• 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.

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,421
That doesn't sound reasonable at all, it just sounds like a bunch of rural NIMBYs thinking only of themselves. How on earth having some people walking through a field just outside their village can cause "untold anxieties" is beyond me.

Members of my family live in suburban Sheffield and, if they want to exercise, have a choice of either a crowded urban park or taking a 15 minute drive out to the Peak District where they'll have the moors pretty much to themselves. In which environment do you think the virus is more likely to spread - crowded park or deserted moor?
But you aren’t only thinking of yourself when you refuse to stay away?
apart from anything else if everyone drives 15 minutes it will take longer than 15 minutes, the empty paths will actually be crowded, and enforcement falls apart - it’s hard enough already without the plod having to pick out the people an hour from home from those 15 mins from home.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But you aren’t only thinking of yourself when you refuse to stay away?
apart from anything else if everyone drives 15 minutes it will take longer than 15 minutes, the empty paths will actually be crowded, and enforcement falls apart - it’s hard enough already without the plod having to pick out the people an hour from home from those 15 mins from home.

There's also that if it's a 15 minute drive on 30mph roads (which most of Sheffield is) you could easily cycle a round trip there and back as the actual exercise.

That said, I don't think I'd have objected if they'd said "you must not drive or use public transport to reach a place to exercise". I've been staying local anyway, even though I have a few (local-ish) places I'd rather go.

And to some extent I blame the Police Forces that discredited themselves at the start for this. If they'd been sensible, then I suspect that advice would never have been issued.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,686
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
In my corner of the world, the rural, agricultural areas are also cornerstones of the tourist trade. Most of the "go home" signs I've heard of popped up in the week or so after Everyone and his Dog decided to drive to the foothills of Snowdon to go for a walk, just before the lockdown. The situation has reopened some old wounds on the topic of inward migration, holiday homes, and linguistic dilution in rural areas of Wales.

It's been the same in my town, there seems to have been a big issue over a field which has been used for walking for several years, yet all of a sudden there's an owner sitting in a 4x4 having a go at anyone straying off the marked public footpath.

I can see both sides of the "keep away from our village" argument. Some rural folk do seem to feel their sphere of ownership extends rather beyond their own front door to the point of resenting anyone who happens to use "their" road or whatever, conveniently forgetting that they will themselves use or benefit from services provided in towns and cities. However by the same token I can sympathise at the moment that artificially high numbers of people turning up 7 days a week is unsettling. Some of these places are going to *have* to be realistic and realise that they can't coop themselves up forever.

Certainly in the weekend before the lockdown I was rather depressed by some of the vigilantism seen on the news, nasty signs being erected in certain villages, and in another place a woman had appointed herself to go round ascertaining who was non-local and essentially instructing them to sling their hook, on the basis that people were using "our benches" and "our dog bins", quite a revealing choice of words in my view. Equally there was some pretty insensitive behaviour from the other side too. All very depressing, and I agree with the post elsewhere intimating that some of these wounds are going to take time to heal. We will need to see some inspirational leadership to bring everyone together again.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,686
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I noticed Drug addicts (potentially homeless people) still gather in their large groups and drug addicts still taking public transport.

Plenty of beggars doing the rounds in London still. In fact I don't think I've been on a train where there *hasn't* been one come through at some stage. I think a blind eye is being turned here as it's clearly in the "too difficult" box, but I thought provision had been made to provide temporary accommodation for the genuine homeless? Most have got a bit better at making some effort to distance as time has gone on, but in the early stages of the lockdown it was common practice to have them coming directly up to one's face. With tensions running high at the time I wouldn't be surprised if there was the odd spot of trouble over this.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
I noticed Drug addicts (potentially homeless people) still gather in their large groups and drug addicts still taking public transport.

Also was told of a group of Romanians all going to the shop on public transport when somebody asked them what they were doing the response is "they're a family". Thing is they were 6 adults. So can't understand why all 6 need to go.

