Glencoe hillwalkers fined for travel violation.

[al78]

Just a pity that travel restrictions weren't introduced back in March. All non essential international travel should have been banned. Much better to have restricted the virus getting into the country in the first place. Travel restrictions within the country are pretty pointless now, as the virus is taking a good hold everywhere. And as long as travel is being permitted to go to workplaces, where people interact all day long, this is where a lot of the spread is happening. Preventing people travelling outside their area for exercise will have little affect on the spread.

We should have come down hard when cases were reported in January. Sometimes it is necessary to make sacrifices now to avoid a worse fate in the future. Boris dithered about for two months allowing the virus to take hold, we are all paying the price for that now.

Only essential travel for work is permitted, and those places which are essential and are indoor environments will have social distancing measures in place, so I don't agree workplaces are a primary cause of the spread at the moment. It is more likely the I-can't-be arsed-to-wear-a-mask and what-difference-will-one-party-make brigade that are spreading it. Limiting travel for exercise will have some effect as it will lessen the likelihood of situations like Snowdon or the beaches being rammed full. It might not make much difference in the Scottish highlands, but it will make a difference where you have honey pot national parks an hour or two's drive from major population centres (e.g. Peak District, Lake District, Snowdonia, Yorkshire Dales), since there are always specific locations there that attract a lot of people at any one time.

[Robertgee]

We should have come down hard when cases were reported in January. Sometimes it is necessary to make sacrifices now to avoid a worse fate in the future. Boris dithered about for two months allowing the virus to take hold, we are all paying the price for that now.

Agreed.

Only essential travel for work is permitted, and those places which are essential and are indoor environments will have social distancing measures in place, so I don't agree workplaces are a primary cause of the spread at the moment. It is more likely the I-can't-be arsed-to-wear-a-mask and what-difference-will-one-party-make brigade that are spreading it. Limiting travel for exercise will have some effect as it will lessen the likelihood of situations like Snowdon or the beaches being rammed full. It might not make much difference in the Scottish highlands, but it will make a difference where you have honey pot national parks an hour or two's drive from major population centres (e.g. Peak District, Lake District, Snowdonia, Yorkshire Dales), since there are always specific locations there that attract a lot of people at any one time.

I didn't mean that workplaces were a primary source of the spread, only that they do contribute to the spread, some places more so than others. As these places are essential, and there's only so much that social distancing and other safety measures, can do, there is always going to be some kind of spreading of the virus. The government's therefore unlikely to close these places, but it's very easy to just impose a blanket ban on all other travel, whether the activities of the traveller spreads the virus or not. You're totally right about the people who just don't care, this is definitely one of the primary causes. As for the crowded places, some people, especially in the cities and large urban areas, who are restricted with travel, only have local parks, etc. to go to, so these places can get mobbed on a good day. The travel ban stops people from going further afield to quiet places, so it's the ban which is often creating these situations. In Scotland we're also being told to "avoid crowded places", and this is meant to stop this problem. But if there's a travel ban...and we just keep going in circles. People should not however be travelling to get to popular places, and causing the problem that way. If only everyone followed the "avoid crowded places" rule when then do travel...if your destination is crowded, move on elsewhere, then the travel ban might not be so tough.

[Marty_JG]

Boris dithered about for two months allowing the virus to take hold, we are all paying the price for that now.

It's not been any better up here. Scotland let people fly off to Spain, let people legally head to Blackpool whist "advising" them morally not to. We had the legal authority to prohibit these movements of people and we squandered it. This is a self-inflicted idiocy that is currently slaughtering Scottish people.

(And I'm otherwise a natural supporter of the party of the incumbent Scottish government, this is not a party political attack).

[davekeiller]

I think we're probably generating rather more heat than light here.

We could spend ages discussing what the government did wrong and when, and what the rules should be and whether or not they make sense, but where will it actually get us?

I think we should probably take this as a cautionary tale to remind us that if we go hillwalking we should abide by the rules, because if we get caught breaking the rules the police can and will take enforcement action.

[Marty_JG]

Basically; obey the law and be sensible about it too.

[gman]

Whether droplet or airborne transmission is the main route, the risk of infection is known to be much lower outside where ventilation is better. As winter approaches in the northern hemisphere, the opportunity to socialise and exercise outdoors becomes more challenging and concerns are growing over the increased risk of transmission of COVID-19.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30514-2/fulltext#articleInformation

There was always going to be a spike in infections after restrictions were lifted for Christmas, it's highly unlikely outdoor exercise was a significant factor.

[Border Reiver]

Listening to local police and politicians on TV this morning, I think that they are happy enough that a person drives within their county to exercise, providing that they're not being silly about it. In other words, if I were to drive to the hills at the west end of our county (where I would want to walk), they wouldn't be too happy if I dove past a number of equally suitable places on the way. They do keep stressing "a short distance" without stating what a short distance is. I think they mean that a place to exercise is the nearest place to their home where someone can exercise in a safe environment, not a place of the person's choice. We need certainty in any rules / laws / advice, in fact anything other than "the law" will always be confusing, and any laws should be UK wide.

[Marty_JG]

The rule in England is "local area" and no definition is given. I agree that "county" might be a good start.

