- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Dragon recce 2012.jpgWelsh Government says you can only cycle within walking distance of home
The Welsh Government has updated its guidance on exercise during the lockdown – and says 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.” However, questions remain over what that distance may actually be, with no specific mention of it in the legislation or the guidance, leaving scope for confusion.
While acknowledging that “cycling is a valid form of exercise and is also a suitable way of going to work,” the Welsh Government says 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.”
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.”
As with similar regulations in force elsewhere in the UK, the legislation, aimed at containing the spread of coronavirus, places restrictions on the reasons people may leave their homes while the emergency continues.
> Cycling dos and don'ts in a time of pandemic – how to be a responsible cyclist
But while the legislation in England, for example, makes no reference to only being able to leave the home once per day, the Regulations in Wales do.
In common with the laws in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, much of the regulations have been left vague, which has led to confusion among members of the public about what they are and are not allowed to do.
In particular, lack of clarity about how long one should exercise for, or how far from home – note that reference in the Regulations to “rule of thumb,” whatever that is, that we mentioned at the start of this article – leaves room for people to be found to have broken the law when they did not intend to.
And already, one of the country’s major media outlets, Wales Online, has said that it “understands” that under the new guidance, cycling within 10 miles of home would be seen as a “reasonable distance” while being 20 miles away would not – although there is nothing in the guidance itself that backs that up.
(From a cyclist’s point of view, of course, a “reasonable distance” to enable them to get back home by foot in the event of a mechanical may be determined by whether they happen to be wearing cleated shoes, or trainers more suited to a lengthy walk).
In England and Wales, the decision to prosecute criminal cases investigated by the police and other agencies rests with the Crown Prosecution Service and the application of the law resides with the courts.
However, government guidance to legislation, while not forming part of it, can be a strong influence in determining what it is seeking to achieve and, ultimately, how it should be interpreted and enforced.
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).
As of yesterday, 8,358 people in Wales had tested positive for COVID-19, of whom 641 died.
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
- hawkinspeter 5 hours 33 min ago
Interesting theory - how many points does it take for them to drive carefully?
- eburtthebike 5 hours 56 min ago
At the end of the consultation in May 2025, a decision will be taken.........
- Grahamd 6 hours 20 min ago
The absurdity of it deepens when you realise that those points were acquired by the age of 26.
- David9694 7 hours 54 min ago
BAM!
- IanGlasgow 8 hours 30 min ago
"Polartec Power Shield RPM fabric – which has a 10,000mm hydro head to keep wet weather out, and an industry-leading breathability spec of 30,000g...
- mdavidford 9 hours 34 min ago
Oxfordshire councils are quite capable of letting you down too!...
- levestane 9 hours 48 min ago
'each spoke' (single) and 'leaf spring' (made of many leaves) seems contradictory.
- PenLaw 10 hours 40 min ago
I guess Morrissey could claim it.
- wtjs 11 hours 5 min ago
I do see a lot of delivery riders (on illegal e-motorbikes) with their faces covered...
- David9694 11 hours 46 min ago
Stuff like this seems more relevant than ever after the Trump victory. sorry not a funny
Add new comment
83 comments
What is confusing is how far are you allowed to cycle?
They mention an interpretation of a 'reasonable walking distance' from home being 10 miles. Now does that mean 10 miles as the crow flies or 10 miles actual distance travelled? And if it's 10miles travelled does that mean that you are actually only allowed to cycle 5 miles out and 5 miles back?
And how long are you allowed to exercise for? People keep mentioning that you are only allowed out for an hours exercise but where is that in the laws/guidelines?
Iy would be so much simpler if they wrote the law down so that it isn't open to interpretation. Surely it would have made sense to state that you can only exercise for no more than an hour and be within 5 miles radius of your home (or similar time/distance restrictions). That would have made it so much clearer and everyone would know exactly what they are allowed to do!
It's all very confusing still!!
Seems pretty clear to me - their concern is whether you would be able to walk home if necessary, so you can cycle as far as you want, as long as you do so within the radius of a 'reasonable walking distance' from your home.
