UKH

With the Government's 'guidance' for the latest lockdown measures being a bit woolly, I contacted Cumbria Police for clarification of how they would interpret it.

I told them I live in Lancashire, within 1 hours drive of Ambleside and that I would be walking the fells alone, as I always do for my weekly exercise, avoiding busy areas and wanted to know if it was within the law, or if the information given was just guidance. I was told to read the latest Government information and that if did drive into the Lake District National Park, if I was pulled over by an officer I would have to have a very good reason why I was there.

Very frustrating not to get a definitive answer as to was I within the law, just a hint that they would treat me as not being allowed to be there.

Conclusion: the police are just as woolly as the Government. Is it really too much to ask for a definitive explanation as to how far we can travel to exercise? It's not a big thing to ask, especially as a fine could be the result of a 'rule' that is open to interpretation.

It's an absolutely ridiculous situation to be in. If the answer is to only travel 10 miles, I can 'accept that, but an interpretive, open-ended limit is plain stupid. By the way, I'm not opposed to a lockdown, I just want clarification of the rules.

In reply to Removed User:

I don't understand why , if you live in a part of Lancashire with plenty of good walking terrain around you, ( and i believe such areas do exist), why you want to be taking issue with the government guidelines in a time of crisis like this.

You live an hour from Ambleside so you must have all sorts of  more local stuff available . Lots of people living in flats in inner cities would give an arm and a leg to be in your location, I suspect.

Is there some over riding reason you can't stay local when exercising? You yourself mention the notion of only travelling ten miles. Why not impose that restriction on yourself rather than having to be told to do it? Lots of other people do similar, not thinking they have to work up to the letter of the law.

In reply to Removed User:

()

In reply to Removed User:

Just exercise at the nearest possible location to home. You are training then, not a sightseeing tourist visiting the lakes. 

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I would conjecture because the law is supposed to be fairly clear. For example, speed limits are precise not ‘drive slowly in this part of town’ and leave you to guess whether you’re going to get done at 10, 20 or 30 mph. I live in somewhere where the nearest climbing is a good 40 minutes away. Would be good to know if this is legit or not. If the goal is to prevent the spread of corona virus it seems that it would be - I’d basically be hermetically sealed in the car and back. If it’s supposed to be a ‘local limit’ then maybe not. Either way, would be good to have clarity. Not against lockdown, just odd that I’m expected to teach 150 students in school all week and then can’t drive somewhere to be alone in the countryside at the weekend. 

In reply to Toccata:

I'd say that's fairly essential and can't be done at other location other than there. As a medical practitioner you could claim you are carrying out an extended eye test. 

In reply to Removed User:

And I am sat here wondering if a 20 min drive to Borrowdale is OK?

Ask yourself how much walkimg/climbing do I pass on my 1 hr journey. 

In reply to summo:

Appreciate the response but deleted the post as didn’t feel appropriate to discus family matters online.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

This is not just about geography; it is about mental state and clearing the stressors from the system. If you don't understand the OP view, and being used to going out in areas well known, it is like going back to old friends. You don't get a kick out of some of the lesser hills (whether that be lesser in size, or lesser in character, or both), and that is part of the therapy to douse down mental problems across the population. 

ITS, is highly unlikely to add to the risks of exposure of absolutely anybody, if he is going to act sensibly and logically (in a biological/microbiological sense) once outside of his car.

He should not need any supplies, either for himself or his vehicle, apart from air to breathe and earth under his feet. All the rest can be brought with him.

I placed a dislike against your comment, not the OP.

In reply to Removed User:

The police don't seem to respond very well if there is any ambiguity in a situation. They aren't lawyers and our government have consistently failed to give them clear direction. I'd imagine if you phoned 6 times over the course of a day, you'd get 6 different answers

In reply to veteye:

Now  we are really getting down to it.

In a national crisis with people filling up hospital beds to the point of catastrophe, you are trying to claim that a person's particular form of exercise should allow for the finesse of including some previously unexperienced ground in its itinerary?

It beggars belief, it really does.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

How does going for a walk impact hospital admissions? Just edited to add - I am expected to work in a school with 1000 people in close proximity. Should I down tools in case we have an outbreak and it leads to a spike in admissions to our local hospital, given this is a national emergency?

In reply to Removed User:

i think your all missing the point of this thread. whether or not the OP chooses to go to the lakes or not is up to them, but the point is, the police in the lake district (and probably others) appear to be interpreting the law beyond the scope of the legislation. its a perfectly valid point by the OP to bemoan the lack of clarity in the law. as arbitrary as travel limit would be, at least there would be no ambiguity. sure people would still choose to ignore it, but the rights and wrongs of that is not really the point of the op's thread (i think).

