“Stay local” – What the latest lockdown laws and guidance mean for you and cycling

I'm not sure that stopping to take photos is reasonably necessary to your exercise...

Dammit! You got me - where do I pay the fine?!

Stock image m'lud
From my helmet cam m'lud

I imagine that if you do have an issue with your mental health, and can point to a diagnosis of something in particular or a definite history then if you find yourself in front of a magistrate then that would hold water. Otherwise it's just special pleading.

Not sure I agree with you there, its all about risk. If someone can run or cycle outside or walk with no risk to others why place a limit of one hour? If I ran around my local park for 65 minutes am I being irresponsible? If I cycle for 2 hours around my local roads is that irresponsible?

Any non legal arbitrary 'about an hour' is nonsense. Especially as it came from Govey McGoves upper anal orrifice

So are you saying you will ride a bike but only for an hour, or not ride at all for fear of ending up in hospital?

Awavey wrote:

So are you saying you will ride a bike but only for an hour, or not ride at all for fear of ending up in hospital?

Those are both examples to demonstrate a point. You can get a decent amount of exercise in an hour. I also think it's always sensible to adjust your riding to the circumstances around you in the same way that you might avoid manhole covers in the wet, or muddy or icy lanes in winter, that kind of thing. 

The guidance is purely there to give examples and can't be expected to have a particular set of scenarios for every single person, for each town in the country and our riding ability.

No I wouldnt expect it to,but you started off sounding like you thought it was too risky to ride bike for fear of impacting the NHS, but then finished by saying youd ride a bike for an hour. I wasnt sure which side of the stay at home vs manage your risks debate you were coming from

I think it's important not get out on the bike. I would just be a bit embarrassed big I came off and broke some bones while in the middle of a 100 mile epic ride at the moment 😀

cyclefaster wrote:

an accident/incident could happen at any time

If you assess the purchase of a bike only in terms of its cost being considerable, and ignore the benefits being manifold, then the only logical conclusion is not to buy a bike - because they cost money.

To assess any proposition, you must consider cost and benefits.

So take the proposition of cycling and the effect on the NHS. There is a cost and a benefit to the NHS. You consider only the cost. No surprise then that you come to the conclusion you do.

Sriracha wrote:

the only logical conclusion is not to buy a bike

It's easy to come to the wrong conclusion

Probably interrupted an unofficial uniformed dogging meet.

Had they exercised themselves the entire distance by walking instead of driving there, I wonder if the outcome would have been different. They were arrested before they started their exercise, so they were not arrested for exercising, but for travelling.

The legislation allows you to be outside to go to a supermarket. It allows you to be outside to exercise. But it does not allow you to be outside to go to a place, there to exercise.

Well, strictly speaking, it allows you to leave home or be outside if it is 'reasonably necessary' for the purposes of shopping, exercising, etc.  That could include travel that is reasonably necessary to do the thing you left home to do.

Obviously if you need to buy things in a shop, it will be 'reasonably necessary' for you to travel to that shop. Whether it would be 'reasonably necessary' to travel to your preferred shop if there's an alternative shop you could have gone to would be open to question. Is the distance the overriding factor (if so, why?) or would other factors - like one of the shops being less likely to be busy - come into it?

Similarly for exercise - maybe you could have exercised from your front door, but it would have involved busy streets where you'd have come into contact with a lot of other people. Would it then be 'reasonably necessary' to travel to a quieter location? Do the added benefits of exercising amongst nature make it 'reasonably necessary' to travel to a greener location?

I take your point, but not sure I agree with the activity (driving/travelling) to which you ascribe the "reasonable" qualifier.

Quote:

Exception 1 is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside [the home]...to take exercise outside—

So, the "reasonably necessary" applies directly to being outside to take exercise, not driving to take exercise.

For example, doing press ups in the street; not reasonably necessary to be outside, you could do press ups indoors. Going for a walk, reasonably necessary to be outdoors, you can't reasonably go for a walk around your living room.

Once you start considering secondary activities ancillary to taking exercise, such as driving somewhere, I think you have gone beyond the remit of the exception.

In short, the question is, is it reasonable that you need to be outdoors in order to undertake that exercise. Whether it is reasonable to drive somewhere for exercise, that is not the question.

But you're missing out the 'for certain purposes' bit.

Quote:

2.—(1) These are the exceptions referred to in paragraph 1.

