- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Wales - View towards Barmouth (licvensed CC BY-SA 2.0 by DEdward Crompton on Flickr)Cycling UK fears Welsh Government guidance to only ride within walking distance of home may deter people from cycling
Cycling UK has warned that revised guidance from the Welsh Government issued last week which said that people cycling for exercise outside the home need to stay within walking distance of where they live may deter people from riding bikes during the lockdown.
The charity’s head of campaigns, Duncan Dollimore, told road.cc that the charity if seeking “further clarification” of the guidance, which we reported on here on Freiday.
> Welsh Government says you can only cycle within walking distance of home
“The Welsh Government guidance on leaving home to exercise, published on Friday, suggests that people should limit their cycling to ‘a reasonable walking distance from home,” he said.
“Cycling UK are concerned that this guidance might deter some people, particularly those who’ve taken up cycling in recent weeks whilst the roads have been much quieter, from continuing to cycle for both their daily exercise and for essential journeys.
“Cycling UK has therefore written to the Welsh Government today seeking further clarification, which we hope can be provided quickly.”
Last week’s updated guidance said that “as a rule of thumb” people should only ride their bikes within walking distance of where they live, and that “cycling significant distances from home is not considered to be a reasonable excuse for leaving it.”
But there is no specific mention of how far that distance might be, with no specific mention of it in the legislation or the guidance, leaving scope for confusion.
While the Welsh Government acknowledged that “cycling is a valid form of exercise and is also a suitable way of going to work,” it added that the guidance aims to relieve pressure on emergency services due to a rider having an accident or mechanical issue, which may also require someone else to make a journey to provide assistance.
Cyclists are also “expected to only cycle alone or with members of their household, on routes they know well, and that are well within their ability level.”
> Cycling dos and don'ts in a time of pandemic – how to be a responsible cyclist
Under Regulation 8 (1) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (Wales) Regulations 2020 “During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living or remain away from that place without reasonable excuse.”
The Regulations go on to define a “reasonable excuse” as including, at paragraph (b), “to take exercise, no more than once a day (or more frequently if this is needed because of a particular health condition or disability), either (i) alone; (ii) with other members of the person’s household; or (iii) with the person’s carer.”
Here are the paragraphs in full relating to cycling contained in the Welsh Government’s latest guidance.
Cycling is a valid form of exercise and is also a suitable way of going to work. Cycling is generally a low-risk activity but with emergency services under pressure, it is important to take steps to manage risk wherever possible. An accident or a breakdown far from home would place additional strain on health services or require a further journey to be made by someone else to provide assistance.
People are expected to only cycle alone or with members of their household, on routes they know well, and that are well within their ability level. Cyclists on shared paths should be considerate of walkers, runners and other people cycling: they should stay two metres from others, slow their pace and stop to let people pass as appropriate.
Cycling should be local, as a rule of thumb limited to travelling no further than a reasonable walking distance from home. Exercising by cycling significant distances from home is not considered to be a reasonable excuse for leaving home.20. Cycling to work, or for work, is a reasonable excuse to be outside (so long as going to work, or doing the work, is itself justifiable).
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 54 min 39 sec ago
I wonder whether, in Hall-world, a vehicle carrying multiple passengers is more important than one carrying just the driver...
- Cra5hed 59 min 45 sec ago
It depends on how big an impact it makes on that 971 people. I see a lot of cars and not a single cyclist. In my experience cycling in London I...
- ubercurmudgeon 1 hour 4 min ago
Also they adore the dough from the ads bought by oil and car companies who, being expert pushers of the drug of sedentariness, don't like the...
- Gbjbanjs 2 hours 9 min ago
Great to see so many women represented. Like most top of lists, being on it is the achievement. Although I dont see wiggins getting into the top 12.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 47 min ago
Eh? Is that the "City Region *Sustainable* Travel Settlement"? I know this is shouting into the void. And probably quite a few people would be keen...
- IanEdward 3 hours 20 min ago
My first thought was 'does the world really need more gadgets with lithium batteries and copper coils and motors'?...
- David9694 4 hours 3 min ago
And I asked the store clerk what is the one thing that every city resident wants?
- David9694 6 hours 2 min ago
Police name man charged after car smashes into wall outside barbers...
- David9694 6 hours 10 min ago
Teenager arrested after car flips over in crash on Rainham High Street near Otterham Quay Lane...
