Should there be Extra Social Distancing Instructions for Cyclists

[DynamicSpirit]

I normally go on a cycle ride every few days as my exercise, which is usually unremarkable. But yesterday I decided, for a change, to take advantage of the low traffic levels to head into central London, instead of - as per my normal practice - heading the other way as fast as I can . There were loads of other cyclists - which I think is great because it's an amazing way to exercise, and a non-polluting way to travel if you actually need to go somewhere. But what I saw in terms of social distancing behaviour from most cyclists shocked me: For most cyclists in London, there seemed to be, basically, none.

• When waiting at red traffic lights, cyclists would bunch up close together. Several times when I arrived at a red light first, I'd end up subsequently having to move to the side because of other cyclists coming up right next to me, completely ignoring the 2m rule.
• When overtaking other cyclists, I always took care to give a very wide 2-ish-metre berth - which, given the low traffic levels, was pretty easy to do on most roads. Almost no cyclists who overtook me gave the same consideration.
• Cyclists regularly seemed happy to cycle a couple of seconds behind other cyclists - almost in the leading cylists's slipstream. Strictly speaking, this is within social distancing rules as it means you're probably about 5m or so away. But it also means you're occupying the same space that the cyclist in front was in about 2 seconds previously - so, presumably, breathing the air that they have just breathed out. There must surely be a small risk there - enough that I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable so close behind another cyclist and usually tried to fall back in that situation. On occasions, I saw cyclists even closer behind each other, leading me to assume they were part of a family group - until one of them would head off in a different direction, making it clear that they probably weren't together.
• At one point, I saw a group of about 10 cyclists apparently stopping to enjoy the view together, as if they were part of an organised group. I can't be sure if that was the case, but it certainly looked like it, and I can't believe a single household would be that big.

Since I was just exercising so it didn't really matter where I went, I actually ended up often deliberately cycling on main road arteries and avoiding popular cycle routes - because, with the behaviour of most other cyclists, I felt safer that way. I would hate to see anything discouraging cycling per se, but it really looked to me as if most other cyclists were working on the assumption that, social distancing doesn't apply if you're on a bike. Hence the title of this thread: Do we need the Government to issue additional (strong) guidance for cyclists?

 

[Cowley]

I mean is there an element of ‘I’m incredibly fit so what have I got to worry about here’? Taking place do you think?
We get lots of cyclists past here but they’re spread out and I’m not seeing any groups of bunched up cyclists at traffic lights in town...
Maybe you’re right and there needs to be some safety advice reminders put out in the areas that don’t seem to be paying attention?

 

[yorkie]

I think this thread loses sight of the bigger picture and ignores several key facts

• WHO guidance is to keep 1 metre apart; it's unlikely cyclists will be closer than this for safety reasons anyway.
• The UK Government has chosen to extend this to 2 metres in order to reduce the risk even further but this is not always practicable to achieve; it's just a guideline
• The guidance makes no differentiation between indoors and outdoors; in practice the risk of infection is lower outdoors
• If the 'R' value of the virus was below 1 without any measures, then there would be no need for any measures (other than people in high risk groups staying at home)
• There is no way that the activities described in this thread would significantly increase the 'R' value
• The actual risk to close to all of the people cycling is extremely low
• The risk we are actually mitigating against is to reduce the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed; let's not lose sight of that fact!
• There are risks to almost everything in life; engaging in the activity described carries far greater risks than catching this virus; but overall the health benefits outweigh all the risks.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Interesting post; a little surprising though to hear that cyclists are actually stopping at red traffic lights in central London (!)

 

[yorkie]

Can we try to stick to the topic (i.e. discussing social distancing) please.

 

[404250]

Maybe keeping 10m of riding directly behind another rider might be a good idea as they could cough or sneeze, but no other measures required. When stopped at lights they might look closer than they are as parts of their bikes are close but the riders heads are adequate distance apart.

