COVID19 and Audax UK

[Jaded]

I’d love to know what these people who think arbitrary validations don’t matter are doing hanging round the audax forum.

Having just had a look at the Audax Forum, I can't see much activity there. Who are these people?

@grams means this sub-forum @Jaded

Ah, Ok...

[Greenbank]

I’d love to know what these people who think arbitrary validations don’t matter are doing hanging round the audax forum.

You don't have to be currently riding Audaxes to have an opinion on such matters.

Or do you think there should be a minimum criteria for posting in such a thread?

[Jaded]

Out of interest, how many members of AUK haven't ridden in the last few years? Is it still about half?

[grams]

You don't have to be currently riding Audaxes to have an opinion on such matters.

Or do you think there should be a minimum criteria for posting in such a thread?

Anyone is welcome to post here. But yelling "arbitrary validations don't matter" at a bunch of audaxers is somewhat bus_wankers.gif, yes?

[Hot Flatus]

1. Nobody is yelling.
2. Im an audaxer. I dont care about validation.

Or are you just intolerant of opinions that differ from yours?

FWIW I think the situation is different from march as we now know that fomite transmission is rare, and we know that outside activity is relatively safe. Thus my belief is that long distance riding is not risky.

However, rules are not there for selective interpretation. If we are being asked not to travel away from home area we should not regard ourselves as exceptions. Otherwise Dominic Cummings was right.

[Greenbank]

You don't have to be currently riding Audaxes to have an opinion on such matters.

Or do you think there should be a minimum criteria for posting in such a thread?

Anyone is welcome to post here. But yelling "arbitrary validations don't matter" at a bunch of audaxers is somewhat bus_wankers.gif, yes?

It's not "Arbitrary validations don't matter" more that arbitrary validations matter less than national pandemic restrictions.

[citoyen]

However, rules are not there for selective interpretation. If we are being asked not to travel away from home area we should not regard ourselves as exceptions. Otherwise Dominic Cummings was right.

Totally agree with this. The sticking point is whether or not the rule on leaving your local area applies to doing so for exercise purposes. Some think it does, some don't. It's a grey area and I don't think anyone can claim that their interpretation is definitive either way.

(Unlike France, say, where there's an explicit rule on how far you're allowed to be from your home for *any* purpose.)

[Davef]

If we are going to include the “limiting journeys” from the travel section to exercise, I think, based on my dictionary definition, as cycling is exertion and therefore work it should be done at home if possible.  Better renew my zwift subscription.

[Geriatricdolan]

However, rules are not there for selective interpretation. If we are being asked not to travel away from home area we should not regard ourselves as exceptions. Otherwise Dominic Cummings was right.

Totally agree with this. The sticking point is whether or not the rule on leaving your local area applies to doing so for exercise purposes. Some think it does, some don't. It's a grey area and I don't think anyone can claim that their interpretation is definitive either way.

(Unlike France, say, where there's an explicit rule on how far you're allowed to be from your home for *any* purpose.)

If it is a grey area, as you seem to imply, shouldn't AUK stay on the safe side of the grey area, for the sake of avoiding being targeted by future policies on "cycling events"

As you are an organiser, you should have realised how easily you get away with 3 lines in a risk assessment for your Audax events. Spare a thought for those organising races or large sportives, who need to risk assess everything, in documents which are the size of a book

[citoyen]

If it is a grey area, as you seem to imply, shouldn't AUK stay on the safe side of the grey area, for the sake of avoiding being targeted by future policies on "cycling events"

It's arguable. But I don't think there's an easy or definitive answer.

As you are an organiser, you should have realised how easily you get away with 3 lines in a risk assessment for your Audax events. Spare a thought for those organising races or large sportives, who need to risk assess everything, in documents which are the size of a book

I've put organising on hold for the time being. While I may be sympathetic to those who want to continue riding and organising events/perms, I don't actually want to do so myself.

For commercial operators of events like sportives, there may be greater impetus to do whatever they can to keep the business afloat, and less sympathy towards restrictions that prevent them making a living.

[TimC]

Given the inevitable interest in what British Cycling have to say, and any guidance they may give, readers of this thread may be interested in this letter from BC to Oliver Dowden: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/Letter_-_Culture_Secretary_Oliver_Dowden.pdf

The thrust of the letter (as explained by BC on Facebook) is to request that small group rides are allowed to continue. Given that Golf and Tennis, though trailed as likely to receive an exemption, have been told they must close, I can't see this letter getting a positive response. However, it would also suggest it's unlikely that BC will recommend any restrictions on cycling over and above the statements from the UK Government (and devolved Governments).

[postie]

I have also read( cant remember were now) that cycling uk (ctc) have asked the government for a clear answer on how far people should ride from home and for how long....... Could be interesting.

[Greenbank]

I have also read( cant remember were now) that cycling uk (ctc) have asked the government for a clear answer on how far people should ride from home and for how long....... Could be interesting.

Regulator pointed that out on the Coronavirus thread in P&OBI.

