COVID19 and Audax UK

[CrazyEnglishTriathlete]

During the first lockdown I did use some of my idle time to speculate how far I could ride within my local council area without crossing my path.  Basingstoke & Deane isn't huge - 633km2 - but was able to create a 344km ride. https://ridewithgps.com/routes/32602361

[JonBuoy]

During the first lockdown I did use some of my idle time to speculate how far I could ride within my local council area without crossing my path.  Basingstoke & Deane isn't huge - 633km2 - but was able to create a 344km ride. https://ridewithgps.com/routes/32602361

I am getting:  'The route you are trying to view is not public.'

[Karla]

a willingness to look for loopholes, rather being part of the solution, which would be out of character. I do not wish to belong to an organisation that looks for loopholes for selfish purposes.

That's not true: the government has specifically allowed outdoor exercise, it has gone out of its way to specify that. So we are allowed to go for a run, for a bike ride, for a walk in the country. That is specifically allowed, no question and it's obvious that the government has deliberately gone out of its way to highlight this issue.
Now - I'd be the first to agree that the phrase "exercise" means different things to different people. For some, a bike is 20 minutes and for others it's several hours. Remember that it's going to just about impossible to interact with other human beings while you're out on the bike, almost everything will be shut. So the logic is that riding a perm, and having it validated by Auk is perfectly OK.

So, no, following government guidance is not "looking for loopholes" - it's following government guidance.

This, with bells on.  If people want to use a generality to shut down something that has been specifically allowed, or to make up rules that don't exist, they can go get fucked.

[Greenbank]

This, with bells on.  If people want to use a generality to shut down something that has been specifically allowed ...

That's the part that's being discussed though. No-one is doubting that the government is giving "exercise" the big thumbs up, what's not clear is whether taking exercise to the extreme (such as Audax) is still "ok".

Everyone will have their own interpretation of the guidance (which obviously isn't clear, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate) and therefore draw the lines in different places. Understanding that is a bit different to resorting to:-

... they can go get fucked.

which isn't really very helpful.

History is littered with things that were legal at the time (and still are possibly legal) but are now considered immoral or otherwise bad (and in some cases downright illegal now). Who's to know how this may turn out (albeit the impact will be tiny but quite possibly non-zero.)

(Anyway, it doesn't really affect me as the last time I rode a bike more than 20km was November 2018.)

[mmmmartin]

How would you feel about someone going for a 12 hour drive across a few counties, stopping 4-5 times to buy food from shops along the way? Acceptable?

This is exactly what the Prime Minister's highest adviser in the land did, and then had the cheek to say he drove 50 miles to check his eyesight. So if it's OK for him to do that it's OK for me to ride 60 miles on my bike without speaking to anyone.. ....

[CrazyEnglishTriathlete]

During the first lockdown I did use some of my idle time to speculate how far I could ride within my local council area without crossing my path.  Basingstoke & Deane isn't huge - 633km2 - but was able to create a 344km ride. https://ridewithgps.com/routes/32602361

I am getting:  'The route you are trying to view is not public.'

Sorry, I was obviously worried about Big Brother.  Here is a public version.  Big Brother, if you are watching, I'm not fit enough to do this at the moment. 

https://ridewithgps.com/routes/34558551

[Karla]

Nope.  It has been explicitly and specifically stated that exercise

1) is encouraged
2) is unlimited

You really can't argue against that.  There is zero reason why a ban on DIYs can be justified based on the law or what the government have said. 

People who find it inconvenient to keep the rules are punished.  People who find it inconvenient to stick to only the rules they have been given, are showing just as little respect for said rules, and in an ideal world would be punished just as severely.

If you really want to fetishise being told what to do to the nth degree, I suggest you take up BDSM.

[Shaftesburybiker]

I'm going to take Tuesday off work and do a 200 DIY GPS as 3 x 70k loops from my house (in lieu of the Upper Thames), so that I have something that will be validated for November.

[Greenbank]

How would you feel about someone going for a 12 hour drive across a few counties, stopping 4-5 times to buy food from shops along the way? Acceptable?

