UKH

Just come across this which was issued by WAG today 

https://gov.wales/leaving-home-exercise-guidance

Quite limiting for cycling

Should be the national guidance, it's very clear.

Glad I don't live in Wales. 'Cycling should be local, as a rule of thumb limited to traveling no further than a reasonable walking distance from home'. I imagine a 'Reasonable distance' for walking is around 5 miles. So that's about 15 minutes cycling, depending on how fast you go.

I am going out for a blood test this afternoon to the nearest centre that can do it. It's about 10 miles away. There is no public transport here, so I can either drive or cycle. It's all on quiet country lanes and I am going to pick up some shopping at the same time.

It's been that way since the start. 

(b)       to take exercise, no more than once a day (or more frequently if this is needed because of a particular health condition or disability), either

                     (i)         alone;

                     (ii)        with other members of the person’s household; or

                     (iii)       with the person’s carer;

I think it's too restrictive and compliance will go down. We're in this for months. We're talking about no school in the fall either. The aim is just to reduce R0, not eradication, there's no real scientific argument to not allow short distance travel to find quieter areas or allow exercise twice a day.

This isn't a 2-3 week thing.

This is relating to recreational cycling rather than commuting.

You can cycle a lot further than 5 miles, an infinite distance in fact, without going more than 5 miles from your house.

It's all quite reasonable until you get to Section 19, which is plainly written by either an idiot or an anti.  It makes no sense. I limit my cycling to a period of time comparable to my pre-covid cycle commute

Quite agree. There is no guidance on what "Significant distances" might be. I have always worked from home, so don't "Commute". My normal rides are on quiet country lanes with little traffic. I could easily devise a 50 mile route that didn't go through a village or town and never come within 2 metres of another person.

Being very clear and making sense are two different things though. Any restriction on people’s basic freedoms must be proportionate and based on risk. 

How's so?

I read it more along the lines of..

If the worst happens (mechanical) you should be able to get home unassisted ie walk.

If you can cycle a circular route with a radius of 5 miles centred on your house, that is 31 miles, plus 5 miles each way getting to and.from the circumference makes over 40 miles, even more if you zig zag.

I do live in Wales, but unfortunately on the coast so some of my options are restricted.

Another consideration is what happens if you have a bike failure, puncture,  snapped chain etc that you cannot fix at the roadside?

The guidelines imply that you would be able to walk back with the bike so not involving any body else to get  home.

well if you do a there and back again that's 10 miles if you do some sort of circle that's 10 miles plus 15 on your circle so that's 25 miles without doing anything daft. I'm normally doing about 25 KM so that's nothing I'm not doing. I think the aim is to cut down on the 100 mile rides going on which is debatable in terms of transmission but doesn't look great. 

"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."

I Lived in Nant Peris.

I would walk over Snowdon or the Glyders, a local ride was either around the Glyders or around Snowdon. I'd still find that reasonable. It was 4-5 miles from my house up and over to Ogwen.

That was easily a sub 2 hour bike ride, about 30 miles. There's jus no further risk, probably less risk, then just biking up and down local roads. Again though why base policies on science..

The guidance seems unclear to me. Does it mean that you cannot cycle more than 5 miles in total, or you can cycle as far as you like provided it isn't more than 5 miles (or whatever your definition of reasonable is) from your home?

Daily post have been briefed that 20 miles from home would be the limit of what is reasonable 

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/strict-new-lockdown-rules...

So a 30 mile loop you'd never be more than 15 miles from home..

If you're allowed to be 20 miles from home then you could presumably ride 165 miles. by riding in a circle. 

Except that the guidance says 4 hrs' exercise  would be unreasonable 

Personally I have been cycling generally within a 10 mile radius of my house for said reason that if I had a terminal breakdown I would need to get home on foot. I did a 55 miler the other day never more than 10 miles as the crow flys from home. 10 miles might take 3 hours to walk, but its still walkable in an emergency, 30 is a bit more of an issue... Also I think it should be obvious to anyone that the spirit of isolation means taking all supplies/water to avoid any need to stop any shops.

