KidKruger

Agreed, not JUST the runner. However, the runner is the one approaching the (soon-to-be) shared space at speed, knowing what his/her own 'plan' is regarding distancing in that specific situation and, presumably, thinking quickly a way to avoid the chore of having to slow down. The walker does not know what the runner's plans are (often when walking you're not even aware of a runner until they've gone past, sometimes very close). The walker is relatively static and easier to predict (to a runner). So in such situations where distancing is not adhered to it's often the runner in control because they're effectively dominating the situation through their speed and unpredictability, putting the onus on the walker to suddenly jump out of the way to maintain distance, or try and anticipate what the runner intends - this is pretty obvious I hope. So it takes two to tango, as they say, but it seems fair to expect the faster party to lead with the distancing indications / behaviour. A walker is effectively a sitting duck. As I've said previously, most runners I've encountered have been most reasonable, probably up to 8/10.

Well, I'm ashamed to report I have this morning been destructive of civil society, trust and our ability to talk to each other and negotiate the incredibly drastic new ways of living. Family of 5 stood static, spread out across a wide path, no way to pass through without being only 1-2ft away from at least one of them. We stood and waited a minute. Nothing, just stood there. So I requested a gap / reminded the distance mentioned in the news, which they kindly provided for missus and I to walk single file through. Sorry !

Wow, I'm flabbergasted that people either use their plots to make money or take more than one plot fraudulently, how selfish is that ?! Not the community-spirited allotment-holder-mindset I'd envisaged (admittedly, with no prior knowledge or experience).

Yup. Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > janmac Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > shouting at people and condemning people has > its > > own negative consequences. We have to be able > to > > function as a society during and after this > health > > crisis. > > For me that's exactly the point - people should be > taking steps to put society first, and their own > personal preferences second. I wouldn't dream of > calling out someone who is taking reasonable steps > to keep 2m apart from others while jogging in the > park, but someone who is running around without > any care of the people around them, expecting them > to get out of his/her way is something else. And > I'm absolutely fine with someone taking a > different view of the risks to their own health of > the coronavirus, but much less fine with someone > who knowingly chooses to put other people's health > at risk, so as not to be inconvenienced in their > daily life. That's what functioning as a society > means to me at least.

wow - that'd be great (if they work as hoped, obvs).

janmac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > shouting at people and condemning people has its > own negative consequences. We have to be able to > function as a society during and after this health > crisis. I haven't seen anyone shouting at anyone else, or even intending to, have you ? Negative consequences of not ensuring safe distance are surely significant too, isn't that what we're all being advised ?! WOD - lol, I may actually try that. But alas, I expect I'll have to provide tape measures and a 30min induction as to what it's for !!!

I guess I'd say "is the 2m distance recommended BS or reasonable" ? If BS, then hey let's party like it don't matter. If reasonable (and accurate) then pls keep away from me to that minimum distance ! Just as we can't expect 100% of people to abide by recommendations, we also can't expect 100% of people to be blas? about ensuring the recommended distances are maintained on a personal level. In my view, debating chances of X or Y likelihood when we have clear guidelines is sort of moot, no ? Personally I'd rather err on the side of caution and I don't feel like I'm destroying civil society by telling joggers to back off (which I haven't !) OR mentioning on forum threads where such things are being discussed.

If the deadly disease can be spread by being closer than 2m to one another, and some people (one example may be joggers) are knowingly getting closer to strangers just to maintain their 'rights', then it's fair to call them out. ...before keeling over from the illness, or passing on the disease to an elderly relative. It's reasonable to not expect 100% compliance (which is predictable), but not reasonable to be expected to just allow people to blatantly risk your health ! It would appear to be a serious matter from what I'm aware so far.

haha - I'll try that line later in the park next time ! Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The one lady who brushed past me from behind > with > > no warning though, was a selfish fool. > > > > > "Don't be giving me no jogger jiggle FOOL"

To be fair (and add balance), in another park today runners were mainly being very careful and keeping decent distances, or even stopping/waiting or reversing to continue along other paths. It was impressive and a lot more relaxing. The one lady who brushed past me from behind with no warning though, was a selfish fool.

