think anyone did say that.

RailUK Forums

111-111-1 · 4 Apr 2020

fishquinn said:
I'm not looking for excuses here and will follow the advice (so no public transport unless needed) but am merely stating what the law says and means. Your post makes me think you haven't actually read the law, which is a tad more lenient than the advice given and does allow for exercise as an essential.

I apologise if you considered I was criticising you personally for flouting the Government advice, if you are keeping to it that is good. I do however feel that we should not encourage others to loopholes in it.

As with my reply to Bletchleyite I have read the law and listened to the Government advice. Yes the law is more lenient than the advice but surely we should be following that advice.

111-111-1 · 4 Apr 2020

yorkie said:
@111-111-1 I think you should look at what the law actually says.

Did anyone actually say that? If so can you please provide a quote as I don't think anyone did say that.

message #467

Tetchytyke · 4 Apr 2020

111-111-1 said:
The rules are exercise must be taken near the persons home

Michael Gove's opinion is not the law.

111-111-1 said:
The rules as linked to by Bletchleyite state that you must not travel except for very limited reasons which do not include for exercise.

Read them again, you are wrong.

The law puts no restriction on any travel, so long as you have "reasonable excuse" for leaving your home. As a point of note, the restriction is on leaving your home and NOT on travel. Standing on the [public] pavement by your front door to have a tab is actually illegal if you don't have a reasonable excuse to be there.

Exercise is reasonable excuse. So is getting food or medicine, donating blood, or obtaining money.

111-111-1 said:
Nowhere does it say you can travel for exercise.

You are still wrong. "Travelling for work" is one category of reasonable excuse. It does not mean you cannot travel for other reasons. Bear in mind walking is a form of travel as well as s form of exercise.

111-111-1 said:
Yes the law is more lenient than the advice but surely we should be following that advice.

111-111-1 said:
How you can consider it to be reasonable, in the examples in this thread Nottingham or Grantham to Skegness, to travel such distance for the purpose of exercise is beyond me.

I don't disagree that people shouldn't be spending two hours on a train to get exercise/food/money/other. It is deeply irresponsible. But- crucially- it is not illegal.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think the police should be enforcing the *actual* law, not what the think the law should be. And if someone wants to go to Skegness for a walk, the law says they are allowed to.

Jamesrob637 · 4 Apr 2020

Howardh said:
The next shortages will be cooling fans no doubt. We have had such a horrid winter - wind and rain if no snow - that we are due a decent spring, so if temperatures soar and people are housebound then that's a recipe for unrest.

Thankfully being a home worker pre-COVID-19 I have a sizeable fan which can effectively cool the living room!

Jamesrob637 · 4 Apr 2020

Ianno87 said:
There is a real possibility that I may not drive my car at all for quite a few weeks. And if I do it'll only be a ~1 mile trip to do a big shop.

Give it a bit of a motorway or A-road run on your supermarket trips. I did 15 miles last week in mine (petrol: diesel will need longer) and I can tell it did it the world of good.

Jamesrob637 · 4 Apr 2020

Howardh said:
When my car last had an MOT (November last IIRC) it had done something like under 1000 miles since the previous one, and there were a couple of issues which the mechanic said "you're not driving the car enough...."!!

As I've advised Ianno87, make your supermarket run a bit of a motorway or A-road run as well. 10-15 miles if petrol, twice that if diesel will do, once per week.

Tom B · 4 Apr 2020

Exhausts are another one that will rot if used for short trips only. Potentially accelerate engine wear (not getting up to temperature / running on choke or injection equivalent).

At the petrol station this evening, somebody had left their lights on and flattened their battery (quite how, in the time taken to pay). Socially distantly jump started it off my 40-year old capri which certainly raised a few eyebrows.

Cowley · 4 Apr 2020

Tom B said:
Exhausts are another one that will rot if used for short trips only. Potentially accelerate engine wear (not getting up to temperature / running on choke or injection equivalent).

At the petrol station this evening, somebody had left their lights on and flattened their battery (quite how, in the time taken to pay). Socially distantly jump started it off my 40-year old capri which certainly raised a few eyebrows.

You’ve got a Capri Tom? You are clearly a smooth operator sir.

Tom B · 4 Apr 2020

Cowley said:
You’ve got a Capri Tom? You are clearly a smooth operator sir.

I would certainly not fit in tight jeans a la Bodie and Doyle, but I shall not comment further on my style of driving.

If the lockdown restrictions continued, I would happily get pulled over if only for the look on a copper's face that it is fully insured for commuting (albeit only drafted in occasionally), and listed as a key worker's vehicle with the council!

