UKH

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-staying-at-home-and-...

This came out on Monday.  Now seems we can exercise as much as we like. And cycling, running and walking are now given as exemplar exercise rather than the previous permitted exercise. Nothing which might require emergency services (which is interesting given that road cycling is specifically permitted). So does that mean we can do stuff which we sensibly judges as no more risky than cycling?

You are trying to find a logical pattern where none exists. I've said this previously - the lists of things that are suggested to do vs to not do are not defined in accordance with risk profile, despite claims to the contrary.

Personally I go with the law rather than the ever-changing "advice". So, do whatever sport you want to, just don't do it with someone else unless you can do so without breaking social distancing, so basically climbing with a partner is still out but soloing, dws, shunting, etc. should be fine.

sport or recreation presumably, even painting and drawing I should think

So are you happy to personally ignore "advice" from MCofS and Mountain Rescue?

Surely climbing with a member of your household would be a better idea?

To be fair, road cycling is extremely safe if you remove idiot drivers from the equation 

"Unnecessary travel should be avoided, so exercise should be done in your local area. You should not drive to beauty spots, parks or beaches."

This sentence is a bit vague. It could be interpreted as you can drive to non-beauty spots to take your exercise.  How local is local? Can I drive a mile to my favourite dog walking spot if it's not a park, beach or beauty spot? (I'm not going to).

Well I never feel all that safe in any circumstances on a bike - I might fall off. It's a bit like climbing; I might fall off, and, if I do, I might be hurt (though obviously I can reduce the risk in both by going slowly/carefully).

'Unnecessary travel should be avoided, so exercise should be done in your local area. You should not drive to beauty spots, parks or beaches.'

As long as the climbs are local...and you don't need an MRT should something go wrong. Maybe highly accessible, local bouldering?

DWS may not be advisable - 'No water sports are advised because these activities expose participants to danger and increase the potential risk of requiring emergency services support.'

< Can I drive a mile to my favourite dog walking spot if it's not a park, beach or beauty spot? >

You could travel by dog if you got a bigger one....

"ignore" is a strong word but I suppose, ultimately, yes. I certainly consider advice from good sources of information like mcofs and mr but in the end I make my own decisions rather than just following what I'm told to do (generally speaking I follow what I'm told to do when it's the law).

I think that would apply to many sports and activities.

I already have a big one but I'm always told size doesn't matter.  My dog is only average though.

Or as I found out yesterday, branches that have blown horizontally out from the hedge in the wind at chin height.... Got blood all over my new cycling shorts.

Alas, when ones live alone, the options are limited

"High risk exercise (that may result in injury and require medical care or emergency services support) should be avoided."

My guess is that you get a ticket if the cops turn up and think the activity is high risk.   Which is probably more closely correlated with 'looks scary' and 'unusual' than actual risk.   It is up to you whether to fight it and potentially pay twice as much if you lose.

playing the devil's advocate here, if the objective of allowing exercise is to encourage CV exercise (as implied by the suggested exercises), you have to do the risk / CV benefit trade off for various exercises.  In that sense you would have to be climbing bloody hard to get a similar workout to a bike ride.

Having read the latest advice from Mountaineering Scotland (formerly MCofS) dated 11/05/20, I do not see that it suggests whether climbing is either acceptable or unacceptable. This is perhaps unhelpful.

It would however be hard to climb while complying with the below advice from the Scottish Government (in your originally linked statement):

I've never taken any of the advice to be primarily about CV exercise. I've taken it to be just as much if not more about being outside and having some head space to stay sane, and that is what I've mostly been doing. In fact I've really only pushed myself hard physically indoors on my fingerboard.

My dog pulls my bike, so I can combine them! 😃

That sounds more like a chariot - but with the wheels in the wrong place. Do they have curved blades sticking out?

Well ok, but pic nics and bbqs and sitting on the beach were specifically discouraged whilst the only three forms of exercise mentioned are all CV exercises. 

If you draw the conclusion from that that they really meant any outdoor activity was ok,  then you are going to come to the answer you want to hear.

Well I think it is reasonable to assume any form of exercise is ok. The vast majority of people I see out are just taking a gentle walk of bike ride - not exactly pushing themselves - and I don't think anyone is criticising them.

The message I've been getting is that it is about general well-being (mental health is maybe too strong a term for most people) as much as anything, and as such I've never seen what the problem is with sunbathing and so on rather than walking - these people don't take up any more space than someone on the move and are more easily socially distanced-from. 

