British Cycling is sponsored by oil company Shell according to the article.
Do you mind? I’m trying to be righteously infuriated over here.
It’s amazing how “righteous fury” people seem to get over folks protesting sporting events because the fucking planet is on fire.
“Oh but couldn’t they be more calm and quiet about it, I want to watch the race!”
With participants who likely flew themselves their bikes in from all around the world for a pointless competition. I wouldn’t compare an international bike race to a person who rides their bike to work to help the environment.
Sporting events are the best way to reach hundreds of millions of people to deliver the message. Athlete flights are a tiny price to pay for it. And protesters literally fucked it up. Because they are dumbfuck attention whores and nothing else.
Tour de France sends the message performance is everything, and if you don’t perform, destroy your body with drugs. It is inherently toxic.
I’m sure they had many sponsors? Admittedly, I’ve done zero research…
I’m sure they had many sponsors?
Visit https://www.cyclingworldchamps.com/ and scroll to the bottom. Neither Shell nor Ineos are on the list of sponsors.
Admittedly, I’ve done zero research…
Seems the protestors didn’t either.
“One of the riders in the lead group was Britain’s Owain Doull. British Cycling is sponsored by oil company Shell.”
https://www.reuters.com/sports/cycling/protesters-halt-mens-road-race-2023-08-06/
British Cycling is sponsored by oil company Shell.”
Visit https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/ and scroll to the bottom. Neither Shell nor Ineos are on the list of sponsors, only lotteries.
On Twitter the group claims that Ineos is fielding a team, now British Cycling is allegedly sponsored by Shell and yet visiting any of the official web sites does not list any of those sponsors. Must be very shy sponsors.
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/partners Shell is the first one listed on this page.
Dunno what to tell you bud. Reuters, BBC etc all report it so either they’re all lying or they see it where we don’t.
This is what I see
Huh, so indeed one of those shy sponsors that don’t appear on the main page in the footer.
So reading through that, the Shell sponsorship is about bike chain lubricants and electric charging. Yes, very evil things.
Is shell paying you to run defence? I don’t get it. Shell=bad and you should google it if you don’t know why
Shell is good and you’re a lunatic.
Y’all remember that post the other day about leaving all the idiots behind on reddit… About that…
The protestors too. So? XD
Cycling is environmentally friendly, but let’s not equate world championship to cycling as transport. The event itself must have a lot carbon footprint. Still, weird choice of event to protest, but I can see them doing what they can to get the publicity they need.
I think its because of this: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/1915960
I guess big oil has nothing against cycling, as long as its the sport and not the mode of transport…
The event itself must have a lot carbon footprint.
Same is true for almost every form of entertainment but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the truly big polluters.
Sources of entertainment have - by definition - more viewers and attention than Exxon’s office building.
Sources of entertainment have - by definition - more viewers and attention than Exxon’s office building.
I always find it odd when people claim that something is by definition. Whose definition?
Anyway, this event is promoting cycling and disrupting a cycling event does nothing to help further promoting any form of cycling.
And if they protested people commuting into a city, a huge source of global emissions, they’d be criticized for that too. People always manage to label protests as the wrong time/place. What they really mean is “protest is fine as long as no one, especially me, is asked to actually pay attention to it.”
And if they protested people commuting into a city, a huge source of global emissions, they’d be criticized for that too.
May, just maybe, those aren’t the only two choices. Maybe they could also protest in front of offices of politicians and actually reach the people who can change anything.
Yes, why has no one tried that before, 😂
Greenpeace recently protested on top of British PM Rishi Sunak’s private mansion while he was away. And they still got swamped with “YoU cAnT pRoTeSt LiKe tHaT” and people coming up with the most contrived reasons to say they are hypocritical.
It literally does not matter how these people protests, people will always say they are doing it the wrong way, because chuds dont actually mean it when they say that. They simply dont want them to protest at all, so they can pretend its not happening.
while he was away.
That’s the problem.
???
And maybe, just maybe, the protesters should have a goal of not only getting their message out but winning people over to their side. Maybe a goal of gaining support.
I don’t think this strategy of “annoy as many people as you can” will succeed in gaining any positive attention
I don’t think this strategy of “annoy as many people as you can” will succeed in gaining any positive attention
It’s literally the only strategy that has ever worked before, other than outright violence.
