Should there be Extra Social Distancing Instructions for Cyclists

[ashkeba]

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?

One challenge in most places is that opportunities to move from cycleway to road and back are often limited by hedges and high kerbs. Denmark has so-called crossable kerbs between many roads and roadside cycleways but I don't remember whether MK copied that.

The reason not to use the roads is that a speeding motorist seems like still a bigger danger than a momentary exposure to a covid person on the cycleway.

 

[ashkeba]

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.

If the current level of cycling continues, traffic levels won't have been restored. Cycling is also valid traffic.

Additionally, I defy anyone to tell a leisure cyclist from a transport cyclist by looking.

The numbers still cycling in the stinking winds earlier this week makes me doubt the weather will stop them all now, but only time will reveal truth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One challenge in most places is that opportunities to move from cycleway to road and back are often limited by hedges and high kerbs. Denmark has so-called crossable kerbs between many roads and roadside cycleways but I don't remember whether MK copied that

It didn't, the system is fully segregated with the intention that you use one or the other. They often don't even follow the roads.

The reason not to use the roads is that a speeding motorist seems like still a bigger danger than a momentary exposure to a covid person on the cycleway.

It's more that progress on the Redways is painfully slow if you have to keep slowing while waiting for people with no spatial awareness to get out of your way. I'm not cycling on the grid, though, that nearly killed me once and once was enough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Additionally, I defy anyone to tell a leisure cyclist from a transport cyclist by looking.

Depends what you mean by "leisure cyclist". If you mean a family going for a ride on their hybrids in the park you're probably right, though that said transport cyclists will usually be on their own. But you can definitely tell the difference between Mavis going to the shop with her bell and basket and someone going to ride 100 miles on their £5K road bike in lycra.

I suppose there are two things you can mean by "leisure cyclist".

 

[ashkeba]

But you can definitely tell the difference between Mavis going to the shop with her bell and basket and someone going to ride 100 miles on their £5K road bike in lycra.

I suppose there are two things you can mean by "leisure cyclist".

But you probably can't tell the difference between Mavis going shopping and Mavis going to have a nice ride around the Teardrop Lakes. And often you won't tell the difference between the guy in Lycra who rides fast and changes at work, and the guy going for the long fast leisure ride.

 

[bramling]

But you probably can't tell the difference between Mavis going shopping and Mavis going to have a nice ride around the Teardrop Lakes. And often you won't tell the difference between the guy in Lycra who rides fast and changes at work, and the guy going for the long fast leisure ride.

Most of the roadie-types visible round here look old enough to be retired, so I’m not convinced they’re all heading for work. Most of the rest are family groups on mountain bikes, pootling along at little more than walking pace (how much exercise value in that compared to a brisk walk?).

Personally, I’ve never found a massive amount of exercise value from cycling unless doing mega miles or flooring it especially up hills. I’ve always found I derive more value out of a good long walk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you probably can't tell the difference between Mavis going shopping and Mavis going to have a nice ride around the Teardrop Lakes. And often you won't tell the difference between the guy in Lycra who rides fast and changes at work, and the guy going for the long fast leisure ride.

Fair point in the former case, in the latter you are likely to get a significant difference between time of day and day of week. Most cyclists on the road at 7am on a Tuesday will be commuting, but most on a Sunday afternoon, particularly in groups, are leisure cyclists.

It's not 100%, but it's enough to hazard a very educated guess.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

It does seem like the anti-cycling lobby are using the lockdown as an excuse to express their long-held grudges against cyclists in general. Here's a sign that was put in by a parish council in Cheshire a few days ago (but following protests has since been removed)



(Sign says: "Cyclists: Coronavirus warning: stay in your local area....infringements will be prosecuted")

Meanwhile in Bradwell in the Peak District, some local residents have decided to make up their own rules about whether cyclists from Sheffield should be allowed to cycle through their village.

Coronavirus: Villagers say cyclists 'pose threat' to residents

Residents in the Hope Valley complain cyclists from Sheffield are "flouting coronavirus guidelines".

www.bbc.co.uk

Residents have complained cyclists are "flouting coronavirus guidelines" by making unnecessary journeys through their village in the Peak District.

One villager from Bradwell in the Hope Valley argued people riding there from Sheffield "pose a threat" to residents.

But a cycling group said some were using the lockdown "as an excuse to air long-held grievances against cyclists".

