Decathlon CEO apologises for bike shortages; More talk that Froome is to leave Ineos; UK’s first competitive BAME cycling team; Lachlan Morton's everesting non-record; Chris Boardman takes MP to task for cycle helmet tweet; Schrodinger's car driver + more

biker phil wrote:

Is the BCN (Black cyclists network) club open to white cyclists? After all, if there was a WCN (White cyclists network), it would be racist.

How long would it have taken you to Google the answer to this question? (the answer is yes, there are white members).
Have a read about why this club has been set up. It's really positive.

My point, benm, is that if there was such a club called the white cyclists network, it would be shut down amid howls of racism. By simply having a club called the black cyclists network, the members are putting themselves on a plinth and declaring they are different, yet are crying out to be treated as equals.  Why can cyclists not simply be a member of their local club, regardless of their race, creed or colour. I haven't read about them other than on here, I'm glad that the reason why it has been set up is positive, but calling it the title it is, sends out the wrong message.

Francis Cade, a cyclist and YouTuber, has a couple of great videos talking with Mani, one of the club's founders, about why a group like the BCN is helpful for cycling as a whole. Check them out - I'd be surprised is you thought they were 'putting themselves on a pedestal' after giving them a watch.

What would you call a club set up to encourage more black cyclists? It's just sensible advertising.
The name might send out the wrong message to you, but doing some basic research on the club quite quickly shows that the agenda is to increase diversity in cycling and create a club where people who, for many reasons haven't felt comfortable joining a local club, want to cycle together. What would the agenda for your white cyclist network possibly be? The only rationale I can think of is a prejudiced one, therefore it would be highly likely to get called out as such.

biker phil wrote:

My point, benm, is that if there was such a club called the white cyclists network, it would be shut down amid howls of racism. By simply having a club called the black cyclists network, the members are putting themselves on a plinth and declaring they are different, yet are crying out to be treated as equals.  Why can cyclists not simply be a member of their local club, regardless of their race, creed or colour. I haven't read about them other than on here, I'm glad that the reason why it has been set up is positive, but calling it the title it is, sends out the wrong message.

In the light of the recent news coverage of systemic abuse, widespread racial prejudice and police violence against black people, I'm struggling with this. I don't want to demean your opinion but I'm seriously scratching my head here. It's as if the stories of the civil rights movement in America, the Suffragettes, the anti-Apartheid protests and boycott of South African sporting events, Rock Against Racism, the Stephen Lawrence case, the experiences of black footballers here and in other countries (and many, many other things) have somehow not made an impression; that you've not seen the recent articles by about the senior black professionals and highly educated people - civil servants, politicians, police officers, academics, doctors and many others in this country - whose careers and personal lives have been blighted by racial prejudice.

By forming a cycling club named "Black cyclists network" they are somehow "putting themselves on a plinth"? What does that mean? And how do you know? Does forming a club for people like you indicate arrogance? If I lived in Spain or Turkey and set up a "British Cyclists Network" to help visitors from the UK and British people living there, would it be arrogant? Again, I'm not attacking you, I just don't understand.

How many black people do you know? Try asking them about prejudice, abuse and police harassment and the fact that that black people are 38 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. Francis Cade's recent chat with Mani of the BCN is definitely worth viewing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3jgbmRYZ9M

We're past the "treat everyone the same" phase. If there's an issue, affecting a group of people with protected characteristic, you assess and can make an intervention, which might indeed be to the exclusion of others. 
Example: My hospital are offering vitamin D tablets to BAME colleagues. You, Biker Phil, assuming you are white (like me) and don't have one of the other medical needs indicated, will have to buy your own, and /or eat some oily fish. 

David9694 wrote:

We're past the "treat everyone the same" phase. If there's an issue, affecting a group of people with protected characteristic, you assess and can make an intervention, which might indeed be to the exclusion of others. 
Example: My hospital are offering vitamin D tablets to BAME colleagues. You, Biker Phil, assuming you are white (like me) and don't have one of the other medical needs indicated, will have to buy your own, and /or eat some oily fish. 

