Should there be Extra Social Distancing Instructions for Cyclists

[farleigh]

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

Cyclists?

 

[yorkie]

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

If people make irrational decisions such as choose not to cycle because they might not be a whole 2m apart from others at brief moments, then there are going to be far bigger problems to worry about!

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

People mingling within the stands? People going to bars before/after the event? People travelling to the event? People being in close proximity to others for extended periods?

We don't really know the full details of transmission risks, but what we do know is that some factors are highly likely to be far bigger risk than others, and the risk of getting a virus when cycling is miniscule. I will consider myself to be at far bigger actual risk from a health perspective if I stop doing activities like cycling!

There needs to be a greater application of common sense and an understanding of the bigger picture by some people.

 

[bramling]

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

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.

I do think the cycling fad will have to dampen when more people start returning to work. There’s already been a fatal accident in my area in the last week or so. Part of the issue is that many of the cyclists out and about at the moment are quite clearly not regulars, and are evidently not massively proficient in what they’re doing. Likewise parts of London are a sea of people on (ironically) Boris bikes, again in many cases wobbling about all over the places and quite often places they shouldn’t be like pavements.

Having said all that, I tend to agree with the general view that in moderation it isn’t a bad thing to be doing. Certainly the media coverage showing signs being erected in villages along the lines of “cyclists stop panting the virus over our roads” is just ridiculous IMV.

 

[yorkie]

I knew people would try to hijack this thread to try to have a go at cycling; so predictable!

Without any information about the accident you refer to, there isn't really much to be discussed on that point, as we don't know the details. I'm not convinced it's on topic though.

The biggest risks I've faced when cycling are some car drivers driving too fast in the current climate (due to empty roads) and some pedestrians stepping into the road without looking (to give huge distances between themselves and other passing pedestrians). I've been keeping an eye on any pedestrians walking close to the kerb and ensuring I give them a wide berth in case of this. I've actually been more of a walker than a cycler recently (as shown in my signature, though this doesn't include going to work or shopping). These risks are far greater than any miniscule risk of getting a virus when cycling.

However even these risks are outweighed by the health benefits, which will help people like me to fight off viruses. I work in an environment which may be described as "high risk" for viruses being passed on, but providing my mental health is good and I am not stressed or worrying, I can always fight them off. I put that down to being healthy, part of which is from the amount of cycling I do.

In short, the risks fare exceed the benefits, so it is illogical to stop cycling.

 

[bramling]

I knew people would try to hijack this thread to try to have a go at cycling; so predictable!

Without any information about the accident you refer to, there isn't really much to be discussed on that point, as we don't know the details. I'm not convinced it's on topic though.

The biggest risks I've faced when cycling are some car drivers driving too fast in the current climate (due to empty roads) and some pedestrians stepping into the road without looking (to give huge distances between themselves and other passing pedestrians). I've been keeping an eye on any pedestrians walking close to the kerb and ensuring I give them a wide berth in case of this. I've actually been more of a walker than a cycler recently (as shown in my signature, though this doesn't include going to work or shopping). These risks are far greater than any miniscule risk of getting a virus when cycling.

However even these risks are outweighed by the health benefits, which will help people like me to fight off viruses. I work in an environment which may be described as "high risk" for viruses being passed on, but providing my mental health is good and I am not stressed or worrying, I can always fight them off. I put that down to being healthy, part of which is from the amount of cycling I do.

In short, the risks fare exceed the benefits, so it is illogical to stop cycling.

I’m not particularly anti cycling, and I agree there’s certainly health benefits in doing it. However equally there’s no doubt (in my area at least) we’ve seen an absolute explosion in leisure cycling over the last month. Britain isn’t massively equipped for such a sudden increase in leisure cycling, and regardless of one’s views on cycling it is going to cause issues once we start to see a restoration in road traffic levels if the current level of leisure cycling continues.

The current fine weather is no doubt contributory - conditions are present are perfect for cycling as it’s sunny, not too hot and generally light winds. I’m sure if the weather turns many of these cycles will find their way back to the garage!

On that score I don’t think there’s a massive issue from a social distancing point of view so long as the increase in cycling isn’t leading to gatherings. We wouldn’t be wanting to see, for example, gatherings around places like cafes and picnic sites which one would normally see in something like the High Peak Trail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

In what manner am I suggesting otherwise? Nothing I suggest is outside of those guidelines. I fear you are doing exactly the form of "virtue signalling" I referred to.