After all, who gives a shit about “positive attention” for its own sake? What matters is actually effecting change, and that does not require people to like you.
When has this stragety ever worked?
Lunch counter sit ins in the 1960s are the first thing that came to mind.
Yeah…
Racism is almost non existent now, because of this /s
The Civil Rights Act was passed in large part because of it. Is your argument that the Civil Rights Act changed nothing? Because that’s silly. Or were you just not thinking, and trying to score internet points? Because that’s also silly. You’re being silly.
It never worked, don’t delude yourself.
Weird flex to brag about not knowing history
What if you want to make a movement lose support? Could you then do this as a tactic to hurt a cause?
100%. The moment you point out that this isn’t the way to go you’re instantly seen as the bad one, that you don’t want to be inconvenienced. It’s so dumb.
People have done that but the publicity isn’t nearly as large as a globally televised event.
That’s a fair point yeah, I guess the publicity does help
Any publicity is good publicity, huh? Here’s a data point that says “nope”
I have this big thing I love to go into where I list dozens of better ways of getting media attention and starting dialog, one of the ideas is a big group of well organised people going to clean train stations and educate people on why trains are more climate friendly than cars and why that’s important…
Talked up a lot of people involved in and supporting direct action and they all say one of two things ‘i don’t have time for this’ or ‘yeah sounds great but I’m going to stick with things that haven’t been working for decades thanks’
I really have come to belive that for most people in these things the environment is just an excuse for attention seeking, or the support of these groups acts as a way of telling themselves ‘we try so hard but nothing changes’ because they don’t actually want change, they just want a way of separating themselves from the guilt of consumerism.
It’s like the chorus of people saying that it’s corporations that use all the plastic, like the list of top ten plastic uses isn’t just a list of companies that make products everyone uses - coke is in the list for example, they don’t have a massive pile of plastic bottles to swim in like Scrooge McDuck nor do they have some magic power that forces people to buy their drinks. Working together we could change the world, but no one wants to change they just want a moment of self importance and an excuse for being part of it.
You know what that actually sounds like a very cool idea. I am sure I would get in trouble here in Germany for doing that, because how dare I put cleaning products on something I don’t own, but it’s a very cool idea nonetheless
Less trouble than blocking a road, and if they did that would be a long running news story ‘the sixteen people arrested for cleaning a train station…’ it’s an attention grabber.
The idea makes a lot of sense in the principal of satyagraha, like Gandhi’s salt march - creating a scene to force them to respond and show their true colours. What politican is going to speak against a movement like that? Especially if the cleaning protests have popular support because they’ve been done respectfully and with great care. It gives the politicans that support green measures a far better position to express their opinions ‘people care about the planet so much they’re willing to risk jail just to clean a train station and try to get people away from cars, it’s our duty as legislators…’ it’s already a powerful speech.
I daydream for hours about different ways it could work, the most important thing is that commuters aren’t disadvantaged or annoyed by it - I’d have small cleaning teams with a member tasked with making sure the team is out the way and I’d make sure they all know the station so they can direct people, help with their bags, etc. The other important thing would be that there are people able to engage in friendly conversation about important issues, why public transport is so important and what other things are important… directing them to prepared resources and climate news, even better if they can make it fun for the people using the trains - something to talk about and almost crow over with their car driving colleagues ‘the journey in was great, station looks amazing and while we waited they were doing a funny puppet show explaining the situation with shell poisoning the Niger Delta… How was traffic?’
I really do think it would be a far better way of spreading the message than throwing paint at much loved artworks or ruining people’s cycle races. Those are so easy to ignore and make conversation hard but something like this or other acts of radical and revolutionary altruism could really get people thinking.
deleted by creator
This is mildly infuriating but ruining the climate is very infuriating. So I understand the protesting and I hope we’re gonna see a good second half of the race.
When you’ve done everything that’s reasonable, and no one in power listens, so have to become unreasonable. And people say, why can’t you just be reasonable?! 😕
What’s mildly infuriating is that you are complaining about these protesters without providing any details on the protest.
