Loading Notifications...

Police criticise walkers rescued from Ingleboroug

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
 yorkshire_lad2 12 Jan 2021

Police criticise walkers rescued from Ingleborough
https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/19003500.police-criticise-walkers-rescued-ingleborough-treacherous-conditions/

TWO weekend walkers had to be rescued from the summit of Ingleborough on Sunday evening, after police turned numerous out-of-area visitors away from the area.

Despite the government advising the public to stay at home and stay local,the man and woman had travelled into the area from Rochdale, to take some exercise, say police.

 Tringa 13 Jan 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

It appears some folks can't work out what 'local' means, though given how well they were equipped

- lightweight jackets, smooth-soled footwear, using Google Maps for navigation and setting off to climb a hill at 1pm in early January -

I'm not surprised.

Why can't the Government make the work of the emergency services just a bit easier by saying, "you must not travel more than X miles to take exercise"

Dave

In reply to Tringa:

Goodness knows.  Almost every other country has done that in some form.

 PaulJepson 13 Jan 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

The government have unfortunately made their bed and now have to lie in it. They were wiffy-waffy, unclear, ambiguous, and flip-flop u-turny and as such have left a lot of people dismissive of any guidance or rules they try and implement. 

"You must not leave or be outside of your home except where you have a reasonable excuse. This is the law."

"If you need to travel you should stay local – meaning avoiding travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live"

Now to me, the current guidelines are pretty clear. For exercise, I should use the nearest available options and not leave the local area as defined. Yet people are still trying to argue that they can drive 20 miles down the road to their nearest crag because the rules aren't clear? Give it a rest; if you want to operate outside the guidance then do so but don't pretend the guidance is open to interpretation. 

As Tringa said, it would be much better if they used an approach like Scotland and Wales and underlined a clear permitted distance that can't be manipulated to suit whatever people want to do. 

In reply to Neil Williams:

> Goodness knows.  Almost every other country has done that in some form.

Scotland had the "five mile rule" in May and June. It caused endless angst - a fixed distance has as many issues as "stay local".

 Wainers44 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Scotland had the "five mile rule" in May and June. It caused endless angst - a fixed distance has as many issues as "stay local".

And looking at the details of the rescue we could have a crack at a law banning stupid people too? Equally as hard to draft?

 rogerwebb 13 Jan 2021
In reply to PaulJepson

> As Tringa said, it would be much better if they used an approach like Scotland and Wales and underlined a clear permitted distance that can't be manipulated to suit whatever people want to do. 

Not sure it is entirely sensible in Scotland. At the moment I can quite legally travel from my neighbourhood 400+ infections per 100000 to Skye where there are less than 3 cases per 100000 (perhaps none) some 115 miles. 

That is great for me if I choose to go but appears absurd in terms of infection control. 

(I would be very happy if someone could convince me that it isn't absurd) 

Post edited at 11:27
In reply to PaulJepson:

> As Tringa said, it would be much better if they used an approach like Scotland and Wales and underlined a clear permitted distance that can't be manipulated to suit whatever people want to do. 

At the moment we have "stay local" guidance but definitely (legally enforced) within your council area. Council areas vary vastly in size from small city areas to most of the Highlands. People are interpreting "local" as they see fit. 

 The Lemming 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Tringa:

> Why can't the Government make the work of the emergency services just a bit easier by saying, "you must not travel more than X miles to take exercise"

> Dave

The Benchmark could be one more mile than Boris can cycle?

In reply to Robert Durran:

> Scotland had the "five mile rule" in May and June. It caused endless angst - a fixed distance has as many issues as "stay local".

I'd say 5 miles is a bit too short, but 10 or even 20 would still achieve what we are wanting to achieve (preventing cross-regional spread and stopping people from miles around congregating at specific honeypots e.g. Brighton Beach).

 Tringa 13 Jan 2021
In reply to rogerwebb:

I think Scotland's rule was sort of sensible when there were different tiers on the mainland. Only sort of because as you say it gave some folks, if they wanted to use it, the legal right to travel hundreds of miles.

Now that all mainland Scotland is the same tier I think the rule should be changed to, "you can travel up to X miles to exercise.", irrespective of region. If X was 10 or even just 5 miles there would be plenty of scope to exercise but it stop anyone driving from Wick to Ardnamurchan to do a hill, which at the moment is legal.

Dave

In reply to Robert Durran:

> Scotland had the "five mile rule" in May and June. It caused endless angst - a fixed distance has as many issues as "stay local".