In reply to Removed User:

From the police?  Yes, honestly, yes it is.  It's wholly unreasonable of you to expect them to supply you with the clarity that the government have not.

Here's my suggestion:
Have an honest think about whether or not you feel it's taking the piss to drive an hour into the Lake District to go for a walk.  If you decide it's reasonable, off you pop and be prepared to politely defend your decision if you're stopped, and to turn around and drive back again with good grace if the copper who stopped you disagrees.  I think you're very unlikely to get a fine unless you ask for one at that point.

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

Do you get paid for the privilege of teaching? If you don’t like it do something else, but don’t use it as an excuse for a pass to do whatever you feel is right regarding your exercise.

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

I've come across sections of road where, as far as I can see, the speed limit is 60 mph but if you attempted them at anything more than thirty you'd end up dead in a ditch. It's best not to think about "whether you're going to get done" as your main measure for how much you plant down the right foot.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Love teaching. Slightly afraid of being so exposed to covid in current circumstances for various reasons (health/ family etc.). Confused as to how to square these messages from the government - minimise contact and don’t travel, but do mix with 1000 plus other individuals per week. As I say, just some clarity would be nice on what is allowed and what is not as one thing I am expected to do (and yes, paid for, as if that has any bearing) seems a lot more risky than another! 

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Well I’ve never crashed a car or had a speeding ticket, hence my metaphor of driving in a built up area for clarity on speeding. 

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

In  simple terms, what is your objection to staying local for exercise?

I should say that I don't envy your position as a teacher one bit, but the fact that you are facing increased risk at work doesn't  mean that you should get the option of overriding advice which is meant to contain the spread of the virus in general.

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

Sorry, but you are missing the point. Education is considered of the highest priority. Other lower risk things are being stopped or discouraged precisely so that schools can remain open. I'm amazed at how many teachers don't seem to get this.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

That’s the point - what does ‘local’ mean?!! If it’s my closest crag, is it local? If it’s within 30 minutes is it local? Do I have to be able to walk there? Cycle? Is there a distance limit? I don’t really mind but am confused as to how driving 30 minutes is suddenly a massive covid vector, but if that’s against the rules then fine. Only, it seems it may or may not be against the rules depending on what ‘local’ means to each copper. Which seems silly.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

How is driving to a crag spreading the virus though? 

In reply to toad:

I would have thought there's ambiguity in just about every situation they deal with.  Which is why they have some discretion in how they decide to act in whatever situation it is.

I think you'd be more likely to get the same non-answer 6 times, and waste 6 times as much of their time in the process.

If you're having a conversation with a copper at the side of the road, that person has some discretion in deciding how they're going to act.  This is a good thing.  Maybe they'd be more likely to turn the OP back if they happened to know Ambleside was rammed that day, maybe less likely if they knew the place is deserted. 

There's no way someone you're talking to on the phone today can know what it's going to be like at the side of the road in the middle of next week, so even if they could why would you want them to tie the hands of the person who is there on the spot by telling you you can carry on if your car journey is 9.99 miles, but you'll have to turn back and go home if its 10.01 miles.

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

Come on Geez. You’re clearly not daft, you’re a teacher. Everyone’s in this shit, and not being able to get to a crag/walk isn’t the end of the world. It might seem like it, but is isn’t, surely?You’ve phoned the cops and they’ve given you an answer. Just because you want to go there isn’t a justified response. This isn’t forever mate, just for now.

Daft things happen on journeys due to daft things that just happen.

I’m sat here with a very unexpected positive test, thinking who could I have infected and what if.....

In reply to Removed User:

I normally regard ‘short distance’ as a relative quantity, generally I like to kind of measure my travel for exercise in relation to a light year

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

I'd suggest the reason for this apparent contradiction is that the education of children, after the amount they've missed already, is so important that some risks have to be taken to allow it. The price to pay for that is that we must reduce the risk of transmission elsewhere (pubs, cafes, shops etc) even if they aren't in themselves as risky. It's a kind of risk/reward balance.

That said, it makes absolutely no difference to the risk of covid transmission whether you walk locally or in the Lakes. The rules/guidelines however, have to cater for idiots. Unfortunately that means some perfectly safe activities carried out sensibly may fall foul of them.