83A · 4 Apr 2020

Talking of flat batteries. My partner has one in her car but doesn’t have home start cover. She has 2 children and can’t drive at the moment. We don’t live together (I’m about 40 min away).
I’m wondering if it’s acceptable for me to go sort out her car? The rules state I can leave the house to help someone in an emergency. But I’m not sure what they consider an emergency!

Greybeard33 · 5 Apr 2020

Tetchytyke said:
I don't disagree that people shouldn't be spending two hours on a train to get exercise/food/money/other. It is deeply irresponsible. But- crucially- it is not illegal.

Statute law is subject to interpretation by the courts. If the meaning of the words is disputed, the court may have regard to what it believes was the intent of parliament when the law was passed. If parliament disagrees with the interpretation, it can subsequently amend the legislation.

In this case the regulation says that a reasonable excuse for leaving home is the need to take exercise. I think it is highly unlikely that the courts would consider that anyone needs to take a walk in a distant seaside resort rather than close to home, or indeed that the need for exercise was the real reason for leaving home in this case.

In less extreme cases where a defendant argued that they left home because of a need for exercise, even though they also made a journey by private car or public transport while outside their home, I imagine that the courts might refer to the government guidance material regarding exercise, for clarification of parliament's intent.

johnnychips · 5 Apr 2020

83A said:
Talking of flat batteries. My partner has one in her car but doesn’t have home start cover. She has 2 children and can’t drive at the moment. We don’t live together (I’m about 40 min away).
I’m wondering if it’s acceptable for me to go sort out her car? The rules state I can leave the house to help someone in an emergency. But I’m not sure what they consider an emergency!

Can't your lass go outside and rev the car up for ten minutes, taking the kids with her if she wants? Or is it totally flat?

Bantamzen · 5 Apr 2020

111-111-1 said:
Actually I have read them and they are quite simple to understand. I also listen to what is said on TV from the Government.

The restrictions on movement state you must not leave your home without reasonable excuse then list the reasonable excuses.

6 B states: to take exercise either alone or with other members of your household.

6F states: to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

Nowhere does it say you can travel for exercise. I repeat again that the Government officials have given clarification that, although not in the law, that you can drive a short distance to exercise. How you can consider it to be reasonable, in the examples in this thread Nottingham or Grantham to Skegness, to travel such distance for the purpose of exercise is beyond me. It appears blatantly obvious you are nit-picking the legislation and suggesting that flouting Government advice. That advice is actually now an instruction, listen to what the PM said yesterday in his twitter communication. Suggesting such is putting transport workers and those who have to travel at greater risk.

The last time I checked rules and laws in this country could not be changed by a Prime Minister's Twitter feed. So as has been pointed out, there is no rule or law that says you cannot use public transport to go to a place to exercise. We are advised to try to exercise locally, but that may not always be pragmatic for some people. Going to Skegness is taking the you-know-what I will admit, but once again I wish people would stop making up rules.

jb · 5 Apr 2020

The country in which I live acted early and decisively on lockdown, with rather little formal entrenchment in law and little or no public discussion. There were some tales of non-compliance which were dealt with by the police quickly and without fuss.

The difference with the UK? Well, there are many, but importantly we don’t seem to have a substantial vocal minority braying on about their rights and imagining at every turn that the authorities exist solely to screw them over.

Now here’s the thing... when all this is over two things seem very likely: we will at no stage have faced lockdown conditions as stringent as the UK currently experiences, and our death rate per capita will be an order of magnitude lower than the UK. There are many factors in this, but broad public discipline and civic-mindedness are high among them.

The vocal minority in the UK have had a material impact. They were a factor in the UK government dithering over introducing measures. Lives are being lost and lockdowns lengthened and strengthened as a result. So when you’re thinking of “standing up for your rights” or pontificating over pushing the letter of the law to its limits in all this, just remember one thing: you’re part of the problem.

scotrail158713 · 5 Apr 2020

jb said:
The country in which I live acted early and decisively on lockdown, with rather little formal entrenchment in law and little or no public discussion. There were some tales of non-compliance which were dealt with by the police quickly and without fuss.

The difference with the UK? Well, there are many, but importantly we don’t seem to have a substantial vocal minority braying on about their rights and imagining at every turn that the authorities exist solely to screw them over.

Now here’s the thing... when all this is over two things seem very likely: we will at no stage have faced lockdown conditions as stringent as the UK currently experiences, and our death rate per capita will be an order of magnitude lower than the UK. There are many factors in this, but broad public discipline and civic-mindedness are high among them.

