COVID19 and Audax UK

[Wycombewheeler]

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.

Of course the actual guidance from the government says

11. Travel
You should avoid travelling in or out of your local area,  and should look to reduce the number of journeys you make.  however you can and should still travel for a number of reasons,  including
Work
Education
Hospital/GP
visiting venues that are open,  essential retail
exercise

If you need to travel we encourage you to walk or cycle wherever possible...

So exercise is specifically listed as a reason to leave your local area, it is encouraged that you should leave home to exercise and also advised that travel by bicycle is preferable this is not a loophole,  this is the intent.

This does not mean I am arguing audax calendar events should continue or that riders are OK to visit 5 or 6 shops on their way round.

In the interests of minimising contact one 200km self sufficient ride in remote areas is far safer than going out 7 times for 30km rides round a built up area to 'stay local' and signal his curious we are by sacrificing an activity we enjoy for reasons.

[Greenbank]

OK, last time before I just put the thread/forum on ignore.

Yes, I know what the full regulations say. And my whole point is that one doesn't "NEED" to do Audax. Therefore one doesn't "NEED" to travel that much/far.

I agree that everyone should do some exercise (for both physical and mental health reasons), but the point of a lockdown should be to minimise your time outside. This doesn't mean no exercise at all, but then it also doesn't mean unnecessary/excessive exercise.

(And done...)

[iroiromono]

I can't see any change in the ability to run events here in Scotland for Scotland based riders given the new rules apply to only England.

My event from this past Saturday had to be weather postponed to this coming Saturday. I guess the big question will be if AUK puts in place a one rule for all approach again or regional guidance as they did with the season restart.

[citoyen]

the point of a lockdown should be to minimise your time outside

I thought the point of lockdown was to minimise contact with other people. The risk of transmission is highest indoors, so lockdown prevents that chain of transmission caused by people from different 'bubbles' cross-pollinating in indoor locations. This is why people feel that an outdoor activity with minimal/zero contact with other people is against neither the letter or the spirit of the rules.

The restriction on travelling outside 'your local area' is far more problematic, but that restriction is intended to curtail journeys that are made for the purpose of people going from A to B (and thereby risk transmitting covid from A to B), and bike rides that finish back where they started are clearly not 'travel' in that sense, whatever the distance covered (assuming no stops at other locations on the way). It's definitely a grey area, one that's more open to interpretation. And if someone wants to exploit that grey area, I don't have a problem with that, although I probably won't take advantage of it myself.

[Zed43]

but the point of a lockdown should be to minimise your time outside

I guess this is a / the point of contention? My priority is minimising contact with other people, especially indoors. Spending an hour in a gym (assuming that is still allowed in the UK) is, in my view, way more risky for me and other people than spending 10 hours on a bicycle by myself. In the same vein as I see driving (your car) 50 miles to buy groceries for a whole week is advisable over going to a local shop every day even if that's just a 2 mile bike ride.

After reading this research on the risk of contagion I am both more worried about indoor spaces (esp. poorly ventilated ones, like the elevator in my flat) and a bit more assured on the outdoors if keeping 6 foot distance to others.

Despite of this I feel there may be other reasons why AUK may decide to cancel or reduce validation of rides (mostly public relations). Glad not to be on the AUK board; whatever you decide, people will grumble about your decision 

[Revolution9]

I can't see any change in the ability to run events here in Scotland for Scotland based riders given the new rules apply to only England.

My event from this past Saturday had to be weather postponed to this coming Saturday. I guess the big question will be if AUK puts in place a one rule for all approach again or regional guidance as they did with the season restart.

Other parts of the UK have gone into lockdown at various points since August, and the one rule for all approach wasn't implimented then.  I would be saddened if that changed now.

[Ben T]

OK, last time before I just put the thread/forum on ignore.

Yes, I know what the full regulations say. And my whole point is that one doesn't "NEED" to do Audax. Therefore one doesn't "NEED" to travel that much/far.

I agree that everyone should do some exercise (for both physical and mental health reasons), but the point of a lockdown should be to minimise your time outside. This doesn't mean no exercise at all, but then it also doesn't mean unnecessary/excessive exercise.