This is exactly what the Prime Minister's highest adviser in the land did, and then had the cheek to say he drove 50 miles to check his eyesight. So if it's OK for him to do that it's OK for me to ride 60 miles on my bike without speaking to anyone.. ....

Are you aware of the phrase "Two wrongs do not make a right"?

[Greenbank]

You really can't argue against that.

Audax is more than just exercise. If you don't see that then there's going to be little point continuing this discussion.

(Anyway, this is just going over the same old ground from much earlier in this thread. It wasn't resolved then either. It all became a bit of a moot point when AUK decided to suspend validations anyway.)

[Hot Flatus]

^  It is also 'travel'

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

"You should avoid travelling in or out of your local area"

[FifeingEejit]

The Audax is travel argument is interesting
You're allowed to "travel" to the start point of exercise. But if doing a loop on a bike is travel then so to is walking to the top of Scafel Pike and back or jogging round Hyde Park.
The only scope limiting restriction appears to be the one about having to stay overnight at your primary address. (Not a 2nd home, not a hotel unless for work or essential purposes, presumably not a bivvy bag in a bus shelter).
Which is also a bit presumptuous about what you get up to at night, you could be riding or working and sleep during the day, and I didn't see anything about restrictions on where you sleep during the day.

And even then that's hardly one that can stop a 400 or 600 being ridden as a DIY.

If you're really concerned about not going too far from home a multi leg ride with a series of 25km legs out and the same back soon builds up.

[Karla]

You really can't argue against that.

Audax is more than just exercise. If you don't see that then there's going to be little point continuing this discussion.

(Anyway, this is just going over the same old ground from much earlier in this thread. It wasn't resolved then either. It all became a bit of a moot point when AUK decided to suspend validations anyway.)

Everything is "more than just exercise".  Jogging is "more than just exercise", it's jogging. Weightlifting is "more than just exercise", it's weightlifting. 

If you're looking for every opportunity to ban stuff, feel free to apply that to yourself.  You've made it abundantly clear on here already that you want everything to stop forever.   How about the rest of us continue applying the principle that specific restrictions of liberty require specific injunctions, and carry on in your absence. 

[zigzag]

my pov is that if someone is self sufficient, the distance and time spent cycling/traveling is irrelevant. if a cyclist has to stop to re-supply every now and then it's no big deal - people will be going to the shops anyway. fwiw, i used shops twice during my october sr (in 1500km cycled), in line what i would do in five days of "ordinary living".

so, according to the guidance, perms should obviously continue; mixed group rides probably not.

[Feanor]

I'm in Scotlandland, so the current debate about the new rulez does not directly apply, but the principle does.

As I see it, 'loopholes' are oversights in the framing of a law which allow for some unintended outcomes.
The exemption for exercise is not a loophole, it was an explicit intention of the rules.

I'm prepared to go with the rules, but I don't need anyone to gold-plate them for me with an interpretation of what they think was meant, or what they think the 'spirit' of the rules are.

Follow the rules, that's all.  They were framed that way for a reason.

[Greenbank]

You really can't argue against that.

Audax is more than just exercise. If you don't see that then there's going to be little point continuing this discussion.

(Anyway, this is just going over the same old ground from much earlier in this thread. It wasn't resolved then either. It all became a bit of a moot point when AUK decided to suspend validations anyway.)

Everything is "more than just exercise".  Jogging is "more than just exercise", it's jogging. Weightlifting is "more than just exercise", it's weightlifting. 

I take it you're you missing the point on purpose.

To make it clear:-

Riding your bike is exercise.

Riding your bike in order to collect proof of passage and ultimately seek AUK validation takes it into the "more than just exercise" bracket IMHO (I'm happy for you to disagree).

As I said before. I'm not sure everyone (there might be one or two) here would continue to ride 200km+ rides every month if AUK validation was not available for such rides. Therefore AUK validation offers some form of encouragement for those people to do those rides.

No-one is suggesting people don't exercise, although they should look at the guidance and decide for themselves what is considered suitable/acceptable.