The vocal minority in the UK have had a material impact. They were a factor in the UK government dithering over introducing measures. Lives are being lost and lockdowns lengthened and strengthened as a result. So when you’re thinking of “standing up for your rights” or pontificating over pushing the letter of the law to its limits in all this, just remember one thing: you’re part of the problem.

Spot on

westv · 5 Apr 2020

jb said:
The country in which I live acted early and decisively on lockdown,

May I ask where that is?

Greybeard33 · 5 Apr 2020

jb said:
The vocal minority in the UK have had a material impact. They were a factor in the UK government dithering over introducing measures. Lives are being lost and lockdowns lengthened and strengthened as a result. So when you’re thinking of “standing up for your rights” or pontificating over pushing the letter of the law to its limits in all this, just remember one thing: you’re part of the problem.

On the Marr show this morning, Matt Hancock made crystal clear that the government will impose a total ban on exercise outside the home if people continue to flout the guidance, e.g. by sunbathing. Keir Stamer said that Labour would support such a ban.

I hope that the vocal minority do not spoil things for the rest of us.

philosopher · 5 Apr 2020

Greybeard33 said:
Statute law is subject to interpretation by the courts. If the meaning of the words is disputed, the court may have regard to what it believes was the intent of parliament when the law was passed. If parliament disagrees with the interpretation, it can subsequently amend the legislation.

In this case the regulation says that a reasonable excuse for leaving home is the need to take exercise. I think it is highly unlikely that the courts would consider that anyone needs to take a walk in a distant seaside resort rather than close to home, or indeed that the need for exercise was the real reason for leaving home in this case.

In less extreme cases where a defendant argued that they left home because of a need for exercise, even though they also made a journey by private car or public transport while outside their home, I imagine that the courts might refer to the government guidance material regarding exercise, for clarification of parliament's intent.

The government have said people should only exercise once a day and close to their home. Therefore what I do not understand, is why did the government just not put into the regulation that exercise can only be taken once a day and within a certain distance of their home. Then there would be much less need for interpretation by the courts.

Meerkat · 5 Apr 2020

What is so wrong with solo sunbathing, as long as it’s part of your exercise walk?
If you do want to I suggest a golf course. No one is playing so they are basically parks and the police are unlikely to visit.....

Bantamzen · 5 Apr 2020

Greybeard33 said:
On the Marr show this morning, Matt Hancock made crystal clear that the government will impose a total ban on exercise outside the home if people continue to flout the guidance, e.g. by sunbathing. Keir Stamer said that Labour would support such a ban.

I hope that the vocal minority do not spoil things for the rest of us.

So under such conditions, would walking to the shop constitute a breach? Because if so people like my wife and I are royally stuffed, as neither of us drive and there's not been a sniff of an available home delivery slot since the lock-down.

farleigh · 5 Apr 2020

Greybeard33 said:
On the Marr show this morning, Matt Hancock made crystal clear that the government will impose a total ban on exercise outside the home if people continue to flout the guidance, e.g. by sunbathing. Keir Stamer said that Labour would support such a ban.

I hope that the vocal minority do not spoil things for the rest of us.

If they ban exercise outside of the home they will be going way too far IMO.

Puffing Devil · 5 Apr 2020

I'm started to get very annoyed with people trying to find loopholes or justifications for behaviour. Maybe there's little else to do other than play devils advocate or argue the toss.

If we want to control the spread it's pretty simple:

Stay inside your house/flat/caravan/tent.
Do not go out unless you need to
- Food/medicine/essential work
Take a walk or cycle where you live - don't loiter.

If you're out, you can be spreading the virus. If you're in, you're not. How hard is it to do the right thing for everyone else?

superjohn · 5 Apr 2020

scotrail158713 said:
Spot on

The “they can’t make us do what we don’t wanna do” culture is a particularly British thing. Scouring the guidance for a potential loophole is just part of that.

The advice is straightforward and easily understood. Only go out if you need to and distance yourself when you do it. If you need food, go to the shops. If you need exercise, go for a walk or run near home.

The reasons for this are real and serious.

The idea that one should need to drive to a place to take exercise is a level of stubborn idiocy that only the British could come up with.

Thankfully, I do think the measures are working. The aim is to minimise social contact not stop it completely, which would be impossible. To that end they are achieving the aim, there are no mass gatherings such as at sports events or shopping centres at the weekend.

For the moment we can leave the stubborn idiots to it. My only objection is to those who get unnecessarily close to me when I am in a shop. If you think the rules are nonsense that’s up to you but please respect my right to social distance.

yorksrob · 5 Apr 2020

Greybeard33 said:
On the Marr show this morning, Matt Hancock made crystal clear that the government will impose a total ban on exercise outside the home if people continue to flout the guidance, e.g. by sunbathing. Keir Stamer said that Labour would support such a ban.

