pwa wrote:The title of the OP. And the title of the Guardian article.pete75 wrote:Who says they want the public to stop using the term cyclists?
No, it's a question, and the article concerned gives a specific context for that question.
pwa wrote:The title of the OP. And the title of the Guardian article.pete75 wrote:Who says they want the public to stop using the term cyclists?
pjclinch wrote:Tangled Metal wrote: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.
Tangled Metal wrote:My response to that would ask who us doing the dehumanising thing when reading the option with cyclist instead of commuter who went by bike? Are they going to be reading such an article in the first place? Are they going to see the word bike and thing cyclist anyway?
Tangled Metal wrote:I think you might be thinking too subtly for the cyclist dehumanisers personally. They might be really clever people but that distinction is likely to still be too subtle. They'll see through the wording and see cyclist if they actually get that far as reading such an article.
pjclinch wrote:pwa wrote:The title of the OP. And the title of the Guardian article.pete75 wrote:Who says they want the public to stop using the term cyclists?
No, it's a question, and the article concerned gives a specific context for that question.
pwa wrote:pjclinch wrote:pwa wrote:The title of the OP. And the title of the Guardian article.
No, it's a question, and the article concerned gives a specific context for that question.
I spotted that it was a question and my answer was that it isn't a question worth asking because it cannot be fulfilled. We cannot stop people using the word "cyclists". We can point out that cyclists are people and individuals, but people will still continue using that word.
pwa wrote:pjclinch wrote:pwa wrote:The title of the OP. And the title of the Guardian article.
No, it's a question, and the article concerned gives a specific context for that question.
I spotted that it was a question and my answer was that it isn't a question worth asking because it cannot be fulfilled. We cannot stop people using the word "cyclists". We can point out that cyclists are people and individuals, but people will still continue using that word.
D363 wrote:pwa wrote:pjclinch wrote:
No, it's a question, and the article concerned gives a specific context for that question.
I spotted that it was a question and my answer was that it isn't a question worth asking because it cannot be fulfilled. We cannot stop people using the word "cyclists". We can point out that cyclists are people and individuals, but people will still continue using that word.
But the piece doesn't ask if we should stop everyone using the word, so dismissing it on those grounds might be premature.
Lance Dopestrong wrote:I self identify as a cyclist, and if someone out there doesn't like it they have to respect my diversity.
Wanlock Dod wrote:Here is an example from a recent newspaper article
It reports on a variety of road accidents.
Firstly referring to people cycling “Two cyclists have been injured following collisions with cars”.
A bit further down it gets to incidents which didn’t involve bikes “There were a number of other incidents across the county during the rush-hour, including a two-vehicle crash”.
When someone on a bike is run over it is the rider who collides with a big heavy vehicle, but if it is just big heavy vehicles running into each other they have a crash. The “cyclist” colliding seems to imply they were at fault, whereas there is no blame apportioned to the drivers of the big heavy vehicles, their cars take the blame in that case.
Wanlock Dod wrote:Here is an example from a recent newspaper article
It reports on a variety of road accidents.
Firstly referring to people cycling “Two cyclists have been injured following collisions with cars”.
A bit further down it gets to incidents which didn’t involve bikes “There were a number of other incidents across the county during the rush-hour, including a two-vehicle crash”.
When someone on a bike is run over it is the rider who collides with a big heavy vehicle, but if it is just big heavy vehicles running into each other they have a crash. The “cyclist” colliding seems to imply they were at fault, whereas there is no blame apportioned to the drivers of the big heavy vehicles, their cars take the blame in that case.
landsurfer wrote: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.