One Less F***ing Revhead

[Bleve]

Stuart Lamble wrote:
> On 2006-09-18, Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The
> > impact it has on natural resource consumption is miniscule. If anyone
> > touches that point, I suggest they look at how much fuel a 747 uses
> > flying to anywhere, and then see how much every race car in the world
> > uses, by comparison, and then see if they're still planning on some
> > 'round the world' holiday, courtesy of a few hundred thousand litres of
> > kero
>
> Consider, though, that the 747 carries a few hundred people (300?),
> while the race car doesn't.

But the racecar entertains quite a few more. Travel is, on the whole,
just another way we entertain ourselves before we die, no? So in terms
of entertainment vs resource use, racing cars is (esp when televised),
I humbly suggest, far less destructive and wasteful than fleets of 747s
circling the globe

 

[dave]

Bleve wrote:
> Donga wrote:
>> dave wrote:
>>> Donga wrote:
>>>> cogcontrol wrote:
>>>>> http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200609/s1736510.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> I should sympathise and I guess I do a little but sorry, my
>>>>> overwhelming reaction is - One Less F***ing Revhead setting a bad
>>>>> example.
>>>> Last night's TV news showed a bunch of Peter Brock memorials going on.
>>>> Looking at the hordes of mourners in their bogan cars and souvenir
>>>> clothes, it struck me that Brock's much-touted messages about road
>>>> safety, speed, cycling instead etc. seems not have reached many of the
>>>> mourners. The strongest example of all would have been if he said,
>>>> "This is dumb; I'm not doing it any more," but even that wouldn't have
>>>> got through.
>>>>
>>>> Donga
>>>>
>>> So motor racing is dumb? Thereby all the advances that have come from
>>> it like er.. disk brakes, traction control, antilock, .... are dumb?
>>> And advanced training is also dumb cos its about furthering ones skills
>>> and some of the most skilled race?
>>> And doing some good is dumb cos someone somewhere will think you may
>>> have done some harm sometime? Or maybe cos the bogons might admire you?
>>>
>>> I can't make up my mind if this is a troll or just an incredibly sad
>>> world view.
>> You are citing some virtuous aspects and ignoring the rest, e.g.
>> excessive speed on roads, unmuffled exhausts causing noise nuisance,
>> traffic due to people driving for the sake of driving, and I'm sure
>> someone will pipe up about the use of natural resources. All inspired
>> by motor racing and all dumb.
>
> My general experience with people who actually go out and get a CAMS
> licence and actually race (not the dickheads doing drags in Dandenong
> on the Princes Hwy or the riceboys doing burnouts on Chapel St when the
> lights change and plod is nowhere to be seen) is that they tend to be
> very safe, very responsible drivers. It's the idiot hoons that are the
> problem, and they don't take any notice of what happens in motorsport,
> save to get drunk every year watching Bathurst. The idiots aren't
> inspired by motorsport, they're just plain idiots, and they have cars.
> Sanctioned, organised motorsport is no worse than any other sport. The
> impact it has on natural resource consumption is miniscule. If anyone
> touches that point, I suggest they look at how much fuel a 747 uses
> flying to anywhere, and then see how much every race car in the world
> uses, by comparison, and then see if they're still planning on some
> 'round the world' holiday, courtesy of a few hundred thousand litres of
> kero
>
Well put Bleve. I really could not be bothered making that argument.
It did not seem to me that reason was going to be heeded. But you did
it and better than I would have

Dave

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-09-18, Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
[747 vs racecars, and environmental impact]
> But the racecar entertains quite a few more. Travel is, on the whole,
> just another way we entertain ourselves before we die, no? So in terms
> of entertainment vs resource use, racing cars is (esp when televised),
> I humbly suggest, far less destructive and wasteful than fleets of 747s
> circling the globe

I'll pay that one.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[Donga]

Bleve wrote:
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
> > On 2006-09-18, Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > The
> > > impact it has on natural resource consumption is miniscule. If anyone
> > > touches that point, I suggest they look at how much fuel a 747 uses
> > > flying to anywhere, and then see how much every race car in the world
> > > uses, by comparison, and then see if they're still planning on some
> > > 'round the world' holiday, courtesy of a few hundred thousand litres of
> > > kero
> >
> > Consider, though, that the 747 carries a few hundred people (300?),
> > while the race car doesn't.
>
> But the racecar entertains quite a few more. Travel is, on the whole,
> just another way we entertain ourselves before we die, no? So in terms
> of entertainment vs resource use, racing cars is (esp when televised),
> I humbly suggest, far less destructive and wasteful than fleets of 747s
> circling the globe

I'm confused Bleve. Weren't you saying "Bring on $2 per litre" a week
or so ago and bucketing those who chose a lifestyle requiring a car?
Now you seem like a car-racing fan. Shiverr me timberrs!

Donga

 

[Donga]

Terryc wrote:

> This is a bicycle newsgroup. If you want to laud Brockie, go to Aus.cars

Do you mean you won't be downloading the Brockie screensaver?

http://tinyurl.com/n2zok

May the crabs pick over your bones, arrrr!

Donga

 

[Paulie-AU]

I just love the way people justify things to themselves.

Please explain where the Aussie culture of "Noidin a voi oight" has come from if it has not come from Aussie motorsports and its "legends"?

As for the 747 to race car thing. FFS. Most races go from a to a to a to a to a to a to a to a to a. Or they get someone somewhere they really dont need to be for any reason other than the race going there.

