What's wrong with going out more than once?

[Oscarthegrouch47]

An expecting a flaming here but -

What's the issue with going for a walk twice a day? The government have said once for exercise but i like to take my dog for 20 minutes in the morning and a slightly longer route of half an hour in the evening. I live rurally and rarely see anyone at either time.

I am taking the rules about isolating and mixing between households very seriously and haven't seen anyone or been anywhere other than shopping or walking since this began, but taking two walks a day is something I really can't get het up over.

What is the actual reason that our exercise has been limited? Presumably because it increases the likelihood of contact in busier, more urban areas? I'm sure a few of my curtain twitching neighbours have noticed me going out more than once a day but I genuinely can't see the additional risk when I see nobody and come into contact with nothing (gates, stiles).

FGS! So walk for 4hours and 5mins.

That obviously still wouldn't be 'far more' by any stretch of the imagination.

people need to use their common sense.

Unfortunately 'common sense' is an oxymoron.

Ffs, they clarify the rules because people can't use common sense and still people can't understand then. Engage your brain.

If you wanna go for a long ramble through the countryside, or a bike ride in the woods or exercise your dog in a large area, then it's fine to take a drive to that area, as long as the distance is comparable to the length of time your exercises will take.

If you want a strole then it's not acceptable to drive 3 hours to the beach or the a nature spot. You can take a 20 min stroll round your local area.

It's just allowing for people that don't have large natural areas near them.

@PurpleDaisies thanks for that link - really useful!

OP, I don't have a dog but if I did I wouldn't hesitate to walk the dog twice a day whilst maintaining social distancing from other people if you ever see them.

I think rather than issue arbitrary guidelines on travel or length of exercise which make sense in urban areas but not in rural areas this leaving people confused - they should switch the narrative.

It's not about how long you exercise for, or how long you drive. The simple act of going for a run or getting on your car doesn't spread virus. It is the likelihood of coming into contact with people. It is moving the virus from one area to another area. It is moving from a populated area in one health board where you're already accounted for, to another area with stretched resources where you're not.

Yes, you're exactly right, Ima

This should have all been obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense but clearly wasn't.

I think it’s difficult to draft a law that allows say a five minute drive to your local woods, but bans driving three hours to a tourist hotspot. You either end up with people arguing about how their local woods are actually these other ones three hours’ drive away in Cornwall, next to their holiday cottage, or you end up with people criminalised for taking a bus two miles to the country park instead of playing with their children at the side of the bypass.

I do think guidance like this would have been useful three weeks ago. But I actually think the government’s view of what is “reasonable” has shifted because we are all actually obeying lockdown better than they expected or wanted us to. The R0 has dropped massively and new infections are falling (deaths haven't fallen yet but there is a lag of 2-3 weeks).

So actually I think the government wants us to go out a bit more now, partly to stop the economy tanking and partly to keep infection rates up a bit for herd immunity (which they absolutely have not given up on, or they would be doing a bit more towards setting up contact tracing).

A practical guideline, in addition to the drive/walk time ratio might be 'and don't go out for so long you need a loo or to buy food or drink'

*I wonder where all these rural dwellers live. AFAIK, don’t people still need to stick to (relatively narrow) public rights of way by & large?

I’m right on the edge of a large town, the outer limits of suburbia, plenty of green fields down the road from me, I can’t just go walking willy nilly over them though - I have to stick to said paths, thus when (rarely) passing people, occasionally and fleetingly I’m sometimes within 2m.

So I only go out once a day personally.*

I think the outer limits of suburbia on the edge of a large town is a far busier "rural" due to proximity to said urban area and accessibility. I find areas like that very busy compared to areas similar to where I live which I truly think of as rural; a very small village miles from the nearest town. I have miles and miles of walks from my doorstep and you are correct in that rights of way need to be adhered to (and they can be very narrow) but when you don't see a soul it really doesn't matter. If I were to meet someone I'd happily double back until I could give them the space to pass safely - not yet happened. I also have access to miles and miles of very quiet country lanes where encountering a vehicle or person is really rare so can run and walk on those too.

I am going out once a day in the main as I am working really long hours (with a long commute - downside of living where I do), but at the weekend may be out for several hours at least. If I lived somewhere busier I'd alter my behaviour to ensure everyone got a fair crack at being out whilst social distancing could be maintained of course. I think the crux of this whole matter is being mindful of how our own actions may impact upon others and behaving accordingly.

I think it's that christmascarcass but also multiple police forces have really fucked up in understanding and implementing the guidelines. It was getting to the stage where something had to be done in order to keep the public onside.

don’t people still need to stick to (relatively narrow) public rights of way by & large?

In places, but in practice most of the time there isn't a narrowly defined path. This is more often than not the case in woodland, fells and river valleys, and elsewhere the footpath may be along a track, which may be a bridle path. It's usually possible to step well aside, or wait in a wider area.

If you're walking in your local area you'll know where may be constricted and where isn't, also things like whether there may be cattle and if so what the alternative routes are.

Our nearest 'nice' walk is a canal towpath - we're avoiding that as it is a defined width, bare 2m or less now the vegetation is growing up, and no way to 'escape'.

I'm going out twice a day, every day, to look after my ponies. One has a medical condition, and needs seeing twice a day. I also come into contact with no one. I have seen people walking along the lane, but would be no closer than about 50ft away.

I've been going out once a day, but I could ho our 6 times and hardly see anyone.