Cycling UK Forum

reohn2 wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:What if one lives in a small village with only one food store? Then one could not afford to be offended

That would only apply to anyone without transport,as many people do have transport these days I say it'd pay any shop in such a position to be extra nice to it's customers,otherwise it may go out of business.

It can be especially good to be nice back to people who are impolite, somehow one gets good energy from doing that
..
Thread drift alert
I really hate how food stores are built in clusters, often on the edge of town or outside, nobody lives nearby

Cyril Haearn wrote:It can be especially good to be nice back to people who are impolite, somehow one gets good energy from doing that
..

I usually ask what it is I've done to annoy them,it usually puts them on the back foot.

Thread drift alert
I really hate how food stores are built in clusters, often on the edge of town or outside, nobody lives nearby

It's increased car ownership that's caused it.

reohn2 wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:Thread drift alert
I really hate how food stores are built in clusters, often on the edge of town or outside, nobody lives nearby

It's increased car ownership that's caused it.

That and cheaper land/rates etc.
Aldi and Lidl seem to be the exception.They seem to be opening stores in the heart of residential areas.

mjr wrote:

Peter F wrote:One form of exercise per day.
Shopping trips should be minimised.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52012432

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you but: Boris lied, or at least actively misled. Neither of those were in the first set of rules, which you can find at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

If you think that going for a ride and stopping mid way to pick up a spot of lunch is within the spirit of those rules then you and me have a very different opinion on this. Just because something isn't stated in black and white doesn't mean you should do it. For me the question is what is reasonable behaviour in a situation where we are meant to be minimising interactions with people outside of our home.

Peter F wrote:

mjr wrote:

Peter F wrote:One form of exercise per day.
Shopping trips should be minimised.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52012432

I'm sorry to be the one to break this to you but: Boris lied, or at least actively misled. Neither of those were in the first set of rules, which you can find at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

If you think that going for a ride and stopping mid way to pick up a spot of lunch is within the spirit of those rules then you and me have a very different opinion on this. Just because something isn't stated in black and white doesn't mean you should do it. For me the question is what is reasonable behaviour in a situation where we are meant to be minimising interactions with people outside of our home.

Have you seen the queues outside supermarkets and DIY stores?
Today shops reopen....huge queues outside Sports Direct and I've seen photos of similar at an out of town Primark.
"Minimising contact" all but disappeared weeks ago!
This has been the trouble with the Govt stance and guidelines from day one.They are full of holes and open to interpretation.

Jdsk wrote:I'd guess that it's a reference to either Bookshop Memories or Keep the Aspidistra Flying.

Jonathan

Oh no! Out-litted on lesser known works!
I had it down to O’Brien or the pigs.

99.9%certain wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:Thread drift alert
I really hate how food stores are built in clusters, often on the edge of town or outside, nobody lives nearby

It's increased car ownership that's caused it.

That and cheaper land/rates etc.
Aldi and Lidl seem to be the exception.They seem to be opening stores in the heart of residential areas.

Because a + l are halfway decent organisations that sell mostly honest food that people need, one doesnae have to walk a hundred meters to find fifty sorts of yoghurt, they do not have huge ranges of uneatables
I almost trust a + l
I am dead lucky, I have five different stores in walking distance, including aldi + lidl, no sign of any closing or moving, indeed a + l both plan to upgrade (smug)

David9694 wrote:Oh no! Out-litted on lesser known works!
I had it down to O’Brien or the pigs.

: - )

I don't think that the novels are widely read any more, but there was a good adaptation of Coming Up for Air on Radio 4 recently. Recommended.

Familiarity with O'Brien and the pigs, OTOH, is a civic duty. Again. Unfortunately.

Jonathan

Peter F wrote:

mjr wrote:Neither of those were in the first set of rules, which you can find at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

If you think that going for a ride and stopping mid way to pick up a spot of lunch is within the spirit of those rules then you and me have a very different opinion on this. Just because something isn't stated in black and white doesn't mean you should do it. For me the question is what is reasonable behaviour in a situation where we are meant to be minimising interactions with people outside of our home.

It's not exactly unreasonable to stop for a snack while exercising, is it? And a sub-minute checkout process is not much of an interaction - a parkrunner would have more interactions than that just while running.

What you claimed was in the rules never was and now you're falling back onto spirits and saying people should follow the spirits rather than the rules. The trouble is that every spirit-interpreter says the spirits mean something different. Some think the spirits say that it's fine to travel the length of the country to stay with aged parents and then drive blind on a day trip - and the government agreed with that!

More objectively, I feel we should be aiming to reasonably minimising total risk to health and the OP's actions seem reasonable in that way: better to buy food fresh than carry it all day on hot roads, especially if your bike doesn't have an insulated cool compartment. The tiny covid risk from the quick interaction was probably less than the food poisoning risk.

And finally, the rules had been relaxed far far more than that, long before the OP's shop stop.

I guess it all goes to show that some people online are even harder-core fundamentalist lockdown vigilantes than the shop worker was.

As previously there are at least four levels:
* The laws
* Guidance, including Ministerial and from the NHS
* Risk to others
* Risk to self.

The two items stated might have been unlawful at the time. Their not being explicitly listed in the law doesn't make them lawful as it doesn't contain an exhaustive list.

Jonathan

Some people are vulnerable but not shielded. A certain nervousness is not surprising. So, regardless of the letter of the law, sometimes it is a good thing to respect the concerns of others.

Ooh! I do like a good moan, about nothing! a bit more tolerance wouldn’t come amiss, especially now?
Re: stories about shop staff, and helpfulness - I’ve not heard anything better than my experience at our local Tesco a while back. To cut a long story short; I was on my ebike recovering from a major, non cycling, accident. Ventured to the store to then wonder how I was going to manage with shopping and crutches!! Saw disabled buggy enter store, so - rode my bike in, to the amazement of customers - confronted by manager, explained situation - fantastic, told me where everything was, and, opened a till just for me. Staff thought it was all hilarious, even went back again 10/10

Jdsk wrote:The two items stated might have been unlawful at the time. Their not being explicitly listed in the law doesn't make them lawful as it doesn't contain an exhaustive list.

They were both explicitly listed in the law as permitted? It's just that some are arguing that it was not in the spirits to combine them in that way.

I think that we might be saying the same thing...

The original legislation for England:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made/data.pdf

Jonathan

Against the law or not, the 'Cummings principle', which states 'It's sensible and using good old fashioned British common sense' over-rules, and thus it's allowed.