 

[HH]

I think this thread loses sight of the bigger picture and ignores several key facts

• WHO guidance is to keep 1 metre apart; it's unlikely cyclists will be closer than this for safety reasons anyway.
• The UK Government has chosen to extend this to 2 metres in order to reduce the risk even further but this is not always practicable to achieve; it's just a guideline
• The guidance makes no differentiation between indoors and outdoors; in practice the risk of infection is lower outdoors
• If the 'R' value of the virus was below 1 without any measures, then there would be no need for any measures (other than people in high risk groups staying at home)
• There is no way that the activities described in this thread would significantly increase the 'R' value
• The actual risk to close to all of the people cycling is extremely low
• The risk we are actually mitigating against is to reduce the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed; let's not lose sight of that fact!
• There are risks to almost everything in life; engaging in the activity described carries far greater risks than catching this virus; but overall the health benefits outweigh all the risks.

Surely if the cyclists are exercising then we might expect them to be breathing in and exhaling more deeply than those travelling at a sedate pace; this must have an effect. The guidance is not just about distance, but time spent at that distance. Cyclists bunching up at a red light, or constantly following other cyclists must be increasing the chances of catching/spreading the virus. Quite how much this is I don't think anybody knows, but personally I'd rather not take the risk.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

In answer to the OP's question, the simple answer is no. The vast majority of leisure cyclists will be cycling in rural areas where contact with other cyclists (and other people out walking) will be brief and irregular. The chances of you passing on a virus to another cyclist in the milliseconds it takes for you to pass them are so minimal as to be virtually non-existent. I enjoyed a 50 mile bike ride in the more rural parts of South Yorkshire on Sunday and, whilst passing plenty of other cyclists, was never once in close proximity to one of them for anything more than a few brief moments.

Of course if you choose to cycle through busy urban parks or city centres the risk may be higher but why would you choose to cycle somewhere busy if you have a choice?

 

[tony_mac]

If the 'R' value of the virus was below 1 without any measures, then there would be no need for any measures (other than people in high risk groups staying at home)

That's just an opinion. Reducing the spread of the virus as quickly as possible will save lives and will prolong lives.

The actual risk to close to all of the people cycling is extremely low

Based on what?
Take an extremely low risk, multiply it by an extremely high number...

The vast majority of leisure cyclists will be cycling in rural areas where contact with other cyclists (and other people out walking) will be brief and irregular.

I seriously doubt that. I see hundreds every day from my window (convenient place for suburban cycling)

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's just an opinion. Reducing the spread of the virus as quickly as possible will save lives and will prolong lives.

It will save lives but may cost lives in other contexts.

For instance, a full lockdown, in which nobody may leave the house for any reason whatsoever, with armed soldiers patrolling alone with the remit to shoot on sight anyone seen outside their home, would basically stop COVID19. However, what it would do is cause an awful lot more deaths from other medical conditions (as medical assistance could not be sought), mental health and starvation, and possibly even thirst as any failures in the water supply would not be repaired, for instance.

Any measures are a balance of lives saved through COVID vs. lives cost by other means.

 

[squizzler]

For instance, a full lockdown, in which nobody may leave the house for any reason whatsoever, with armed soldiers patrolling alone with the remit to shoot on sight anyone seen outside their home, would basically stop COVID19. However, what it would do is cause an awful lot more deaths from other medical conditions (as medical assistance could not be sought), mental health and starvation, and possibly even thirst as any failures in the water supply would not be repaired, for instance.

Not to mention gunshot injuries...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Of course if you choose to cycle through busy urban parks or city centres the risk may be higher but why would you choose to cycle somewhere busy if you have a choice?

If you live in London, you don't really have a choice. For a person of average fitness, it would probably take over an hour to reach countryside if you're starting from central London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you live in London, you don't really have a choice. For a person of average fitness, it would probably take over an hour to reach countryside if you're starting from central London.

Near central London I'd go ride round the City, it'll be as quiet as it is on a Sunday morning as things stand.

 

[Ianno87]

Have to admit, and without trying to stereotype, that sub-2 metre passing/overtaking has been much more common involving cyclists when I've been out walking, through a general attitude of them not wanting to have to stop/dismount when the path is narrow.

 

[sheff1]

.... it really looked to me as if most other cyclists were working on the assumption that, social distancing doesn't apply if you're on a bike. Hence the title of this thread: Do we need the Government to issue additional (strong) guidance for cyclists?

Well as the police in London are seemingly happy to organise things such as the Westminster Bridge group clap which clearly breached social distancing guidelines, perhaps the thinking is that social distancing doesn't apply in London.

