Corona Virus & cycling impact (see mode note post 1322)

terrydel

CramCycle wrote: »

Surprised at his club, I have a feeling we are thinking of the same guy. Some people have an ego and think that the rules don't apply, hopefully his club who have been tough on rule breakers in the past pull him up on it.


And going to the shops

Hes not even very good! Had to laugh at his wannabe pro profile pic on strava.
I'm referring to a lad who was up over the gap doing 70k yesterday

Stark

hesker wrote: »

Unless they have an option of driving, or taking public transport, or walking in which case they shouldn't be cycling given how risky it seems to be.

Taking public transport when you have the option of cycling seems like a stupid idea if you're trying to avoid spreading infection. I don't even think you're allowed anyway unless you're an essential worker.

hesker

terrydel wrote: »

Most gardening is a lot more necessary than any cycling being done

I don’t see how unless you have Triffids in your back garden.

terrydel

hesker wrote: »

I don’t see how unless you have Triffids in your back garden.

Well I'll give you one example, I rent and keeping the garden in good order is part of the tenancy agreement.
Another, many people have mowers that are incapable of handling grass that's being growing for over a month, so it's necessary to regularly do it.
Why do you have such difficulty with the idea that you should curtail what you want to do for a couple of weeks for the greater good? Comes across as a huge sense of entitlement.

CramCycle

terrydel wrote: »

Hes not even very good! Had to laugh at his wannabe pro profile pic on strava.

Not actually the same rider it turns out. The rider I know locked his strava account after feedback to his first big ride, I supect he won't care about his clubs opinion as he is their golden boy. I can see restrictions and Garda powers gettign stronger soon enough. I seen the pics from Citizen Woulfe on twitter, people really don't give a sh1t and will make it worse for the rest of us.

hesker

CramCycle wrote: »

Driving and walking are also risky,

Yes, but not as risky as cycling it seems.

CramCycle wrote: »

Some of us don't have cars, public transport and walking would take a long tiem for work or shopping.

Then these wouldn't be an option

CramCycle wrote: »

I am not sure why people can't just follow the rules. Restrictions are likely to be stricter in the next fortnight considering the amount of muppets who can't have manners.

I don't know why either. I would nearly welcome a complete lockdown as it seems some people don't get it at all, and it would probably get us out of this mess sooner with less fatalities.

Daroxtar

Plastik

I've to stop looking at this thread. I'm like a curtain twitching aul one looking at a bunch of curtain twitching aul ones.

hesker

terrydel wrote: »

Well I'll give you one example, I rent and keeping the garden in good order is part of the tenancy agreement.
Another, many people have mowers that are incapable of handling grass that's being growing for over a month, so it's necessary to regularly do it.
Why do you have such difficulty with the idea that you should curtail what you want to do for a couple of weeks for the greater good? Comes across as a huge sense of entitlement.

Fine, they are valid examples.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I have curtailed my activities almost completely, in line with what the government has asked me to do. I would have preferred in fact if they acted sooner with more restrictions but I trust they are trying to manage this whole thing progressively and bring the most people along with them. They are doing a good job.

I just have a difficulty with people making up their own rules, coming on here and shouting out people as d*cks who continue to get a little bit of exercise within the confines of what has been imposed on us all.

For anyone who is flouting the rules and jeopardising it all fair enough, have at them. But I object to being called a d*ck when I am doing what has been asked of me.

magicbastarder

the bargain alerts thread has gone reasonably quiet. i wonder will there be an explosion of bargains when restrictions start to lift.

ckeego

hesker wrote: »

Fine, they are valid examples.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I have curtailed my activities almost completely, in line with what the government has asked me to do. I would have preferred in fact if they acted sooner with more restrictions but I trust they are trying to manage this whole thing progressively and bring the most people along with them. They are doing a good job.

I just have a difficulty with people making up their own rules, coming on here and shouting out people as d*cks who continue to get a little bit of exercise within the confines of what has been imposed on us all.