Oddly enough - in leafy and wealthy St Albans the sight of small groups of street drinkers , and probably other miscreants can be seen , not abiding to the distance seperation rules can be seen (they are more visible due to the lesser numbers of "ordinaries" around) , - I did speak jocularly to one pair , enjoying their cider on a park bench , and they did extend their distance a bit. Much higher prescence of "beat" officers around to be fair, and I can only assume their shift patterns have been re-worked away from later evenings etc due to no bar /club patrolling.
 

scotrail158713

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
1,797
Location
Dundee
Also was told of a group of Romanians all going to the shop on public transport when somebody asked them what they were doing the response is "they're a family". Thing is they were 6 adults. So can't understand why all 6 need to go.
They’re maybe not “family” in the way we’d see it, more just 6 adults who live together. Therefore they may prefer to all go to the shops together - something that is still legally allowed. I’ve seen many groups like this before, and their English isn’t the best, so I can appreciate this could be a tough time for them.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,676
Location
Sheffield
Also notice the sign on the gym at Ward End, Birmingham next to the 11A bus stop has changed from "Gym closed until further notice" to something like "All members to wear gloves while training and wash hands when entering and leaving the Gym". Strange time for the sign to be changed. Sounds a bit like someone may have decided to reopen early/before they are supposed to.
Or the newer sign has fallen off?
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
I can see both sides of the "keep away from our village" argument. Some rural folk do seem to feel their sphere of ownership extends rather beyond their own front door to the point of resenting anyone who happens to use "their" road or whatever, conveniently forgetting that they will themselves use or benefit from services provided in towns and cities. However by the same token I can sympathise at the moment that artificially high numbers of people turning up 7 days a week is unsettling. Some of these places are going to *have* to be realistic and realise that they can't coop themselves up forever.

At least the people I know who live in the country who are making such comments are not doing so based on any sense of ownership or resentment, more that they are amazed and down right frustrated that some idiots are still not paying attention to what is going on and are still being very selfish.

Certainly I have friends living in remote but touristy places who were seeing people who normally live in cities travelling long distances so they can do their "exercise" or to hole themselves up in their holiday home instead of their actual home.

Not only do people travelling from cities to those areas for non essential reasons give the virus an easy way to continue to spread by travelling, you have to remember that these more remote areas are less likely to be able to easily deal with large scale hospitalisations (e.g. for much of rural Devon, there is little local intensive care provision) and less likely to be able to deal with large numbers of people in terms of food shopping too (e.g. some of these touristy areas have just a couple of small convenience stores, no large scale supermarket to speak of).

You do not need to travel from Bristol to Brecon to do "exercise" (as was seen in the first week of the lockdown). You do not need to travel from London to Devon to go "fishing" (as was seen a couple of weeks ago).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You do not need to travel from Bristol to Brecon to do "exercise" (as was seen in the first week of the lockdown). You do not need to travel from London to Devon to go "fishing" (as was seen a couple of weeks ago).

No, but it's perfectly valid to take a bike ride, walk or run from western Sheffield into the Peak for instance.
 

111-111-1

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
170
No, but it's perfectly valid to take a bike ride, walk or run from western Sheffield into the Peak for instance.

As you well know there is not an issue taking exercise locally, for those who need to driving a short distance which you keep coming up with reasons why some need to, there is however no need for anyone to travel more than a few miles.

It should be remembered the sensible advise given on BBC Q&A on COVID19 that ending up 10+ miles from home and having such as a cycle breakdown or twisted ankle could expose yourself or the person coming to get you at greater risk.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It should be remembered the sensible advise given on BBC Q&A on COVID19 that ending up 10+ miles from home and having such as a cycle breakdown or twisted ankle could expose yourself or the person coming to get you at greater risk.

I am certainly working on the assumption that if I do have a cycle breakdown the only option open to me is to walk home. If you're fit enough to cycle 50 miles, you're fit enough to walk 20 (assuming a circular route).
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,421
I am certainly working on the assumption that if I do have a cycle breakdown the only option open to me is to walk home. If you're fit enough to cycle 50 miles, you're fit enough to walk 20 (assuming a circular route).
Come on! walking twenty miles takes all day (awkward if you went out in the afternoon) and would probably require more food and water.
I also reckon there are a lot of people who cycle because they can’t walk far (I am not that old and I could cycle til energy ran out, but walking long distance is limited by joints/feet)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Come on! walking twenty miles takes all day (awkward if you went out in the afternoon) and would probably require more food and water.

Cycling 50 miles in the present situation requires carrying food and water. It is probably an equivalent amount of effort to walking 20, to be honest. If the likely "rescue plan" is walking home, then it's also prudent to carry enough food and water for that.

