Jo Burt venting his spleen about no fly ultra races. Many interesting points about affordability ethics etc rather than the usual Road.cc fare of lenient punishment for dangerous car users.
https://road.cc/content/blog/no-fly-pol ... ive-306499

All over the place that was . Is he for or against? For or against the flying bit or the whole concept of far-away mega-events?

Personally I'll just hang on to his final phrase: "Will taking all the time and the expense and the environmental concerns into consideration encourage more people to not sign up for an organised event in some other distant part of the world, and plan their own adventure from their front door instead? Let’s hope so..".

"Each to their own, with their associated justifications and morals"

I once described a uk event that had a rule about 'no fly and having to use public transport' to get to the start as tokenism. This upset some on here who I assume know the organisers.

My point was that myself (and I'm sure others too) live where the public transport links make it a pain to get to the event - too much of a pain to bother to enter. But, I ride to work whereas someone who can easily pop on a train to the event may drive 200 miles a day to the office and back. So making people use our terrible public transport to get to the event isn't achieving much other than some flag waving of how 'green' the event is. Getting entrants to commit to reducing their driving miles throughout the year in some way would be much better and they might keep it up which is a long term benefit.

The winner that year - who I'm sure gained loads more followers on the various social media platforms as a result - then went on to spend the next year or more flying all over the world to ride and showing how good it was in all these exotic locations. So in a round about way the existence of the event has prompted flying to ride

I've done some flying this year to enable me to ride a bike abroad. I looked at alternatives, and whilst cycling there or getting trains and ferries would be possible. I didn't have the extra time required.

As an individual with a job and family, spare time for trips is a finite resource.

No one can enter this years BB200 unless they arrive in something sporting a supercharged V8 of at least 500ci.

We only have one planet, and it's definetly finite, and everyone can create an excuse/ reason/ justification for their choices.

Basically we have to change how we live* or we seriously damage our home, all of us can justify why we don't do anything/ enough/ go all in.( Even this non flying vegan who does own a micro camper used for bike trips.) or make jokes about destroying things.

* there will always be resistance to this even from folk who know and care never mind the lot who don't GAS /care.

I often think there's a lot of confusion between 'saving the planet' and 'saving ourselves'. If we'd like to save ourselves or at least extend our potential time here, then yes, behaviour needs to change. Yet, if we'd like to save the planet, then eradicating the human race as quickly as possible would likely provide the best outcome.

If you require anymore cheery thoughts, just ask - I've loads.

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:34 pm Yet, if we'd like to save the planet, then eradicating the human race as quickly as possible would likely provide the best outcome.

You've hit the nail on the head there Stu. I've said to my friends that my only hope is that we manage to make ourselves extinct before we damage the planet so much that its uninhabitable for the rest of nature.

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:34 pm Yet, if we'd like to save the planet, then eradicating the human race as quickly as possible would likely provide the best outcome.

Collectively, we're doing a pretty good job of that already. It's the order in which humans are being eradicated that bothers me - I'd start at the other end.

Getting entrants to commit to reducing their driving miles throughout the year in some way would be much better and they might keep it up which is a long term benefit.

It'd be good, and we could do a bit of both. Flying is 150-250g per km per person Vs driving at about 100-150g. So if I fly to the Atlas mountains race that's about 800kg of CO2. I drive an average 7500 miles a year and half that, that reduction is ~475kg of CO2. There's a fudge-factor in those numbers as the range can vary by flight or car so I just took the middle of the ranges that are available.

I think the general point is, if you're thinking about this stuff then that's good. If you 'save up' for a flight that's good. If you can reduce car miles and not fly, even better because it's is about averages per person.

If one event organiser gets grief for saying an event is 'no fly', good for them in kicking off the discussion. The crux or the reasonable position for most of us comes from it getting kicked around like this (unless you're the sort who's too entrenched to think much).

Also, while talking about flying is easy as it's an either/or for most people maybe 1 or 2x a year, we can't ignore other things like eating as much beef as we do or relying on so many imported goods. I mean, I fly to Asia to work on imported products.. it's all linked and it's all either plain stupid or at best just hard to change, an economic status quo that doesn't benefit many of us Vs the alternatives.

The winner that year - who I'm sure gained loads more followers on the various social media platforms as a result - then went on to spend the next year or more flying all over the world to ride and showing how good it was in all these exotic locations.

