Appearing at the trial for disrupting the 2023 UCI men’s road race World Championships, one of the climate activists accused the “wider cycling community” of being complicit in climate change and ignorant about the oil and gas companies sponsoring the races.
This year’s UCI men’s road race from Edinburgh to Glasgow, eventually won by the Dutch ciclisimo star Mathieu van der Poel, was halted for almost an hour when four activists from the Scottish climate action group This is Rigged glued their hands to the road on the B818 road near the Carron Valley Reservoir in Stirlingshire, right before the peloton approached.
The riders were brought to a standstill between Bonnybridge and Lennoxtown, as officials and police authorities tried to negotiate with the protestors and then subsequently used a debonding chemical to free their hands.
Appearing in court in August, the four activists pleaded not guilty to causing a breach of the peace and said that they had taken the steps to draw attention to the ongoing global climate crisis.
Now on trial at the Falkirk Sheriff Court on Wednesday, the activists reiterated their reasonings and tried to explain why they were forced to take the steps they took.
21-year-old student Catriona Roberts said: “If your house is on fire and you run into the road, rooted in fear, and you block the traffic, it is not a breach of the peace.”
Romane Moulin, a renewable energy software developer said that she had acted for the “greater good, being disruptive to prevent disruption to millions”.
The four were eventually let off after being admonished, with 29-year-old carer Ben Taylor the only recipient of a fine of £250, reports The Telegraph.
During the proceedings, Taylor, at one point, said that the cycling race “was in itself causing rolling disruption across Scotland”, adding that “the wider cycling community was complicit and ignorant about oil and gas companies sponsoring their races”.
He said the climate change crisis was “now very serious” and world leaders were not acting.
Sheriff McCulloch interjected: “Some people might say if it’s the leaders you claim don’t act properly, it’s to them you should be directing your ire, not towards the UCI and the cyclists in the race.”
The course of the men’s road race, starting from Edinburgh before crossing River Forth and heading south-west to Glasgow, took the riders along some of Scotland’s biggest polluting plants, one of them owned by Shell and two owned by Ineos.
Shell, that has been accused of attempting to suppress the evidence of global warming, besides holding its own internal discussions about climate change for decades and even making a film on the subject in 1991*, is the main sponsor for British Cycling, with cyclists from Team GB riding the race in Scotland with the company’s logo on their shoulders.
> “Greenwashing, pure and simple” – fury as Shell UK sponsors British Cycling
Meanwhile, Ineos sponsors the UK-based men’s cycling team Ineos Grenadiers, formerly Team Sky — the wildly successful team which saw the likes of Sir Bradley Wiggins, Chris Froome and even Mark Cavendish (albeit only for a year), dominate the cycling world for years.
Ineos itself is a British chemicals company founded by Sir Jim Ratcliffe, and also manufacturers the 4×4 SUV Ineos Grenadier, which the likes of former Scottish pro cyclist David Millar and Welsh Tour de France winner and Ineos rider Geraint Thomas have recently come under fire for owning.
In fact, in a statement released by This Is Rigged in the immediate aftermath of the protest, one of the four activists, Cat Roberts, said: “The fact that Ineos has been allowed to sponsor a team in the race around the Campsie Fells – which were engulfed in wildfires last month – is a disgrace and an insult to both the cycling community and the people of Scotland.
“We cannot continue with business as usual while our country burns and our futures are ruined. Time is of the essence and we need to act like it. The Scottish government must stand up to Westminster and oppose all new oil and gas, and implement a fair transition now.”
The Sheriff said he accepted that all the four activists in question firmly “held views and beliefs”, but protests must be “proportionate and peaceful”. In his opinion, their actions were peaceful, but bringing the riders to a halt in a world championship cycling race was not a proportionate measure.
While the presence of oil and gas magnates in the world of cycling is undeniable, do you think the claim that the wider cycling community is ignorant and complicit in the global climate crisis true? Let us know in the comments…
* Regarding Shell’s position on climate change and global warming, a Shell spokesperson has contacted road.cc since the first publication of this article, and supplied this statement:
The Shell Group did not have unique knowledge about climate change. The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has long been part of public discussion and ongoing scientific research for many decades; the vast public record of media articles, scientific journals and government reports over the last 50 years makes this clear.
“Shell’s position on climate change has been publicly documented for more than 30 years, including in publications such as our Annual Reports and Sustainability Reports.
The paragraph in the original article has been edited to note that Shell has been ‘accused of’ suppressing evidence of global warming.
19 thoughts on “Protestor who blocked UCI Worlds road race accuses cycling community of being complicit in climate crisis”
Quote:
If that were the case the world would be a very much cleaner place. They’ve tried to suppress evidence about the dangers of climate change, which is rather different.
Indeed. Big oil lied about
Indeed. Big oil lied about the environmental impacts, big tobacco lied about health outcomes, and big food is doing the same.
“she had acted for the
“she had acted for the “greater good, being disruptive to prevent disruption to millions”.”
