Corona Virus & cycling impact (see mode note post 1322)

fat bloke

godtabh wrote: »

Is that allowed? 2 hours of hill repeats

God, I'd never stick 2 hours. My usual is 5x 8' intervals with 2' ish recovery (the time it takes to whizz downhill to the start point again. Warm up and down is the approx 5 mins to and from home. Done and dusted in about 60 minutes.

It's as easy to do the rollers or turbo and that's I usually do. - Bike stays clean for one thing. But the wind in your hair and sun in your face is nice too.

But over the next while it's bound to be crazy busy so I'll be staying away and sticking to the rollers, or perhaps getting out way early for some dawn solitude.

dastardly00

Just browsing through Strava (Boards.ie club) and some people have really taken the p1ss already. I saw one ride in which the person had stuck to within the 2 km radius... but they spent over three and a half hours doing loops. Not exactly brief :rolleyes:

PhilOssophy

Rechuchote wrote: »

Only the idiots would.

In relation to how easy it is to be infected, one of the reasons I cycle as my mode of transport is that I'm asthmatic; if I take public transport and someone sneezes or coughs near me I will invariably get an chest infection and be very, very sick. And epidemiologists have repeatedly said that Covid-19 is roughly four times as infectious as a normal cold or flu.

If I catch this coronavirus, it will certainly kill me.

There are many others like me. Is your fun cycle really more important than our lives? Is your right to roam free in the middle of a pandemic really so precious as this?

Just to be clear here, I left the house to go to the supermarket today and nowhere else. I did a 5k run yesterday, I was paraphrasing the "oh they'll not tell me what to do" brigade in my post. I am fully compliant with the measures requested of us and agree 100% that people just need to stop being such entitled self-serving asreholes and play their part in stopping the spread of a global pandemic.

Seth Brundle

dastardly00 wrote: »

Just browsing through Strava (Boards.ie club) and some people have really taken the p1ss already.

I was looking at them myself.
It's absolutely selfish.

velo.2010

dastardly00 wrote: »

Just browsing through Strava (Boards.ie club) and some people have really taken the p1ss already. I saw one ride in which the person had stuck to within the 2 km radius... but they spent over three and a half hours doing loops. Not exactly brief :rolleyes:

Was it rural? I ask because if they're passing someone's window for 3 hours, they might get a visit from the guards if they try it again.

I played around with that '2km from home tool' and, unless you live in the few dwellings off Cruagh Lane, there is no way your keeping within a radius of 2km doing laps around Cruagh, Kilakee and Stocking Lane.

Kaisr Sose

PhilOssophy wrote: »

.... people just need to stop being such entitled self-serving asreholes and play their part in stopping the spread of a global pandemic.

This ^^^^

I could go about half way to Johnny Foxes on from Burrow Rd, but i went for a run instead as I reckoned its more beneficial for the duration. I am not a runner but I enjoyed it. I will probably have sore legs for a few days. I look forward to my next run.

There is more to life and exercising than breaking a Public Health measure to go cycling that woikd not be defined as brief. .

fat bloke

velo.2010 wrote: »

Was it rural? I ask because if they're passing someone's window for 3 hours, they might get a visit from the guards if they try it again.

I played around with that '2km from home tool' and, unless you live in the few dwellings off Cruagh Lane, there is no way your keeping within a radius of 2km doing laps around Cruagh, Kilakee and Stocking Lane.

Laps no, intervals absolutely. The hills are steep enough that, unless you've serious power, a 6- 8 min effort is a fairly short section of road. - Rinse and repeat

fat bloke

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

This ^^^^

I could go about half way to Johnny Foxes on from Burrow Rd, but i went for a run instead as I reckoned its more beneficial for the duration. I am not a runner but I enjoyed it. I will probably have sore legs for a few days. I look forward to my next run.

There is more to life and exercising than breaking a Public Health measure to go cycling that woikd not be defined as brief. .

IMO running is worse. Walking home from the shops was fraught with close-passing panting, heaving runners. At least on the bike you can use the road and leave the paths to pedestrians.

