• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
383
Though in terms of consideration the hills may not be the place to be as Mountain Rescue service is going to be rather limited if it's available at all.

And how likely is it really that Mountain Rescue will be needed? We are out of Winter and the people going to the hills are likely to be the more experienced.

By definition on the hills people will be doing their exercise far further apart from each other than on pavements in towns and cities!

Driving there in a car also by definition does not expose anyone.

Using public transport of course would - hence why why shouldn’t use it.

I get the “release emergency services capacity / don’t do stuff needing help” ideas but really, this is pretty desperate logic to stop people doing something.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
What is so wrong with sunbathing if it’s part of your walking exercise?
Probably less transmission risk than all the joggers puffing away.
The parks situation is massively overblown by the media. They take a low angle telephoto shot and the park looks far busier and less spaced out than it really is

I think the problem with sunbathing - which is of very low risk in itself - is that it encourages people to stay in the park for longer, meaning a higher density than would otherwise be the case. Especially if it's widely practised.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
It will make me indescribably angry if outdoor exercise gets banned. An hour or so ago I had a 1 year old bouncing off the walls inside with his energy - a quick run out on the local streets with him pushing his toy pram around has burned his energy off very nicely.

If we can't do that...well there's a very real risk of creating a household accident or breakage with him climbing stuff or running around. And destroying his sleeping routine and my ability to do work...
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I think it would be very foolish to go down the road of banning outdoor exercise.

If people are flouting the current rules, it's a sign that they aren't being enforced, so what makes them think that new rules, that will be more onerous for the authorities to police, are going to be enforced any more than the existing ones?
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,416
Driving there in a car also by definition does not expose anyone.
Except at petrol stations and shops out of your area, you still might twist an ankle/trip/slip however experienced you are, and it’s volume - if lots of people drive then there will be accidents
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think it would be very foolish to go down the road of banning outdoor exercise.

If people are flouting the current rules, it's a sign that they aren't being enforced, so what makes them think that new rules, that will be more onerous for the authorities to police, are going to be enforced any more than the existing ones?

They'd be easier to enforce. A person on foot who is not in between their home and their nearest sensible food shop (and carrying goods if in the reverse direction) is automatically in the wrong.

That's why I proposed above the idea that there should be no groups of adults, only lone adults and adults with children - then it's obvious from looking who shouldn't be out. There's little a Police officer can do realistically if all of 100-odd people in Hyde Park in small groups go "we're housemates" - we don't have compulsory ID, so he can't check peoples' ID to see where they live.

To be fair, it's quite possible that a lot of these groups are housemates/flatmates. Property in London is so expensive that groups of twentysomethings (and these are the people you're seeing most) often do live in groups of 3-6 in shared accommodation, then there are students who have been told not to go home too.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,429
Location
Yorkshire
There is no way that the rules should be made any more restrictive than what they are.
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
383
Except at petrol stations and shops out of your area, you still might twist an ankle/trip/slip however experienced you are, and it’s volume - if lots of people drive then there will be accidents

It’s a tiny volume. Very few people are doing or would do this relative to the population - hence why the “drone following” was pilloried as a misallocation of resources from a supposedly stretched force.

I also don’t think driving somewhere would support people going London to the Peaks or coast. But people who live near the Peaks or coast aren’t doing the mileage to raise that volume.

Sadly I agree - the response of many people when rules are broken is to think more rules will fix it.

Questions about why, arguments looking at the numbers of is it worth it, and practicalities of just how do you enforce a more strict version of what you are failing to enforce now - don’t get listened to in that panicked groupthink.

It then becomes about the leader/rule abiding groups own ego and sense of authority rather than the issue.

Hence the overzealous actions by the police as they are exactly the group of people who want to be in control and take it very badly any sense they aren’t.

To quote from the absolutely brilliant, and very much missed early departed, Douglas Adams:

There were three of them, three police cars left askew across the road in a way that transcended mere parking. It sent out a massive signal to the world saying that the law was here now taking charge of things, and that anyone who just had normal, good and cheerful business to conduct in Lupton Road could just **** off.

We have all seen this in schools, workplaces and of course the family.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
So the other Thursday, everyone on their doorsteps clapping hands for the NHS.....A week later, they are sticking two fingers up at them, by flocking to the park / beach, not a care about spreading virus, and making the NHS's work even harder ! strange old Country !