But I do not understand a) why they are going into so much detail, and b) why everyone gets so worked up about it, when in practice just do your own thing, respect the spirit of being isolated from other people, and if you dont want to open yourself up to judgement, dont post your ride on Strava! No-one seeing you ride will have a clue where you have come from/are going to unless you ride with your club jersey on. Has anyone cycling actually been pulled over by the police?

depends how fast you ride I'm typically riding for an hour so I'd be okay, well I am okay as I live in England. 

Sorry I missed the later bits that are new.

I suspect the reasoning for the new Welsh guidance is to deter people who are still coming from outside of N Wales, or to be able to better enforce the rules against them, rather than trying to catch out locals who are being reasonably sensible albeit straying a bit far from home.  

This is what annoys me. I think many have forgotten why we are doing this. It is purely to lower the R0. Not eradication.

If some guy happens to snap a chain and walks home its no massive factor.

We have to be healthy, large sections of society - religious groups, those in the black market, drug addicts, prostitutes and god knows how many more won't be socially distancing much at all. So eradication is impossible in any short time once a disease is this prevalent, with likely millions infected. No localized harmless mutation can suddenly make it go away when it is this widespread.

All we and do is buy time and reduce the spread and it seems some of these are trying to be so restrictive with the aim of no spread, that just can't happen. They will lose compliance and public support if they get too restrictive.

That has happened in the US which has a much stronger libertarian bent, but some states just went that bit too far than was acceptable to its population and its actually caused less compliance. They could have gone out and fined thousands but that would have been war on its own people. 

I'm totally appalled by the protests but it was always the risk in the US. It's happening in other countries too. I see France is now having protests.

I'm friends with a North Wales Policeman on Facebook and I had to unfollow him because of his militaristic enforcement of rules on the locals. He was taking great pleasure with his holier than thou attitude.

Feel like this is in the response to the vast number of cyclists quite clearly taking the piss. They're out in droves, on long pre-lockdown style days out. Feel like the cycling community should've taken a bit more responsibility for itself. 

To me it felt like my fellow cyclists took the stance of "they didn't explicitly say not to so we'll do it". There's a phrase I saw used that I quite like "Ride to the spirit of the rules, not the wording of them." 

Nowhere does it explicitly say we cannot climb but for some reason everyone seems happy to assume we shouldn't, even the BMC bizarrely has adopted role of lawmaker to this effect. 

Glad I don't live in Wales then. I think this will get ignored because it's irrational. 

If it were me and I got a terminal mechanical such as a blown out tyre wall or snapped non repairable chain any more than about 2 miles from home I'd just call my partner to come pick me up in the car, it's really no big deal.

After all I'd be a vulnerable person then stuck in the middle of nowhere. 5 miles from home with cleated shoes and a knackered bike to push over hilly roads, no chance I'm walking home with that. 

You'd call your partner to hop in the car and make a non-essential journey to pick you up? Do you see the flaw in your plan?

This sort of stuff is ridiculous and making me increasingly angry. If I go for a 3 hour cycle, I come into contact with nobody. If I have a mechanical failure, I can either fix it myself (as most cyclists can) or if it's really catastrophic I'll call my girlfriend who I live with and she can come and get me in the van.

I've accepted that I can't drive 3+ hours to somewhere else to go and climb. Fine. But telling people they can't ride bikes but have to sit at home and go stir crazy, because what? Why? You cannot seriously suggest that cycling spreads coronavirus (neither does climbing, in any serious way, but let's leave this aside for now). The number of accidents that might happen is not going to overwhelm the NHS (especially now that we have peaked on Covid19).

These kind of restrictions are just cruel and unusual at this point and are not backed by any scientific justification related to coronavirus. It's just a mindless blanket policy imposed by people who don't know or think abut how it really work. People, I imagine, with big houses and big gardens and money. I live in a one bedroom flat in north east London. I am losing my god damn f*cking mind. The only thing keeping me sane is that 3 times a week I've started going on long (30-50 mile) rides just to try and decompress and to at least get into the Essex countryside whilst the weather is nice. There is no respectable reason for banning this. So I'm going to continue to do it. If I get fined, f*ck it I'll pay the fine. Costs a lot more than my antidepressants do but same end goal.

