Glencoe hillwalkers fined for travel violation.

[Backpacker]

We know that within the rules/advice etc, we could probably "get away with" driving maybe up to 20 miles to walk well away from people, up on the moors, yet still within our county. Our last walk of over 5 miles was in early March last year, just before lockdown, and we followed every rule, keeping our distance from the few other walkers we saw. We also were careful to either avoid touching gate handles (or sanitise them after). We would love to be able to return to the moors, dales and mountains, but have decided, at a time when this nasty virus is all around us, that we'll stick to only leaving home to do shopping and the occasional short walk near home. We would rather keep ourselves and others safe by not pushing the boundaries, than look for bits of text that may just allow us to be legal, but not within the spirit of the rules/advice/law. Our next door neighbour died of Covid 19 and so have quite a few other people we knew. The hills, mountains, dales and moors will still be there next year, and if we are careful, so will we.

If you are travelling 20 miles to walk on the moors well away from other people I don't see how you could be considered "getting away with it"
I think that is well within, even the spirit of the law. recreational walking is an exemption, and for good reason. Driving 20 miles for solo hillwalking or walking in the moors is far less risky than walking 100 yards from your house with a person from another household which is also perfectly acceptable within the guidance.
I think we all have to remember the reasons for the guidance which is to limit contact with other people and not worry about low risk activities where the evidence is that the risk is negligible.
See the report below regarding the risks, and the importance in being allowed to travel for these sort of activities

https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/covid-19-and-mountaineering

I think this is the blurriness Spade referred to. There's the rules and then there's the spirit of the rules (Jason Leitch has referred to this on more than one occasion).

Most of us know the rules, max 5 miles outside your LA area and should begin and end in the same place. The spirit of the rules is up to interpretation. I might deem traveling 30 miles to ensure I'm away from the general public acceptable whereas if I'm stopped and questioned over it, the police might deem it unacceptable and there have been cases of people being fined for breaking the spirit of the rules.

It was much easier when we had the approx 5 mile from your home, far less debate over it. Maybe they should bring it back with say a 15-20 mile limit. Most people should be able access enough green space away from anyone else with that sort of distance.

[Sunset tripper]

It was much easier when we had the approx 5 mile from your home, far less debate over it. Maybe they should bring it back with say a 15-20 mile limit. Most people should be able access enough green space away from anyone else with that sort of distance.

I dont understand why hillwalkers would be desperate for a rule that stops them travelling to the hills. It's not about finding a green space.
The risks are minimal, the government has decided the 5 mile limit is not necessary. I certainly wouldn't encourage anyone to go out hill walking if they thought it was wrong or if they thought the risks were higher than the experts say.

I guess if things don't improve soon, tighter travel restrictions may apply, we may not be allowed out at all. That would certainly be easy to understand I suppose.

[Backpacker]

It was much easier when we had the approx 5 mile from your home, far less debate over it. Maybe they should bring it back with say a 15-20 mile limit. Most people should be able access enough green space away from anyone else with that sort of distance.

I dont understand why hillwalkers would be desperate for a rule that stops them travelling to the hills. It's not about finding a green space.
The risks are minimal, the government has decided the 5 mile limit is not necessary. I certainly wouldn't encourage anyone to go out hill walking if they thought it was wrong or if they thought the risks were higher than the experts say.

I guess if things don't improve soon, tighter travel restrictions may apply, we may not be allowed out at all. That would certainly be easy to understand I suppose.

I'm just thinking in general terms, not everyone is a hillwalker or wants to be. The government is trying to stop social interactions to stop the spread., if I had my way there would be no travel restrictions, there's enough space in the country to ensure you're miles from anyone else

[dav2930]

...the most important thing is avoiding meeting other people as much as possible.

Indeed. If we all keep a sufficient distance from each other the virus simply cannot spread. It's fortunate that such a simple principle is so fundamental. It's the one principle everyone needs to keep in mind, whatever they do, while the pandemic continues to afflict us, and I wish people would observe it more conscientiously when shopping in supermarkets, for example.