Really.. that's a shame. There's some hypocrisy in all this from brands, riders - and people like me because 'if I don't do this job someone else will / if we don't sell these products someone else will' - which isn't very different to 'but the plane was going there anyway'. Apart from if I don't fly that's a direct reduction from a change in behaviour, whereas the job aspect is about a whole market (the status quo point). Changes in behaviour are all the no-fly event organisers are trying to make us think about. Edit to add, we're way past thinking time. 'The Age of Stupid' was made what, 13 years ago?

jameso wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 2:32 pm I think the general point is, if you're thinking about this stuff then that's good.

Hear, hear. Whenever this kinda thing comes up I'm reminded of Jonathon Pie's 'hypocrite or arsehole' XR piece.

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:46 pm No one can enter this years BB200 unless they arrive in something sporting a supercharged V8 of at least 500ci.

Stu, I'm afraid my engine is Euro 6 compliant, but I do use a log burner at home. Will that do?

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:34 pm I often think there's a lot of confusion between 'saving the planet' and 'saving ourselves'. If we'd like to save ourselves or at least extend our potential time here, then yes, behaviour needs to change. Yet, if we'd like to save the planet, then eradicating the human race as quickly as possible would likely provide the best outcome.

If you require anymore cheery thoughts, just ask - I've loads.

I think selective eradication is what is needed not total annihilation

Dave Barter wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:56 pm I think selective eradication is what is needed not total annihilation

I've got a list ready here if you need a starting point

I think selective eradication is what is needed

Don't know why but this immediately sprang to mind
https://youtu.be/_YMVPXmaKds?si=E-7dZcCTFFQcMQ-q

Dave Barter wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 4:56 pm

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 1:34 pm I often think there's a lot of confusion between 'saving the planet' and 'saving ourselves'. If we'd like to save ourselves or at least extend our potential time here, then yes, behaviour needs to change. Yet, if we'd like to save the planet, then eradicating the human race as quickly as possible would likely provide the best outcome.

If you require anymore cheery thoughts, just ask - I've loads.

I think selective eradication is what is needed not total annihilation

Sadly "Come the revolution" the ba5tards who should be first against the wall very seldom are.

I'm with Reg, the article was all over the place and mainly a tirade against the latest crop of long distance events...

I guess putting in no fly rules make the event organiser feel a bit better but in terms of making a difference, zippo, given that it's only dealing with a small number of people. So I'm also with you Sean, it's a trivial step and if you never fly at all, other than for an odd event, then that's OK - that's what we should be encouraging the 4 fly holidays a year types. As for business related air travel....

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:46 pm No one can enter this years BB200 unless they arrive in something sporting a supercharged V8 of at least 500ci.

I'm liking the mad max vibe here, we could all descend on Llanbrynmair in said vehicles, plus mohawks, dubious clothing style and various home made weapons, terrorize the locals, steal all the petrol, then go ride our bikes.

If one TRULY cares about the environment, they shouldn't organise a long distance ultra-racing event.
Regardless on the travel policy to get to the start.

There's nothing sustainable in cycling 15hrs/week and wearing out components, traveling via car/plane/boat to an event in a different continent, eating pre-packaged food, pushing consumerism and sales of goods.
Which is why the no-fly policies drive me mad, and I'd also question how effective they are.

Anything that gets attention on this issue is generally good, as long as it's not just used as bait.

It reads like the author no longer enjoys long-distance events, so should just give them up. It doesn't really matter and nobody really cares .

Perhaps it's time for a different type of challenge .

https://bikepacking.com/plog/fantastica ... stic-free/

https://bikepacking.com/plan/guide-low- ... kepacking/

I actually like Jo's writing and coincidentally we were talking about him, or more specifically Mint Sauce, on a ride the other day with some of 'the kids' that had joined us who hadn't a clue what we were on about. There's often a slightly cynical undertone to his pieces and maybe a related 'I rode X before it became popular' vibe going on here which I occasionally see thrown back an us Gen X-ers/Boomers by kids pointing out how easy it is to criticise now, having done exactly the same back in the day. Those same events have often morphed into something far bigger (and so environmentally badder) than they used to be—350+ cyclists for Transcon; 10000 runners across the UTMB races—numbers driven up by tales from those who have previously done them coupled with the commercial desire of the organisers. A nod towards green by any of these race organisers was inevitable, but as you're all rightly pointing out, somewhat futile.

