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.

• But they wouldn’t be happy if we walked 2 and a half miles from the house. They’ve made that clear.

Given that's the first many of us have heard about any distance limit, that's not been made clear at all.

There are guidelines; the law is phrased in terms of 'reasonable excuse'.

My take is its sensible not go anywhere you can't get yourself back from safely, so for example if I was cycling (which I'm not) I'd do a route which didn't go further than I could walk back from rather than a long out and back journey, and if I lived near a mountain I wouldn't go high or scrambly.

I’m just pointing out the unfairness. The rules should allow driving 50 miles for exercise if cycling 50 miles is ok. Not sure there were rules on having an opinion.

But when challenged

sorry, but who do you think you are to police other people's cycling

@aut0replenish I've been cycling 25 years. I've only come off once, when someone opened a door on me in central London. Risk wise I've had more trips to A&E from utterly benign activities like walking/being in the garden.
There are unthinking idiots in every area of life, cyclists, joggers, people in shops,....Lots of people 'come too close" for many people in this time. But it's not all cyclists, I've never been too close, gone too fast, etc. You get considerate and inconsiderate cyclists and considerrate and inconsiderate people...

But it becomes more unfair when people spout nonsense like "they've made it clear we can't walk 2.5m from home" and "a young family in a flat can't drive a short distance for exercise". Neither of those things are true but there are enough people like you insisting that they are, that yes, it is very unfair. Leave these people to make their own decisions within the rules and it's much less unfair. Can't you see you are causing part of the problem?

Or did you find the bit where they've "made it clear"?

Much of my DJ’s commute is in the countryside where he has had his falls-narrow lanes, poor visibility, deer, car doors opening , tree roots. Not frequent over the years but they happen. He is experienced. Bike sales have soared, not all cyclists will be experienced. Even JW has had a fall and a broken arm, it happens.

Confused as to why you should be allowed to drive 50 miles because you can cycle 50 miles

One is driving and then doing exercise, the other is just doing exercise.

One is putting lives at risk including the cyclists, the other is taking advantage of quiet roads to cycle mor safely ( because it's the car drivers who cause the accidents in the vast majority of cases not the cyclists )

Oh ok we’ll all just get in our cars and argue with police when stopped that we couldn’t do our exercise closer to home.

It's not really unfair that someone who's never owned a bike can't cycle 50m. I can't imagine they want to.

But they are allowed to get out and take a form of exercise that suits them for as long as they need. It's very unfair/unreasonable to have people trying to tell them they can't or that they can't drive locally to do so.

Yes, the police have been told they were initially getting it wrong.

My best friends DP is a police officer. He's been going out cycling as his exercise maybe I should tell him @aut0replenish on mumsnet says he is not allowed.

I've known my DP 6 years, he cycles most days, either for exercise or to work and bacj. He's never fallen off. Oh and the only person I've known who has hit a deer was my brother and that was in his car.

How are these "poor people" in flats affording a car if they can't afford a bike?

@blueirises very very good point, especially when you can pick up bikes so cheaply on Facebook marketplace.

There are more pedestrians on the roads and cyclists at the moment.Our lanes are more dangerous now as used more by both. On town roads more people are moving onto roads to pass others for social distancing. My Dh has never had an accident with a moving car even when he gets into the city, a car door got opened in a country lane one which caused him to come off.

Anyway we could go back and forth all day so it’s pointless. You want to cycle regardless and have your cycling life unchanged others think it’s unfair and stretching rules. Maybe there will be some clarity eventually. I hope so as I know I’m not the only one who has noticed the unfairness and added risk in our area.

What is with everyone's obsession lately with cyclists? I cycle for exercise. 50km exercise to me would be same as another's 10km run and can be completed within my locality. In Ireland we are only permitted exercise within a 2km radius of home. Having very quiet roads in the city just lately is so much safer than normally. I can do a few loops of the cycle lane and 40km within my 2km and rarely meet another cyclist but regularly have to contend with runners and walkers on the cycle lane as they are avoiding all the other runners on the footpaths.

Re the flying sweat- imo joggers look to be much sweattier passing each other than I've ever seen a cyclist. If anything our helmets soak up the sweat from dripping.

I've had much worse accidents at home on diy than ever on a bike.

It was an example given a above about a family "trapped" in their flat because they're not allowed to drive for exercise. Which they are. I think "poor" meant unfortunate, rather than impoverished.

Many people need cars to get to work and move families to school and other places. Bikes are an additional luxury item. Flat dwellers would be hard placed to store them and many do find them too expensive to buy. I’m not sure buying second hand bikes you have no history off and travelling to houses to buy eBay items would be deemed essential at the moment.

But either way lots of "poor" people are forced to run a car for work, which is why they can't afford other "luxuries"

This very much favours richer folk. When hard up families are stuck in cramped flats with no green spaces to get to by car it sticks in the throat that others who can afford bikes are exploiting the cycling loophole.

Umm...

I'm not cycling at all. I've changed to running for all the reasons you point out. I just think it's outrageous that people feel the need to invent rules that do put people, like your flat dwelling example, at such a disadvantage. Or that people think they have a role in dictating what others are doing, within the rules .

And you still haven't shown me where the 2.5m walk is forbidden

You are not allowed to drive distances out of cities to get to green spaces. You are supposed to stay local.

@aut0replenish I never said it did did I? I said they are cheap to buy normally.
I've also come to the conclusion you are one of those annoying t**ts that will argue with absolutely everything.

I live in a rural area and I can assure you we can’t drive 2 and a half miles now to our beauty spots. They are closed to stop visitors and police are checking cars parked next to them. We keep seeing pictures of challenged( by police and public)non local cars put on Facebook.

Yes you are. Most cities have green spaces withing a reasonable drive of their population. If I drive 2.5m to the woods I am still within my own relatively small town.

No I’m one of those annoying people who simply disagrees with you and don’t think that cyclists should get to just carry on regardless. It is annoying when people don’t agree with you but I generally don’t resort to insults when that happens.