Cycling UK Forum

patricktaylor wrote:Jonah Barrington (UK), one of the greatest squash players of all time, smoked 10 a day (apparently). He reckoned it improved his aerobic performance.

I love it when people pull out exceptions to prove rules. Who's to say he wouldn't have been that much better if he hadn't?

kwackers wrote:

patricktaylor wrote:Jonah Barrington (UK), one of the greatest squash players of all time, smoked 10 a day (apparently). He reckoned it improved his aerobic performance.

I love it when people pull out exceptions to prove rules. Who's to say he wouldn't have been that much better if he hadn't?

Correct!

To get back on track,I'm sure if I'd attended the same conference as to OP I would have stood up and politely asked what on earth was going on as,this is a cycling conference not a green conference!
I find nothing more irritating than one thing (in this case a cycling conference) being hijacked and used a vehicle for something else(which seems to be an eco warriors tool).
Its simply not on, cycling is cycling is cycling.......the eco reasons are just the spin off and only then for some,not all.
I cycle because I like it.
I don't eat meat,I don't smoke,and I don't drink alcohol, but thats my business.

PS,What part of the planet Vegan were these people from anyway?

anothereye wrote:Forget about environmental issues as a reason for cycling (we don't need a reason).
DO use environmental issues as a reason for cycling when lobbying politicians because it can help us and because climate change is a bigger threat to everyone than the Taliban.

Gerry

Agreed - worth distinguishing between reasons for an individual to cycle ( the most fun you can have with your clothes on ! )and reasons why governments etc ought to promote cycling. (what the man said)

Paul

I've done all sorts of things since the days when "greenhouse gas" would have been what Percy Thrower used to keep the frost from his winter veg and a carbon footprint might have been left by a chimney sweep. (And green, when not referring to a colour or a place covered in grass meant naive.)

Keep the central heating down, turn off lights when not needed, don't overfill the kettle, house insulated to the gunwhales,* cycling where poss, free bus travel (thanks to Woy Jenkins ) when driving, small engine, gentle right foot, never throw anything away, waste not - want not and all the rest of it. It's called being a meanie AKA a MOG.

* or the domestic equivalent

kwackers wrote:

patricktaylor wrote:Jonah Barrington (UK), one of the greatest squash players of all time, smoked 10 a day (apparently). He reckoned it improved his aerobic performance.

I love it when people pull out exceptions to prove rules. Who's to say he wouldn't have been that much better if he hadn't?

We only have Jonah's word for it, I suppose.

On the 'turns me off' topic, thinking about it, the Green message doesn't bother me either way as long as no-one preaches it to me. For what it's worth, I think the only thing that will/would really make a difference to how many people cycle is a complete change of culture, of the sort we won't see for some time. The OP's group of 250 members is a step in that direction, the conference referred to seems to be a step in the other.

I also agree with the OP and resent my cycling interests being bundled into an if-you-like-that-you'll-like-this kinda way.

There is a liberal metropolitan constituency some of whom I dare say perceive cycling as central to their green credentials but an organisation like ours shouldn't make presumptions because on the post count so far, they'd be wrong. I can imagine campaigners speaking in ever decreasing circles but proliferating acronyms and jargon to other campaigners as though their interest was universal. It ain't.
Anyway, there was an older generation for whom frugality, recycling and make do and mend was a normal response to conditions, not a political statement. We'd do well to follow their choices and the carbon footprint will look after itself.

When we re-established a Worthing Cycle Campaign a couple of years ago, we were courted by green activists who wanted us to join their alliance. We politely declined partly because cycling as a green activity is more a happy coincidence for us but also for the the reason that Ru88ell alludes to - it turns people off.

If we purely push the environmental agenda, motoring companies are already countering this by making their cars look more green (you would be forgiven for thinking that by buying a Honda, you were actually saving the environment ).

As a campaign group we prefer to push the envelope of safe cycling through how it benefits the local community by encouraging 20mph speed zones, demonstrating that there is a way to beat the exhorbitant NCP car parking charges in the town (and they are insane) and to try and assure local businesses that local money would stay local if more cycling was encouraged. We are trying to present cycling as a win-win situation to the town that's also flat plus of course it is fun! There were many reasons I first picked up a bicycle as a child and saving the planet wasn't amongst them.

By campaigning this way, we feel we are also sidestepping years of banging our heads against a wall trying to get more 'infrastructure' from West Sussex County Councils meagre cycling budget.

Actually, having thought on it, TBH, I don't think that I've ever met anyone who hates cycling but still does it because it is green.

On the other hand, I know a lot of cyclists (and there are many on here I guess) whose bicycles get through more petrol than their cars. All those who drive miles to the start of their races, sportifs, club runs, audaxes, trail centres, who probably wouldn't be getting the car out if they weren't going for a bike ride.

There is a very good argument to be made for cycling actually causing more environmental damage amongst the leisure type cyclists.

Yet, I have heard such cyclists tell everyone how they are doing their bit to save the planet. The term 'champagne-environmentalists', or some such, was heard up thread, sounds more like plain old 'hypocrites' to me.

However, there is some kudos to having a green veneer. Just like the stories that were in the papers earlier int he year about cycling being the new golf, and about the rush to have the right bike (fixie, carbon uber-bike, etc) as a status symbol, allowing some people to think that they are being green probably makes them feel better about themselves and might make them more likely to indulge in cycling - but ATPIT it's never going to be the main reason, and it's not going to apply to everyone.

There are always going to be those that react strongly against any suggestion that they ought to be 'greener' - whether that's because they believe that they are already green compared to everyone else, whether it's because they believe green=pinko-commie-treehugger, whether it's because they just don't like people telling them what to do, who can say? I think the thing to bear in mind is that there is no simple solution to getting more people on bikes. Saying to everyone "because it's green" won't work; likewise, not mentioning the environmental benefit to anyone misses a trick. Context is everything.