And to whoever gave me that down vote: at this stage of the crisis, there is no good reason for restricting outdoor activities. The coronavirus is not transmitted by people doing things outdoors. I'm sick to death of hollier-than-though tut tutters getting off on how virtuous they are by staying at home, when in some cases staying at home is just hurting people and achieving nothing. We need some nuance in this situation. It's been 5 weeks and we're in for 2 more - but we can't carry on at this level of absurdity.

I suspect this is true.  Now some people think they are allowed to drive provided they exercise for twice as long.

Well it is an essential journey if it's rescuing an at risk person. If I'm stuck in the middle of nowhere on the side of the road facing hours of hobbling home in cleated cycling shoes pushing a broken bike I'm at far more risk than if someone drove 10 mins to come pick me up.

Oh gosh, they'd non-essentially not have a crash and it would make no bloody different to anyone. please, some perspective. people have to be allowed to live, not just told to sit indoors and stare at the wall whilst we destroy the economy and ruin the lives of million of (especially) younger people so that the baby boomers can once again get everything and give nothing in return. Cheap houses, free education, good pensions, ruined the environment, gave us Brexit, and now for them we have to implode over Covid19. 

I really think people under 40 may start to get sick of this. How about old people stay home, and the rest of us live our lives. The lives that have already been disadvantaged by the selfish tw*ts who took, took, took, for decades, and then topped it off with the nice big f*ck you of Brexit. Seriously, why there isn't more anger about this I don't know.

Totally agree. 

Another point that is completely overlooked is that people who cycle, run and generally keep fit have been protecting the NHS from extra strain for far longer than it has been fashionable.

Totally agree, there is such a bizarre tension between some social judgements about what people should do, and the real steps that stop people getting ill.  That these judgements then pass into government guidance is more worrying still.  Likewise, I'll go mad staying 100 % in my house, and while by no means a key role in society, I'm sure the students I am assisting to complete their degrees online would prefer a vaugely functioning human to speak with.  At 6 am with very careful choice of route, but breaking many of these stigamtised rules, don't drive, don't head to the countryside, I've seen no one in many hours of exercise.  Whatsmore, I would not expect to see anyone at this time and locations at any point in the year including bank holidays.  If I did see crowds I'd go home, afterall I don't want to catch it either!  In contrast, a socially accepted short walk from my door at mid afteroon puts me near to 50 or so people, all with varying degrees of being arsed to help maintain a 2m separation.

Good thinking r0b. In fact it's only mostly people with health conditions / who are elderly that are dying anyway. Let's sod off the whole lockdown and let 'em die!

Although rather than taking the piss, it gives the impression the main reason policymakers are clamping down on cycling is that they object to anyone that appears to be having "fun" when others on the front line are having a torrid time.

Yup. That all applies to me too, exactly. 

No, I see a flaw in your understanding of the risks of disease transmission!

You're being sarcastic I take it, but the flip side is:

f*ck all those millions of people under 40 with no job security, who can't afford to buy a house, whose pensions are already going to be worth sod all - let's hit them with a huge recession that will put their economic security yet further out of reach, scarring many of them for years due to the effects of unemployment, worsening their long-term health as a likely consequence, all so that a few hundred thousand older people, many of whom would have died in the next few years anyway, can enjoy a bit more time on this earth after having had it all their own way their entire lives (and that's not even factoring in those who'd otherwise spend the next few years having their arse wiped in a nursing home). The truth is, there are real and severe human costs on the other side of the equation - but we live in a dictatorship of the old, as the Brexit Wing of the Tory Party cottoned on some time ago.

It's an interesting hypothetical argument where you're questioning the value of one person's life over another. I'd be hesitant to suggest my life was "worth" more than that of someone else based on income / health / age. I'm aware this forum is full of narcissists though, so perhaps they can take my place in the discussion.

My point was more that there have been rules put in place, to what end or how effective I am no expert to argue the case, but they apply to everyone. Your solution to breaking one of them is to break another. If everyone took the same approach we'd end up like Italy, where loads thought they were above the lockdown, increasing infections and deaths and leading to military enforced lockdowns.

It's not hypothetical. Governments make these calculations all the time. Or else every car would be taxed for millions of pounds and the speed limit would be 5 miles an hour to try and drive road fatalities down to zero. But we accept a fairly high number of casualties on the road every year as the price for a functioning transport infrastructure.