What's less clear is what a 'reasonable walking distance' means. The 10 miles thing appears to be made up / chinese whispers, and the legislation & guidance don't specify what that distance should be.
In theory, that seems a fairly sensible stance, in that what's a 'reasonable walking distance' for me may not be the same as what is for you, so specifying a set distance wouldn't make sense.
In practice, because they haven't explained this, there's going to be a lot of people thinking "I can't possibly envisage walking further than a mile, so all these cyclists are being irresponsible travelling further than that from home". Most worryingly, that may include some of the police officers tasked with enforcing the rules.
What it needs is some guidance to the guidance...
"...their concern is whether you would be able to walk home if necessary,..."
To which I would say, yes, but what about the plant pots?! Read on...
I am heartily sick of all these meddlers who imagine up some risk and then hedge us about with mitigations. I have never, ever had to walk home. Not once. Ever. I can only suppose these scenarios are dreampt up by people who once rode a bike, got to the end of the street and had to walk back because the chain fell off - terminal.
I'm not going to say it can't happen, but you can't regulate life on the basis of avoiding all and every risk; there is risk in just sitting at home waiting for a heart attack.
So for all those H&S 'rule makers' who love nothing better than an imagined risk against which they can concoct a rule of prevention, here is a good source of actual quantified risks from just staying home. I kid you not, plant pots is in 2nd place, you have been warned:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1563988/Gardening-lands-87000-a-year-in...
Damn you, you made me read some Telegraph, I get it free from Waitrose for mud catching and bike cleanning, but try to not look at the words.
Last walk home I remember, 4-5years back, old job, noticed rear wheel a little loose when getting it out, tightened it up a bit, wish I'd swapped bikes, but group meeting so didn't want to be late. About 2/3 of the way in rear hub rips itself apart, Shimano's newish big pipe and more dodgy freehub. Pushed bike up hill to work, very late and after a day at work walked all the way home, grrr. Luckily I had the 14mm hex at home (new dodgy freehubs) and spare internals as the cone didn't exist any more. I should have notice, my fault, but it does happen. It could have happened the day before of course. Probably stiffer, no doubt lighter but I did prefer the old narrower shimano spindles and the near bomb proof freehubs.
Can't read that. It wants me to subscribe. To the Telegraph of all things.
I don't disagree. I wouldn't say their stance is necessarily correct - just that I think it's clearer and more flexible than has been suggested.
As I say it doesn't go far enough in explaining itself, and that's the fundamental problem with all the guidance that's come out so far - it's fixated on the idea that you need to treat the public like children by giving them simple black-and-white rules to follow, and not worry their pretty little heads with giving an explanation how and why you arrived at them, or having a grown-up conversation about the management of risk.
And then of course people start pointing out the flaws in the simple rules, so you have to keep adding on addendums, so that the supposed simple message gets ever more muddied and confused anyway, and you end up worse off than if you'd just engaged fully with the subject in the first place.
For all you Telegraphophobes, here is the source;
https://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail/?id=80
Skimmed through it again - 115,000 people just plain fall over in their garden requiring hospital treatment. It wouldn't have happened if they were clinging on to their bike for support!
Well 115,000 people have a fall, but I don't think they're just dropping to the ground out of nowhere - more likely leaning too far off a ladder while clearing gutters, children climbing trees and falling out of them, tripping down steps in the garden, etc., etc.
Os credwch fod y Rheol hon yn ddrwg, mae'n debyg na chaniateir imi gerdded mwy na phum milltir i ddod o hyd i ddafad i siag!
I ran this through google translator. Hmmm...
I presume you are Welsh and that would excuse the casual rasist trope. Self deprecation is a very acceptable form of comedy.
North Wales police out in force near Loggerheads, Mold checking on cyclists and talking down to them in the usual way. Pity they aren't always this keen.
Seeing it has long been known that cycling reduces the strain on the NHS, this new guidance only shows the complete lack of ignorance about what the Welsh Government are ruling on.
This is aside from the lack of context any such 'guidance' has. I can cycle 5 miles in one direction and be 15 miles from an A+E I can cycle 15 miles in another direction and be only 5 miles from an A+E.
