https://twitter.com/BritishCycling/status/1579449650553069568
It's probably fair to say, I don't think the replies to their announcement on Twitter are what they were hoping for if I'm honest
If you want to stop oil companies being oil companies, stop buying oil.
Is a fair point.
I'm trying to drive far fewer miles, and ride locally much more and commute by bike as often as I can.
I'm buying fewer clothes of higher quality, and more natural materials (shoosh you about chemicals and cotton). I wear everything until it's in holes.
I've insulated my house.
I buy mainly UK or local fresh products, albeit from a large supermarket. I've not used carrier bags in years.
I am trying to wean myself off the worst of the damaging things I can, and the excessive bits I perhaps did before.
However, I'll still go back and say, within shades of green/grey, an oil company sponsorship is pretty black. It's so far out of step.
These companies need to be in a place where they know that the time is up. That they are selling something we're addicted to, that the world's downfall is connected to.
For years Shell and others have actively campaigned, undermined, de-invested and generally got in the way of efficiency, reduction and a migration away from thier product.
Thier motivation is profit. Not the global good.
I'm disappointed that BC think this is in anyway a good thing, short of the filthy money.
An aside - our organisation actuality saw other funders step forward after we decided to end our hypocritical partnerships. Our income rose, and we won work with organisations that would not have worked with us under the partnership we had before.
And I'll be clear. Exxon paid half my salary for 6 years as part of a project I ran for them and my current employer. We were doing 'environmental good' in local schools. £5k at a time, £70k a year. In the last year we worked with them, they earned that £70k in 28 seconds and made 16% profit.... They have no intention of doing good, they are doing good business by good marketing.
It was you guys who decided to create this impossible barrier to clear before you’re even allowed to say anything.
Conversely, I think you're setting that bar incredibly low.
If you don't race or need the British Cycling race licence, but still want insurance + legal advice, both for individual and groups (incl event insurance), worth considering Cycling UK. Nice thing is they're actually trying to increase off-road access too so bit of a win win.
Also can get 50% off subscribing to Singletrack too 🙂
I can’t take part in the poll. There’s no option for ‘a member because my quals are dependant on it but majorly pissed off by this announcement’
How can this help accelerate their path to Net Zero? That’s baffling me.
Of all the hundreds of companies they could partner with, ones who actually benefit from people cycling, they chose one of the few companies that benefits from people taking the car.
As @stwhannah says up there ^^, there are not [i] hundreds of companies[/i] all lining up to sponsor BC, in fact it's very difficult to find someone with the financial clout they need willing to commit to 4 year deals never mind 8. All the ones that have that sort of money (Sky, HSBC, Shell) are dodgy in one way or another, none of them got their billions by being nice and fluffy.
Basically at that level it's Finance (banks, maybe a couple of insurance companies), oil (Ineos, anyone?!), tobacco and alcohol (neither of which are allowed in sports sponsorship any more) and maybe a conglomerate like Unilever or similar.
And then the challenge is finding one that actually wants to give BC tens of millions of ££ a year.
It's literally a couple of dozen companies at most. I can see why they've gone down that route, no matter how tone deaf it might appear on.the outside. Put it this way, that money feeds through into grassroots sport. Without it, there won't be the kids races, the basic coaching courses, Commissaire training, race equipment etc. The boring unglamorous stuff.
And you've got to admit that cycling as a sport (rather than as a means of transport) is not exactly green; the history of cycle sport is littered with car sponsors and oil companies.
I'd be interested to see the Venn Diagram of people on here condemning BC for the partnership vs those who post about how they drive their Audi 200 miles to a trail centre or their Transporter thousands of miles through Europe or take a flight to Spain for a week of riding.
So, sad as it is, we all depend on oil companies. There’s no point demonising them.
Recognising a necessary evil doesn't mean you have to prostitute yourself.
I'll also add: the move by Shell and others now to 'green' energy is 20 years behind when they could/should have done.
Put it this way, that money feeds through into grassroots sport. Without it, there won’t be the kids races, the basic coaching courses, Commissaire training, race equipment etc. The boring unglamorous stuff.
My experience of BC is they actually get in the way of grassroots sport, utility biking and health and well-being.
