[Closed] I am no longer a cyclist.

I love it when somebody pokes the hornets nest with a big stick, now we have the swarm of cyclist circling for the kill, pesky things, nothing a good skip lorry with a billion blind spots couldn't get rid of.

I no longer use the word 'cyclist' and I largely agree that it is dehumanising, setting us apart as 'other'. All those tweets from morons that start 'I hit a cyclist today lol' would sound less of laugh if they were 'I hit a man/woman riding a bike today'.

Now [i]this[/i] I agree with. As one of those ranty campaigner types that the OP dislikes I often deliberately say "person on a bike" instead of "cyclist" when discussing issues with [i]fellow road users[/i] because the term "cyclist" is so loaded with subtext and it's often disarming to remind them that it's just someone's dad/brother/son trying to get home from work, same as them.

Oh, and I am a mountain biker. However, I do not live within cycling distance of any mountains.

I used to get told off for calling my bike a 'mountain bike' by a guy I used to work with.
"It is not a mountain bike as we do not ride on mountains down here in Hampshire. It is an all terrain bicycle".
Yup, he was weird as hell.

[i] Yup, he was weird as hell.[/i]

He'll fit right in, round these parts.
😉

As one of those ranty campaigner types that the OP dislikes

The word "cyclist" undoubtedly greases the wheels of division. It's a label for a minority, an outgroup, and you only have to look at [url= http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/06/bez-them-and-us/ ]how it is used alongside "them"[/url], for instance, to see how it's used to dehumanise and to reinforce people's disdain.

It matters little whether you struggle to see past its sterile, contextless dictionary definition: it's part of the armoury of the bigot, and whether you'd prefer to reclaim the word or consign it to the bin or you're ambivalent about it, I think it needs to be recognised that in almost all contexts it becomes divisive and unhelpful, and it hinders progress.

Err.. where did I say I disliked ranty campaigners?

Well you specifically cited the [i]"'Cyclists don't pay road tax' arguments"[/i] - something I regularly bat down when discussing cycling with [i]other road users[/i].

..you only have to look at how it is used alongside "them", for instance, to see how it's used to dehumanise and to reinforce people's disdain.

Yay Bez is here 😀

[img] [/img]

Yep, the classic example is that the headlines are always "Cyclist Hit By Car" and never "Cyclist Hit By Motorist" or "Bicycle Hit By Car".

@corroded

That Seattle article is actually very interesting, it really drives home the idea that the language/phraseology used is almost more important than the points you are making...

Living in the age of the quick sound-bite, making sure the messages that get across are more generally positive and less polarising is actually surprisingly difficult...

We're almost all programmed now to make any discussion into an [i]"X Vs Y"[/i] argument, the things you re in favour of meaning the things you are "Against" can be neatly correlated and implied for you...

Remaining strong willed and actually training yourself to use only positive, carefully selected language is a challenge...

The "Conversation" here in the UK is not like that presently, I think it could change, but it needs some careful thought and the right spokespersons/advocates for those other "transport choices"....

This all comes back to the OP's sentiment, the current narrative portrayed through the press is quite narrow and doesn't give a rounded picture... Hence I can sort of understand his feelings, If you give up the term [i]"Cyclist"[/i] I think you need to adopt [i]"[u]Person[/u] who rides Bicycles"[/i] instead.

Did anyone hear about some mentalist from the Prudential Ride 100 yesterday? There was an individual(on a bike) trying to hit people with a hammer. This was a real hammer by the way, not a toy one.

This was around Forest Green I believe. One of the marshalls told me. Luckily, the police caught him. Incredible that this doesn't appear to have made the news anywhere.

The person involved obviously didn't like "cyclists" either.

Yep, the classic example is that the headlines are always "Cyclist Hit By Car" and never "Cyclist Hit By Motorist" or "Bicycle Hit By Car".

True, though I think that's probably born of simple awkwardness of the terminology rather than even a subconscious bias: "bicycle hit by car" sounds a bit odd as it makes it seem like there was no-one on the bicycle, while "cyclist hit by motorist" arguably implies blame. Fundamentally, such a collision does generally [i]physically[/i] involve the "cyclist" and the car but not the "motorist", regardless of where fault lies. There are a lot of problematic phrasings that get used in reporting but IMHO this particular one is relatively low on the list.

Well you specifically cited the "'Cyclists don't pay road tax' arguments" - something I regularly bat down when discussing cycling with other road users.

It's the pointless one side against another arguing that I'm getting disillusioned about, the proper campaigning by organisations such as, but not limited to, CTC (and yes, I am a member and have been for over 20 years) I am all for.

If people stopped arguing and started looking perhaps they'd stop seeing the cyclist and start seeing people on bikes.

A couple of times in this thread there have been allusions to 'them winning' (I'm paraphrasing here). What have 'they' won? It's not a war why is it always seen as 'them' and 'us', why not just 'We'?