(And done...)

The spirit of the law is subjective though.
What "the point of a lockdown" is and how you go about observing the spirit of the rules as well as the letter is a subjective term that will depend on a number of factors.
I think you can feel you have the moral highground if you want in thinking doing a 200k is decadent, but I don't really think you have got a leg to stand on in judging others for doing so as it's not against the letter of the law - only your personal interpretation of the spirit.
A different and equally valid interpretation of the spirit of the law could be that mental health preservation is essential, and hobbies are a part of that.
There isn't a ban on fun, per se.

I wouldn't blame AUK for not encouraging rides by not validating them tho, if it felt it was 'irresponsible' although I wouldn't blame it if it did validate.

Quite interesting though that the main debate on lockdown seems to be going on in the context of Audax, rather than generally...

[FifeingEejit]

I can't see any change in the ability to run events here in Scotland for Scotland based riders given the new rules apply to only England.

My event from this past Saturday had to be weather postponed to this coming Saturday. I guess the big question will be if AUK puts in place a one rule for all approach again or regional guidance as they did with the season restart.

Other parts of the UK have gone into lockdown at various points since August, and the one rule for all approach wasn't implimented then.  I would be saddened if that changed now.

It would be of questionable legality as it could be ruled anti-welsh and anti-irish.
Would need to be a Welsh/N. Irish rider aggrieved at losing the chance to SR to question it though.


Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[Geriatricdolan]

Your objection is to people likely visiting shops during the ride rather than the ride itself?

That's at least a reasonable position and arguably supported by the rules. But the solution to that is to encourage/require GPS validation and self-sufficiency rather than suspending validation altogether.

That, the fact that one has to cross several county borders and the fact that it is a very long day away from home where you are supposed to be.

If I had a local 50km brevet, I would probably feel differently about it.

In fact, collectively, us AUK organisers could have come out with a challenge for the winter... along the lines of a one hour reliability ride, where you sign up as you would for a normal DIY, declare the route you plan to cover in an hour and then submit your GPX file for validation. If you are within say 2 or 3 minutes from the target hour you get a point, otherwise you don't. At the end of winter you count the points and you give a trophy to the winner.

It's a perfectly acceptable way to promote outdoor exercise, it's a way to prompt people to seek points and validation and it's much more inclusive than this slogging for 12 hours in the bleak mid winter, which frankly doesn't have that much following anyway.

[Greenbank]

but the point of a lockdown should be to minimise your time outside

I guess this is a / the point of contention? My priority is minimising contact with other people, especially indoors.

The broader definition would be that the point of lockdown is to minimise transmission of the virus.

Both "minimising time outside" and "minimising contact with other people" both help achieve this in different ways, and it's impossible to say how effective each one of those is in relative terms, but there is no false dichotomy, people should be trying to do both.

I'm not making the "minimise time outside" thing up. It's clearly stated in the guidelines (with no weasel exception clauses):-

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

2. Staying safe outside the home (Social Distancing)

You should minimise time spent outside your home and when around other people ensure that you are two metres apart from anyone not in your household or support bubble.

Remember - ‘Hands. Face. Space’:

* hands – wash your hands regularly and for 20 seconds
* face – wear a face covering in indoor settings where social distancing may be difficult, and where you will come into contact with people you do not normally meet
* space – stay 2 metres apart from people you do not live with where possible, or 1 metre with extra precautions in place (such as wearing face coverings or increasing ventilation indoors)

(That's the whole of section 2 in case anyone thinks I'm doing any selective quoting.)

People are reading the "exercise" exceptions and (IMHO) pushing the boundaries of this whilst conveniently forgetting the other main principles of the guidance. That's all.

I will be getting back into running, and exercising outside, now that the swimming pool has shut and I can't play 5-a-side football (outdoors). But I'm choosing not to get back into cycling as I can get enough exercise in a few hours a week of running, getting a similar exercise load on the bike would have me outside for much longer and further afield. So I'm doing more outside exercise than before, but I'm choosing to keep this to the minimum I feel necessary.

Everyone will have their own opinion on where things cross the line to "excessive" and, for me, a 200km Audax is beyond that line given my thoughts on what the lockdown is trying to achieve.