So I'll return to my original opinion - you need a whole raft of benefits when selling cycling to someone. Trying to persuade them just on the enviro issue can be as silly as missing it out altogether - depends who you are talking to.

If you look through the comments on this forum, despite the comments that many have made about their cycling having nothing to do with green issues, you'll see than the green card is happily played when the occasion arises.

Well done ru88el for forming your cycle group and getting so many members.

Your complaint about the conference boils down to that you were given vegan food and objected to an organiser extolling the virtues of the food you were eating.

So at a not for profit event you complain about the food? Did it taste bad or do you just object to someone telling you it was vegan. Perhaps he organised the food and was proud of it. Perhaps you even complemented the organiser on the food and then he went to explain its credentials.

Have you ever cooked a mean and enjoyed telling your guests a little more about the dish, perhaps the meat came from a local farm, or whatever. Regardless do you get my point here?

I agree with you though on your general point, people ride bikes for plenty of reasons but typically because they enjoy riding a bike. But if your single point of annoyance at the conference is about the food and a conversation you had at lunch you strike me as rather narrow minded.

When someone tells you to "stop eating meat and dairy products" they're going a bit further than extolling the virtues of the food they've prepared.

Si wrote:Actually, having thought on it, TBH, I don't think that I've ever met anyone who hates cycling but still does it because it is green.

On the other hand, I know a lot of cyclists (and there are many on here I guess) whose bicycles get through more petrol than their cars. All those who drive miles to the start of their races, sportifs, club runs, audaxes, trail centres, who probably wouldn't be getting the car out if they weren't going for a bike ride.

There is a very good argument to be made for cycling actually causing more environmental damage amongst the leisure type cyclists.

Yet, I have heard such cyclists tell everyone how they are doing their bit to save the planet. The term 'champagne-environmentalists', or some such, was heard up thread, sounds more like plain old 'hypocrites' to me.

However, there is some kudos to having a green veneer. Just like the stories that were in the papers earlier int he year about cycling being the new golf, and about the rush to have the right bike (fixie, carbon uber-bike, etc) as a status symbol, allowing some people to think that they are being green probably makes them feel better about themselves and might make them more likely to indulge in cycling - but ATPIT it's never going to be the main reason, and it's not going to apply to everyone.

There are always going to be those that react strongly against any suggestion that they ought to be 'greener' - whether that's because they believe that they are already green compared to everyone else, whether it's because they believe green=pinko-commie-treehugger, whether it's because they just don't like people telling them what to do, who can say? I think the thing to bear in mind is that there is no simple solution to getting more people on bikes. Saying to everyone "because it's green" won't work; likewise, not mentioning the environmental benefit to anyone misses a trick. Context is everything.

So I'll return to my original opinion - you need a whole raft of benefits when selling cycling to someone. Trying to persuade them just on the enviro issue can be as silly as missing it out altogether - depends who you are talking to.

If you look through the comments on this forum, despite the comments that many have made about their cycling having nothing to do with green issues, you'll see than the green card is happily played when the occasion arises.

So what are you actually saying Si?

There are probably as many people put off by aligning cycling to what they'd see as left-field (aka weird) causes, as there are those attracted to it.

If you want to popularise cycling among a resistant group, design some must-have leisurewear for those of generous proportions and run a series of articles in the Mail on Sunday about it being the new Pringle. Having created the new un-lycra ram the point home by getting a tame journalist to say a ride to a country pub has replaced washing the car as the thing Middle England has to be seen doing.

My experience of group riding suggests the Sun-Mail axis is at least as well represented as the Guardian reader. It's just that the concerned liberal is an easier stereotype to make stick.

reohn2 wrote:So what are you actually saying Si?

Swings'n'roundabouts ennit?

No easy answers, one way or the other.

patricktaylor wrote:When someone tells you to "stop eating meat and dairy products" they're going a bit further than extolling the virtues of the food they've prepared.

True.

But if someone organises you a meal with free range meat and tells you to eat free range because it tastes better I assume that's no problem

"Reduce your carbon footprint; stop eating meat and dairy products" this statement seems to be based on fact.

If someone simply told me to "stop eating meat and dairy products" I might tell them to mind their own business, perhaps have a conversation with them and exchange ideas, or simply decide to talk with someone else.

However if I was eating food that this person prepared I would probably engage with them. I'd also imagine that if I'd been talking about bikes all morning I'd be happy for the change of topic.

glueman wrote:There are probably as many people put off by aligning cycling to what they'd see as left-field (aka weird) causes, as there are those attracted to it.

If you want to popularise cycling among a resistant group, design some must-have leisurewear for those of generous proportions and run a series of articles in the Mail on Sunday about it being the new Pringle. Having created the new un-lycra ram the point home by getting a tame journalist to say a ride to a country pub has replaced washing the car as the thing Middle England has to be seen doing.

My experience of group riding suggests the Sun-Mail axis is at least as well represented as the Guardian reader. It's just that the concerned liberal is an easier stereotype to make stick.

I've mentioned elsewhere on the forum about children and crazes,and how I'm now wittnessing it in adults.

I've always seen cycling as a an activity I like doing for itself,I frankly find it quite laughable that newspapers, crazes and clothing has anything to with a lasting relationship with the bike.
Speaking from a personal POV I find cycling emmensely pleasurable, intrinsiclly,I don't need the kelter that goes along with it,it is pure within itself.
Someone who takes to cycling due to fashion,newspaper articles,or are under the illusion that cycling is the new golf,isn't going to cycle far or for long,OK prehaps a few will but the vast majority will only be providers of goood selection of high end secondhand bikes for cyclists(which can't be that bad I suppose ).