Thier only reason for being involved at grassroots is to have a funnel of a few hundred riders to whittle down into a couple of Olympians.
I’ll also add: the move by Shell and others now to ‘green’ energy is 20 years behind when they could/should have done.
I don't think they've been complicit in the murder of any Nigerian activists recently, so it's not all bad.
Recognising a necessary evil doesn’t mean you have to prostitute yourself.
Is that what they're doing? Or are they just taking their money?
Are Shell actually anti-cycling? Or are they just doing a necessary job and trying to support good causes?
I'm not necessarily supporting Shell here, but just trying to steer away from a knee-jerk reaction. Shell only sell what people buy. Are they actually responsible for pollution or are we all?
Do you not think it’s just a bit inappropriate for the UK body responsible for the most efficient and eco means of transport to be sponsored by a company spending millions lobbying to maintain the status quo and destroy the planet through fossil fuels?
Is that actually what's going on? Or is it what right-on people want to think is going on?
I guess they are now spending fewer millions on maintaining the status quo (if that's actually what's going on) and more on the alternatives. Isn't that what you wanted?
Are they actually responsible for pollution or are we all?
Another good point.
My issue isn't just what they sell.
It's how they've behaved for decades. They've activity obstructed reduction in fossil fuels, they've actively blocked climate research and information. They've regularly been way the wrong side of law, justice, environment, health and 'better'. They've actively made the world worse, above just selling fossil fuels.
It’s how they’ve behaved for decades
And are they still doing it, or is this the start of them trying to do better now?
People need petrol for their cars. Therefore they buy fuel supplied from companies like Shell.
BC need sponsorship. Therefore they get it from whoever can provide it.. I don’t really see much difference. Certainly not enough to justify this hypocritical hand wringing
Twitter on form as ever. I wait for Daily Mash.
https://twitter.com/EmmaKennedy/status/1579489645678985217?t=s7C6XZi8Tq-gg0yoDwQaQw&s=19
https://twitter.com/Ken_J_Murray/status/1579460650870648834?t=ulO9yHK6P8ii8_9GgG1Jjw&s=19
https://twitter.com/MrMatthewTodd/status/1579481584901951489?t=TWtoZ1uDh8-s9t0F16xh6g&s=19
I think it’s great and hope it will encourage, over a long partnership, Shell to transition faster and further into a green energy provider.
Sky had absolutely nothing to do with cycling either, nor did Ineos.
I’m not sure that there are many/any corporate sponsors with the kind of cash that BC will need who would pass an ethics test. Corporate sponsors are always going to be problematic,
Exactly. Let's be honest,it's a quid pro quo. Big company with shit loads of money gets some pr. Org with no money gets money.
Who exactly did y'all expect to be sponsoring?
I admire the optimism, naivety and blind faith some people possess
And are they still doing it, or is this the start of them trying to do better now?
A company still spending $49m annually lobbying to minimise change probably has a bit of work to do.
I blame Si Paton... if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have gone on the DH and 4x commissaires course, then been busted for a bald tyre on the way home and in so doing, blown my cover.
Ever since that fateful day, British Cycling has been in decline...
No further questions please
It’s how they’ve behaved for decades. They’ve activity obstructed reduction in fossil fuels, they’ve actively blocked climate research and information. They’ve regularly been way the wrong side of law, justice, environment, health and ‘better’. They’ve actively made the world worse, above just selling fossil fuels.
All fossil fuel companies do / have done this - "global warming" was known about as early as the 80's and the response was "oh good, when the Arctic has all melted, it'll give us easy access to a shitload more oil from under it!" alongside outright denials, obfuscation, lobbying and advertising.
Tobacco companies knew about the link with lung cancer decades ago, they did the same by paying off doctors (remember those adverts about "more Dr's smoke Camel than any other brand..."?!) and advertising and lobbying until it got to the point where they had no option but to back e-cigarettes as the "healthy" alternative.
Gambling companies do the same - all sorts of tricks to get repeat customers while putting in a sentence at the end "always gamble responsibly".
Everywhere you find something bad (junk food, alcohol...), you find clever marketing and advertising with a disclaimer at the bottom - "always eat a balanced diet" / "always drink responsibly".
And are they still doing it, or is this the start of them trying to do better now?