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

Though some are becoming stressed when people are not in fact ignoring Government advice, e.g. complaining about photographs of parks in which there are a reasonable number of people but they are all 2m apart. That, again, is virtue signalling.

What risks people take, within those guidelines, is not the business of others.

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.

The correct line for that is that found in writing on gov.uk. There is no other correct line and one cannot expect others to take another arbitrary stricter line of one's own choosing except when on one's personal property.

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

Society accepts some level of risk - less at the moment, but within the bounds defined by the published guidelines. If an individual is unhappy with the level of risk posed by someone complying to those guidelines, their sole option is to self-isolate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In short, the risks fare exceed the benefits, so it is illogical to stop cycling.

FWIW I've found it easier to distance cycling than walking/running, by choosing to cycle on the road rather than the Redways, which means the only people I come close to are safely in a metal box, give or take the occasional other cyclist. (I was going to say "or motorcyclist" but I've not seen a single one since lockdown started). The only place I've had issues is on the Redways where some stubborn people won't move over to 2m away (it is always possible to do this because the Redways are just over 2m wide) - I've taken with such people to a policy that I will give a warning (a bell or a polite verbal request), wait for them to have plenty of time to move to single file, and if they don't pass anyway. Same when running. Or walking, as I walk much faster than most, though I don't tend to walk for exercise as other than in stunning scenery I tend to find it rather boring.

 

[bramling]

FWIW I've found it easier to distance cycling than walking/running, by choosing to cycle on the road rather than the Redways, which means the only people I come close to are safely in a metal box, give or take the occasional other cyclist. (I was going to say "or motorcyclist" but I've not seen a single one since lockdown started). The only place I've had issues is on the Redways where some stubborn people won't move over to 2m away (it is always possible to do this because the Redways are just over 2m wide) - I've taken with such people to a policy that I will give a warning (a bell or a polite verbal request), wait for them to have plenty of time to move to single file, and if they don't pass anyway. Same when running. Or walking, as I walk much faster than most, though I don't tend to walk for exercise as other than in stunning scenery I tend to find it rather boring.

There’s been a big increase in motorcycling round my way, mainly on the roads to be fair. At least the last two of my evening walks have been characterised by the distant sound of roaring motorcycles in the air.

Again probably not a massive problem from a social distancing point of view, but hard to define it as exercise, and of course as a leisure activity it carries a disproportionate risk profile.

 

[tony_mac]

In what manner am I suggesting otherwise? Nothing I suggest is outside of those guidelines.

There was lots of talk in this thread about people, particularly cyclists, not obeying the guidelines. And there is constant justification of people not obeying the guidelines because 'the risk is minimal, etc.' - which was in the actual post you were replying to. Hence that is what I was talking about.
There are so many unknowns at the moment; keeping 2m away from people should hardly be such a big sacrifice to make, but it's obviously too much for some people.

 

[yorkie]

There was lots of talk in this thread about people, particularly cyclists, not obeying the guidelines. And there is constant justification of people not obeying the guidelines because 'the risk is minimal, etc.' ....

I don't think there is any suggestion that the WHO guidance is being broken, as if cyclists were closer than 1 metre to other cyclists, I'd be more worried for other safety reasons! I can't see that happening very often and I have not seen it. I've had a few people walk past me at closer than 2 metres when I have been out walking with a busy road at one side and a wall the other, but I could count the number of times on one hand. The risk is minimal. Being outside it's clearly less risky compared to briefly coming within 2m of someone serving you at a shop.

Part of the post was also suggesting that it's risky being 5m behind another cyclist; again I'd say the risk is minimal. That said it's possibly riskier being 5m behind than 1m alongside; the former is within the UK guidelines and the latter isn't (yet isn't against WHO guidelines).

 

[bramling]

I don't think there is any suggestion that the WHO guidance is being broken, as if cyclists were closer than 1 metre to other cyclists, I'd be more worried for other safety reasons! I can't see that happening very often and I have not seen it. I've had a few people walk past me at closer than 2 metres when I have been out walking with a busy road at one side and a wall the other, but I could count the number of times on one hand. The risk is minimal. Being outside it's clearly less risky compared to briefly coming within 2m of someone serving you at a shop.

Part of the post was also suggesting that it's risky being 5m behind another cyclist; again I'd say the risk is minimal. That said it's possibly riskier being 5m behind than 1m alongside; the former is within the UK guidelines and the latter isn't (yet isn't against WHO guidelines).