This is aside from the point that if you need NHS because of something that happens when you are out, then you very unlikely to be walking anywhere, particularly not home.
As it happens if I cycle locally, I struggle to avoid other people because the cyclepath/footpath opposite house is very busy with walkers, joggers, skateboarders, dogs etc, but head away from home and suddenly no-one to be seen. I will see more wild horses than people or cars if on road.
Great article, and so prescient. Published in 2017 yet prefigured the slogan of 2020:
"There is a credible argument that encouraging bike use to Dutch or Danish levels could do more than perhaps any other single intervention to save the NHS"
yes but walking distance to us is very different to non cyclists. I once walked up my road to my local shop, at the same time, my 4by4 driving neighbour waddled out, climbed up into said vehicle, drove downthe same road, parked and went in the shop next door. We exited at the same time, and she had only just parked up by the time i got to my driveway. Talking a three minute walk here. So she's afraid of walking 0.3 miles, whereas i once walked 12 miles in three hours and felt fine afterwards. So a walking distance for me is potentially up to 30 miles, as thats what, 4 miles an hour, a good 8 hours walk. So i can go anywhere i like, as long as its not outside 30 miles from my house. Coolio! The stupid part is interpretation. The max i will actually go is 15 miles from my house, a good hour away, then i'll head back home. The more you push people NOT to do something, the more they will try to do it, or beat it. A bit like if you made someone a prisoner, they would try to escape. Or told a slave to work on the plantation. Better bet is treat us all like people, not a group, as long we're sensible and dont mix with others or go round in a group right beside eachother, something im yet to see on the roads during recent times, i see no issue with cycling as far as you want.
I always do the school run by bike or on foot. And I am always shocked when I see my neighbors drop / collect their kids in the car. It's like 500 meters. So I also don't understand what 'walking distance' means. It's so subjective that it's meaningless.
+1 on the short journeys in favourable conditions (weather, terrain, time of day) done by petrol car.
Only thing to add is that cars parked on the pavements don't help on this.
New guidance - an accident a long way from home could disrupt dance practice.
All exersise within a 2km radius of home here in Ireland. Had 3 weeks of it now. The main problem with it is that even in very rural places like here you end up with everyone out in the same area. It's lunacy around towns. If you could go a bit farther you'd be away from people. A 10 mile radius would be luxury.
It's a bit confusing because it's GUIDANCE on how to interpret the REGULATIONS.
Regulation = law. Guidance = a reasonable interpretation of that law, a block of information to allow you to obey the law. The fundamental principle is that people should stay at home as much as possible. However it then acknowledges that people will of course have to leave the house for essential reasons so it defines those in Para 2. (actually quite a long list including things like visiting a cemetary to pay respects to the deceased...)
The term "reasonable" is important. In law, it means "what the general population would consider OK" and it's an objective term. It removes it from the other legal term of "subjective" which is what YOU consider is OK. This is where we get onto shaky ground because, as cyclists, I'm guessing most people on this forum are capable of 40+ miles quite happily, indeed to many that would be seen as a normal and reasonable ride. However, to the general public (most of whom cannot grasp the concept of riding bikes in the first place and look at any distance of more than a mile as a reason to get the car out), it is not OK. So in court, you'd be like "Yeah, 40 miles, no worries, knock that out in 2.5hrs, home in time for tea" while the general public would be like "40 miles?!! OMG, that's not possible, that's a week long cycle tour, you irresponsible twat".
There's enough leeway there to say about "significant" distance from home and "reasonable" walking distance. Again though, you come up against "reasonable". Most people can't conceive of walking for more than a few minutes. We saw in the anti-cyclist stuff around the Peak District village of Bradwell that the local shouty NIMBY said that people wearing Sheffield jerseys were 12 miles from Sheffield and he (personally) considered this unreasonable and a significant distance. I don't - my commute is 15 miles! Subjectively, I consider 12 miles absolutely fine. Objectively, it clearly isn't.
The answer, which I had to use in another Peak District village when accosted by a local asking where I'd come from, is to just name the nearest town. Only way that would fall down is if a police officer asked for ID (which I do carry in case I'm knocked off and someone needs to identify me and contact relatives). However you're under no obligation to produce that for a random stranger.
