Increased Hostility To Cyclists During The Lockdown

[bluecanary 13]

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

Family groups,people of the same household, cyclists,motorists may all experience that look of disapproval.

You can add runners to this list too. I make a point of giving other footpath users as much space as possible when I'm out, even if it means moving onto the road, and though some people are polite and say thank you, others glare at you as if you have no right to be out at all (though, obviously their needs are far more pressing!).

[RootsBooster 24]

1 hour ago, fatrajah said:

When I got my first 2-wheeler in 1959, I was told this by various people; it seemed to be common knowledge at that time. It would be interesting to read a copy of the Highway Code for that year.

 

So when you say "wheel a bike along the pavement" what do you actually mean? 

I presumed you meant pushing it on foot.

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

I think the general feeling amongst the populace is that if you are going miles away from home for exercise, not matter what the form of transport you are taking, then you are being selfish. The key words we've been told is to 'stay local'. You could even argue that as a potential carrier of Covid-19, the cyclist has the ability to infect far more people than someone in a car would going to the same destination.

 

I wouldn't have said 'staying local' is the same as someone in Totley cycling 10 miles into the Peak District.

Who is telling people to stay local?

 

Also, I think a cyclist on the road is a lot less likely to infection people than a pedestrian passing other pedestrians. 

[the_bloke 17]

1 hour ago, altus said:

People making that journey in a car would not be doing so for exercise. Even if the car users travel to get to a destination for exercise then they are likely to get close to other car users at a car park.

 

As you're so worried about it, what's the likelihood of someone cycling through a village passing Covid-19 to anybody? After all, they will more than be keeping to the governments 2m distance rules.

You could say the same about a cyclist. You are assuming a car user will be near other car users in a car park yet a cyclist won't be near anyone on their entire journey - no one knows that. It's this sort of thing - the 'but I'll be fine' attitude - that increases the risk. Do cyclists not stop at junctions where people might be crossing, or is that a loaded question?

23 minutes ago, RootsBooster said:

So when you say "wheel a bike along the pavement" what do you actually mean? 

I presumed you meant pushing it on foot.

Who is telling people to stay local?

 

Also, I think a cyclist on the road is a lot less likely to infection people than a pedestrian passing other pedestrians. 

The government?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52062209

[Silverbear 10]

2 hours ago, RiffRaff said:

Well, you asked for it!

 

Footpaths.

The clue's in the word.

You can cycle for as many miles on the road as you like in my opinion, but get off my footpath, please!

 

1 hour ago, smithy266 said:

Near us, we have a track that is used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists. If only cyclists would announce their imminent arrival by the use of a bell which  would get rid of this antagonism. Just a polite 'ding' is all that is needed.

I think the above posts cover part of the problem.

I walk a dog along the footpath in Whiteley Woods.

There are two footpaths, one where the sign clearly states that cyclists (& horseriders) should dismount & use the other footpath & the other which can be used by everybody.

 

The number of cyclists I encounter,  tearing along the footpath, often leaving it to do a bit of off-roading on mountain bikes up the bank & down has certainly increased.

I always try & have a polite word with them pointing out the other side's for cycles as the signs at either end say & that there's a danger of colliding with & injuring dogs, small kids & other walkers not expecting a cyclist to come round a bend at that speed.

 

Most are polite & probably around 60% say they never saw the signs.

Others are more belligerent or just ignore you.

 

I asked the Parks & Countryside if they could move the sign to a more prominent position which they did, but still you get cyclists using it.

It became a bit of a no-go area in places in winter as the path had become so churned up by tyres that cyclists started to cycle either side avoiding the mud which unfortunately just made the whole path impassable by adding to the problem.

 

So, yes if cyclists could use the footpath the other side of the stream (river) where horseriding & cycling is allowed & encouraged that would be so much better for us dog walkers, pedestrians - old & young & runners.

 

It's got even worse at Forge Dam where cycling is prohibited, it's impossible to keep a safe distance if you decide to have a seat for 20mins with families of cyclists coming past every few minutes.