I live on the West coast and police are constantly checking car number plates at the beach. This is to ensure they are local. Loads were being shifted last week. I walked the dog down our beach a couple of days ago and found it deserted. A came to a point i had to rejoin the footpath as the tide covered the beach. Everyone was walking dogs on the golf course.

Hi Robert - just noting that this is a fairly generic reply rather than to you directly before I start.

Personally, I think that it's important to understand the purpose rather focus on the wording (or stretched interpretations thereof) - there's no way SG can issue guidance that specifically allows or disallows every possible activity, and traditionally Scottish legislation has followed the "if not specifically excluded, then it's included" e.g. If hillwalking and climbing aren't explicitly mentioned as exceptions then they are assumed include in the restricted activities.  Realistically it's the only way that it can be managed as there are too many to list them all, let alone subcategories!  Much the same as how access legislation does tell us where we can go, it assumes we can go anywhere and then lists the exceptions where we can't.

The message from the SG, from MS and SMR has been consistent and nothing has changed there.  Both SMR and MS are actively advising / consulting with the Scottish Government on how to manage the C19 situation from an outdoors activities perspective so their advice can be taken pretty strongly as the correct meaning - it's the same that's been fed to the SG to formulate their policy position.  The slight relaxation on exercise isn't designed or meant to give people the nod to go back to walking or climbing as normal. 

I think that it's important to remember that everyone in MS or SMR are keen climbers, walkers, bikers etc and are as itching to get back to it as the rest of us - it's not in their personal, or organisational as representative bodies, interests to keep restrictions in place longer than necessary. 

I think that'll change over the next few weeks however- public pressure if nothing else will drive the SG to relax their position and MS are formulating guidance much like the BMC did for England (worth firing them an e-mail with your position / opinions if you've not already done so) - though hopefully a slightly different tact than the phased activities approach IMO. 

Luckily we don't have a Boris acting unilaterally here so hopefully we'll be able to have that open discussion first as a community rather than the flood gates suddenly opening before anyone is ready!

Personally, despite feeling the mental strain of not being able to spend time in the hills (my normal "vent valve" for the various pressures and strains of daily life), I'm accepting of the fact that for now at least the greater good is served by finding other ways to exercise and cope, and that patience now is likely to mean earlier and more longer lasting easement of restrictions.  I have my plans well in place for the first trips back and really can't wait, but will for now.  I'd also rather not be resented by the highland communities when the hills do open up - not a good place to go!

Not trying to start an argument etc with anyone just giving my perspective, but for now I do think it's a case of " Caw Canny" and let the situation stabilise - Scotland is lagging England in terms of where we are in the initial bell curve, and reduction in infection rates so a bit more patience to let us get past that peak point before we start to relax restrictions is very justified IMO.

Cheers all, and hope the good weather holds till we're back on the hill!

Stu

Can't argue with any of that! I just hope that restrictions on travel and so on lifted in a more gradual and manageable way and with better communication than seems to have happened down south.

I'd consider 'local' to be less than an hours drive. City folk might not understand that, but if you live in the country and many of your amenities are >30min drive away it may make sense. 

Really? I would have thought it was the other way round. I live in a small rural town. In an hour I could be in many places up to sixty miles away that I would consider anything but local. In a city a good part of the hour might be spent just getting out of the city. I suppose I think of local as within about a ten mile radius.

It says "Unnecessary travel should be avoided, so exercise should be done in your local area."

There isn't really any ambiguity there, unless you willfully ignore the first half of the sentence!

You can travel only if it's necessary. It follows that you should not travel further than necessary, as the extra travelling involved would be unnecessary. The 'local area' bit isn't adding extra permissions, it's "so...", emphasising that you should not to hop in the car and drive past your local alternatives just because you'd like to go somewhere else.

The actual law may be a different matter, but the advice is clear.

I share your frustration - I'm finding this very, very, hard. I can certainly sympathise with people bending things a little and being careful about it, but let's not imagine loopholes that aren't there!

Cycling

certainly seems more dangerous than climbing (based on my experience with crashing and dealing with/avoiding arsehole drivers) and pretty much every jogger it's guaranteed an injury at some point. I doubt the law will have provisions for which type of activity is dangerous, so common sense 'safe climbing' is in (if you can justify your travel is 'local').

I can't see sensible, well organised travel to quiet areas being a problem. There's room for us all in the mountains. Is anyone aware of any legal updates on this?