Personally, if you (correctly) judge that walking in The Lakes is of no risk then I'd just go anyway. The chances of being pulled over are miniscule and if you're polite and comply with any instructions you're vanishingly unlikely to be fined.

In an ideal world it would be, but drafting clear unambigous rules takes a lot of time, something which a government introducing emergency legislation doesn't have the luxury of.

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

I appreciate that it seems very unfair, but if you think you're more likely to have been exposed to the virus than most people that confers more responsibility on you to ensure than you don't transmit it somewhere else doesn't it?  Not less.  While you may feel it's a reason you really need to get out into the countryside, it's also a reason to be extra careful about it.

In reply to birdie num num:

What if it’s a dark year? What do you do then? Cave?

In reply to deepsoup:

I do get Toms point. It’s about stress alleviation, and I’ve used it to justify walking the dog up the woods which are local but not that local. Hmmmm

In reply to Webster:

Taking it as read that you're right about that, the police didn't write that law.  So don't waste their time by ringing them up and moaning at them about it, leave them in peace and get in touch with your MP instead.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

So do I, but it's like a more granular, personal, version of the Tier 3 / Tier 1 debate that just went out the window today.  If you're more at risk of carrying the virus it's only more important to behave as if you know you are.

I think you would know deep down if you were taking the piss by walking the dog in the local but not that local woods.  I bet you're not.

In reply to Removed User:

For the law, just read the actual regulations :

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1200/made

PART 2 6 (a) (c) (i) Exceptions...it is reasonably necessary for the person......to leave or be outside the place where [the person] is living...to take exercise outside....alone,

No mention of any distance, or travel for that matter. It's just about why you are outside your home. 

Practically - if you are bothered about getting stopped, just wear a hi-vis vest in your car/van and appear to be going somewhere. Don't go in a camper van.

Morally - your call. 

In reply to Removed User:

You can travel to exercise. You should stay local if possible. 

An hours drive is not local in my book. I drive an hour to work, I wouldn’t call that working locally. 
 

I’d use that as a benchmark, if you were looking for local work, would you travel an hour there and back and call it local? I’d be surprised if anyone else called it local. 
 

There’s no law stopping you travelling as far as you want. It’s a guideline to how you should behave. There won’t be police out checking number plates and postcodes. Lots of people will be on furlough so don’t be surprised if you don’t have a quiet walk in the Lake District.

...and people are driving like complete idiots at the moment so the further you drive, the more likely you are to be involved in an accident. 

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Yes, of course, a speed limit is not the fastest you can go and still be safe. It is the fastest you are allowed to go on that stretch of road

In reply to Removed User:

Who cares what the filth think, and why do you need 'clarification', it is what it is, can you not think for yourself?

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-national-restrictions-from-5-november#trave...

11. Travel

[...]

to spend time or exercise outdoors - this should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space)

In reply to Removed User:

I don't think the actual legislation says anything about having to stay local so I don't think you should have to worry about the police:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ww...

Leaving the house for exercise or outdoor recreation is allowed, and driving to get there seems to be part of that activity to me.

I think the 'stay local' stuff is all just guidance, and isn't actually law so you can't get in trouble for not following it regardless of whether you interpret local as 'within the uk' or 'less than a mile away'. Same as last time the guidance and what people say on the news is actually quite different to the law, but the law is what we have to follow. 

From a practical point of view I don't see how it makes any difference whether you stay local or not - anyone you come across should be distanced anyway when you're out hillwalking (actually better than local walks probably, which are more likely to be busier and with more confined pathways), and wherever you are there is a possibility that you or they could be caring the virus.

I think the events of last lockdown made it quite clear that we can use our common sense within (and perhaps outside) the law. The law is wooly enough that you actually have quite a lot of latitude if you don't follow the guidance and 'stuff people say on the radio'. If the intent of the law had been to keep people local then it would have said something about it, but it doesn't. 

Even if there was a tiny extra risk of transmission of you don't stay local, it'll be a miniscule rounding error compared to the risk from kids being in school, going to the shops etc. Plus, even if there is some minute advantage to staying local, that will be flushed away when we come out of lockdown again anyway and our government decides to do eat out to help out mk2 or back to the office mk2 or uni students get free pints or whatever.

I do agree it's frustrating that things are so wooly and opaque though. 

In reply to Removed User:

I could climb anywhere in the peak but will stay local.its up to you, if you feel its needed then do it.

don't forget though when dealing with the police, in their opinion they are always right. no matter what the truth is.

In reply to Removed User:

Does it pass the 'giggle test'. 

Or to put it another way. If you have to ask.......

