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

[Mag_seven]

The advice given recently was that although the risk of just passing someone closely is minimal it is best practice to keep the 2 metre distance where possible. There is some evidence that viral load may play a part in how badly a person reacts to the virus so again it would seem sensible to reduce exposure to as low as possible.

Anyway I would rather be overcautious, it's better that way.

I just follow the NHS instruction which is what you say:

Important
These reasons are exceptions – even when doing these activities, you should be minimising time spent outside of the home and ensuring you are 2 metres apart from anyone outside of your household.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/

 

[squizzler]

As a bicycle user who uses this to get my 2 hours statutory exercise I am finding that I am staying off the more busy foot/bike lanes and using the traditional carriageway more.

 

[Tetchytyke]

why worry about someone standing next to you for a few seconds in the shop?

Because they were close enough to breathe all over me, it was more than Aa few seconds, and it is rude.

If two people are walking at a moderate pace you're only going to be in the 2m danger zone for what, 2 or 3 seconds, so probably one breath out. I will wait for people at narrow bits, its common courtesy if nothing else

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because they were close enough to breathe all over me, it was more than Aa few seconds, and it is rude.

If two people are walking at a moderate pace you're only going to be in the 2m danger zone for what, 2 or 3 seconds, so probably one breath out. I will wait for people at narrow bits, its common courtesy if nothing else

I'll do that, but I have now decided that I will not go onto the grass or into the carriageway for people who cannot be bothered to move to single file when walking together to maximise distance while we all remain on the path (assuming a path over 2m wide, which is the spec for MK Redways so they pretty much all are). Their choice.

I'd call on runners to use cycling-style hand signals to other runners, it does help us stay apart by being able to anticipate what you are going to do.

 

[superjohn]

Cyclists overtaking each other at the regulation 2m distance is becoming a regular sight on my drives to and from work (at a hospital). The hazard they expose themselves to by doing so must far outweigh the risk of infection.

 

[squizzler]

Motorists are supposed to leave a 1.5m gap when overtaking a bike rider. I think it would be difficult to charge people with any traffic offence for overtaking a bike rider leaving a safe gap (whether they are a motorist or another person on a bike).

Going off on something of a tangent, people on bikes are quite entitled to take the 'primary position' (as it is known in riding manuals) when they decide they need to dominate the lane for safety reasons (typically when turning right). It is safe because motorists are discouraged from attempting an overtake, but obviously people should return to the normal 1m from kerb during other times so as not to antagonise the motoring community who also share the road. Legal president ruled in favour of somebody who was charged with something for being in the 'primary position', it was a few years ago in Telford but I cannot remember the specifics of the case.

I would certainly reiterate that skilled riders should consider the carriageway during the present time if its quiet and the footways are busy.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

As people continue to confuse guidelines with laws, I think this piece from a lawyer is particularly pertinent

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...gland-coronavirus-lockdown-police-enforcement

Key points from the article:

"In England, you can do anything that is not specifically prohibited by law.

It is important to understand what the regulations actually say, rather than what the prime minister and the government have been telling us. “No person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse” is the most important and central provision.

Contrary to some of the myths around, there is no definition of “reasonable excuse” to be found anywhere. The regulations merely give some examples of excursions that are presumed to be reasonable, including “to obtain basic necessities”, “to take exercise”, “to seek medical assistance”, “to provide care or assistance” and various other activities.

Importantly, there is no legal limit on the number of times a day that even these activities can be undertaken, no matter how many references are made to the “once a day rule” for exercise, shopping or anything else.


The police have no power to stop you and demand an explanation as to why you are away from your home, although common sense would dictate a courteous and cooperative response if asked such questions by an officer. Still less can officers insist on searching your shopping bags to decide whether any given item is a basic necessity or not (another undefined term but which specifically includes food and medical supplies)."

People seem to be under the misapprehension that just because a government minister says in an interview that he'd rather you didn't sunbathe or enjoy a day out with your family, it instantly becomes illegal. That simply isn't the case; so long as you observe the social distancing rules (keep two metres between you and the next person, don't sociaise with anyone you don't live with) you're not doing anything wrong, either legally or morally.