See my earlier post. This is the 432nd time they have pledged to do better in the future.
And the 432nd time they've found some useful idiots to shill for them.
Back to the first page:
Of all the hundreds of companies they could partner with
Umm, like all the companies waiting to be shirt sponsors of Premier League football clubs but can't pay as much as betting companies?
I just find it staggering how everyone is blaming oil companies for climate change.
Thankfully the diesel I put in my tank which the bikes on my roof cause to burn quicker when I drive to trails comes from renewable sources. The earth must regenerate about a tank's worth every turn of the moon so I'm covered.
I just find it staggering how everyone is blaming oil companies for climate change.
I'm not.
I'm blaming oil companies for actively lying and advertising against climate change (and many other environmental issues).
And they have not yet changed thier spots.
I mean, that Forbes article:
The report said that the campaigns are misleading the public given that the companies listed continue to expand their oil and gas extraction activities with only 3% of spending directed to low carbon projects.
Ok, so 3% - that doesn't sound like much. How much should they be spending? How much is available to spend? How many of those 'lobbying activities' are necessary marketing actions to keep the company in business versus the other companies?
Like I say I'm not pro big oil, not at all, but I'm also anti bandwagon jumping boo-hiss nasty oil company when they are simply supplying things essential to the world we live in that we've ALL helped to create - unavoidably, to an extend. The carbon is on all our hands and whilst we can reduce it we can't get rid of it.
I’m blaming oil companies for actively lying and advertising against climate change
Recent example? If you've got some, this is what you need to be bringing up.
Is that what they’re doing? Or are they just taking their money?
An argument you could make about taking money from any company on the planet. I think BC should aim to do a bit better.
Ugh. Really bad.
If I understand right, it isn't a full sponsorship deal, so we won't be seeing Shell logo on the team kit? Myabe that is the only silver lining.
But honestly, partnering with a fossil fuel company to help BC reach net zero really stinks.
Shell still spend more money on marketing than on renewables. And their actual % capital expenditure on renewables is <5% (compared to a target of nearer 10%). In contrast, TotalEnergies is at about 25% (though still planning on overall increase in fossil fuel extraction). So Shell are right at the bottom end of the European fossil fuel majors. They are really not driving the energy transition, but in many ways actively working against it.
There are many bad companies out there, but some are institutionally evil.
I do think we are at a time where we need to show fossil fuel companies that they do not have a social licence to operate. Yes in the end we need government to step in and agree, but we as individuals and as members of our clubs have a voice too. I'll be cancelling BC membership in the morning.
Recent example? If you’ve got some, this is what you need to be bringing up.
https://www.clientearth.org/projects/the-greenwashing-files/shell/#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20InfluenceMap%20assessed%20Shel l's,branding%20at%20%2455%20million%20annually.
I'm quite surprised by the pro-shell comments here tbh. Fossil fuel companies aren't just passive suppliers of demand - with the huge amounts of money they make from the earths resources they buy governments. Liz Truss is the most blatant - as well as handing over money for high gas prices with no windfall tax, she is preventing government from even gently advising people on the best way to use a bit less energy. This would save govt - ie us taxpayers - far more than it costs thanks to the subsidy. Today I see even wanting to stop solar power - I work in energy and buildings so straying from transport, but same old fossil fuel tactics. Take hydrogen for heating - the thermodynamics of using renewable energy this way is so poor compared with heat pumps there is no contest - it will never be affordable or safe - but has £££ of gas industry behind it to try and stall the alternatives so they can sell more gas and emit more CO2.
Historically things have been more subtle - various little grant schemes for renewable energy now and then - but somehow badly run so things always boom and bust, cowboys appear to cream off the grants and the tech gets bad name, and money quickly runs out so sustainable responsible business can't do so well.
Of course we all use the products of the fossil fuel industry - they've been fanatical about preventing us having any choice for decades.
Do CyclingUk offer accident/legal cover akin to BC (Leigh day)? That’s the main reason I have/had BC membership, the CUK website mentions a legal advice line but is a little inconclusive.
Yep, and it's very good if you get injured.
Unless you are a petrol/diesel free household, I'm not sure this is the hill to die on.
