Forum menu
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.
@rhayter All those follow cars need a fuel supplier
Joking aside I have often wondered why electric vehicle producers dont sponsor cycling. It would make a lot of sense, other than the fact that electric vehicles would been shown up for being completely inappropriate for the task in hand
other than the fact that electric vehicles would been shown up for being completely inappropriate for the task in hand
Basically that. Nowhere close to the range and the charging infrastructure is not in place to cope with something like Tour of Britain landing in town and needing dozens of fast chargers.
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.
Aside from just letting it lapse, if you want an instant cancellation it would be an email to membership@britishcycling.org.uk or a call to 0161 274 2010
part of which might be not associating cycling (part of the solution) with Shell (part of the problem).
Cycling as a sport or hobby is no more part of the solution than Shell is. Both sell products based on oil or other minerals dug out of the ground. Both spend a large amount of cash encouraging you to buy more of their products, with cycling virtually all are never actually needed.
If you are commuting by bike and genuinely relocating car moments with a bike then great and that will help but as a hobby or sport cycling has no green credentials
Skoda sponsored the TDF this year and provided a limited number of electric cars including a full EV Octavia to the Commissaire which was used on 15 of the 21 stages.
If you are commuting by bike and genuinely relocating car moments with a bike then great and that will help but as a hobby or sport cycling has no green credentials
Unfortunately, the general public don't see the difference- all people on bikes are cyclists, and cycling is pushed as green. Shell using British Cycling to seem like they're green and doing good things for the environment is a bad thing. It's essentially using British Cycling and cycling as a sport AND a mode of transport to give Shell a good public image to hide behind while they fail to meet their environmental responsibilities by not working toward net zero or shifting their focus from oil to alternative power.
I have often wondered why electric vehicle producers dont sponsor cycling. It would make a lot of sense, other than the fact that electric vehicles would been shown up for being completely inappropriate for the task in hand
~200km at 25-30 mph should be well within the range of most modern big EVs - the sort of size used as team/support cars anyway. an 80kWh skoda would fully charge in 12 hours on a 7.4kW charger
whilst the optics of the deal are pretty crap, I can't as a mad keen cyclist get on my high horse about petrochemical companies seeing as pretty much every part of cycling is reliant on the hydrocarbons and polymers from crude oil.
It takes litres of oil for each tire manufactured and If I look at the mountain of rubber in my workshop and on my bikes, then I may as well kick a seal puppy in face now.
Never mind the plastics and resins in brake compounds, cables, hydraulic oils, cable coatings, foams for grips, saddles, helmets, elastane/lycra in cycle clothing, carbon fibre is wholly reliant on oil and then we have the use in the energy utilised to mine, manufacture and ship the ores and then transport our bikes all over the world via big old polluting cargo ships.
if we move to net Zero use of oil as a fuel source, we still need vast quantities of oil and the environmental damage that it entails from extraction through to refining for every single part of our lives.
So whilst Shell are a bunch of ********* as are all large corporations, if you look at it logically rather than emotionally there is no environmental reason to have a hissy fit.
Whilst I disagree in principle with this decision, If I had the choice to simply cancel my membership I would. Bc provide zero benefit for the vast majority of cyclists
Unfortunately however, if I want to race I need to pay bc, and given this announcement, that irks me somewhat
Regardless of the fact that many of us drive cars and are still dependent on fossil fuels for the products we all consume, the issue that Shell actively lobby to slow down climate change action (see many links shared earlier in this thread) should be sufficient to consider them an unsuitable partner to enable british cycling to get to net zero.
‘virtue signalling’ is a bullshit phrase. It often just signifies a weak position in a discussion.
Not necessarily. You can be vacuously virtue signalling, but people can also mis-use the term to denigrate any discussion of doing something better.
Whereas this decision by BC sticks two fingers up to our efforts
I remain unconvinced of that.