I get this argument, although it’s not a defence in law. I’m not sure I can think of many examples of pure disruption actually being effective though. Are there cycling fans or art lovers who think “I wasn’t sure what to do about climate change, but now a race has been disrupted/a painting disfigured I think I’ll listen to these guys as they must have the answers”?
It’s not like it’s a mass popular march or similar, where thousands have decided to demonstrate: whether or not I agree with marchers’ causes, sheer weight of numbers suggests they should be heard.
I do agree with these guys’ view of the scale of the problem, although probably not their preferred solutions. I can’t see how, as a tactic, just pissing off people going about their daily lives is going to achieve anything. Merely getting on TV and improving your standing with other protestors doesn’t actually save the planet.
Brauchsel wrote:
How has this post been up for sixteen hours and nobody has posted a Hot Fuzz meme??
brooksby wrote:
Let’s see:
Let’s see:
I think it can be safely said that I’m part of the “wider cycling community”. I’m not sure what Ben said is particularly helpful. Yes certain aspects of the cycling industry are sadly associated with the fossil fuel industry, that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop cycling. Presumably he doesn’t genuinely think no-one in “the wider cycling community” knows about this but he’s poorly worded it.
He also appears to be
He also appears to be ignoring that part of the “wider cycling community” that couldn’t care less about, or even actively dislikes, the racing side of things (that definitely doesn’t include me but I know several people who would fall into that category). It’s a bit like saying that everybody who drives a car must be an F1 fan.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I cycle for utility and I also cycle for lesiure, not sure if Audax would be considered sport since we are not racing (honest guv). Really don’t care about the pro tour. And actively against events like the tour where the number of motor vehicles driving the course of the route likely exceeds the number of actual bikes.
Climate activists are fully justified in disrupting bike races as far as I am concerned, even though bikes are better than cars. Bike races include too many of the latter.
I’d need to see the full
I’d need to see the full context of the quotes to be sure, but it’s reasonable in the context to think she’s not blaming every individual who cycles, rather meaning there is collective responsibility amongst those in actual establishment positions (particularly when it comes to racing) as well as those who support them. As a cyclist, arguably part of the ‘wider cycling community’ I’m not in any way offended by the assertion. I agree with it and is something that needs to be said more often, preferably by those within the community.
I support the goals of the environmental protest groups, and while I don’t support all of their tactics, and agree some stunts are ill judged, I can’t be doing with people complaining about disruption, especially when it’s to something like a bike race. People who think that’s beyond the pale have no idea of what’s coming. I don’t think it’s controversial to say Storm Babet caused a lot more disruption than a handful of people in orange t-shirts throwing some glitter.
I don’t consider myself part
I don’t consider myself part of the “wider cycling community” much to the relief of some on here I am sure! I do think I should be what is representative of the wider road using community though. Yes I own a car, two in fact, one a small SUV (oh the horror!) But I also own three bikes, my main one being a gravel bike that has mudgaurds and a pannier rack permantly affixed, as I consider it transport. I commute to work by train and the six miles to the train station by bike.
Elsewhere I use common sense, public transport like in many places is pants, so if I need to travel distance or if I need to buy bulky stuff I will use the car. If I need to get a few items that can go on the pannier, I will use the bike.
I don’t really care about cycling as a sport, but I do engage regulary with local councillors on matters regarding cycling and after much nagging have managed to get KCC to at least sweep one of the main cycling routes on an occassional basis.
Lock the loonies up.
Lock the loonies up.
Or leave them glued to the road indefinitely, they’d soon find out it’s not a great idea.
Another one I saw yesterday
Another one I saw yesterday was ” Tomato soup burst”. Seriously.
“Strangely Brown”, more like.
“Strangely Brown”, more like.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Great suggestion. Kindly present yourself at the nearest gaol.
Head-in-the-sand climate
Head-in-the-sand climate denier alert. Bet you subscribe to other conspiracy theories too. Like Trump, Boris, Liz, RishGPT.
The cycling community is of course complicit in the climate crisis. Maybe slightly less than the motoring lobby or disciples of RishGPT, but still complicit.
Lots of love from a proud-to-be Lefty, Woke, Snowflake, Guardian-reading Loser.
MattieKempy wrote:
At least you admit it. A bit embarrassing for you no doubt, but better than denial
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Im proud to be all of those things too. Although I feel Im more of a centrist and its the Overton window that has moved around me…..
Secret_squirrel wrote:
In the current politcal landscape the centre looks like the left, and the actual left is out of site.
I seem to remember large
I seem to remember large chunks of the cycling community complaining about the involvement of big oil etc in cycling as part of the industries greenwashing attempts.
I also suspect this is similar to arguments about supporting the military (Make cheaper fabric means cheaper uniforms + tents etc; Cheaper/better food = less military budget spent on food, more on weapons; better bicycles – paratroopers using them as light faster transport they can jump out of planes with etc)
Almost anything we do will eventually involve and so benefit big oil (see climate protesters using flags/signs made with oil based products and travelling to protests using oil based fuels/power production).
At least using bicycles moves us in the right direction. Protesting changes in the right direction (like cycling more, driving less) just allows those who don’t want any change to argue that nothing they can do will solve the problem perfectly therefore doing nothing is acceptable…