(then no)

In reply to Removed User:

Be careful what you ask for - here in France the law (not 'guidelines') is clear - exercise is for one hour maximum & no more than one km from home. The fine is €125 & its being policed.

Its  easy to understand but do you really want a similar system in the UK?

In reply to Doug:

In England we have important people who need to drive to test their eyesight.

In reply to Removed User:

you're only allowed to travel over an hour if you're testing your eyesight or dropping your kid off at a school with 2000 people.

In reply to pec:

I agree with most of what you say except where you use the phrase "absolutely no risk". This is not true.  Risk may be low and hard to quantify but it isn't zero.

The system can more than likely accommodate the risk of a single climber heading to Stanage, but what if a 1000 individual climbers came to the same conclusion?  The more people adhere to the guidelines, the better off we are.

In reply to Doug:

Yes, we need stricter regulations, too many people either bending the rules or outright taking the piss... 

In reply to Removed User:

My view on this is if after reading the regulations I am having to ask myself or other people if something is ok then its probably the case that it isn't, at least in the spirit of what is being asked of us...

I live an hour from the Peak District and today could drive for an hour and wander up Bleaklow without seeing a soul....but it just seem right to me so I wont bother.

In reply to Removed User:

Then your about 20 mins closer to the lakes than me, and have a wealth of walking within 30 mins of your house, Fylde Coast, West/East Pennine Moors, Pendle, Ribble up to the Trough, Arnside areaand I really could go on, within a 30min radius of your house you must have some fantastic walking, thou doth protest too much sir/madam.

You are correct guidance could be clearer, but the problem is Boris is a Libertarian and telling or being told is an anathema to him, I doubt that the British would be up for the clear advice people get in say France, we are a funny old nation, otherwise how would we end up with Boris.

In reply to J1234:

Ffs. This totally. Come live here in Newark and then understand the walking wonders local to me but it will be groundhog day for as it has been for months. 

We're back to the crap of last time and its for 4 weeks. Why cant folks just stay local . Its no biggie.

And Lancashire? Hardly a crap spot.

In reply to J1234:

I agree, use it as a opportunity to explore your local area, but not sure why. The risk of spreading the virus isn't going to increase by spending 30 extra minutes in the car. For some reason I have decided Thirlmere will be my limit (from Cockermouth) but appreciate that some people will disagree from both sides. Could ITS "offset" the minimal risk increase by changing their behaviour? They are far more likely to catch/spread the virus shopping. I get more annoyed seeing whole families in the supermarket (mum,dad and four kids) or someone just popping in for  loaf (for the third time that week?) than I would meeting ITS on Helvellyn. 

Edit. I now realise Helvellyn was a very poor example, as I would question why someone had chosen there.

In reply to Removed User:

I started a tongue in cheek, obvious troll post yesterday, about the exact same issue. But its a very important issue especially when the PM says you can travel as far as you want to exercise.

Add the fact that different parts of the UK go in an out of lockdown between now and December and you have a minefield of rules, guidelines and laws to navigate.

Wales comes out of lockdown on 10th November when it will be open for business. There will be a lot of bored people east of the Welsh border itching, and possibly coughing, to cross that border with their own version of the law for doing so.

Cummings proved that the law was weak in this respect. And he had the brass neck to demonstrate this by refusing to accept the spirit of the law, common sense or what ever you want to describe as civic responsibility. He even held a press conference proving that he was not a Team Player for the country's good.

Other leaders or people in the public eye acknowledged the fact of following the spirit of the law in the eyes of the general public and resigned their posts.

Cummings said, f*ck  that, prove I broke the law because I'm doing what I want and I'm so antisocial and thick skinned that you can't shame me into doing a thing just because its wooly and other people are stupid enough to fall for the illusion of legality.

Remember half a million people who were bored during lockdown and went to a specific Bournemouth beach because it was a sunny day?

I bet the Welsh, in general are shitting  it, for responsibly calling a Firebreak/mini Lockdown at the right time and now have to worry about possibly infected people crossing their borders because the shops and pubs are open.

In reply to The Lemming:

Just because Cummings acted like a git does not mean I have to.

Plenty of walking from my doorstep, but I will have to walk along a few pavements first, so 30 mins I car which avoids people, gets me a wealth of walking, in fact if we call it 20 miles distance, thats 1256 sq miles to go at, so I can cope with that. Obviously living where you do, you may have half as much walking to explore.

Put like that 20 miles sounds more than enough.