It’s probably fair to say, I don’t think the replies to their announcement on Twitter are what they were hoping for if I’m honest
Then they deserve sacking for not spotting that it would go down like a lead balloon.
I feel sorry for the poor social media lackey. After the fun of the "thou shall not cycle on the day of THE funeral" they got given this to send out and unlike the former chances of being able to roll it back are minimal.
I’m quite surprised by the pro-shell comments here tbh. Fossil fuel companies aren’t just passive suppliers of demand – with the huge amounts of money they make from the earths resources they buy governments.
Yes, they do. Why? Money. And they, as much if not more than anyone else can see which way the wind is blowing (pun intended) Renewables is/are now a significant and growing part of their plans. Why not be part of that change? Why not have them sponsor cycling and use their leverage to accelerate renewable transition by lobbying government? Shell, BP, et al are no longer just oil companies, they’re energy providers and whether you want it or not, they WILL be part of the energy value chain in coming years. Let’s see if we can influence a positive direction whilst they’re still on that journey.
So their leverage is nothing to do with the government reclassifying farmland to block solar installations, opening new North sea exploration licenses and reopening fracking.
Optimism is good!
Pure coincidence of course...
https://twitter.com/chris_breeze/status/1150834963618705412
(Among a long and varied career at the highest echelons of government, including a conveniently timed stint in Paris and later shutting down the Serious Fraud Office's investigation of the Al-Yamamah, ahem, OIL for arms deal that almost had Prince Andrew sweating, most recently, Sherard Cowper Coles has been Global head of HSBC's Public Affairs)
Urgh. Grubby, eh?
As a racer, coach and organiser I've been in with BC for a long time. It's never been an advocacy organisation for me. It's about competitive sport and making that happen. Sport inspires those watching it. Win Olympic medals on TV and more people will ride bikes, simple as that. BC aren't there to campaign for safer roads, considerate overtaking, cycling to school or better cycle lanes. They exist to put races on, keep it safe, make the competitors better, try and win medals at the Olympics and make sure there's a steady stream of competitors coming through when those currently doing it go off to do something else.
All that needs money. Everything I do for BC is for free - I have a job, a boss and I don't need another one. Bike racing is what I do for fun, I don't want it to be work (even though organising national championships most definitely feels like it).
Feeling the way I do about Rupert Murdoch made me feel sick when Sky started sponsoring BC. But I can't deny without their cash, things wouldn't have pushed on the way they did. I got given kit with the Sky logo on it, I didn't like that.
Feeling the way I do about the machinations of international finance and the glib way it affects the lives of ordinary people transferring wealth to the already-wealthy made me feel sick when I got given new kit with the HSBC logo, but it took that cash to pretty much just keep up.
This sport is expensive (and I'm not talking about middle aged men rolling round sculpted paths in forests) and if we want to watch the likes of Evie Richards and Tom Pidcock - and, more importantly, those coming up behind them - then someone with deeper pockets than the BC membership has to pay, I understand that.
Still gives me the boak though.
But I seriously doubt there was a meeting room booked in Manchester earlier this year for the BC executive board to sit around and weigh up all the competing multi-million pound 8-year deals against each other.
Pretty depressing, all things considered.
I’m quite surprised by the pro-shell comments here tbh.
I'm not pro-Shell I'm pro analysis.
Shell was also criticised for greenwashing its activities in its 2018 #makethefuture campaign which used Instagram posts, short films, music videos, and a London-based “festival” to market clean-tech solutions to a millennial audience.
Company in marketing thing it's done shocker. Not bad enough, next.
But Shell and BP ― the second- and fourth-largest oil companies by revenue last year ― are still active members of at least eight trade organisations lobbying against climate measures in the United States and Australia that were not disclosed in the public reviews, an Unearthed and HuffPost investigation has found.
Reviews of leaked and publicly available documents show those groups are part of the sprawling network of state and regional trade associations that have, in at least one case, boasted about quashing the very carbon-reduction policies the oil giants publicly claim to support.
Badder, but still very easy to explain by Shell simply having to make a living, and not necessarily directly instigating the particular boasting in question.
I mean this is all insinuation, and tied up with the fact that yes, Shell is implicated in doing something negative, but it's all heavily tied up in the fact that they produce something we all use and to an extend we all need, and they have to compete with other companies doing the same thing.
