Cycling UK Forum

At the latest 5pm report some one did ask about caravans and camping. The health expert did say that out does is less of a risk than indoors but tents are small spaces with poor ventilation and it depends with whom you are sharing the tent. He then said since it has been brought up he will now look into it.

So it could be we will be able to go camping in the near future

mercalia wrote:depends with whom you are sharing the tent.

I suspect a bigger issue is that it depends with whom you are sharing the campsite sanitary facilities.

mercalia wrote:At the latest 5pm report some one did ask about caravans and camping. The health expert did say that out does is less of a risk than indoors but tents are small spaces with poor ventilation and it depends with whom you are sharing the tent. He then said since it has been brought up he will now look into it.

So it could be we will be able to go camping in the near future

Its kind of being discussed here.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=137468

Article today here

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news ... sites-reo/

I hope there don't open up camping sites. There's little facilities open in places like the Lakes and likely other places people want to camp near so things like camping shouldn't open.

I read about what might happen with mountain rescue situation in the Lakes. Basically if you break your ankle on a Lakeland fell you're creating one big headache for many in people. It goes something like this. Your call for help results in a COVID risk assessment by the call operator from emergency services. It's passed on to the local team leader. They contact the person needing help for better location details and further COVID details. The leaders of the MRT decide it's a medical extraction which needs 10 people plus one at base liaising with other emergency services. Team gets assembled. Ok, there's often a core membership who are over 70 who can't help. Others are either critical NHS workers or self isolating due to high risk member in they're household. But a 11 man team assemblies. Usual MRT my gets sorted plus extra PPE. Two land rovers are needed but despite there being a third which is better for distancing but they'll not use it because of the work involved in sterilising the vehicle every time it gets used. So by now it's about 45 minutes to get sorted and on their way, that after a longer than normal period for COVID assessment before team is assembled.

They get to the person needing assistance say another 50 minutes. The carer and helper go forward wearing their PPE while everyone else keeps their distance. They determine it's likely a broken ankle so they give local injection for the pain. No entinox because of risk of contamination. So they manipulate the foot to ensure blood flow without the pain relief having kicked in.

Long story but after the patent gets to A&E the ambulance needs sterilising was does both MRT land rovers which increases the call time dramatically. Then at hospital the patient has a COVID test. Turns out he's positive and asymptomatic. That gets fed back to ambulance crew and the 11 man MRT crew. Both crews now have to self isolate along with their households for 14 days. A few days later another call out and now there's only 3 team members available, not enough.

I'm not saying that's a common situation everywhere because not everywhere needs a MRT rescue if there's an accident. It's just that I doubt you're likely to go and camp where there's a lot of health services or open facilities. So any incident will put pressure on local resources that TBH should be for the locals. Cumbria isn't a rich county in terms of income and budgets. You go there and all the others too then you carry the chance of putting pressure on local services. I think that's wrong.

So even if they open up campsites I really do ask you to seriously think things through.

@TM I don’t think you did that Coniston Mountain Rescue Post any favours by abbreviating it. It was an excellent post and should be read in full albeit it with a couple of inaccuracies which were corrected if you read on with the comments.

Personally I think they should stick some signs up saying "There are you no rescue services available if you get into trouble on this hill you could die". It’s been very irresponsible of the uk government to suggest its OK to visit.

Without campsites open, people are still going to drive to walk there, so that post seems rather shoehorned into this discussion.

The original post would have been better but it's the same thing, MRT might not be able to help you if you get into difficulty. Shoehorned in? No just something else for people planning on visiting hilly areas to think about.

As to visits they are probably happening without camping but opening up camping is likely to give more encouragement to that. Personally I noticed a change in attitudes to distancing and behaviour in my local supermarket after that announcement that you could travel further to exercise. Every little loosening IME causes a bigger change in views among a significant number near me. It's what I've noticed at least.

Camping sites opening isn't important to the economy of the UK, harsh on areas relying on tourism but it's the truth. Tourism isn't opening up so it'll only be a small number of businesses benefiting in each area that does open its sites. What is the benefit of opening them up anyway? You have a place to stay in a new area which isn't open for tourism, cafes, tourism sites, carparks, public toilets, etc. Great visit for increased risk m to you and the locals IMHO. It's a stupid idea if it goes ahead. I for one won't be camping until the rest of the facilities open up. I hope most on here will also take that approach.

I was tempted into buying Lost Lanes - West Country by a thread on this very forum... and am now patiently waiting for the Golden Swan in Walcot, near Pewsey, to open again...

Tangled Metal wrote:The original post would have been better but it's the same thing, MRT might not be able to help you if you get into difficulty. Shoehorned in? No just something else for people planning on visiting hilly areas to think about.

As to visits they are probably happening without camping but opening up camping is likely to give more encouragement to that. Personally I noticed a change in attitudes to distancing and behaviour in my local supermarket after that announcement that you could travel further to exercise. Every little loosening IME causes a bigger change in views among a significant number near me. It's what I've noticed at least.

Camping sites opening isn't important to the economy of the UK, harsh on areas relying on tourism but it's the truth. Tourism isn't opening up so it'll only be a small number of businesses benefiting in each area that does open its sites. What is the benefit of opening them up anyway? You have a place to stay in a new area which isn't open for tourism, cafes, tourism sites, carparks, public toilets, etc. Great visit for increased risk m to you and the locals IMHO. It's a stupid idea if it goes ahead. I for one won't be camping until the rest of the facilities open up. I hope most on here will also take that approach.

When I go camping it is always to an area with a lower population density than I have at home, which is already quite low. So I am undertaking recreation in a place with reduced risk of transmission, in either direction. Is it preferable for people to do their recreational activity in their home area, with more people around them, or in more rural locations with fewer people around them? What would an epidemiologist say?