I also reckon there are a lot of people who cycle because they can’t walk far (I am not that old and I could cycle til energy ran out, but walking long distance is limited by joints/feet)

Then it might be imprudent for them to cycle, unless someone in their household could collect them were it necessary.
 

111-111-1

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
170
I am certainly working on the assumption that if I do have a cycle breakdown the only option open to me is to walk home. If you're fit enough to cycle 50 miles, you're fit enough to walk 20 (assuming a circular route).

Depending on type of breakdown that might include carrying the bike home or dumping it far from home.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Depending on type of breakdown that might include carrying the bike home or dumping it far from home.

It might include locking it up so you can return for it by car, if that's an option, yes (or if it's not an option for you, it might be an option to post the key to someone else and ask them to collect it and place outside your door). All part of your risk assessment when making your choice. So still sensible to carry your locks.

I've certainly locked up a failed bike and come back for it by car before.
 

404250

Member
Joined
25 May 2018
Messages
367
If you were really worried about an unlikely breakdown you could do a figure of 8 type route and never get more than 10miles from home with a 50mile ride
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
If you were really worried about an unlikely breakdown you could do a figure of 8 type route and never get more than 10miles from home with a 50mile ride
The Welsh government has published guidance on leaving home for exercise that is more detailed than that provided for England - see https://gov.wales/leaving-home-exercise-guidance. This includes a section on cycling - some extracts below:
17. Cycling is a valid form of exercise and is also a suitable way of going to work. Cycling is generally a low-risk activity but with emergency services under pressure, it is important to take steps to manage risk wherever possible. An accident or a breakdown far from home would place additional strain on health services or require a further journey to be made by someone else to provide assistance.
18. People are expected to only cycle alone or with members of their household, on routes they know well, and that are well within their ability level. Cyclists on shared paths should be considerate of walkers, runners and other people cycling: they should stay two metres from others, slow their pace and stop to let people pass as appropriate.
19. Cycling should be local, as a rule of thumb limited to travelling no further than a reasonable walking distance from home. Exercising by cycling significant distances from home is not considered to be a reasonable excuse for leaving home.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,421
“No further than a reasonable walking distance from home”
As we have seen, that is debatable!!
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Separately, the Welsh Government is amending, and in one important respect tightening, the travel restrictions in its legislation, by means of The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, which are effective from 00:01 on 25 April.

In respect of the travel restrictions, the Explanatory Note in the Regulations says that:
Regulation 4 makes a number of amendments to regulation 8 of the principal Regulations concerning the requirement that a person not leave the place where they are living without a reasonable excuse, including—
(a) amending paragraph (1) to clarify that the restriction on leaving the place where a person is living without reasonable excuse also includes remaining away from that place without reasonable excuse;
(b) clarifying the drafting of paragraph (2)(a) to resolve the tautology of having a “need to obtain basic necessities” and making it clear that persons can visit banks and similar establishments to both withdraw and deposit money;
(c) making clear that it is a reasonable excuse to exercise more than once a day if needed because of a particular health condition or disability;
(d) to specify that visiting a burial ground or garden of remembrance to pay respects is a reasonable excuse.
The accompanying press release, Revised coronavirus rules for Wales unveiled, clarifies the rationale for tightening the legislation:
The Welsh Government is changing the core requirement for people not to leave the place where they live to a requirement not to leave or remain away from that place.

This will help clarify that people who leave their home with a reasonable excuse – such as going out to shop for food, for healthcare or for work – cannot remain outside to do other things.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
The same amendment was made to the English regulations, and I presume the others also.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
The Welsh government has published guidance on leaving home for exercise that is more detailed than that provided for England - see https://gov.wales/leaving-home-exercise-guidance. This includes a section on cycling - some extracts below:

Well, of those, rules 17 and 18 seems pretty reasonable (Although I think rule 17 over-eggs the very low risk of an accident somewhat). But rule 19 is absolutely absurd!

WelshGovt said:
Cycling should be local, as a rule of thumb limited to travelling no further than a reasonable walking distance from home. Exercising by cycling significant distances from home is not considered to be a reasonable excuse for leaving home.

