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

[Meerkat]

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.

It isn’t meaningless - it isn‘t aimed at someone doing a 20 mile leisurely bike ride, it’s aimed at those doing big rides like 50 miles plus, way out of their local area.
It actually discriminates more against serious riders than ambling leisure cyclists - how far can anyone walk in racing cleats?!

 

[farleigh]

If they were to limit the distance like the French I am pretty sure I would take my chances in ignoring it. Unless somebody could add a decent rationale to it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It isn’t meaningless - it isn‘t aimed at someone doing a 20 mile leisurely bike ride, it’s aimed at those doing big rides like 50 miles plus, way out of their local area.
It actually discriminates more against serious riders than ambling leisure cyclists - how far can anyone walk in racing cleats?!

Put some trainers in a rucksack.

I would certainly say any cyclist at the moment needs to consider the possibility of having to walk home, and that that should be the only recovery option they consider. If they're fine with a 20 mile walk, that's OK with me, but an unnecessary taxi or public transport journey should only be considered in the event of a serious injury (but not serious enough for an ambulance), not because of a bicycle failure, and even an unnecessary car journey to pick them up should ideally be avoided (and isn't even an option if they live alone).

 

[yorkie]

..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....

I think that's more your preference (indeed it is mine too, except I'd put a lower limit than a mile!) but it is reasonable to walk much further than that.

Reasonable is not defined; I walked 12.5 miles today, but I could have walked further (though I had work to do, and I don't want to get blisters, so for me, what I did was enough):

How Far Can a Healthy Person Walk in a Day?

How many miles you can walk in a day depends on fitness level, but a person who walks regularly can likely walk as far as 20 or 30 miles in a day.

www.verywellfit.com

But how far could a fit, trained person walk in eight hours? Many trained walkers finish a 26.2-mile walker-friendly marathon in about seven hours, with no breaks. If a walker is well-trained and is taking breaks and a meal stop, then 20 miles a day is reasonable.

So, as a healthy person can walk the length of a marathon in one day, it is absolutely not unreasonable to walk (and there fore cycle) for 26 miles.

But of course many cyclists will be very capable of cycling more than that, and to suggest that there should be a similar restriction to walking is laughable. My average walking speed today was 3.3mph, but when I went out for a 16 mile cycle ride on my mountain bike I was averaging over twice that on bumpy bridleways and five times that on smooth roads, my average speed on roads was about 15mph.

More generally, looking through that document, it seems to me like the Welsh Government are trying to over-regulate to totally daft levels...

That is their raison d'être, isn't it?

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....

These guidelines, going beyond the law, are not even enforceable because they are not the law.

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).

Absolutely, very much agreed!

If they were to limit the distance like the French I am pretty sure I would take my chances in ignoring it. Unless somebody could add a decent rationale to it.

I'd certainly be ignoring it; very glad I don't live in France too. Or Ireland.

 

[sheff1]

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.

Yes that does make sense, but was not what I thought the guidance was saying ...... which only goes to show that the guidance is unclear/ambiguous.

 

[scotrail158713]

If they were to limit the distance like the French I am pretty sure I would take my chances in ignoring it. Unless somebody could add a decent rationale to it.

I would as well. It wouldn’t be out of disrespect for the law, it’s just that everyone where I am is being very reasonable about being safe currently.

 

[Jonny]

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:

I think the Welsh powers that shouldn't be are pushing things too far. They can be called upon to justify every detail if challenged, and many of those details do not hold up to scrutiny. Arguments like strain on services in the event of an accident (very low odds and relatively few people) or non-infection-related use of services are highly questionable. While I might be a bit more cautious than usual when cycling (or even to go cycling!) as I would prefer to avoid needing to go to hospital, that is very much my decision and should not be inflicted upon others.

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

Maybe, but there has been an anti-second-home agenda, driven by P****** C******, a party that is close to those who are complaining, and has leverage in the Welsh Assembly.

The Welsh Government are worse than useless on a good day. They are beholden to P**** C*****, a political party that doesn't like long-distance cyclists and probably didn't even before the virus took off.

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.

I'm not sure it is proportionate. After all, you are telling people where they can and cannot live. Strain on services arising from normal use while being in an area (assuming non-infection) is not a good reason; if those are the justification then the changed rules are highly questionable.

If they were to limit the distance like the French I am pretty sure I would take my chances in ignoring it. Unless somebody could add a decent rationale to it.

You could query or even challenge the regulations if it cannot be justified. The Welsh Government is leaving itself wide open to challenges on this.