Add new comment
53 comments
I got pulled up by the police yesterday whilst out for a ride. He questioned me as to whether I thought it was wise to be out on a bike. I quoted the new Welsh guidence to him which he seemed totally unaware of. I was pretty much at the farthest point away from home of about 6 miles at the time, he said I had contravened the the guidance by being more than walking distance away. So I showed him some photo's of me walking in the exactly same place the day before. He asked me what I'd do if I had a mechanical. I pointed out that between the 16 years of being a professional bike mechanic,having a full mini tool kit and having done Wales E2E offroad unsuported I reckon I'd cope ok doing 15 miles quiet backroads on my gravel bike.
What was his response? How did it end?
I work as an orthopaedic and trauma surgeon in Scotland and thought two observations (one subjective and one objective) may help to inform this debate.
First, I am a fairly typical recreational cyclist, clocking up around 5000km a year for the last 15 years or so. Over this time, I have experienced no ride-curtailing mechanical failures, been involved in any accident with another person or sustained any injuries that I can recall. However, over the same period and similar distance travelled by car, I have been involved in two urban motor vehicle collisions (one of which resulted in my hospitalisation after my vehicle was struck by a speeding driver) and have required breakdown service assistance on two further occasions.
Second, a few years ago we introduced a subspecialist acute knee injury clinic in parallel with the local fracture clinic. As with all new services, this was audited after it had become established. The unexpected finding was that the single greatest source of acute knee injury was dog walking (54%) with common mechanisms being tripping over tree roots, slipping on uneven ground or being knocked over by their or another person's dog. Prior to the audit, our anticipation was that sporting injuries would predominate but these proved relatively rare in comparison.
The house and garden continue to be high yield sources of injury in lockdown and we continue to see high speed motor vehicle trauma (and dog walking injuries) but I believe the Welsh Government are ill-informed and barking up the wrong tree if they think limiting cycling distance will be of benefit to the emergency services or NHS. Inexperienced cyclists will inevitably stay close to home and experienced cyclists will continue to seek out quieter roads and remain self-sufficient.
Loads of comments on here justifying / disputing the interpretation of this guidance, but none seemingly calling it out for what it is, namely... a knee jerk measure made to pacify populist opinion.
Cycling places no additional demand on the NHS compared to any other activity; assuming social distancing guidelines are followed, cycling will not increase the amount of Covid infections.
Cycling is being further controlled simply because people are muttering. People are muttering because once again they see a self-elected out group (therefore fair game) continuing with their day to day, whilst 'everyone else' is being restricted. There is nothing that can be done about those restrictions right now, so to make these people feel a bit better, the 'muttering' is being acted on.
It is, to be blunt, utter bullshit.
And no, we should not simply accept it like guilty, compliant plebs. Populism is something that needs to be fought at all times.
In respect to the question about how continued cycling can be expected to ease tensions, of course it won't ease tensions at all. However, nothing apart from a complete and permanent ban on all cycling and lycra (apart from that worn by attractive women under 25 I'd guess) will do anything to ease those tensions.
We should pay no respect to these tensions, do not give credence to any of this. To be fair though, the wording around the latest guidance has been left deliberately vague (how far is walking distance; one mile, one hour, one day?) as no police are going to actively enforce it, it really is simply paying lip-service to the knuckle dusters.
How far is "walking distance"?
Well, maybe things have changed over the years but Dickens felt it quite reasonable and believable to have one of his heroes (Pip in Great Expectations) walk from London to the Rochester/Chatham area. That's about 30 miles. I would find no hardship in keeping my cycling to within 30 miles of home.
A few observations from someone on the NHS "frontline" in North Wales:
Over the past couple of weekends there have been absolutely no cycling related injuries on our trauma list. There have been plenty of broken hips in elderly patients, and serious injuries from falling down stairs, pedestrians being hit by cars, and farmers being knocked over by cows. On that basis the Welsh Assembly Goverment would have been better advised to tighten the rules on the elderly being allowed out of their chairs, the use of stairs, cars being allowed out of their garages, and cows being cows!
During the crisis we've massively expanded our ITU capacity. In the hospital I work in, when things peaked a few weeks ago we had about double our normal number of ventilated patients, but we're now down to well within our normal capacity. I understand the other two units in North Wales never had more than one or two Covid19 patients. Of course the hospital has a huge number of less seriously ill Covid19 patients on normal wards, but the absence of most other activity means that the place is actually pretty quiet at the moment with bed occupancy around 50% compared to the 95%+ we usually run at. Certainly if a few cyclists did need our services it wouldn't be any problem at all.