For me, a reasonable walking distance in normal circumstances is about a mile - anything further and I'd cycle because walking would take too long. In fact, even a mile, I'd be more inclined to cycle. So if I confined my cycling to a 'reasonable walking distance' my ride would last about 7-8 minutes out-and-back and barely merit the description 'exercise'. I would imagine that's true for almost any reasonably fit person - other than people who love walking and would therefore consider much longer distances 'reasonable' to walk. (Of course, if, I got a puncture or my bike became unrideable 20 miles from home, then - in the current circumstances - I'd accept that I'd probably just have to spend a long time walking home - but that's exceptional and not what you'd consider to be a 'reasonable walking distance').

More generally, looking through that document, it seems to me like the Welsh Government are trying to over-regulate to totally daft levels, forgetting that you do actually need both the population and law enforcement to display a certain amount of common sense and reasonable-ness in interpreting any rules.

I'm very glad I live in England (where the Government's approach to defining the lockdown seems very reasonable so far) and not in Wales (where - to judge from those regulations - the Government seem to be turning lockdown law into a bureaucratic farce, with detailed rules that deserve no respect).
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,686
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Well, of those, rules 17 and 18 seems pretty reasonable (Although I think rule 17 over-eggs the very low risk of an accident somewhat). But rule 19 is absolutely absurd!



For me, a reasonable walking distance in normal circumstances is about a mile - anything further and I'd cycle because walking would take too long. In fact, even a mile, I'd be more inclined to cycle. So if I confined my cycling to a 'reasonable walking distance' my ride would last about 7-8 minutes out-and-back and barely merit the description 'exercise'. I would imagine that's true for almost any reasonably fit person - other than people who love walking and would therefore consider much longer distances 'reasonable' to walk. (Of course, if, I got a puncture or my bike became unrideable 20 miles from home, then - in the current circumstances - I'd accept that I'd probably just have to spend a long time walking home - but that's exceptional and not what you'd consider to be a 'reasonable walking distance').

More generally, looking through that document, it seems to me like the Welsh Government are trying to over-regulate to totally daft levels, forgetting that you do actually need both the population and law enforcement to display a certain amount of common sense and reasonable-ness in interpreting any rules.

I'm very glad I live in England (where the Government's approach to defining the lockdown seems very reasonable so far) and not in Wales (where - to judge from those regulations - the Government seem to be turning lockdown law into a bureaucratic farce, with detailed rules that deserve no respect).

I wonder if the Welsh position is being disproportionately influenced by pressure from rural areas? A lot, although by no means all, of the complaints about honeypots and second homes do seem to be emanating from Wales.

Depending upon one’s viewpoint one could make reasonable cases to say Wales is either more neurotic or more sensible than England!
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,421
Well, of those, rules 17 and 18 seems pretty reasonable (Although I think rule 17 over-eggs the very low risk of an accident somewhat). But rule 19 is absolutely absurd!



For me, a reasonable walking distance in normal circumstances is about a mile - anything further and I'd cycle because walking would take too long. In fact, even a mile, I'd be more inclined to cycle. So if I confined my cycling to a 'reasonable walking distance' my ride would last about 7-8 minutes out-and-back and barely merit the description 'exercise'. I would imagine that's true for almost any reasonably fit person - other than people who love walking and would therefore consider much longer distances 'reasonable' to walk. (Of course, if, I got a puncture or my bike became unrideable 20 miles from home, then - in the current circumstances - I'd accept that I'd probably just have to spend a long time walking home - but that's exceptional and not what you'd consider to be a 'reasonable walking distance').

More generally, looking through that document, it seems to me like the Welsh Government are trying to over-regulate to totally daft levels, forgetting that you do actually need both the population and law enforcement to display a certain amount of common sense and reasonable-ness in interpreting any rules.

I'm very glad I live in England (where the Government's approach to defining the lockdown seems very reasonable so far) and not in Wales (where - to judge from those regulations - the Government seem to be turning lockdown law into a bureaucratic farce, with detailed rules that deserve no respect).
I imagine they mean ‘distance you could reasonably cover in a failure situation’ not ‘a reasonable leisure stroll’.
Of course it doesn’t really take account of being limping wounded after a tumble....
 

111-111-1

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
170
I wonder if the Welsh position is being disproportionately influenced by pressure from rural areas? A lot, although by no means all, of the complaints about honeypots and second homes do seem to be emanating from Wales.

Depending upon one’s viewpoint one could make reasonable cases to say Wales is either more neurotic or more sensible than England!


