Coronavirus: Are cyclists being wrongly targeted during lockdown?

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 15:31:43 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 27/04/2020 14:38, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:03:28 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

Responsible people would look at the primary aim and do what they
could to meet it. Cyclists unfortunately seem to want to do as much
as they can to circumvent it.

I have seen more families out on bikes than usual. Are these cyclists
guilty?

I doubt if they are much of a problem. It is the MAMILS who publicly
flout the law and try to justify their antics by inventing more and
more idiotic interpretations of the law. The sort who "accidentally"
meet up for their usual 100mile ride with no regard for the law.

If cycling was banned for the duration of this epidemic

Would it reduce the number sunbathing in parks? Or driving to beauty
spots... or simply, gratuitous driving?

Completely irrelevant, it would reduce the number of people out of
their homes which is the aim of the legislation.

the net harm to people using it as exercise would be negligible. No
one needs to go on 100 mile pushbike rides or try to outdo someone
else's Strava times. Exercise can be taken in other ways such as
simply walking. Giving up pushbike riding for a few months may be
annoying to those addicted to it but would be harmless.

On 14:06 27 Apr 2020, TMS320 said:

On 27/04/2020 13:58, Pamela wrote:
On 12:03 27 Apr 2020, TMS320 said:

On 27/04/2020 10:39, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:57:43 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/04/2020 18:34, TMS320 wrote:

This seems to be official guidance (*):
https://gov.wales/leaving-home-exercise-guidance

"19. Cycling should be local, as a rule of thumb limited to
travelling no further than a reasonable walking distance from
home. Exercising by cycling significant distances from home is not
considered to be a reasonable excuse for leaving home."

"Exercise should be limited to a reasonable period only once a
day"

There is no definition for what is "reasonable" and (*) they really
do use the word "guidance".

"Reasonable" is a generic and relative description common in law and
applies to that which is appropriate for a particular situation.
Often referred to as the "Man on the Clapham omnibus" test.

It does not guide someone to what is "reasonable" before falling foul.

Clearly, driving a long distance because the grass is greener than a
place closer to home is a simple thing to judge.

Is it not possible that a fit and experienced cyclist or jogger going
out without breaking sweat is being more "reasonable" than someone
just starting out and dropping with a heart attack after 29 minutes?

It seems to be forgotten that the purpose of the lockdown is to try to
control the spread of a virus and avoid undue pressure on the health
service. The man on the Clapham omnibus would have to take many
factors into consideration.

It is, in the case of the Welsh legislation, comprehensively defined,
see "Guidance on regulation 8 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus
Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020."

https://gov.wales/leaving-home-exerc...#section-41069

Yes, I already provided that link and pasted section 19. What was the
point of repeating it?

Contrary to what you suggested earlier with your phrase "now illegal",
there is no change to the law.

Whether someone has followed government guidelines will often be a
decent starting point for asking whether their behaviour is
reasonable.

That looks like a circular argument. Sorry, the paragraph doesn't make
sense.

In what way do you read that as a circular argument?

If I understood it, I might be able to say why.

If you don't understand the argument then how are you able to tell its
logic is circular?

On 27/04/2020 17:03, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 15:31:43 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 27/04/2020 14:38, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:03:28 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

Responsible people would look at the primary aim and do what they
could to meet it. Cyclists unfortunately seem to want to do as much
as they can to circumvent it.

I have seen more families out on bikes than usual. Are these cyclists
guilty?

I doubt if they are much of a problem.

Hmmm...

Try meeting such a family coming the other way when you are out for some
walking exercise near your home.

See whether they move off the footway onto the carriageway to stay 6ft
from you or whether they expect you to do it in order to stay 6ft from them.

It is the MAMILS who publicly
flout the law and try to justify their antics by inventing more and
more idiotic interpretations of the law. The sort who "accidentally"
meet up for their usual 100mile ride with no regard for the law.

If cycling was banned for the duration of this epidemic

Would it reduce the number sunbathing in parks? Or driving to beauty
spots... or simply, gratuitous driving?