No worries dude! I got you. Google to the rescue
https://nitter.net/Thisis_Rigged/status/1688142514421661696#m
“Rebecca, 28, “as a trans woman I’ve been told I’m not welcome on the cycling track by UCI, at the same time they allow a petrochemical company to field a team showing they have no real care for people. I take to the track to point out this hypocrisy and stand for a better future””
Shell produces, among other things, resins used so much in modern bicycles’ carbon fiber
Can’t recycle them either. You could potentially downcycle carbon fibers but I’m pretty sure in most places they’ll just end up in the incinerator, or somewhere in nature.
deleted by creator
Wow. You completely missed the point of my comment. Congrats for this achievement. I’m speaking out in favor of steel and aluminium frames and you come up with fucking gasoline. Wow. Just wow.
deleted by creator
JFC lady pick a point to be outraged about and stick to it!
She did. She’s just protesting alongside others who are protesting for different reasons.
How frustrating, it’s far easier to dismiss them when they’re a faceless homogeneous mass.
I kind of agree with you. Those points are so completely unrelated, it just makes the cause look stupid. Even if you agree with both causes.
What’s mildly infuriating…
No it’s not!
“White moderate” pearl-clutching is much more than “mildly” infuriating.
I don’t know about this Cycling competition, but the Tour de france thing has more helper cars, truck, cameraman motorcycle. Entire mobile village with caravan, trucks etc. Thats a lot of ecological impact even if indeed Cycling is one of the greenest transportation method.
Yeah a big competitive bike race with corporate sponsors and television cameras has little to do with cycling as a green method of transportation. It’s a bigass corporate gangbang and a fair target for disruption. Only the most lazy, dense observer would look at the Tour de France and think it was there to promote environmentalism.
I don’t know the ideologies of the protestors, but I do agree with protesting against “big cycling”. Cycling around on a trusty steel bike which you can repair yourself is environmentally friendly. Buying a new carbon fiber bike every few years because it is 2% more aero than the last is not. Instead of standardized parts, the cycling industry wants you to buy cheap ones that break fast, and can only be replaced with their specific parts. They sell this to you by including some upgrades in chains, cassettes etc. The cycling industry is the same as any other industry, it exists to make profits. Truly sustainable things do not come from making profits.
Few “big bicycling” inspires a lot of “small bicycling”
I can see this argument, but I just hate the way the industry is heading, to extract as much money as possible by selling upgrades, new frames, etc etc. The price of a new bike has also risen 2-3x since before COVID and won’t go down. Frame materials are becoming more resource intensive, parts are becoming less replaceable and more proprietary.
I’ve commuted to work by bicycle maybe 2 decades out of my career of almost 3 decades, NEVER with any bicyle worth more than 200 EUR (during my time in The Netherlands I always got second hand bicycles … well, more likely 4th or 5h hand) and you clearly have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.
You’re talking about, maybe, the consumer high-end “recreative” cycling, the kind that’s sold to fad-following consumers who will at most pull out the bicycle on a weekend day, put on a “Tour de France” disguise (complete with “sponsor” sticks) and go cycle to be seen cycling.
In countries were people actually cycle for utility purposes those are a tiny fraction of people and the “cycling industry” is something else altogether than what you describe. Normal people use normal bicycles which are not too expensive, especially because you really don’t want to park a 1000+ EUR on the street, not if you want to come back and still find all of it there.
Further, even at the high-end, the actual pros know how to fix their own bicycles and know the value of standardized components: it’s really only the “two-wheel fashionistas” that would go for overpriced bicycles with non-standard elements.
Going after cycling because of a few idiots (and there are idiots in every human endeavour) and calling it pro-Ecology is the pinnacle of stupidity and doing the work of the enemy.
I am indeed talking about consumer high-end cycling, and I see it poisoning peoples minds in my city with their marketing that says to be eco-friendly and cycle to work you have to buy a brand new bike for £1000. I am arguing about the case in my city and the direction I don’t want to see cycling in general take. I agree with you that in many places, cycling is much better, the Netherlands is a great example. I am not going after cycling as a whole, just the rich directors of Shimano, SRAM, Trek, Specialized, etc. that have greenwashed expensive high-end cycling and make people believe that they need the latest stuff. I am not saying that the industry is already in a bad place, just that it could head that way.
You clearly didn’t read what they wrote, and then went on a tirade about it.