Langdale, he may have been using the cough to get you out of the way. I've posted this on the Dulwich park thread already a couple of times. I've done a lot of running. I know what a bind it is to have to stop/start/change direction around obstacles whether they be parked cars, mums with prams, small crowds and individuals - when you're tired or don't want your efforts disrupted. But there's no God-given right to just plough on through / past people, especially now of all times ! If you can't get safely past people (6ft distance), then WAIT until the opportunity to do do arises. It won't kill you. But you may be killing someone else down the line.

I'm not sure Renata controls what Southwark parks dept do. I think she was just passing on what Southwark had said will happen. But Southwark seem (for now) to be allowing parks open but playground/swingparks closed. So people can self-distance and still be outside once a day,

So, again in Dulwich Park, on one of the dirt tracks around edge of park behind bushes, walking dog and runner from behind strides past maybe 12 inches away. I was near a clearing, he could have waited 2-3 secs until I reached it and gone around me / allowed me to move. Tomorrow I may be coughing loudly as I see / hear runners approaching - they can perhaps rethink their route near me !

Also runners and cyclists, when you cycle / run 2, 3, 4, or even 5 abreast on the road in Dulwich Park, WHERE are the people on foot supposed to go ? They are trying to distance themselves and suddenly a wall of people arrive leaving them little options but to run to the side (where there are other people anyway). Please be less selfish. Try SINGLE FILE so you?re not dominating the space.

For the runners - don't just zoom up behind people and pass a few inches away. So remember - keep your distance. Go AROUND those you are approaching. Also when running towards people, don't just expect the seas to part because you got your dayglo shirt on, often walkers can't react as quickly if they don't see you coming (or even if they do). So remember - keep your distance.

Anybody with a smart phone who can see has seen this information all day long, it's free and easy to follow. What's failing is people's sense of responsibility and maturity. I'm impressed by the credit you give the population though !!

TBH I think everyone understands the 'message'. After that, it's down to how grown-up people can be about it on an individual level. There's literally no excuse anymore.

Yes they seem to. A friend in the country has a vape 'bar', his customers drop by to hang out and talk 'vape', lean against the bar and blow out voluminous clouds of whatever that shit is. Gross ! > I think people Vaping Do enjoy making Clouds of > Vape smoke. Much exaggerated to people just > breathing out... > > There is this plonker in the EDT that when > standing at the Bar loves to blow his Vape > 'Smoke' > up through the Overhead lights that surround the > Bar. > > Foxy.

Yes that is their objective, to delete corner shop independents, making community dependent on them. Weird thing is, a lot of the time they don?t even compete with local Cornershop prices !

The vape tool doesn?t actually do anything, it?s the person exhaling that creates the cloud of ?smoke? isn?t it ? If so, then all the vape smoke is doing is highlighting how big the cloud is when someone exhales - whether vaping/smoking or not. This means when someone is not vaping/smoking, the ?cloud? of exhaled air (which you can?t see) is at least as big as a vape cloud. So, rather than there being an ?additional? danger, doesn?t this actually just show how careful we need to be around EVERYONE ?! If I missed something, please point it out !

It's basically some (what look like) Indian police with their long sticks thrashing culprits who've contravened traffic rules or caught their attention for the wrong reason. Nothing heavy, just a few solid thwacks with their thrashing sticks.

The space needed between people is nicely provided already, by the walls between our houses and apartments. This is what we're left with now. And to think somebody on Friday couldn't understand what my point was when I posted that East Dulwich Tavern was STILL open that evening and fairly busy with customers !

It's not space that's a problem, it's people's behaviours when using the space. As demonstrated, day after day, people get too close and crowd too much or go about in large groups. Giving a new space will just create the opportunity to repeat dangerous behaviour. Why do you think we've lost the parks now ? What will change by providing an additional space ? I fear nothing will change and more infections will occur.

I suppose if we are going to ensure no contact between people it is the obvious conclusion, unfortunately.

Well, they've been told what to do. And they're actually ignoring it (or, a noticeable number are). Enforcement is the next stage, to address herd stupidity. It's a shame, because significant resources will now be sucked into the enforcement process - manning, planning - while those undertaking this may be put at a higher risk, unnecessarily.