One Less F***ing Revhead

"Shane Stanley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Resound" wrote:

As an activity, it contributes sod all in terms of vehicle use.

Comparing it with, say, the Tour de France could be an interesting
exercise...

Or chess. My point was that equating it with commuting daily in a 2½ tonne
plus 4WD is just daft.

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:38:34 +1000
Shane Stanley wrote:
In article ,
"Resound" wrote:

As an activity, it contributes sod all in terms of vehicle use.

Comparing it with, say, the Tour de France could be an interesting
exercise...

Hmm... if you compare one race - say a touring car race - with the
one race of the Tour, looking at the number of motor vehicles
*involved* in the tour and being ridden/driven while the race is on, I
suspect the TOur scores badly

Zebee

Resound Wrote:
"vaudegiant" wrote
in
message ...

Bleve Wrote:


But, I don't see the harm in a very small sport (there's
not a lot of people with CAMS licences) that uses a little bit of
space
(that we, as cyclists get to use too, I've done road races at
Phillip
Is, Sandown etc ... they make great bike race tracks) and a
*miniscule*
amount of our resources, and entertains quite a few punters. Car
racing is a luxury and its overall impact is next to nothing, .


We could all use that argument, and indeed, many do. Someone driving
around town in their big gas guzzler (like the twot in the hummer in
Lygon St the other night) could well justify their use of resources
by
saying..."Well my personal use is actually quite miniscule, and
whether
I waste resources or not won't make a difference to anything"...and
they
are right, to a point. But of course lots and lots of miniscule
amounts
add up to large amounts. A car racer may not use much fuel when
compared to a 747, but sure uses a lot when compared to me.

That'd be a reasonable point if we were comparing individuals, but
we're
comparing activities. The contention was that car racing is this, does
that
and causes the other. As an activity, it contributes sod all in terms
of
vehicle use.


Point taken, but any group activity involves numerous indivdual acts
(choices). Can anyone deny personal responsibility for taking part in a
group activity? If we all pretend that individual choices and actions
have no impact, then we are in big trouble, because the only thing that
will offset the effects of climate change, for example, is the acts of
individuals.


Pat


Pat


--
vaudegiant

"vaudegiant" wrote in
message ...

Resound Wrote:
"vaudegiant" wrote
in
message ...

Bleve Wrote:


But, I don't see the harm in a very small sport (there's
not a lot of people with CAMS licences) that uses a little bit of
space
(that we, as cyclists get to use too, I've done road races at
Phillip
Is, Sandown etc ... they make great bike race tracks) and a
*miniscule*
amount of our resources, and entertains quite a few punters. Car
racing is a luxury and its overall impact is next to nothing, .


We could all use that argument, and indeed, many do. Someone driving
around town in their big gas guzzler (like the twot in the hummer in
Lygon St the other night) could well justify their use of resources
by
saying..."Well my personal use is actually quite miniscule, and
whether
I waste resources or not won't make a difference to anything"...and
they
are right, to a point. But of course lots and lots of miniscule
amounts
add up to large amounts. A car racer may not use much fuel when
compared to a 747, but sure uses a lot when compared to me.

That'd be a reasonable point if we were comparing individuals, but
we're
comparing activities. The contention was that car racing is this, does
that
and causes the other. As an activity, it contributes sod all in terms
of
vehicle use.


Point taken, but any group activity involves numerous indivdual acts
(choices). Can anyone deny personal responsibility for taking part in a
group activity? If we all pretend that individual choices and actions
have no impact, then we are in big trouble, because the only thing that
will offset the effects of climate change, for example, is the acts of
individuals.

Then why should Brock be vilified if we're talking about individual choices
and actions rather than the effect of a group?

Resound

Then why should Brock be vilified if we're talking about individual choices
and actions rather than the effect of a group?[/QUOTE Wrote:


I don't think Brock should be vilified. He was a hero of mine when I
was growing up and into car racing, and is obviously one of lifes' good
guys. However, if you subscribe to the theory of global climate change /
peak oil etc, then I dare say his actions were not the best for the
planet, although maybe he led a very ecologically virtuous life in all
other respects. Many, many out there worse than him though.


Pat


--
vaudegiant