Villager Iain Greenhalgh, one of several to voice objections, said: "We're living out in the Peak District, and the thing that's become apparent in this lockdown is all the groups that use it - hill walkers, trail riders, rock climbers - have stopped.

"But cyclists aren't compromising what they're doing for the health of everyone else.

"If you appear in the villages of the Hope Valley wearing a Sheffield cycling club shirt, you've travelled 12 miles to get here."

Oh dear. It seems Mr Greenhalgh doesn't understand the current restrictions and has invented his own! Nowhere in the current guidelines is there any limit to how long you can cycle for or how far you can ride.

 

[yorkie]

This Iain Greenhalgh character sounds like a nasty individual.

He said he'd like to shame people for exercising, but the reality is that he has been shamed.

Yes he is trying to invent his own rules. He needs to accept the law is what it is, and for good reason, whether he agrees with those reasons or not.

 

[HH]

Oh dear. It seems Mr Greenhalgh doesn't understand the current restrictions and has invented his own! Nowhere in the current guidelines is there any limit to how long you can cycle for or how far you can ride.

The guidelines issued by the government did suggest that cycling for 30 minutes was deemed sufficient. Since then we have had revised guidelines and the time lengths have disappeared, but they still say, "stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible – do not travel unnecessarily". Is Bradwell really near a home in Sheffield? Of course, it is arguable whether cycling from Sheffield to Bradwell and return is going to increase the chance of anyone catching the virus in any meaningful way, but it's also true that if everyone pushes the boundaries of what is OK, then R will increase.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

The guidelines issued by the government did suggest that cycling for 30 minutes was deemed sufficient. Since then we have had revised guidelines and the time lengths have disappeared, but they still say, "stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible – do not travel unnecessarily". Is Bradwell really near a home in Sheffield? Of course, it is arguable whether cycling from Sheffield to Bradwell and return is going to increase the chance of anyone catching the virus in any meaningful way, but it's also true that if everyone pushes the boundaries of what is OK, then R will increase.

You seem under the misapprehension that when a government minister says something in a TV interview it instantly becomes law.

Asked on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show how long the advice to take “one form of exercise a day” could go on for, the Cabinet Office minister said: “Obviously it depends on each individual’s fitness, but I would have thought for most people a walk of up to an hour, a run of 30 minutes or a cycle ride of between that, depending on their level of fitness, is appropriate."

As you say, that advice has now disappeared but it was never a law in the first place. Bradwell is a mere 12 miles from Sheffield; a reasonably fit cyclist could cycle there and back within a couple of hours so I would argue it is local!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The guidelines issued by the government did suggest that cycling for 30 minutes was deemed sufficient.

No they didn't, that was Gove's opinion. There is another set of totally separate non-COVID related general advice that says we should do a minimum of 30 minutes exercise 3 times a week, which is where this is coming from.

 

[scotrail158713]

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.

To a certain extend I’d agree. For example, I was out for a run yesterday and a father and son were approaching me on their bikes. I was happy to run on the road to pass them as the boy looked about 7 years old and I know I wouldn’t fancy cycling on the road at 7.
However 5 minutes later another cyclist was approaching, on the pavement, and wasn’t for budging. So I ended up going on the road to pass them as I didn’t want to make a fuss. It did frustrate me though as I don’t think an adult should be out on a bike if they don’t feel comfortable cycling on a road with next-to-no cars on it.

 

[HH]

Bradwell is a mere 12 miles from Sheffield; a reasonably fit cyclinst could cycle there and back within a couple of hours so I would argue it is local!

16 miles on my my map (but of course it depends where you start from in Sheffield) and there's also quite a stiff climb. Also if you go back you probably will take a different (and therefore longer) route. I think you'd have to be a lot more than reasonably fit to do it in two hours. There are rides you can do that would be more local, which then begs the question of whether you are following the guidelines, "stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible – do not travel unnecessarily".

 

[Domh245]

It's quite presumptive to take the "Sheffield cycling club" shirt as proof that they live in Sheffield. Quite feasible that they are more local and either are a member of SCC through choice (lack of local cycling clubs?) or have moved and left the club but still have the shirt. What an unpleasant individual

 

[Bletchleyite]

16 miles on my my map (but of course it depends where you start from in Sheffield) and there's also quite a stiff climb. Also if you go back you probably will take a different (and therefore longer) route. I think you'd have to be a lot more than reasonably fit to do it in two hours. There are rides you can do that would be more local, which then begs the question of whether you are following the guidelines, "stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible – do not travel unnecessarily".