Exception 1: leaving home necessary for certain purposes

(2) Exception 1 is that it is reasonably necessary for the person concerned (“P”) to leave or be outside the place where P is living (“P’s home”)— 

[for exercise, etc.]

So if the travel is reasonably necessary for the purposes of exercising, then its covered.

The certain purposes are limited to those listed. Here we are considering the listed purpose of exercise.

I agree it could be better written. And the "guidance" only makes it worse when it adds, "you should not travel outside your local area". This is just another prohibition. It does not contradict the prohibition on leaving home, and does not add any permission of itself. But of course it will be read in the inverse - you should not travel outside your local area ergo you may travel within your local area. But on a strict reading it only says the former, not the latter.

Yes, but the 'purpose of exercise' would include anything you needed to do in order to be able to exercise. In the same way, for example, that processing data for the purposes of legitimate interest wouldn't require you to be exercising that interest at that time, only that the processing was to enable you to exercise that interest.

Sriracha wrote:

Had they exercised themselves the entire distance by walking instead of driving there, I wonder if the outcome would have been different. They were arrested before they started their exercise, so they were not arrested for exercising, but for travelling. The legislation allows you to be outside to go to a supermarket. It allows you to be outside to exercise. But it does not allow you to be outside to go to a place, there to exercise.

No, there is no such legislation. As the article says, there is actually no law against travelling to exercise, or how far you can go. 

'Human rights barrister Adam Wagner said: "There is no law against travelling to exercise. The guidance is not legally binding and the police have no power to enforce it unless it is reflected in the lockdown regulations which in this case it is not." '

Besides - I would class 5 miles as very local. 

Unfortunately this 'reasonably necessary' is wide open to interpretation. The only way this is going to get solved is as every other woolly law does, by the courts.

Until such time enough people have contested these fixed penalty notices and there is an established case law, we're going to see a lot of eager police being a bit silly.

Also, I wonder if for the police, new law = new toy. They're all over it until the honeymoon period wears off.

There is a law against travelling outside. Because the law says you may not be outside, except for listed reasons. Travelling is not one of them.

Exercising, and only where it is reasonably necessary to be (the verb is be not travel or drive) outside to exercise, is allowed.

You are right about distance, it is not mentioned in any context, but distance being not mentioned does not therefore introduce a permission to travel.

Edit
OK, there is a possible way out. The law says the exceptions "include" (but crucially does not say "limited to") those listed:

Quote:

the circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse include where one of the exceptions set out in paragraph 2 applies

So I suppose you can add your own to the list given and hope they are deemed reasonable. But don't rely on any of the exceptions set out in paragraph 2 to give excuse to travel for exercise.

The law indeed does not specify travelling as one of the exceptions to the prohibition.  However the guidance - which states how the law may be interpreted - explicitly covers travelling to exercise, as long as it is within your local area.  

You will be hard put to find a court that would convict someone of committing an offence if they demonstrated that they were acting within the government's own guidance on the law and travelling to a nearby place to exercise.   

The law also does not place limitations on the length of time you spend or the the distance that you go while you are exercising.  

Velo-drone wrote:

the guidance...explicitly covers travelling to exercise

It only states that you should not travel outside your local area. Explicitly, it does not say the inverse. Nor does anything else say you may travel any distance to exercise.

Velo-drone wrote:

The law also does not place limitations on the length of time you spend or the the distance that you go while you are exercising.  

Quite so. In fact it is not the exercise which has to be deemed reasonable, only that to undertake such exercise it is reasonably necessary to be outside.

So it is not for the copper to say that a century is not reasonable exercise, rather that to complete a century it is reasonably necessary to be outside!

Sriracha wrote:

It only states that you must not travel outside your local area. Explicitly, it does not say the converse. Nor does anything else say you may travel any distance to exercise.

Pedantically, this is correct.  But the point remains that I can't see any court convicting someone for doing something that *is* implicitly covered by the guidance.

Agree 100% with the pedantry. But now you are exposed two steps removed from the letter of the law, so tread carefully.

And I can see how the police will use this as a deterrence to prevent popular locations becoming clogged with cars and exercisers. Over to you and your lawyer to challenge it, but the police's purpose is by then served.

In some ways, it makes sense, if exercise (being human powered) starts and ends from your front door, then time and distance become self-limiting, so no need to enact prescriptive limits. Up to the police to allow a certain leeway beyond that, until things stop being reasonable.