Cycling during the lockdown

secman

07Lapierre wrote: »

Checkpoints on public roads are legal right?
Can the Gardai legally prevent people gathering in Private homes?

A small change to a law makes it illegal under certain circumstances, talks today about making the necessary changes... but about 6 months too late.

NamelessPhil

Tim76 wrote: »

Anyone know if you can cycle into a neighbouring county if part of that county is within your 5k radius? I live close to a county boundary.

As far as I understand it, now that the whole country is under Level 5, the 5km radius is the only one that matters.

Don't Chute!

MangleBadger wrote: »

Well that was a lot to digest...

People are already complaining that the levels and restrictions are too complicated. And you want to make them more complicated? Should we create an ever evolving venn diagram to show which areas have a similar infection level that we are allowed to visit?
And we do not have the resources to either implement or enforce being allowed go to a beach at a certain time based on your post code.
We are at the highest level of lockdown. We were at level 2 and people took liberties. Well now you don't get to have liberties. Its 5km. Does it suck? Yes. Tough.
5km isn't fair because you live in the city so you can't get a good cycle in? What about people who live in the country and sure they can get a great cycle in but they have only 1 shop to go to, and nothing else.
I'd rather feel like I'm a hamster in a wheel for 6 weeks than have somebody I care about getting sick.
This groups complaints about the minimal risk of cycling is another groups complaint about visiting relatives, or getting their hair cut, or watching GAA. We all have to make sacrifices.

We all have to make sacrifices yes but you see the first lockdown was about “flattening the curve” so the health service could prepare. What did they actually do? Nothing. This one seems to be about “saving Christmas”. Then we’ll be back in lockdown in February and around and around we go.
I cycle on my own. I don’t go into shops or cafes while out so it’s probably the absolute least likely thing I could do to spread the virus. Stop group cycling maybe but individuals? Ludicrous.

The argument about not crashing your bike and putting the health service under pressure is nonsense. The health service is under pressure every single flu season, should we not cycle at this time of year every year?

magicbastarder

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Stop group cycling maybe but individuals? Ludicrous.

what's the alternative? one rule for group cycling, one for individuals?

i'm also a solo cyclist, and don't stop in cafes. i'm not going to look for special treatment; people were long ago complaining that the rules were getting too fractured, without starting to put in exceptions regarding solo vs. group cycling.

you can see it above in terms of people not being 100% sure what the rules are; we've had, in terms of cycling restrictions for someone living in dublin (and i'm going to arse the order of these up probably):

2km limit
5km limit
20km limit
20km plus your own county limit
unlimited
county limit
5km limit

we're on our seventh limit, with six of those unique. they *should* be blanket rules for the sake of ease of understanding and ease of policing, lest we throw more permuations in there.

magicbastarder

Don't Chute! wrote: »

The argument about not crashing your bike and putting the health service under pressure is nonsense. The health service is under pressure every single flu season, should we not cycle at this time of year every year?

flu season =/= coronavirus season.

Don't Chute!

magicbastarder wrote: »

flu season =/= coronavirus season.

Ok, so no cycling during winter ever again? What do you mean?

Macy0161

The health service is more prepared. Now the point is to enable as much of "normal" health service operations to remain active.

Everyone is bloody put out by the restrictions, we can't have an unlimited exemptions. This is just the stuff that has us back here - "I stick to the restrictions except in x case, where I think I'm grand and no risk..."

Don't Chute!

Macy0161 wrote: »

The health service is more prepared. Now the point is to enable as much of "normal" health service operations to remain active.

Everyone is bloody put out by the restrictions, we can't have an unlimited exemptions. This is just the stuff that has us back here - "I stick to the restrictions except in x case, where I think I'm grand and no risk..."

No the reason we are back is because lockdowns don’t actually work they just kick the can down road. Dr Ciara Kelly on Newstalk this morning said all we are doing with this lockdown is “saving Christmas”, then in January or February we’ll be back in lockdown again.

magicbastarder

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Ok, so no cycling during winter ever again? What do you mean?

i mean that the health service as it currently stands is not the same health service that would be facing into a 'normal' flu season.
the number of people hospitalised with this (assuming the claim i saw the other day is correct) quadrupled in one month recently. and it's still accelerating, albeit more slowly thankfully in dublin - but given the usual two week lag between onset of symptoms to hospitalisations, we don't know yet where we're going to be in terms of the healh service by the start of next month.

magicbastarder

Don't Chute! wrote: »

lockdowns don’t actually work they just kick the can down road.

if the can has a bomb in it, my advice to you is to kick that ****ing can as far away from you as possible.

Don't Chute!

magicbastarder wrote: »

if the can has a bomb in it, my advice to you is to kick that ****ing can as far away from you as possible.

So lockdown forever then is that it? It doesn’t matter how long you lockdown this thing will be waiting for you when you come out.

nilhg

Don't Chute! wrote: »

So lockdown forever then is that it? It doesn’t matter how long you lockdown this thing will be waiting for you when you come out.

Until a vaccine arrives yes.

The longer the lockdown the longer we'll get till the following lockdown, that's the clear message that's coming, like it or not.

The better the compliance with this lockdown the shorter it'll be, the more careful people are once we get out the longer the valley period will be before infections climb again, whether you agree or disagree with the various restrictions won't change any of the above.

Tenzor07

Don't Chute! wrote: »

The argument about not crashing your bike and putting the health service under pressure is nonsense. The health service is under pressure every single flu season, should we not cycle at this time of year every year?

Well, one thing I don't want to do is end up in a Hospital A&E, not just for the fact that i'm taking up resources but also that I don't want to catch Covid and hospitals are high risk places where you would pick up a Virus...

silverharp

Macy0161 wrote: »

The health service is more prepared. Now the point is to enable as much of "normal" health service operations to remain active.

Everyone is bloody put out by the restrictions, we can't have an unlimited exemptions. This is just the stuff that has us back here - "I stick to the restrictions except in x case, where I think I'm grand and no risk..."

the flip side of that is, i would keep to regulations unless those regulations impinge on my own health

a148pro

MangleBadger wrote: »

Well that was a lot to digest...

If its a lot to digest its cos I'm p*ssed off and have yet to hear this discourse in the media. There may be a genuine reason for these restrictions but I've yet to hear it.

MangleBadger wrote: »

People are already complaining that the levels and restrictions are too complicated. And you want to make them more complicated? Should we create an ever evolving venn diagram to show which areas have a similar infection level that we are allowed to visit?

All I'm asking is that there is a rational correlation between the restrictions and the suppression of the virus. We already have the data on the infection levels and we already acted on it, successfully, by locking down three counties early on. It was very easy to understand and we all did it.

MangleBadger wrote: »

And we do not have the resources to either implement or enforce being allowed go to a beach at a certain time based on your post code.

I don't think that's true. There will still be a Garda on the road to Brittas asking where you live and turning you around or prosecuting you if you're too far. What's the difference?

I'm not sure what the population of Paris is but the car reg idea comes from there. During the lockdown people were allowed out to exercise once a day and had to fill in a form online whenever they did it to show they weren't abusing the liberty.

I am sick and tired of Irish people being happy to accept sub standard nonsense like this, selling ourselves short because "that's the way the system is". BS.

MangleBadger wrote: »

We are at the highest level of lockdown. We were at level 2 and people took liberties. Well now you don't get to have liberties. Its 5km. Does it suck? Yes. Tough.

Was it people going cycling further than 5k who spread the virus? Or going for walks in forests or parks? Why should it be acceptable to you to not be allowed do those things when they will have ZERO affect on the virus numbers. "Tough". You are selling yourself, our country and our standards of government short. This isn't a playground we're talking about arbitrary restrictions on millions of people.

MangleBadger wrote: »

5km isn't fair because you live in the city so you can't get a good cycle in? What about people who live in the country and sure they can get a great cycle in but they have only 1 shop to go to, and nothing else.

5km isn't fair because it has no rational correlation to the spread of the virus. At all.

I actually think people can travel further than 5k to go to a shop.

MangleBadger wrote: »

I'd rather feel like I'm a hamster in a wheel for 6 weeks than have somebody I care about getting sick.

I am never, ever, going to make anyone you care about sick by going for a cycle or a walk in the forest.

MangleBadger wrote: »

This groups complaints about the minimal risk of cycling is another groups complaint about visiting relatives, or getting their hair cut, or watching GAA. We all have to make sacrifices.

We do all have to make sacrifices. And I have no problem making sacrifices that will rationally limit the spread of the virus. Not being able to drink in pubs, having to wear a face mask. I have zero problem with that. But jumping through a hoop of abstinence for no reason at all related to the virus I can't accept.

Macy0161

5km may or may not be backed by science. No one knows what approach, and restrictions, will be proven to have worked. We won't know that for years. What it 100% does do is enforce the message to minimise unnecessary travel.

Perhaps if more, including a significant number of cyclists, had stuck to the Level 3 restrictions we wouldn't be here now. County Dublin wasn't enough to get a spin in, apparently.

a148pro

Macy0161 wrote: »

Perhaps if more, including a significant number of cyclists, had stuck to the Level 3 restrictions we wouldn't be here now. County Dublin wasn't enough to get a spin in, apparently.

Ah come on, are you for real? Where is the evidence that cyclists have contributed to the pandemic? And even if it they had, why would it matter if they went over a county border or not? This is flat earth stuff.

Anyway, I've said enough. Light and heat as MB says. It might be time to dig that pond.

magicbastarder

Macy0161 wrote: »

No one knows what approach, and restrictions, will be proven to have worked. We won't know that for years.

this. you simply don't wait to implement these measures *after* they've been proved to be effective. you blast away with as many as you can implement and hope that some of the ones you've implemented are ones which work.
we're still learning basic things; e.g. about how long the virus can last on a surface, almost a year after it first emerged.
only in the last week or two there have been two discoveries announced - of it lasting 30 days on certain surfaces, and of it being found live on the packaging of chilled food.

ted1

a148pro wrote: »

But preventing me from cycling more than 5k from my house, or bringing my family to a forest or park more than 5k from my house, is a nonsense that will only damage mental health with no meaningful public health gain. And why we accept this without question is beyond me.

That’s a big issue. Shops are closed so everybody goes to the park beach or mountains. It’s ridiculous how many people are in the forests. More people than in a busy shop.

Also setting a 5km limit stops the virus from travelling. As you are interacting with less people and they are from closer to you so won’t bring it to another area and start spreading it there

Mrcaramelchoc

Any chance ye could cycle in single file. Cheers.

JimmiesRustled

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

Any chance ye could cycle in single file. Cheers.

Right after I pay road tax and get a license. I swear it's next on my list of things to do as a responsible cyclist.

magicbastarder

mod note - best to ignore what's probably a driveby post.
@Mrcaramelchoc, please read the charter, especially point 8, as your post above will probably be judged as being vexatious unless you have a point pertinent to the topic here.

Takca

Every time we leave our houses there is a non zero chance of transmitting the virus between people. The restrictions are in place to keep us home. The 5km radius exists to help us stay sane while still being told to Stay At Home.

5km is an arbitrary number, but the bigger the number the more likely people will be to leave their homes and mix with each other in various settings. I'm just thankful its not 2km again.

endacl

byrnem31 wrote: »

I was thinking only about 10 people in two sets of 5. It's only a small group with the aim to raise about €250. A 50 klm cycle.

Could that be done?

If they just chipped in 25 quid each the job would be done with no need for an event.

Macy0161

a148pro wrote: »

Ah come on, are you for real? Where is the evidence that cyclists have contributed to the pandemic? And even if it they had, why would it matter if they went over a county border or not? This is flat earth stuff.

Anyway, I've said enough. Light and heat as MB says. It might be time to dig that pond.

My main point would be that this is people picking and choosing what regulations they stick to. A cyclist out for a spin, or a family travelling to a park, or not bothering with a mask in a shop, or visiting a family, or having people over for dinner, or not self isolating waiting a test result or coming home from a holiday. Perhaps an individual doing all or a combination of those things.

Even someone not sticking to the restrictions, and being no threat, gives someone else the excuse not to stick to them, where it may be putting others at risk.

AndrewJRenko

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Well, there ya have it, the reason for the 5k limit as I see it is to cancel out the risk that an individual who cycles out to Sally Gap for instance may need the services of the Ambulance, rescue Helicopter, mountain rescue teams and the A&E team at a hospital, at least close to home you stand a fighting chance of being picked up in a car by someone from your household and brought home to patch yourself up or call your own Doctor if you have an accident...

.....nothing to do with the "Spread of the Virus" ...

I've never heard that logic presented by any public health expert. It really doesn't stand up.

If you want to reduce workload for rescue and emergency services, you would focus on cars, not bikes - emergency speed reductions with actual enforcement would dramatically reduce workload of emergency services.

a148pro

Macy0161 wrote: »

My main point would be that this is people picking and choosing what regulations they stick to. A cyclist out for a spin, or a family travelling to a park, or not bothering with a mask in a shop, or visiting a family, or having people over for dinner, or not self isolating waiting a test result or coming home from a holiday. Perhaps an individual doing all or a combination of those things.

Even someone not sticking to the restrictions, and being no threat, gives someone else the excuse not to stick to them, where it may be putting others at risk.

I get your point, and in the rather more heated debate last March I made the same point. But this is really an argument for not having stupid restrictions in the first place. The reality is, this time around, I think people will be applying their own common sense more than slavishly abiding by each rule.

AndrewJRenko

Takca wrote: »

5km is an arbitrary number, but the bigger the number the more likely people will be to leave their homes and mix with each other in various settings. I'm just thankful its not 2km again.

Restricting the number of people that exercise and stay fit and healthy is not a clever move during a pandemic.

A cyclist is more likely to mix with other people in a restricted urban area rather than an unrestricted rural route.

eeeee

It's also a question of solidarity - we're all limited to 5km, it's not one rule for some and others for others.
If a cyclist can go beyond 5km, why not a runner? And if a cyclist and a runner can go beyond 5km, who not a basketball player? Why not a football player? A hurler? A hockey player? A gymnast? a soccer player?
And on and on and on and on...

The amount of other cyclists I saw throughout this whole pandemic at every level clearing their noses, spitting etc. was crazy. And continues to be so. Cyclists frequently stop on their spins also, in groups and solo. That you have that going on is reason alone to limit movement.

This is here to limit the movement of people to protect the vulnerable, health care and frontline workers. Do I like it? Of course not. I hate cycling solo. I have no good/enjoyable routes within 5k of me. But it is what it is, and it is for the greater good in ways beyond my personal interest and the sport in general.

secman

Irrational decisions are being made by Government... allowing off licences to be open whilst pubs are closed. I saw 3 millenniums with 3 shopping trolleys in a supermarket last week, one trolly had close on 20 bottles of spirits, another trolly had several slabs of assorted beers/ciders and 3rd trolly had dozens of bottles of TK red lemonade. Allowing this type of purchase is irresponsible in a pandemic, FFS at one stage we had resricted purchases on bog rolls .
The no joined up rationale is what makes me peed off.
I'm off the bike due to back issues for 2 weeks 3 days now and its showing big time....mentally...