Coronavirus: Are cyclists being wrongly targeted during lockdown?

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.

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 under the temporary 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.

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?

In this case, as so many others, if you input garbage you *will* output
garbage, as your statement illustrates so well.

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.

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?

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.

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.

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:03:28 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

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?

The aim of the legislation is that people should not go out.
Recognising that this is impractical there are exceptions.

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.

By keeping the population indoors as much as possible.

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.

If cycling was banned for the duration of this epidemic 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 27/04/2020 14:38, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:03:28 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

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?

The aim of the legislation is that people should not go out.
Recognising that this is impractical there are exceptions.

That doesn't answer my question.

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.

By keeping the population indoors as much as possible.

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?

When regular cyclists are trying to find out what is reasonable - and
not getting an answer, except for "whatever you're doing is wrong" -
that is not wanting to do as much as they can to circumvent it.

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?

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.

You've previously shown your over-obsession with what people put on
Strava. 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.

On 27/04/2020 13:45, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/04/2020 12:45, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2020 08:47, TMS320 wrote:
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.

Possible, but by a decent margin the less likely to be factual. As you
will agree, we already know that cyclists tend more than the general
public to be both selfish and dismissive of any rule they find
retrictive.

Possible, but by a decent margin the less likely to be factual.

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?

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:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

On 27/04/2020 13:47, colwyn wrote:
On 27/04/2020 12:51, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2020 08:48, colwyn wrote:
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!

Any victim is allowed to remonstrate with their attackers.

Pardon? Who are the attackers?

People who break social distancing and others of the current regulations
for their own pleasure and benefit, and to the potential disadvantage
and danger of others. That certainly includes cyclists who abuse the
rules and those who pass too close to pedestrians.

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

Use your eyes, man.

Stop making excuses for terrible behaviour.

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).

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?

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?

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.

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?

In this case, as so many others, if you input garbage you *will*
output garbage, as your statement illustrates so well.

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.