tom1ie wrote: » Training at home would be better as it would nip this clash in the bud and still allow people to train. Everyone’s happy.
John_Rambo wrote: » Same here, but some people don't... So, to keep up social distancing I am trying to avoid joggers who want to stick to the path.
tom1ie wrote: » the 2km restriction is from your home?
Laineyfrecks wrote: » I have went to comment here many times but decided against it many times! To say that runners don't want their daily regime distrupted in any way given the current climate is completely ridiculous. There are restrictions in place that we all must follow and therefore already disrupting our routines. Before these restrictions most runners wouldn't train within a 2km radius of their homes for all runs therefore they have changed their routines and rightly so! Also a lot of runners myself included are trying to get out early or later in the evenings to avoid as many people as possible if that suits their routine at home. Even before this pandemic i would never expect people walking to just move out of my way & especially those with prams & children! I have always tried to make a move early enough on, to the grass or road whichever it may be. I have never spit whilst running by somebody, i don't heavily breathe on someone's shoulder...common sense & respect for each other is what's needed mostly at a time like this. Like everyone else at the moment homelife & our working situations are all over the place, there's so much uncertainty and a lot more pressures mentally to deal with all this! Working from home, trying to homeschool our children whilst rationalizing their fears...it's all a lot to take on. I really think people need to be a bit kinder to each other because at the moment exercising is allowed outside so until that changes i for one will continue my running alone & responsibly!
Melanchthon wrote: » It's because with people out walking this happens Where I am is busy and there is a lot of people clearly not obeying social distancing however it's usually not so hard to avoid those people, the less considerate joggers/runners however you don't have time to do this, also the pace issue means you can't moderate pace to avoid them and due to higher pace one bad runner interacts with a lot more people than a cluster of bad walkers. Add to this the deeper faster breathing and greater amount of droplets I don't see why people shouldn't be annoyed about a significant amount of runners. Personally I would like on running/jogging to be banned in urban areas between say 9-6, I also think they should actually be enforcing the social distancing rules for other groups, runners aren't the only group clearly being a nuisance but it's like cycling, most cyclists are grand most wear either hi-vis and/or lights at night and obey traffic lights but there is a significant minority that are an absolute pain, getting defensive about people being annoyed at it doesn't change the public's perception.
Trampas wrote: » The people moaning about runners running on footpaths. What do you do when you come across walkers. Is there a stand off until one person/group cross the road? The vast majority of runners know the rules and will obey them. Walkers can be a free for all but children will do what children do and can’t be asked to keep 2m gap as that concept doesn’t register with them
hmmm wrote: » When you're walking, most people are having this little dance where people are trying to stay out of each others way. We've time to do this. There's a lot of "will I move on to the road or will they" in my area. There's also the few gob****es who are oblivious to the world, and will pass a foot from you. With runners and joggers there's less time and just a small bit more stressful. I suggest that joggers could help public perceptions by making very clear moves early on to indicate that they are going to move out of the way.
Chivito550 wrote: » Where I go there are very few people about, and the paths are about 3m wide so in the rare times when you do encounter somebody it is easy to stay away from them. I've been down this area before COVID-19 and it's always been fairly quiet. I guess there just isn't that many houses nearby, unlike my local park which is surrounded by houses. I'm a sprinter, so the training is different. I just need a stretch no longer than 300m (usually 150m will be enough). Where I go to train now, I can train without having to worry about encountering many people. I can actually focus on my session. If I were to use the local park, I'd be stuck with 1.5m wide paths and with a heavy flow of walkers, kids, dogs, runners. I actually wouldn't feel comfortable training in this kind of environment as I'd always be looking over my shoulder. I could use the grass but the grass is not football pitch grass, it's uneven terrain which is not very suitable for sprinting. Common sense is important. The town I live in feels very busy with people walking around today. The park is right in the centre of the town. Contrary to what you might think, I'm actually very uncomfortable being around people right now, hence why I drive to where there are very few. I'm looking out for my own health as much as others, while still being able to train and keep the spirits up as a result.