You'd be better off exposing skin to sunshine for about 10 minutes or so to get your vitamin D topped up, but it's not so likely that you'll be deficient in it (especially if you're cycling outside regularly).

I've read that there's investigations into vitamin D levels and Covid severity, but I didn't know that hospitals were handing it out already.

hawkinspeter wrote:

You'd be better off exposing skin to sunshine for about 10 minutes or so to get your vitamin D topped up, but it's not so likely that you'll be deficient in it (especially if you're cycling outside regularly).

People with darker skin require longer exposure to sunlight to build the necessary levels of vitamin D. 10 minutes may not be enough, even for pale-skinned people, unless it's every day when the sun is high enough in the sky and even then arms and legs should be exposed. If you work indoors during the day it may be very difficult to get enough sunlight exposure (though I agree that this is by far the best way to improve and maintain vitamin D levels).

For supplementation vitamin D3 is more effective than D2. Some studies have suggested that vitamin D supplementation is better taken with vitamin K. Sunlight and fresh fruit and veg will always be better for you than tablets or a sunbed.

I recall reading somewhere that IIRC Singapore was trialling vitamin D, magnesium and vitamin K to help with Covid. And yes, vitamin D2 may well be useless as it's processed differently to D3.

You can't get vitamin D from the sun in the uk for 5 months of the year no matter how hard you try the sun isn't high enough in the sky. So yeah take your vitamins

Biker Phil, I'm not going to have a pop at you but I'm going to try to give a different perspective on this, as far as I understand it, being a white person myself. I appreciate that my perspective and explanation may be fumbling and unclear at times, as I certainly don't claim to have a complete understanding of the issues myself.  I have road cycled and mountain biked in Sheffield and the Peak District for over 10 years now. In all those years I could probably count the numbers of BAME roadies that I have seen on the fingers of both hands. I don't recall seeing any BAME roadies as part of chain gangs or club rides. Similarly, when I was a keen fell runner (a few years ago, admittedly), I'm not sure I saw any BAME runners at any races, apart from one member of my club. In my years mountain biking, I recall seeing very few black mountain bikers. I'm sure that my brother, who climbs and canoes, would probably say the same about those two pursuits. Seeing as how a good proportion of the UK's population is BAME, and (for example) there is good representation of the black population in football, it would seem that certain sports, or outdoor pursuits, have some kind of issues with attracting certain sections of the population. Cycling would seem to be one of these. As it stands, white people don't need to set up whites only cycling clubs. It just seems to be the case that this is the norm anyway. I am in no way suggesting that cycling clubs actively excude non-white people. It may just be, that in some, or a number of ways (that I suppose some white people may find difficult to understand), some, or many BAME people feel that such clubs are unwelcoming. Hence they may feel the need to set up a club, or network, with the specific aim of overcoming any barriers to participation that these sections of the population may experience, or perceive. I always remember at an AGM of my running club, when the under-representation of BAME people was discussed, the feeling was very much "Well they know we are here, and they are very welcome to join us". This was no doubt true. But there was very little appetite for trying to find ways to pro-actively recruit amongst those communities, or to understand what barriers (real or perceived) there were to them joining the club. In a similar way (although I'm sure that the analogy is not perfect), I'd imagine that the reason that it was felt necessary to institute a 'Woman's Hour' on the radio was because, at that time, the vast majority of radio shows were felt to serve men. In a similar vein, the reason that there has been a need for a "Black Lives Matter" movement is because it's pretty clear that to certain, powerful sections of the police and the those in Government, black lives matter less than white lives. It doesn't really work to simply reverse the situation and say that a "White Cycling Network" would be racist, and so imply that a black cycling network must be racist too. It ignores the obvious power imbalance between majority and minority ethnic communities, and why minorities may need to take certain measures and actions to empower themselves, that there is simply no need for majorities to take.