 

The worst part at the moment is that many seem to thing that the advised 2 metres doesn't apply to cyclists & runners & that 2 feet is acceptable to pass, out of breath puffing & panting all over other others.

[altus 538]

34 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

You could say the same about a cyclist. You are assuming a car user will be near other car users in a car park yet a cyclist won't be near anyone on their entire journey - no one knows that. It's this sort of thing - the 'but I'll be fine' attitude - that increases the risk. Do cyclists not stop at junctions where people might be crossing, or is that a loaded question?

They'll be very unlikely to not be confirming to the 2m rule.

 

The mention of car parks was just an example of where they would meet other people. What are the car users going to do for exercise when they've left the car park? Walk along the same footpaths that other pedestrians may be using. Don't forget, the typical footpath is far narrower than even narrow roads.

 

From a lockdown enforcement point of view, it's obvious someone on a bicycle is exercising. The same cannot be said of those travelling by car.

[Waldo 96]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

The government?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52062209

I'm wondering what the exact wording of the government advice is?

 

I get the impression, they don't want people to travel to a destination in order to exercise (for example, don't drive out to the peaks, get out of your car, and do a run).

 

To my mind, the key thing should be to minimise contact between people. It's possible that staying local could result in more interactions (with other people) than going further afield would. For example, say you live in a busy neighbourhood, go for a 5 mile run and you may cross paths with 100 people, while driving out to the peaks and the doing a 5 mile run, you may cross paths with just 2.

[RootsBooster 24]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

The government?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52062209

That's quite interesting, the government could probably do with issuing one concise statement of advice and use that, universally.  

The pamphlet that came through my door makes no mention of staying local.  Your article links to this page, while I've been referring to this page (which I now see does actually mention staying local). 

There are no actual laws prohibiting you from going further afield though. The guidance titled "Coronavirus outbreak FAQs: what you can and can't do" is somewhat misleading and would be more accurately titled "What you should and shouldn't do"

[Waldo 96]

41 minutes ago, RootsBooster said:

That's quite interesting, the government could probably do with issuing one concise statement of advice and use that, universally.  

The pamphlet that came through my door makes no mention of staying local.  Your article links to this page, while I've been referring to this page (which I now see does actually mention staying local). 

There are no actual laws prohibiting you from going further afield though. The guidance titled "Coronavirus outbreak FAQs: what you can and can't do" is somewhat misleading and would be more accurately titled "What you should and shouldn't do"

It does mention only once a day though, regarding exercise.

 

I'm curious as to the legalities of this though, if there are no actual laws prohibiting you go out; how can the police issue fines (or a magistrate impose a tougher fine)?

 

Surely, you need to break the law, before you can receive a fine? Any ideas?

[RootsBooster 24]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

It does mention only once a day though, regarding exercise.

 

I'm curious as to the legalities of this though, if there are no actual laws prohibiting you go out; how can the police issue fines (or a magistrate impose a tougher fine)?

 

Surely, you need to break the law, before you can receive a fine? Any ideas?

There are certainly laws prohibiting leaving the house,  I linked to them in my last post. 

They do not limit how many times,  how far or how long you can exercise for though. 

[Waldo 96]

13 minutes ago, RootsBooster said:

There are certainly laws prohibiting leaving the house,  I linked to them in my last post.

Ah, yes, so there are, thanks for the link. I was confused at first, your post reads (if you disregard the hyperlink) 'there are no actual laws'.

[fatrajah 10]

Re post 14: the cyclist was meant to walk along the pavement's edge while pushing the bike with its wheels in the gutter.

[RootsBooster 24]

31 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Ah, yes, so there are, thanks for the link. I was confused at first, your post reads (if you disregard the hyperlink) 'there are no actual laws'.

The full sentence is "There are no actual laws prohibiting you from going further afield though."

...in the context of exercise. 

28 minutes ago, fatrajah said:

Re post 14: the cyclist was meant to walk along the pavement's edge while pushing the bike with its wheels in the gutter.

And that's illegal,  you say?

Edited April 16, 2020 by RootsBooster