How much are you riding?

[Davef]

Section 6 paragraph 1 of the covid legislation referenced in first post uses the words “reasonable excuse” twice.

You are correct the guidance you posted later does not use the word “reasonable” at all.

You are incorrect to say the guidance published is law. It has not been raised as a bill nor enacted. This is also true of what members of the cabinet have said.

However if you do not follow the guidance you could well be guilty of a crime under the legislation as a court would take the guidance into account in assessing the reasonableness of your excuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kim]

Just out of interest, has anyone been stopped by the police yet ?

I’ve seen the odd police car, but there has been no interest.

I've seen plenty of police cars, and have passed several police (and plastic police) on foot.  The only interest I've had was a nod of encouragement from one of them.

I'm not sure if riding a recumbent makes a difference to likely attitudes, but it's certainly attention-getting.

[TimC]

Section 6 paragraph 1 of the covid legislation referenced in first post uses the words “reasonable excuse” twice.

You are correct the guidance you posted later does not use the word “reasonable” at all.

You are incorrect to say the guidance published is law. It has not been raised as a bill nor enacted. This is also true of what members of the cabinet have said.

However if you do not follow the guidance you could well be guilty of a crime under the legislation as a court would take the guidance into account in assessing the reasonableness of your excuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As you say in your first sentence, it is legislation: it is law. It was enacted on the 25 March 2020 as ‘The Coronavirus Act 2020’. Without that legal status, the police could not enforce any of these instructions, and would be limited to simply advising the public as to what they should and shouldn’t do. However, the utterances of any politician that go beyond the statements in the instruction have no legal status. There is no central, government-issued document that goes into greater detail about what is and what is not allowed, and which could in any way be used as reinforcing evidence as to whether a cyclist had committed a crime by riding their bike. Indeed, the UK Government has been scrupulous in avoiding making detailed specifications, simply (I suspect) because to do so would leave exploitable loopholes and would lessen the reliance on personal discipline.

As I think I’ve said before, I’m not arguing for anyone going out and doing long rides (whatever ‘long’ is for you). I’m simply pointing out that they are not expressly forbidden in a way which is clear and unequivocal. It is left to personal judgement and conscience.

[rafletcher]

Just out of interest, has anyone been stopped by the police yet ?

I’ve seen the odd police car, but there has been no interest.

I've seen plenty of police cars, and have passed several police (and plastic police) on foot.  The only interest I've had was a nod of encouragement from one of them.

I'm not sure if riding a recumbent makes a difference to likely attitudes, but it's certainly attention-getting.

Apparently Police were stopping cyclists wanting to ride up Box Hill yesterday. I’ve not seen an explanation as to why that might be.

[grams]

Box Hill is officially closed for the weekend as they were expecting a lot of people to turn up.

I’ve passed a lot of police around London and none of them have shown the slightest bit of interest. They seem to be going after pedestrians and people enjoying parks more than is acceptable to the tabloids.

[Greenbank]

However if you do not follow the guidance you could well be guilty of a crime under the legislation as a court would take the guidance into account in assessing the reasonableness of your excuse.

I think the analogy would be to the Highway code:-

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction

"
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
"

The second paragraph is key (this was an analogy remember...)

The argument that you may run foul of is the interpretation of "reasonable excuse". A specific police officer / court / judge may decide that going out cycling once per day is "reasonable" but going out for a second/third/fourth time is not. If you got out more than once you run the risk of someone's interpretation landing you in trouble.

Take the person who recently got done for driving from Nottingham to London and back "to buy bread". The speeding fine was obvious, but they were also fined for an unnecessary journey despite driving not being banned by any of the laws:-

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-10/how-do-the-coronavirus-lockdown-rules-differ-across-the-uk/

"
Can I go for a drive?
...