But the vague slogan "stay at home" confuses this simple and crucial idea. Staying at home is only a method of avoiding contact with people. The problem with this method is that it's not possible for an entire household never to leave the house. The government know it isn't possible for people literally to just stay at home, so why make that the central message? But keeping a sufficient distance from others is both easy to adhere to in many circumstances and the critical point of staying at home. So if we and the authorities were to keep that simple principle in proper focus, instead of chanting the "stay at home" mantra and fixating on the distances people are driving from their homes in order to get their exercise, then maybe our collective behaviour would be more conducive to actually reducing the spread of Covid, because it would then be informed by a clear understanding of what fundamentally does reduce it.

[al78]

I'm just thinking in general terms, not everyone is a hillwalker or wants to be. The government is trying to stop social interactions to stop the spread., if I had my way there would be no travel restrictions, there's enough space in the country to ensure you're miles from anyone else

Says someone who doesn't live in SE England.

[gman]

There's also the law of unintended consequences: if you take a low-risk activity like hillwalking and make it less appealing then people will find something else to do instead.

[Border Reiver]

All regular walkers / outdoor people know that there's plenty of space for us to exercise safely and can do so when in normal times we are the majority. The problem lies when, due to the closure of almost all other places of exercise, we become the minority , when the uncontrolled hordes all head for the few countryside attractions that they've heard of. We then find that the nice quiet place we've always enjoyed walking, has been overrun. I have family who live near a popular countryside area and they tell me that during recent lockdowns it's mayhem at weekends, with visitors parking indiscriminately and wandering around the village, where CV 19 hasn't yet been.

[al78]

...the most important thing is avoiding meeting other people as much as possible.

Indeed. If we all keep a sufficient distance from each other the virus simply cannot spread. It's fortunate that such a simple principle is so fundamental. It's the one principle everyone needs to keep in mind, whatever they do, while the pandemic continues to afflict us, and I wish people would observe it more conscientiously when shopping in supermarkets, for example.

But the vague slogan "stay at home" confuses this simple and crucial idea. Staying at home is only a method of avoiding contact with people. The problem with this method is that it's not possible for an entire household never to leave the house. The government know it isn't possible for people literally to just stay at home, so why make that the central message? But keeping a sufficient distance from others is both easy to adhere to in many circumstances and the critical point of staying at home. So if we and the authorities were to keep that simple principle in proper focus, instead of chanting the "stay at home" mantra and fixating on the distances people are driving from their homes in order to get their exercise, then maybe our collective behaviour would be more conducive to actually reducing the spread of Covid, because it would then be informed by a clear understanding of what fundamentally does reduce it.

The message is stay at home as much as possible, there are permitted reasons for leaving home, which include shopping for essentials and exercise, it is an effective method of mimimising contact with others outside your household, and it is easy to understand. The quantitative limits on distances travelled for exercise are a way of trying to make rules as simple as possible to follow, and to stop thousands of people from Liverpool and Manchester from descending on the Lake District and Snowdonia honey pots at the same time, which is what will happen if the rule was just "you can go outside for exercise" with no further specific limitation and we have a spectacular Spring like last year (in fact it did happen last year on the south coast beaches). It is also desirable to have quantitative restrictions so they can be objectively, rather than subjectively enforced, which makes the job easier for the police who are assigned the job of enforcement. Even then, sometimes they get it badly wrong (Derbyshire).

[Marty_JG]

The quantitative limits on distances travelled for exercise are a way of trying to make rules as simple as possible to follow, and to stop thousands of people from Liverpool and Manchester from descending on the Lake District and Snowdonia honey pots

The quantitative limit is Scotland only so it doesn't apply to Liverpool or Manchester. (A quantitative limit would have prevented the Derbyshire debacle).

[al78]

The quantitative limits on distances travelled for exercise are a way of trying to make rules as simple as possible to follow, and to stop thousands of people from Liverpool and Manchester from descending on the Lake District and Snowdonia honey pots

The quantitative limit is Scotland only so it doesn't apply to Liverpool or Manchester. (A quantitative limit would have prevented the Derbyshire debacle).

Oh, I thought it applied to the whole UK. Why then the fuss over Boris cycling in east London's Olympic Park seven miles from home, which wouldn't violate rules even if there was a five mile limit if he cycled from home to the park?