What's been posted so far is nowhere near Ford Pinto or BAT levels of scumbaggery. I mean yea, it's not a great look and this kind of reaction should have been predicted, but this really feels like there's a lot more to it than people seem to think on here.
Pretty depressing, all things considered.
I fully agree with that - it's depressing such things are needed, and that big companies of all kinds have such lobbying influence.
they’ve been fanatical about preventing us having any choice for decades.
I'm pretty sure that's not the oil companies' fault...
I’m pretty sure that’s not the oil companies’ fault…
Whose fault is it?
Whose fault is it?
Governments.
Governments.
Why?
Sorry to break the rose tinted specs @Daffy, but you might want to look at this. They are making lots of the right noises to make us belive they are "part of the solution" but follow the money and it is virtually all going towards new oil and gas. The averages hide some variation, with TotalEnergies coming out 'least bad', but none of them are making investments that are anywhere near aligned with a goal of keeping warming to <2 degrees.
The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change - asset managers with £trillions under management, so not exactly looney lefties - developed an oil and gas net zero standard that Shell and BP and others were involved in. It is incredibly flexible compared to other standards, but NONE of the oil and gas companies come close to meeting the criteria.
There are a lot of individually good people working for those companies, but together they are bad.
My point wasn’t so much that they ARE good, but that over 8 years and in the climate (again pun intended) they find themselves, that they will have to BECOME good. EV ownership is only going one way. After Ukraine, renewables are only going one way. They know this, but will extract what they can during the period it’s worth most waiting for government support to do what’s right. Just because something’s broken, doesn't mean it can’t be fixed. Leaving them alone wont help fix it, maybe this might? Sponsorship can go both ways.
They are making lots of the right noises to make us belive they are “part of the solution” but follow the money and it is virtually all going towards new oil and gas.
So, if we keep buying it, what are they supposed to do? Refuse?
If I go and check my BC discount codes will I find 10% off at my local Shell garage?
@molgrips who do you think is influencing the government? That's what lobbying is, flinging money at folk to listen to your agenda and push it for you. It's bribery by any other name, if I did such a thing at work I'd be out on my arse for breaking the bribery and corruption policies!
And "just trying to sell their product" doesn't wash. Would you extend the same argument to tobacco companies? Arms* manufacturers? Drug cartels?
All of them are bad for us. None of them have to exist in the way they do. Yet here we are. Letting them corrupt and shore up their positions.
This might be a small fight but if enough members feel that strongly then more power to them.
*of the "personal defence" variety.
Given the amount of fuel cycling consumes following a peloton then it strikes me as a good match. Let’s face it all the bikes are make from oil. The riders clothes are all made from oil. All the travel elite and upcoming racers do is all oil based it kind of makes sense.
The virtue signalling of people trying to pretend cycling for leisure has anything to do with being green is laughable. Let’s face it you could throw a whole load of criticism for being sponsored by one of the biggest financial companies in the world.
EV ownership is going to plateau unless and until there is significant investment in the re-charging infrastructure and, based on my horizon scanning, that's not happening.
Completely agree that renewables are only going one way but planning and development restrictions and timescales will impede progress.
I'm disappointed that STW haven't taken a clear editorial stance on BC's acceptance of Shell's funding; a readers' poll is, I think, a cop-out.
Compare'n'contrast with the rapid and definitive statement STW issued on trans rights.
If STW are (fully) independent of BC they should, as a responsible publisher and advocate for cycling, take a stance and publish it.
The virtue signalling of people trying to pretend cycling for leisure has anything to do with being green is laughable.
You could try to make your case without besmirching those with whom you disagree.
I’m not besmirching anyone. My case is that all this green virtue signalling is just nonsense. Lots of noise with no real substance behind it. How many are actually changing their lifestyles to make a meaningful difference. A few maybe, but not many. We all read the magazine with stories about travelling to places to ride or the latest bits for our bikes none of us need. Yet an oil company sponsors the sport is a disaster.
Do you think BC will care two hoots what the editorial stand of this, or any other magazine, is? Or if a few people cancel their membership?