The big concern with campsites must be the toilet /shower blocks, and how they will work.

Tangled Metal wrote:Personally I noticed a change in attitudes to distancing and behaviour in my local supermarket after that announcement that you could travel further to exercise. Every little loosening IME causes a bigger change in views among a significant number near me. It's what I've noticed at least.

I think it's the increasingly pathetic government adverts which does that. We've gone from a simple-but-wrong "Stay Home" to a confused mess of "Stay Alert" with five or six bullet points beneath it which almost no-one reads and a strong message to go back to work which caused much confusion and many unnecessary journeys on Monday.

I'm pretty sure it's not the fault of the exercise relaxation which I think hasn't even registered with most people because they weren't particularly restricting their exercise anyway beyond a general "don't take the mickey" of not driving across country to walk the dog. Car parks at the local woods have been busy throughout, except where physically closed off, and I'm glad that other accesses are available to cyclists.

I've mixed feelings on the tourism+travel plan. It's at the far end of a few "maybe"s and I'll wait and see what happens before deciding what I think of it, nearer the time.

mercalia wrote:At the latest 5pm report some one did ask about caravans and camping. The health expert did say that out does is less of a risk than indoors but tents are small spaces with poor ventilation and it depends with whom you are sharing the tent. He then said since it has been brought up he will now look into it.

So it could be we will be able to go camping in the near future

Unless you have your ‘own facilities’ (sanitation) I would have thought it un-wise and very likely unsafe. Personally I’d like to see the distance people could travel from home closely regulated to under 20 miles (limits potential regional and district infection transfers). That said if you’re self contained and well separated from other campers then the holiday should be good for the soul and good for health too.

Carlton green wrote:Unless you have your ‘own facilities’ (sanitation) I would have thought it un-wise and very likely unsafe. Personally I’d like to see the distance people could travel from home closely regulated to under 20 miles (limits potential regional and district infection transfers). That said if you’re self contained and well separated from other campers then the holiday should be good for the soul and good for health too.

Why limit distance that severely? Authoritarian tendencies?

Just to be clear, do you also oppose hotels reopening?

mjr wrote:

Carlton green wrote:Unless you have your ‘own facilities’ (sanitation) I would have thought it un-wise and very likely unsafe. Personally I’d like to see the distance people could travel from home closely regulated to under 20 miles (limits potential regional and district infection transfers). That said if you’re self contained and well separated from other campers then the holiday should be good for the soul and good for health too.

Why limit distance that severely? Authoritarian tendencies?

Just to be clear, do you also oppose hotels reopening?

Why limit distance so severely? I think that the reason is stated in my original post. If the limit was set at twenty miles it stops a mass of people descending on particular beauty spots and limits to forty miles (two times twenty) the leap that the virus and variants of it can make between communities (if it somehow spreads between campers and/or site managers). Holidays do not need to be spent many miles from home, it’s certainly possible to have a nice break in a place that’s just over the horizon (I’ve certainly done so).

As for Hotels I wouldn’t support them opening with shared facilities (like dining and bathrooms). However if social distancing can be observed, rooms thoroughly cleaned and staff kept safe then I’d have thought that there was a good case for opening but with the same distance restrictions and logic suggested above.

Carlton green wrote:Why limit distance so severely? I think that the reason is stated in my original post. If the limit was set at twenty miles it stops a mass of people descending on particular beauty spots and limits to forty miles (two times twenty) the leap that the virus and variants of it can make between communities (if it somehow spreads between campers and/or site managers). Holidays do not need to be spent many miles from home, it’s certainly possible to have a nice break in a place that’s just over the horizon (I’ve certainly done so).

That seems like an extreme overreaction given that outdoor transmission seems exceedingly rare.

Maybe you don't like travel?

As for Hotels I wouldn’t support them opening with shared facilities (like dining and bathrooms). However if social distancing can be observed, rooms thoroughly cleaned and staff kept safe then I’d have thought that there was a good case for opening but with the same distance restrictions and logic suggested above.

Who ever takes their own bathroom to a hotel? And how are you going to know the room's been thoroughly cleaned?

mjr wrote:

Carlton green wrote:Why limit distance so severely? I think that the reason is stated in my original post. If the limit was set at twenty miles it stops a mass of people descending on particular beauty spots and limits to forty miles (two times twenty) the leap that the virus and variants of it can make between communities (if it somehow spreads between campers and/or site managers). Holidays do not need to be spent many miles from home, it’s certainly possible to have a nice break in a place that’s just over the horizon (I’ve certainly done so).

That seems like an extreme overreaction given that outdoor transmission seems exceedingly rare.

Maybe you don't like travel?

As for Hotels I wouldn’t support them opening with shared facilities (like dining and bathrooms). However if social distancing can be observed, rooms thoroughly cleaned and staff kept safe then I’d have thought that there was a good case for opening but with the same distance restrictions and logic suggested above.

Who ever takes their own bathroom to a hotel? And how are you going to know the room's been thoroughly cleaned?

Outdoor transmission might be rare but transmission happens, people are still dying of Coronavirus and that includes Hospital staff so risk avoidance is good and needed. Do Campers only stay outside or do they use local shops where they might be infected or spread infection? Do Campers always strictly observe social distancing or, as is so easy, do they slip here and there? There is also a small percentage of people who to a greater or lesser degree have failed to act responsibly, putting such people on a campsite is likely to encourage them in their foolishness.

Having a break away doesn’t need to be about travel, to my mind having a break is about refreshment and refreshment can happen near to home too. Adding extended travel to a break away adds unnecessary risks to virus containment.