"We, as a community"? What community is that?

The obvious response is don't join the rides if that bothers you. I think the clear majority of riders don't really care. Without sponsors either events don't happen or the participant fees go way up.

Beer sales are big - Super Bowl, NASCAR, and lots of local fairs and charities. I'm just glad whenever any sponsor contributes money to keep costs down and just makes them happen.

This is a no win discussion. Drunk drivers are not going to be reduced in number because breweries stop sponsoring rides. The real question is why don't we use existing technology from keeping drunk people from driving?

We have a few organized rides in wine country sponsored by wineries, but I'm not aware of any organized rides in Northern California sponsored by breweries. Wouldn't be a surprise if there were a couple, however.

Avoiding riding at night may lower the risk of getting hit by a drunk, but distracted driving is a 24/7 hazard and probably more likely during daylight.

+1

Most of us are thirsty after a good ride "my friend" and most of us drink responsibly!

Drunk drivers are not going to be reduced in number because breweries stop sponsoring rides.

But drunk driving might well be reduced if the image of alcohol consumption were not so prevalent throughout society. Every event plays a small role in the overall societal picture that encourages alcohol consumption.

Whether or not cyclists should care is another matter. It's really not a concern of mine.

Chico Wildflower Century - sponsors include the Sierra Nevada Brewery.

>>>>"We, as a community"? What community is that?<<<<

The bicycling community

So, no one in your community has had the sense to post a couple of police with breathalyzers near the brewery with instructions to get the drunks off the road? Talk about a target-rich environment.

What? The government won't do it because they have a commercial interest in it? Are you daring to suggest that government can be corrupt? Holy Fox News!

Just sounds like any teenager to me.

There was the option to get a free beer at the end of the Cap2Cap ride from a local, Richmond, VA, microbrewery--in fact a brew labeled for the Cap2Cap. I did not partake. I'm not a prude nor a teetotaler, and I do have an occasional beer or other drink, but, being diabetic, I imbibe seldom, once or twice a year(sometimes not at all in a whole calender year).

I had no issue with a beer company being one of the contributing sponsors of the Cap2Cap. Now, if it had been a cigarette company, that would be an entirely different matter.

When did the "bicycling community" become a community of teetotalers or a community of morality enforcement?

+1. Yep. Plus a relatively large share of the "bicycling community" ride because of DYI's and they can't drive.

This worked out pretty good for me and 41 other riders:

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-paid-to-do-it-!

Really? I had no idea there were statistics available on this. How large a share? and relative to what?

OK, I've read this thread again and have two additional thoughts. Well, one is more of a question.

It's been fairly well documented for over 40 years (See Joel M. Fort's book The Pleasure Seekers as an historical reference) that since we began recording history, people find ways to alter consciousness or body experiences by ingesting various substances. Those substances can be alcohol, tobacco, sugar, marijuana, peyote, caffeine, and the list goes on and on. It is likely a part of being human that won’t change any time soon. There have always been some elements of the human population that seek these experiences. If we take this as true then I believe we are thinking about the issue incorrectly. The issue isn’t the alcohol. Rather, it’s the impairment alcohol or any other activity/substance can cause while doing dangerous things. I don’t think it’s in our long term benefit to demonize cell phones, alcohol or other things when trying to address a very real problem. Distracted driving and/or impaired driving are the real issue. If one follows the logic behind general systems theory as applied to social systems, you can reasonably ask where are the leverage points that are most likely to be successful. (Keep in mind that correct leverage points can utilize very small shifts in one thing that produce a very large change in everything.) I’m not sure what those leverage points are. But I am sure the understandable and usually immediate knee-jerk reaction to a situation is not the best way to find them.

Sorry for the length of this, but on to the second issue (or really question):
Papa Tom, can you say more about your thinking? What is it that brought this to the forefront? How or why has this become something of concern to you? As I read your post and then the responses, I think I might start feeling defensive if I were the OP. So, rather than put you on the defensive, I’m interested in more fully understanding your thinking. Can/will you elaborate?

Im not much of a beer drinker. Maybe a 6 pack a year. To me it tastes just like what it is sour barley water.

However im glad beer companies sponsor bike racing. Otherwise we might not have them. I attended many Coors Classic races, and really enjoyed them. Got to see a lot big name international racers.

The bottom line here it is not the beer, it is the irrresponsible fool that drives drunk, blame him not the beer.

Perhaps the OP can elaborate on what companies or organizations ARE on HIS "community's" approved list of sponsors.

Google "bikes and brews". They just had one here in Springfield, MO.

My theory about beer is this: I know I'm supposed to drink lots of water, its good for me. Beer is mostly water. So drinking lots of beer is good for me.

According to the CDC.....

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1


Whether we are a community of cyclists, pedestrians or drivers this is clearly a problem. And this number does not include the many people who are destroying their bodies with alcohol and the health care cost to society. If I were going to ask the question it would be: Why do we as a society support alcohol in any way? (BTW it is not a question I'm asking) For me there are two answers that leap to mind.

1. Most people drink responsibly and derive satisfaction from doing so. I am one of them.
2. If I am not hurting others I am loathe to accept others' (including government) prescription for how I should live my life.

To echo others....no one will stop people from drinking. Period. Witness Prohibition. I will make my choices and I'm happy to let others make theirs. Decline to act responsibly and suffer the consequences. Stiff sentences are fine with me.

So let's ban people.

Cool idea, bro. You first.

Tour Of California sponsor Amgen , makes EPO, a popular blood doping drug [for anemia]
Bike Racers try to get through in spite of post race drug screenings.

I thought it Ironic at least ..

Sorry, I'm not addicted to alcohol or guns.