Cycling as a sport or hobby is no more part of the solution than Shell is
It doesn't matter. This is a sponsorship deal, which Shell hopes will reflect on it favourably through being associated with something perceived as healthy and sustainable. That's your virtue signalling, right there.
Unfortunately however, if I want to race I need to pay bc, and given this announcement, that irks me somewhat
Only if you need points, which obviously you might, otherwise just pay the extra couple of quid on each entry for a temporary license.
Was thinking about whether it was worth renewing my membership at £86 when it comes round in Jan. This has made it a much easier decision!
I was already wavering about my BC membership, in that I think CUK supports a style of cycling more relevant to what I do, then the nonsense with the Queen, and now this.
I have emailed them and asked them not to renew my membership (though somewhat predictably this was only just renewed automatically).
~200km at 25-30 mph should be well within the range of most modern big EVs – the sort of size used as team/support cars anyway. an 80kWh skoda would fully charge in 12 hours on a 7.4kW charger
not with all the windows open, bikes on the roof, alpine passes, constant periods of hard acceleration.
and then they get to the hotel at the end of the day and some selfish sod has taken the one charging point
cycling isn’t green, most bikes are made of plastic
~200km at 25-30 mph should be well within the range of most modern big EVs – the sort of size used as team/support cars anyway. an 80kWh skoda would fully charge in 12 hours on a 7.4kW charger
As @FunkyDunc says above ^^, it's more than that.
Plus you're talking about the range as the length of a stage but it'll be far more. Transfer from hotel to stage start (could be 100km easily), the stage itself and then the drive to the hotel (which again could easily be another 100km). If it's a long transfer, it could be 400km.
The charging infrastructure in most countries is not well enough developed to be using a full fleet of EVs - in a road race scenario (even at Tour of Britain level), there are dozens of cars that would need charging. Multiply that up to TdF level and it's hundreds of cars.
The recent Cycling Weekly article about "making cycle racing greener" was mostly a load of bollocks - stuff about how they could use drones instead of gas guzzling helicopters. Well yes, they could except to get uninterrupted drone coverage of a 200km stage, you'd need hundreds of drones and operators (presumably all travelling in cars...) to cover it all. Not exactly any greener, in fact more of a logistical nightmare. Same with EVs, the idea that all teams could immediately switch to EV estate cars is just not realistic.
Maybe Shell base their sponsorship on the tactical nous of the partner, given they are linked to Ferrari in F1!
Chris,
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.
Same here, at least that's what I believe. We signal to others in most things we do I think, signalling is communication etc. Protest moves often get called virtue signalling, a protest move is the same thought process as why I don't drive a new BMW. I don't because I DGAS about cars and I have an issue with thew car industry in general, a rejection of consumerist and transport norms which some would call virtue signalling. Maybe it is - does someone know enough about what else I do or don't do to say whether it's legit or fake for appearance, signalling?
It's a phrase that's so often used when those motives are assumed or projected by those accusing someone of virtue signalling, as a way to rubbish their action. In that case it's a BS term. An easy dig i/o asking better questions.
You can be vacuously virtue signalling, but people can also mis-use the term to denigrate any discussion of doing something better.
You could be, though generally how would someone know it was vacuous (assuming it's online)? Unlikely they would, it's a projected thing most of the time the phrase is used - as you say, to denigrate.
Regardless of the fact that many of us drive cars and are still dependent on fossil fuels for the products we all consume, the issue that Shell actively lobby to slow down climate change action (see many links shared earlier in this thread) should be sufficient to consider them an unsuitable partner to enable british cycling to get to net zero.
+1. Exactly that, the scale and power of oil co influence that's put us here when we could be somewhere better by now.
So basically the consensus is we just shouldn't aspire to be better.
Brilliant.
A lot of people leaving British Cycling
https://twitter.com/profhelenward/status/1579592514168049666?t=Vq0v8Ph2tr-963NXwSUVaQ&s=19