The Welsh, back in the 80s used to be quite vocal about holiday homes.

Was it not the nine o'clock news parody of another advert?
Come home to a real fire - buy a welsh holiday cottage
 

111-111-1

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
170
Well, of those, rules 17 and 18 seems pretty reasonable (Although I think rule 17 over-eggs the very low risk of an accident somewhat). But rule 19 is absolutely absurd!



For me, a reasonable walking distance in normal circumstances is about a mile - anything further and I'd cycle because walking would take too long. In fact, even a mile, I'd be more inclined to cycle. So if I confined my cycling to a 'reasonable walking distance' my ride would last about 7-8 minutes out-and-back and barely merit the description 'exercise'. I would imagine that's true for almost any reasonably fit person - other than people who love walking and would therefore consider much longer distances 'reasonable' to walk. (Of course, if, I got a puncture or my bike became unrideable 20 miles from home, then - in the current circumstances - I'd accept that I'd probably just have to spend a long time walking home - but that's exceptional and not what you'd consider to be a 'reasonable walking distance').

More generally, looking through that document, it seems to me like the Welsh Government are trying to over-regulate to totally daft levels, forgetting that you do actually need both the population and law enforcement to display a certain amount of common sense and reasonable-ness in interpreting any rules.

I'm very glad I live in England (where the Government's approach to defining the lockdown seems very reasonable so far) and not in Wales (where - to judge from those regulations - the Government seem to be turning lockdown law into a bureaucratic farce, with detailed rules that deserve no respect).

I don't cycle much these days but when I did anything over 15 minutes walk I generally used my bike. I always carried a spare inner tube or 2 for quickness in case of a puncture.

At a guess probably in todays situation keeping within about 5 miles could be considered by most sensible as the likelyhood of much more than an hours walk home is reduced.

The Welsh Gvt are having to legislate because a small proportion do not possess common sense.
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,074
Location
Powys
I wonder if the Welsh position is being disproportionately influenced by pressure from rural areas? A lot, although by no means all, of the complaints about honeypots and second homes do seem to be emanating from Wales.

Depending upon one’s viewpoint one could make reasonable cases to say Wales is either more neurotic or more sensible than England!

No we are being perfectly proportionate!

We have Health Centres and Doctor surgeries that have suddenly been innundated with applications for Temporary Residents in numbers that they cannot cope with and are not budgetted for.
We have shops who are saying that they cannot cope with the sudden increases in business and can't get supplies, to the detriment of the local population.
We have small local hospitals that are saying they cannot cope with the increased numbers.
We have little or no major hospitals in the area unless you are willing to travel for anything up to 90 minutes.

And even worse we find that many of these "second homers" were trying to claim business relief on their second home "so-called" businesses, because all holiday lets have been closed. Thankfully that too has now been stopped.

So no we are not being "neurotic"; we are being sensible and supporting our own local population first and foremost.
And I notice Devon & Cornwall are going down the same route.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,461
Location
Sheffield
But rule 19 is absolutely absurd!

I agree it is absurd, although it is guidance rather than a rule. To limit cycling to the same distance as walking makes no sense at all. In virtually all cases a person cycling for exercise, rather than to get from A to B, would naturally cycle further than that same person would walk for exercise.

Leaving that aside, to use words like "reasonable" and "significant" is pretty meaningless. You say a walk of a mile is reasonable for you. To me a 10 mile round walk would be both normal and reasonable and I know plenty of people who would consider walks of twice that length to be normal and reasonable. If someone were to stop me 4 miles from home when walking and claim I was a "significant" distance away I would be unimpressed - if I were cycling .......

Of course it would very simple to limit both the time and distance via legislation if they wanted to - not that I think they should.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I agree it is absurd, although it is guidance rather than a rule. To limit cycling to the same distance as walking makes no sense at all. In virtually all cases a person cycling for exercise, rather than to get from A to B, would naturally cycle further than that same person would walk for exercise.

If the idea of it is "so you can walk home if your bike fails and avoid an unnecessary public transport, taxi or car journey", then the sensible answer is not to ride an out and back but to ride a circular or fig-8/cloverleaf route centred on home. This does make some sense.

Even if we applied a 2km-from-home rule like the French I think did, I could still run a single loop of about 5K.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top