 

[telstarbox]

The advice given recently was that although the risk of just passing someone closely is minimal it is best practice to keep the 2 metre distance where possible. There is some evidence that viral load may play a part in how badly a person reacts to the virus so again it would seem sensible to reduce exposure to as low as possible.

Anyway I would rather be overcautious, it's better that way.

The other day I was sat on our front step which is already a good 2m back from the pavement. Someone walked down the deserted pavement and went right into the middle of the road to avoid me

 

[farleigh]

The other day I was sat on our front step which is already a good 2m back from the pavement. Someone walked down the deserted pavement and went right into the middle of the road to avoid me

Don't feel too bad - maybe it was to do with Coronavirus

 

[Cowley]

The other day I was sat on our front step which is already a good 2m back from the pavement. Someone walked down the deserted pavement and went right into the middle of the road to avoid me

I’ve been watching people step off the pavement opposite us onto the busy main road on a blind corner just to avoid each other.
I’m not sure if this is entirely sensible...

 

[High Dyke]

I was just about ready to throttle the muppet in M&S who stood literally right next to me when I was standing at the fridge choosing some meat to buy without touching it. All these restrictions getting in the store, and some plank goes and does that. They're the people I'd be fining, just for being gormless as much as owt else.

When I'm out and about I turn my face away when I'm passing someone, for the seconds it takes to walk past someone it's no big deal, and they won't sneeze on me and I won't sneeze on them (hayfever is such a joy when everyone within a 3-mile radius poops themselves if you sneeze!)

I normally have the pushchair so going down the kerb is a pain; they can always go in the road if they want more space.

I also tend to turn away when walking passed someone. Your M&S experience is similar to the one I had in Boots last week...I'm stood in the marked square waiting to pay for my goods and some old chap stands right behind me. So I shuffle forward slightly, but so does he. Without turning round i deliberately stepped backwards and elbowed the chap...cue the till assistant to glare at the pair of us and then comment about the squares. Old duffer did at least mumble an apology.

 

[tony_mac]

I don't know why people still have this obsession with the idea that walking withing two metres of someone could spread the virus. The advice I've read is that you are only at risk if you spend more than 15 minutes within two metres of a person ...
"Coronaviruses can be spread when people with the virus have close, sustained contact with people who are not infected. This typically means spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected person, such as talking to someone for instance."

It says 'typically' - do you have any reason to believe that spending 15 minutes close to one person in a week is risky, but spending 5 seconds close to 25 people a day isn't?
The risk at any one time is obviously very low, but it does still accumulate.
As a 'vulnerable' person, I would rather decide for myself if I want to take the risk, and not have it decided by some stranger who thinks it's fine for them.

Importantly, there is no legal limit on the number of times a day that even these activities can be undertaken, no matter how many references are made to the “once a day rule” for exercise, shopping or anything else.

There isn't, but it still must constitute a 'reasonable excuse'. The regulations do say that a reasonable excuse includes the need to exercise or to obtain basic necessities - it does not specify that all amounts of exercise or shopping must be counted as reasonable (as already claimed by the driver travelling from Leicester to London to 'buy a loaf of bread').
A magistrate can consider if it is reasonable to completely ignore government guidance (and very likely will in the current climate).

 

[westv]

It says 'typically' - do you have any reason to believe that spending 15 minutes close to one person in a week is risky, but spending 5 seconds close to 25 people a day isn't?

Perhaps with 1 person over 15 minutes there will be multiple breaths out and potential for closer body contact. 25 people a day at 5 seconds each has potentially no breaths out and close body contact is unlikely.

 

[Meerkat]

It says 'typically' - do you have any reason to believe that spending 15 minutes close to one person in a week is risky, but spending 5 seconds close to 25 people a day isn't?

Yes I do.
The risk is spending fifteen minutes in the presence of an infected person. If five seconds near each of 25 people was a risk then five seconds near one person would be the risk level, not 15 minutes.