For anyone who is flouting the rules and jeopardising it all fair enough, have at them. But I object to being called a d*ck when I am doing what has been asked of me.

Well said, hesker.

There’s a few on here so high on the moral high ground that they don’t need Strava to catch out those out riding be it within or well outside the 2k limit.

I’d think for sanity sake, the thread should be retired.

Harrybelafonte

ckeego wrote: »

Well said, hesker.

There’s a few on here so high on the moral high ground that they don’t need Strava to catch out those out riding be it within or well outside the 2k limit.

I’d think for sanity sake, the thread should be retired.

Can you quote the posts you’re referring to for us? I don’t remember them unfortunately.

rolling boh

Think this thread is desending to just back and forth about no cycling at all versus cycling either close to the guidelines or not even close to them .Both sides will not agree .Expect action from guards to be stepped up and that will be the end of any cycling apart from work reasons .

hesker

Just for the record I have been on the bike 3 times since this partial lockdown started. I've done 6km, 6km and 14km roughly. I don't condone anyone doing endless 2km loops around their neighbourhood.

Anyway, I think I'll try to pull out of this thread now as it's a bit pointless.

Quigs Snr

rolling boh wrote: »

Think this thread is desending to just back and forth about no cycling at all versus cycling either close to the guidelines or not even close to them .Both sides will not agree .Expect action from guards to be stepped up and that will be the end of any cycling apart from work reasons .

Fact is there are rules. Some people are taking the mick out of those rules. Others are abiding by them. In the meantime self appointed moral guardians on social media fail to differentiate between the two and inflict their own opinion on everyone else as if it were government policy. But it isnt. Curtain twitchers will always exist. Stay inside the rules and ignore them. Personally i am on the turbo myself.. did an hour of loops omce during the week inside my 2k circle and incredibly it was even more boring than the turbo.

rolling boh

The way the guidelines are they will only suit people who are either new to cycling or lapsted cyclists because 30 mins within 2km is not worth it for a regular cyclist on costly bikes etc .Plenty cycle to keep weight down or get their heads right but the amount of people out it will be no suprise to see a clampdown soon .

magicbastarder

rolling boh wrote: »

30 mins within 2km is not worth it for a regular cyclist on costly bikes etc

as i suggested earlier, tie a lawnmower to the back of the bike before heading out. that 30 minutes will seem like two hours.

Mc Love

magicbastarder wrote: »

in the UK:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1246720684031717377

Thing is, in the UK they're taking the absolute piss in terms of not staying at home. Seeing the pictures from this morning of parks, beaches and canal banks, its no wonder they're thinking of it

Stark

Scary thing is we could well follow suit in order to maintain parity with the North.

eeeee

I cycle every day. It's the only time I go outside. I'm usually between 30 mins and about an hour.
I live alone in a 1 bed flat with no outside space (no balcony).
I have a disability that means I can't walk far, and the less fit I am the less mobile I am, that after 2 weeks mean I can't get around without crutches.
I can't cycle indoors because my neighbours complain.
I haven't seen or talked to anyone in person for 3 weeks.
I keep within the 2k radius limit, and mainly roll about 20m from my house.
Anyone flouting the roles is an arsehole.
But cycling is an absolute lifeline for me and plenty like me.
All cycling isn't bad. Flouting the rules is bad.
I haven't seen any groups out on my 2k radius spins, and everyone I see is keeping the 2m distance (runners, walkers etc).

It's quite relieving to go for a spin knowing your only 2k from home if you get a puncture!
But boring as fcuk.

CramCycle

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Fact is there are rules. Some people are taking the mick out of those rules. Others are abiding by them. In the meantime self appointed moral guardians on social media fail to differentiate between the two and inflict their own opinion on everyone else as if it were government policy. But it isnt. Curtain twitchers will always exist. Stay inside the rules and ignore them. Personally i am on the turbo myself.. did an hour of loops omce during the week inside my 2k circle and incredibly it was even more boring than the turbo.