The value of people's lives is being weighed and balanced by government *right now*, and they have decided that a few more years of life for hundred of thousands of mostly older people are worth more than the quality of life of millions of younger people. 

Maybe they are right about that. But maybe there is also more of a middle ground between 'let them all die' and 'save them all if possible'. We don't save them all if possible when it comes to cars...

Ditto. 3/4 of the 'land' around me is the sea... 

Well, as a fully qualified baby boomer, I was pretty angry when I read this!!

Particularly about Brexit. I was heavily involved in the Remain campaign locally and in the People's Vote campaign leading up to the last election. Young people were conspicuous by their absence. The average age of our active campaigners was considerably over 50.

Yes, you may be right about house prices, free uni tuition, and pensions, but you need to look at one very fundamental reason for this. Politicians need votes, and older people vote!

Martin

That's because the 50+ are all sitting pretty in their mortage free houses on their final salary pensions, where as the youngens are out working so they can pay the rent to their baby boomer landlord.

If you are in NE London, I think maybe not worrying about what the Welsh government is saying and going for a bike ride is what you should do. It feels like you've gone from being quite annoyed about not being able to go climbing, into denying healthcare to baby boomers, or at least baby boomers who voted for Brexit. It's one of the most impressive argument accelerations I've seen in 20 years on UKC!

In England they quite clearly are.  This might not be sensible, but it's clearly allowed.

I dont see how I said break anything.

The result could also be a mass protest US style/French style. 

It's a very fine balance, I think the Welsh are going too far when we should be planning to ease restrictions in the next month they are doing this, when the evidence shows current methods are working.

It’s probably mostly to do with the fact my Faculty just cancelled all promotions and froze all pay. As I was to be promoted next year I am looking at tens of thousands of lost earnings now. And I’m by far and away one of the lucky ones. I was already struggling to cope this week and this tipped me over the edge a bit.

even if I’ve gone a bit overboard above, the fact is there is a generational divide in this country which cannot reasonably be justified by anyone. 

I think you'll find that when you spend 20 years paying the mortgage, you quite naturally tend to be 50+, and at times the interest rate on my mortgage was 15% - years of NOT going out and enjoying myself, saving money and getting a house mean I now have no rent - but I do have maintenance bills still.

As for final salary pensions - very few had those, and in the private sector they were as rare as rocking horse sh*t.

As for any of your comments being a sensible reason for not voting - I despair. It's because of the stay-at-homes and the can't-be-bothereds that we ended up with Brexit and this "government".

Welcome to my world. When I left school we had the 3-day week, that f*cked me up good and proper with regards to the job I was meant to have that got pulled, so no job, let alone no pay rise. Of course I could have gone to University, but my council wouldn't pay virtually anything unless they had to, and consequently the only way that I could have gone to University would have been if I'd worked a separate job as well. Different for the well-off middle classes of course. If student loans had been around then, I'd have gone to University like a shot, and got a degree like yourself.

I could go on about the outside toilets with no lights, the zinc bath hanging from a nail in the yard that got filled by boiling water on the stove, and who knows what else.

Don't think that everyone older than you had it easy, most didn't, and you'll get zero sympathy from anyone older than you if you keep blaming them all for your situation. Most of us are not "the rich wot gets the pleasure", we're mostly "the poor wot gets the blame". There isn't so much a generational divide, just the eternal "haves" and "have nots".

There may be truth in that. But the point Paul was making, that I took issue with, was that the baby boomers are sitting on their backsides, enjoying the benefits of their free education, final salary pensions etc, while at the same time allowing or encouraging Brexit to happen, and thus ruining the future for the younger generation.

Yes, it's almost certainly true that there was a skew towards the older generation as a whole in the votes for Brexit, but the older people who supported Brexit were predominantly not those benefitting from free university education, mortgage free houses and final salary pensions. The Remain campaigns I helped co-ordinate were full of older people in those categories, as I am myself.

If young people don't like the status quo, they can vote for change. I would be quite surprised if there aren't more under 50's of voting age than over 50's.

Martin

Your post about cheap housing, free education, good pensions for baby boomers etc while the under 40's now struggle I found quite disturbing on first reading but now I agree with some of what you say.

