Bike rides

[whenskiesaregrey]

So, if someone goes on a 30, 40, 50+ bike ride, what explicit reasons can I give for why they can't do it?

Just for clarity, I don't think it should happen. But when challenged, people say there is no contact, routes are quiet etc. Just wondering how to respond to this.

FFS - what part of ‘these aren’t normal times and you shouldn’t just be carrying on as usual because it suits you’ isn’t sinking in?

I'm not actually but don't let that interfere with your narrative. I'm of the opinion that a modicum of common sense should come into this though, cycling or running in a rural, isolated area where you're lucky to see two or three other people is a completely different situation to living in a city. If I run for 4 hours 'normally' I'll barely see a soul - how am I infecting anyone? If I ran around tightly packed streets for a quarter of that time I'd be far more dangerous as a spreader. I don't get how you can't see that there's a massive difference? As I said before, I imagine about 1% of the population would choose to run for 4 hours so it's a mute point but you'd have us all restricted to 30 mins just because?

I can’t believe this has stretched to 11 pages.

Firstly, government advice re: exercise is ‘minimise the amount of time’.

Going for 3 hour bike rides isn’t minimising time.

As regards legitimate objections to a long bike ride, well there aren’t any on the face of things however, the reality could be somewhat different if lockdown became extended, the amount of bikes out & about would no doubt increase, that quiet ride you always liked may not remain as quiet.

Another consideration is camaraderie & also the petty nature of human beings.

If you’ve got a bike & are out for 3 hours a day, you are going to p1ss people off who can’t do that. They may not have a bike. They may have family circumstances that don’t allow it. They may object to anybody being out for longer than even 10 minutes a day exercising as they don’t see that as ‘minimising the length of time’, which is after all arbitrary. Whatever their reasoning, you’ll be p1ssing them off.

...and that ain’t good for the old Blitz Spirit. The sense of ‘we’re in this together’, suffering collectively for the greater good of saving lives.

However much some people and their bikes might not give a toss about those kinds of things doesn’t mean those feelings don’t exist.

Which is why cyclists all things considered should be sensible, and keep rides to an appropriate & considerate length.

mummy mnet loathe cyclists - I bet this reaches 25 pages easily!

Which is why cyclists all things considered should be sensible, and keep rides to an appropriate & considerate length.

Or even easier, just not tell everyone about what they're doing.

"f you’ve got a bike & are out for 3 hours a day, you are going to p1ss people off who can’t do that. They may not have a bike. They may have family circumstances that don’t allow it. They may object to anybody being out for longer than even 10 minutes a day exercising as they don’t see that as ‘minimising the length of time’, which is after all arbitrary. Whatever their reasoning, you’ll be p1ssing them off."

I'm sorry, what? So everyone should be miserable then? Nobody should get out for a run, because people might not have trainers? Nobody should go out in the rain because some people don't have an umbrella?

I'm cycling indoors on the turbo, but it's plainly obvious that someone going out for a 3 hour bike ride is harming NOBODY. It's allowed, it's totally fine.

I feel like cyclists are universally disliked amongst all demographics, not just this site

So ‘only’ going out for a 1 hour bike ride a day instead of a 3 hour one will make you ‘miserable’ will it? Even just for a few weeks? Get a grip.

Not exactly mental fortitude in abundance is it?

...& who said you can’t go for a run?

Not sure why you say extended exercise outdoors is ‘allowed’. Should we take a poll on whether people think a 3 hour daily jaunt is by definition ‘minimising the length of time’ for daily exercise? Should we ask a government minister?

Other countries are enduring even stiffer lockdown conditions right now because of people like you. Be thankful for what we’ve got at the moment & stop taking liberties.

Cycling is a great way to get about but we need proper provision for cyclists, it's not really feasible for them to share paths with walkers unless they are only sparsely used, and sharing the roads with motorists is far from ideal.

A three hour joy ride.
Same as if someone took the car out for no reason.

If you'd like to justify why, exactly, people can't go for a long bike ride, by all means give it a go.