The issue isn't someone walking there dogs in a 2.2km radius, or someone cycling in a 3km radius. The issue is those who don't see the point in the rules. Essentially the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. There are some who think that so long as they are inside the letter of the law, they can cycle for 6 hours in a 2km radius, and then the others who think that the law is stupid or not applicable and they are no real danger.
The spirit of the law is to reduce the likelihood of an incident occuring (reducing time or exposure) or reducing the seriousness of an accident (difficult but in many accidents, if your close enough to home, you can hobble there rather than call someone).
Its basic H&S, riding for 4 hours inside a 2km radius maybe the letter of the law but is not the spirit. Riding 150km across the Wicklow Gap, even though, "I'll be fine" is just piss taking, and if the latter do this often enough it becomes socially acceptable and more will do it.
The law in and of itself is beautiful, simple, easy to follow and, I thought, easy to understand the spirit of. The key to all H&S guidelines, you need all rules to be sensible and easy to understand and to follow. If you can't make it those you need to change the system. Based on some of the comments here I am sadly wrong and really need to get a different job because I was wrong about what was easy to understand and easy to follow. Regrettably if people don't follow the spirit, they may go the alternative route and make the system even simpler and therefore tougher for us all.

terrydel

ckeego wrote: »

Well said, hesker.

There’s a few on here so high on the moral high ground that they don’t need Strava to catch out those out riding be it within or well outside the 2k limit.

I’d think for sanity sake, the thread should be retired.

We are in the biggest crisis since ww2, I really don't care if I'm accused of being on a moral high ground it's too serious an issue to keep my mouth shut for fear of offending the perennially offended modern generation who think they can always do what they like no matter what else is going on, and think it's against the law to get called out on anything the do. Sorry about ye, suck it up and stay in for a few weeks, God forbid they are ever asked to really make a genuine sacrifice.

hesker

CramCycle wrote: »

The issue isn't someone walking there dogs in a 2.2km radius, or someone cycling in a 3km radius. The issue is those who don't see the point in the rules. Essentially the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. There are some who think that so long as they are inside the letter of the law, they can cycle for 6 hours in a 2km radius, and then the others who think that the law is stupid or not applicable and they are no real danger.
The spirit of the law is to reduce the likelihood of an incident occuring (reducing time or exposure) or reducing the seriousness of an accident (difficult but in many accidents, if your close enough to home, you can hobble there rather than call someone).
Its basic H&S, riding for 4 hours inside a 2km radius maybe the letter of the law but is not the spirit. Riding 150km across the Wicklow Gap, even though, "I'll be fine" is just piss taking, and if the latter do this often enough it becomes socially acceptable and more will do it.
The law in and of itself is beautiful, simple, easy to follow and, I thought, easy to understand the spirit of. The key to all H&S guidelines, you need all rules to be sensible and easy to understand and to follow. If you can't make it those you need to change the system. Based on some of the comments here I am sadly wrong and really need to get a different job because I was wrong about what was easy to understand and easy to follow. Regrettably if people don't follow the spirit, they may go the alternative route and make the system even simpler and therefore tougher for us all.

I fully agree with all you say and that is contained within the directive Brief and Within 2km.

And that is how this thread started out. But then it got shifted to no going out whatsoever if you're on a bike.

I have commented because I have been the main person to keep dragging it up in the last few pages and you may have been alluding to me.

So thanks for the clarification.

SwissToni

CramCycle wrote: »

The spirit of the law is to reduce the likelihood of an incident occuring (reducing time or exposure) or reducing the seriousness of an accident (difficult but in many accidents, if your close enough to home, you can hobble there rather than call someone).