Completely irrelevant, it would reduce the number of people out of
their homes which is the aim of the legislation.

the net harm to people using it as exercise would be negligible. No
one needs to go on 100 mile pushbike rides or try to outdo someone
else's Strava times. Exercise can be taken in other ways such as
simply walking. Giving up pushbike riding for a few months may be
annoying to those addicted to it but would be harmless.

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 3:31:46 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
Yes, someone cycling 100 miles in a day could be considered to
be as unreasonable as someone driving 200 miles. But in your world every
cyclist must be doing that.

Such as these idiots who had to be sent home by the police?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-police.html

On Monday, April 27, 2020 at 5:03:36 PM UTC+1, Peter Parry wrote:

The sort who "accidentally"
meet up for their usual 100mile ride with no regard for the law.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-police.html

On 27/04/2020 17:17, Pamela wrote:
On 14:06 27 Apr 2020, TMS320 said:

On 27/04/2020 13:58, Pamela wrote:
On 12:03 27 Apr 2020, TMS320 said:

On 27/04/2020 10:39, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:57:43 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/04/2020 18:34, TMS320 wrote:

This seems to be official guidance (*):
https://gov.wales/leaving-home-exercise-guidance

"19. Cycling should be local, as a rule of thumb limited to
travelling no further than a reasonable walking distance from
home. Exercising by cycling significant distances from home is not
considered to be a reasonable excuse for leaving home."

"Exercise should be limited to a reasonable period only once a
day"

There is no definition for what is "reasonable" and (*) they really
do use the word "guidance".

"Reasonable" is a generic and relative description common in law and
applies to that which is appropriate for a particular situation.
Often referred to as the "Man on the Clapham omnibus" test.

It does not guide someone to what is "reasonable" before falling foul.

Clearly, driving a long distance because the grass is greener than a
place closer to home is a simple thing to judge.

Is it not possible that a fit and experienced cyclist or jogger going
out without breaking sweat is being more "reasonable" than someone
just starting out and dropping with a heart attack after 29 minutes?

It seems to be forgotten that the purpose of the lockdown is to try to
control the spread of a virus and avoid undue pressure on the health
service. The man on the Clapham omnibus would have to take many
factors into consideration.

It is, in the case of the Welsh legislation, comprehensively defined,
see "Guidance on regulation 8 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus
Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020."

https://gov.wales/leaving-home-exerc...#section-41069

Yes, I already provided that link and pasted section 19. What was the
point of repeating it?

Contrary to what you suggested earlier with your phrase "now illegal",
there is no change to the law.

Whether someone has followed government guidelines will often be a
decent starting point for asking whether their behaviour is
reasonable.

That looks like a circular argument. Sorry, the paragraph doesn't make
sense.

In what way do you read that as a circular argument?

If I understood it, I might be able to say why.

If you don't understand the argument then how are you able to tell its
logic is circular?

I can't tell. I said that it looks circular.

On 27/04/2020 17:03, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 15:31:43 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/04/2020 14:38, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:03:28 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

Responsible people would look at the primary aim and do what they
could to meet it. Cyclists unfortunately seem to want to do as much
as they can to circumvent it.

I have seen more families out on bikes than usual. Are these cyclists
guilty?

I doubt if they are much of a problem. It is the MAMILS who publicly
flout the law and try to justify their antics by inventing more and
more idiotic interpretations of the law. The sort who "accidentally"
meet up for their usual 100mile ride with no regard for the law.

Publicly, huh? If you know, why don't the police?

If cycling was banned for the duration of this epidemic

Would it reduce the number sunbathing in parks? Or driving to beauty
spots... or simply, gratuitous driving?

Completely irrelevant, it would reduce the number of people out of
their homes which is the aim of the legislation.

It is not irrelevant. You just want to be vindictive because of a small
number of rule breakers behaving like many others in the general population.

On 27/04/2020 16:23, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2020 13:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/04/2020 12:45, JNugent wrote:

Yesterday, I saw four young men (of much the same age) out on their
bikes, clustered close together, two abreast, on the highway. I'm not
inclined to believe that they were quads or closely-spaced brothers,
and thus unlikely to be part of the same household. The social
distancing rules were being ignored. They probably think they know
better than the rest of us, eh?
Â*
But you don't, do you?

I don't what?

Do you?

I bet you could think up an excuse for them if you tried.