If existing guidance is being ignored, would additional guidance be any different ?

 

[sheff1]

• If the 'R' value of the virus was below 1 without any measures, then there would be no need for any measures (other than people in high risk groups staying at home)
• There is no way that the activities described in this thread would significantly increase the 'R' value

What does 'R' value mean?

 

[greyman42]

It refers to the average number of people that one infected person can expect to pass the virus onto.

 

[HH]

Well as the police in London are seemingly happy to organise things such as the Westminster Bridge group clap which clearly breached social distancing guidelines, perhaps the thinking is that social distancing doesn't apply in London.

I've noticed that wearing a uniform or hi-vis vest gives you immunity to the virus, given all the photos I've seen of people within 2-3 feet of each other, e.g. clapping the NHS, or even having lunch (and not just photos, saw 4 guys at a small table as I was walking today). Is it a macho thing, given most of these people are men?

I have to wonder whether the noted difference between male and female infections is behavioural, rather than physical.

What does 'R' value mean?

It's the infection rate - if R <1 each person infects less than one other person, which will mean that the number of infections will reduce over time.

 

[westv]

It refers to the average number of people that one infected person can expect to pass the virus onto.

I thought it was R0 (R naught).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought it was R0 (R naught).

R0 is the "base" value with no interventions in a given society. R, or I think I've sen RT with the T as a subscript, is what it has become after you've applied interventions.

This is quite common notation, for instance, T0 might be the starting temperature during your experiment and Tn where n is a number the temperature n minutes in.

 

[Mogster]

The WHOs guidance is still 1m distancing. People catch the virus from prolonged close contact, 15minutes or more maybe even 30 minutes. Transmission is via droplets from someone who’s infected and very likely to have symptoms, asymptomatic people are very low risk although it’s hard to quantify.

The WHO say there’s no hard evidence of the virus being passed outdoors. Risk is much lower as droplets are disrupted but moving air. The virus it’s self is inactivated by UV and humidity outside is a much more hostile environment for a virus than indoors. Its very very unlikely people are catching CoV2 from someone walking, running or cycling past them in the street, they are catching it indoors from their partner or family members who are very probably ill.

 

[Meerkat]

they are catching it indoors from their partner or family members who are very probably ill.

Can’t all be catching it like that!

 

[HH]

...they are catching it indoors from their partner or family members who are very probably ill.

And where is the partner or family member getting it from?

The virus it’s self is inactivated by UV and humidity...

The effect of UV is discussed here - basically it ain't happening with natural UV. And the evidence on humidity is unclear, as noted by the New Scientist. I don't know where you get your information from, but I'd ditch the source if I were you.

 

[yorkie]

Coronavirus: can sunbathing spread the virus and should we ban outdoor exercise?

Matt Hancock's threat to ban outdoor exercise has been labelled 'deeply worrying' by experts who say virus does not transmit well outdoors

www.telegraph.co.uk

One well-known scientist, who was keen not to contradict government advice on the record, told The Telegraph that there is currently no evidence that coronavirus has ever been transmitted outdoors, while there is abundant evidence of indoor transmission....

While there no doubt will be some outdoors transmissions, the risks are clearly far greater indoors than outdoors.

We are appalling at evaluating and managing risk.

The risk from cycling is miniscule.

However the health benefits are far greater than any risks; a healthy body is more likely to be in a better position to fight off a virus.

 

[HH]

That's the trouble with scientists, they use the scientific method. What work has been done to test if transmission can happen outdoors? None, maybe?

 

[yorkie]

That's the trouble with scientists, they use the scientific method. What work has been done to test if transmission can happen outdoors? None, maybe?

I think the answer is that we don't know the exact risks, so for now Governments are advising extreme caution, given that we are currently in a phase of wanting to drive down the 'R' value as much as possible (which of course cannot be sustained forever anyway).

But it's difficult for anyone to deny that an outdoors environment is a harsher one for a virus to survive in, so the risk is going to be smaller.

As I said before, the chances of cyclists being closer than 1m to each other is slim, so the thread is based on the perceived risks of being further than that, yet closer than what the UK Government guidelines state, i.e. 2m.

The reality is that this distance is a very rough guide, and also it is extremely unlikely to catch the virus merely passing close to someone briefly, and it is far more likely that you would get it from prolonged close contact.