In order to prepare for a huge Covid19 surge we had to change our working patterns. That meant old(er) Consultants like me working resident night shifts several times a week. Meanwhile of course much of the rest of the nation was "working form home" and able to take up their permitted daily exercise every day. I couldn't. But I did console myself by saving up my alloted daily exercise and heading out for a couple of 50-75 mile rides each week on my days off. There were certainly a few extra novice or occassional cyclists around, but they were always very much close to towns and villages. Out in the hills there were only one or two keen / club riders around (always riding solo); the sort of people who will easily cope with most mechanicals out on the road. And of course the roads themselves were bone dry and almost deserted so the risk of slipping off or being hit by a car was much reduced (although I did witness one or two dickheads in performance cars treating the roads as a race track). I also saw more police cars in rural areas than usual, but none of them seemed to be in the right place to potentially catch speeding motorists.
So in summary: the chances of a cyclist causing a burden on the NHS in North Wales seemed much reduced, the NHS in North Wales easily maintained the capacity to cope with trauma, I was able to use the long quiet rides to maintain my mental and physical health during a potentially stressful time in my professional life.
The NHS / Covid19 situation in South Wales does seem to be very different. Certainly the area around Newport has been severely affected. It may be the cyclicts down there have been taking the piss and riding around in groups, I don't know. Perhaps the WAG were driven to revise the rules because of events down there. But from my view point in North Wales it was a complete over reaction taken at a point in the crisis when things are very much under control, so much so that we're ramping up our elective operating activity from this week. The prospect of having my one guilty pleasure restricted (particulary after all the hard work of recent weeks) really pissed me off...until I remembered I only live 2.5 miles from the English border; looks like I'll just be missing out on the climbing but not the mileage after all.
Sorry for the long post, thought I could add an insight from within the NHS in (North) Wales.
No apology needed Jim, it's a fascinating and very helpful comment.
Working in a stressful occupation and environment, I can imagine that your bike rides are a real lifeline. I may pass you as I often traverse the border near Shrewsbury/Oswestry area.
My experience of South Wales (I live in Newport) is this: until last weekend when, being a good boy, I stayed within a reasonable walking distance of home, on my rides of 3 hours on quiet roads I saw very few groups of cyclists and the ones I did see appeared to be family groups. I have not been a burden on the NHS. My wife, however, who works for the NHS has shown symptoms and is waiting for the result of her swab test. She has been a bigger burden on the system than I have riding around on quiet roads on my own.
More amaturish governance from the Welsh Government. No surprises there.
Oldfatgit
Most of us live in urban areas.
-------------------------------------
Let me guess, you live in south Wales or England
You're also missing the point. I would completely agree with this 'advice' if it was given to everybody, drivers, walkers, horse riders etc. But it hasn't been given to everyone, cyclists, once again have been singled out as the ones putting pressure on the NHS.
In the 'good old days' some six weeks ago, drivers would on average kill five people and put another 450 into hospital EVERY DAY. When have you ever seen an article or government document criticising drivers for putting pressure on the NHS. That doesn't even start to include the damage drivers cause with their pollution either......
Actually, I live in neither place.
I'm in Scotland.
Drivers are only supposed to be driving to work if essential and to shops for food, so they are all ready restricted.
Walkers ... well, they're already within walking distance from their homes ...
Horse riders ... dunno, and TBH I don't care.
So - we've been singled out.
Unless you know something that no-one else does, this is for a short period of time - not until the collapse of the world.
We should stop being so petty, selfish and ignorant to the plight of our fellow citizens, rather than behaving like spoiled little brats.
The governments advice is ride within walking distance - either follow the advice and be part of the solution, or go against the advice and we all have to put up with this restricted crap for longer.
Of course, if you're really unhappy with it, go write to your MP and get them to do something about it.
Thanks for the lecture on accidents caused by drivers - maybe you should dig out some of my posts and have a read, and then decide if that level of mansplannig is requried.
I thought walkers were told they could drive somewhere for a walk, so long as they walked for longer than they drove. So, not just walking distance.
Moreover, the point is that limiting cyclists to walking distance only really does nothing whatsoever to "save the NHS" - it isn't "part of the solution".
Dreaming up scenarios where the hapless cyclist has to walk home - sure, might happen. Or a walker could sprain their ankle, etc, etc. But these things are hardly clogging up the NHS. 115,000 people fall over in their garden. And Lord knows how many have a heart attack in front of their TV.