That is more about not driving to honeypots. The risk of spread while road cycling alone is well near zero. Therefore a cyclist is much, much better doing this than they are doing laps of their local park.

There is a reason why the law is different from the guidance - to allow an element of sensible discretion.

 

[bramling]

That is more about not driving to honeypots. The risk of spread while road cycling alone is well near zero. Therefore a cyclist is much, much better doing this than they are doing laps of their local park.

There is a reason why the law is different from the guidance - to allow an element of sensible discretion.

I suspect the issue is more that people are riding relatively long distances (not harmful in itself), but on arrival congregating in places or using local facilities like shops. If this is happening then locals may have something of a point. I agree that the “stop panting viruses through our village” stuff is nonsense.

None of this bodes well for when restrictions do get released, as I suspect there will continue to be an element of neurosis amongst certain rural populations, no doubt in a few cases fed by personal dislikes rather than genuine concern.

 

[farleigh]

Little Bollington need to remove that sign. It is an embarrassment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect the issue is more that people are riding relatively long distances (not harmful in itself), but on arrival congregating in places or using local facilities like shops. If this is happening then locals may have something of a point. I agree that the “stop panting viruses through our village” stuff is nonsense.

Do you have evidence that that is happening, though? I've not seen any such evidence. I've been going out for country bike rides myself but have been taking water and snacks with me. Normally I might if I did that stop off for a quick half in a pub but (a) now is not the time for that and (b) the pubs are shut anyhow.

What I think is really happening here is somewhere between bubbling-up of anti-tourist sentiment (even more so in Wales) and extreme paranoia. There is basically no chance anyone is going to catch the virus from a cyclist riding alone down the road.

So if you normally ride 50 miles, go ride 50 miles. It's good for your mental health and it will be very unlikely to harm anyone. Just ride carefully and take water, snacks and basic tools so there is no likely situation where you might require assistance from someone else.

 

[bramling]

Do you have evidence that that is happening, though? I've not seen any such evidence. I've been going out for country bike rides myself but have been taking water and snacks with me. Normally I might if I did that stop off for a quick half in a pub but (a) now is not the time for that and (b) the pubs are shut anyhow.

What I think is really happening here is somewhere between bubbling-up of anti-tourist sentiment (even more so in Wales) and extreme paranoia. There is basically no chance anyone is going to catch the virus from a cyclist riding alone down the road.

So if you normally ride 50 miles, go ride 50 miles. It's good for your mental health and it will be very unlikely to harm anyone. Just ride carefully and take water, snacks and basic tools so there is no likely situation where you might require assistance from someone else.

I have seen a few snippets on the news where people have complained that cyclists are using local facilities, in one case someone complained their village shop had been “stripped bare” (which is clearly an exaggeration as I can’t imagine cyclists picking up bulky items like tins or toilet rolls!). I think it’s fair to say that facilities like benches will probably be being used at times.

Notwithstanding all that, I tend to agree with your analysis that some of this is a combination of paranoia / neurosis and anti-outsider. Some people evidently have a little too much time on their hands if they’re able to devote time to making fancy signs!

 

[HH]

That is more about not driving to honeypots. The risk of spread while road cycling alone is well near zero. Therefore a cyclist is much, much better doing this than they are doing laps of their local park.

Yes, providing all they do is cycle on the roads, that is preferable to cycling round the local park.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, providing all they do is cycle on the roads, that is preferable to cycling round the local park.

Which is what, in my observation, is what they are doing, and what these locals are needlessly objecting to.

I'd add a third explanation - a lot of unfit/lazy people are suddenly taking the moral high ground - along the lines of "how dare you enjoy your outdoor activity when I'm sat at home", to which the only sensible answer is "well, get your shoes on and go for a long (road/pavement) walk, as if you carry on like that with no incidental exercise you're going to be like a block of lard by the end of this".

Comparisons with people walking/running on narrow public footpaths where distancing can be hard and you need to open gates (potential spread vector) is rather irrelevant. If you go for a bike ride it's quite possible for nothing other than your tyres to contact anything anyone else has touched, and even if you stop for a rest just your shoes.

 

[philjo]

I was walking on my own through the local park yesterday and a whole family of cyclists came along from behind me and passed less than a metre away from me. Considering the width of the path that is too close to overtake in normal circumstances.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was walking on my own through the local park yesterday and a whole family of cyclists came along from behind me and passed less than a metre away from me.