But none of the laws in force in any part of the UK address the use of cars or vehicles at all and do not forbid members of the public from using their cars to “go for a drive” or travel to a location by car to exercise.
"

Also remember that people do get arrested and convicted incorrectly, c.f. Daniel Cadden here. Being eventually cleared upon appeal is all well and good but it creates a huge amount of angst, stress and trouble along the way.

Finally be aware that the law in Wales is specific about only permitting exercise "no more than once a day".

[TimC]

The advice given under the UK (England) rules do specify ‘once a day’ for exercise, as you’ll see if you follow the link I gave yesterday. As it says in your linked article, the legislation doesn’t make that specific but the guidance is clear. There is further specification that you should be out of your home for the minimum time possible, but no guidance that could be relied upon in court has been given as to what that means.

My interpretation (and it is only mine) is that your period of exercise should probably not be longer than an average fitness class or, say, the sessions you would find in apps like TrainerRoads, Zwift, Sufferfest, etc. I think it would be easy to justify a ride of 1-1.5 hours using those as supporting evidence. Beyond 1.5 hours it would get less easy to justify, and the claims by one or two people I’ve read that ‘my normal ride is 200km so that’s what I’m planning on’ would be very difficult to justify were you ever asked to do so in a legal context - much like the guy driving 110 miles ‘to get bread’. However, also like him, if you don’t bring yourself to the attention of the Police (in his case by excessive speed), it seems incredibly unlikely that this would ever be tested.

Which is why I stick to the principle that your rides (or runs, or outdoor Yoga sessions) are a matter of personal conscience, and - for the moment - should not be dictated by anyone else.

[Davef]

The Highway Code analogy is a good one. That is precisely what I was trying to say but not getting across. The guidance is not the law but by not following it you could be breaking the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rob]

I rode over to Box Hill last weekend and did the zig zag.  Must have been the first time since last Summer.  Quite glad I fitted that trip in then.

[TimC]

The Highway Code analogy is a good one. That is precisely what I was trying to say but not getting across. The guidance is not the law but by not following it you could be breaking the law.

It's only a good analogy if the guidance is clear, unambiguous, and published in authoritative document.

[Phil W]

The Highway Code analogy is a good one. That is precisely what I was trying to say but not getting across. The guidance is not the law but by not following it you could be breaking the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Highway Code

Rule 59
Clothing. You should wear

a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

If you didn’t follow any of this guidance which laws would you be breaking?

[mattc]

I have a terrible confession to make:

Yesterday, I didn't ride my bike.
Only the 2nd time this year (can't remember the previous time, it was probably around New Year?)

Still had a good day, N&I went for about a 3hr walk. Once we cleared about half-a-mile of home we had the footpaths and lanes to ourselves, glorious.

[TimC]

The Highway Code analogy is a good one. That is precisely what I was trying to say but not getting across. The guidance is not the law but by not following it you could be breaking the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Highway Code

Rule 59
Clothing. You should wear

a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

If you didn’t follow any of this guidance which laws would you be breaking?

Indeed, and I should have picked up on that. Davef what point are you trying to make? You claim people are breaking the law by riding in some way that you don't make clear, and then you state that the Government rules 'are not law because it hasn't been enacted' (it has). Now you're claiming that disobeying guidance (what guidance?) is breaking the law, and you quite the Highway Code as analogous. It isn't. Please state your case clearly.

[Davef]

A brief history, please read carefully and check back against exactly what I have said if you wish. I am not going to comment again as this must be tediously boring.

1. You started with something along the lines of  “there is no legal specification for how long you ride a bike, it is just misinformation published in the media and you included a link to the legislation “the law”
2. I said there is more to it than that, the you need to look at the law (your link) and the guidance issued both written and oral. For example the law does not mention “once per day”
3. You then included a link to the guidance and said “read this” see its in the law it says “once per day”
4. I said, no that’s the guidance that isn’t the law. That isn’t enacted. You also said there is no mention the word “reasonable”.
5. And now we are going around in circles,

In summary I am saying that if you go on a long cycle ride and a policeman stops you (which is very unlikely) and you tell him how long you have ridden (which would be foolish) he may decide that is unreasonable and issue a fixed penalty. You could refuse the penalty and go to court. The defence that “there is no specification of duration in the legislation” would likely fail. The  guidance says “the minimum time possible” and when questioned in one of the briefings this was said to be “about an hour” and this has been widely reported. If you go for a couple of hours that is arguably not far off the guidance. If you go for a ten hour ride I would keep quiet about it.

