www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

David M wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 3:40 pm

millerd wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 1:35 pm According to the BBC, some new guidance has been issued to Police Forces in respect of what is reasonable in terms of travelling to undertake daily exercise:

"...driving somewhere to exercise is acceptable as long as "far more time" is spent walking than driving..."

Open to interpretation, but it could perhaps alleviate the monotony and restrictiveness of one's local patch.

Yes. Clocked this today myself, Dave.

Can't find a link to the actual document, otherwise I'd print it off and carry it with me in the car just in case.

My butterfly walks are usually 1.5 to 2 hours long, and I can get to plenty of good spots in half an hour or less.

Does anyone have the source for this? As David says, it would be useful to have this printed out in the case that anyone following this advice was stopped and challenged. It would certainly help my mental wellbeing if I could take a 15 minute drive to a local hotspot and then walk for at least an hour!

Couldn't access the Indpendent but this from BBC:

Exercise guidelines

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.

My emphasis.

So the needs of the mildly disabled like me who can't walk very far is ignored. If I decide to drive 20 minutes to loiter around a butterfly hotspot where no one else is around then as far as I am concerned, bollocks to the guidance.

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:07 pm
So the needs of the mildly disabled like me who can't walk very far is ignored. If I decide to drive 20 minutes to loiter around a butterfly hotspot where no one else is around then as far as I am concerned, bollocks to the guidance.

Yes, Jack, and this is why the law should in almost all cases never be just black or white.

Let me introduce you to this guy (absolute hero):

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/ ... kforthenhs

He can't possibly walk more than 250m per day. What if the Police found him out in the countryside 15 miles from his home? He simply can't walk (zimmer assisted) for more than two hours.

One would hope that common sense would kick in. There are plenty of people of working age who live in concrete jungles in flats where the nearest genuine source of green space is a decent drive away.

Were the Police to fine these people I would personally be outraged.

Walking, or even driving for short periods, to my mind, poses very little danger, as long as one is on their own. After all, who are you going to give it to?

Far greater risk comes from places indoors, full of people, such a supermarkets and food shops. And we all need food!

As David says, you would hope the authorities might use a bit of common sense, though I’ve seen occasional evidence to the contrary...

Further to all this, I saw the view expressed yesterday by one senior policeman (an ACC) that anyone who had the opportunity to take daily exercise directly from their doorstep would be making an unnecessary journey to drive anywhere else to do so regardless of the ratio between travel time and exercise time. I can see the logic behind this - the concept of permitting a short drive elsewhere is so as not to penalise those who are not lucky enough to have such amenities close at hand.

The restrictions appear to be aimed at cutting out unnecessary travel rather than curbing the ability to exercise. Unfortunately, this interpretation knocks on the head any idea I might have to go beyond my local patch in any way at all.

Dave

millerd wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 7:22 am Further to all this, I saw the view expressed yesterday by one senior policeman (an ACC) that anyone who had the opportunity to take daily exercise directly from their doorstep would be making an unnecessary journey to drive anywhere else to do so

I suppose that would depend on what constitutes "opportunity to take daily exercise directly from [the] doorstep". If the key objective is to minimise contact with other people, then living anywhere remotely built-up must surely limit that opportunity, since walking down the street comes with a risk of encountering neighbours. I won't bore you with the back-of-envelope calculations I did, but I reckon a short drive to escape the limits of a town/village is a net benefit for reducing covid transmission, even after taking into account the need for (very) occasional visits to petrol stations.

For myself, this new update is most welcome. My actual behaviour - short drives out of town to one of three local sites for walks - won't change at all, but I can stop checking my mirrors every few seconds for cruising police cars!

Compared to many, I know that I am very lucky. Today’s walk. All images clickable to bring to full size Several Small Torties and Peacocks.
Jack

Maximus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2020 6:50 pm https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 68471.html

Good effort, Mike. Duly downloaded.

Jack Harrison wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 2:32 pm Compared to many, I know that I am very lucky. Today’s walk.

You are indeed, Jack. Looks serene.