Nothing you said really applies as a retort to the other user’s comment.
deleted by creator
I’m not arguing against a strawman, I’m arguing against an extreme case. In the city where I live, people buying loads of fancy new expensive bikes to seem “eco-friendly” is large. The number of high-end bike shops is large. Repair costs are extreme; £60 for a medium job. This is of course, a predominantly white, affluent city. I regularly see new gravel and commuter bikes (the latest trend) manufactured by the likes of Specialized, Trek, Canyon. These cost in the region of £1000 ± 200. I agree that there is not mass migration away from standard parts yet, but I am worried that that is the direction the cycling industry wants to take. There is already an explosion of different cassette standards, meaning you need unique tools to change many of the new cassettes. Disk brakes add complexity and expense, and your average commuter bike arguably does not need disk brakes, they are just a shiny addition to make it more marketable. My argument is against the increase of these expensive bikes, fancy parts and brands that produce them, as it just pushes people away from cycling and the ecological and health benefits it can bring.
Have you ever cycled in your life? Because that’s not how it works.
Yes, I have cycled a fair amount and raced too. Now I have downscaled my cycling to just getting around. Would you care to elaborate? If I was not clear I would like to explain myself. I knew many people who were always looking for the next upgrade to get a little performance boost, and willing to pay a great deal of money for it.
What’s to elaborate? Modern bikes are miles better than anything made 20 years ago and components last forever, especially ebike certified components. And you can still fix everything yourself for pennies. Including the most complex pneumatic suspension.
I would argue the difference between modern bikes and old bikes for short to medium commutes (<1 hr) is immaterial. I have commuted on a carbon racing bike, an aluminum gravel bike (~£500) and a ~40 year old steel road bike I got for £20. Of course the carbon bike is very light and fast, but it has a massively greater ecological and financial cost. The aluminium gravel bike is pretty nice to ride, but not significantly different to the steel bike, which I actually find more comfortable on the road. The rotors on the gravel bike will soon need to be replaced, and that will probably be £100. I would agree with you that some modern components are better, notably corrosion resistant chains and puncture-resistant tyres. I would disagree on repair costs, in my experience, a repair at a shop in my city will cost at least £30 for something very simple like a new chain (which I can fit myself for less), and a while ago I had to pay £60 to replace a Di2 cable that got severed. (It went through the BB and I don’t have the tools to take out and refit a BB).
Puncture resistant tyres plus tubeless setup is already saving you and the planet a lot of resources.
As for repair shop prices, well I fix everything myself. And that’s the whole point - unlike with all other tech, you can still fix your bike yourself and you can infinitely upgrade it if required.
Why do you think 13 gear cassettes are a thing? The chain has to be thinner and everything is much more precise. Add to that mechanical load and it is much worse for every casual rider in reliability than the older 2x9, 3x9 systems.
But you can still buy all the older systems. It’s not like they stopped producing or supporting older standards. Both my local shop and the webshop I use have all cassettes from 7-12 gears. Neither currently has 13 gear cassetes, though.
First of all 2x and 3x systems are NOT reliable at all and must die. Second 1x10 systems are cheap AF and will last you a very long time. Especially modern ones made to sustain ebikes. They will outlast any 2x and 3x shit and work much much better in all and every scenario.
deleted by creator
And this makes us talk about the fact that cycling is one of the most environmentally friendly alternatives to fuel driven personal transportation.
Yeah, there’s a big difference between pro cycling and biking to get around. The pro peloton isn’t remotely sustainable—lots of international travel, transfers of team cars, team buses, helicopters, signal relay planes, etc. I suppose no pro sport is green. But biking for transport is one of the most efficient and sustainable.
Yeah, there’s a big difference between pro cycling and biking to get around.
Of course, but there’s also a big difference between a cycling race and a car race.
Neither are vital transportation, but one is a helluva lot more polluting for entertainment than the other.
I suppose no pro sport is green.
SailGP claims to be trying, although I have… questions… about how they get both their boats and personnel from event location to event location, as well as the use of combustion-powered support boats during races. (Frankly, I won’t really believe they’re green until they’ve built a sailing cargo ship to schlep those racing catamarans around.)
Cycling might be.
Cycling the sport isn’t. The sheer volume of support cars, media cars, motorbikes at every race is utter insanity.