It may well be the case that these cyclists close to one another are from the same household, and thus permitted?

Having said that as someone who’s come off a bike as a consequence of riding too close to a companion (a misunderstanding between us of which road we were taking, right in the middle of the Bank Of England traffic junction, fortunately not at a busy time of day!) cycling too close to another cyclist isn’t really sensible anyway IMO.

 

[yorkie]

It may well be the case that these cyclists close to one another are from the same household, and thus permitted?

In some cases, yes, though the OP did report an instance that wasn't permitted, so I don't doubt it happens occasionally.

But as someone who has done a lot of walking and cycling recently, I'd say it's more an issue walking than cycling but neither are happening frequently in my experience (admittedly not in London).

Having said that as someone who’s come off a bike as a consequence of riding too close to a companion (a misunderstanding between us of which road we were taking, right in the middle of the Bank Of England traffic junction, fortunately not at a busy time of day!) cycling too close to another cyclist isn’t really sensible anyway IMO.

Absolutely!

 

[brad465]

As a long distance road cyclist myself, here are some of my experiences and understandings in lockdown so far:

I've seen plenty of compliance on the roads and among people I follow on Strava (from what they publicly reveal to others anyway), although the odd exception of course exists. There hasn't been a defined rule on duration and where to go, which makes seeing what's publicly acceptable difficult sometimes. I tend to ride almost non-stop to avoid contact with others, limiting stops that have to be made to remote spots. I'm normally capable 100+ mile rides at least weekly, but have not done anywhere near this distance since lockdown began. One person I know found one of his Strava followers doing a 100 mile ride last Sunday (taking over 6 hours) and then publicly shamed him on Facebook & revealed he'd cut ties with that person for that very ride.

In terms of social distancing on the road there is plenty to consider when trying to social distance from other riders and/or pedestrians, including trying to avoid potholes and other road users. I try to go further out into the road to pass a pedestrian, but if a car is about to overtake it's safer for me to stay riding to the side, although quieter roads have made that a less common issue. Slip-streaming or as we sometimes call it "wheel-sucking" is pretty much considered unacceptable, so if one happens to stumble across another cyclist travelling in the same direction it's either hold further back or go on the attack. Quite often I am able to overtake other riders, choosing a wide path to maintain distance, although as is often the case any riders overtaken will often find the "mental drive" to go harder to keep up, so it's about making sure they're either allowed to re-overtake or ensuring they stay back, typically a few metres is good enough. The reverse is true for me if I get overtaken.

 

[the sniper]

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.

As you say, the distance thing is a very rough guide, though the WHO 1m rule is laughably ineffective. Given that the WHO made a big point of advising the public against wearing masks, but only because there aren't enough masks, so the public trying to get them would only hinder medical workers getting them, who obviously need them much more, shows that their advice is aimed at controlling the bigger picture rather than individual well being. I'm not saying that's the wrong thing to do on their part though, you just have to consider their angle.

As for cycling and running, there's some logical research here indicating that why 1m/2m can't be enough at times during these activities: https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/b...alk-run-bike-close-to-each-other-a5df19c77d08

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.

Makes a change from the cyclists being the self-righteous ones.

 

[farleigh]

As you say, the distance thing is a very rough guide, though the WHO 1m rule is laughably ineffective.

What evidence do you have for this or is it just an opinion?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for cycling and running, there's some logical research here indicating that why 1m/2m can't be enough at times during these activities: https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/b...alk-run-bike-close-to-each-other-a5df19c77d08

Not that again.

1. Medium is a platform on which anyone can publish anything they like, it has no more credibility than Facebook, Twitter or indeed this Forum! (Actually, through its very active moderation, this Forum probably has more credibility ).
2. The article has been demonstrated not to be based on concrete research nor peer-reviewed, one example of a rebuttal to it is here: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/...spreading-coronavirus-is-not-actually-a-study

 

[Meerkat]

I do think the cycling fad will have to dampen when more people start returning to work. There’s already been a fatal accident in my area in the last week or so. Part of the issue is that many of the cyclists out and about at the moment are quite clearly not regulars, and are evidently not massively proficient in what they’re doing. Likewise parts of London are a sea of people on (ironically) Boris bikes, again in many cases wobbling about all over the places and quite often places they shouldn’t be like pavements.

Having said all that, I tend to agree with the general view that in moderation it isn’t a bad thing to be doing. Certainly the media coverage showing signs being erected in villages along the lines of “cyclists stop panting the virus over our roads” is just ridiculous IMV.