From the guidence I have seen the "walk longer than drive" relates to England ONLY.
Do it, or don't do it.
Be an adult and make your own choice.
You suggest this clamp down on cyclists in Wales is for a "short time". Where does it say this?
There is no indication that these restrictions will be lifted any time soon, after all they have only just been put in place.
Why cyclists are now being singled out in Wales but no other part of the UK is anybody's guess.
Isn't it also odd, that as these new restrictions were introduced, more and more non essential journeys to B&Q or the Range -leading to incredibly long queues - were given the green light! There simply is no logic or scientific justification for these new regulations. But what is dangerous, is they run the risk of reinforcing and fuelling, hateful prejudice against cyclists.
You are aware that hardware shops - which include B and Q and the Range - are in the list of closure exempt retail types.
It's my understanding that these large shops closed voluntarily while they worked out how to enforce SD rules.
It has always been seen as a *reasonable* excuse to leave the house to obtain *essential* supplies ... which includes maintenance and upkeep of the dwelling.
Maintenance and upkeep does not however include getting a new kitchen or bathroom fitted.
Places like Screwfix and Tool Station have remained open for the duration, but as they are mainly trade, most people don't think of them.
Are these queues any longer than have been seen outside of food retailers - I know that my local Costco gets incredibly long queues due to their strict SD policy; traditional supermarkets are also experiencing similar length queues depending on their adherence to SD.
Maybe you don't see DIY as essential, but the law does and your personal opinion on what is essential is irrelevant.
What does run the risk of fuelling anti-cycling sentiment, is cyclists not adhering to laws and publicly released guidence (I am well aware that guidence is not the letter of the law, but *it is what the public sees*).
How does following this specific guidance (not Law) about the distance one should ride from home make anyone safer? And, as already stated by grumpyoldcyclist and others, why does it only apply to cyclists? Are we not allowed to question anything any more?
Rather than being petty or selfish, people are rightly asking why one social group is being singled out for this further (and unnecessary) restriction. Perhaps you don't see how this, added to the cheap shots in the MSM, can play out - cyclists are already being shouted at, abused and even pushed off their bikes. There is a minority of people willing to harm others and claim the lockdown as justification. It is happening to NHS workers riding to work and people cycling in their own local area, not these mythically selfish lycra-clad MAMILs deliberately riding 100+ miles and 'panting' in order to contaminate as many villages as possible.
Also, perhaps if your position wasn't so entrenched you'd realise that the point about gardening injuries was illustrating a point rather than mansplaining.
The law (not guidance) states that *reasonable* exercise is permitted.
While a distance of 30 - 100 miles *to us cyclists* is reasonable, many non-cyclists do not see it as such.
People do not differentiate between 'types' of cyclists, because just like with everything else, we mainly remember those that have done us wrong (perceived or actual). Think BMW and Audi - are they *all* arrogant bastards that exhibit poor driving ... or is it a small minority?
Fear and jealousy (not to mention certain sections of the media) at the moment is on the increase; fear because they don't want to catch the virus ... and that they don't want lockdown to go on for longer than it has too.
Jealousy as they see us, riding our bikes, doing something that we want to do *but they can't*.
We can get out the house for a couple of hours, enjoying ourselves in the wilderness.
For most of the population, getting out for a couple of hours means standing in long queue at the supermarket.
So please, enlighten me as to how *not* complying with the Welsh guidence (if you are affected by it) is going to help ease the anti-cycling feeling?
How is breaking the guidelines going to reduce the vigilantism, the misplaced hate and then unwanted abuse.
You called me "entrenched" and yet I seem to be one of a very few who can see this from the other side of the coin too. Maybe less "entrenched" and more empathic.
While restricting the length of a ride may not make people physically safer, it will go along way in to making others feel *psychologically* safer - which in the interest of public mental health *as a whole* is important.
If you are not able to see that, then maybe you are the "entrenched" one and not I.
The law (not guidance) states that *reasonable* exercise is permitted
Can you supply a link to the relevant legislation which I take it has been updated.
Section 6 (1).
Section 6 (2) would also apply
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made
Note Section 6 (2) also includes travel to DiY shops for essential upkeep.
However, of you read the full article above, you'll be able to see that the Welsh equivalent is in Section 8.
(Edited as on a mobile and multi tabs is not the best)
I have searched for reasonable exercise, but this was not found.