But, again, it's funny that if you take away the possibility of the AUK validation of such a ride then for quite a few people (not everyone though) the necessity of doing such a long ride suddenly dries up. If this is the case you've got to ask yourself whether the original plan is strictly "necessary", and only the individual concerned can answer that question (and I'm not interested in any individual's answer).

I'm not trying to "ban" anything but I do hope that AUK decides to suspend validation, but that still doesn't prevent people from going out and doing a long ride. I wish they wouldn't in the light of things. I'd just like to see the carrot enticing people to do things that aren't strictly necessary being taken away for the period of the lockdown. Grumble at me all you will for this opinion, I'm really couldn't care less.

[toontra]

As I posted back in April, my reluctance to do long rides during a hard lockdown has more to do with the risk (albeit negligible) of having a mechanical that required either outside assistance or the use of public transport. Nothing to do with the risk of transmitting outdoors.
As Greenbank says, everyone will interpret the rules to suit themselves. My personal judgement is that I shouldn't do "long"  rides away from home.

Sent from my K10 using Tapatalk

[Kangaroocourt]

It isn’t all that complicated. Unlimited exercise is specifically allowed.  Cycling is exercise. It may also be “travel” but the guidance implies that it isn’t, as they distinguish between the two.  But if we accept that exercise = travel for arguments sake, the guidance discouraging travel is expressed in general terms whereas exercise is a *specific* exemption.  It’s a basic principle of statutory and contractual interpretation that specific provisions prevail over general provisions. This isn’t finding loopholes, simply reading the words that have been written.

The net result is that unlimited cycling is not prohibited.  We are just about still a democracy which by definition is a place where everything is allowed unless prohibited.

The guidance is not the law and the two should not be conflated. I have not been able to find the regulations but they should provide clarity.

[basset]

As I posted back in April, my reluctance to do long rides during a hard lockdown has more to do with the risk (albeit negligible) of having a mechanical that required either outside assistance or the use of public transport. Nothing to do with the risk of transmitting outdoors.
As Greenbank says, everyone will interpret the rules to suit themselves. My personal judgement is that I shouldn't do "long"  rides away from home.

Sent from my K10 using Tapatalk

+1
Or have a accident miles/that’s kilometres away from home
It’s up to everyone to use there own common sense .

[Peter]

At what point does exercise become obsession (which is definitely unhealthy)?

[LittleWheelsandBig]

As I posted back in April, my reluctance to do long rides during a hard lockdown has more to do with the risk (albeit negligible) of having a mechanical that required either outside assistance or the use of public transport. Nothing to do with the risk of transmitting outdoors.
As Greenbank says, everyone will interpret the rules to suit themselves. My personal judgement is that I shouldn't do "long"  rides away from home.

Sent from my K10 using Tapatalk

+1
Or have a accident miles/that’s kilometres away from home
It’s up to everyone to use there own common sense .

Which points towards an explicit limit by the UK government on distance or time away from home which has not been created, unlike other countries.

[Peter]

D, have you any idea how other countries are able to enforce that, if at all?  I know that most countries have more police than the UK but it seems like a really difficult thing to get on top of.  Maybe they just shoot the first two or three and people get the idea?

[toontra]

As I posted back in April, my reluctance to do long rides during a hard lockdown has more to do with the risk (albeit negligible) of having a mechanical that required either outside assistance or the use of public transport. Nothing to do with the risk of transmitting outdoors.
As Greenbank says, everyone will interpret the rules to suit themselves. My personal judgement is that I shouldn't do "long"  rides away from home.

Sent from my K10 using Tapatalk

+1
Or have a accident miles/that’s kilometres away from home
It’s up to everyone to use there own common sense .

Which points towards an explicit limit by the UK government on distance or time away from home which has not been created, unlike other countries.

Where do I suggest my decision has ànything to do with government distànce guidelines?

If you go for a ride a long way from home you can minimise certain risks of needing help or transport but not exclude them entirely. What happens if you're rear-ended 50 miles from home?