The thing is, it's not as if there's all these BAME cyclists and there is some barrier to them joining clubs. Last time this issue came up I took more notice on my daily commute. Plenty of BAME kids walking to school, but almost no adults cycling to work - almost everyone on a bike was white. It did make me wonder, at the level of individual personal choice, what makes one person choose to cycle and another not, and how does colour come into it.

I'd guess that it's something to do with owning a car being seen as a status symbol or rather that not owning a car is seen as a sign of being poor. BAME communities might be more sensitive to being judged by others as they get so much more hassle because of their looks and also BAME communities tend to live in disadvantaged areas.

Isn't there an actual offence in that there 'Merica of "driving while black"?

(or, it seems like there is).

I read an article recently which said - even here in Old Blighty - that many police officers have an attitude that someone who is BAME and is either well-dressed or driving a 'good' car is seen as "fair game"

The 'cyclist network' is already white. So there is no need to label it 'white'. It's a given and it's a fact. I used to work in professional motor sports and travelled the world doing so - and i never saw a black mechanic, team crew member, media representative, driver, physio . . . . I am sure it's the same in professional cycling. Black people were not excluded but they certainly weren't included either.  Just look around - all positions of influence and power are held by white mostly males. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with promoting minorities (disabled, BAME etc) and there is no need to feel threatened by it either. Your privilege is not under threat. 

"The comments section is getting increasingly vitriolic and unpleasant...."

From Rich_cb, Mr Benign and friendly himself.

I only take issue with people who lie and mislead people deliberately.

So, basically just you.

I don't routinely swear at people, call them scum or, satirically I'm sure, suggest they should be shot.

I'm interested in politics, occasionally a shiney new gadget or thing, and very little interested in how fast the cycling professionals are going this year, or if someone is leaving one team to go to another. Overall I'm glad they do their thing because it gets cycling a bit of (mostly) positive profile as the triumphs of 2012 fade into memory, and more of a voice. 

what I'm concerned about comes back to public policy, attitudes and therefore to politics. politics - along with  death, sex, religion - difficult and upsetting, not discussed in polite society. Yet here we are. 
Labour has an uneasy relationship down the years with the environment with anti-war, with controlling the car - traditionally the party of heavy industry, of workers' jobs - by no means perfect, but way better than most Conservatives on the issues that concern us.   Over the last 60 years we've seen the rise and rise of the car and all that goes with that - we have to call it together. 

Rich_cb wrote:

Alexuk may stray towards hyperbole but the point is valid. If a Conservative MP or Brexit supporter says something stupid these details are prominently displayed. The converse is definitely not the case as today's blog shows. The comments section is getting increasingly vitriolic and unpleasant and I'm sure it's related to the increasing politicisation of what is supposedly a cycling website.

Leaving aside the wider question of whether those of different political persuasions are treated differently in general (and my feeling is that while that may well be true below the line, it's less true of road.cc itself), in this particular case the MP has only made the relatively minor and common (indeed, common among many who cycle) error of being misguided about helmet use. It should be challenged and corrected, but that's about it. They haven't come out with any of the more egregious nonsense about cyclists being 'a menace', causing congestion, or constantly ignoring the rules of the road that would warrant a more robust condemnation.

Alright, I'll help restore your trust in the site - or it's readership at least - being something of a lefty myself:

Bloody silly comment from a Labour MP that. I expect better.

Did you mean to put that comment on the daily mail website? 

Why do you choose to browse the site? I know what I do when I'm unhappy with something, I get rid of it. Your choice.

On yer bike

"....Predictable Left Bias; these are words that spring to mind of this website and its audience."

I think you mean a rational, sensible position adopted by any thinking person having seen the ultra-shambles of this government.

eburtthebike wrote:

"....Predictable Left Bias; these are words that spring to mind of this website and its audience."

I think you mean a rational, sensible position adopted by any thinking person having seen the ultra-shambles of this government.

There are plenty of people who lean right and think the current government is a shitshow.

It's not the direction of one's political compass that has anything to do with one's capability for rational thought, it's the weight of it.