Lusocu wrote: » "Exercise" or getting out because you fancy some air
SusanC10 wrote: » Question on the 2km Exercise Rule. Can someone drive say 1km from their home, park and then walk all within a 2km radius? Or must they leave home on foot ?
hurikane wrote: » Following 100%. To the group of 5 middle aged cyclists I saw today. You’re a group of arseholes.
Alf Veedersane wrote: » I don't think they have gone into specifics but the intent is to limit the distance from home so I wouldn't have thought driving and then walking would be against it though why would you drive 1km to go walking from there?
never_mind wrote: » Pfft. How do you know they don’t live together?
hurikane wrote: » Pffffffft. I live in a rural area. I can see 2km up and down the road from my gate. They are not neighbours of mine. Pfffft.
never_mind wrote: » Then call the guards and stop complaining online. Holier than thou attitude is becoming monotonous and boring. People need to get a life and focus on what THEY can control and stop filling boards with more negativity.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » The drive is non-essential travel. It is not covered by the intent of the restrictions, so not in compliance.
hurikane wrote: » Pffft. Only negativity I see is yours. Filling boards with negativity. Pfft
never_mind wrote: » Pffft. And I’ll post wherever I want and am actually on-topic but I leave ye to this FASCINATING discussion!!
Alf Veedersane wrote: » The guidance was you could leave your home for brief individual exercise, within 2km. They're driving to exercise. It will be within the 2km. If they need to drive to facilitate exercise within the 2km radius. It's essentially no different to walking the 1km to so some form of exercise that you can't do on a path.
hurikane wrote: » Stop embarrassing yourself.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » As I said, that is not the intent. If people want to play silly buggers with ‘loopholes’ they won’t be stopped.
Alf Veedersane wrote: » What element of the intent does it go against? If they need to drive 1km in the car, to be able to exercise, how does it go against the guidance which is to limit the potential for transmission of the virus? It's not a loophole.
This is it wrote: » I work in what's classed as an "essential" service but thankfully I've not had to leave the house yet. Since the lockdown, or whatever you want to call it, I've been to the shops twice. Developed a cough on Wednesday/Thursday. Probably nothing and no other symptoms but I'll be spending most of the next 10 days or so confined to a single room.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » Driving is not exercise. Drinking to somewhere to exercise is not exercise. I put ‘loophole’ in quotes because it is someone playing silly buggers attempting to come up with an excuse.
Alf Veedersane wrote: » I asked for what part of the intent it goes against. In what way does it increase the risk of transmission. I'm not trying to be a contrarian...maybe I'm missing something but I don't think it goes against it. That's all.
Rodney Bathgate wrote: » The intent was to be in your home unless you needed to be out of it based on the listed set exceptions. Brief exercise is an exception. Driving somewhere for brief exercise is not an exception.
Alf Veedersane wrote: » Yes, they are going out to exercise. Driving to a point within the 2km doesn't go against that. It doesn't create a greater risk of transmission which is the fundamental reason. Is exercise limited to walking as well? Where I used to live, the house was on a terrace with no garden and on a road . If I'd had a child when I was there, would I not be allowed to drive them to the green area for exercise or would I have to tell them that they would have to walk up and down the street?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a76cb640f98d9dcd3d00bb9366a306.svg)