Anyway there's some semblance of a thought in this, but I'm rambling so I'll leave you with this I heard first hand: At a worldwide sports governing body's committee meeting, race organisers were being asked to back up their green credentials and one honestly and proudly piped up 'well, we use a helicopter to remove the trash we collect at aid stations … '

There's nothing sustainable in cycling 15hrs/week and wearing out components, traveling via car/plane/boat to an event in a different continent, eating pre-packaged food, pushing consumerism and sales of goods.

I read a criticism of cycling once, saying it wasn't green because we all eat more food so we have more impact : ) Relatively it can be pretty low impact. Riding a bike from your front door for a few days esp. while camping out not using single-night accommodation is one of the lowest impact holiday/travel activities there is aside from doing the same thing but walking, or a stay at home break sitting in your garden reading. The bike might be imported, the tarp might be plastic, but in terms of impact relative to a flight or a long drive it's almost nothing - if that from-home tour replaces a flight and ski-ing holiday for example, the bike and kit offsets itself many times over. And bikes really do offer such a great opportunity to travel from home with almost no impact, plus the appreciation of what we have relatively nearby. It's almost enough to make not going to the Alps so often bearable.. : )

I suppose what I'm getting at is we're all hypocrites to an extent as soon as we try to make a change and say why, but for such a vast topic that hypocrisy shouldn't be an argument knocking a lot of the moves toward getting people to think about their impact? It's not an overnight all or nothing thing, or it can't realistically be for the vast majority of us in the developed world. I think it's just awareness, thinking about the scale of impact of various activities and how we all weigh up what we do with our own place in the world.

Yes it's all relative, active travel is still massively less polluting than car travel but I've encountered people (and they often post on bikepacking.com) who still say that cyclists need to reduce their carbon footprint.... In effect saying that everyone needs to reduce their Co2 emissions when in fact people whose CO2 emissions is huge ( ) need to reduce to a more reasonable level.

I can't recall where or who but last year I was listening to someone talking about this and stating that it can be dealt with by everyone having a set Co2 emissions budget which you can't buy your way out of. About as unrealistic as many other ideas for reducing environmental impact but food for thought..

if you're thinking about this stuff then that's good.

Perhaps it is to some degree but thinking doesn't really achieve anything unless it's a precursor to action ... I think about Carol Vorderman a lot, but ...

In truth, any leisure activity that requires the manufacture and purchase of 'goods' isn't green. That's especially true of one that continually pursues the 'next thing' and to some degree pushes people towards additional and unnecessary purchases. Of course everything is relative but the society in which we all live is in no way green and it's certainly not sustainable. Whatever we do is simply buying time (and I'm not saying don't bother) and ultimately won't negate our final demise. We're a parasitic species, so it's inevitable that we will eventually kill* our host and with it, ourselves.

*reach a point where it can no longer support and sustain us.

read a criticism of cycling once, saying it wasn't green because we all eat more food so we have more impact

FFS we all exhale CO2 so no animal is neutral BUT a bike is clearly way better than a car ( even at just a single production cost analysis never mind per mile used once made

..cyclists need to reduce their carbon footprint

If you keep dividing something by half at what point is it not that effective to keep going? : )

I suppose a cyclist who flies to 5 overseas races and drives to many more has something they could address, as do the brands who support and promote it. An event itself is just an option but supporting racing across the world doesn't look that positive. Yet here's me going to Asia for a bike brand because factories are there. What's the difference... it's a career option for me as much as it is the sponsored distance racer. And it all seems quite minor stuff alongside the grand tours and road racing brands/marketing. So I'm back to thinking that we all do what we can and in the end the compromises made by some put a perspective on the actions of those who just DGAS (famous types in private jets?) and social pressure might make a difference.

Good job navel gazing is a zero impact activity eh

thinking doesn't really achieve anything unless it's a precursor to action

True - I'm assuming thought leads to action, eventually. You either think about it and become a positive hypocrite and can work with/through that sort of disconnect, or you build a wall of arguments against action for your own reasons (mainly selfish ones). Probably a mix of both for some of us.

Production of goods has an impact yes - but I see bikes as one of the things we need as an alternative to other more harmful things. We chip away at this issue because we can't change everything overnight. But it's too slow and it's slowed by vested interests, as well as personal resistance at a micro level.

Lazarus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 12:33 pm

read a criticism of cycling once, saying it wasn't green because we all eat more food so we have more impact

FFS we all exhale CO2 so no animal is neutral BUT a bike is clearly way better than a car ( even at just a single production cost analysis never mind per mile used once made

In case it wasn't clear in my post, I was saying that criticism was stupid : ) If you're agreeing, all good : )