Totally wrong - the best way of increasing cyclist safety is more cyclists!
The more common cyclists are the more drivers get used to looking out for them and how they behave

 

[the sniper]

What evidence do you have for this or is it just an opinion?

That many Governments considered distances over 1m to be more sensible/worthwhile? Also an opinion, having stood a metre in front of someone and caught a taste of their phlegm during conversation!

Not that again.

1. Medium is a platform on which anyone can publish anything they like, it has no more credibility than Facebook, Twitter or indeed this Forum! (Actually, through its very active moderation, this Forum probably has more credibility ).
2. The article has been demonstrated not to be based on concrete research nor peer-reviewed, one example of a rebuttal to it is here: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/...spreading-coronavirus-is-not-actually-a-study

In principle it's not worth considering that there will be significant variables to the 'safe distance' under differing conditions? Or 1m/2m is 'safe' under all circumstances, people should give it no thought?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In short, the risks fare exceed the benefits, so it is illogical to stop cycling.

Is anyone suggesting that people stop cycling? My post that started this thread was more aimed at, people who are cycling should follow social distancing better while on their bikes - but should still be encouraged to continue cycling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In principle it's not worth considering that there will be significant variables to the 'safe distance' under differing conditions? Or 1m/2m is 'safe' under all circumstances, people should give it no thought?

It's not really even worthy of (as far as COVID goes) when cycling, as 2m off the back wheel is way too close to be safe anyway, unless cycling in a disciplined peloton, but you're not meant to be doing that at the moment!

The problem with that article, though, is that COVID isn't thought to hang in the air, it's too heavy. If it did, R would be much higher, e.g. measles which does hang in the air has an R of over 10, because walking into a room where someone with measles was 5 minutes ago is enough for spread to occur. Vapour may hang in the air, but there's AIUI no evidence that the virus does, which is where the issue is.

 

[bramling]

It's not really even worthy of (as far as COVID goes) when cycling, as 2m off the back wheel is way too close to be safe anyway, unless cycling in a disciplined peloton, but you're not meant to be doing that at the moment!

The problem with that article, though, is that COVID isn't thought to hang in the air, it's too heavy. If it did, R would be much higher, e.g. measles which does hang in the air has an R of over 10, because walking into a room where someone with measles was 5 minutes ago is enough for spread to occur. Vapour may hang in the air, but there's AIUI no evidence that the virus does, which is where the issue is.

I suspect there's two issues. Congregating at things like traffic lights, and passing pedestrians too closely. To be fair both are not unreasonable points, but I think they reflect the attitude towards social distancing in general rather than being confined to one particular groups. There's been enough moaning in various places about runners doing exactly the same.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect there's two issues. Congregating at things like traffic lights, and passing pedestrians too closely. To be fair both are not unreasonable points, but I think they reflect the attitude towards social distancing in general rather than being confined to one particular groups. There's been enough moaning in various places about runners doing exactly the same.

And (having taken part in both activities) a lack of consideration on the part of other path users is also an issue, i.e. pedestrians walking several-abreast across shared paths and not listening out for bicycle bells etc. What is clear is that most people have woeful awareness of their surroundings, which of course means that they are potential street crime victims even in normal times.

 

[bramling]

Totally wrong - the best way of increasing cyclist safety is more cyclists!
The more common cyclists are the more drivers get used to looking out for them and how they behave

I don't necessarily disagree, however what we have at the moment is a sudden influx of leisure cyclists, many of whom are inexperienced and not proficient with things like good positioning. Certainly in London I'm increasingly seeing people who have clearly got hold of a bike and decided to go for a bit of an adventure. A national emergency isn't really the time for all this, IMO, much as I enjoy cycling myself.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

• 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.

I think I would see it as a balance of risk vs how easy it is to mitigate that risk.

Yes, one cyclist - say - overtaking you close by is by itself an extremely low risk. But the mitigation - giving a wider berth when overtaking - is, with current traffic levels, almost trivially easy to do. Ditto, bunching up right next to another cyclist waiting at a red light for 20 seconds is probably also pretty low risk by itself, but the mitigation - waiting a bit further back - also requires virtually no effort. Virtually no effort to avoid a small risk, so why not do it? If it was a tiny risk, but required huge effort or significant sacrifice to avoid the risk, then I'd probably say that the balance of risk vs effort means, don't worry about it. But if the effort to avoid the risk is virtually zero, then it seems very inconsiderate to others not to take that effort.