 

[Resound]

"Donga" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bleve wrote:
>> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>> > On 2006-09-18, Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > The
>> > > impact it has on natural resource consumption is miniscule. If
>> > > anyone
>> > > touches that point, I suggest they look at how much fuel a 747 uses
>> > > flying to anywhere, and then see how much every race car in the world
>> > > uses, by comparison, and then see if they're still planning on some
>> > > 'round the world' holiday, courtesy of a few hundred thousand litres
>> > > of
>> > > kero
>> >
>> > Consider, though, that the 747 carries a few hundred people (300?),
>> > while the race car doesn't.
>>
>> But the racecar entertains quite a few more. Travel is, on the whole,
>> just another way we entertain ourselves before we die, no? So in terms
>> of entertainment vs resource use, racing cars is (esp when televised),
>> I humbly suggest, far less destructive and wasteful than fleets of 747s
>> circling the globe
>
> I'm confused Bleve. Weren't you saying "Bring on $2 per litre" a week
> or so ago and bucketing those who chose a lifestyle requiring a car?
> Now you seem like a car-racing fan. Shiverr me timberrs!
>
> Donga
>

That's not inconsistant. Racing doesn't choke the roads, causes precious few
deaths and injuries even compared to other sports, let alone the road toll
and creates an insignificant amount of pollution compared with general
transport. It's all too easy to turn cars into the nasty bogey man and then
just settle into the "cars are bad" mindset. I personally rather like cars.
I just don't think that they're universally appropriate as transport. I
usually use public transport or a bike. However they're not universally
inappropiate either. You could certainly make a point for cars needing to be
generally smaller and more efficient and definitely used less than they are
but to suggest that dispensing with self propelling personal transport
altogether is the way to go is as exclusive and mindless as maintaining that
cars are appropriate for all journeys.

 

[vaudegiant]

Stuart Lamble wrote:
> On 2006-09-18, Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The
> > impact it has on natural resource consumption is miniscule. If anyone
> > touches that point, I suggest they look at how much fuel a 747 uses
> > flying to anywhere, and then see how much every race car in the world
> > uses, by comparison, and then see if they're still planning on some
> > 'round the world' holiday, courtesy of a few hundred thousand litres of
> > kero
>
> Consider, though, that the 747 carries a few hundred people (300?),
> while the race car doesn't.

But the racecar entertains quite a few more. Travel is, on the whole,
just another way we entertain ourselves before we die, no? So in terms
of entertainment vs resource use, racing cars is (esp when televised),
I humbly suggest, far less destructive and wasteful than fleets of 747s
circling the globe

Both wasteful, both destructive, just one more so than the other.



Pat

 

[Bleve]

Paulie-AU wrote:
> I just love the way people justify things to themselves.
>
> Please explain where the Aussie culture of "Noidin a voi oight" has
> come from if it has not come from Aussie motorsports and its "legends"?

My dad drives a V8, and I don't think he's inspired by motorsport to do
so. I think he's a **** for doing it, but that's not the fault of
organised motorsport.

> As for the 747 to race car thing. FFS. Most races go from a to a to a
> to a to a to a to a to a to a. Or they get someone somewhere they
> really dont need to be for any reason other than the race going there.

Read what I wrote again, and try and understand it, before you miss the
point again.

 

[Bleve]

Donga wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
> > Stuart Lamble wrote:
> > > On 2006-09-18, Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > The
> > > > impact it has on natural resource consumption is miniscule. If anyone
> > > > touches that point, I suggest they look at how much fuel a 747 uses
> > > > flying to anywhere, and then see how much every race car in the world
> > > > uses, by comparison, and then see if they're still planning on some
> > > > 'round the world' holiday, courtesy of a few hundred thousand litres of
> > > > kero
> > >
> > > Consider, though, that the 747 carries a few hundred people (300?),
> > > while the race car doesn't.
> >
> > But the racecar entertains quite a few more. Travel is, on the whole,
> > just another way we entertain ourselves before we die, no? So in terms
> > of entertainment vs resource use, racing cars is (esp when televised),
> > I humbly suggest, far less destructive and wasteful than fleets of 747s
> > circling the globe
>
> I'm confused Bleve. Weren't you saying "Bring on $2 per litre" a week
> or so ago and bucketing those who chose a lifestyle requiring a car?
> Now you seem like a car-racing fan. Shiverr me timberrs!


heh! I don't own a car, and I see a lot of wasteful driving of them
and foolish decisions re where to live, work etc based on short sighted
cheap fuel. 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, and
if/when it gets too expensive, it'll just die off, we (the rest of us
who pay taxes to subsidise the costs of car use but don't have one and
choose not to use one) won't have to bail it out when its participants
start whinging. I *will* get to pay for millions of dumb tools
switching over to LPG so they can ferry little johnny 100km to his
<whatever> paid for by my taxes.

For what it's worth, I used to rally, it's a lot of fun, cost me a
fortune, and it taught me how to drive a car safely and handle it when
unexpected things happen, and also that the place to race is on closed
roads.

 

[vaudegiant]

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.


Pat

 

[dave]

Paulie-AU wrote:
> I just love the way people justify things to themselves.
>
> Please explain where the Aussie culture of "Noidin a voi oight" has
> come from if it has not come from Aussie motorsports and its "legends"?
>
> As for the 747 to race car thing. FFS. Most races go from a to a to a
> to a to a to a to a to a to a. Or they get someone somewhere they
> really dont need to be for any reason other than the race going there.
>
>
Luckily my cat was available to explain this to me. Cos miews I can
figure out.

 

[Resound]

"vaudegiant" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Resound" <[email protected]> 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...

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Resound]

"Shane Stanley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Resound" <[email protected]> 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.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:38:34 +1000
Shane Stanley <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Resound" <[email protected]> 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

 

[vaudegiant]

"vaudegiant" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> 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

 

[Resound]

"vaudegiant" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> Resound Wrote:
>> "vaudegiant" <[email protected]> wrote
>> in
>> message news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > 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?

 

[vaudegiant]

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