 

[Haywain]

A magistrate can consider if it is reasonable to completely ignore government guidance (and very likely will in the current climate).

To appear in front of a magistrate it is generally expected that there is a suspicion of having broken a law. As these are guidelines and not laws, it would seem that a magistrate should not have the opportunity to consider the matter.

 

[Meerkat]

To appear in front of a magistrate it is generally expected that there is a suspicion of having broken a law. As these are guidelines and not laws, it would seem that a magistrate should not have the opportunity to consider the matter.

They are laws. The magistrate would be looking at the guidelines whilst deciding if your interpretation of ‘reasonable case’ to leave the house was more lawful than the police’s.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Some really promising news today about Wuhan, China having some of their lockdown measures relaxed after 77 days.

Its too early for the UK to get exited and I don't think we can put ourselves on a benchmark of 11 weeks to go back to normal, but the news does suggest there is light at the end of the tunnel.

CJ

 

[scotrail158713]

Some really promising news today about Wuhan, China having some of their lockdown measures relaxed after 77 days.

Its too early for the UK to get exited and I don't think we can put ourselves on a benchmark of 11 weeks to go back to normal, but the news does suggest there is light at the end of the tunnel.

CJ

Yep. We’ll never achieve a Chinese-style lockdown so I reckon we’ll be in lockdown for longer than that. It does get hopes up though as one day this will be over.

 

[Cowley]

Some really promising news today about Wuhan, China having some of their lockdown measures relaxed after 77 days.

Its too early for the UK to get exited and I don't think we can put ourselves on a benchmark of 11 weeks to go back to normal, but the news does suggest there is light at the end of the tunnel.

CJ

Bearing in mind where this virus originated from it does seem to me a bit tasteless to have a huge party in Wuhan while thousands of people across the rest of the world are still dying each day.

 

[yorksrob]

Bearing in mind where this virus originated from it does seem to me a bit tasteless to have a huge party in Wuhan while thousands of people across the rest of the world are still dying each day.

Well, you can't blame the population for letting off steam after the lockdown.

My views of the Government in China are a lot less charitable.

 

[trainophile]

Bearing in mind where this virus originated from it does seem to me a bit tasteless to have a huge party in Wuhan while thousands of people across the rest of the world are still dying each day.

Are they having a huge party? I would have thought it's a bit soon for that sort of thing, given they have only had a couple of days with no further deaths. Or is the huge party metaphorical?

 

[yorkie]

Some really promising news today about Wuhan, China having some of their lockdown measures relaxed after 77 days.

Its too early for the UK to get exited and I don't think we can put ourselves on a benchmark of 11 weeks to go back to normal, but the news does suggest there is light at the end of the tunnel.

CJ

To be honest it's not really very relevant to our situation as they took quite different actions to what we are taking. They also are susceptible to another outbreak.

 

[krus_aragon]

Importantly, there is no legal limit on the number of times a day that even these activities can be undertaken, no matter how many references are made to the “once a day rule” for exercise, shopping or anything else.

There isn't, but it still must constitute a 'reasonable excuse'

Except for the jurustictions where the "once-a-day" advice was written into law (e.g. Wales). But your point still stands.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bearing in mind where this virus originated from it does seem to me a bit tasteless to have a huge party in Wuhan while thousands of people across the rest of the world are still dying each day.

I'd go more "stupid" than "tasteless". I reckon there'll be a second wave. Either that or they're controlling the media and no such party really happened..

 

[bramling]

I'd go more "stupid" than "tasteless". I reckon there'll be a second wave. Either that or they're controlling the media and no such party really happened..

I’ll be surprised if London doesn’t get a second wave, or perhaps doesn’t see the flattening which the rest of the country might be expected to be seeing. The last couple of days have seen a very conspicuous increase in people out and about. Groups of hoodies are now frequenting the empty trains, having no doubt twigged that police are nowhere to be seen and there’s now no revenue protection. The traffic on my journey home from work (by car today) was if anything worse than a normal weekday, at least until having left London when things thinned, and retail parks and supermarket car parks could be seen with car parks filled to capacity. Plenty of evidence of sunbathing, and there were some busy trains and platforms in places this morning, certainly with no social distancing in evidence to the required standards.

