France bans cycling as it tightens coronavirus measures

I suspect they look at the number of cyclists attending A&E in their respective countries and wrongly assume that it's all self-inflicted despite most cycling accidents involving a motor vehicle. Deduct accidents involving a motor vehicle and cycling is very safe.

My concern regarding banning outdoor activities won't be from cycling but from joggers and dog walkers. I'm appalled at the number of people ignoring social distancing, especially elderly dogwalkers.

billymansell wrote:

My concern regarding banning outdoor activities won't be from cycling but from joggers and dog walkers. I'm appalled at the number of people ignoring social distancing, especially elderly dogwalkers.

Walked to the Post Office yesterday.  On footway, young woman pushing a buggy, walked straight at me, forcing me to move out of the way.  

why would you not move out of the way for someone pushing a buggy?

cyclefaster wrote:

why would you not move out of the way for someone pushing a buggy?

I'm generally quite polite and will move out of the way for anyone, buggy or not.  But I don't subscribe to the general mood in today's society that mothers are sacred and we must all genuflect before them, and also, this woman aimed her buggy at me.  

It takes a special kind of paranoia to think someone AIMED their buggy at you. And I guarantee the mother pushing a buggy was a) exhausted and b) not doing it to annoy you, or even for fun.

If you'd just taken a single step to the side (no genuflection necessary), you'd have saved yourself having to make two tedious posts.

Pretty rich of you to talk about entitlement after that ludicrous "near miss" video of yours. The one where you felt entitled to ride across a busy road without checking your speed, expecting the traffic to part like the fucking Red Sea.

billymansell wrote:

My concern regarding banning outdoor activities won't be from cycling but from joggers and dog walkers. I'm appalled at the number of people ignoring social distancing, especially elderly dogwalkers.

And how would joggers be liable for there being a ban? A runner going for a solitary run is just the same as a cyclist going for a solitary ride surely?

Apologies if I didn't make it clear. I've been out every day this week and every day many joggers I see are in twos or more with fewer single joggers. For many jogging is a social thing but for now the rules have changed for us all.

Dogwalkers disregarding social distancing appears even more common. I've only seen a coupe of instances where people stopped to talk and maintained a distance but too many are carrying on as before.

Looking at other countries it is when people fail to maintain the basic rules of social distancing that governments eventually implement lockdowns. Let's hope not here.

billymansell wrote:

every day many joggers I see are in twos or more with fewer single joggers.

Likely a lot of those jogging in pairs are already living together, so they're probably at less risk of passing each other the virus than they would be if they were mooching around the house.

Even including collisions with motor vehicles cycling is very safe.

They haven't banned people driving cars but drivers are the ones that cause by far the most misery - to pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicle occupants. Let's see who's to blame before we start banning people from the roads.

If you look at the RAS50 data (ras50007.ods) shows "Injudicious action" was a contributory factor in 25,000 reported casualties, "Driver/Rider error or reaction" 79,000, "Impairment or distraction" 18,750 and "Driver/Rider careless, reckless or in a hurry" 18,900.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras50-contributory-f...

Oh, and "Pedestrian failed to look properly" accounted for 7,577 of the 11,000 ped statistics.

I'm less cynical. If a cyclist can travel 100kms on a recreational ride, they can be a vector for carrying virus from one town to another. 

Also, the 'something must be done/a signal must be sent' is entirely reasonable in these circumstances. There cannot be any pissing around at all with this virus, and people just can't follow basic rules like "please don't go down the pub". I'm all up for restriction of civil liberties in these circumstances. Let's not be dicks.

the little onion wrote:

Also, the 'something must be done/a signal must be sent' is entirely reasonable in these circumstances. 

Imposing arbitrary rules reduces respect for those rules. When people can see the point of the rule, they're more likely to respect them.

I agree entirely. That's the difference between the UK and Spain. In spain, the government have been far better. The rules have been clear, as has the rationale. In the UK, the government have been crap. I.e. saying 'please don't go down to the pub' rather than just shutting the damn things.

(p.s. for clarity, I wasn't saying that cyclists are dicks, just the general british population....)

the little onion wrote:

Also, the 'something must be done/a signal must be sent' is entirely reasonable in these circumstances. There cannot be any pissing around at all with this virus, and people just can't follow basic rules like "please don't go down the pub". I'm all up for restriction of civil liberties in these circumstances. Let's not be dicks.

I don't agree, this lockdown is an over reation that will destroy the economy. The elderly and vunerable should be self isolating for their own protection. The rest of us have to wait 18 months or so for a vaccine so mostly we will get it, lie down and feel shit for a bit and then get over it. It's not worth destroying the economy for a generation. The consequences will be far worse than a bout of bad flu.