Rules and laws should be challenged, but just sometimes its not the right thing to do, and 4 weeks is not that long. A thing I learnt in selling was gently imply the customer could not have, LOL, they fall for it every time, cheque book out, no one like being told they cannot have something.

In reply to The Lemming:

I missed that.  Where / when did he say you can travel as far as you want ?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I agree, but many teachers perception/acceptance of risk will have changed. My wife is vulnerable so we are eligible for free supermarket deliveries. During the summer going to the supermarket seemed like a very risky thing to do, so I didn't (if items were missing from the order though). After going into school, going shopping didn't seem risky, but is me going to the shops once a week or so is more likely to spread the virus than ITS going for a walk on his own?

I'm reminded of an incident at the start of Lockdown 1. I was cycling into Buttermere (possibly pushing the guidelines a bit). I saw someone putting fell running shoes on at the back of their car (driving for exercise was not allowed).  I didn't say anything, but must have had an accusing look on my face. She explained she had just finished a sh*tty shift at the hospital, was on her way home, and felt the need to get away from it all for an hour or so. Should I have called the police or thanked her for the work she was doing at a difficult time?

In reply to Removed User:

Interesting that this ITS pops up with 4 post to their name and starts a controversial thread... Then doesn't engage at all with the answers...

Fishy as a fishy thing! 

In reply to RobAJones:

Just to pick up your example, inconsistent policing and misleading discussion and statements in the media notwithstanding, we were always legally allowed to drive for exercise in lockdown 1 too. Did end up having to be clarified due to some confusion though. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/16/driving-for-exercise-allowed-...

Hopefully the police would have known this if you had called them, although there are enough counter examples that they may have tried to fine the runner anyway...

In reply to The Lemming:

To be fair the Welsh played that game the other way round during their lockdown.

Different nationalities tend to have the same broad mix of personalities and borders are nothing but artificial divisions.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

I guess a post about lockdown is like a red cape to a bull at the moment. No need to get so rattled about people on UKC going for a walk in the hills, it's doubtful we will see the large crowds gathering and such at beauty spots around the UK this time around with the cold weather already here. It's worth reflecting how much everyone has already sacrificed since March and understand that those that work and live in our towns and cities will be finding this second lockdown much more difficult than the first with the lack of daylight on their return home and the closure of walls and other facilities reducing the opportunity for any form of recreation. The masses haven't decided to start walking, cycling and running in droves to anger locals who live in rural areas of the UK, they have done so to have an outlet for their frustrations. If you live near a fell, trail, beach or woodland and are feeling content in not travelling from one part of a national park to another just remember not everyone has such access to natural capital as yourself and it is in much higher demand this year than ever before.

In reply to tomsan91:

That’s exactly the reason why you can ‘travel locally’. I know several people living in centres of towns in one bedroom flats. That’s who this is aimed at. 

In reply to Removed User:

The opinion of the police is irrelevant. What matters is the interpretation of the courts, and that requires a test case.

How about heading to Cumbria, getting yourself fined or arrested, and taking it to court to let them decide how far it is acceptable to travel?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

If you were to take those sections at 60mph instead of 30mph, the risk to yourself and others increases dramatically. This should be your primary reason for not doing 60mph, not your risk of getting caught.

If someone travels a bit further to exercise somewhere quiet, the risk to themselves and others does not increase.

That it:

a) is not against the law and

b) does not impact on the risk of transmission to yourself or others

If an activity is neither against the regulations nor a transmission risk, then preventing yourself from doing it is just martyrdom*. If that's what you are comfortable with, then great. But don't go thinking it is doing anything to help prevent transmission of the virus.

As others have pointed out, the greater your risk from work, the more conservative you should be with risk outside of work for the greater good of the country. Which does seem unfair given the sacrifices we are already asking some workers to make.

* There may be a point in the future where it becomes necessary to do everything that we possibly can to avoid unnecessary hospitalisations if the NHS is in danger of being overwhelmed. We aren't there yet other than in a few very localised areas. And if we were, allowing DIY, cycling, running in an urban environment etc while banning driving to go for an isolated, risk assessed walk or lowball bouldering over a flat landing would be entirely illogical.

In reply to SDM:

Says who ? I know that the newly anointed internet epidemiologists like to spout this, but really ?

What we are dealing with here is removing as many little risks as possible to allow essential stuff to carry on and still just about keep the virus spread within manageable bounds.

In reply to timjones:

Yes but, they're Welsh.

🤣

In reply to SDM:

i don't equate following government advice with "martyrdom" and I hope the rest of the population don't.