If you're allowed to go out shopping but that comes with the caveat of "shopping for basic necessities, for example food and medicine, which should be as infrequent as possible". Do you really think that unlimited exercise is in the same free bracket?

If the guidance says "You should minimise time spent outside your home..." does that really mean that exercise is really unlimited?

If the guidance says "You should avoid travelling in or out of your local area, and you should look to reduce the number of journeys you make." you still really take that to mean that exercise is really unlimited?

Sure, people need to exercise but, as I've said before, people don't NEED to get AUK validation for rides. By all means do whatever level of exercise you think is necessary but the general concept of a lockdown is for people to do enough exercise to keep healthy (both physically and mentally). It's not a carte blanche to go to town on things. This isn't the time to selfishly try and maintain some way above average level of fitness (unless you can do that from the safety of your turbo in your own home).

The legislation/guidance will never be specific about this because extreme levels of exercise like this is such an absolute niche that they'd never think they would do.

You've made it abundantly clear on here already that you want everything to stop forever.

Sorry, what? Where exactly did I say that? I've said, repeatedly, something similar to the above.

[Karla]

So once again, you're taking the generality over the specific exception.  You're not reading the test, you're forcing your desire to ban everything into it, like the petit totalitarian you are.

Please to goodness don't ever get any power over anyone.

[Karla]

Golf, tennis and swimming in line for reprieves from Thursday's Covid ban - The Guardian

These sports aren't taking it lying down.  What a relief.  With any luck, even the most obtuse among us will stop considering that offering meaningless magpie points to encourage someone to go out for a moderately long ride on their own is an unlawful danger to public health.

[L CC]

It appears that, as ever, people are viewing the rules through their confirmation bias.

I'll be sticking to County Durham from 5/11 and spending a disproportionate amount of time on the turbo.

[GdS]

Sure, people need to exercise but, as I've said before, people don't NEED to get AUK validation for rides.

Yes and I've had some very nice, challenging and local sub 200k rides this year without AUK validation. But from my POV validation certainly helps to go the extra mile km

Probably best wait until TPTB make an announcement

[FifeingEejit]

If audax is more than exercise and should be banned, the all the "virtual" runs are outwith the spirit of running for exercise and will have a huge clamp placed on them too.
Didn't happen in lockdown 1 if anything they were encouraged.

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[grams]

For many people validation is the difference between staying indoors and letting yourself go mad vs having something to plan and look forward to and a nice day out and participating in a community in a small way.

Sorry, I know in theory it's perfectly possible to do all that without validation, but humans are irrational and tiny arbitrary incentives are what we thrive on.

[phil d]

FWIW, my reason for cancelling Upper Thames was not because I think the new "rules" preclude anyone from riding any distance they want (though for myself, I wouldn't want to ride a 200 without the opportunity for an occasional cafe stop at which I can natter to my fellow riders). My concerns were the number of unnecessary journeys, with many of the entrants coming from Greater London and the Midlands, as well as from closer to the start, and more particularly the number of entrants, at over 100, would make it difficult to argue the numbers interacting at the start and finish. This despite the careful planning that I had done to spread start times over a 1 1/2 hour period. And it is unclear whether I would have been able to have any helpers other than my wife.

All in all, it was not a comfortable decision; I took it with a heavy heart. Interestingly I have had many responses from the email I sent to entrants this afternoon telling them it was cancelled. Not one has indicated any criticism of the decision. One is going to ride it anyway as a perm (starting near his home), which I think is great

[Feanor]

Validation becomes more important if you are on your 9th consecutive year of SRs.

The trite observation that you can still ride x00k and enjoy it without AUK validation is well, true, but trite.
So we look to the *actual* rules, not the imagined ones.

[Greenbank]

So once again, you're taking the generality over the specific exception.  You're not reading the test, you're forcing your desire to ban everything into it, like the petit totalitarian you are.

Please to goodness don't ever get any power over anyone.

You seem tense.

Oh, and you haven't given me an example of my "desire to ban everything".

P.S. "petit totalitarian". I love it.