Can I go for a recreational drive out?
Discussion
Can't wait to read all the complaining posts about the entire Country being put into a Tier 5/full lock-down/"Don't leave your home for any reason other than work or shopping" situation come January!
And the posts asking: "when the restrictions will end?", "Why is COVID going on so long?", "Why doesn't the Government do something?", "Why are the hospitals full?", and other such delights.
Of course, it won't be the fault of all those people who ignore the guidelines, don't bother with masks and social distancing, travel where they feel like for no real reason other than to stick two fingers up to the authorities, and having big parties, thinking they're being clever - It'll all be Boris' fault - Somehow!
And the posts asking: "when the restrictions will end?", "Why is COVID going on so long?", "Why doesn't the Government do something?", "Why are the hospitals full?", and other such delights.
Of course, it won't be the fault of all those people who ignore the guidelines, don't bother with masks and social distancing, travel where they feel like for no real reason other than to stick two fingers up to the authorities, and having big parties, thinking they're being clever - It'll all be Boris' fault - Somehow!
davek_964 said:
Foss62 said:
The logic now that we seem to have faster spreading variants is that of containment. The longer the distance travelled, the higher the chance that something new will be introduced to an area. The News Reports about people driving from London to the Brecon Beacons show an extreme, but even your five miles does come with a greater risk of speeding up the spread than exercising two miles away. Think of the increased diversity of contacts (both first and second hand) if the entire country drove five miles from home in random directions and then walked two miles, as opposed to walking two miles from their front doors.
Ah, so now walking outside while social distancing also causes mass infection does it? Are you snogging random people as you walk past them?
Foss62 said:
davek_964 said:
Foss62 said:
The logic now that we seem to have faster spreading variants is that of containment. The longer the distance travelled, the higher the chance that something new will be introduced to an area. The News Reports about people driving from London to the Brecon Beacons show an extreme, but even your five miles does come with a greater risk of speeding up the spread than exercising two miles away. Think of the increased diversity of contacts (both first and second hand) if the entire country drove five miles from home in random directions and then walked two miles, as opposed to walking two miles from their front doors.
Ah, so now walking outside while social distancing also causes mass infection does it? Are you snogging random people as you walk past them?4rephill said:
Can't wait to read all the complaining posts about the entire Country being put into a Tier 5/full lock-down/"Don't leave your home for any reason other than work or shopping" situation come January!
And the posts asking: "when the restrictions will end?", "Why is COVID going on so long?", "Why doesn't the Government do something?", "Why are the hospitals full?", and other such delights.
Of course, it won't be the fault of all those people who ignore the guidelines, don't bother with masks and social distancing, travel where they feel like for no real reason other than to stick two fingers up to the authorities, and having big parties, thinking they're being clever - It'll all be Boris' fault - Somehow!
The OP asked about going out for a drive, nothing to do with masks, social distancing, parties etc.And the posts asking: "when the restrictions will end?", "Why is COVID going on so long?", "Why doesn't the Government do something?", "Why are the hospitals full?", and other such delights.
Of course, it won't be the fault of all those people who ignore the guidelines, don't bother with masks and social distancing, travel where they feel like for no real reason other than to stick two fingers up to the authorities, and having big parties, thinking they're being clever - It'll all be Boris' fault - Somehow!
4rephill said:
Can't wait to read all the complaining posts about the entire Country being put into a Tier 5/full lock-down/"Don't leave your home for any reason other than work or shopping" situation come January!
And the posts asking: "when the restrictions will end?", "Why is COVID going on so long?", "Why doesn't the Government do something?", "Why are the hospitals full?", and other such delights.
Of course, it won't be the fault of all those people who ignore the guidelines, don't bother with masks and social distancing, travel where they feel like for no real reason other than to stick two fingers up to the authorities, and having big parties, thinking they're being clever - It'll all be Boris' fault - Somehow!
You’ll be disappointed And the posts asking: "when the restrictions will end?", "Why is COVID going on so long?", "Why doesn't the Government do something?", "Why are the hospitals full?", and other such delights.
Of course, it won't be the fault of all those people who ignore the guidelines, don't bother with masks and social distancing, travel where they feel like for no real reason other than to stick two fingers up to the authorities, and having big parties, thinking they're being clever - It'll all be Boris' fault - Somehow!
ClaphamGT3 said:
It's important to call this out as an example of the erosion in civil liberties that the unthinking adherence to whatever ill-formed claptrap the Govt spouts at today's press conference brings about. We live in a free society and neither the OP nor any of us have to justify why we can do something; the Govt and the authorities have to justify why we can't.
Point two is dangerously overlooked by the hard of thinking in the on-going Coronahysteria
I’m hoping that post Corona we, as a democratic society, will a) invest in an appropriate amount of planning and contingency for a variety of future pandemic possibilities (the ROI for the investment in this planning is much clearer now, rather than just refer to the Spanish Flu pandemic); and b) that we will see a rational backlash in the right direction on the definition of ‘civil liberties’. Which will clearly delineate a civil liberty vs public health and when the two may temporarily cross over.Point two is dangerously overlooked by the hard of thinking in the on-going Coronahysteria
History tells us that being arbitrarily told what to do by the State is very dangerous; equally, not social distancing, not wearing a mask etc. just because you object to be told what to do is disagreeing with a public safety belief that far more knowledgeable people have created - not an attempt to enslave us into a totalitarian state.