Presumably anybody who smokes, drinks alcohol, eats fast food, etc would also be hypocritical in expressing gratitude for health workers?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
They'd be easier to enforce. A person on foot who is not in between their home and their nearest sensible food shop (and carrying goods if in the reverse direction) is automatically in the wrong.

That's why I proposed above the idea that there should be no groups of adults, only lone adults and adults with children - then it's obvious from looking who shouldn't be out. There's little a Police officer can do realistically if all of 100-odd people in Hyde Park in small groups go "we're housemates" - we don't have compulsory ID, so he can't check peoples' ID to see where they live.

To be fair, it's quite possible that a lot of these groups are housemates/flatmates. Property in London is so expensive that groups of twentysomethings (and these are the people you're seeing most) often do live in groups of 3-6 in shared accommodation, then there are students who have been told not to go home too.

It depends.

I suspect the highlighted problems are due to there not being the manpower around to enforce the rules full stop, rather than the police going up to a group of partying people who say "but we all live in the same flat - honest gov".

At least with the current rules, if someones clearly on the move, either on their own or in a couple, for example, they can be ignored, rather than having to question everyone heading for the shop.
 

lineclear

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2016
Messages
133
Location
Yorkshire
And how likely is it really that Mountain Rescue will be needed? We are out of Winter and the people going to the hills are likely to be the more experienced.
Nobody plans to get rescued, yet many mountain rescue teams were out most weekends before coronavirus happened. Fortunately, there is a massive reduction in rescues at the moment due to people staying at home and not travelling to the hills. I'd also point out that there are more rescues during spring/summer/autumn than winter, due to higher numbers of walkers, many of whom are less competent. Finally, with workplaces and gyms shut, there would be a higher than usual number of inexperienced walkers about (if travelling to the countryside to walk wasn't banned).

By definition on the hills people will be doing their exercise far further apart from each other than on pavements in towns and cities!
Not necessarily. Most people tend to follow a small number of popular footpaths from the same start points.

Driving there in a car also by definition does not expose anyone.
Not on the journey, but it's no good to arrive at your destination and find that everyone else had the same idea. This happened at Malham on the weekend of the 21st/22nd March, and in Snowdonia on the same weekend, as well as many other places.

Using public transport of course would - hence why why shouldn’t use it.

I get the “release emergency services capacity / don’t do stuff needing help” ideas but really, this is pretty desperate logic to stop people doing something.
Rural communities (many with vulnerable populations) could do without people travelling there and spreading the virus. Don't do it; it's not clever.

Elfyn Jones - BMC access officer and member of Llanberis Mountain Rescue said:
There's been a lot of talk about justifying why we can still climb or hill-walk safely within our capabilities and that, somehow, we can do this without affecting anyone else or impacting spread of the virus. The simple fact is - we can't. Please stop.

Stay in your home area. We all owe it to everyone else to do everything we can to help stop or at least delay the spread of this disaster. Please put climbing, mountaineering and hill walking on hold until it's safe to do so.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
I think the problem with sunbathing - which is of very low risk in itself - is that it encourages people to stay in the park for longer, meaning a higher density than would otherwise be the case. Especially if it's widely practised.
Yes, the rules are intended to reduce the probability of virus transmission - it cannot be prevented completely. If two people are two metres apart, it is still possible that the virus can be transmitted, but the probability is much lower than if they were one foot apart. And time matters as well as distance. If you spend an hour chatting to someone two metres away, the probability of transmission is much higher than if you just walk or run past at that distance.

The greater the density of people in a given public space, even if they are all two metres apart at all times, the greater the probability of transmission. That is why you should take your exercise as quickly as possible, without pauses or rests, to minimise the time you are out of your home.
Driving there in a car also by definition does not expose anyone.
It is incorrect that there is no possibility of virus transmission while you are in a car. A car is not a sealed box - there is a continuous flow of air through the ventilation/aircon system, which can carry virus aerosol droplets, and in this warm weather I have seen cars with the windows open, even on the passenger side. The front seat passenger is much less than two metres from pedestrians and cyclists as the car goes past. And the air turbulence created by the car could carry the virus much further than two metres.

If you drive to work in a start-stop traffic queue, you might be at higher risk of exposure than in a near-empty railway carriage.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,416
It’s a tiny volume. Very few people are doing or would do this relative to the population
If the sun comes out and most people weren’t obeying the spirit of the rules a large number of people would head for the usual beauty spots. Don’t forget that the kids aren’t at school and lots of people are furloughed.
 