@molgrips who do you think is influencing the government? That’s what lobbying is
Lobbying influences a government but it doesn't define it. They can only influence the people who've been elected. But what I meant was that governments should have identified this potential problem 50 years ago and done something about then. Governments should not have been open to lobbying. The lobby system in the US should have been reformed - by governments. Governments should have invested in alternatives.
And “just trying to sell their product” doesn’t wash. Would you extend the same argument to tobacco companies? Arms* manufacturers? Drug cartels?
No-one needs to smoke or take recreational drugs. We do need to get around though, and we'll take whatever the easiest option is to do so. Why is driving the easiest option?
EV ownership is going to plateau unless and until there is significant investment in the re-charging infrastructure and, based on my horizon scanning, that’s not happening.
Of course it is. By 2040 you won't be able to even buy an ICE and you think no-one will have seen an opportunity to profit? EV charging will be ramping up like nobody's business.
Just because something’s broken, doesn’t mean it can’t be fixed.
Absolutely this. Those people who despise Shell, BP and all - would you be happy if they all went to the wall tomorrow?
TBF I'm not sure that most people will care. Us internet blowhards? Yeah, we're a bit grumpy. And there are people for whom bikes are a definite eco decision. But I think the Average BC Member either wants the absolute best support they can get for sport, which means money, or they don't give much of a crap.
(frankly I think it's essential that the average non-sport BC member doesn't give much of a crap, because I don't think BC gives much of a crap about us)
As I depend on oil and gas to cook, heat my house and run my car. And as I use other oil products both directly and indirectly I am absolutely fine with Shell sponsorship.
These potential power cuts we are worried about are partly caused by investing too much in wind and ignoring the fact that when the wind drops we need gas.
I’m not besmirching anyone. My case is that all this green virtue signalling is just nonsense.
You've done it again.
These potential power cuts we are worried about are partly caused by investing too much in wind and ignoring the fact that when the wind drops we need gas.
I would correct and say that if we had massively insulated, shaded from sun, reduced wasteful energy use, invested in home solar, in nuclear, more pumped storage, more hydro, tidal - and more diverse wind supply, then things would look better.
As it stands we've spent 50 years rewarding private companies for extracting and selling as much cheap fossil fuel as we can from UK waters. We've blocked and obfuscated about proper energy reduction. We've allowed inefficient housing to be built below building standards. We've removed R&D and early funding for alternative energy.
We've invested heavily in wind as it's a technology we could get big company to do big project - they don't like insulating granny Miggins house, just want to sell her more power.
So I think molgrips is right to point at government, we all should take some responsibility. But, I maintain that these energy companies actively kept us hooked on cheap fossil fuels, campaigned and cooked blocked much research and change, and paid total lip service to changing their ways while green washing stunts like this were had.
Lobbying influences a government but it doesn’t define it. They can only influence the people who’ve been elected
Incorrect. They can help get people elected and hence have the influence in place. Of course those in government do hold responsibility but so do those who paid to influence them. Its why many of us working for large corporations have to do our yearly anti corruption training about why government officials, in particular, shouldnt be bribed.
It is amazing that people actually take this line.
No-one needs to smoke or take recreational drugs.
You seem to be desperately trying to miss the point. Do you think BC should take sponsorship from BAe?
Absolutely this. Those people who despise Shell, BP and all – would you be happy if they all went to the wall tomorrow?
Odd question. What exactly does this have to do with the question of sponsorship?
You dont think there might be a scale here as opposed to a simple binary approach of fail or take sponsorship?
My case is that all this green virtue signalling is just nonsense.
please explain how this threat of a few people threatening to cancelling a membership whilst living lives dependent on oil and participating in a hobby that is dependent on oil is anything other than virtue signalling
My contact with BC is largely through Go-Ride. It was very well supported with money from Rupert Murdoch, and gave my kids opportunities they would never have otherwise had.
The HongKongShanghaiBankofChina money supported fewer coaches, less equipment and less facility access. When that went we had a Zoom call.
Unfortunately massive marketing budgets to fund kids sport tend to come from companies that have made big profits. I wish it was otherwise, and I shall still advocate for active transport, transition to a low carbon economy, whilst at the same time driving my Transporter to Wales for an Enduro race with my daughters.