Large bottle small glass

My mother is 85 and lives alone in the countryside, I visit her everday to help with stuff along with 2 other siblings who call at different times.

The reason she has got to 85 is her really strong and varied social circle, which is now all gone bar the 3 of us from 5m or through the windows.

Cycling would be handier in my ways, it's only a very lumpy 10km away or a handy 15km, but it would look all wrong.

In this instance is the car a better option(what I've done to date).

Kaisr Sose

fat bloke wrote: »

IMO running is worse. Walking home from the shops was fraught with close-passing panting, heaving runners. At least on the bike you can use the road and leave the paths to pedestrians.

I did not find that problem, but i could see it being an issue on the bike too. You need to be much further back from the slipstream of a cyclist than 2m. Something like at 5m from a slow cyclist (20kph) you are exposed to droplets from respiration. If they are going faster it could be out to 15m. Running it might be 3m tops.
The close contact for 15min does mitigate this somewhat. A wide pass when running is easier in my book. Move onto the grass, or if none, and the way is clear, onto the road. Failing that, stop running. Each to their own i guess.

PhilOssophy

There is no justifying disobeying a what to all intends and purposes is a curfew to go for a cycle regardless of how you justify it to yourself or what logic you try to apply.
We are all in this together are we not?

flatface

I’m surprised anyone thinks cycling outdoors for leisure is suitable under the current restrictions. You can argue the workaround of 2km but It’s just not in the spirit of the restrictions in place.

I stop at red lights as not only is it the law but it’s good optics for cycling and hopefully creates a better relationship with fellow road users. I am avoiding the bike for the same reasons, despite the tempting weather. Walk or run briefly, train at home, or stockpile the energy and savor our beautiful countryside once this has all calmed.

Kaisr Sose

Thia is what is inforce in Austria and the rationale applies here too.

We would like you to note that sporting activities such as ski tours, cycling, hiking etc. are strongly prohibited. All aid facilities such as rescue, Red Cross etc. are currently urgently needed for the challenging situation related with the Coronavirus outbreak. Therefore, proper care for sports injuries cannot be guaranteed. Also note, that due to official regulations, visit to playgrounds are not permitted.

These are being enforced with heavy fines for breaches. We are all in this together.

a148pro

While I admire people's spirit and desire to comply I think a few points need to be made

Firstly cycling involves close to zero risk of contraction or transmission of the virus. Particularly on quiet country roads. Requiring people to exercise within two kms of their house, in urban areas at least, is significantly more risky. If leisure cycling was a risk factor in the spread of the virus it would / should have been banned weeks ago, not at midnight last night.

The same goes for running, in fact I'd suggest running is significantly worse inside a 2 km zone in urban areas.

The mental health and physical health benefits of exercise should not be underestimated and indeed would be expected to have an effect in resisting both the virus and the extent to which you would spread it if infected.

It is also difficult to articulate quite how bad the atmosphere is on the streets in urban areas right now and people need exercise for their mental well being.

Whatever the handful of cyclists on here do there are whole sections of our society which will show little to no compliance with these rules or social distancing and will not be policed. So no matter how loudly we shout the importance of doing these things the junkies and the badly raised / not raised at all teenagers will continue to behave exactly as they always have.

Against the backdrop of the above I don't think people going on a leisure cycle more than 2 km from their house is that bad at all except in so far as it shows non compliance with the rules and might encourage other people to break other rules.

Really I think people should be allowed to exercise in the open air provided they don't come into close contact with other people. I can do that responsibly and resent having the option taken from me by a government that continued to allow travel to and from Northern Italy at a time when it was patently obvious to anyone with a brain that this was going to lead to this happening.

If the response to that argument is that this will lead to people congregating en masse at "beauty spots" that seems to only have happened on weekends and could be addressed or managed by suggesting alternative destinations, putting in a loose timetable based on post code or second name or policing it better. In any event, there are tons of places to go and it is still quite easy to go somewhere and be alone or more or less alone.

CramCycle

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

My mother is 85 and lives alone in the countryside, I visit her everday to help with stuff along with 2 other siblings who call at different times.