That’s before we get into the sponsorship from oil and chemical companies, and at least two sportwashing teams
sportwashing
For the folks too lazy to look it up:
Sportswashing is a term used to describe the practice of individuals, groups, corporations, or governments using sports to improve reputations tarnished by wrongdoing. A form of propaganda, sportswashing can be accomplished through hosting sporting events, purchasing, or sponsoring sporting teams, or participating in a sport.
Seems the protest was effective then
Try cycling where I live and you’ll hate the idea of cycling in a week
Which isn’t a excuse not to improve it.
Why?
They live on the international space station
Death roads most likely
I’ve commuted regularly by bicycle for almost 2 decades in 3 other countries, but were I am now - Portugal - I won’t because drivers are stupidly dangerous (some of the worst in Europe judging by accident statistics), though unlike almost all of my countrymen here I refuse to buy a car and walk, use public transportation or at worst rent one when needed.
The infrastructure isn’t even worse than in Britain (were I did regularly cycle to and from work): it’s just that when there are no segregated cycling lanes the quality of everybody else with you on the road makes a huge difference when you’re the narrow crosssection (so harder to spot for drivers who just quickly peek on the mirrors and easy to fit on their blindspot) squishy, i’ll protected and low-acceleration road user.
If you actually would like to read about it: https://www.reuters.com/sports/cycling/protesters-halt-mens-road-race-2023-08-06/
So what is your plan instead?
Interrupting motorsports may give then more sympathy.
They tried that. Reddit’s unanimous opinion was that they should’ve been run over.
British Cycling is sponsored by oil company Shell.
— Reuters
British Cycling is the Host partner of the championship, according to the official website of the championship (linked to at the UCI website, “Organizer website” section), and its partner is Shell UK (announcement).
Someone pointed it out in the comments before, but it’s neatly summarized now 😝
My guess is that those “protesters” are paid and organized by some oil industry people (maybe without the activists glued to the floor knowing about this), just to give real climate activists a bad image. I’ve talked to a real climate activist recently, and she was furious about those “gullible idiots”.
You don’t even have to pay them anymore. Tell them the libs are out to get you and you’ll have dozens of idiots who pay their own way to yell at people
It’s a little funny how someone believing an actual literal conspiracy theory would call others gullible idiots.
Many conspiracies are true. Probably not the ones about aliens or lizard people, but certainly the ones about oil companies (and oil countries) lying and spreading propaganda.
There are plenty of examples of dumb environmental protests too, though. I’m not saying it’s impossible for these to be false flag impostors but to go all the way to the extreme of calling people gullible idiots for not seeing that they are hired impostors… that’s just extreme. It smacks of many conservative fantasies: gun violence victims are just hired actors, blah blah blah. Thinking that people who ruin your narrative are all hired fakes is a sign of delusion.
Umm… What conspiracy, the climate change?
No, saying that dumbass environmental protestors who are against bicycles must be hired by oil companies to give environmentalism a bad name. That’s a straight up theory that there is a conspiracy by oil companies to hire actors and ruin environmentalism.
Yes it is a theory about a conspiracy. However, it’s not a “conspiracy theory”.
A “conspiracy theory” is, by definition, lunatic - e.g. chemtrails, fake moon landing, vaccine microchips
A plausible theory about a conspiracy is not a “conspiracy theory” - e.g. Epstein didn’t kill himself, environmentalists protesting a cycling event are a false flag op. These may be wrong; they may be ardently believed without sufficient evidence; but they are reasonable explanations for the given facts.
I consider suspect any theory that says “the people who disagree with my narrative must be hired actors planted to make me look bad.”
I realize false flag operations have occurred but it is just too easy to go around thinking that inconvenient people must be actors. Let alone to call anyone who DOESNT believe this a gullible idiot.
“Never ascribe to malfeasance what can be ascribed to stupidity” seems to apply here. Have you ever been on a college campus? There are plenty of really dumb protestors in this world. Far more than there are false flag actors.
Because no conspiracies have ever existed.
Therefore all conspiracies are true. Your logic is impeccable.
Cycling races are very polluting. Not because of the bikes but because of everything besides the bikes (cars, motocycles, cameras, plastic goodies, …)
That’s not the point though is it, smartass?
I just assume these dumb protest ideas are actors paid by oil