The bottom line is that Coronovirus legislation only lasts for 2 years from last March, if it gets extended against our will and / or abused then we were always susceptible to this and didn’t need a pandemic to prove it.
Getting back on topic, ‘disobeying’ or ‘interpreting’ guidance is also tricky; for example when you go for your ‘recreational drive’ and then break down, why should the recovery chap now have to a) be potentially exposed to your COVID and / or not be helping someone who arguably must travel?
Is it not easier to just follow guidance (whilst noting (with a cynical eye) the potential ramifications of the State controlling our lives?
We’re nearly, hopefully, out the other side now.
Drumroll said:
4rephill said:
Can't wait to read all the complaining posts about the entire Country being put into a Tier 5/full lock-down/"Don't leave your home for any reason other than work or shopping" situation come January!
And the posts asking: "when the restrictions will end?", "Why is COVID going on so long?", "Why doesn't the Government do something?", "Why are the hospitals full?", and other such delights.
Of course, it won't be the fault of all those people who ignore the guidelines, don't bother with masks and social distancing, travel where they feel like for no real reason other than to stick two fingers up to the authorities, and having big parties, thinking they're being clever - It'll all be Boris' fault - Somehow!
The OP asked about going out for a drive, nothing to do with masks, social distancing, parties etc.And the posts asking: "when the restrictions will end?", "Why is COVID going on so long?", "Why doesn't the Government do something?", "Why are the hospitals full?", and other such delights.
Of course, it won't be the fault of all those people who ignore the guidelines, don't bother with masks and social distancing, travel where they feel like for no real reason other than to stick two fingers up to the authorities, and having big parties, thinking they're being clever - It'll all be Boris' fault - Somehow!
I do love it when the old 'what if you break down?', 'what if you have an accident?' lines gets trotted out in these threads.
Yep, it could happen. It could also happen if I drove to the shop. I could also fall down the stairs at home, or cut myself with a knife while preparing dinner.
The probability is low.
Given the amount of traffic on the roads in my tier 4 area, the vast majority of people seem happy to take the chance.
Yep, it could happen. It could also happen if I drove to the shop. I could also fall down the stairs at home, or cut myself with a knife while preparing dinner.
The probability is low.
Given the amount of traffic on the roads in my tier 4 area, the vast majority of people seem happy to take the chance.
Foss62 said:
I don't generally snog random people as I walk past them, and I think walking outside carries a tiny risk - you need to inhale a fair concentration of virus particles to get past your first line of defences (nasal hairs, mucus etc.) before there is much chance of infection. However, when that tiny risk is multiplied by thousands of people all over the country and added to others (touching stiles and gates etc.) you end up with a real risk of moving unwanted variants on, so, at least in my view travel restrictions make sense at the moment. When five or ten million vulnerable people have been vaccinated and/or the virus trajectory starts heading down again I think they can be dispensed with.
Tiny risk is tiny risk. Many tiny risks are many tiny risks, not bigger ones.ECDC has stated that no cases of transmission from surfaces have been proven yet. A recent article in The Lancet said that the risk of same had been hugelyexagerrated. Tests on which advice was based had all been carried out with far larger amounts of fomites than would normally be expected to be on any surface and carried out under lab conditions. "Stiles and gates" are surely going to be some of the least risky surfaces in terms of transmission, especially while temperatures close to zero encourage glove wearing...
I agree that current restrictions make sense. I see clear evidence on all these threads that many people are confusing guidance with regulations and don't really know what the actual restrictions are. That was NOT the OP's question, in any case. He asked a specific question which has been answered. Many times.
NGee said:
Foss62 said:
davek_964 said:
Foss62 said:
The logic now that we seem to have faster spreading variants is that of containment. The longer the distance travelled, the higher the chance that something new will be introduced to an area. The News Reports about people driving from London to the Brecon Beacons show an extreme, but even your five miles does come with a greater risk of speeding up the spread than exercising two miles away. Think of the increased diversity of contacts (both first and second hand) if the entire country drove five miles from home in random directions and then walked two miles, as opposed to walking two miles from their front doors.
Ah, so now walking outside while social distancing also causes mass infection does it? Are you snogging random people as you walk past them?OK, I'm a Biologist but the concepts here don't seem that hard to grasp.
Pothole said:
Gareth79 said:
Pothole said:
normalbloke said:
Oceanrower said:
Yes you can. Thread closed.
Says who?https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1611/pdfs...
One of the exceptions to any and all of the stay at home rules is:
(d) to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation—
Also re. laws/rules/guidance - the OP specifically asked what was *legal* not what is being advised/recommended.
It’s a bigger risk within the supermarket than taking an extended drive there or not. People are going stir crazy and with some not being massively into fitness the car is their primary hobby, and whilst large meetings of enthusiasts would be daft, driving is not. I love the linking of a brief drive to ‘having a party’, just awesome.