I have already done so, several times

We have to have rules that apply to everyone

They can’t say ‘if you live in x area you can do y’

The fact is, exercising in public areas for several hours at a time is taking the piss with the guidelines

People can try and justify their own actions as much as they feel the need to

It doesn’t change the fact that if everyone did as they are doing, the current lockdown would be an absolute farce

To be clear, I own a bike. I have no ill feeling against cyclists. My post mentions cyclists because I haven't seen anyone posting about the lengthy, 4+ hour runs they have been on. But, in line with what @MummyPop00 and @ErrolTheDragon have mentioned, the posts and routes on Facebook do almost invite the scrutiny.

I feel like cyclists are universally disliked amongst all demographics, not just this site

Well they sure as shit aren’t doing anything to endear themselves to others on this thread are they 🤔

I do wonder if they are disliked because hobby cyclists seem to forgo their families in favour of their training.
This is only based on how many upset partners post about it on here, or on Facebook.

"to be clear, I own a bike"... lol and I own a pair of trainers but I'm not claiming to be a marathon runner

I'm not actually but don't let that interfere with your narrative. I'm of the opinion that a modicum of common sense should come into this though, cycling or running in a rural, isolated area where you're lucky to see two or three other people is a completely different situation to "living in a city. If I run for 4 hours 'normally' I'll barely see a soul - how am I infecting anyone? If I ran around tightly packed streets for a quarter of that time I'd be far more dangerous as a spreader. I don't get how you can't see that there's a massive difference? As I said before, I imagine about 1% of the population would choose to run for 4 hours so it's a mute point but you'd have us all restricted to 30 mins just because?"

100% this with bells on; And I expect this forum has a high proportion of members that would struggle to cycle 3 miles let alone 30. Green eyed monster.

Dh ran well over 100 miles last week. He’s an extremely highly placed competitive ultra runner. Does 800 mile races, etc when we’re not under restrictions. He needs to keep his fitness up. A steady hour run is not going to cut it for him.

He needs to keep his fitness up. A steady hour run is not going to cut it for him.

And he’s more special than everyone else who’s had to give up their normal activities because.........???

Okay @toryandproud if that's how you want to interpret what a said

I don't understand why people are jumping down each others throats over this. If I'd thought this was how this thread would develop, I wouldn't have posted. People calling others ignorant, stupid, jealous.

But nobody has to give up their exercise as long as they’re social distancing so you can stop frothing.

The legislation does not time limit exercise.

Living rurally he can keep about 200 meters away from people when running, never mind 2 metres. So no risk at all to him or others.

What is with everyone's obsession lately with cyclists?

It's almost like folk want to find a scapegoat, an "other" tribe to hate and blame.

"We have to have rules that apply to everyone"

So you can't justify why you have put an arbitary time limit on it. At all. The guidelines say 1 form of exercise. No limits on that. If I go for a 4 hour cycle in the country and meets nobody, that is exactly the same risk as a 2 hour cycle.

Thanks for clarifying.

Again with the hour, please someone give me a refence for the hour. Not seen it on .gov

So you can't justify why you have put an arbitary time limit on it. At all. The guidelines say 1 form of exercise. No limits on that. If I go for a 4 hour cycle in the country and meets nobody, that is exactly the same risk as a 2 hour cycle.

Except a 4 hour cycle isn’t ‘exactly the same risk as a 2 hour cycle’ as you’re out and about for twice the time so twice as likely to come into contact with people, or have an accident

But this discussion is clearly entirely pointless so I’m out - you all crack on in justifying why you’re so special if it suits you

I’m just glad you’re in the minority and most people are selfless and sensible enough to interpret the rules in the spirit in which they are intended and limit the time they’re out and about

Again with the hour, please someone give me a refence for the hour. Not seen it on .gov

Michael Gove said that he thought about an hours walk or half an hours run would be about right for most people, words to that effect. It's a rough typical guideline. (From a man who a columnist described as running like a nun being pursued by a bee...)

They've banned exercise in Paris now. If people are going out for 4 hour bike rides, little wonder, but each to their own.