I don’t agree with your take on this what leads you to believe this is the case?
Has the risk of accident as a reason for the restrictions ever come from a government department.
I see it as reducing the likelihood of contact with other people, this is the problem everyone has there own opinions on the directions.
I’m more likely to be knocked down within 2km of my home then anywhere else
(Lots of roundabouts)

wirelessdude01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I saw in one of the papers today a man thanking locals for their support during his 24hr 160km run around Duleek.

https://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/roundup/articles/2020/04/01/4188076-100-mile-marathon-for-duleek-dad-/

He was in the middle of it when the lockdown was announced.

Tenzor07

SwissToni wrote: »

I don’t agree with your take on this what leads you to believe this is the case?
Has the risk of accident as a reason for the restrictions ever come from a government department.
I see it as reducing the likelihood of contact with other people, this is the problem everyone has there own opinions on the directions.
I’m more likely to be knocked down within 2km of my home then anywhere else
(Lots of roundabouts)

Pretty sure the idea was that they didn't want a repeat of the scenes around the country where people drove out in their droves to beaches, forestry areas and parks, no one was sticking to the social distancing rules so they had to demand people stay basically at home, the 2k thing just limits you to basically a walk around your local park, if you're lucky enough to have one.. It's not about the likelihood of coming a cropper whilst out on your bike and getting a few cuts and bruises..

CramCycle

SwissToni wrote: »

I don’t agree with your take on this what leads you to believe this is the case?
Has the risk of accident as a reason for the restrictions ever come from a government department.
I see it as reducing the likelihood of contact with other people, this is the problem everyone has there own opinions on the directions.
I’m more likely to be knocked down within 2km of my home then anywhere else
(Lots of roundabouts)

I didn't say you were less likely to be knocked down within 2km around your house. I said an incident, this could be an accident but it could also be contact with a positive case that transmits to you or that you transmit to someone else. What I implied was that a 2km limit indicates short walks/cycles, under 20 minutes (picking a number), so reducing time. If there is an accident, you are close enough to home that you are unlikely to have to engage others to get home, have someone come to help you etc. or someone from your house could come get you. In fitting with your idea of reducing your contact with other people, it is the same principle. A brief walk or cycle, will mean you are out for less time, therefore less likely to meet people, therefore reducing your exposure and other peoples exposure. Keeping it within a close distance of home reduces those who travel to exercise eg those who drive into the Wicklow Hills or a common area for exercise, where they would meet loads of others "only out for a bit of exercise".

This also doesn't go into the details with a semi lockdown, people getting more active within the rules. if you didn't have the distance limit, how many people would take up running or cycling distances they are not used too because they are not in work, this reduces what would be an increased burden on the community.

Risk is a calculation of the time you are at risk of something happening, by the risk if it happens.

Take exposure to someone who is positive at the minute. The longer you are out, the greater your chance of coming across someone, this increases the risk you get it and therefore increase your risk of passing it on to others. You will have people arguing that if they go into the hills they are fine, but who is fine, how many are fine, at what point does that "being fine" turn out not to be true because "everyone is fine"and everyone is in the hills, just look at the first weekend of restrictions in the Wicklow Hills, pandamonium.

Eamonnator

Anyone else get the feeling, that we're going around in circles here, one with a radius of 2km?

CramCycle

Eamonnator wrote: »

Anyone else get the feeling, that we're going around in circles here, one with a radius of 2km?

Indeed and on that note I am out, people either get it or they don't. Some middle aged man half a bottle of wine in, isn't going to convince anyone of anything, they either already understand or they don't. Thats why I don't give stick to my neighbour, whose walk goes 2.2 km from her house with her dog once a day but I am a bit miffed at my club mate doing 180 circles aoround his estate for a few hours only 1.5km from their house.

Also just to clarify, I don't go window twitching on strava for people, it was someone in a neighbouring club ranting about a teammate in conversation and they didn't want to rant to their own clubmates.

magicbastarder

will be interesting to see if strava can produce some before and after stats for various countries as they go into and come out of lockdown; how much form people lose when furloughed for several weeks or months.