The reason she has got to 85 is her really strong and varied social circle, which is now all gone bar the 3 of us from 5m or through the windows.

Cycling would be handier in my ways, it's only a very lumpy 10km away or a handy 15km, but it would look all wrong.

In this instance is the car a better option(what I've done to date).

This might fall under essential travel, I will have to deliver groceries to my mother in law, thankfully it's close to.my commute but if it wasn't I'd have to do it. So long as your doing it for genuine reasons and not to take the piss then it's fine.

magicbastarder

a148pro wrote: »

Requiring people to exercise within two kms of their house

i'm going to deliberately misinterpret your comment and say, no, you are not *required* to exercise within 2km of your house, in that you are not required to exercise.
if you choose to exercise, you're required to do it within 2km of your house.

of *course* these restrictions will have a disproportionate effect on some activities compared to others, in terms of risk mitigation. but you're being asked to simply not cycle for two weeks - no one is asking you to hold your breath for two weeks.

i agree with you - going for a 50km spin on backroads is probably less risky than going on a 3km jog in the local park, but that's not the bleedin' point.

the government are trying to prevent a situation where our hospitals could be turned into charnel houses. there are still close to 1000 people dying *per day* in both italy and spain. the UK is already seeing a death rate of close to 50% of people admitted to ICU with this.
why are people still arguing over the relative risk rate of their leisure activities as if it's some glorious imposition on them. the people making these decisions do not give a flying **** about your concerns, nor should they. they've bigger things to worry about.

velo.2010

a148pro wrote: »

While I admire people's spirit and desire to comply I think a few points need to be made

Firstly cycling involves close to zero risk of contraction or transmission of the virus. You don't know this. Particularly on quiet country roads. Requiring people to exercise within two kms of their house, in urban areas at least, is significantly more risky. If leisure cycling was a risk factor in the spread of the virus it would / should have been banned weeks ago, not at midnight last night. The same could be said for every activity but that's not the point. These measures have been gradually introduced to get us used to the idea of limited freedom while the crisis exists.

The same goes for running, in fact I'd suggest running is significantly worse inside a 2 km zone in urban areas.

The mental health and physical health benefits of exercise should not be underestimated and indeed would be expected to have an effect in resisting both the virus and the extent to which you would spread it if infected.Eh, we're still allowed to exercise

It is also difficult to articulate quite how bad the atmosphere is on the streets in urban areas right now and people need exercise for their mental well being.

Whatever the handful of cyclists on here do there are whole sections of our society which will show little to no compliance with these rules or social distancing and will not be policed. So no matter how loudly we shout the importance of doing these things the junkies and the badly raised / not raised at all teenagers will continue to behave exactly as they always have. That doesn't mean everyone else should not practice social distancing

Against the backdrop of the above I don't think people going on a leisure cycle more than 2 km from their house is that bad at all except in so far as it shows non compliance with the rules and might encourage other people to break other rules.The science tells us that maintaining social distancing and remaining close to home will help flatten the curve of infection

Really I think people should be allowed to exercise in the open air provided they don't come into close contact with other people. That's the idea from being allowed out of your home for brief periods I can do that responsibly and resent having the option taken from me by a government that continued to allow travel to and from Northern Italy at a time when it was patently obvious to anyone with a brain that this was going to lead to this happeningThat's just a nonsense statement and only serves to highlight your real disgruntlement here.

If the response to that argument is that this will lead to people congregating en masse at "beauty spots" that seems to only have happened on weekends and could be addressed or managed by suggesting alternative destinations,Not true - it was happening during the week, after the first wave of restrictions putting in a loose timetable based on post code or second name or policing it better. In any event, there are tons of places to go and it is still quite easy to go somewhere and be alone or more or less alone.Try sticking to the rules. If everyone does then we will help reduce the impact of this virus

.

a148pro

magicbastarder wrote: »

the government are trying to prevent a situation where our hospitals could be turned into charnel houses. there are still close to 1000 people dying *per day* in both italy and spain. the UK is already seeing a death rate of close to 50% of people admitted to ICU with this.
why are people still arguing over the relative risk rate of their leisure activities as if it's some glorious imposition on them. the people making these decisions do not give a flying **** about your concerns, nor should they. they've bigger things to worry about.