In reply to GrahamD:

We've had 10 months to learn about transmission risks which are now well defined. Here is my standard day at the crag in 2020. Feel free to point out which part you consider an unacceptable transmission risk:

1) Walk from my front door to the car.*

2) Drive to a quiet crag alone. Do not stop at any shops or services etc.

2a) Occasionally fill up with fuel: Pay in advance by app. Wash hands and put mask on while in the car. Put on gloves. Wipe down pump handle. Fill up with fuel. Wipe down pump handle. Wash hands. Return to car, do not go inside the store. Wash hands, remove mask and continue journey.

3) Arrive at car park and assess whether the crag is as quiet as anticipated. If not, drive on to plan B crag, plan C etc etc. Wash hands before leaving car.

4) Walk-in to crag, where I typically have the crag/boulder/buttress to myself. Avoid any busy or enclosed areas and narrow paths. Wear mask whenever necessary (should not be necessary due to previous sentence). Wash hands after touching anything.

5) Climb alone on lowball, safe boulder problems where risk of injury is ALARP. Always wash hands before eating, drinking, or touching anything other than climbing shoes, chalkbag, brush or mats. Be flexible with the day's objectives and be prepared at all times to move to a different boulder/buttress/crag if it is no longer sufficiently quiet to maintain extreme social distancing.

6) Return home in reverse of journey to the crag.

*In all of this, the step where I am most at risk of unavoidable interaction with another person is the walk from my front door to my on street parking. This is the one step that is completely unavoidable every time I leave the house. Were I to go on a walk/run from my home, this extends the time spent in this higher risk environment.

In reply to SDM:

Your opinion, based on everything going well and few other people having the same idea, then.

In reply to Removed User:

The police were wrong, but throughout this they have consistently tended to be heavy-handed and go beyond the strict letter of the law.  Under The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 you commit an offence as soon as you step outside your home, but there are exceptions and you are allowed out to take exercise, and allowed to visit a public open space for recreation.  There is no mention of how far from home you can travel under these exceptions, this is only in the guidance, and that is imprecise.  The police have powers to make you return home if you are in breach of this regulation, but if it is a permitted exception then you are nt in breach.

Whether and how far you should travel is a matter for judgement. You might argue that travel to take exercise in a remote spot with few people about will offer fewer chances of transmission than exercising near your home where you will meet more people.  Others, perhaps including the police, may disagree.

Cumbria police have made their position clear, and you know what their attirude will be if you get stopped.  Whilst you could try to pursuade them, and even show them the regulations, I suspect they also have other powers they can use and the pragmatic course of action would be to say "yes officer" and turn back, unless you want to spend your day at the police station and then at court challenging the Fixed Penalty Notice they would probably slap on you.

In reply to Removed User:

Listen to BBC Radio 2 NOW

Jeremy Vine Lockdown rules

In reply to GrahamD:

An informed opinion, arrived at after weighing up the facts. And constantly being reassessed as the facts change. I am not ruling out the possibility of changing my position should the load on hospitals increase significantly.

The risks of a car crash, climbing accident, or a breakdown that could not be fixed at the roadside are all negligible. If they are considered to be too high a risk when it comes to virus transmission, then so is walking across the street to my car, and I should not leave the house until 2nd December.

Based on a long founded appreciation of esoterica, a willingness to move on as necessary and being far more conservative than almost everybody regarding what I consider to be an acceptable distance from others.

Avoiding people in the outdoors was trivial in the busy summer months and is even more so in the quieter winter months.

In reply to Removed User:

I agree with you, in the absence of aggravating factors (intending or not caring whether there will be a  significant risk of transferring infection, staying overnight away from home etc etc) the Cumbria Police have absolutely no justification in declaring the National Park closed for exercise.  They are acting outside the spirit and word of the regulations and are probably ultra vires.

In reply to Removed User:

I agree with you, in the absence of aggravating factors (intending or not caring whether there will be a  significant risk of transferring infection, intending intimate contact with other households, attending a rave, staying overnight away from home etc etc) the Cumbria Police have absolutely no justification in declaring the National Park closed for exercise.  They are acting outside the spirit and word of the regulations and are probably ultra vires.

I see no reason at all why the regulations prohibit travelling a reasonable distance for access to a National Park.

 I'd also say that you need to be aware of local concerns and not park inconsiderately or flood honeyspots. If you arrive too late to achieve that then go home or find somewhere else where you can park without causing inconvenience, offence or crowding.

In reply to Removed User:

And they would have to have a legal reason to fine you. As far as I can tell they don't.

jk