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-uk-urges-government-clarity-cycling-rules-278421

Plenty of possible outcomes, not limited to:-
a) A Gove like figure plucking a number like "an hour a day" based on his vast years of experience of being an utter twat
b) A specific answer of (x time and/or y distance)
c) A vague "whatever people consider reasonable" answer
etc...

[Cudzoziemiec]

If a specific figure is given, it seems unlikely it would be anywhere near 200km.

[simonp]

a) A Gove like figure plucking a number like "an hour a day" based on his vast years of experience of being an utter twat

There was no legal basis to that, and I basically ignored it.

What we get is things like people complaining about cyclists riding through the town square (on an NCN route) and that "they can't be local, they're wearing lycra".

[rob]

I have also read( cant remember were now) that cycling uk (ctc) have asked the government for a clear answer on how far people should ride from home and for how long....... Could be interesting.

Hmmmm.   Sometimes it's a bit easier to not stick your hand in the air and make a fuss.   The announcement said 'unlimited' and it would be better to leave it that way IMO.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Perhaps the most likely response is z) Please refer to the legislation.

[frankly frankie]

Asking for clarity.  Be careful what you wish for.

I do very much agree with this:

FWIW I think the situation is different from march as we now know that fomite transmission is rare, and we know that outside activity is relatively safe. Thus my belief is that long distance riding is not risky.

General understanding of how the virus is transmitted has changed a lot in the last 6 months.  Going for a long bike ride (solo or small bubble) and even visiting 2 or 3 shops en route for provisions is not IMHO a risky or anti-social thing to do.

However we are only exhorted to take exercise - which in most minds does not mean 'swanning around the countryside' it means jogging for an hour on a treadmill - asking for clarity on this fine distinction is asking for trouble.

[Ajax Bay]

FWIW I think the situation is different from march as we now know that fomite transmission is rare, and we know that outside activity is relatively safe. Thus my belief is that long distance riding is not risky.
However, rules are not there for selective interpretation. If we are being asked not to travel away from home area we should not regard ourselves as exceptions.

I agree your 'FWIW' @Flats. Long distance riding is not risky for the rider, nor does it increase the risk for others.
I also agree that we should adhere to the rulz: do not travel 'away from home area'. Cyclists are not exceptions. So I'll not be travelling 'away from home area' or cycling over to visit my aged mother (say). My cycling exercise will start from and finish in my home area and if validations are maintained (and the various rationales offered above for suspending permanents/DIYs are weak imho) I shall ride further on some rides; alone or in the company of one other. This will be a 'good' thing.

[Geriatricdolan]

The fact that some are concerned about what the PM will advise as acceptable exercise (asking for trouble) suggests we all in reality believe that a 200 km ride is probably not within the intentions of a lockdown.

That said, clarity is a good thing, then you can make up your mind whether you as an individual want to stick to the guidelines or not.
I will probably ride 1-2 hours a day staying reasonably local (certainly within the county) like I did in Lockdown 1.0, irrespective of what Gove or other will say.

AUK of course will have to stick to the guidelines... if the guidance is go for as long as you want and how far as you like, then I see no reason not to continue with the validations... it probably won't happen though.

[Karla]

... if the guidance is go for as long as you want and how far as you like,

"unlimited"

[rob]

I'm not terribly bothered about not being able to ride 200k, I just resent being told that I can't do things, particularly when they are low risk.

As it stands I have just started to train again so doing 4-5hrs on a Saturday morning is really what I'm looking for.   If the limit is per day then I can split the road ride over Saturday and Sunday or do part road and part turbo.   It does look like I will still be coming to the office 2 days a week and that's 2-ish hours each way.   Total mileage should be fine either way.

[Geriatricdolan]

... if the guidance is go for as long as you want and how far as you like,

"unlimited"

Let's see what they say. I fear what they mean is that you can go for a run multiple times a day, or you can go for a run, a cycle and a walk with the dog on the same day, rather than you can cycle from Coventry to Hull and back... but maybe I am wrong

[toontra]

I just resent being told that I can't do things, particularly when they are low risk.

I'm sure 99% of the population feel the same, audaxers or otherwise.



Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[FifeingEejit]

a) A Gove like figure plucking a number like "an hour a day" based on his vast years of experience of being an utter twat

There was no legal basis to that, and I basically ignored it.

What we get is things like people complaining about cyclists riding through the town square (on an NCN route) and that "they can't be local, they're wearing lycra".

A fair whack of the "rules" are to do with things like that.

Why is a club ride of 30 people acceptable when 3 mates meeting up and riding together isn't when they're pretty much the same risk (next to bugger all)?
It's little more than political theatre; You can say things like "It's a club, they know who everyone is and can provide details to Contact tracing easily" to shut people up better than "well they know each other and can easily remember who was there so why the feck not?"

Thinking of how you're going to get home if it goes pearshaped is still relevant, but the country is much better equipped for that now.

I just resent being told that I can't do things, particularly when they are low risk.

I'm sure 99% of the population feel the same, audaxers or otherwise.

It's preferable that people do resent it, less chance that it'll stay once it's no longer a necessary evil.