Should we stop using the word 'cyclists'?

[pjclinch]

It might all come across as trendy right-on woke nonsense, but hard evidence from the Real World does suggest this sort of thing has an effect. And with that in mind I'm happy to go with it.

In the UK "cyclist" is widely seen as a label for a despised out-group. Just because it's a pathetic excuse to dehumanise someone doesn't mean it doesn't happen, sometimes with serious (up to fatal) consequences.

But back to the question in the top line, where you use "cyclists" and "people on bikes" is contextual. In lots of contexts within, say, a special interest group like the CUK forum, it makes very good sense to use "cyclist". OTOH, if the BBC are doing a feature on getting people across London in the rush hour, "people on bikes" or "commuters on bikes" is probably better.

Pete.

[pwa]

On the main question, this looks like the Guardian just bouncing daft ideas around inside its little bubble. The people on the street will continue using whatever words they like regardless of what somebody writing in the Guardian thinks. It is just hot air.

It's a thoughtful and well written article as is the Sarah Storey one it links to. Many people I've heard complaining about cyclists refer to the lycra clad chain gangs and pretend road racers such as the groups who come through our village and use many of the roads hereabouts. I've not heard one complaint or moan about people like old Mrs Green who rides her bike to the shop and post office in the next village.

Those of you on the political right have a Pavlov dogs reaction that anything written in the Guardian must be wrong without actually thinking about the contents of the article. Admittedly those of different opinions to yourself may have a similar reaction to stuff written about cycling in the Mail or Express but usually with some justification.

That's you being as thoughtful as usual. Do you have any expectation at all that Joe Public will stop using the word "cyclists"? If your answer is "yes", then you can consider this a topic worth talking about, but if your answer is "no", it really is just pointless hot air.

Letting your customary insults pass, you and I differentiate between cycling types and find different terms for each, but how you imagine less cycling focused folk can be levered into not using the blanket term "cyclists" I just don't know. People will continue to use blanket terms for all sorts of groups, from ramblers and motorists to vegetarians and the Irish.

[Oldjohnw]

Might I respectfully suggest that the real thrust of the article is not really the nomenclature used but rather that cyclists can be dehumanised in the eyes of some drivers, making it easy for them to ignore their presence, often to their detriment.

Dismissing an argument as Guardian/BBC lies ignores the issues.

[pwa]

Might I respectfully suggest that the real thrust of the article is not really the nomenclature used but rather that cyclists can be dehumanised in the eyes of some drivers, making it easy for them to ignore their presence, often to their detriment.

Dismissing an argument as Guardian/BBC lies ignores the issues.

(I don't know who called it "lies" or mentioned the BBC but I didn't). I just don't see non-cycling folk bothering to look for multiple alternative phrases to replace "cyclists". We want to be seen as human of course, and as individual people rather than some homogeneous mass, but I doubt trying to replace that word will gain traction.

[pete75]

On the main question, this looks like the Guardian just bouncing daft ideas around inside its little bubble. The people on the street will continue using whatever words they like regardless of what somebody writing in the Guardian thinks. It is just hot air.

It's a thoughtful and well written article as is the Sarah Storey one it links to. Many people I've heard complaining about cyclists refer to the lycra clad chain gangs and pretend road racers such as the groups who come through our village and use many of the roads hereabouts. I've not heard one complaint or moan about people like old Mrs Green who rides her bike to the shop and post office in the next village.

Those of you on the political right have a Pavlov dogs reaction that anything written in the Guardian must be wrong without actually thinking about the contents of the article. Admittedly those of different opinions to yourself may have a similar reaction to stuff written about cycling in the Mail or Express but usually with some justification.

That's you being as thoughtful as usual. Do you have any expectation at all that Joe Public will stop using the word "cyclists"? If your answer is "yes", then you can consider this a topic worth talking about, but if your answer is "no", it really is just pointless hot air.

Letting your customary insults pass, you and I differentiate between cycling types and find different terms for each, but how you imagine less cycling focused folk can be levered into not using the blanket term "cyclists" I just don't know. People will continue to use blanket terms for all sorts of groups, from ramblers and motorists to vegetarians and the Irish.

A fair description isn't an insult.

Ramblers is a good example - people make a distinction between them and pedestrians.

Who says they want the public to stop using the term cyclists? What the article says it might be a good thing to distinguish between different types of cyclists - people already do that to a certain extent as my example shows.

[Phil Fouracre]

I was told i was not a proper cyclist and that people like me make life hard for all other cyclists .... because i don't wear a helmet.