What has your anecdote got to do with single cyclists being "too far"
from home?

A generalised and well-established disdain for the rules (and for other
people) on the part of cyclists.

Here's a space for you to tru to deny it:

When considered against the population as a whole, of course it's
nonsense to single out cyclists.

You haven't answered my specific question, so you obviously accept that
your anecdote has no relevance.

On 27/04/2020 16:26, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2020 14:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/04/2020 13:47, colwyn wrote:
On 27/04/2020 12:51, JNugent wrote:

Any victim is allowed to remonstrate with their attackers.

Pardon? Who are the attackers? I take it you mean the rabid anti
cyclist mob. You have spouted some tripe, but your prejudiced
gibberish takes a bit of digesting.

Perhaps he means the "attacker" to be a person on a bike that is
suspected to be further from home than the distance he can shuffle
along for in 15 minutes on the appendages that have done nothing in
the last 40 to 50 years except press the pedals in a car.

...and/or who passes - on a footway - within a foot or two of a
pedestrian (that also applies to entitled joggers).

Other pedestrians?

I have already told you twice that if you got on a bike you would have
more control over your space.

On 27/04/2020 16:30, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2020 13:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/04/2020 12:50, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2020 08:47, TMS320 wrote:

On 27/04/2020 00:00, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2020 15:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 26/04/2020 14:41, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 05:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

The article mentions someone who cycles to different work venues
- is his cycle use recreation or sport? What about shopping?

What about the 30,000 UK MAMILS who have joined the Strava long
distance challenge for April signing up to cycle 777 miles in the
month.Â*Â* Some of these idiots cycle for 12 hours a day, many went
out as groups.

777 miles in a month is just 25 miles a day.

Unless the citizen has a long commute or lives in a remote spot, 25
miles a day (175 miles a week) is totally excessive for local
travel for shopping, etc.

In your opinion.

Certainly. And in the opinion of any reasonable person who isn't
trying to think up contrived excuses for breach of the current
regulations.

Did you read and understand the bit that started "unless"?

Yes.

Then why act as though it hadn't been there and you hadn't read it?

I'm not acting as though I haven't read it. It's not my fault if you
that a 6 mile walk or 25 mile bike ride is a long way.

It's because you are still trying to think up contrived excuses for
breach of the regulations (by cyclists, at least).

It sounds more like gratuitous travel for its own sake, which would
be fair enough in normal times.

We are not in normal times, are we?

The misuse of the roads by selfish cyclist groups has already
led to Wales banning long distance cycling.Â* The new rules for
Wales state "Cycling should be local, as a rule of thumb limited
to traveling no further than a reasonable walking distance from
home.

How can something that is not illegal be banned?

Easily. The regulations do it. Arguing that driving from Kent to
Cornwall somehow isn't illegal didn't do these people any good:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-52426051

What has that got to do with taking legal, local exercise of
reasonable length?

It has everything to do with answering your question as to how
something that isn't usually illegal may be banned under temporary
regulations.

Your example is of something banned underÂ* the temporary regulations.

That's right.

And?

It's irrelevant to cyclists using their house as start and end of their
ride.

Has anyone referred to any other sort of regulations?

Now you know the answer to your question. But the odds are they
you'll pretend that you still don't.

Besides, a "reasonable" walk can be 5 or 6 miles.

The guideline is half an hour to an hour. No-one can walk six miles
in an hour.

This isn't in the guidelines. It was something said off the cuff by
a minister.

Ask a police officer. The interpretation is for them, not for you.

The guidelines have been produced largely because the police d onot
know the rules.

That's probably partly correct.

It will also be so that transgressors can't say they didn't know what
the guidelines were.

There's nothing to stop me suggesting that a 6 mile walk or 25 mile bike
ride is reasonable.

If straight out and back that's 3 miles from home. Cycling one lap
of home, never going more than 3 miles away from it could be 25
miles.

"If".

GIGO.

Not at all.

Your statement *was* premised upon an "if".

Then you misunderstand the 'if'. I accept it can be difficult in
practice to move 3 miles from home in a 6 mile walk. What value would
you prefer?

What are you talking about?

Read the bit before you replied "If".