Social distancing

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists passing close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each across a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do. Yesterday I
came across such a scene where at least one of the chatterers was
wearing a face mask.

At my speed I gave them every reasonable opportunity to rearrange
themselves. Eyes made contact and body language indicated they had seen,
recognised, reacted and adjusted to a settled position. After the cue to
go past the only other option would have been to stop and argue. Oh well.

TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists passing close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each across a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that. According to Public Health England, typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected person
can raise your risk of catching the virus. So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

The two metre distance we observe is quite generous compared to some
other countries, for example, in the US it's 1.8m, in Australia it's
1.5m and in Singapore just 1m.

Yesterday I came across such a scene where at least one of the chatterers
was wearing a face mask.

At my speed I gave them every reasonable opportunity to rearrange
themselves. Eyes made contact and body language indicated they had seen,
recognised, reacted and adjusted to a settled position. After the cue to
go past the only other option would have been to stop and argue. Oh well.

On 06/06/2020 15:50, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists passing close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each across a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that. According to Public Health England, typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected person
can raise your risk of catching the virus. So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

It depends on which way the wind is blowing... But I can't believe
normal distancing outdoors is an issue.

On 06/06/2020 22:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/06/2020 15:50, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists passing close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each across a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that.Â* According to Public Health England, typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected person
can raise your risk of catching the virus.Â* So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

It depends on which way the wind is blowing... But I can't believe
normal distancing outdoors is an issue.

You're just a born rebel, aren't you?

Too cool for rules and regulations.

On 07/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2020 22:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/06/2020 15:50, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists passing
close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each across a
path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that.Â* According to Public Health England, typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected person
can raise your risk of catching the virus.Â* So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

It depends on which way the wind is blowing... But I can't believe
normal distancing outdoors is an issue.

You're just a born rebel, aren't you?

There's nothing rebellious in that statement.

On 07/06/2020 23:09, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/06/2020 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 06/06/2020 22:53, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/06/2020 15:50, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists passing
close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each across a
path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that.Â* According to Public Health England, typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected person
can raise your risk of catching the virus.Â* So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

It depends on which way the wind is blowing... But I can't believe
normal distancing outdoors is an issue.

You're just a born rebel, aren't you?

There's nothing rebellious in that statement.

You're not only a rebel but you're also a contrarian rebel who thinks
he's too cool to follow rules - especially when they're only there to
protect other people from you.

On 06/06/2020 15:50, Kelly wrote:

TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists passing close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each across a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that. According to Public Health England, typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected person
can raise your risk of catching the virus. So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

However small, it isn't zero and there is no good reason to take it when
it is unnecessary and advised against.

The two metre distance we observe is quite generous compared to some
other countries, for example, in the US it's 1.8m, in Australia it's
1.5m and in Singapore just 1m.

And?

Should we take advice of the Singapore or Australian authorities or the
UK government?

[Do you know Singapore? You'd see why 6' of clearance might not be seen
as practical there. My Singaporean friends are amazed at the fact that I
can take exercise on nearby farmland. There's none of that available to
them.]

JNugent wrote:

On 06/06/2020 15:50, Kelly wrote:

TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists passing close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each across a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do.

I'd go along with that. According to Public Health England, typically
spending more than 15 minutes within two metres of an infected person
can raise your risk of catching the virus. So if you momentarily
brush past someone, especially outdoors, even within the two metres
how much of a risk can that realistically pose?

However small, it isn't zero and there is no good reason to take it when
it is unnecessary and advised against.

True.

The two metre distance we observe is quite generous compared to some
other countries, for example, in the US it's 1.8m, in Australia it's
1.5m and in Singapore just 1m.

And?

Well, it seems even the experts seem to have trouble agreeing with
themselves over what this distance need be.

The World Health Organisation has a recommendation that people should
put at least one metre between them and someone with corona virus
symptoms. Also Australia's experts say that droplet transmission from
infected people is limited by the force of expulsion and gravity and
is usually no more than one metre. But the UK, along with some other
countries, have doubled this distance to two metres. Thus we end up
with Australia, as well as countries like Germany, settling between
the WHO's 1m guidance and our UK's 2m.

Should we take advice of the Singapore or Australian authorities or the
UK government?

The UK government, but that doesn't mean we can't take note of how
other countries are managing the same situation.

[Do you know Singapore? You'd see why 6' of clearance might not be seen
as practical there. My Singaporean friends are amazed at the fact that I
can take exercise on nearby farmland. There's none of that available to
them.]

Okay - I know virtually nothing of Singapore.

I welcome having a 2 metre space around me but wouldn't lose any sleep
(hopefully) if someone else broke that with an odd momentary closer
encounter. Still I do my utmost not to encroach on other people's
expected social distance knowing that some others most definitly don't
like it - and understandably so.

On 06/06/2020 13:07, TMS320 wrote:

With the number of pedestrians complaining about cyclists passing close,
it never ceases to amaze how people stand and talk to each across a path
and one has no choice but to pass between them.

I take the same view.

I don't hold with the idea that anybody will die from a fleeting
encounter outdoors but respect that there are those that do. Yesterday I
came across such a scene where at least one of the chatterers was
wearing a face mask.

One either has to move beyond the 6' mark if there is available width on
the footway or any adjacent mown verge, or cross the road, or ask one of
the offenders to move to one side so that they may be safely passed.

At my speed I gave them every reasonable opportunity to rearrange
themselves. Eyes made contact and body language indicated they had seen,
recognised, reacted and adjusted to a settled position. After the cue to
go past the only other option would have been to stop and argue. Oh well.

There's no need to argue. Most people are prepared to move. They're
usually only in that position because they've forgotten.