yacf cyclist doing it for money

[shyumu]

I completed a survey to say I would "never" do a charity bicycle ride again.
I think cycling should be normalised, not treated as a special thing that you only do for charity.
I think long distances on bicycles are just a matter of endurance - not a special ability.
I also happen to think that apartheid of bicycles and motor vehicles leads to a more aggressive interaction when they inevitably come back together... I would rather see "strict liability" than segregation of cycle facilities.  (I know this is off topic at the start of my own topic... sorry)

... and yet here I am creating a JustGiving page to raise money for Centrepoint based on doing some cycling I planned to do anyway.

I think a few things have influenced me to do this.

• "What charity are you doing this for?"... the question I've been asked while audaxing... well, if people think it's worth making a charitable donation because I'm out for a ride, perhaps I should provide the facilities.
• Long distance cycling is not normal... look at the Raleigh "Tommy Godwin" competition; when you remove duplicates there are only 16 entries (26/03/14).
• I love cycling - why should that mean I can't do it for charity?
• I guess I'm not asking to be sponsored - I'm raising awareness and asking for donations to Centrepoint

I'm not asking anyone here to make a donation to Centrepoint on the basis that I'm doing a few bicycle rides that I'll enjoy anyway, but I'm just wondering out loud why the cycling community is so opposed to cycling for charity.  Is it because we're fed up of people assuming that we must be doing it for charity because nobody cycles for fun?  Are we being too serious?

Well... I'm now doing some bicycle rides and hoping that I can raise awareness of the efforts of Centrepoint to help homeless young people escape the trap of poverty and the spiral that leads to a street life.  The guys at Centrepoint were saddened to hear that experienced cyclists think that "Cycling for charity" is a bad thing.

If you would like to make a donation to Centrepoint simply because an aquaintence of yours... Mr S.H.Yumu thinks that the work of Centrepoint is important enough to prostitute his joy of cycling for... here is a link.

thanks

[Ruth]

I don't think charity cycle rides are a bad thing Graeme.  But if you would be riding anyway, asking people to sponsor you is a bit like cheating, because you aren't doing something out of the ordinary.  I guess I think, if you want me to give you money, you'd better be earning it!  Not doing something every day like, oh, breathing, or having breakfast, or cycling.

Maybe it's the difference between asking for money, and people offering you money.  If people would like to offer me some money for eating my breakfast I can suggest a few good charities they can donate to.  But I won't ask for sponsorship for eating my breakfast.

[Peter]

Yes, it is a difficult one, Ruthie.  I suppose the way I look at this particular instance is that what Graeme has done is remind me that Centrepoint exists and is something to which I would like to donate, whether or not he completes the challenges he has set himself.  It's a little like comedy relief and similar things where people are drawing attention to need by doing something they would do anyway, in that case being not very funny, and exploiting the fact that they are in the position to publicise.

Sponsored pub-crawl, now that's completely different, though I dare say Graeme might be up for that......

Peter

[Euan Uzami]

I'm just wondering out loud why the cycling community is so opposed to cycling for charity.  Is it because we're fed up of people assuming that we must be doing it for charity because nobody cycles for fun?  Are we being too serious?

I think the question that bemuses me is not why the cycling community is opposed to cycling for charity, but why cycling is even linked to charity in the first place.
Why don't the people that sponsor you for a ride just give the money to charity anyway regardless of whether you do the ride or not?
Why are some people generous enough to give money to charity IF someone grows a moustache in November, but not otherwise?
Surely if you want to give money to charity, you want to do it in order to benefit the charity's cause, not to encourage somebody to perform some spectacle, or feat of endurance.
There were some blokes at my last place of work asking for money for charity on the basis of "oh go on - if we get a hundred quid we're not only going to grow moustaches but also dye them pink!". I didn't give them any because I didn't give a toss whether they did it or not. If I ever feel generous enough to give money to charity I'll just give it directly to them.

The thing I don't understand is the correlation, between the sponsored act, and the giving. (That's not to say I deny that there is one - I know people do give money to charity for sponsorship, I just don't get the link.)

I could sort of understand it if the act itself was beneficial, say, please will you contribute to my air fare because I'm going to go and dig wells or build schools in africa.

