Cycling UK Forum

Si wrote:

reohn2 wrote:So what are you actually saying Si?

Swings'n'roundabouts ennit?

No easy answers, one way or the other.

For a minute there I thought you were dithering

The green issue is an emotive issue, but it's also one that's full of spin and half-truths.

Being 'a vegan' on the face of it may seem to be more environmentally friendly, but you'll be greener if you check your food miles rather than being a specific type of foodie.

For example - a Lamb joint based sunday roast meal I may make using herbs and vegetables from my own garden or a local farm shop, and lamb from Wales or in my case also from a local farmer (or my father in law who is a butcher and sells only local meat), has a much lower CO2 footprint than a vegan meal where some or any of the ingredients may have been shipped from europe or beyond.

A vegan who is self sufficient on all local produce is fine - but even local meat has virtually no difference in CO2 footprint and, and the fast growing grass feeding the ruminent cattle absorbs more CO2 than slow growing veg does.

(Sorry - I did part of my degree this year on the Carbon Cycle, so studied it in probably more detail than is healthy)

So I would probably be more carbon neutral than my vegan neighbour who gets all her shopping from Tesco, whereas anything I can't get locally I get delivered by Ocado who offset their carbon.

The best bit about trying to be a bit more carbon conscious is that it has a side effect of spending less money and smaller bills in the long run. Win-Win

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.

Yet you are wrapped up in it. You don't just ride your bike for a bit, then put it away and go do something else. No, you indulge in talking about cycling and cyclists on an internet forum - not just the joy of riding, but the joy of conversing with like(ish) minded people, being part of a community. For you, and many others, cycling is about more than just the act of riding and enjoying that specific moment (and why shouldn't it be!).

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 ).

You are confusing the lure with the reason for staying. Sure, some people will move from one fad to the next. But there are plenty who, if you just say to them "ride a bike because you will enjoy it", will say, "no thanks, mate, tried it when I was a kid, got better things to do now" , and won't bother. But some, on seeing cycling as a trendy thing to do, might give it a go because they like being hip and with it. They then might realise that they actually like it and stick with it. Sure, not everyone will, but any that do is a bonus. I think that you underestimate the joy of cycling if you think that so few will get hooked once they try it - let's face it, MTBing in the 80s and 90s was largely a fashion thing, yet it's still going strong and a lot of those that started with MTBs are now road riding.

So, again, I'd say that the more hooks that we can use to get people into cycling the better. Each person will respond differently to each particular hook, so including the right one will help our case better than just relying on one (be that the green issue, the fashion one, the economic one, the fitness and well being one, or indeed, by just trying to convince people that it's fun - 'cos a lot won't believe that it could be fun)

bigphil wrote:... 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.

Conversation is one thing, evangelism is another. Whether it's religion, politics, carbon footprints, or the virtues of cycling, it's all the same. People who have an outlook on something imprinted on their brain and feel an uncontrollable need to impose it on everyone they meet are best avoided.

If I went to a conference on cycling I would expect the platform to be neutral on everything else. Of course that's different to engaging in private debate, but even then there are people whose views are so fixed that discussion is pointless.

bigphil wrote: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.

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.

The food was fine, but then I'm not a fussy eater, and I had paid £20 to get in to an event where 'lunch was included'. I'm only stating my objection to cycling being hijacked by the green / vegan movement, and didn't feel that it was at all appropriate for the organisers to push veganism at the conference attendees.

I've no objection to that guy wanting to be vegan, and had it been a lifestyle conference there may have been a place for his comments. I was there to hear about cycling.

Perhaps a relivent bit on the OP is....

In his short sermon

which gives the impression that the evangelical bit was just an unofficial speech over lunch, rather than part of the formal conferance? Is this correct Russell, or are you saying that many of the presentations were overly biassed toward green issues too?

These conferences (well, at least the RTR ones that I've done) can be very helpful and I'd not like people to get the wrong impression of them and be put off going. So, was it just the short 'sermon' that caused you to want to leave or was it the form of the whole thing?

Si. The comments were made from the pulpit/lectern in front of the ensembled mass.

Ru88ell wrote:Si. The comments were made from the pulpit/lectern in front of the ensembled mass.

OK, but I was wondering more if they reflected the conferdence presentations as a whole or was it just one bloke riding his own band wagon?

Si wrote:

Ru88ell wrote:Si. The comments were made from the pulpit/lectern in front of the ensembled mass.

OK, but I was wondering more if they reflected the conferdence presentations as a whole or was it just one bloke riding his own band wagon?

There were some superb presentations,and the one from Prof Whitelegg was worth the £20 alone! Many of the presentations mentioned 'reducing carbon footprint', 'saving the planet' and there was a presentation from one bloke called Matthews who was from FoE, although he'd since retired. Only one mention on the vegan front.