ligerdub wrote: » Gotta love the way some people take the opportunity to execute a bit of social power.....or at least try to. Shame tactics are all the rage these days, perhaps no better example than the vigilante behaviour of some during the coronavirus shutdown. I find it odd that so many people want to increase restrictions to the absolute max. There's a bit of social currency I suppose. The sort of people who go to the park to take photos and put them up on social media......complaining about the amount of people in the park! Gotta show people you care.If this virus was as infectious as some on here suggest then nobody would be allowed go anywhere, and we'd all be mandated to exist in silos.....perhaps locked in cells for months on end. Bullet point: it isn't! The chances of passing on a virus while running past somebody and several feet away, for the grand total of less than 2 seconds must be miniscule. Even if that person were reasonably close by, for arguments sake let's say on the edge of arms reach I'd be very surprised if this represented much of a risk to either party. That's not to say I'd encourage anything other than the recommended limit, but I think people need to get off their high horses on this one.
stockshares wrote: » That's fair enough but if that area is frequented by others closer by then the person is causing a problem and not preventing one.
The Bishop Basher wrote: » Why ? Because you don't like hearing an alternative view ? Running is fine if it's practiced within the guidelines. The problem at the moment is it's near impossible to run on the path while maintaining the correct distance as the footpaths are rammed with families out walking. Some people have found alternative routes, others have stopped running all together but the remainder are continuing as normal and running close to people on the footpaths which is both ignorant and dangerous just now. Which bit if this do you take issue with ? Are you suggesting that runners be given an exception to the distance rule ?
kenmm wrote: » Some people who are running are being d!cks. Every time I have taken my exercise, whether its a walk or whatever, I've witnessed runners getting close to people, particularly at pinch points like bridges etc. Normally you dont want to have to stop start when running, but in these times you must (to let someone on a bridge finish crossing it, to wait for traffic while someone else is using the pavement ahead etc). I don't see nearly enough runners (or even people walking in the city) doing this.
adrian522 wrote: » Possibly, but I'll leave it up to the experts to make that judgement, there are huge mental as well as physical benefits to getting outside the house for some exercise.
IvoryTower wrote: » A bit of common sense needed, if an extra 400m reduces the chance of anyone spreading the poxy thing then obviously you should take the option that prevents the spread. I assume he just posted it so he can sit back and enjoy the froth
Unthought Known wrote: » You're welcome
tom1ie wrote: » Yes but generally as opposed to thinking of your own experiences. Do you not think it would make sense to train at home to stop people coming into close contact on footpaths like some of the scenarios on this thread.
skyblue46 wrote: » The guideline breakers and bad mannered, walkers and joggers both, who are normally sitting on their couches or sweating it in a gym are not reading this.
The Bishop Basher wrote: » Went out early for a walk this morning and the number of inexperienced runners huffing, puffing and snottering past within feet of me was a real issue tbh. Experienced runners (ie those not huffing and puffing) seem to be a lot more aware and considerate.
tom1ie wrote: » wow your getting very upset over this chief. I like staying fit as much as anyone on here. I'm only suggesting that you can stay fit plus stay indoors (which is obviously preferable during a pandemic unless you disagree?) by training at home. wheres the harm?
stockshares wrote: » People like me. Your You're the one breaking the regulations. 2km restriction is to prevent the spread of the virus to other communities.
skyblue46 wrote: » The only issues on this forum are being brought in by a gang of gob****es trying to get running banned or some such nonsense. The runners on this forum are quite happily continuing their training outdoors, staying within 2km (give or take 400m :pac:), respecting social distancing and keeping healthy. Maybe, just maybe, all you naysayers could just make your way back to whatever forum you usually frequent. Simples.
average_runner wrote: » Comparing Ireland to New Zealand, is like apples and oranges, its not like for like. Its a lot harder to get to New Zealand and its spread across two islands, so easier for them to do 2 weeks quarantine on people arriving.