Which lettered/numbered paragraph are you saying it is in?
You have to be less literal in your searching.
In the English version then 6 (1) states
" 6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse."
6 (2) defines what is "reasonable".
You'll have to look the Welsh version yourself ... The article above gives you the starting point.
You have misunderstood what is meant by reasonable excuse and there is no reference to reasonable exercise as you claimed.
The regs tell you to stay at home and only allow you out with 'reasonable excuse'. Such excuses are listed - it does not say that the thing you are carrying out has to be justified as reasonable - eg Buying 3 bottles of wine from the off licence is reasonable but 2 cases is unreasonable. it is simply buying items from an off licence is a reasonable excuse.
Here are some reasons given for being away from home
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52386123
Driving an 84-mile round-trip to "buy a wing mirror for a friend's car"
Driven from Birkenhead to walk up Snowdon because they were "bored"
"I'm taking my mate into Newport to buy drugs"
None of those fell into the categories given in the regs
The welsh regs say - to take exercise, no more than once a day, either alone or with other members of the household;
Again you don't have to justify a 10 mile run because someone thinks that you should only do a parkrun 5k. And the same for cycling.
I guess to some, having to be right is paramount.
I have not misinterpreted "reasonable excuse" ... I have exactly the same interpretation of it as you do.
As I've said countless times in this thread ...
You want to go out and ride counter the guidence, go for it. It's your choice, I'm not telling you what to do.
But, please enlighten me as to how riding against the guidence is going to reduce the hostility currently directed at cyclists.
It is better than being wrong.
Please tell me how obeying the rules has reduced the hostilities directed towards cyclists?
Guess you can't advise on as to how breaking the rules will ease tensions.
It's been enlightening, and with that, I am out of this thread.
Happy cycling and stay safe.
I have at no point advocated breaking any rules.
And you have not answered my question on how obeying the rules has reduced hostilities directed towards cyclists.
It's nice to have a site forum where people can disagree, quite intensely, without it degenerating into insults and personal attacks - unlike so much of the interweb. Happy Cycling 🚴♀️
I'm not sure that breaking or not breaking the rules (or guidance) has any effect on hostility toward cyclists.
Most people who are ranting about cyclists at this time are people who would have ranted about cyclists at any other time too, they've just got a new justification.
And most people ranting about "covidiots" seem to be basing that rant on what they think is the "commonsense" interpretation of a statement they think they heard a junior minister make on LBC this one time (for example)...
I haven't interpreted reasonable excuse, I pointed to how it is used in the regs.
You stated that "The law (not guidance) states that *reasonable* exercise is permitted." but you have not been able to back this claim up as I showed above. Introducing incorrect claims is not helpful, so expect to be challenged where you do so.
As to "But, please enlighten me as to how riding against the guidence is going to reduce the hostility currently directed at cyclists."
It's straightforward: the simple existence of being a cyclist provokes hostility. Plenty of reports of people having a go at cyclists where they have no idea of the purpose of the cyclist's journey, the distance travelled, the extent to which they are self sufficient.
As previous posts in this topic, if the concern was about the strain on the NHS, there would be other activities that should be banned or restricted but instead we have the usual irrational dislike shown to cyclists and the singleing out of one group.
I'm not really a fan of this argument. Cyclists could pay "road tax", wear helmets, have number plates, obey every single road law perfectly and there would still be plenty of people out there who didn't know the law or interpreted it how they wanted or simply wanted to rant anyway.
There was a guy on Twitter this morning ranting about how he'd hit a traffic island while trying to overtake a cyclist and dinged his wheel and next time he would just hit the cyclist. The Police even replied to him on the thread to enquire why he was overtaking through a width restriction but he was convinced he was in the right. The cyclist was doing NOTHING wrong, the motorist had made an entirely dick move, come off worse and was somehow blaming the innocent.
That's slightly off on a tangent but it's the same principle. And anyway, how does a random stranger looking at a random cyclist riding along a road immediately know that the rider is far from home, not local, has been out / is going out for more than an hour, is / is not within walking distance of home, is / is not carrying the tools to fix a mechanical, is / is not a key worker riding to / from their key worker job...?
This whole pandemic thing has really brought out the pathetic little Hitler in many many people. We're not a proud Keep Calm and Cary On nation, we're a nation of little NIMBYs, terrified of our own shadow, suspicious of all "others", desperate to report perceived infractions.
Pages