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/matt-hancock-boris-johnson-bike-184321754.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55630164

[Kinshusrst Kid]

[quote="al78"
Oh, I thought it applied to the whole UK. Why then the fuss over Boris cycling in east London's Olympic Park seven miles from home, which wouldn't violate rules even if there was a five mile limit if he cycled from home to the park?

[/quote]
The fuss is because it's Boris. He can't do anything right. Didn't you Know that. Even when he is doing something right.

You seem as if you need clarification as to what the rules are for England. Gov.uk.org is a good place to start. It points you different places for the rules for Scotland,Wales, Northern Ireland and England.I am surprise that you haven't looked before at this valuable source of information and guidance related to Covid restrictions - it's less selective than what you find in the media.

[davekeiller]

The law in Scotland is clear: you are allowed to travel up to 5 miles outside your local authority area to reach the start point for outdoor exercise that begins and ends in the same place. There is no limit on how far you may walk/cycle/run/swim/ski, although you are expected to get there and back in a day.

In England, the law is less clear: you may leave home to exercise in you local area, however local area is not defined.
This is why the Boris bike ride is controversial - he was approximately 7 miles from his official residence, which some people feel is not in his local area. It's also how the Derbyshire incident came about - the local police decided to interpret "a walk in your local area" to mean "a walk that begins and ends at your front door", whereas the women involved interpreted it as being "a walk that starts somewhere that's about a 10 minute drive from home, and where it's likely to be considerably quieter than in the streets where we live". Given that the fixed penalty notice was subsequently rescinded, it would appear that the police were wrong to interpret the law in this way.

[dav2930]

The message is stay at home as much as possible, there are permitted reasons for leaving home, which include shopping for essentials and exercise, it is an effective method of mimimising contact with others outside your household, and it is easy to understand. The quantitative limits on distances travelled for exercise are a way of trying to make rules as simple as possible to follow, and to stop thousands of people from Liverpool and Manchester from descending on the Lake District and Snowdonia honey pots at the same time, which is what will happen if the rule was just "you can go outside for exercise" with no further specific limitation and we have a spectacular Spring like last year (in fact it did happen last year on the south coast beaches). It is also desirable to have quantitative restrictions so they can be objectively, rather than subjectively enforced, which makes the job easier for the police who are assigned the job of enforcement. Even then, sometimes they get it badly wrong (Derbyshire).

The message is usually delivered in the soundbite "stay at home", which contradicts what we are actually permitted to do. Even "stay at home as much as possible" contradicts what we are encouraged to do, which is to get out regularly for exercise in order to keep fit and healthy (both mentally and physically). If I were to stay at home as much as possible, I wouldn't be going out for exercise, because it is possible not to.

You say the message is easy to understand - well yes, it is; but when people are out for a walk or doing their shopping in the supermarket, they're not at home, so in those circumstances it's irrelevant. What is relevant in all situations is keeping a sufficient distance from others (at least 2m), which seems to be largely ignored in the supermarkets I've been to. That message doesn't seem to be getting through. So it seems to me that the 2m rule, which is just as easy to understand as "stay at home", would be better as the central message for people to grasp, since it applies wherever you are. The issue of thousands of people from Liverpool and Manchester descending on the Lake District etc. was already covered under tier 2 regulations (which is not to say people from tier 4 areas were not illegally visiting the Lake District when it was in tier 2). Again, if we always keep in mind the distancing principle, then we'll avoid crowded spots and seek out quieter ones, if the rules and/or the police allow us to.

[Gareth Harper]

Dav1930 and al78, maybe it would be an idea to start a thread entitled ‘National lockdown rules in England’ or similar.

I just don’t think it is helpful discussing England's lockdown rules in a thread entitled “Glencoe hillwalkers fined for travel violation”

Each nation within the UK has set it’s own Covid19 guidelines and lockdown rules.

If you go to this page there are links to the Covid19 guidelines and rules for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus

[gman]

Websites like the BBC have 'New Covid Restrictions' pages with paragraphs about the rules for England and 'click here for Scotland/Wales/NI' further down the page. People based in England could be forgiven for thinking that the English restrictions are UK-wide and Scottish hillwalkers are casually ignoring them and inventing their own.