I do think though that people should really be looking to obey (so far as reasonably possible) the lockdown because the alternatives are:
lockdown goes on interminably
the lockdown requirements finally go the way of Spain when they see that people can't obey "reasonable" requests
there's even more anti-cyclist feeling and the press will use extended lockdown to blame cyclists for going on long rides.
But this is a misuse and abuse of the legal concept of 'reasonable'.
Firstly, this would typically be used to assess whether you could 'reasonably' have foreseen some particular outcome of an action - e.g. "if I drove my car down a residential street at 70mph I could reasonably foresee that I might knock someone over and kill them" - not simply whether you would consider it 'reasonable' to undertake an act yourself.
Secondly, it assumes at least a basic grasp of the relevant facts of the situation. So if you were trying to assess whether it was reasonable for someone to cycle 40 miles, the test should be "given that this person is fit enough to cycle 40 miles without it being physically challenging, and has the mechanical knowhow to fix any issues that might occur with their bike [etc.] is it reasonable for them to cycle 40 miles?".
If
then this is clearly not a valid situation in which to apply a test of 'reasonableness'.
Oh I know! I absolutely agree with everything you've written - it's an extremely shaky legal area. Sadly however, the media rarely bothers itself with minor things like facts and won't hesitate to shame people who are perceived to be "unreasonable".
That's already happened to an extent, albeit they had to "fake" the photos (via use of telescopic lenses and specific vantage points) to get pics of those "disgraceful scofflaw cyclists" riding 400 abreast up Box Hill and in groups numbering several million around Regents Park.
Not sure how you work out that reasonable is an objective term. It is a judgement based on the time, background, circumstances, technology, individual.
Is it reasonable that I could cycle up ventoux - no. It is reasonable that Thomas could a few times in a row - yes.
In legal speak, it is a definitive term - a generic and relative one and applies to that which is appropriate for a particular situation. In the law of Negligence, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances. (the example above about speeding down a residential street is a good one).
It's why you have the really shit defintion of careless/dangerous driving of "below reasonable standard" and "far below reasonabe standard". I never said it was any good, I just said it was a legal defintiion!
The lockdown is over.
Little by little the lockdown is being flouted - people are now going for a drive, white vans are all over the roads, businesses are looking into how they can reopen. B&Q have started a rush that every garden centre will follow. Before we know it places will be awash with the very people we are trying to protect - pensioners.
Never did understand why solitary pastimes such as walking or sitting in a park was disallowed or why it wasn't possible to social distance on a golf course. But it's ok to wander around a supermarket with lines and arrows that many ignore clutching a trolley thats been touched by hundreds.
The NHS hasn't been over loaded - is this because of sufficient measures or becuase it was an overreaction? Doesn't really matter but it's about time they woke up to the consequences of keeping empty wards whilst other serious cases are put on hold.
Furlough is a too generous joke. There's no checks that companies who could have staff working from home do so. I can work from home yet we have all been furloughed to save our company money. Were it a less generous offer they would have tried to adapt to keep money coming in - instead they took the offer to not bother.
It would have been so much better to keep the economy going by enforcing social distancing where possible, maintaining normality where possible and offering support to those really needed it. Instead they chose wholescale shutdown which clearly isn't sustainable and encouraged compliance by public shaming and threats.
Except B&Q could always open, they just decided it was too much hassle.
Garden centres are not listed in part 3 of schedule 2 of the regs, so they won't be opening.
My highstreet hardware shop opened with restictions all through.
B&Q decidded to close, now it opened and there are massive queues. We should get proper scared when we get massive Bees.
If that is a current photo, then that is farcical.
They only opened yesterday.
They weren't queueing like that in the before times.
That photo shows those people are at a much higher risk than any cyclist doing 200k.
Little Englanders are alive and well I see...... in Wales!
Take a map and draw a circle 10 miles in radius from where you live. That's around 314 sq miles if I remember my geometry. For a few more weeks, are there really not enough roads to keep you happy for an hour or so?
Pages