I take it you are under 40 but I can't really imagine you mean what you say.  Do you count anyone over 40 as old? I don't think you do. Should all older folk have to stay in while young folk live there lives. Would you say the same when you reach your older age bracket.

You are quite right about cheaper housing, good pensions and free education but you have to remember the so called baby boomers are only there by accident of birth just like you are now in 2020. Education was free because far fewer people went to university then and the tax payer was deemed able to pay, a good number of whom  objected anyway but had no choice. There are just too many students at far more universities now to make it practical for it to be free unless we pay more tax or take from another service. How many would like that?

Mortgage rates were 10% to 15% for a time, unthinkable now isn't it. It wasn't always plane sailing even for the young baby boomer  unless they were very wealthy but that's the same now. Most weren't very wealthy. Some say that has got worse and now there are far many more richer younger folk with big salaries. 

On pensions I have to agree too but we are all living longer for better or worse and companies can no longer afford final salary schemes unless we all pay much more into a scheme when we can least afford to. 

As for Brexit  there will be lots of anger on both sides and it's going to last for years no doubt.

The arguments can go on and on for ever but you have to fight the battles you can win. You have my sympathy matey. Just keep getting out on your bike. It works for me. Keep the faith and that promotion will come, be patient and enjoy what you do have as best you can.

You don't have to like this and neither does anyone else. I'm not trying to patronise or be condescending either, just the other side of the argument maybe.

From a 50+ year old who definately didn't vote brexit , still has a mortgage and has a business that has lost tens of thousands of turnover due to these restrictions I'd like to say that you sound like a whiny little tw@t.

Seems a knee jerk reaction to prevent wales seeming like an attractive place to go to, unfortunately it’s going to be the locals who are being punished. Surely the travel ban is clear enough.

For myself I’ve made sure I’m self sufficient on my bike rides with quick links, chainbreaker, tools, spare inner, puncture repair kit, and anything worse my wife will come and pick me up (no stopping on the way )

in addition swimming is banned, I was going to take the kids for a walk down to the lake for a swim tomorrow, so I’ve had to break that news to them, There really doesn’t seem to be any thing scientific in this other than making Wales  unattractive to visitors which is already covered by the travel bans. 
I’m not sure it is a politically healthy thing to be riding the wave of frustration and fear of others that seems to be behind these restrictions particularly in Wales were the stay away message has at times been tinged with unpleasantness.

I think this is rather true - climbing was proscribed so the majority have stopped doing it, cycling was allowed and some in that community have not changed behaviour to come within the spirit (social benefit) of the guidelines. Others have - thank you.

And I’d like to say that you can’t spell. 

It's not clearly allowed, all that is clear is that you will probably get away with it. 

"That's because the 50+ are all sitting pretty in their mortage free houses on their final salary pensions"

f*ck you for propagating untruths about me

WRONG in EVERY DETAIL you shit

Upon reflection I’ve decided that as I am a) clearly not coping well with the current situation and b) my contributions on here are most definitely not doing anyone any good (me most especially) I’ve asked Alan James to temporarily ban me from the forums until the lockdown is over. 

Good night and good luck to all. See you all I hope on the other side. 

(Apparently I cant manage to stay off here by willpower alone so a self-requested ban is I think the best bet.)

Yes probably, I live in NE Wales and we regularly used to get get chain gangs from the Wirral and the North West in the valley, very quiet recently though apart from lots of locals taking up cycling it appears, still getting groups of green laners though

The Welsh Government who have created these draconian laws are Labour btw 😉

Well as a 50+ person with a mortgage that I will be paying until I’m 70 and who quite definitely voted remain I think you’re talk crap. The only way my mortgage will be paid off early is if my parents both die leaving me an inheritance but I’d far rather my potential inheritance was spent on their care for the final years of their life, considering they both lived as children through ww2 I kind of think they deserve the chance to live their life to the full. Let’s face it Covid-19 and the inability to ride your bike more than 5 miles from your house or go climbing is pretty insignificant in comparison, no one’s going to try and drop a bomb on my house tonight. God we really are the me generation aren’t we!

Semi seriously, why don't you just stick to favourite Joe Brown route discussions, and threads reminiscing about your favourite karabiner or similar?  Turn off down the pub for the duration.