I suppose the crux of it is that it's simply a method of the charity outsourcing the process of asking for money, to people who are friends of the target. Whether people are generous enough to donate is nothing to do with whether their mate or colleague is doing a sponsored act, it's simply because it's their mate or colleage is the one doing the asking, rather than an anonymous organisation. Sponsorship is just a lever really to give charities an excuse to be able to say to people 'hey, would you mind going and asking people you know for money on our behalf, because it's better coming from you'.

(Charity rant over!)

[mattc]

I think Ben asks a very interesting question.

For most of us (in the UK anyway), doing stuff for charity is something we grow up with. I don't think we can objectively describe why it makes any sense.

I went to church a few times with family as a kid, there was generally a collection which I believe went to various good causes - this makes as much sense, and again is just what you do in certain sections of society. It seems a lot less effort involved, and far fewer middle-men!

I wouldn't be surprised if some proper sociology/psychology studies have been done.

[Graeme]

All good points.

My thought process was going in this direction:

You ask for sponsorship in order to achieve something.  Something you couldn't do if you weren't sponsored to do it; such as fly to Africa and dig a well.  Or maybe you have a sponsorship target related to doing an activity you find unpleasant, such as, "I'll sit in a bath of baked beans if people sponsor me a lot of money.  (I don't want to do this, but if people sponsor me enough I'll do it.)

I thought there was a subtle difference in doing something you enjoy and at the same time taking the opportunity to raise awareness of a specific issue which is close to your heart.  In the process asking friends to make a donation to the cause which means something to you.  A donation to a charity, not sponsorship to do something.

Is there a difference?

[Deano]

I dunno about anyone else, but I'm starting to think the whole shyumu/Graeme swap over is some sort of tax dodge.

[Graeme]

Can't be.  He had facial hair.  Look at the photo.

[contango]

I'm just wondering out loud why the cycling community is so opposed to cycling for charity.  Is it because we're fed up of people assuming that we must be doing it for charity because nobody cycles for fun?  Are we being too serious?

I think the question that bemuses me is not why the cycling community is opposed to cycling for charity, but why cycling is even linked to charity in the first place.
Why don't the people that sponsor you for a ride just give the money to charity anyway regardless of whether you do the ride or not?
Why are some people generous enough to give money to charity IF someone grows a moustache in November, but not otherwise?
Surely if you want to give money to charity, you want to do it in order to benefit the charity's cause, not to encourage somebody to perform some spectacle, or feat of endurance.
There were some blokes at my last place of work asking for money for charity on the basis of "oh go on - if we get a hundred quid we're not only going to grow moustaches but also dye them pink!". I didn't give them any because I didn't give a toss whether they did it or not. If I ever feel generous enough to give money to charity I'll just give it directly to them.

The thing I don't understand is the correlation, between the sponsored act, and the giving. (That's not to say I deny that there is one - I know people do give money to charity for sponsorship, I just don't get the link.)

I could sort of understand it if the act itself was beneficial, say, please will you contribute to my air fare because I'm going to go and dig wells or build schools in africa.

I suppose the crux of it is that it's simply a method of the charity outsourcing the process of asking for money, to people who are friends of the target. Whether people are generous enough to donate is nothing to do with whether their mate or colleague is doing a sponsored act, it's simply because it's their mate or colleage is the one doing the asking, rather than an anonymous organisation. Sponsorship is just a lever really to give charities an excuse to be able to say to people 'hey, would you mind going and asking people you know for money on our behalf, because it's better coming from you'.

(Charity rant over!)

Lots of good points in here, I guess the mentality starts with sponsored spelling tests in school and just grows from that, and the more improbable the activity associated with the sponsorship the better. Sometimes it's almost as if we're getting something in return for our sponsorship - if I give £20 to your chosen charity what I get in return is the sight of you with a pink moustache or the knowledge you rode to work on a unicycle with an octagonal wheel or some such, as opposed to giving £20 and getting nothing in return.

In many ways it does seem like a slight variation on the "sell to your family, sell to your friends" that got organisations like Amway a bad name however many years ago they were involved in turning people with friends into people without friends. I still remember one guy I used to hang out with until it got to the point that many social interactions somehow turned into sales opportunities.