It is, however, easy to police, whereas the UK rule is virtually impossible to.

 rogerwebb 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Tringa:

Yes, in early December when the whole Highlands were in the less than 3 per 100000 category it made sense. Now it doesn't.

Post edited at 12:03
 Dave Hewitt 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Scotland had the "five mile rule" in May and June. It caused endless angst - a fixed distance has as many issues as "stay local".

The current "five miles beyond" thing re council boundaries in Scotland seems to be working fairly well, though. I thought/feared it might be ditched with the early January tightenings, but it's stayed on (thus far) and is useful. I'm sticking to it rigorously in terms of the Ochils - the usual parking street at the west end of Tillicoultry is exactly five miles along the A91 from the Stirling/Clacks boundary, so I've been driving as far as that but no further - eg haven't driven to the Dollar badlands for a couple of months. From conversations on the hill, a lot of people are doing similar and seem happy enough with it - a few people are pushing the limit a bit (eg met a chap up there the other day who had come from Dunfermline), but on the whole it seems to be working well and is widely known and understood. I've similarly heard from/of people in the Glasgow area who are being quite strict with themselves about it re the Campsies/Kilpatricks, although those areas sound much busier than the Ochils (and give less pleasant walking - the Ochils have been great these past couple of weeks given the winter conditions).

 AdrianC 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

The car parks at Dollar Glen and Castlehill reservoir are both under five miles from the Fife boundary so, depending where you met him, the Dunfermlinite you met could have come from there?

 Dave Hewitt 13 Jan 2021
In reply to AdrianC:

> The car parks at Dollar Glen and Castlehill reservoir are both under five miles from the Fife boundary so, depending where you met him, the Dunfermlinite you met could have come from there?

Pretty sure he'd started from the same place as me, Upper Mill St in Tilli - we met as I was coming down the slope just east of the Mill Glen while he was starting up. He freely admitted that he'd stretched it a bit. Interesting that Dollar Glen is within five miles of the Fife boundary - I find the Fife/P+K/Clacks boundaries quite complicated and confusing, and because I'm coming from the Stirling end I've never really looked at the nuances in any great detail.

I currently dream of starting a walk from Castlehill or Glensherup!

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> The current "five miles beyond" thing re council boundaries in Scotland seems to be working fairly well, though.

I think it was clearly intended to allow people to escape urban council areas, so that, for instance, people in Edinburgh could access the Pentlands, and is much more sensible in that respect than the absolute 5 miles from home last Spring which allowed some people from Edinburgh but not others to access the Pentlands.

However, I am more than happy to use it to access the Ochils. I have been going as far as Tilicoultry, which, although about 6 miles from the Perth and Kinross boundary, is ok because it is only about three miles from the boundary on Skythorn Hill as the crow flies*. I could actually legitimately access the whole of the Ochils using the "crow flies" interpretation!

As for "local" I have not so far gone beyond the Ochils and Lomonds in Perth and Kinross. I think that Glen Lyon and so on would be somewhat pushing it but am considering going to the nearer highland hills such as Ben Chonzie.

*I am now satisfied that the "crow flies" interpretation is fine having heard that the Glencoe ski area used it to welcome skiers from Argyll and Bute (in fact it is within 5 miles of Perth and Kinross too!) and I assume they would have checked up on its legitimacy properly.

Post edited at 12:58
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think it was clearly intended to allow people to escape urban council areas, so that, for instance, people in Edinburgh could access the Pentlands, and is much more sensible in that respect than the absolute 5 miles from home last Spring which allowed some people from Edinburgh but not others to access the Pentlands.

That makes a lot of sense, as Edinburgh is quite a high density city so to do otherwise would have meant Arthur's Seat and the park by Princes St would get rather overcrowded.

 Babika 13 Jan 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

The problem for many folk in rural areas is that the nearest supermarket is often 10 miles away. So I tend to combine exercise with a supermarket visit. 

In reply to Neil Williams:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-advice-on-accessing-green-spaces-safely

Updated but not much more help re distance ' a short distance within your area'......

 Harry Jarvis 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> As for "local" I have not so far gone beyond the Ochils and Lomonds in Perth and Kinross. I think that Glen Lyon and so on would be somewhat pushing it but am considering going to the nearer highland hills such as Ben Chonzie.