I wear a helmet most of the time I'm on a bike but on a short trip to visit a neighbour I went without and was told to "wear a helmet" by a passing old bloke in lycra on his carbon racer. I just told him where to go, in no uncertain terms. There are times to be polite, and there are times not to.

On the main question, this looks like the Guardian just bouncing daft ideas around inside its little bubble. The people on the street will continue using whatever words they like regardless of what somebody writing in the Guardian thinks. It is just hot air.

Blimey! ‘Hot air’ on CUK? Never!

[Oldjohnw]

Might I respectfully suggest that the real thrust of the article is not really the nomenclature used but rather that cyclists can be dehumanised in the eyes of some drivers, making it easy for them to ignore their presence, often to their detriment.

Dismissing an argument as Guardian/BBC lies ignores the issues.

(I don't know who called it "lies" or mentioned the BBC but I didn't). I just don't see non-cycling folk bothering to look for multiple alternative phrases to replace "cyclists". We want to be seen as human of course, and as individual people rather than some homogeneous mass, but I doubt trying to replace that word will gain traction.

These are term fairly often used on these pages. Similar in this particular thread. And I agree and this is what I wrote: it isn't the terminology but the dehumanising of cyclists which is the problem.

[kwackers]

The problem with words is context.

Folk who aren't cyclists won't differentiate. They don't really think about weekend warriors, commuters, utility cyclists etc etc, they just have one word "cyclist" and what that means depends on the context.
On a warm summers day they may well take it to mean a tootle through the local park with the family in tow.
On a cold winters evening stuck in traffic it's all about red light jumping ninjas.
One word, several meanings.

Cyclists on the other hand have a raft of words they apply to cyclists because they're interesting in the diverse types.

Trying to get folk with only one word to differentiate when they don't care won't happen.

[pjclinch]

Do you have any expectation at all that Joe Public will stop using the word "cyclists"? If your answer is "yes", then you can consider this a topic worth talking about, but if your answer is "no", it really is just pointless hot air.

You're reducing a fairly complex situation in to a binary choice, and it won't fit, and because it doesn't fit your reasoning doesn't work.

No, Joe/Jane Public won't stop using the word "cyclist", but that doesn't mean that e.g. political and societal opinion influencers can't usefully bandy about "people on bikes" in situations where it helps against the dehumanisation of cyclists.

Pete.

[horizon]

I felt the article was a bit of a self-indulgence if not a distraction from far more important issues. Indeed, if those issues were addressed (passing, speeding, learner driver instruction etc) then it might not even be a problem. At the moment, many motorists have a negative view of anyone on a bicycle who has the temerity to ride on the road.

But I agree with the idea that the word "cyclist" has taken on a meaning. But it also means in essence someone going by bicycle (or tricycle etc etc) so I would rather we didn't as society get going on this one.

[Tangled Metal]

How long before people on bikes take on the same effect as cyclist does now? Do we then find another phrase to get around the issues?

[pwa]

Who says they want the public to stop using the term cyclists?

The title of the OP. And the title of the Guardian article.

[mattheus]

I do think this stuff makes a difference. As an example, consider the common stories we hear from colleagues after they get to work, and how they tell them:

- As I was waiting for a gap, this bird in a Ford Focus started indicating left, and then ...

-vs-

- This cyclist just pulled out in front of me, didn't look or anything!

The latter version is rarely "this bloke on a bike ...". And the former is never "this driver ..."

The media could easily lead the way on this. Two options for the editors:
"cyclist killed in collision with HGV

father of three Daniel O'Heck was ..."
OR:
"Father of 3 killed in HGV accident

Mr O'heck was cycling home after work when ... "

[charliepolecat]

Wow! And we wonder why the Conservatives can't get the Brexit thing fixed.

[pjclinch]

How long before people on bikes take on the same effect as cyclist does now? Do we then find another phrase to get around the issues?

If you just do a straight swap of terms you don't get anywhere (e.g. various professionals I've heard over the years referring to "whatever we call loonies these days" or similar), but that's not really the thing. So what is the thing?

By way of example, if you've got commuters looking to get to their destination in the morning and look at how they do you might report that commuters who went by bike managed it in 2/3 the time of commuters who went by bus and 4/5 the time of commuters who went by car. Everyone here is a "commuter", so you're comparing, at least at some level, like with like.
But if you compare cyclists to drivers you've immediately set up two different groups so there's an easy opportunity for the hard of thinking to think they've not got anything in common (i.e., dehumanising).

This sort of thing really does seem to make a difference. Language, and how we use it, is important. Compare and contrast "cheated advisory vote" with "will of the people", for example, and think about why certain people are much keener to use one or the other and how it keeps people onside.

Pete.