It misses some of the key points, though, as to why we want to stop people travelling places for recreation, even if that recreation itself is outdoors. Firstly, they have to get there. I’m seeing groups of people turning up in the same vehicle, and whilst a large proportion of these may share households, it’s palpably obvious many do not. And they don’t get their petrol through the ether either. Secondly, people having a nice day out tend, in my observation, not to just do their thing and go home. At a weekend, when all the cyclists drive up, they then besiege the local shop. They want coffee and sausage rolls and cake and pasties. But they are not adequately distancing — the tiny shop is not designed to deal with that many people in any kind of safety. And many aren’t wearing masks because many people don’t wear masks (particularly the kind of people who are willing to ignore other rules). Thirdly, the unexpected happens. They aren’t in their usual environment and they’re like children breathlessly telling each other about the dangerous slidey tracks they’ve just been down. This heavily increases the risk that they will end up needing an ambulance or even just that they will need assistance having hurt themselves.
Now, you can say that all of this is secondary to the notion of exercise and that it is technically possible for people to individually drive somewhere, have a sober piece of exercise and then drive home again. But to say this would be to completely misunderstand the behaviour of people on a day out. If you want to prevent the probehaviours, it’s much more effective and policeable to simply tell people that it’s just not the time to be driving for a nice day out in the country.
