Papa Tom

I like my Guinness Draught as much as the next guy, but with so many cyclists being picked off the road and killed by drunken drivers, why do we, as a community, continue to support events that are sponsored by beer and alcohol producers?

qcpmsame 

Tom,
I'd venture the guess it that beer and cycling, as well as running, are closely related to beer sales and the demographics they are looking for in their campaigns. Our local Budweiser distributor sponsors a lot of events here, in the bicycling and running communities. They provide signage (with the logos of course) and other things to events free of charge. I haven't seen the free beer after running races lately like they did a whole lot in the 80's. Personally, I don't have a problem with it when it is done responsibly, by the organizers and the beer distributors. I do understand your point completely and I don't have or, want to provide, an answer for eliminating their support, it seems that they are the only ones to pony up the sums that these events can take to pull off. Interesting topic for thought, thanks for bringing it up

BigAura

$$$$$$

alicestrong

I dunno. Maybe we want those drunken drivers to ride bikes instead so they won't kill as many people??

Mobile 155

Lets be realistic. A lot of riders drink beer, eat pizza, and party like it is 1999. Not all I agree but the ones that participate do and the ones that don't they aren't interested in. Who else is interested in spending that kind of money? Notice the other big sponsors are the other half of the equation, car companies.

howsteepisit

How many riders are "picked off the road and killed by drunken drivers"?

dvs cycles

Alchohol is NOT the problem it an irresponsible PEOPLE problem. Just as the gun problem is.
I have drinks but am responsible enough to not drive.
I have guns but use them resposibly and keep them secure from those who would not.
Don't blame the product for the crime.

Mort Canard

Yep! This! ^
They want to be associated with healthy dynamic people. Fortunately I have never seen alcoholic beverages being offered as recovery drinks.

irwin7638

We like beer, they can afford to.

Marc

Mobile 155

When I have been to Germany I am sure they would never even question such a post. And one day I wouldn't be surprised to see Rolled Gold being the sponsor for Colorado bike rides.

cccorlew

Because beer is a beautiful thing, and after a long ride it's even a more beautiful thing.
If most cyclists didn't agree with me beer companies wouldn't sponsor rides.

Now, next question?

cyclinfool

If your going to give a $ to charity do your research and find out how much is getting skimmed off the top. If your effort gets a brewer or, I dare say a w#ore house, to devote money to a good cause, do it. I never look at the horses mouth, just who the benefactor is.

Dudelsack 

The OP really should know the answer to this. If he doesn't, well shame on him.

I think cell phones are a way bigger threat to cyclists than Guinness Stout. Radio Shack and T-Mobile have or had teams. Should we get our knickers in a twist about it?

Retro Grouch 

I personally know of at least two riders who were hit and killed by cell phone users. None by drunk drivers.

CandSAdventures

Well, let's see.....I did the tour Dallas this year: Cliff Bars and the city of Dallas; North Texas Classic: Subway, Frito Lay and Schlotzkys. I have several others planned: Collin Classic: 15 sponsors listed, no alcohol companies; ditto for the tour de Italia, tour de Cure.......several more. Maybe because these are local events? Probably not, DFW has thousands of cyclists. I did not check all of the ones I have planned but the HHH was the only one I checked that w/ a beer sponsor.

Not that it would have mattered to me. I like doing charity rides and if a beer sponsor steps up and makes it happen for the charity, I am all for it.

Dudelsack 

Locally someone tried to make a ruckus about McDonalds sponsoring both rides and teams. When I read about it, I got a Double Cheeseburger. It wasn't very good but self-righteousness doesn't sit well with me.

cccorlew

If you don't like beer, you could always adopt the philosophy of an early Salvation Army leader:

"I'd take money from the devil to do the work of God."

Me, I'll take pint, thank you.

Papa Tom

You guys are a pisser. Now I'm really glad I started this thread!

I don't have the stats at my fingertips, but the article in last week's local newspaper about a drunken driver striking and killing a bicyclist was certainly not the first I've seen in recent months. Of course I know it's not as simple as "the beer company sponsors the ride, a driver gets drunk and kills a cyclist." However, with so many riders on the various bike forums constantly reporting hits and near misses with drunken drivers, I wondered why we have no problem joining rides sponsored by the stuff that makes those drivers drunk.

Zinger

xactly

When the old Red Zinger Classic grew too big for Celestial Seasonings to handle Mo Siegel sold the whole operation to Coors for a $ buck just to keep it going. They could afford it and so it was that the race became the Coors Classic and continued to inspire a generation of American cyclists to ride. In fact I was inspired by Michael Aisner's promotional videos for the "Zinger" even before he became race director for the Coors Classics.

So for every cyclist killed by a drunk, Coors sponsorship replaced with several more . I avoid most of the drunks by not riding at night.

bruce19

According to US NHTSA data:

"In 2010, alcohol was involved in 2,020 (or 47.2 percent) of pedestrian fatalities, 11,087 (or 39.9 percent) of vehicle occupant fatalities, 209 (or 33.8 percent) of pedal cyclist fatalities (as shown in Figure 2)."

I'm assuming that very few cyclists were the drunks.

Dudelsack 

Remember, when you assume you make an ass out of u and me.

Seriously, I question that assumption. Only one fatality locally since I've been riding 6-7 years) was alcohol related, and it was augmented by weed.

I worry about my s-I-l in Colorado now that the pot heads, dopers, and reefer madnass freaks took over.

ModeratedUser150120149

It is seldom wise or effective to blame the object for human behavior. Lots of good examples of that. Absolutely nothing wrong with limited consumption of most recreational mind altering substances. In fact, beer, in particular, has long been considered a food in most of the world. Making a substance illegal for adults, over history, has only created a black market and caused deadly violence as merchants worked out their marketing disputes. It has also created a culture of violence and diversion for law enforcement. As a matter of fact there was a recent PBS documentary on just that.

So, beer is not bad. Merchants have the money. People enjoy it. Bring it on. BUT, when someone risks someone's life or limb other than their own lock them up.

TomD77

Allow??? There's a whole thesis in the use of that word.

So if you accept the premise that the only acceptable sponsors are those whose products cannot be misused or abused to cause harm, I guess we're pretty much limited to toothpaste and postage stamps.

ModeratedUser150120149

On a broader scale: People are going to use drugs of one kind or another to celebrate, relax, refresh, or just to fry their brains. Wild animals are the same. I've seen wolves, bears, various birds, etc. seeking out fermented fruit and the leaves of some plants. Put a stopper on one kind of drug and people will create another.

Trying to stop this kind of thing has never been successful and wastes valuable resources that can better be used productively. I know this position is a bit controversial. But, as the TV shows say: That is what the evidence says.

B. Carfree

A group of my friends are going to put on a ride this Fall. Locally, nearly every ride is at least partly sponsored by Ninkasi Brewery, a local brewery that was started and expanded with funds provided by our local government (public investment, private profits). My neighborhood, where the brewery's bar is located, has been so over run with drunk drivers that most of the residents who used to walk and ride around the 'hood have either reverted to using their cars or are staying indoors. Incidentally, the local hospital conducted a little study last year on our regional health and we have twice the national average of alcohol-related deaths.

In light of that, we are asking the same question that the OP is. Is it proper for us to take money, and provide advertising, for a company that is causing harm to the cycling community locally? Does the upside of our ride outweigh any downside? We haven't made a decision yet, but it is an issue for us.

To those who say "don't blame the product for the dangerous behavior": It is quite well established that alcohol reduces inhibitions and interferes with accurate self-assessment while impairing judgment. The product causes the behavior. This is different than other products for that reason.