You forgot one relevant fact. To quote one National Park's website, "visitor centres, bike hire facilities, car parks, and public toilets are closed until further notice. In line with government measures on the closure of non-essential retail, any private Food & Drink concessions operating on our facilities are now closed".

@alephzero How is that relevant? I'm not going there to shop and just because the car parks are closed that does not mean I cannot park in a layby or anywhere else it is legal to do so.

I'd love to do it too. I don't, though, because I wouldn't know what to to if I ever sprained my ankle. Law isn't relevant to me in this case, I just don't want to put even more pressure on healthcare.

My question is not about morallity, it is about legality.

@MJH If you're really considering it and if you don't care about morality, please at least consider the possibility that you might have to limp back for many hours if you get injured.

@EricDuminil - And the fact that his actions may expose health workers unnecessarily.

Driving for over one hour might be difficult to justify, especially if there are adequate places to walk alone nearby.

Regardless of what the law actually allows for and doesn't allow for the UK national parks website makes it extraordinarily clear what is expected "At this time of national crisis, the family of 15 UK National Parks urges everyone to follow the Government’s advice to stay at home and help stop the spread of Covid-19. This is not the time to travel to visit National Parks. That time will come again and we will welcome everyone back with open arms, but until then: Stay at Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives." They don't want you there. Stay home. This is not about mortality, it is about your basic

The laws in this scenario change too fast, what is true now might not be true tomorrow. Laws and their interpretation will also vary depending on the region, city, etc. This is like a war, there's no point in discussing laws right now.

@Reed this is exactly correct. the uk, like other Western countries, do not want to be China and literally bolt people in their homes. The primary enforcement mechanism is not supposed to be legal, it's supposed to be "Don't be a rules lawyer, do the right thing". The specific thing for the op would be the avoidance of unnecessary travel. The last thing governments want to have to do right now is spell out incredibly specific legislation on what exactly you can do and what the penalties and fines are for doing x thing in particular.

@eps, yes. The most accurate info you can get in this situation is to just read the news and listen to what the mayor (or the governor, etc.) says, everyday. Advice varies a lot, from city to city, from today to tomorrow. Asking here on StackExchange is useless.

“The right to go where they want and do what they want” - you’re gonna need to explain how that’s a human right... I can’t think of anywhere where is is.

Indeed. it's only very recent in human history and it's only been made possible with the availability of cheap oil. It looks like a basic human right to many people now, that's why it's really hard to tell them to reduce it in order to mitigate climate change.

@Tim Article 13 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I suppose it was only a matter of time until someone mentioned climate change.

@Stewart that’s not a legally binding document. The closest is article 5 of the ECHR, which provides for liberty and security. However, that is trumped by Article 4, which “prohibits... forced labour but exempts labour:... required to be done during a state of emergency”. The labour you must do right now is stay at home except for local exercise.

@Stewart I'll see your Article 13, and raise you Article 29: "Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of [...] meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Also, note that the law is being enforced by police, and there’s little judicial oversight (for better or worse). Police can stop you (e.g. eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/…) and you have to give a good reason. It’s up to you if you want to risk that.

@Tim You didn't ask for a legally binding document. You asked how come it's a Human Right.

You are asking about legality, but just to be clear, this is very immoral.

@Stewart it’s not a human right if nobody enforces it (or at least not a relevant one).

@Stewart We've seen more and more that human rights are only relevant when there's no pandemic going on.

@Tim Your Human Rights are yours, whether enshrined in law or not. That's the whole point of a Human Right. That's how come you can accuse a government of violating Human Rights - because it's not a thing governments get to decide.

@AnderBiguri Yes for many this has become a debate about whether it is immoral and ought to be illegal, rather than whether it is actually permitted by current laws.

@Stewart who decides which human rights exist then? I can't just say "I have the right to take anything from a private corporation without giving them compensation" and expect to be let off.

@Tim The document which invented the concept. UDHR

Possibly Relevant (BBC News)

@Chronocidal - Very relevant imo. Police have issued a fine under this act for driving an excessive distance, although the story doesn't explicitly give the grounds . How the court will see it we will have to wait and see, but I'm sure police would feel the same if they stop OP on his journey

It's unclear to me why this is even immoral. As far as the science shows, this sort of activity is highly unlikely to spread the virus, unless MJH had the virus and walked around spitting on everyone he met. Most virus transmission happens in close and continuous contact, like within families, through significant amount of bodily fluid transmission, like sneezing in someone's face.

@yters Cross-contamination. If OP touches something when out for their walk - or if someone touches OP's car during their run - then that could either bring the virus into an area that is "clean", or pick it up and bring it back to wherever OP lives.

@Chronocidal I agree in theory it is possible, but is it a significant disease vector? Per my posted understanding, the risk of transmission through the cross contamination you suggest seems extremely small.