 

[Meerkat]

Arguments like strain on services in the event of an accident (very low odds)

Low odds for each individual, but not low odds if we are all doing it

 

[AM9]

Low odds for each individual, but not low odds if we are all doing it

Exactly, this is what many who want to breach the guidance seem to not understand. If they can ignore the rules, then so can everybody else.
If you increase the number of persons in an area, that raises the potential for a transfer by the square of the increase.

 

[krus_aragon]

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

That's the one. See https://www.facebook.com/welshnotbritish/videos/966889406716055/
(Can't find a non-facebook link, but it plays without registering or signing in)

 

[bramling]

Exactly, this is what many who want to breach the guidance seem to not understand. If they can ignore the rules, then so can everybody else.
If you increase the number of persons in an area, that raises the potential for a transfer by the square of the increase.

Waste of time trying to get elements of the population to understand this. There’s been some cringeworthy soundbites on the news at times, with such delights as “I don’t see why I can’t go to a beauty spot, it won’t be a problem as they’re all empty”.

 

[farleigh]

Exactly, this is what many who want to breach the guidance seem to not understand. If they can ignore the rules, then so can everybody else.
If you increase the number of persons in an area, that raises the potential for a transfer by the square of the increase.

Could you explain this please or give a source. I have not come across it before. Thanks

 

[Enthusiast]

Could you explain this please or give a source. I have not come across it before. Thanks

I was going to ask exactly the same question. If that's true then increasing the number of people in an area by ten raises the potential for transfer by one hundred? Not something I can get my head around.

 

[yorksrob]

Could you explain this please or give a source. I have not come across it before. Thanks

I was going to ask exactly the same question. If that's true then increasing the number of people in an area by ten raises the potential for transfer by one hundred? Not something I can get my head around.

It must surely depend on how far away from eachother, rather than how many people happen to be in a particular location.

 

[Enthusiast]

It must surely depend on how far away from eachother, rather than how many people happen to be in a particular location.

Indeed. If there were a hundred people in Wembley Stadium (evenly distributed, naturally) and you added ten more (equally evenly distributed) the risk of transfer would be virtually unaffected.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. If there were a hundred people in Wembley Stadium (evenly distributed, naturally) and you added ten more (equally evenly distributed) the risk of transfer would be virtually unaffected.

Indeed. And I suspect the hoardes trudging through the beauty spots probably has a risk profile more akin to your wembly stadium example than a crowded room.

 

[Huntergreed]

Police in my town today were stopping multiple cars in both the town centre and the main roads outside the centre and asking the reason for travel. Not sure if this is commonplace elsewhere, but it certainly seems due to a low number of cases (+5 in the last week) in the area, people are becoming complacent, and the forces are trying to prevent this.

 

[6Gman]

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.

Reasonableness is a long-standing term used in legislation of many sorts.

How is it defined? By a court of law if you choose to take it that far . . .

 

[sheff1]

Reasonableness is a long-standing term used in legislation of many sorts.

Indeed, but guidance is not legislation.

 

[Meerkat]

Indeed, but guidance is not legislation.

But would probably be taken into account by a judge looking to make an interpretation of the law and it’s intended meaning.

 

[Enthusiast]

Indeed, but guidance is not legislation.

"Reasonable" is actually used in the legislation:

Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

The reason that things such as distances and durations are not specified (in this and many other pieces of legislation) is precisely because what may be appropriate to one person and/or circumstances may not be appropriate to all. In the case of the coronavirus legislation the question of reasonableness is initially for a police officer to determine. He may issue a fixed penalty or order a person to return home (or do so by force if he refuses) based on his decision. However, if the subject decides to challenge the matter it would be for a court to determine. Of course by then he may have been either ordered to return home or been forcibly taken there so all he would be challenging is any fixed penalty that may have been issued. This makes this particular legislation very powerful in that respect because, to a degree, the alleged miscreant would have already suffered a penalty without the matter having gone to court. It's similar to police powers to seize a motor vehicle before the question of guilt relating to the alleged offence which led to the seizure had been finalised.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I was going to ask exactly the same question. If that's true then increasing the number of people in an area by ten raises the potential for transfer by one hundred? Not something I can get my head around.

It's possible that it could go up as the square of the numbers of people, but it depends a bit how people behave.

Say you have 100 people in an area, 1% of whom are infected. Each person passes close enough to 10 people for there to be some small risk of transmission. That's 10 possible transmissions.
Now, exactly the same location, but you put 200 people in the area. So now there are twice as many people, which might lead you to think, twice as many chances of infection. BUT additionally, because the area is more crowded, you could find that each person accidentally passes by twice as many others - each person passes close enough to 20 other people instead of 10 other people. So you have twice as many infected people, AND each infected person twice as likely to infect someone else. That is the situation where increasing the number of people by a factor of 10 increases the potential for transfer by a factor of 100. I would suggest that's approximately the situation in supermarkets - and could therefore explain why limiting the numbers in shops is so important.