Also, although passing someone once is likely to be very low risk (we don't really know how low), if it's happening dozens of times during a journey, and then that journey is repeated several times a week, then those tiny risks must surely build up to something less tiny.

 

[bramling]

And (having taken part in both activities) a lack of consideration on the part of other path users is also an issue, i.e. pedestrians walking several-abreast across shared paths and not listening out for bicycle bells etc. What is clear is that most people have woeful awareness of their surroundings, which of course means that they are potential street crime victims even in normal times.

This is a wonderful post .. sums up so much in just a few words!

The problem with shared paths and the like is that they only really work well when relatively lightly used or when they are plentifully wide. I'm assuming the rationale for Boris's "exercise once per day" was an attempt to avoid overcrowding.

 

[Meerkat]

It's not really even worthy of (as far as COVID goes) when cycling, as 2m off the back wheel is way too close to be safe anyway, unless cycling in a disciplined peloton, but you're not meant to be doing that at the moment!

IMO the plod should be cracking down on pelotons at any time - it’s clearly unsafe, and would get you stopped if you did it in cars (I really dont think “it’s energy saving officer” will get you off a tailgating charge!)

I don't necessarily disagree, however what we have at the moment is a sudden influx of leisure cyclists, many of whom are inexperienced and not proficient with things like good positioning. Certainly in London I'm increasingly seeing people who have clearly got hold of a bike and decided to go for a bit of an adventure. A national emergency isn't really the time for all this, IMO, much as I enjoy cycling myself.

Sounds perfect - loads of people getting used to cycling whilst there is little traffic. Needs encouraging!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds perfect - loads of people getting used to cycling whilst there is little traffic. Needs encouraging!

FWIW I'm mostly a transport cyclist so I don't think I've ever ridden in a peloton. I'm doing a bit of leisure cycling at the moment for exercise but I normally very rarely do.

Yes, I agree - quiet roads are the ideal time for it, and maybe if people like it they'll carry on with it afterwards. The deputy CMO did speak of a public health opportunity alongside the emergency - loads of people with spare time who could take up walking, running or cycling (or all three) and perhaps continue with them afterwards. This is much better (and barely any more risk) than the Spanish lockdown which in the UK would have resulted in a huge obesity crisis dwarfing anything we had anyway. And keeping kids in for 2 months (the section of society who are usually the most active)...close to abuse in my mind.

 

[Mogster]

As you say, the distance thing is a very rough guide, though the WHO 1m rule is laughably ineffective. Given that the WHO made a big point of advising the public against wearing masks, but only because there aren't enough masks, so the public trying to get them would only hinder medical workers getting them, who obviously need them much more, shows that their advice is aimed at controlling the bigger picture rather than individual well being. I'm not saying that's the wrong thing to do on their part though, you just have to consider their angle.

The 3-6ft rule is an approximation of how far larger droplets will carry, it‘s use is an indication that CoV2 isn’t that easy to catch, if it was way more people would have it... Early track and trace data from China, S Korea and the US confirmed almost all people are catching this in the home from close contact of 6ft or less and with extended contact with an infected person. The WHO has based its advice on this data and it’s not been contradicted by any real world track and trace data since. Catching CoV2 in the street from snap exposure to a cyclist, runner or other pedestrian could happen but it’s very very unlikely. Catching it from a contaminated indoor surface like a bus hand rail by touching it transferring the contamination to your eyes or mouth is much more likely.

The problem with masks is that they encourage face touching, either to remove the mask to do something like using the phone or just to adjust it. Healthcare workers are trained to fit and remove PPE, a mask fitted with contaminated hands is worse than no mask as it can present the contamination to your mouth for an extended period. Disposal of contaminated masks in public areas is a further problem that needs to be considered before mandating or recommending their use.

 

[VauxhallandI]

There are a large proportion of cyclists in my vicinity riding on the pavement right past you when there are entire empty roads to cycle on. You can argue about one metre, two metres etc but these people are just plain ignorant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are a large proportion of cyclists in my vicinity riding on the pavement right past you when there are entire empty roads to cycle on. You can argue about one metre, two metres etc but these people are just plain ignorant.

In MK a good many "pavements" are actually Redways which are shared-use (it's obvious which ones as they are made of red tarmac if so). However personally I've been cycling on the road wherever feasible to avoid coming too close to pedestrians - the roads are nice and quiet so why not? Surprised people are on the pavement.