I hope that the vocal minority do not spoil things for the rest of us.

I think there are limits to how far a national approach should be followed.

I don't see why the whole country should be confined to their homes, just because people in a particular area aren't following the rules.

Bletchleyite · 5 Apr 2020

Greybeard33 said:
On the Marr show this morning, Matt Hancock made crystal clear that the government will impose a total ban on exercise outside the home if people continue to flout the guidance, e.g. by sunbathing. Keir Stamer said that Labour would support such a ban.

I hope that the vocal minority do not spoil things for the rest of us.

I think we need another "Bojo at the table looking serious" address to the nation making it clear that if you're not moving you're not exercising, except a short rest standing up. Most people I think are just ignoring the Press Conferences now.

That said, such a ban may well have unintended consequences, such as people going shopping more often so they can walk to the supermarket and get exercise that way.

I think the Police and others also need to use some common sense, for instance stopping people exercising on their own in beauty spots is a bit silly, but it would be totally valid to go and give tickets to people sunbathing in groups because the latter is a clear infringement.

I also wonder if it would, though some families may not like it, be sensible to impose legal restrictions thus:-
- No children (I'd go with under 16 for this) may be in public without being accompanied by an adult (over 18), and that a £30 FPN will be imposed on the legal guardians of such children if the Police have to catch them and take them home
- No groups in public, even of family units, may include more than one adult (over 18), unless one of them is a carer for someone with a disability

Those would make enforcement easier because it would be easy for the Police to see, and take a single photograph in most cases easily proving, that an offence had been committed. Without compulsory identity it's impossible to check people don't live together, which is rather a challenge.

Bletchleyite · 5 Apr 2020

yorksrob said:
I think there are limits to how far a national approach should be followed.

I don't see why the whole country should be confined to their homes, just because people in a particular area aren't following the rules.

It does seem that there is a particular issue in London, where people are following their usual approach and heading for the parks, and not considering that it might for example make more sense to go and run round closed shopping areas or the City where there will be hardly anybody. I've been for a run around Bletchley, and here it appears that almost nobody is out except a few runners or dog walkers, and all are making the effort to skirt well more than 2m around people and giving each other a friendly wave, and the parks I went through are near-empty except the odd what looks like a family unit.

It is I'll admit a bit easier if you've got a garden (which Londoners don't) - but I mostly don't sit in mine, I actually prefer sitting in the house with all the windows open, which is not really much different to a flat.

That said 2 tracksuited "chavvy looking" young adult lads did just walk past my front window, but who am I to say they're not housemates or a gay couple?

RichT54 · 5 Apr 2020

I hope there aren't too many people like one of my neighbours. The daughter's boyfriend has been visiting their house virtually every day during the restrictions, thus providing a means for possible cross contamination to both families. They also have several other visitors calling and they chat close together on the door step and hand each other things like books, magazines and DVDs. I don't know whether it's done out of ignorance, or they just don't care.

Bletchleyite · 5 Apr 2020

RichT54 said:
I hope there aren't too many people like one of my neighbours. The daughter's boyfriend has been visiting their house virtually every day during the restrictions, thus providing a means for possible cross contamination to both families.

While it's not in the strictness of the rules, provided both households consider themselves as one (i.e. they fully isolate for 14 days if anybody in one of them develops symptoms) I'm not sure this is that much of an issue. I'd certainly say that separated families who are (within the law) passing children back and forth should do that. The visitors I'll give you. While it seems a bit Soviet Russia, if you're really concerned perhaps a call to 101?

yorksrob · 5 Apr 2020

Bletchleyite said:
It does seem that there is a particular issue in London, where people are following their usual approach and heading for the parks, and not considering that it might for example make more sense to go and run round closed shopping areas or the City where there will be hardly anybody. I've been for a run around Bletchley, and here it appears that almost nobody is out except a few runners or dog walkers, and all are making the effort to skirt well more than 2m around people and giving each other a friendly wave, and the parks I went through are near-empty except the odd what looks like a family unit.

It is I'll admit a bit easier if you've got a garden (which Londoners don't) - but I mostly don't sit in mine, I actually prefer sitting in the house with all the windows open, which is not really much different to a flat.

That said 2 tracksuited "chavvy looking" young adult lads did just walk past my front window, but who am I to say they're not housemates or a gay couple?

Indeed. I've not seen many people loitering around here either, certainly not in groups. The streets are generally very quiet, but those that are out are on the move.

Enforcement of the new rules on social distancing, unnecessary journeys etc.

Forum Staff

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member