Many of the locals in Glen Lednock would prefer that you didn't. In the first lockdown, Ben Chonzie became very popular, and there were problems with inconsiderate parking and road use. Then again, you could go up Ben Chonzie via Glen Turret or Glen Almond, although if the forecast snow arrives, the dam road up to Loch Turret might be a challenge.

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Many of the locals in Glen Lednock would prefer that you didn't. In the first lockdown, Ben Chonzie became very popular, and there were problems with inconsiderate parking and road use. Then again, you could go up Ben Chonzie via Glen Turret or Glen Almond, although if the forecast snow arrives, the dam road up to Loch Turret might be a challenge.

Yes, I was thinking of avoiding Glen Lednock for that reason. 

Good news is that there is no change to travel/exercise rules in today's announenment. I was dreading something more like we had in the various stages of the Spring lockdown.

Post edited at 15:25
 didntcomelast 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Babika:

Wife and I did this today. Travelled 8 miles to store for shopping stopping off on the way to walk in woods, saw 3 people throughout the walk. And we had to cross a county boundary because the store is the one I work at and so receive a staff discount. 

yesterday I walked around the perimeter of our village which is possible because it’s basically several housing estates built next to each other with a perimeter road. In 3 miles I passed 47 people of which over half were aged 60+. ( counted every person I passed to see how many were out) 

I suspect technically I should be criticised for doing the woodland walk today because I travelled to it. 

 Fractral 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think it was clearly intended to allow people to escape urban council areas, so that, for instance, people in Edinburgh could access the Pentlands, and is much more sensible in that respect than the absolute 5 miles from home last Spring which allowed some people from Edinburgh but not others to access the Pentlands.

Yep, currently I am fully within the rules if I choose to drive to Swanston or Flotterstone to start a walk. That wasn't the case back in June! That being said my access to the Pentlands has been by bike or on foot to avoid contributing to the parking issues.

My climbing partner and I looked at some maps last year and determined that 5 miles just about got us to Limekilns, Rosyth Quarry and some of Aberdour but never actually went; I think it was the mental step of crossing the forth bridge which made it seem unacceptable (although I know people who did go and don't begrudge them for it - not much decent climbing to be had within the city...)

In reply to Wainers44:

> And looking at the details of the rescue we could have a crack at a law banning stupid people too? Equally as hard to draft?

Much better than banning stupid how about we just cull stupid or at least sterilise so they can't breed more stupid. It would drastically reduce the world's population and be better for mankind too. 

 Sir Chasm 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Dax H:

But UKC would be so much quieter.

 Wainers44 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Dax H:

> Much better than banning stupid how about we just cull stupid or at least sterilise so they can't breed more stupid. It would drastically reduce the world's population and be better for mankind too. 

Actually I like the cut of your jib. Have you thought of a career in politics,  maybe next Republican Presidential candidate?

...oh hang on, less stupids, no that wouldn't suit their prospects at all would it....

Post edited at 17:07
 S Andrew 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Dax H:

> Much better than banning stupid how about we just cull stupid or at least sterilise so they can't breed more stupid. It would drastically reduce the world's population and be better for mankind too. 

Look. A real live eugenicist.

 Simon Pelly 13 Jan 2021
In reply to PaulJepson:

I do wonder whether stating that "It is not allowed to drive to a location for the purposes of exercise" would help?

Post edited at 17:41
In reply to Simon Pelly:

> I do wonder whether stating that "It is not allowed to drive to a location for the purposes of exercise" would help?

That would be a nightmare for many people in cities. If I lived in the middle of Glasgow I think I might struggle to cope.

 Simon Pelly 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

Rules affect different people in different ways. Personally not been able to play in the mountains for the best part of a year. It is also getting tedious running the same route around where I live week on week.

Can't help thinking that we keep oscillating in and out of lockdown because guidance is pushed to the limit - perhaps in our nature to do so. More clear and stricter measures for shorter period(s) of time would be better in my opinion. But only an opinion

Post edited at 18:40
 Dave Hewitt 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think it was clearly intended to allow people to escape urban council areas

The reasoning behind it hasn't been published as far as I'm aware, but while I agree it helps people in urban areas, it's also useful (and sensible in the "stay local" sense) for people on the edge of large rural councils where there are quiet outdoor spaces just across the border into another council area and it would make to just do the short hop to there rather than a long haul within their own council area. Stirling's a good example of this given that the Ochils are nearby but mostly in Clacks, while the nearest easily accessible 2000ft hill to the west in the "within Stirling" direction is Ben Ledi, more than twice as far away and notorious for parking problems and busyness. But other large councils will have similar situations around the periphery.