One thing that does annoy me is when the sponsorship ends up paying for someone's holiday. If I want to cycle from London to Madrid to raise money that's one thing but if I'm doing it through a company that provides me with accommodation, food, mechanical support, return transport etc and their costs come out of the sponsorship money then effectively what I'm saying is "hey friends, why don't you all chip in for my jolly outing and if there's anything left I'll give it to charity". I don't have a problem with giving to charity if it's one I'd support but don't feel hugely enthusiastic about paying for someone else to go and have a jolly.

[Pedal Castro]

I went to church a few times with family as a kid, there was generally a collection which I believe went to various good causes

It actually goes towards the vicar's stipend. All the collections of the diocese's parishes are collected together and shared out among the priests (probably a simplification but that's basically how it works in mine).

[mattc]

I went to church a few times with family as a kid, there was generally a collection which I believe went to various good causes

It actually goes towards the vicar's stipend. All the collections of the diocese's parishes are collected together and shared out among the priests (probably a simplification but that's basically how it works in mine).

As long as it didn't pay for their cycling holiday, I guess I'm OK with that.

[Euan Uzami]

I dunno about anyone else, but I'm starting to think the whole shyumu/Graeme swap over is some sort of tax dodge.

yeah like jaffa cakes

[Deano]

Can't be.  He had facial hair.  Look at the photo.

Exactly. The facial hair and sinister demeanour of a professional cad!

[Deano]

Mind you, I can see the benefits of this - if anyone on the arrow asks if we're doing it for charidee, I'll point them at Graeme and say that we're merely his support team.

[Graeme]

My support team?

I don't think so.
 

[Karla]

I went to church a few times with family as a kid, there was generally a collection which I believe went to various good causes

It actually goes towards the vicar's stipend. All the collections of the diocese's parishes are collected together and shared out among the priests (probably a simplification but that's basically how it works in mine).

You're both right (and it also depends on the church in question).

[Martin]

One thing that does annoy me is when the sponsorship ends up paying for someone's holiday. (edit) I don't have a problem with giving to charity if it's one I'd support but don't feel hugely enthusiastic about paying for someone else to go and have a jolly.

I'm extremely unenthusiastic about it myself; no problem with people setting themselves a challenge asking people to donate to charity in the process as long as all that dosh goes to the charity; but I'm not about to subsidise anyone's holiday

problem is cycling is seen as an easy target, when the challenge is almost always fun rather than arduous; it filters down to me having to explain at the end of of a 300k ride that "no I'm not doing it for charity I'm doing it for fun" which grinds a bit after the nth time

[Basil]

Tell you what.  If you don't touch a bike for a full month, I'll bung Centre Point 20 quid.
No smiley.  I'm completely serious.

[Deano]

My support team?

I don't think so.
 

Deal with it.

[Ruth]

Can't be.  He had facial hair.  Look at the photo.

Oi!  Rasputin!  You, mad monk!

[Graeme]

Tell you what.  If you don't touch a bike for a full month, I'll bung Centre Point 20 quid.
No smiley.  I'm completely serious.

Does that need to be a month of consecutive time, or would you accept a month's worth of time?  I'm confident that I have not touched any bicycle for a whole month so far this year.

[Basil]

It would need to be a complete calendar month.
It would need to be a period of genuine abstinence.  So not including periods of working away, family holidays etc.

[Graeme]

It would need to be a complete calendar month.
It would need to be a period of genuine abstinence.  So not including periods of working away, family holidays etc.

I might be up for that in the month following the Mille Cymru.

[davelodwig]

I have come across various people raising money by doing things many of us would consider a holiday.

I was walking down the high street a couple of weeks ago and came across a couple of lads who were raising money for macmillan by cycling across Europe. There were lots of impressed folks at their stall and they had all the gear.

Apparently no time limit, no record breaking attempt, just a regular touring holiday... being sponsored!!

Again this weekend some chaps with a land rover driving somewhere exciting raising money for something to go on holiday pretty much.

My personal feeling is that to do it for charity there should be some sort of out of the ordinary about it, like it's a race, or a record attempt or something, not just a regular trip.

[Kim]

My personal feeling is that to do it for charity there should be some sort of out of the ordinary about it, like it's a race, or a record attempt or something, not just a regular trip.

It probably isn't.....for the people doing it.

Some friends of mine went from "Hey, Kim, tell me about bikes..." to doing a supported end-to-end in about six months.  They raised a respectable amount of money for charity, covered all the costs themselves, and really pushed themselves doing it.  Fair enough, I say.