Government announces £250m emergency active travel fund as part of £2bn investment

Rich_cb wrote:

The difference is that cyclists are outside and bus/train/tube passengers are not. Many epidemiologists have stated that the 2 metre rule outside is excessive and that fleeting contact with another person outside carries minimal risk. Sharing an air-conditioned box with 20 other people for an hour on the other hand is a recipe for transmission.

I take your points both about enclosed airspace versus a ventilated airspace, and about the fleeting nature of cyclists proximity to each other.

However, there has also been talk about cyclists riding in the slipstream of the rider infront, necessitating more than the 2m distance. I know the 'research' was not peer reviewed, and that particularly goes to the distances that paper did recommend, but the basic idea that two metres behind a moving cyclist is clearly not the same thing as 2m static distance does make sense. The two effects - the free circulation of air outside and the slipstream effect - work in opposition, so maybe 2m will be about right for cyclists outdoors after all?

As regards the fleeting proximity - I understand that the risk accrues not instantaneously but from being within 2m for a specified duration (the various contact tracing apps talk about a few minutes, the UK govt originally specified 15 minutes before quietly dropping the duration element from communications). However I don't think it would much matter whether the other person within the 2m zone was constantly changing, the fact would remain that you were within 2m over a sustained duration with some other person, albeit a revolving door of different ones. So again, on a crowded cycleway the point about not being in sustained proximity to any given person is moot.

In the end the problem is how to transport a large number of bodies along a road whilst maintaining 2m between them. The limiting factor seems to be the width and nature of the road, rather than whether the bodies travel in packages or individually - they still need their 2m.

I guess the thing is there are simply not enough buses, and bikes will support a greater throughput than cars. But probably still not enough, so the 2m thing will end up being compromised for cyclists whilst the rule remains enforced (because it can be) on public transport.

I also would question whether the 2m rule is even necessary if everybody wears a facemask for the protection of others.

Sriracha wrote:

I also would question whether the 2m rule is even necessary if everybody wears a facemask for the protection of others.

The protective effects of non-clinical face masks are not yet confirmed. Personally, I prefer not wearing a mask and consciously not touching my face (with non-washed fingers) rather than wearing an ill-fitting, hot and itchy mask that makes people fiddle with it and their face.

(If there's convincing evidence that masks do a good job, then I'll be happy to change my mind)

hawkinspeter wrote:

The protective effects of non-clinical face masks are not yet confirmed. Personally, I prefer not wearing a mask and consciously not touching my face (with non-washed fingers) rather than wearing an ill-fitting, hot and itchy mask that makes people fiddle with it and their face.

(If there's convincing evidence that masks do a good job, then I'll be happy to change my mind)

You talk in terms of the influence of a facemask on you touching your face, so you are still seeing things in terms if personal protection. Wearing a simple facemask is about protecting others - it can do nothing for you. If the virus is in an aerosol a simple facemask won't filter it out of the air you breathe in. But if the person at the source of that aerosol had been wearing a cloth mask the infected saliva would have been caught whilst still in droplet form, big enough for a simple mask to trap, before the droplets escaped onto the eddies and evaporated down to a microscopic aerosol.

This is not my conjecture. See:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gAk7aX5hksU

I found the video made sense. It's a bit long, but from about 11:15 he explains how covid is transmitted, basically by droplets of spit when we talk (or cough, sing, etc). But it is the "talk" that strikes me most. After all, when we cough most will clap a tissue to their face to catch the nasties. But who does the same whilst talking. So a cloth facemask is just that, a hankie strapped over your mouth and nose. Remember, fiddling with your face might infect you, but if the theory is right not wearing a face mask risks infecting several others. Ultimately it's about the transmission rate.

I agree with that, but it's worth taking into account both aspects of infecting and being infected by others. If wearing a mask makes you less likely to infect others, but also increases the chance of getting infected, then it becomes more complicated as to whether masks are worth wearing or not. Ultimately, we need to think in terms of populations rather than individuals.

There's also the problem of people wearing masks that only filter the inwards air (e.g. Respro face masks and probably a lot of dust filter masks) and do next to nothing to the exhaled air.

Personally, I think the biggest source of contagion was most likely people in pubs/bars. The combination of a noisy environment making people shout to be heard and people holding a drink in front of them in a perfect position to catch droplets seems like the worst combination.

The 2 metre rule has no evidence base inside, let alone outside.

I've linked an article below which discusses this in more detail.

The most pertinent quote is:

“The two-metre rule does not have validity and has never had much of an evidence base. I’ve tried to trace it myself.

There is a fairly solid evidence base for a transmission rate if indoors and within one metre of someone with a respiratory infection for 15 minutes, but that time detail has been lost somewhere along the way."

I don't think there is much risk of catching the virus while cycling even relatively close to a carrier.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/05/01/two-metre-rule-reviewed-...

Thing is, you say bike lane is too crowded with pedestrians to make progress by bike, motorists will say likewise 'car lane' is too crowded with cyclists to make progress by car. And that will be their experience.

The perspective needs to be changed to one of "how can we safely fit car travel alongside this cycle route"? But you can't do it by diktat - somehow the democratic process has to be engaged to that end.

Unfortunately the money will talk.

It is impossible to replace reduced mass transit capacity with private cars.

Car sharing will be impossible due to social distancing so every full rush hour bus will generate an additional 30-40 cars.

You don't have to have a huge amount of experience commuting in cities to know that the result will be complete and utter gridlock.

The only way to even partially replace lost mass transit capacity is active travel.

Most cities have virtually no capacity to quickly increase their capacity for cars but most can increase the bike capacity relatively quickly and cheaply.

The best option for the economy will be active travel and for that reason it will be implemented.

If public transport is limited due to the 2m rule then motorists won't be able to lay the blame at cyclists for being in the "car lane" as they will be going nowhere, it'll be gridlock, apart from those who choose active travel, certainly in any city or urban area.

On a bike, if it gets too crowded for you, you have at least got alternatives. Your're unlikely to acquire it in the outdoors - worry about enclosed spaces, like that office you're hurrying towards.
Get on the train taking 90 minutes from Salisbury to London, you've either got to grin and bear it, or get off at Basingstoke - not much a choice there!  People sit and sniffle and cough for that time - an irritation previously, but now...? and it's going to be an interesting hay fever season too. 
public transport, a friend of the cyclist, is undoubtedly in trouble right now - it's a pivotal moment, even with all the sunshine and daylight - the car represents to individuals safety and this situation adds a new dimension to that. 

David9694 wrote:

On a bike, if it gets too crowded for you, you have at least got alternatives. Your're unlikely to acquire it in the outdoors - worry about enclosed spaces, like that office you're hurrying towards.
Get on the train taking 90 minutes from Salisbury to London, you've either got to grin and bear it, or get off at Basingstoke - not much a choice there!  People sit and sniffle and cough for that time - an irritation previously, but now...? and it's going to be an interesting hay fever season too. 
public transport, a friend of the cyclist, is undoubtedly in trouble right now - it's a pivotal moment, even with all the sunshine and daylight - the car represents to individuals safety and this situation adds a new dimension to that. 

 

Oh I don't know, look in the press, there are hundreds of cars out there throwing themselves off roads, if more of them come out into the wild it will be just like Monty Python predicted (sorry can't find a link to the cartoon)

You mean and ending up in a ditch, or wrapped around a tree, in that "now let's see what this baby can really do" moment?