That is my understanding. Yours may be different. I am off for a swim now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Davef]

The Highway Code analogy is a good one. That is precisely what I was trying to say but not getting across. The guidance is not the law but by not following it you could be breaking the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Highway Code

Rule 59
Clothing. You should wear

a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

If you didn’t follow any of this guidance which laws would you be breaking?

You wouldn’t be breaking any laws. If you ignore an advisory speed limit you are also not breaking any law either. If however you were involved in an accident, injuring a pedestrian when your superman cape got caught in the chain or they did not see you because of your ninja outfit, the fact you were ignoring something in the Highway Code might mean you are prosecuted for one of the offences about reasonable care. It might also factor in a civil case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Phil W]

The Highway Code analogy is a good one. That is precisely what I was trying to say but not getting across. The guidance is not the law but by not following it you could be breaking the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Highway Code

Rule 59
Clothing. You should wear

a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

If you didn’t follow any of this guidance which laws would you be breaking?

You wouldn’t be breaking any laws. If you ignore an advisory speed limit you are also not breaking any law either. If however you were involved in an accident, injuring a pedestrian when your superman cape got caught in the chain or they did not see you because of your ninja outfit, the fact you were ignoring something in the Highway Code might mean you are prosecuted for one of the offences about reasonable care. It might also factor in a civil case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sounds like you are very much responding in this fashion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I’ll leave you to it, since you don’t have a valid response. I’ll leave you to the ridiculous whataboutery of ninjas and supermen.

[Davef]

The Highway Code analogy is a good one. That is precisely what I was trying to say but not getting across. The guidance is not the law but by not following it you could be breaking the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Highway Code

Rule 59
Clothing. You should wear

a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

If you didn’t follow any of this guidance which laws would you be breaking?

You wouldn’t be breaking any laws. If you ignore an advisory speed limit you are also not breaking any law either. If however you were involved in an accident, injuring a pedestrian when your superman cape got caught in the chain or they did not see you because of your ninja outfit, the fact you were ignoring something in the Highway Code might mean you are prosecuted for one of the offences about reasonable care. It might also factor in a civil case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sounds like you are very much responding in this fashion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I’ll leave you to it, since you don’t have a valid response. I’ll leave you to the ridiculous whataboutery of ninjas and supermen.

I have read that link. It seems to be about trying to make someone sound hypocritical. That was not my intention and I expect not yours when you said “what about rule 59”.  I am not aware if ignoring rule 59 has been used in any prosecutions, other rules have.  I was just giving examples of how it could be. It has certainly been referenced in civil cases to show contributory negligence to attempt to reduce injury claims.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[telstarbox]

Get a life lads

[Manotea]

Too late I fear...

[Davef]

Lockdown personality disorder - I am awaiting an official diagnosis so that I can be prescribed an extra dose of exercise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mattc]

Lockdown personality disorder - I am awaiting an official diagnosis so that I can be prescribed an extra dose of exercise.

[PAC]

Back to topic. 249k in the past week. Short rides on local roads

[Whitedown Man]

Weekdays, 80km round (and around, and around) Regent’s Park before the drivers and most of the other cyclists arrive. Weekends, 50km figure of eight loops up College Road and Anerley Hill in Crystal Palace. 500km p/w total.

[bludger]

394km in the last 7 days including today's 101.



I need to step it up if I'm going to hit last year's distance but that's probably not possible now I'm a rEspOnsIblE aDuLt again.

[Manotea]

I've prepared for the lockdown by becoming really unfit, so 50km is about all I can manage...