On the other hand, if it's say a park, people are further apart, and therefore the main risk is people in groups with their friends, with minimal risk of transmission to strangers you happen to walk near, then the situation may be different. Say, you put twice as many people in the park, but the 'friendship groups' are on average staying the same size, you just have more groups. Now you have twice as many people infected, but each infected person will still only risk transmitting to the same number of people - those they are hanging out with. In that situation, doubling the number of people just doubles the numbers of transmissions. And multiplying the numbers of people by 10 multiplies the numbers of transmissions by 10. But IF the park gets so crowded that strangers end up close enough to risk transmitting to each other as they walk past, THEN you're back in the territory where a 10-fold increase in people could lead to a 100-fold increase in transmissions.

 

[underbank]

But it's not just proximity is it? There must also be the extra dimension of time. Two people simply walking within 2 metres of eachother is very unlikely to transmit the disease unless one coughs or sneezes or spits. Transmission is more likely if they talk to or touch eachother as they pass. However if they stop and chat for 5 minutes, less than 2 metres apart, then the risk of transmission is a lot higher. If they hug and kiss before and after the 5 minute chat, then risk of transmission is probably infinitely higher.

We still don't seem to have accurate statistics/data/analysis as to what activity actually causes the virus to pass. Would it really be transmitted from 2 random people walking past eachother with neither doing anything unusual(other than normal breathing)??? Likewise, is it really being passed around from people touching objects such as touch screens, hand rails, etc? We need this data before we can even start to think about relaxing the lock down as some parts of social distancing etc may be pointless and unnecessary.

 

[Enthusiast]

It's possible that it could go up as the square of the numbers of people,

Yes it's certainly possible. But it was presented as a given, an absolute rule as, say, Pythagoras is. A formula, if you like. P = R squared, where P is the number of additional people in an area and R is the risk of transmission. It was sort of suggested that those wishing to breach the guidance were somewhat ignorant of such a "rule."

 

[CaptainHaddock]

I've noticed over the past few days people seem not to be taking the social distancing guidelines quite as strictly as they had been doing. I've even overheard someone saying "Well, if I was going to get the virus I'd have caught it by now". That may not be scientifically true, but as we near the relaxing of the lockdown you can understand why people are starting to feel a bit less fearful than they were a few weeks agio.

 

[AM9]

I've noticed over the past few days people seem not to be taking the social distancing guidelines quite as strictly as they had been doing. I've even overheard someone saying "Well, if I was going to get the virus I'd have caught it by now". That may not be scientifically true, but as we near the relaxing of the lockdown you can understand why people are starting to feel a bit less fearful than they were a few weeks agio.

Maybe they don't know anybody personally who has contracted it.

 

[Bikeman78]

Maybe they don't know anybody personally who has contracted it.

I know two people that have definitely had it. Both are fine now. So far as as I know, none of the people they live with have shown any symptoms.

 

[AM9]

I know two people that have definitely had it. Both are fine now. So far as as I know, none of the people they live with have shown any symptoms.

My comment was in response to CaptainHaddock's post about somebody saying "Well, if I was going to get the virus I'd have caught it by now" and the behaviour of some in relaxing their adherance tyo the guidelines. I personally know somebody who whilst they avoided actual admission into hospital, are still having a rough time three weeks after their recovery. It made me think that although he may not be typical of cases, I don't think a casual attitude to it would be the right way to go.

 

[Llanigraham]

I've noticed over the past few days people seem not to be taking the social distancing guidelines quite as strictly as they had been doing. I've even overheard someone saying "Well, if I was going to get the virus I'd have caught it by now". That may not be scientifically true, but as we near the relaxing of the lockdown you can understand why people are starting to feel a bit less fearful than they were a few weeks agio.

Certainlly haven't noticed any reduction in "social distancing" around here. In fact I would say the opposite is happening and it has increased.

 

[yorkie]

Certainlly haven't noticed any reduction in "social distancing" around here. In fact I would say the opposite is happening and it has increased.

Yep pretty much the same in York. Not everyone is overly fussed but many people are keen to go well beyond the 2 metre recommendation, including stepping into the road without checking for traffic in several cases.

... Would it really be transmitted from 2 random people walking past each other with neither doing anything unusual (other than normal breathing)?

Almost zero chance of that.

We need this data....

Yes more data will be very useful.

....
before we can even start to think about relaxing the lock down...

Strongly disagree but see other posts in other threads.

as some parts of social distancing etc may be pointless and unnecessary.

Indeed, it would be very useful to know more about the risks.