No-one can quantify the exact level of risk at this moment, but the risk of catching the virus by cycling is clearly going to be extremely small. I think that we going to be facing far bigger problems if people are worried about activities that present such an absolutely tiny risk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No-one can quantify the exact level of risk at this moment, but the risk of catching the virus by cycling is clearly going to be extremely small. I think that we going to be facing far bigger problems if people are worried about activities that present such an absolutely tiny risk.

I think a lot of people who are proposing this fall into one of the following brackets.

1. People who don't normally exercise and are looking for moral validation of sitting on their backside eating cake (there is going to be a decent obesity crisis after this from people doing this - and even more so in Italy and Spain - and especially in children, who despite being lowest risk are not allowed out at all in Spain at the moment even with an adult, which as it's unnecessary is getting close to institutionalised abuse in my mind).

2. People "virtue signalling" - i.e. "I can stay home more than you". These are typically the same people who are the "neighbourhood spies" and similar.

 

[Bantamzen]

There's a lot we don't know yet, but as above it is becoming accepted that transmission is far more likely in confined areas with prolonged exposure. Walking / cycling past someone even at a metre's distance is very unlikely to result in infection, unless one of the people is actively sneezing or coughing at that moment. The social distancing and lockdown measures where designed to buy time to get the NHS up to a level where it could handle an increased number of patients without necessarily impacting on other healthcare problems.

There are likely to be other factors as the weather improves, people getting out and about will be helping to improve their immune systems, mental & physical wellbeing is a key factor in all this. Where are people likely to feel happier and less stressful, stuck indoors and out walking / cycling in the sun? So transmission rates may come down more as people feel a bit happier. Plus in the warmer months people's diets often vary from colder ones, meaning they might be more likely to eat & drink food that contains the vitamins & minerals that our immune systems need the most. More healthy and strong immune systems out there mean more chance of fighting the virus without medical care, and even without symptoms. Its only one part of a complex puzzle, but one that should not be ignored.

I think a lot of people who are proposing this fall into one of the following brackets.

1. People who don't normally exercise and are looking for moral validation of sitting on their backside eating cake (there is going to be a decent obesity crisis after this from people doing this - and even more so in Italy and Spain - and especially in children, who despite being lowest risk are not allowed out at all in Spain at the moment even with an adult, which as it's unnecessary is getting close to institutionalised abuse in my mind).

2. People "virtue signalling" - i.e. "I can stay home more than you". These are typically the same people who are the "neighbourhood spies" and similar.

On my own social networks I have noticed much more of #2 happening, even amongst people who normally wouldn't be like that, people that prior to the crisis were very much sociable, active people. But as the weeks roll by, more and more are taking to social media to complain about others. Its a change that is worrying in the least, and as I've said before is something that will not have gone unnoticed in government & advisory circles.

 

[tony_mac]

I think a lot of people who are proposing this fall into one of the following brackets.

1. People who don't normally exercise and are looking for moral validation of sitting on their backside eating cake (there is going to be a decent obesity crisis after this from people doing this - and even more so in Italy and Spain - and especially in children, who despite being lowest risk are not allowed out at all in Spain at the moment even with an adult, which as it's unnecessary is getting close to institutionalised abuse in my mind).

2. People "virtue signalling" - i.e. "I can stay home more than you". These are typically the same people who are the "neighbourhood spies" and similar.

3. People who understand that tiny risks, multiplied by enough cases, can become serious problems.

4. People who think that it is sensible to be cautious in light of unknown risk, particularly when we have already shown that we were not nearly cautious enough early on.

5. People who think that it is still reasonable for a good citizen to follow government advice, even when their newly-found expertise in virology suggests it may be over-cautious.

6. People who understand that others will become stressed when dealing with people seemingly taking risks and ignoring government advice.

7. People who prefer to keep to an arbitrary line, even if it isn't perfect, in order to prevent standards slipping as everyone decides for themselves what is best.

8. People who don't want to have even small risks of dying forced upon them by others.

I'm sure there is plenty more...

 

[underbank]

they are catching it indoors from their partner or family members who are very probably ill.

So what caused the blip in numbers in Cheltenham then, a couple of weeks after the horse races??