There was an individual(on a bike) trying to hit people with a hammer.

Uh huh?

[img] [/img]

I've never been a cyclist. I have very little in common with cyclists other than I enjoy riding my bike. Many 'cyclists' take themselves far too seriously and just seem like tits to me.

True, though I think that's probably born of simple awkwardness of the terminology rather than even a subconscious bias: "bicycle hit by car" sounds a bit odd as it makes it seem like there was no-one on the bicycle, while "cyclist hit by motorist" arguably implies blame. Fundamentally, such a collision does generally physically involve the "cyclist" and the car but not the "motorist", regardless of where fault lies. There are a lot of problematic phrasings that get used in reporting but IMHO this particular one is relatively low on the list.

It's using the the word [i]"Hit"[/i] as well, [i]"Collide/Collision"[/i] implies less blame:

[i]"Motorist and person on bicycle involved in a collision"[/i]

Is about as neutral as you could hope to make such a statement/headline...

It is funny how corrosive "cyclist" can be.

Newcastle Council have recently activated cameras on a few [b]bus[/b] lanes, so they can fine the drivers who ignore them.

Despite the fact that this measure is targeted at drivers performing illegal manoeuvres and the fact that these lanes are reserved for buses, taxis, motorcycles, authorised vehicles [i]and cyclists[/i], guess which group gets the slagging* in the comments?

* (road tax, insurance, lycra clad, Tour de France wannabes, three abreast, no license, no plates, holding up traffic, being illegal, blah blah blah)

I've never been a cyclist. I have very little in common with cyclists other than I enjoy riding my bike. Many 'cyclists' take themselves far too seriously and just seem like tits to me.

You probably have more in common than you think you do.

[img] [/img]

I think it's plain to see which side if the fence you fall on though... 😯

And I feel weird....
Been really tired today, and as a result of loads of 'other' thing that needed doing I've not been out for my normal Sunday ride today and it's put me in a really funny mood
Kinda weird mix between itchy feet and being glad of the rest, and feeling guilty (?!) Out of curiosity I checked my Strava log for 2015 and this is only the 9th day in 2015 that I've not ridden a bike, so appears I'm suffering some kind of withdrawal.
Anyone else struggle if they have a day off?

If there is a negative connotation with the term "cyclist" then it needs to be challenged not accepted

Otherwise where does it end?

"Oh look there's one of those bloody people who ride bikes!"

Slight clumsier than "Bloody cyclist!" I admit but I don't think changing the phraseology changes the prejudice.

We should challenge the prejudice instead.

And yes I am comfortable with being a "cyclist"

Loddrik what I mean is that you and the hypothetical cyclist are both people, with parents, spouses, children? friends, family, you both have hobbies you like, places to go, people to see, things to do.

Just because they might put some of their energy and passion into one activity more than you might, doesn't mean you have nothing in common, and labelling them as different/outsiders who you have no common ground with is exactly the kind of thing we're discussing.

I think in the grand scheme of things you would find many more similarities than differences, and to coin a phrase "can't we all just get along?"

...stuff about me...

since when have arguments been campaigning?

It's the pointless one side against another arguing that I'm getting disillusioned about, the proper campaigning by organisations such as, but not limited to, CTC

Us vs Them tribalism doesn't help, agreed, but to my mind there is no point in groups like the CTC being a lone voice in the wilderness.

The message that CTC and other campaigns have [i]needs[/i] to be repeated by others if it has any hope of being heard. After all, how many non-cyclists read CTC material?

The "road tax" misconception is an interesting example, as recently I've noticed that [i]other road users[/i] are more knowledgeable about the fact that it "doesn't exist".

I think this is probably due to people shooting down that popular misconception so often that is has made national news on a few occasions:

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23694438 ]BBC: Is there any such thing as 'road tax'?[/url]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/mar/18/cyclists-road-tax-drivers ]The Guardian: Cyclists are not road tax dodgers[/url]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/bike-blog/2015/jul/03/road-tax-red-lights-and-lycra-the-cycling-ignorance-quiz ]The Guardian: Road tax, red lights and lycra: the cycling ignorance quiz[/url]
[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311131.ece ]The Times: Cyclists and “road tax”: the truth[/url]

So the truth of the situation has slowly entered the popular psyche.

(Just in time for Gideon to [url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2015/jul/09/road-tax-rears-its-ugly-head-again-for-englands-cyclists ]move the goalposts[/url])

I'm having an identity crisis, sometimes I drive a car, and sometimes I ride a bike, if that wasn't bad enough, I've also been known to walk, row a boat and ski.

I'm really struggling to pigeon hole myself.. Maybe I should see a shrink 😀

On a more serious not, the notion is ridiculous, anyone who is riding a bike is a cyclist, just as any one who is driving is a driver.