Gareth79 said:
Pothole said:
Gareth79 said:
Pothole said:
normalbloke said:
Oceanrower said:
Yes you can. Thread closed.
Says who?https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1611/pdfs...
One of the exceptions to any and all of the stay at home rules is:
(d) to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation—
Also re. laws/rules/guidance - the OP specifically asked what was *legal* not what is being advised/recommended.
I agree about the difference between legislation and guidance. I've been banging on about it for 6 months!
If you go out for a spirited drive / hoon then you're obviously increasing your chances of having an accident. If, however, you're going a drive at normal speeds and to get you out of the house then go for it. I've done it several times as I don't like being stuck indoors too much. It's safer than going to the shop for supplies.
Pothole said:
Foss62 said:
I don't generally snog random people as I walk past them, and I think walking outside carries a tiny risk - you need to inhale a fair concentration of virus particles to get past your first line of defences (nasal hairs, mucus etc.) before there is much chance of infection. However, when that tiny risk is multiplied by thousands of people all over the country and added to others (touching stiles and gates etc.) you end up with a real risk of moving unwanted variants on, so, at least in my view travel restrictions make sense at the moment. When five or ten million vulnerable people have been vaccinated and/or the virus trajectory starts heading down again I think they can be dispensed with.
Tiny risk is tiny risk. Many tiny risks are many tiny risks, not bigger ones.ECDC has stated that no cases of transmission from surfaces have been proven yet. A recent article in The Lancet said that the risk of same had been hugelyexagerrated. Tests on which advice was based had all been carried out with far larger amounts of fomites than would normally be expected to be on any surface and carried out under lab conditions. "Stiles and gates" are surely going to be some of the least risky surfaces in terms of transmission, especially while temperatures close to zero encourage glove wearing...
I agree that current restrictions make sense. I see clear evidence on all these threads that many people are confusing guidance with regulations and don't really know what the actual restrictions are. That was NOT the OP's question, in any case. He asked a specific question which has been answered. Many times.
Surface transmission potentially falls into exactly the same category and if you think about it, would be extremely difficult to prove, even though a mechanism can be shown to work in the lab.
The chances of anyone's personal visit to another area, leading them as individuals to spread a new variant is extremely remote, but if a million others are doing the same thing, the variants will increase their geographical spread.
Disease control is all about numbers and probability but people keep trying to reduce it to a personal context.
Foss62 said:
Pothole said:
Foss62 said:
I don't generally snog random people as I walk past them, and I think walking outside carries a tiny risk - you need to inhale a fair concentration of virus particles to get past your first line of defences (nasal hairs, mucus etc.) before there is much chance of infection. However, when that tiny risk is multiplied by thousands of people all over the country and added to others (touching stiles and gates etc.) you end up with a real risk of moving unwanted variants on, so, at least in my view travel restrictions make sense at the moment. When five or ten million vulnerable people have been vaccinated and/or the virus trajectory starts heading down again I think they can be dispensed with.
Tiny risk is tiny risk. Many tiny risks are many tiny risks, not bigger ones.ECDC has stated that no cases of transmission from surfaces have been proven yet. A recent article in The Lancet said that the risk of same had been hugelyexagerrated. Tests on which advice was based had all been carried out with far larger amounts of fomites than would normally be expected to be on any surface and carried out under lab conditions. "Stiles and gates" are surely going to be some of the least risky surfaces in terms of transmission, especially while temperatures close to zero encourage glove wearing...
I agree that current restrictions make sense. I see clear evidence on all these threads that many people are confusing guidance with regulations and don't really know what the actual restrictions are. That was NOT the OP's question, in any case. He asked a specific question which has been answered. Many times.
Surface transmission potentially falls into exactly the same category and if you think about it, would be extremely difficult to prove, even though a mechanism can be shown to work in the lab.
The chances of anyone's personal visit to another area, leading them as individuals to spread a new variant is extremely remote, but if a million others are doing the same thing, the variants will increase their geographical spread.
Disease control is all about numbers and probability but people keep trying to reduce it to a personal context.
We do not live our lives mitigating such tiny risks, do we? Clearly the medical experts were are supposed to believe are driving the current restrictions do not believe the risk of transmission in an outdoor setting has any significance or we would be completely barred from any and all interactions with other humans outside our homes and small family groups, wouldn't we?
Pothole said:
Show me how the tier 3 regulations are different specifically relative to the OP;s question, please.
"Restrictions on leaving home 1.—(1) No person who lives in the Tier 4 area may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse."OP does not live in a Tier 4 area therefore it does not apply to them. That restriction does not exist in the Tier 3 section.
Edited by Gareth79 on Thursday 31st December 16:16
Gareth79 said:
"Restrictions on leaving home 1.—(1) No person who lives in the Tier 4 area may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse."
OP does not live in a Tier 4 area therefore it does not apply to them. That restriction does not exist in the Tier 3 section.
Can he go for a drive?OP does not live in a Tier 4 area therefore it does not apply to them. That restriction does not exist in the Tier 3 section.
Edited by Gareth79 on Thursday 31st December 16:16
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff