[Davo]

That looks like a good idea!

[Johnny Brown]

Yes it's great. They do dodge the issue of honeypot car parks which seems to be the major issue for hillwalking and climbing. My own impression is this can be made to look bad in photos but need not be an issue due to temporal distancing that happens naturally. E.g. ~100 cars at Redmires Saturday, no distancing issues at all.

[nik at work]

I nearly ran in to the back of two blokes when I was doing some intervals on a single track road. I shouted that I was coming up behind them, they just looked and continued riding two abreast. Fortunately there was enough of gap to get past.

Care to clarify which was the recklessly riding party in this scenario...? 😁

[kac]

I agree and to me that seems a pretty compelling proposal. I hope the bmc can do the same and can put in the proposal a similar statement on how the climbing community has supported the stay at home guidance. Clearly a very good case can be made that we should be allowed to climb again but realistically there will be some rules and it is only if climbers can be trusted to follow the rules that a similar bmc petition is likely to be successful anytime soon. If people carry on ignoring the bmc advice it makes it a lot harder for the bmc to argue that climbers will follow any new rules agreed to allow climbing again. By rules I mean the kind of thing football is currently doing so travelling independently and socially distancing at crags - I agree risk should be kept out of it.

[T_B]

Yes it's great. They do dodge the issue of honeypot car parks which seems to be the major issue for hillwalking and climbing. My own impression is this can be made to look bad in photos but need not be an issue due to temporal distancing that happens naturally. E.g. ~100 cars at Redmires Saturday, no distancing issues at all.

What, like those huge ‘honeypot’ car parks just outside of supermarkets?

I just don’t see a problem with the majority of car parks in National Parks wrt social distancing. Sure, stick some hand sanitizer on gates.

[webbo]

I nearly ran in to the back of two blokes when I was doing some intervals on a single track road. I shouted that I was coming up behind them, they just looked and continued riding two abreast. Fortunately there was enough of gap to get past.

Care to clarify which was the recklessly riding party in this scenario...? 😁

I didn’t say they were reckless, more that they were riding if the roads were closed. Also my brakes are pretty good

[Will Hunt]

Can't wait to see the comments when climbers start to venture out again. "Went to the Tor today and there were some right punters there. Using ATCs instead of grigris, dull coloured cargo pants, and not a theraband amongst them".

[teestub]

Yeah, I pity all those people who haven’t enquired on a website first regarding which trousers they should be wearing 😂

[Johnny Brown]

Yes it's great. They do dodge the issue of honeypot car parks which seems to be the major issue for hillwalking and climbing. My own impression is this can be made to look bad in photos but need not be an issue due to temporal distancing that happens naturally. E.g. ~100 cars at Redmires Saturday, no distancing issues at all.

What, like those huge ‘honeypot’ car parks just outside of supermarkets?

I just don’t see a problem with the majority of car parks in National Parks wrt social distancing. Sure, stick some hand sanitizer on gates.

Agreed, that's why I wrote 'can be made to look bad in photos'. The public perception is the problem, not the facts. I can only assume the initial crowds in Wales were much worse than here as the BMC bods based there are all very concerned about a repeat if there is a sudden end to lockdown.

[Paul B]

What, like those huge ‘honeypot’ car parks just outside of supermarkets?

Agreed, that's why I wrote 'can be made to look bad in photos'. The public perception is the problem, not the facts.

People go to supermarkets to buy food. Using an imperfect but fairly necessary situation to make your point(s) isn't ideal.

[petejh]

Just on that Adam. This point irks me, along with the MR, risk of injury and transmission justifications that have been used for saying don't climb. (Access being the most valid justification that I can see).
The BMC bods may be concerned. But their job is to represent BMC members, not the general public flip-flopping up Snowdon. The majority of the masses of people who mobbed Pen y Pass and Llanberis would not have been BMC members. They were the people who typically mob Snowdon on a sunny spring or summer weekend.
Let's have the BMC focusing on representing the interests of  its members who want to go hill-walking and climbing, and not use non-members driving to eat ice-cream on top of Snowdon as justification for policy.

[T_B]

What, like those huge ‘honeypot’ car parks just outside of supermarkets?

Agreed, that's why I wrote 'can be made to look bad in photos'. The public perception is the problem, not the facts.

People go to supermarkets to buy food. Using an imperfect but fairly necessary situation to make your point(s) isn't ideal.

Not sure I understand? Surely the risk of transmission at the supermarket is going in and being near people/touching surfaces. Not the car park outside. So it’s accepted that there is no serious risk from parking otherwise they’d have a ‘one in, one out’ system at car parks with you only being able to park in every other bay.

[Johnny Brown]

Just on that Adam. This point irks me, along with the MR, risk of injury and transmission justifications that have been used for saying don't climb. (Access being the most valid justification that I can see).
The BMC bods may be concerned. But their job is to represent BMC members, not the general public flip-flopping up Snowdon. The majority of the masses of people who mobbed Pen y Pass and Llanberis would not have been BMC members. They were the people who typically mob Snowdon on a sunny spring or summer weekend.
Let's have the BMC focusing on representing the interests of  its members who want to go hill-walking and climbing, and not use non-members driving to eat ice-cream on top of Snowdon as justification for policy.

Sure. But when to Police phone the BMC to say, 'more hillwalkers on Snowdon today, please get the message out Snowdon is closed' what would you suggest they say? They're not our hillwalkers?

[Paul B]

Not sure I understand? Surely the risk of transmission at the supermarket is going in and being near people/touching surfaces. Not the car park outside. So it’s accepted that there is no serious risk from parking otherwise they’d have a ‘one in, one out’ system at car parks with you only being able to park in every other bay.

I think it doesn't make your point very well to take something that's inherently linked to something that's a necessity (the honeypot statement). Not every store is managing it as per the supermarkets. Johnny's point re: it looking bad but in reality (timings etc.) making it less so is far stronger IMO.

[mrjonathanr]

Yeah, I pity all those people who haven’t enquired on a website first regarding which trousers they should be wearing 😂

Brown trousers for trad I presume.

[gme]

The Angling Trust have put together a really good proposal for Government about how fishing might start again. Would there be merit in the BMC doing something similar?

This is great and exactly what i have been advocating the BMC do. Its easy to self govern the participants and areas that cannot be isolated from the general public (canal towpaths etc) could remain closed.

Ditto climbing, crags next to public paths stay out of bounds (cornice, Rubicon, etc (tor maybe)) but anywhere away from normal public areas are open.

Angling has a lot of participants and also is generally commercially operated, so more reason to get fisheries open and have 1000s of business owners backing it. Climbing doesnt have this added benefit unfortunately.

[Paul B]

Ditto climbing, crags next to public paths stay out of bounds (cornice, Rubicon, etc (tor maybe)) but anywhere away from normal public areas are open.

I think I said it a few pages ago; you'd start with crags (Open Access) with irrefutable access, for 'local' ( ) use wouldn't you?

[tomtom]

Angling has a lot of participants and also is generally commercially operated, so more reason to get fisheries open and have 1000s of business owners backing it. Climbing doesnt have this added benefit unfortunately.

This also means its comercially regulated (permits etc..) which also affords a level of control that doesnt happen (at all) with climbing.. But the doc is a really good blueprint for the BMC to copy 'be inspired' from... Good find Si.

[petejh]

Just on that Adam. This point irks me, along with the MR, risk of injury and transmission justifications that have been used for saying don't climb. (Access being the most valid justification that I can see).
The BMC bods may be concerned. But their job is to represent BMC members, not the general public flip-flopping up Snowdon. The majority of the masses of people who mobbed Pen y Pass and Llanberis would not have been BMC members. They were the people who typically mob Snowdon on a sunny spring or summer weekend.
Let's have the BMC focusing on representing the interests of  its members who want to go hill-walking and climbing, and not use non-members driving to eat ice-cream on top of Snowdon as justification for policy.

Sure. But when to Police phone the BMC to say, 'more hillwalkers on Snowdon today, please get the message out Snowdon is closed' what would you suggest they say? They're not our hillwalkers?

Well to point out the obvious and what I'm sure you can work out if you think about it.

1. There's the BMC getting out the message that people should avoid Snowdon because the National Park has closed it to the public because the Welsh Government has asked the National Park to close the honeypot areas of Snowdon and Cadair Idris.
2. Then there's the BMC taking a public stance that ALL hill-walking and ALL rock-climbing should cease EVERYWHERE.

Baby and bath-water seems an apt metaphor.

Consequences are obvious. There's evidence that the BMC's communications will be used by authorities to inform their decision-making on what's reasonable. I mentioned to Barrows in a pm about a serving police officer stating on ukc that he will use the BMC communications as guidance to inform his decision-making on what's reasonable in the case of walker x or climber y being stopped.
That's the problem when you start taking responsibly for everybody, and brushing all BMC members with the same brush as all idiots who want to walk up Snowdon and who aren't BMC members.

Now why would you *want* to take responsibility for everybody who sets foot in the hills
Oh yeah, because you're an organisation, and the general trend for organisations is to suck in all around them to justify their significance and grow funding. Who benefits? Not the members.

That's the bottom line for most of my disdain for the BMC's stance (I'd also add MR to that). The attitude appears much more about them protecting their organisation's image (and themselves) - and using flimsy arguments not supported by evidence - then about protecting climbers and hillwalker's legitimate interests.

[Ru]

Consequences are obvious. There's evidence that the BMC's communications will be used by authorities to inform their decision-making on what's reasonable. I mentioned to Barrows in a pm about a serving police officer stating on ukc that he will use the BMC communications as guidance to inform his decision-making on what's reasonable in the case of walker x or climber y being stopped.
That's the problem when you start taking responsibly for everybody, and brushing all BMC members with the same brush as all idiots who want to walk up Snowdon and who aren't BMC members.

The police should not be allowing the BMC's advice to influence their decisions. The BMC's advice touches on both legal and practical considerations, whereas the Police should only be concerned with upholding the law. They have no power to enforce what they think people "should" be doing in a non-legal sense. As far as upholding the law is concerned they should interpret that for themselves, not use the interpretation of a third party. So the policeman was wrong.

[Bonjoy]

Regards large carpark such as Stanage Plantation. Volunteer car park attendants could be a way forward. Climbers might be willing to hang around the Plantation carpark for a midweek morning if that was the price of climbing there in the afternoon. The attendant would direct people entering to suitable spaces (not next to people leaving a vehicle), and as people leave, to form a distanced queue if too many teams are returning to vehicles at once. Or whatever other common sense rules are devised.

[Bonjoy]

Consequences are obvious. There's evidence that the BMC's communications will be used by authorities to inform their decision-making on what's reasonable. I mentioned to Barrows in a pm about a serving police officer stating on ukc that he will use the BMC communications as guidance to inform his decision-making on what's reasonable in the case of walker x or climber y being stopped.
That's the problem when you start taking responsibly for everybody, and brushing all BMC members with the same brush as all idiots who want to walk up Snowdon and who aren't BMC members.

The police should not be allowing the BMC's advice to influence their decisions. The BMC's advice touches on both legal and practical considerations, whereas the Police should only be concerned with upholding the law. They have no power to enforce what they think people "should" be doing in a non-legal sense. As far as upholding the law is concerned they should interpret that for themselves, not use the interpretation of a third party. So the policeman was wrong.

That may be the case, but it hasn't stopped him doing it. And I doubt it would do anyone any favours to be pointing out his error if challenged.
This was my point earlier, that the BMC's article may have inadvertently made things more difficult for any climber getting challenged.

[Oldmanmatt]

Regards large carpark such as Stanage Plantation. Volunteer car park attendants could be a way forward. Climbers might be willing to hang around the Plantation carpark for a midweek morning if that was the price of climbing there in the afternoon. The attendant would direct people entering to suitable spaces (not next to people leaving a vehicle), and as people leave, to form a distanced queue if too many teams are returning to vehicles at once. Or whatever other common sense rules are devised.

And...

We’re back to wardens.

[Bonjoy]

Regards large carpark such as Stanage Plantation. Volunteer car park attendants could be a way forward. Climbers might be willing to hang around the Plantation carpark for a midweek morning if that was the price of climbing there in the afternoon. The attendant would direct people entering to suitable spaces (not next to people leaving a vehicle), and as people leave, to form a distanced queue if too many teams are returning to vehicles at once. Or whatever other common sense rules are devised.

And...

We’re back to wardens.

Better that climbers are policed by climbers, if it's that or not climbing.

[Paul B]

That may be the case, but it hasn't stopped him doing it. And I doubt it would do anyone any favours to be pointing out his error if challenged.
This was my point earlier, that the BMC's article may have inadvertently made things more difficult for any climber getting challenged.

Likewise here the police are quite happy to turn a blind eye to locals seeking to limit access (unless a few of the villages near to me are now suddenly clearways and access is for "Residents Only" as the new signs seem to suggest).