Coronavirus: Are cyclists being wrongly targeted during lockdown?

On 26/04/2020 22:17, Pamela wrote:


For soem reason, those selfish cyclists must have thought motorists in Wales
were paying road tax for the purpose of funding their hobby.

Yawn.

On 27/04/2020 01:08, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2020 00:09, TMS320 wrote:

On 26/04/2020 23:53, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2020 15:06, colwyn wrote:

What about it? Everyone should know the rules by now and ANY
transgressionÂ* should be tested by the enforcement agencies, not by
vigilantes.

The "enforcement agencies" can't be everywhere at once.
it is entirely reasonable to remonstrate with selfish transgressors
who are causing danger to others.

Assuming they really are selfish transgressors. How would they know?

Good question.

Indeed.

If they haven't heard any news over the last six weeks, and don't
understand that they present danger and risk to others, they do indeed
need to be told, don't they? And the sooner and louder the better.

In any event, it is entirely unreasonable to intimidate, threaten to
use force or use actual force.

Calling out to someone acting selfishly in order to tell them that they
are being selfish is completely reasonable.

After all, they might be hard of understanding reality - and therefore
not know how unacceptable their behaviour is.

The callers out might be hard of understanding what is permitted under
the rules.

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. 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.

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. 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?

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.

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.

Exercising by cycling significant distances from home is not
considered to be a reasonable excuse for leaving home." There
is also a ban on all non-essential travel, so in Wales it is no
longer possible to drive to somewhere to ride your bike.

No longer? Driving to take exercise was verboten right from the
start. The police have since been told to be more relaxed about
it.

On 26/04/2020 23:53, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2020 15:06, colwyn 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.

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.

Â* Exercising by cycling significant distances from home is not
considered to be a reasonable excuse for leaving home."Â* There is also
a ban on all non-essential travel, so in Wales it is no longer
possible to drive to somewhere to ride your bike.

What about it? Everyone should know the rules by now and ANY
transgressionÂ* should be tested by the enforcement agencies, not by
vigilantes.

The "enforcement agencies" can't be everywhere at once.

it is entirely reasonable to remonstrate with selfish transgressors who
are causing danger to others.

It is not reasonable to threaten, intimidate, bully, scatter glass or
tacks, obstruct, string piano wire, place rocks or branches across
paths, abuse etc!
Law enforcement must be left to legal agents, not self appointed
Know-it-alls. Look up the word "VIGILANTE"
Please note: I have not said you can't have a civilised discussion!

On 27/04/2020 04:11, Bret Cahill wrote:
Peer pressure is, believe it or not, keeping me from cycling out into
the fields where you don't need a mask.

Masks might (*) be helpful in a store. They do nothing in the middle of
a field.

(*) The assumption is the wearer is coughing or sneezing and doesn't
normally muffle them. A mask does not muffle and the pictures show it
acting like reverse thrust on an aircraft.

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.

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

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.

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.

Exercising by cycling significant distances from home is not
considered to be a reasonable excuse for leaving home."Â* There is also
a ban on all non-essential travel, so in Wales it is no longer
possible to drive to somewhere to ride your bike.

No longer? Driving to take exercise was verboten right from the start.
The police have since been told to be more relaxed about it.


Quote: No-one can walk six miles in an hour.

No-one ? Talk to a race walker doing about 10mph!

Bret Cahill wrote:

Bertrand Russell needed to walk 40 km to function.

He must have covered a fair bit of ground in his time then - he
certainly 'walked with giants'. But isn't it funny how walkers tend
to travel in miles while cyclists prefer kilometres. I suppose it
could be because cycling a distance of 50 kilometres sounds a little
more impressive than one of 31 miles.

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:57:43 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

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

On 27/04/2020 09:30, Kelly wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:

Bertrand Russell needed to walk 40 km to function.

He must have covered a fair bit of ground in his time then - he
certainly 'walked with giants'. But isn't it funny how walkers tend
to travel in miles while cyclists prefer kilometres. I suppose it
could be because cycling a distance of 50 kilometres sounds a little
more impressive than one of 31 miles.

I also walk in km. No point having different systems.

The vehicles I drive have speedometer and digital readouts and I now
rarely look at the speedometers. In one of them the readout is set to kph.

I don't understand why we clung on to miles and pints(*) when Australia
and New Zealand managed to convert properly.

The only conversion I haven't got the hang of is l/100km. But then,
because of our half baked system, the calculation requires one or other
element to be converted.

(*) which in pub measures has evolved to half a litre anyway, since
students and Poles routinely don't fill to the top.

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:57:43 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 26/04/2020 18:34, TMS320 wrote:

All I can find is this:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...uring-18142904


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 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

From the Welsh guidance -
5. The starting point is that you must stay at home and you need an
excuse to leave home – and that excuse must be a reasonable one. The
need for the excuse to be “reasonable” sets an objective standard to
test whether you should leave home. It represents the difference
between a subjective test, which is based solely on what any one
particular person thinks, and an objective test, which is based on
what other ordinary people in a similar positron to that person would
think.

6. It is important to understand also that the list in paragraph (2)
provides only examples of what may be a reasonable excuse. This list
is not intended, therefore, to include all possible reasonable excuses
for leaving home. In addition there may be occasions where, in light
of how it is done, an activity that is listed as an example of a
reasonable excuse to leave home may not be. So if somebody went out to
exercise once in a day but spent 4 or 5 hours doing so, this is
unlikely to be reasonable.

“No more than once a day”

11. In light of the overarching message that we should all stay at
home, and in order to emphasise that exercising should only be a
limited exception, regulation 8 provides that it is only reasonable to
leave home to exercise once a day. This is also intended to signal
that exercising outside is not something that should be done for a
significant amount of time.

Cycling

17. Cycling is a valid form of exercise and is also a suitable way of
going to work. Cycling is generally a low-risk activity but with
emergency services under pressure, it is important to take steps to
manage risk wherever possible. An accident or a breakdown far from
home would place additional strain on health services or require a
further journey to be made by someone else to provide assistance.

18. People are expected to only cycle alone or with members of their
household, on routes they know well, and that are well within their
ability level. Cyclists on shared paths should be considerate of
walkers, runners and other people cycling: they should stay two metres
from others, slow their pace and stop to let people pass as
appropriate.

19. Cycling should be local, as a rule of thumb limited to traveling
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.

20. Cycling to work, or for work, is a reasonable excuse to be outside
(so long as going to work, or doing the work, is itself justifiable)."

"Guidance" in law does not mean you can take it or leave it. It is
quasi-legislation found in codes of practice or guidance notes. These
are not legal documents in themselves though some are embodied in
legal instruments such as schedules to Acts of Parliament. Infringing
their provisions may not of itself be a crime but is usually prima
facie evidence that a criminal offence has been committed. The most
common example of this type of instrument is the Highway Code. You
cannot be prosecuted for failing to comply with this but, in doing so,
you would be liable to prosecution for driving without due care and
attention.

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