What was the width of the path? Were you walking at one side of it to give them the chance to pass 2m away?

My policy when cycling now is that I will ring my bell, and if people decline to move I will pass at the maximum distance I can based on their actions. I've had someone genuinely say "well, you'll have to wait behind me then", and I am not going to accommodate that, I cycled past at maximum possible distance and said "your choice" as I did.

Of course you also have to accept that it is difficult to get children to take this as seriously as adults because they are children. If that's a specific problem to you (e.g. you're shielding) it would be best that you look for alternative locations e.g. walk around the streets instead because you can cross the road to avoid people.

 

[philjo]

What was the width of the path? Were you walking at one side of it to give them the chance to pass 2m away?

My policy when cycling now is that I will ring my bell, and if people decline to move I will pass at the maximum distance I can based on their actions. I've had someone genuinely say "well, you'll have to wait behind me then", and I am not going to accommodate that, I cycled past at maximum possible distance and said "your choice" as I did.

Of course you also have to accept that it is difficult to get children to take this as seriously as adults because they are children. If that's a specific problem to you (e.g. you're shielding) it would be best that you look for alternative locations e.g. walk around the streets instead because you can cross the road to avoid people.

The path was about 2 metres wide with rough grass alongside that I could have stepped onto if I was aware that they were coming. It didn't help that 2 of them were riding alongside each other so taking the whole width of the path up. none of them appeared to have bells. Had they gone in single file there would have been plenty of room to pass by safely.
Though I had something similar with a family of 4 walking alongside each other with 3 dogs last week who took up the whole width of the path (the dogs were on leads) so there was no room for anyone going the other way to pass at a safe distance. As I saw them coming I turned round and went up another path instead.
For the rest of the walk yesterday I didn't pass within about 20 metres of anyone else.

 

[Meerkat]

Adults routinely ride on pavements round here. The Eastern Europeans are frequent offenders but that maybe just because more of them utility ride.
Bizarrely some do it even down my quiet residential street - they would still rather ride down a narrow pavement which is more dangerous as people emerge from drives/gates hidden by hedges.
An adult male really shouldn’t be scared of riding on the road!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Adults routinely ride on pavements round here. The Eastern Europeans are frequent offenders but that maybe just because more of them utility ride.

One problem I've observed in MK which really does cause issues with social distancing (and I've posted it here before) is a tendency for people to cycle on the right on the Redways. I think this may primarily be Eastern Europeans etc who have come over from countries where you drive on the right but haven't come over with a car so the mentality hasn't shifted.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It does seem like the anti-cycling lobby are using the lockdown as an excuse to express their long-held grudges against cyclists in general. Here's a sign that was put in by a parish council in Cheshire a few days ago (but following protests has since been removed)

View attachment 76925

(Sign says: "Cyclists: Coronavirus warning: stay in your local area....infringements will be prosecuted")

This is awful and wrong.

I wonder if part of the motivation is people in villages who somehow see Coronavirus as a disease that mainly affects urban areas (and it's probably true that the greater population mingling means urban areas are a bit more at risk), and therefore wanting to keep out people from nearby towns on the assumption that means that their villages might be able to stay completely virus free.

 

[341o2]

[QUOTE
So if you normally ride 50 miles, go ride 50 miles. It's good for your mental health and it will be very unlikely to harm anyone. Just ride carefully and take water, snacks and basic tools so there is no likely situation where you might require assistance from someone else.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but if I drove 20 miles, say from Bournemouth to the Purbecks - that is not permitted and I am liable to be told to go home and risk being fined
Taking the bus - also not allowed
Cycle there - fine.

Secondly, I have had real issues with, obtaining food and other essentials due to panic buyers targeting local shops from afar away as London (of course not the fault of cyclists)

Thirdly, many rural communities have had issues with large scale commercial cycling events and are fed up with the problems they cause

Lastly, is not the overriding principle is that we should all stay at home as much as possible

 

[404250]

Yes, but if I drove 20 miles, say from Bournemouth to the Purbecks - that is not permitted and I am liable to be told to go home at the risk of being fined
Taking the bus - also not allowed
Cycle there - fine.

But cyclists are riding for exercise and shouldn't be stopping for any period of time. Why would anyone drive there if not stopping to get out and do something.