111-111-1

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
170
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?

Thank goodness I am not the only one who thinks this way!
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,993
Location
here to eternity
Just lockdown London and Brighton completely, they won’t be told.

So 95% of the people in these places should suffer because of the actions of 5% in those places. I don't believe punishing the majority because of the actions of a minority is the right thing to do. You will only end up alienating the 95% whose co-operation you need.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
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.
Just like all those people who kept eating meat, flying and driving, or insisted that it was their right to do so, after the government declaration of climate emergency? One difference is, of course, the scientific knowledge relating to climate change assembled over decades is much more complete, whereas the effectiveness of our measures against novel coronavirus will only be empirically known in a few weeks.

Of course I am following the advice for purely selfish reasons of not wanting to get the bug.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
I also wonder if it would, though some families may not like it, be sensible to impose legal restrictions thus ..............
- 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.

They'd be easier to enforce. A person on foot who is not in between their home and their nearest sensible food shop (and carrying goods if in the reverse direction) is automatically in the wrong.
What an uncaring suggestion. When we go shopping, or walking for exercise, my partner and I always go together. For the shopping that allows us to buy everything in one trip rather than having to make two. When walking it means we are able to go along more isolated routes in the nearby river valleys, making social distancing so much the easier. It is noticable when on those walks that the vast majority of the few people we see are also exercising as couples. Us being there leaves more room in the local park for families with young children.


There are many acceptable reasons for leaving one's home in addition to buying food. Leaving that aside, how would you define a "sensible" food shop ? There are four supermarkets within 1.5 miles of our house, they do not all sell the same types or quality of food. To reach any of them we would have to walk past at least two convenience stores, two bakers, two butchers ....



I despair at the number of people who want to impose more restrictions because a few are breaking the existing ones. Enforce the existing restrictions against the trangressors not impose more on people already complying.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,304
Location
Isle of Man
It does seem that there is a particular issue in London, where people are following their usual approach and heading for the parks

It's almost as though most properties in London are much too small and don't have any outdoor space. As I said up thread, when I lived in Muswell Hill I had a "studio apartment" (a bedsit). Damn right I'd walk a mile up the road to Highgate Woods for fresh air if I still lived there. Living in one room is normal times is bad enough; being confined to it is absolute hell.

Good on Angela Rayner for pointing out it's easy for the middle classes with their big gardens to throw stones about this.

Meanwhile, today's "Do what I say, no do what I do" award goes to Scotland's chief medical officer, whose "essential" travel included an hour's drive to her holiday home in Fife. Needless to say the bizzies didn't slam her in the cells for the weekend before dragging her to court for an £800 fine; the police reserve that treatment for black people.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52171694

Police have issued a warning to Scotland's chief medical officer for visiting her second home in Fife during the coronavirus lockdown.

Dr Catherine Calderwood is facing mounting criticism after pictures of her family trip to Earlsferry were published in The Scottish Sun.

She apologised "unreservedly" and said she would continue to focus on her job.

The high-profile medic has been among those urging the public to stay at home to save lives and protect the NHS.

Some MSPs have said her position is "untenable" but the first minister said Dr Calderwood's advice and expertise were "invaluable" and she should stay in post.
 

scotrail158713

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
1,797
Location
Dundee
Meanwhile, today's "Do what I say, no do what I do" award goes to Scotland's chief medical officer, whose "essential" travel included an hour's drive to her holiday home in Fife. Needless to say the bizzies didn't slam her in the cells for the weekend before dragging her to court for an £800 fine; the police reserve that treatment for black people.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52171694
She really has no excuse. How on earth is going to Fife ever “essential”? If anything it’s “essential” to get away. :p
 

111-111-1

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
170
It's almost as though most properties in London are much too small and don't have any outdoor space. As I said up thread, when I lived in Muswell Hill I had a "studio apartment" (a bedsit). Damn right I'd walk a mile up the road to Highgate Woods for fresh air if I still lived there. Living in one room is normal times is bad enough; being confined to it is absolute hell.

Good on Angela Rayner for pointing out it's easy for the middle classes with their big gardens to throw stones about this.

Meanwhile, today's "Do what I say, no do what I do" award goes to Scotland's chief medical officer, whose "essential" travel included an hour's drive to her holiday home in Fife. Needless to say the bizzies didn't slam her in the cells for the weekend before dragging her to court for an £800 fine; the police reserve that treatment for black people.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52171694

Unless people disregard the current rules you would still be able to take your walk, it will be those who flout them that make the rest suffer.