To be honest I don’t know why I’m bothering doing my bit going to work when this is clearly being treated by many as a national holiday. There was a pretty toxic atmosphere at my work, with some pretty major anger bubbling up at all this. I bet this is even more so in industries where deaths are being seen, such as the buses.

It probably isn’t helping that the government does have a bit of a vacuum at the moment, but I think there are now signs of potential trouble ahead. The way elements of the population are behaving is nothing short of a disgrace.

Tomorrow we’ll see the weekly spectacle of the clapping to support the NHS staff. Why do people have the nerve to bother when one minute they’re clapping and next minute sticking the proverbial finger up?

 

[DarloRich]

I’ll be surprised if London doesn’t get a second wave, or perhaps doesn’t see the flattening which the rest of the country might be expected to be seeing. The last couple of days have seen a very conspicuous increase in people out and about. Groups of hoodies are now frequenting the empty trains, having no doubt twigged that police are nowhere to be seen and there’s now no revenue protection. The traffic on my journey home from work (by car today) was if anything worse than a normal weekday, at least until having left London when things thinned, and retail parks and supermarket car parks could be seen with car parks filled to capacity. Plenty of evidence of sunbathing, and there were some busy trains and platforms in places this morning, certainly with no social distancing in evidence to the required standards.

To be honest I don’t know why I’m bothering doing my bit going to work when this is clearly being treated by many as a national holiday. There was a pretty toxic atmosphere at my work, with some pretty major anger bubbling up at all this. I bet this is even more so in industries where deaths are being seen, such as the buses.

It probably isn’t helping that the government does have a bit of a vacuum at the moment, but I think there are now signs of potential trouble ahead. The way elements of the population are behaving is nothing short of a disgrace.

Tomorrow we’ll see the weekly spectacle of the clapping to support the NHS staff. Why do people have the nerve to bother when one minute they’re clapping and next minute sticking the proverbial finger up?

Spot on once again. A lot of anger building up among key transport workers about the behaviour of others. This isnt just train driverd and gaurds btw.

 

[MDB1images]

Spot on once again. A lot of anger building up among key transport workers about the behaviour of others. This isnt just train driverd and gaurds btw.

I started to notice that last weekend tbh.
One of the guys coming in to work said it was like driving in the Tour de France.

Actually think it needs for something hard hitting to be shown on TV of what reckless actions do(from passing the disease on to death)as clearly a minority just don't see the dangers of this.

I'd have thought the fact the PM is in a ICU would have focussed minds or the nurses in tears begging people to follow the guidelines-clearly not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Saw a flurry of emails today and TPE said as hand wash was now available revenue checks with less than 2 metre spacing can carry on.

That, I'll be blunt, strikes me as criminal negligence. What is the take of this from the Unions?

Clearly it's impossible to walk down a train without quickly passing within 2m of someone, but loitering there is unnecessary and inexcusable.

 

[LAX54]

I see the 'lockdown' review planned for Monday has been postponed, but in reality it never was going to be lifted, maybe at least another 3 weeks+

 

[MDB1images]

That, I'll be blunt, strikes me as criminal negligence. What is the take of this from the Unions?

Clearly it's impossible to walk down a train without quickly passing within 2m of someone, but loitering there is unnecessary and inexcusable.

Don't know what happened there as that was another forum I was reading before replying to Darlorich!

In terms of the revenue I'm not sure what that was about as not many TOCs are doing revenue checks ( TPE company policy is 'if you think it's not safe then don't do it' so many would use that in those instances).

In fairness I'm sure the RDG advice is it's fine if your not in an area for more than 15 minutes.

Somewhere between that you'll find that someone has taken the advice literally and gone into meltdown, TPE do have a policy of revenue checks to carry on but I'm not aware of them forcing it on staff 'you must do' style(the email I was reading on another forum was from a known drama merchant)