I do wonder what Corbyn would have done.  Labour do tend towards authoritarianism and "nanny-stateism" at times.  This is one case (despite never having voted for them) where I'm actually relatively glad of a Tory Government with a liberatarian (sort of) at its head - I know they will not implement any restriction unless they *absolutely need* to.

I'm happy for restrictions to protect others from me (as most of these are) but generally I consider my own safety my responsibility.  I do like the way the restrictions have been split in that way - the general mandatory "stay at home" is primarily to reduce spread (to protect others), whereas shielding is to protect the individual and is advice with no enforcement behind it and even includes some examples of people (e.g. those with terminal non-infectious diseases) who may actually wish to disregard it.

Not allowed as such, more what you can get away with. Bit like driving 80 on a motorway. 

Screw that, leave the Welsh to their own idiocy.

I'd go one step further and say that if some guy snaps a chain and phones his wife to collect him it's no big deal.

If we want to maintain our ability to enforce rules we need to ensure that they are logical and rational.

That sounds a bit like sour grapes from people who don't cycle. My concern is that cyclists (or lycra louts!) in Wales will now have to contend with more hostility from drivers. 

There has been a bit of this going on in Llanberis, one delivery driver was regularly making close passes and tooting his horn at cyclist on the llanberis pass, he has been reported to the police by another cyclist, it maybe that he was a self appointed vigilante tackling the problem of cyclists breaking the rules by cycling together, unfortunately for his world view the only groups I have seen including myself are family groups, my 15 yr old son may look like an adult from a distance whilst driving but he is still a child.

Irish government info: never be more than 3km from home or work. 

UK government info: if it's a Tuesday and the moon is in its third quarter... 

bit like saying “don’t drive further than you could walk in case the car breaks down” 

daft law 

At the time of the three day week, student grants were set nationally and in addition to payment of fees, a full grant (outside London) was £450, which is about £5,000 now. Not including the fact that accommodation costs have significantly outstripped inflation.

It really isn’t, cars are covered under “only essential travel”. 

Yes, it's sad but totally expected. I was cycling 60-70km on the weekend (self sufficient) but going to limit that now to 50km max, and try to stay withing 10 miles of the house (there has been not max radius figure mentioned by the Welsh gov).

Went out today for a quick gravel blast, just 20 km, and on the way home turned into a local road where it had been closed off either end by the residents and they were having a street party.!!?????!!!

And cyclists are seen as the risk!!! WtAF. 

I can't comment on a), but on b) your contributions here seem wholly sane and positive as far as I can make out.  For whatever that's worth given the state of my own sanity.  If you need to check out for a while, I completely understand that, it would probably do me good to get myself banned too, but I for one will miss you and hope you'll come back when you're able.

Best of luck.

Grants were NOT always paid, individual councils could make their own decisions - my council was made up of tory assholes who spent bugger-all - presumably to ensure that only the "right people" could afford University.

And anyway, by the time I left school (and the 3day week came in), any decisions regarding Uni had already gone.

The biggest load of bollocks I saw in the review of the new rules applying to Wales was "Having an accident far from home puts an extra burden on the NHS"

No it doesn't.  It puts the same strain on the NHS as an accident near to the home or even in the home.

Maybe it's just what you want to see. A quick look at strava shows every cyclist I know has done at least 60mi+. Most nearing 100. Noone being reasonable within the guidelines definition. 

I had a look at popular strava segment for today (over 1400 cyclists) and the average distance for the top 10 is 55miles, and 11miles for the bottom 10. 

Most people out on bikes at the moment are not Strava types

Entirely plausible that it’s within guidance as the guidelines only mandates distance from home rather than total distance.

Yeah, likewise. I just don't get why if you're determined to rack up the miles at the moment why on earth you'd plaster it all over Strava. Just asking for tighter restrictions.

A friend was told by the police in North Wales, 4-5 hours is the limit, staying within 10 miles of home. That's easy 60-80 miles. He did 40 odd. He's in Wrexham but said many local riders were heading over to England to ride.

I don't know how familiar you are with Strava but there's a map  

How very dare they. Shouldn't we in England have a racist attitude against Welsh cyclists to counter the Welsh Government's racist attitude to English cyclists (and walkers/runners).

English roads for English people I say ! Harumph, Harumph !