Personally I'm treating the "five miles beyond" law as a driving distance rather than a crow-flying one - although it's not spelt out precisely what it means, it's hard to imagine it's meant in any way other than driving distance. We're humans, after all, not crows. And anyway, in practical terms, I suspect a police officer would take a fairly dim view of any crow-flying argument re distance if they stopped someone, whereas five miles or less by road beyond the council boundary feels (to me at least) like safe legal ground.

PS - I'm not allowed to go drive to Glen Lednock for Ben Chonzie just now, but if I was then I think I'd park down in Comrie and walk up the glen before taking to the hill. That would avoid (for the most part) worrying the locals, plus it's a lovely glen and doing it by a long(ish) walk in gives good options for a circular route rather than a simple out-and-back.

 Lankyman 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Oi! Can we stop this thread drifting and get back to slagging off feckless ENGLISH morons? Please.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> Personally I'm treating the "five miles beyond" law as a driving distance rather than a crow-flying one - although it's not spelt out precisely what it means, it's hard to imagine it's meant in any way other than driving distance.

I'm sure the intention was driving distance, but that is not how it is worded and, as I said, I assume Glencoe ski area would have checked the actual legal position before using it.

If I did go on driving distance I could still park this end of Tillicoultry and walk through the town to access Ben Cleuch, which I would happily do if necessary though it would, ironically, be, if anything, more risky.

Post edited at 19:22
In reply to Simon Pelly:

> I do wonder whether stating that "It is not allowed to drive to a location for the purposes of exercise" would help?

Unbelievably, I agree with what Matt Hancock said today: it would be really shit to remove the lifeline some people have of going for a walk with a friend. It's fine for me, I can see the Lakeland fells, Howgills and across Morcambe Bay when I walk from my front door and I talk to about 15 people every day (even when I don't want to). If my only chance of open space and a chat meant getting in the car, it would be pretty devastating to have that last opportunity not to feel completely isolated and miserable taken away.

 Dave Hewitt 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If I did go on driving distance I could still park this end of Tillicoultry and walk through the town to access Ben Cleuch, which I would happily do if necessary though it would, ironically, be, if anything, more risky.

Funnily enough I sort of did the opposite the other day, as I fancied a change and went up King's Seat (in icy slush and damp cloud) by the Kirk Glen rather than the Gannel route. Did this by starting in the usual street at the western end of Tillicoultry as per my five-mile allowance, then going up the steps at the start also as usual - but then followed the wall along eastward (good path) to meet the Kirk Glen path at the upper of its two gates. You could do this in reverse to access Cleuch - start up the Kirk Glen path then as soon as you emerge from the wood go hard left for a mile to pick up the usual Law etc route. Doing that kind of thing in either direction avoids walking through the village (and is nice anyway).

Sorry Lankyman, I'm still wittering on about Scottish legal nuances. Feel free to slag me as a token Englishman even though I've been 40+ years away...

 Ramblin dave 14 Jan 2021
In reply to Simon Pelly:

> Can't help thinking that we keep oscillating in and out of lockdown because guidance is pushed to the limit - perhaps in our nature to do so. More clear and stricter measures for shorter period(s) of time would be better in my opinion. But only an opinion

I kind of feel like it has more to do with the government failing to set up an effect test, trace and isolate system and then spending all summer paying people to go to restaurants and telling them it was their patriotic duty to go into the office so they can spend money at Pret. Or to be more charitable, having to strike a very difficult balance between allowing the economy to function as much as possible while keeping the infection rate under control.

Seriously, though - as far as I can tell, people pushing the limit on exercise guidelines has the square root of bugger impact on the national situation. Here's a couple of public-health oriented psychologists writing for the BMJ about the danger of that line of thinking:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/07/pandemic-fatigue-how-adherence-to-covid-19-regulations-has-been-misrepresented-and-why-it-matters/

"All in all, this narrative explains the worsening pandemic in terms of widespread non-adherence to rules which is a function of poor psychological motivations, which in turn are particularly prevalent in some people and some communities. 

Each of these assumptions is both problematic and indeed dangerous."

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I think where the exercise guidelines start making a difference when you head far further afield, e.g. the "London to the Peak" situation which will inevitably for most people start involving a stop for the loo, a coffee or fuel, which would happen indoors with contact with different people than from your local area.