The Scottish Chief Medical Officer has clearly made a total fool of herself and the press conference was clearly, quite rightly, uncomfortable for both parties.

Finally this is not the place for accusing the police of racialism.
 

111-111-1

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
170
Not at the moment you don't. All major supermarket chains agree with me - one adult per household only.

But from experience yesterday they were not applying it. However nothing to stop both people going to the shops and one waiting outside or going to another shop then help with the carrying home of the goods.
 

Tom B

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Messages
4,602
As per upthread - there are many commentators who are sitting in a comfortable suburban house or in the provinces who think there's no reason to go to the park or out the house. Very few people have usable gardens if they live in flats and, essentially, parks take their place for exercise.

Enforcement is needed, but it should focus on the persons causing the issues.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,304
Location
Isle of Man
Finally this is not the place for accusing the police of racialism.

Why not? I think it's abundantly clear that the race of the woman in Newcastle played a huge part in what happened to her.

And we are talking about the police's attitude to enforcement, after all.

The Scottish Chief Medical Officer has clearly made a total fool of herself

Shd has, but crucially she's not been given a FPN or prosecuted. Quelle surprise.

One rule for them...
 

leightonbd

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2013
Messages
321
Location
Edinburgh (South Sub)
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.

Since Parliament isn’t sitting, and doesn’t come back till 21 April, which seems an eternity away, I can’t help thinking Hancock (nicknamed ‘Handj*b’ in No 10, according to the S.Times today) is whistling in the dark a little.


Edit: he seems to have stepped back a bit from this position, based on reports of the afternoon press conference.
 
Last edited:

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
383
Nobody plans to get rescued, yet many mountain rescue teams were out most weekends before coronavirus happened. Fortunately, there is a massive reduction in rescues at the moment due to people staying at home and not travelling to the hills. I'd also point out that there are more rescues during spring/summer/autumn than winter, due to higher numbers of walkers, many of whom are less competent. Finally, with workplaces and gyms shut, there would be a higher than usual number of inexperienced walkers about (if travelling to the countryside to walk wasn't banned).


Not necessarily. Most people tend to follow a small number of popular footpaths from the same start points.


Not on the journey, but it's no good to arrive at your destination and find that everyone else had the same idea. This happened at Malham on the weekend of the 21st/22nd March, and in Snowdonia on the same weekend, as well as many other places.


Rural communities (many with vulnerable populations) could do without people travelling there and spreading the virus. Don't do it; it's not clever.

Oh come off it - the number of people “on the hills” is tiny, far smaller than normal. With literally miles of footpaths then people on them are much further apart than they are walking around town. Especially as you can always move well to the side to pass - which you can’t do on all but widest of pavements.

Rescue numbers are also tiny - the scope for infection spreading by rescues is so tiny as to be utterly irrelevant.

Travelling to the countryside, if you are in or near the countryside is not banned.

This is pure and simple beggar thy neighbour envy, “why should some people do their walk in a nice place, or sit on the ground to get some sun, when I can’t/choose not to”.

What is needed is enforcement of numbers and gatherings - not carte blanche closures and bans.

I have a yard I can sit in, and I walk around town, combining that with my supermarket run (I don’t use the car for that so load carrying capacity is necessarily limited). It is what it is.

I see parents out with kids going via the park with a ball, and I’m never going to criticise then for that, not least as I take the park in on my route.

But carry on winding yourselves up to ever more restrictive bans on other people, blind to the reality of their existence.
 

corfield

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2012
Messages
383
Why not? I think it's abundantly clear that the race of the woman in Newcastle played a huge part in what happened to her.

And we are talking about the police's attitude to enforcement, after all.



Shd has, but crucially she's not been given a FPN or prosecuted. Quelle surprise.

One rule for them...

Quite - the upper middle class, especially when it is in the relevant positions of power, have never applied their rules to themselves.

She needs sacking, or she had any integrity, she’d have resigned already.
 

bussnapperwm

Established Member
Joined
18 May 2014
Messages
1,506
Quite - the upper middle class, especially when it is in the relevant positions of power, have never applied their rules to themselves.

She needs sacking, or she had any integrity, she’d have resigned already.
Apparently Sturgeon has took her off the Scottish briefings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top