Though we can nit-pick the Scottish rules, and they do bring up some weird exceptions, at least they are clearly defined: local authority boundary plus 5 miles.

[Border Reiver]

That's a bit harsh
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

[Backpacker]

That's a bit harsh
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

From memory the police in Derbyshire have been a bit harsh during the lockdowns. They were out with drones during the 1st lockdown

[al78]

That's a bit harsh
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

A bit harsh is an understatement, more like an abuse of power. Unfotrunately such behaviour incites the one-therefore-all fallacy against authority. The women are not breaking the rules by driving a short distance for a walk, and since when is having a drink classed as a picnic? Does that mean anyone who is outside and feels thirsty has to wait until they get home to have a drink?

[goth_angel]

I'm really not sure where I sit on this!

The chances of catching or spreading covid-19 whilst out hill walking is next to nil. There is the small matter of potentially needing rescued like these chaps and that puts a small risk of them maybe spreading the virus to their rescuers. But this is worst case scenario and won't happen very often, if at all.

On the flipside I am disappointed seeing fellow walkers flouting the rules whilst others sit tight and do as they're asked to try get the virus back under control. I don't buy into needing the hills for "mental health", as much as I miss them, just getting out for a long walk is enough to refresh myself and there is plenty alternatives in your local area to get out and explore.

Like WalkWithWallace I'm really not sure where i sit on this either. It's unfortunate the people in question had to be rescued and no, they shouldn't have been out of their area. But the chances - rescues excepted - of anyone picking up or passing on the virus on a hill walk must be close to zero. The place I am most likely to get it, if I do, is the local supermarket.

Also whether there are places to explore in your local area depends on where you live. I'm in greater London / Kent and although lucky enough to have some local green space it is usually rammed on a decent day. Plus I'm bored rigid of my local area now. I do think that for some people getting to the hills is necessary for mental health and in some cases might be the only thing keeping them going through all this. Personally, I have a high stress job and have three ways of managing stress levels - hill walking, swimming and knitting and only the last one is doable at the moment. My nearest half decent hills are the South Downs and given they are an hour's drive away would seem to be beyond what is permitted at the moment.

I understand that the rules are there for a reason and am complying with them but it's frustrating to see so many people not - groups of drunk people in the local park, and flagrant disregard for the mask wearing requirement being particular annoyances.

[goth_angel]

That's a bit harsh
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

More than a bit harsh, it doesn't sound as though they broke any of the restrictions.

Saw something on my news feed about another MRT call out - bit different from the Glencoe one - a car had got stuck on a hill road in Wales. Police went out to fine and retrieve them and got stuck themselves then had to call out the local MRT.

[dav2930]

That's a bit harsh
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

A bit harsh is an understatement, more like an abuse of power.

I agree. As the human rights barrister in the article is quoted as saying:
"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."

The Derbyshire police are therefore plainly wrong in this case. Their quoted response is wholly inadequate:
"It is up to each individual officer on a case-by-case basis to decide what is reasonable as the legislation does not proscribe a distance."

All I can say is that the officers in this case were particularly inept at judging what is reasonable and what isn't. Since the legislation does not proscribe a distance, how can it be reasonable to fine someone £200 for travelling 5 miles? And since when have the police had the power to make up the law as they see fit? As the barrister says, they haven't. Derbyshire police need to take a long, hard look at themselves. They're behaving like goons in a military dictatorship.

[Alex W]

That's a bit harsh
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-55560814

A bit harsh is an understatement, more like an abuse of power.

I agree. As the human rights barrister in the article is quoted as saying:
"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."

The Derbyshire police are therefore plainly wrong in this case. Their quoted response is wholly inadequate:
"It is up to each individual officer on a case-by-case basis to decide what is reasonable as the legislation does not proscribe a distance."

All I can say is that the officers in this case were particularly inept at judging what is reasonable and what isn't. Since the legislation does not proscribe a distance, how can it be reasonable to fine someone £200 for travelling 5 miles? And since when have the police had the power to make up the law as they see fit? As the barrister says, they haven't. Derbyshire police need to take a long, hard look at themselves. They're behaving like goons in a military dictatorship.

I agree. When we get to a stage where the police can enforce "laws" they have made up themselves, we really are into dystopia. The Police can apply discretion about how to enforce the law i.e. they can issue fixed penalty notices or they can offer words of advice, but they cannot just make it up as they go along.

I hope the women in question appeal to have the penalties quashed.

It is difficult though. I can drive for 10 miles within my area and get to some hills (Pentlands) that I enjoy roaming on. But they are getting very busy. I can drive for just over an hour and get to some much higher hills which will be empty. But the latter is against the law. I won't break the law even though the latter is the safer Covid related option.

Mental Health is becoming a bit of a buzz word as a reason for doing all sorts of things. That shouldn't disguise that often it is real. Before Covid we probably all did things that helped us to de-stress and keep us on an even keel (I know I did) so that mental health wasn't explicitly an issue for us. With the walls closing in on so many of us, it is now a very real concern. I'm suffering in ways I would just never have envisaged until now when I'm under a prolonged prohibition from doing things I've done for most of my life.

There's no easy answer except to get the vaccine rolled out, get our numbers back under control and get the restrictions eased.