New police guidelines on 'reasonable excuse' to go out

bear66

Well-known member
#1
More liberal than I thought. I'll post the Beeb link rather than the Guardian so as not to upset Coops
Link
On exercise, the guidance lists driving to the countryside for a walk as "reasonable" if "far more time" is spent walking than driving.

But it adds that driving for a "prolonged period with only brief exercise" is not reasonable.

That would appear to indicate that someone who drove for an hour to a beauty spot for a walk would not be contravening the rules.

Under the guidance, police are advised not to intervene if people stop to rest or eat lunch while on a long walk, but short walks to sit on a park bench are not allowed.

"A very short period of 'exercise' to excuse a long period of inactivity may mean that the person is not engaged in 'exercise' but in fact something else," the guidance says
 

Redwurzel

Well-known member
#2
Driving to me (with window up) is safer than riding a bike or walking with regard to spreading a virus. Plenty of joggers have ran past me at around 2 metres visibly giving off various liquids at speed and I have felt safer if I was in the car. OK driving long distances is not responsible but I don't see a 10 mile drive to be a big sin or risk to society.
 
#4
According to these new guidelines, to relieve the boredom of lockdown somewhat, I would be allowed to buy something that poisons my liver and accounts for thousands of deaths in the UK each year, but I am not allowed to buy some paint and brushes to spruce up my kitchen. Unbelievable, the warped grip alcohol has on this society
 

asredastheycome

Well-known member
#8
"On exercise, the guidance lists driving to the countryside for a walk as "reasonable" if "far more time" is spent walking than driving. "

So if you drove for an hour but spent two hours walking is that ok.
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
#10
"On exercise, the guidance lists driving to the countryside for a walk as "reasonable" if "far more time" is spent walking than driving. "

So if you drove for an hour but spent two hours walking is that ok.
But then you’d have to drive back home, which would be another hour, so you wouldn’t have spent far more time walking than driving. I know the BBC cited that as an example too, but I think they must be wrong about that.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
#12
The guidelines are a bit of a mess, but to be fair it is very difficult to legislate and please everyone. For example it may have been tempting to say no travel to exercise, which may impact more on someone with a dog, but no parkland in walking distance. I get that this would have been difficult to articulate and due to that difficult to police heavy handidly as some want.
 

GazC_MFC

Well-known member
#13
Redcar to pinchinthorpe, 2 hour run and back again would be deemed to be okay I’m guessing?

it’s only around half hour driving and will make my runs a lot more enjoyable
 

bear66

Well-known member
#16
These guidelines were brought out before Easter. Perhaps it's a realisation that there are far safer places for people to exercise than a built up area. Also, it will give people a sense of 'freedom' as the lockdown continues. In reality, I don't think it's a public document and how do you prove how far you intend to walk out how far you've walked if stopped by a jobsworth? This is one of the few laws where you have to prove your innocence rather than the police prove your guilt.
 

bear66

Well-known member
#20
It's hard to put sarcasm across on the internet.

People can go where they want, I've given up caring what other people do now, it was affecting my mindset and anxiety.. Me personally, I have left my village twice in the past 28 days. 😀
I guess NWIMBY would be a more appropriate acronym.
 
Top
X