I thought it may have been my background in the car lobby that has made me oversensitive, but it does seem that many others agree with me.

Si wrote:

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.

Yet you are wrapped up in it. You don't just ride your bike for a bit, then put it away and go do something else. No, you indulge in talking about cycling and cyclists on an internet forum - not just the joy of riding, but the joy of conversing with like(ish) minded people, being part of a community. For you, and many others, cycling is about more than just the act of riding and enjoying that specific moment (and why shouldn't it be!).

I didn't say I didn't want the kelter I said I didn't need it,there is a diffence.

You are confusing the lure with the reason for staying. Sure, some people will move from one fad to the next. But there are plenty who, if you just say to them "ride a bike because you will enjoy it", will say, "no thanks, mate, tried it when I was a kid, got better things to do now" , and won't bother. But some, on seeing cycling as a trendy thing to do, might give it a go because they like being hip and with it. They then might realise that they actually like it and stick with it. Sure, not everyone will, but any that do is a bonus.

I don't think I am confused,any kind of evangelism will yield some results,but most initial converts won't sustain.
The reason for staying is the bike itself and what it does/offers for the rider,which can be considerable.

So, again, I'd say that the more hooks that we can use to get people into cycling the better. Each person will respond differently to each particular hook, so including the right one will help our case better than just relying on one (be that the green issue, the fashion one, the economic one, the fitness and well being one, or indeed, by just trying to convince people that it's fun - 'cos a lot won't believe that it could be fun)

Fish away! bait the hooks! whichever tool the evangelist uses it will be the one that suits his/her ability.
Personally I've never been a club cyclist,my cycling fitting in around my work so for the majority of my cycling life has been a singular activitity something enabled me get away from everything and away from nothing.
Its only recently,the last 14years or so when MRsR2 and I bought the tandem, that I have had company whilst cycling,and only since retiring (the last six years) that my cycling has been more of a social event.
I do understand that cycling can be a social network but for me without that cycling would still sustain.
I don't need an exuse for riding I can manage that without the company,indeed sometimes I/we prefere it that way.
What I'm saying is that,I cycle for the cycling,at times I've commuted too and that was because I liked to cycle.
I don't go around evangelising,I had enough of that in the church.

Fashion is a great driver of motivation. In the 70s and 80s when I rode around London cycling was an exotic pursuit. Yet the transport issues were very similar to the present day - though the tube seemed much cheaper back then. Now it's acceptable to ride a bike round the city whereas then it marked me down as a bit of an anarchist, and consequently suspect.

There have been a number of practical triggers to London take-up but in the end people do it because it allows them to exercise an aspect of their 'individuality' while still belonging to a group. MTB'ers are quite often a company team in an off-road event, often from establishment professions. If we can paint a seductive picture of utility cycling for more conservative groups they'll be just as likely to pursue it, but we need to move beyond greening as a fundamental aspect of riding a bicycle.

In the end it usually comes down to research funding. If it's available for carbon related topics an academic/researcher will ride that hobby horse until someone trips it. If cycling were seen as part of economic growth a different mindset would be attracted to solving its problems.
Your vegan sounds like he was making PC assumptions that weren't appropriate for the day.

Ru88ell wrote:

bigphil wrote: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.

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.

The food was fine, but then I'm not a fussy eater, and I had paid £20 to get in to an event where 'lunch was included'. I'm only stating my objection to cycling being hijacked by the green / vegan movement, and didn't feel that it was at all appropriate for the organisers to push veganism at the conference attendees.

I've no objection to that guy wanting to be vegan, and had it been a lifestyle conference there may have been a place for his comments. I was there to hear about cycling.

I'm still not sure how the event was hijacked by the green / vegan movement. How did they push veganism?

Fish away! bait the hooks! whichever tool the evangelist uses it will be the one that suits his/her ability.

But I'm not talking about being evangelical in terms of only promoting cycling on a single issue - my point is that there are many benefits that should be promoted. Just as different people have diferent opinions, so too will they rate each benefit differently.

The only evangelicalism that I see in following this line is the promotion of cycling itself - which I think that we can all be guilty of (expecially in the eyes of those that are anti-cyclist).

glueman wrote:If we can paint a seductive picture of utility cycling for more conservative groups they'll be just as likely to pursue it, ...

Exactly. We have a member who took up cycling this year. She's 44 years old, very wealthy and drives a Jaguar XK8 Cabriolet 4.2. She has diamond rings worth more than my house. Since joining Stourbug this Jan she has cycled 2880 miles, her daughter now regularly cycles as does her husband. The XK8 that she used to swan around in barely moved through the summer months. She's discovered cycling - never did it before and now couldn't imagine not doing it. I doubt very much that she would have taken it up via a green agenda.

bigphil wrote:How did they push veganism?

By poviding a vegan only lunch and then telling everyone to give up meat and dairy to help reduce carbon footprints.