Agree. If look at it as purely numbers game then the cost of protecting people with little life left isn't worth putting millions into poverty. Boomers win again.

My parents are being completely ignorant I'm alright Jack about this anyway. One of them has dementia so I'll excuse her but the other is head in the sand and recently nearly died of pneumonia but is still being an idiot about it all. Old people.

Read the Imperial college report. Then come back to me with an apology. That is dangerous bullshit that WILL COST THOUSANDS OF LIVES

bikeman01 wrote:

the little onion wrote:

Also, the 'something must be done/a signal must be sent' is entirely reasonable in these circumstances. There cannot be any pissing around at all with this virus, and people just can't follow basic rules like "please don't go down the pub". I'm all up for restriction of civil liberties in these circumstances. Let's not be dicks.

I don't agree, this lockdown is an over reation that will destroy the economy. The elderly and vunerable should be self isolating for their own protection. The rest of us have to wait 18 months or so for a vaccine so mostly we will get it, lie down and feel shit for a bit and then get over it. It's not worth destroying the economy for a generation. The consequences will be far worse than a bout of bad flu.

Please please read this: imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf 

That paper clearly sets out the problem with our current strategy.

The huge rebound we'll get in the winter.

The economy can't handle too long in its current state.

If we can't afford to shut down over and over again then we'll end up in an even worse situation come the winter.

I don't think we will be able to shut down for that long or on multiple occasions.

We need an alternative strategy.

the little onion wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

the little onion wrote:

Also, the 'something must be done/a signal must be sent' is entirely reasonable in these circumstances. There cannot be any pissing around at all with this virus, and people just can't follow basic rules like "please don't go down the pub". I'm all up for restriction of civil liberties in these circumstances. Let's not be dicks.

I don't agree, this lockdown is an over reation that will destroy the economy. The elderly and vunerable should be self isolating for their own protection. The rest of us have to wait 18 months or so for a vaccine so mostly we will get it, lie down and feel shit for a bit and then get over it. It's not worth destroying the economy for a generation. The consequences will be far worse than a bout of bad flu.

 

Please please read this: imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf 

That Imperial College study is so flawed & has been rightly heavily criticised by academics. 
Here's some reading as to why:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be93...

bikeman01 wrote:

the little onion wrote:

Also, the 'something must be done/a signal must be sent' is entirely reasonable in these circumstances. There cannot be any pissing around at all with this virus, and people just can't follow basic rules like "please don't go down the pub". I'm all up for restriction of civil liberties in these circumstances. Let's not be dicks.

I don't agree, this lockdown is an over reation that will destroy the economy. The elderly and vunerable should be self isolating for their own protection. The rest of us have to wait 18 months or so for a vaccine so mostly we will get it, lie down and feel shit for a bit and then get over it. It's not worth destroying the economy for a generation. The consequences will be far worse than a bout of bad flu.

A comparison with Flu. By a Doctor. Puts it into true perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szueWSgLHpw

the little onion wrote:

I'm less cynical. If a cyclist can travel 100kms on a recreational ride, they can be a vector for carrying virus from one town to another.

And how far can a car travel?

the little onion wrote:

I'm less cynical. If a cyclist can travel 100kms on a recreational ride, they can be a vector for carrying virus from one town to another. 

 

Also, the 'something must be done/a signal must be sent' is entirely reasonable in these circumstances. There cannot be any pissing around at all with this virus, and people just can't follow basic rules like "please don't go down the pub". I'm all up for restriction of civil liberties in these circumstances. Let's not be dicks.

Tell me, if I go on a 100 mile bike ride, as I'm considering doing tomorrow, at what point do I risk infecting someone else? I'm not planning on a cafe stop, I'll bring a packed lunch. Do you think someone's going to nick my bike and lick the handlebars? Do you think someone's going to walk up to me at a set of traffic lights and breath in my outbreath?

Good grief, give me strength.

Where has 'Close pass of the day' gone?

No one is out and about to get footage.
I did have some caravan twat last week that is down for prosecution. I hope he doesn't try and pull a fast one and dispute it in the hope the court can't meet.

Sorry, Hirsute, it was meant with a twang of irony. Less cars, less close passes.

I'm in rural France at the moment. No police enforcing the new rules, which would be a ridiculous waste of time, anyway. Even so, still carrying the required 'attestation' on my daily shopping trip. I think the UK, which is lagging slightly benind, have a bit of a shock coming to them if they don't start to listen to the 'government', regardless of what we think. From what I see on the TV, it seems as though the cities will bring the wrath onto everyone.

efail wrote:

 

Where has 'Close pass of the day' gone?

The drivers have suddenly got responsible and are practicing social distancing or whatever the phrase is.