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.

That isn’t the same for everybody and you are supposed to walk not drive.

But you're wrong. You haven't been able to substantiate a single one of your claims.

There are many grey areas here. There's no specific law against going for a 4 hour bike ride and travelling 30 miles from your home.However, it's reasonable to frown upon this type of behaviour - given that if we all behaved this way, it would definitely become a problem.

I think the driving for exercise became a problem because so many were congregating at ‘known’ beauty spots. Driving per se is not a huge transmission risk. Car parks, beach’s and country parks full of eejits having barbecues and picnics, in large groups or children playing together with ‘new friends’, is a significant risk.

The idea of berating someone when you don’t understand why is just ridiculous. Read a book on infection prevention and control instead.

They have asked everybody to exercise in local area and not to travel unnecessarily which means you exercise from your front door if you have one( flat dwellers don’t).You don’t need to travel to a green space or to travel to exercise.

But that's why the rules are written that way Fortyfifty. "They" know the vast majority won't want to do a four hour bikeride, so the rules can allow scope for those who do.

I don't think the very long bike rides are particularly within the spirit of the rules, although I guess if you're furloughed/unemployed you may not know what to do with yourself so a long bike ride helps to fill the day.

Oh I know, you can stay at home and look after the kids instead of expecting wifey to do it!

That's my main issue with it, it's generally MAMILs getting out of the house and leaving the mum to deal with the kids. But they usually know how to fix a puncture, so they're going to cope fine if they get a mechanical 30 miles from home.

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.
It’s the other way around. Bikes are cheaper than cars. It’s the richer folk who have cars. I know virtually no one with a car.

Nobody congregates in our our beauty spots because they are so big and across a big area. They are still all closed. There has been footage of people being sent on their way by police with plenty of social distance between others.

So patronising isn’t needed.

I don’t think that’s true. Where public transport is shit people will need a battered old car as an essential to do everything. Bikes will be seen as the extra. People in flats simply won’t have storage space for multiple bikes.

Most wont want to drive to and walk all day across beauty areas, but we’re still all not allowed to do it. You are supposed to be out as limited a time as possible, that was stated. 4 hours isn’t limited.

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.

The problem there is the 'beauty spot' not the '2 and a half miles'.

The point is that people shouldn't travel to places likely to be attractive to other people just because it's nicer or they're bored with the walk from their door, if they can walk from there.

It's been made clear that people can drive locally to somewhere to exercise if necessary- for instance, if you live on a national speed limit road with no pavement then driving a few minutes to access a footpath which isn't a 'beauty spot' is sensible.

Exercise outside the home, even at two metre distances, is not guaranteed safe. Shielded people can't do it for that reason.

It does raise the risk of transmission. In the case of cycling I imagine, though don't know, it also raises risk of accidents and needing nhs care more than some other forms of exercise.

So I think that the govt are intending that people exercise enough for basic health maintenance, but no more. It is not essential to maintain your extra high marathon ready level of fitness from before lockdown. Every bit of time you are out there raises risk. This may not be the case in very remote settings but they have to make a one size fits all rule or people get even more confused.

It's been made clear that people can drive locally to somewhere to exercise if necessary- for instance, if you live on a national speed limit road with no pavement then driving a few minutes to access a footpath which isn't a 'beauty spot' is sensible

^^This. Importantly, it's also allowed. In the small chance that you are stopped by the police and you tell them this, and you show your driving licence to prove that you do indeed live 2 miles down the road and not in the city 50 miles away, they will just wave you on and tell you to enjoy your walk.

A 50 mile bike ride needn't be that far from home. This is a 60 mile road that doesn't go more than 7 miles from its starting point.

www.plotaroute.com/routeplayer/461826

Even if your bike broke down completely and you couldn't repair it, very clearly you could easily walk home from any given point on that ride.

60 mile ride, even

I don’t think that’s true.
It’s absolutely true where I live. The rich have cars. Most people do without. Car clubs are quite common. As is car sharing. Public transport is good, though. Cycling to work is very common. But I get the point about having, say, four bikes inside a flat. Not very doable. Many park bikes outside. Lockable on-street bike garages are quite common.

But you’re not going to cycle 60 miles and walk back in an hour. You are supposed to limit your time out for exercise as much as possible.

Every bit of time you are out there raises risk.

Not necessarily. Clearly every minute you are in an enclosed space such as a shop you have a much higher risk of catching or passing on an illness than even an hour on a bike.

There is not zero transmission as a goal, but sub-1.0.

It is not obvious that people riding their bikes are having any significant impact on this. At all.

Talking about 0.000001 risk levels are not the point at all. It's the big risks that need to be stopped. Say walking around a busy shop, or other busy area. People cycling on rural roads, nope.

Outside London public transport is utter shite up and down the country. We couldn’t work, shop or get our kids to school without a car, nobody could without huge difficulty. I suspect many battered old cars I see are worth less than some bikes owned by some particularly if a family owns several.

But you’re not going to cycle 60 miles and walk back in an hour

No, it's a 60 mile ride to and from home. No walking involved unless your bike breaks and you can't repair it.

You are supposed to limit your time out for exercise as much as possible

This is a matter of broad guidance versus individual discretion. People doing large amounts of exercise in rural areas don't have the same impact as people doing it in central London. We aren't all in it together in that respect. Common sense still applies.

There is no law against doing 60 mile bike rides and if you can do so wihout coming into close proximity to others there really isn't any logical reason why you shouldn't.

When we only had one car and Dh’s bike was crucial for his 22 mile round commute I can assure you his bike wasn’t cheap, add on a decent helmet, cycling gear, decent lights....

I think Micheal Gove said at the W/E that about an hour or so of exercise is OK .Roughly a walk /bike ride/run .Clearly 40 or 50 miles on a bike is a lot longer than that . If you are unlucky enough to fall off ,and even just sprain your ankle, how are you going to get home ?.This would mean someone having to come out and get you .An unnecessary journey of 50 miles! Common sense will show that even just an hour or so a day is fine and helps your mental health enormously

But you’re not going to cycle 60 miles and walk back in an hour. You are supposed to limit your time out for exercise as much as possible.

The aim is to limit contact with other people. And in many circumstances especially in cities, that may mean following the guidelines. The scenario above is a way to mitigate against unnecessary contact if something goes wrong with a bike - choose a route which allows you to trudge home rather than needing someone to rescue you. It's a sensible fallback plan.

Time out is supposed to be limited, it was stated clearly. That doesn’t allow for long bike rides. In our rural area we are all sticking to that, it seems to be others coming here who aren’t.