So it’s difficult to be an ethical consumer. I’ll take an oil company budget to promote cycling, and meanwhile try to use less of their product.
I was a member of BC for a couple of years...apart from the comforting knowledge that the legal protection and 3rd party liability would either repair a drivers broken wing mirror or take the driver to court for running me over, depending on fault...I didn't feel like anything else they offered was relevant to me as a cyclist not actively engaged in racing, apart from the odd 10% Halfords discount.
CyclingUK on the other hand, using my membership money to go the extra mile in everything that matters to normal cyclists;
Campaigned for and had a huge impact on the Highway Code changes earlier this year.
Campaigned in the run-up to KOP26 Climate Change summit as they had dropped cycling from the agenda in favour of EV's.
Got 40 police forces on the same page for a National Day of Action against close passing.
Took West Sussex County Council to the high court for ripping out a Covid bike lane to appease a minority of vocal car drivers before its positive impact was assessed properly. The bike lane was only there for 3 months and was removed against government guidance. CyclingUK won.
Launched the West Kernow Way and King Alfreds Way, Rebellion Way in the making.
Campaigned to get the Humber Bridge reopened to cyclists and Pedestrians (60 mile detour anyone?)
Still campaigning alongside OpenMTB for Access Reforms in Wales.
Working with the BHS (British Horse Society) with consideration to taking the government to court over a decision to make the next National Trail (Wainwright Coast to Coast) a footpath. (In the 1960's when CUK was the CTC, they lobbied to have the National Trail Legislation specifically amended to include cyclists and horses)
Not forgetting the usual discounts including 50% off singletrack 🙂
BC is essential at the moment as that's where the boys racing points, licence, entries etc are all within... Whether i approve of this decision or not, i will still be in with BC for the forseable
Lobbying influences a government but it doesn’t define it. They can only influence the people who’ve been elected.
How do they get elected? Money, power and influence. So you influence the media. Fund the politicians. Follow the money.
If the oil companies don't influence power to the extent of 'defining' then I don't know what does define it - I'd say they're part of a corrupt influence that pretty much defines our politics here. The Tories are funded in part by the energy sector, Truss worked for Shell as an economist etc. Links everywhere.
please explain how this threat of a few people threatening to cancelling a membership whilst living lives dependent on oil and participating in a hobby that is dependent on oil is anything other than virtue signalling
Everything you do is virtue signalling. Your watch, your car, your manners, your taste in music. All signalling to others who you see yourself as. Are you a virtue signaller if you outwardly appear successful (hard work as a virtue) but fund you car and clothes it with loans that you can barely afford?
'virtue signalling' is a bullshit phrase. It often just signifies a weak position in a discussion. If somebody starts to see what's wrong and makes changes then the right thought process begins. You have to start somewhere, sometime. You can't just go fully eco-compliant in one move. So being open to accusations of hypocrisy is inevitable - often called out by those who aren't willing to make changes themselves. It's better to encourage people along that path rather than engage in call-out sniping criticism. Because if you're not also somewhere on that path, you're the problem?
Lest we forget.
Effectively the same bunch have been in bed with Murdoch (you know, who's arsewipe newspapers tap dead teenagers phones for profit), and in bed for 3 or so years with a massive petro-chemical company that wants fracking to restart as they'll make a shed load of ££ from it.
So it's of zero surprise they choose yet another moral vacuum company as bed partners.
Well that's my virtue signalled and my membership cancelled.
It will be interesting to see if a V-powered British Cycling elects to run campaigns such as this in the future:-
It will be interesting to see if a V-powered British Cycling elects to run campaigns such as this in the future:-
404 page not found.
Maybe they've already taken it down?
If BC do any campaigns, it's usually jumping on someone else's coattails or the result of 10 minutes of brainstorming in the PR dept anyway. They just like to pretend to do campaigning now and then IME.
BC is essential at the moment as that’s where the boys racing points, licence, entries etc are all within… Whether i approve of this decision or not, i will still be in with BC for the forseable
Understandable.
However as a member, a suitable letter to the board members and membership expressing disquiet would help.