Nothing you have said is a rationale for stopping people cycling while observing social distancing

a148pro

velo.2010 wrote: »

.

Again, I'm sorry but none of your points are arguments for not going cycling

Kaisr Sose

Well said Magic B.. . But we will still have lots of posts wondering why they cannot go for a cycle. Rather belatedly, Lance Armstrong was right " Its not about the Bike".
In this pandemic, it seems for some, thats all they are concerned about. Pretty pathetic and narrow thinking. It about life, and possibly dying for some. Worrying about cycling is moot.

velo.2010

a148pro wrote: »

Again, I'm sorry but none of your points are arguments for not going cycling

Not going to bite...sorry.

jive

a148pro wrote: »

Again, I'm sorry but none of your points are arguments for not going cycling

It’s for risk management and compliance, it’s not about transmission; anyone saying it’s about transmission is just wrong. Even in cycling groups it’s not going to be passed on unless you’re sharing water bottles, probably some remote possibility of transmission when cycling in a group just like I’ve a remote possibility of winning the lotto.

The point is that hospitals are already over capacity, they can’t afford to have additional people going in for any reason. These rules limit ALL activities that people carry out, not just cycling.

Logically, I get the argument - let people cycle, risk of any cyclist ending up in ICU is extremely low, where do we draw the line? That’s not the point though. You can’t draft up rules like this and expect decent levels of compliance when you start adding caveats for general exercise, cycling, bouldering, etc. Therefore suck it up for 2 weeks and get back on the bike, work on other aspects of fitness or read a book.

magicbastarder

a148pro wrote: »

Nothing you have said is a rationale for stopping people cycling while observing social distancing

okay, i'll bite.
people were getting confused about the difference between being allowed exercise within 2km of your house, and the unrestricted allowance to go out and shop. but you want the exceptions to include cyclists to be given a bye that their activities can go significantly further than this. you want nuance when a hammer is required.
fair enough, i agree with you, as i mentioned, cycling solo on a back road almost certainly constitutes a lesser risk of transmission than jogging in the local park.

here's a thought experiment - write to the government and ask that they change the regs for this or future pandemics, to allow a special case for cyclists. consider the pile that letter will be put in.

we could be facing a situation where our ICU beds reach saturation in a short period of time. we don't know how long that might take. but a minor injury you sustain while out on the bike could turn into a bigger issue for you, and for others, than it would in normal time, because you could be stretching a system already at crisis point.

have you ever had to spend a couple of weeks off the bike before? say, a chest cold, or a broken wrist? let's say you have. in either case, your cold or wrist pales into insignificance compared to the dangers of what is a global pandemic to such an extent that it's comical.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

have you ever had to spend a couple of weeks off the bike before? say, a chest cold, or a broken wrist? let's say you have. in either case, your cold or wrist pales into insignificance compared to the dangers of what is a global pandemic to such an extent that it's comical.

actually, i've had a beer fuelled brainwave.

if a global pandemic killing thousands of people per day is not reason enough for people to park their bike, i will accept no excuses for them to ever get off your bike ever again. feeling tired because you've been in the saddle for six hours? tough ****, a global pandemic wasn't enough to keep you off it before. keep pedalling.
haven't eaten in 12 hours? keep going, that's obnoxiously trivial compared to tens of thousands dying.
if it's that important to you, keep pedalling and never stop.