Quibbling over 5 vs 10 miles is probably less consequential.

Post edited at 14:32
 Martin W 14 Jan 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Unbelievably, I agree with what Matt Hancock said today: it would be really shit to remove the lifeline some people have of going for a walk with a friend.

I thought that Nicola had announced just that for Scotland the other day, but I can't now find any mention of it in the guidance or any news reports.  Maybe I imagined it...

 Ramblin dave 14 Jan 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I think where the exercise guidelines start making a difference when you head far further afield, e.g. the "London to the Peak" situation which will inevitably for most people start involving a stop for the loo, a coffee or fuel, which would happen indoors with contact with different people than from your local area.

On an individual level, yes, absolutely. On a population level, once you factor in the proportion of people who'll actually drive that sort of distance for a day trip during lockdown the combined effect must be basically tiny? I mean, most non-climbers I know would consider it pretty crazy even under normal circumstances. This isn't to say that a six hour round trip for a walk or a climb is in any way okay, just that we should probably look elsewhere if we want to know what's actually keeping the national infection rate up.

 Martin W 14 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Scotland had the "five mile rule" in May and June. It caused endless angst - a fixed distance has as many issues as "stay local".

I don't recall that being the case.  AFAICR the first mention of the "five mile rule" was when the protection levels model was introduced, which was in November - specifically, in amendment number 3 to the The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions and Requirements) (Local Levels) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 dated 20th November: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/389/made

I also don't recall it causing significant levels of angst - other than amongst those who wanted to try to find a way around the restrictions in movement introduced in that amendment.

 Dave Hewitt 14 Jan 2021
In reply to Martin W:

> I thought that Nicola had announced just that for Scotland the other day, but I can't now find any mention of it in the guidance or any news reports.  Maybe I imagined it...

You can still go for a walk with one other person in Scotland but what has changed recently is that the "households" bit has been taken out, so that two adults who live together now count as the limit of two rather than just one. Whether this is helpful is debatable - I'm not sure I understand the reasoning in Covid terms but in overall wellbeing terms it doesn't seem good. Just before new year my better half and I met a friend who lives about 15 miles away for a halfway-between hill outing. The friend is widowed and lives in a fairly rural situation and is not surprisingly struggling a bit in terms of isolation etc. That half-day out fitted the rules as they stood at the time and appeared to do our friend a lot of good, in terms of the company as much as the exercise - and it was nice for us both to see her. As of now, however, the exact same outing would be illegal - one of us could meet her, but not both.

What we might do on that front is that we'll meet her but I'll then immediately scoot off up some adjacent hill while the two women have a walk together, then I'll meet them again at the end (I'm the driver in our house). We're trying really hard to follow the laws and guidance but this feels particularly artificial and unhelpful for a lot of people in our friend's kind of situation. Plus it's pretty likely to change again within a week or two. Unsurprisingly loads of people round here seem to be ignoring this (even assuming they're aware of it) - eg if a couple go for a walk along the road and meet another couple who they know coming the other way, they're not splitting up into two twos for the ensuing natter.

In reply to Martin W:

> I don't recall that being the case.  AFAICR the first mention of the "five mile rule" was when the protection levels model was introduced, which was in November.

There have been, confusingly, two different five mile rules. Back in the Spring there was the one which said you could only travel 5 miles from home for exercise. The one now allows you to travel 5 miles beyond your council area.

 Martin W 14 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Back in the Spring there was the one which said you could only travel 5 miles from home for exercise.

Do you have a reference for that?  My recollection is that you weren't supposed to travel for exercise at all during lockdown #1, hence why for example the Pentland Hills Regional Park folks closed all their car parks.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I certainly don't remember a specific distance limit being mentioned even when the restrictions began to be eased.

In reply to Martin W:

> Do you have a reference for that?  My recollection is that you weren't supposed to travel for exercise at all during lockdown #1, hence why for example the Pentland Hills Regional Park folks closed all their car parks.

Initially you couldn't travel at all. The 5 mile limit was in late May and June.

 Martin W 14 Jan 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

Ah, I've just found a note in my exercise record that the five mile limit was lifted on 3rd July last year, so I was obviously aware of it at the time!  I blame the passing of the years...

Thinking back on it now, though, I think that rule was a limit of five miles from home, whereas the rule now is within five miles of your local authority area.

The first walk we did not starting from home was on 3rd June.

I'll shut up now.

Post edited at 19:15

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.