‘virtue signalling’ is a bullshit phrase. It often just signifies a weak position in a discussion. If somebody starts to see what’s wrong and makes changes then the right thought process begins. You have to start somewhere, sometime. You can’t just go fully eco-compliant in one move. So being open to accusations of hypocrisy is inevitable – often called out by those who aren’t willing to make changes themselves. It’s better to encourage people along that path rather than engage in call-out sniping criticism. Because if you’re not also somewhere on that path, you’re the problem?
^ This.
Shades of green.
Effort to try.
A change where you can.
A rejection of what you can, when you can.
A self awareness and consideration of what you could do.
I am trying. I am still crap at it. But I am trying.
Whereas this decision by BC sticks two fingers up to our efforts and two fingers in their own ears so they won't listen, to the change that needs to happen however small the step. Money over integrity. Not being the change.
I have a race license with BC but as I'm not likely to progress to Elite any time soon (or ever) I'll just get a license from The League International.
I think too many people who don't think this is a bad idea and are accusing those against it of hypocrisy are looking at it the wrong way. It isn't about BC using Shell for the money, it's about Shell using BC to present an image that they aren't doing any harm.
While to a serious cyclist, BC are really just a sporting organisation, to an outsider they're a cycling organisation, and cycling is perceived as green. Shell are using this as part of a wider campaign - they have TV adverts and posters showing their staff in front of wind farms and other green energy schemes. Now they have their name on every British cyclist you're likely to see competing on regular TV.
It sends a message that Shell are OK, that they're clean. They're doing their best to be green. Look, they sponsor cyclists. Cyclists are really green. But Shell aren't doing anything significant - they want to explore new oil fields, they're pumping out oil and the research into their net zero plan shows they don't have any real strategy whatsoever to reach net zero. But the perception of them gullible people (i.e. most people) and crucially this oil loving government (remember where Liz Truss used to work and is partly bankrolled by - oil firms) will be that Shell are trying by getting to be green involved with cycling. So it's OK to accept money from them, not scrutinise what they're up to, keep producing more oil instead of winding down production and putting real effort into the alternatives.
The whole thing stinks and BC need to back out of this deal. Naturally we all use oil, but decent people are doing what they can to minimise their use of it until we have an alternative. We shouldn't be encouraging oil companies like this.
BC is and always has been mainly focused on the needs of the racing community, and need sufficient sponsorship to keep those medals and Tour wins coming.
If you don't race and are genuinely interested in supporting cycling infrastructure and a better planet, Cycling UK will happily take your money
I'm not sure Sky/Murdoch, HSBC etc were any better morally.
Everything you do is virtue signalling. Your watch, your car, your manners, your taste in music. All signalling to others who you see yourself as. Are you a virtue signaller if you outwardly appear successful (hard work as a virtue) but fund you car and clothes it with loans that you can barely afford?
Completely disagree. I really don’t care what others think about the car I drive out the watch I wear or the music I listen to. I make purchases because I want the item. I don’t have anything on credit because I’m not interested in the show boating and was brought up to only but what you can afford.
All the pretending to be green when if we are honest the vast majority of us aren’t even at 1% on the what’s possible scale.
please explain how this threat of a few people threatening to cancelling a membership whilst living lives dependent on oil and participating in a hobby that is dependent on oil is anything other than virtue signalling
To describe people with whom you disagree as virtue signallers is to accuse them of arguing in bad faith: that they are wanting to appear good rather than arguing because of sincerely-held beliefs.
I think we're all perfectly aware that to a greater or lesser extent, we rely on oil in our lives. I don't see the hypocrisy in wanting to do better, part of which might be not associating cycling (part of the solution) with Shell (part of the problem).
The irony of your accusation is that arguably it might be better levelled at Shell - associating a fossil fuel producer with a sustainable mode of transport seems to me to be a pretty good example of virtue signalling.
All the pretending to be green when if we are honest the vast majority of us aren’t even at 1% on the what’s possible scale.
I will take the 1% over ignoring and actively pushing back against the issues though.
It doesn’t take a genius to order Sky, HSBC and Shell in terms of suitability / x-washing for a relationship with a cycling organisation. They’re all bad but obvious one is obvious particularly in light of the ‘net zero’ press release.
Excellent words from Jameso up there on virtue signalling.
Does anyone know how to cancel a membership of BC? I'm a member of both BC and UK Cycling and this deal is crap.