Daroxtar

I came off last May doing about 45km/h on a slight downhill. At first I though I was OK to continue but then realised my shoulder was busted and had to go to hospital. By the time I got there my breathing wasn't right and I discovered I had a punctured lung. I had to have a chest drain put in and was on oxygen for 3 days.
What's my chances of getting oxygen now, let alone in a weeks time and if I absolutely need it who am I taking it from? Wouldn't I be some b0llox to put myself or others in that situation now considering everything else that's going on?
But ya, go on out and cycle all day long if you want because you're so important and don't want to bow down to The Man.

billybonkers

a148pro wrote: »

While I admire people's spirit and desire to comply I think a few points need to be made

Firstly cycling involves close to zero risk of contraction or transmission of the virus. Particularly on quiet country roads. Requiring people to exercise within two kms of their house, in urban areas at least, is significantly more risky. If leisure cycling was a risk factor in the spread of the virus it would / should have been banned weeks ago, not at midnight last night.

The same goes for running, in fact I'd suggest running is significantly worse inside a 2 km zone in urban areas.

The mental health and physical health benefits of exercise should not be underestimated and indeed would be expected to have an effect in resisting both the virus and the extent to which you would spread it if infected.

It is also difficult to articulate quite how bad the atmosphere is on the streets in urban areas right now and people need exercise for their mental well being.

Whatever the handful of cyclists on here do there are whole sections of our society which will show little to no compliance with these rules or social distancing and will not be policed. So no matter how loudly we shout the importance of doing these things the junkies and the badly raised / not raised at all teenagers will continue to behave exactly as they always have.

Against the backdrop of the above I don't think people going on a leisure cycle more than 2 km from their house is that bad at all except in so far as it shows non compliance with the rules and might encourage other people to break other rules.

Really I think people should be allowed to exercise in the open air provided they don't come into close contact with other people. I can do that responsibly and resent having the option taken from me by a government that continued to allow travel to and from Northern Italy at a time when it was patently obvious to anyone with a brain that this was going to lead to this happening.

If the response to that argument is that this will lead to people congregating en masse at "beauty spots" that seems to only have happened on weekends and could be addressed or managed by suggesting alternative destinations, putting in a loose timetable based on post code or second name or policing it better. In any event, there are tons of places to go and it is still quite easy to go somewhere and be alone or more or less alone.

So you aren't going to abide by the guidelines set out by the government in order to help save people's lives and the lives of healthcare workers who are dying on the Frontline to save others? All because you want to go for a cycle?

a148pro

jive wrote: »

It’s for risk management and compliance, it’s not about transmission; anyone saying it’s about transmission is just wrong.

....

Logically, I get the argument - let people cycle, risk of any cyclist ending up in ICU is extremely low, where do we draw the line? That’s not the point though. You can’t draft up rules like this and expect decent levels of compliance when you start adding caveats for general exercise, cycling, bouldering, etc. Therefore suck it up for 2 weeks and get back on the bike, work on other aspects of fitness or read a book.

To be honest I was wondering if the 2k thing is really the govt saying if we just stop people travelling we'll stop them having road traffic accidents and save, say for example, 7 ICU beds per day, then save 7 very ill corona patients. Is there any confirmation that this is the rationale? My dilemma on this is the same as you've articulated thereafter

a148pro

billybonkers wrote: »

So you aren't going to abide by the guidelines set out by the government in order to help save people's lives and the lives of healthcare workers who are dying on the Frontline to save others? All because you want to go for a cycle?

I don't know Billy, do you need me to spell it out for you again? Me, cycling, on my own, will have no effect whatsoever on saving other people's lives or healthcare workers.

Neither I nor my kids have seen another soul within two meters, or, excepting work obligations, at all, since the Friday before Patrick's day. I have no problem with complying with regulations, and for the record, also intend complying with these regulations unless legitimate exercise within 2kms of my house becomes overcrowded and dangerous in which case I most likely will break the rules, drive somewhere totally deserted and bring the kids for a walk or cycle.

a148pro

magicbastarder wrote: »

you want nuance when a hammer is required....

have you ever had to spend a couple of weeks off the bike before?

I think this is the problem, I'm being made to pay for the irresponsibility of others!

For the record I haven't been on the (road) bike in ages. I will just miss the opportunity to safely go and enjoy the outdoors, either alone or with the kids

magicbastarder

or
or
or
or

you could just choose not to cycle for a whole two weeks. it's a mindblowing concept, yeah?