Sent from my K10 using Tapatalk

[quixoticgeek]

It's all well and good talking about people doing successful 200k rides from their home, and not stopping. But what about all the times when that doesn't work. If you go out on an out and back 200, and 100km from home have a terminal mechanical that means you need to either call a taxi, or use public transport, you are dramatically increasing your exposure level.

I do not believe it is within the spirit of the law, even if it's within the letter, for AUK to validate any ride if there is a lockdown, which England is about to enter. If you must have validation to get you to go out for a bike ride, maybe look at the strava challenges.

J

[willpom gwraudax]

It's all well and good talking about people doing successful 200k rides from their home, and not stopping. But what about all the times when that doesn't work. If you go out on an out and back 200, and 100km from home have a terminal mechanical that means you need to either call a taxi, or use public transport, you are dramatically increasing your exposure level.

I do not believe it is within the spirit of the law, even if it's within the letter, for AUK to validate any ride if there is a lockdown, which England is about to enter. If you must have validation to get you to go out for a bike ride, maybe look at the strava challenges.

J

Ignites fire...

I can do an out and back 200km within hypothetically 14km of home.

...and runs!

[quixoticgeek]

Ignites fire...

I can do an out and back 200km within hypothetically 12km of home.

...and runs!

So we should validate 200's but only if they are within 15km radius of your primary residence? I think that could be an acceptable compromise... :p

J

[grams]

It's all well and good talking about people doing successful 200k rides from their home, and not stopping. But what about all the times when that doesn't work. If you go out on an out and back 200, and 100km from home have a terminal mechanical that means you need to either call a taxi, or use public transport, you are dramatically increasing your exposure level.

You're multiplying a small probability (ride ending mechanical, which I haven't had in living memory) by a small probability (catching or spreading the 'vid on a likely empty train). Negligible.

I do not believe it is within the spirit of the law, even if it's within the letter, for AUK to validate any ride if there is a lockdown, which England is about to enter.

Hypothetically at least they've been validating them during Wales and NI's current lockdowns.

[quixoticgeek]

You're multiplying a small probability (ride ending mechanical, which I haven't had in living memory) by a small probability (catching or spreading the 'vid on a likely empty train). Negligible.

I've had ride ending issues even in my short audaxing career...

Hypothetically at least they've been validating them during Wales and NI's current lockdowns.

Yeah, they shouldn't have been doing that IMHO...

J

[Geriatricdolan]

It's all well and good talking about people doing successful 200k rides from their home, and not stopping. But what about all the times when that doesn't work. If you go out on an out and back 200, and 100km from home have a terminal mechanical that means you need to either call a taxi, or use public transport, you are dramatically increasing your exposure level.

You're multiplying a small probability (ride ending mechanical, which I haven't had in living memory) by a small probability (catching or spreading the 'vid on a likely empty train). Negligible.

Covid-19 is the aggregation of marginal probabilities... I know we all like to think that those 20K a day that test positive are mostly party goers and people taking no care whatsoever, but this is not the reality. There are many who are very careful and yet end up racking up enough exposure through very limited social interaction to develop the disease.

But again, this is not the point. The point is whether AUK should validate this marginal level of risk or not... I think it shouldn't

[Davef]

It's all well and good talking about people doing successful 200k rides from their home, and not stopping. But what about all the times when that doesn't work. If you go out on an out and back 200, and 100km from home have a terminal mechanical that means you need to either call a taxi, or use public transport, you are dramatically increasing your exposure level.

I do not believe it is within the spirit of the law, even if it's within the letter, for AUK to validate any ride if there is a lockdown, which England is about to enter. If you must have validation to get you to go out for a bike ride, maybe look at the strava challenges.

J

The overall probability of catching or passing on covid whilst cycling is going to be very low even when factoring in the risk associated with requiring rescue as long as the probability of requiring rescue is low enough. If say you need rescue on 1% of your rides and the chance of a covid infection on a particular rescue is 1% then the chance of covid due to rescue on a bike ride is 0.01%. Touch wood I have never required rescue (apart from the time I need an ambulance but I was only about 1km from home when that happened).

[citoyen]

I could make some fatuous point about how the vast majority of accidents happen in the home, but I don't think that would be a useful contribution to the discussion.