Boris Johnson, Tadej Pogačar and Taylor Swift are the same person, apparently... the problem with calling all cyclists 'Cyclists'

john_smith wrote:

That's clearly inadequate, since it excludes anyone who isn't cycling right now.

Why does it need to include them?

Well, there is a verb (gerund - "riding"...) in there that you could just conjugate?  Or "people who ride bikes"?

It depends what you're using the term for and your level of pedantry, I guess - you seem to have set the bar for the latter pretty high.  Presumably "you've excluded any new people ever becoming cyclists as you are only referring to those doing so at this instant?"

Strangely "drivers" seems to be expansive and sometimes is used to mean "those who occupy motor vehicles" without distinction between driver and passenger.

That would depend on the context. "From next year, people riding bicycles will be pulled over by plod if they're not clad from head to toe in lycra" wouldn't exclude people who might become cyclists between now and next year. Or have I missed your point?

Ah, but in that case shurely "cyclists" as understood now would do the job?  Clearly all true "cyclists" are shrink-wrapped in lycra (at birth?) - and in fact if the context is about penalising people we also don't need another word - better arrest them all?

I used to think this was a distinction to insist on, but now (at least in popular chat) I think it's more just a sign / symptom of where people's thinking is at.   I'm much less confident that the magic of "just change the language" will change the thinking or opinions.   I think that comes about when something becomes normal / mainstream.

Hence - AFAIK - the Dutch default word is "fietser" with more of a connotation of someone on a bike * with the alternatives ("wielrenner" or whatever for MTB / BMX etc) where someone wants to emphasise e.g. "and they were a 'roadie' ".

* I believe the mental picture would be "normal person wearing ordinary clothes just using a bike for transport, and probably on a more upright 'practical bike' ".  I don't know whether it extends to "anyone using the fietspad" e.g. wheelchair users, adapted cycles.  Presumably not Canta drivers and bromfiets riders?

Do they not do anything else? You are describing cycling as some sort of lifestyle and that riding a bike means you follow a set of rules and mores that others don't, like a cult.

Well I didn't think I was prescribing something?  I didn't mention posting on forums though, or getting the wrong end of the stick so I clearly missed something.

Thus far I thought this discussion was about what people in the UK commonly thought of when you said cyclist e.g. "others" - or something less pleasant "entitled TdF w***ers" etc.  Plus what some of the (very few) people cycling in the UK might think e.g. "those people wobbling all over the road on hire bikes and unable to keep up at 20mph+ aren't 'cyclists' ... "

Could there be a reason why there is some truth behind the stereotypes above?   Why could that be?

Perhaps you've got the answer in another of your posts - cycling is not "such a common activity it is ordinary" in the UK (especially not cycling for transport).  However there are some places not very far away where your statement would be correct e.g. here, here, here ...

Oh I don't know, how about man or male or women or female or youth or....

We commonly don't refer to drivers as a singular group when they are responsible for an illegal act - Https://www.standard.co.uk/news/London/bexleyheath-police-road-rage-attack-south... - apparently a road rage attack involving two drivers but you wouldn't know it as the word driver isn't used once in the whole article. Compare and contrast to almost any article involving a person on a bike, as victim or perpetrator, and they will almost always be dehumanised and referred to as a cyclist, nothing more.

A cyclist is someone who is or was riding a bike at the time they were referred to. If on the other hand you think riding a bike makes you special and different from the rest of society you really need to come down to Earth. Cycling is such a common activity it is ordinary.

I do quite like the "I had NO CHOICE but to STRIP OFF".

You're in a shower, love, in the picture. What do you normally wear for that, a fur coat and water wings?

In the vids she is also cycling 3 abreast behind a transit doing about 12 mph, and I think wearing Lycra trews. Strange lack of hate-fury from the Waily Mail.

You are talking like the cyclist trope that has established itself in the public mind, railing against the world that wrongs you daily, a two-wheeled victim, blind to one's own behaviour. Being called a cyclist is now an epithet thnks to that attitude.

PedalManiac wrote:

You are talking like the cyclist trope that has established itself in the public mind, railing against the world that wrongs you daily, a two-wheeled victim, blind to one's own behaviour. Being called a cyclist is now an epithet thnks to that attitude.

Can you please translate that for me? I tried using google translate but it just said "Sorry, this is bollocks"

Mmm. No.

It is now an epithet because that is how it has been used for many decades.

There are written pieces with that tone in online versions of newspaper since the internet became a thing. One of the more notorious is Matthew Parris from December 2007 in the Times.

It's usually a trope deployed as a shield to blame someone else.

Expressed hate of cyclecammers is the same, essentially a projection.

The one I find interesting is USA use of "bicyclist", as if it is an ideological position. Over there their road culture is such that even academic research seems to be in a frame limiting much research to "what can the bicyclist / pedestrian do to change their behaviour in a dangerous environment", with very little questioning of the frame.

IMO it's an othering category functioning to avoid "US" having to look in the mirror, or think a little.

Here we have a similar disconnect on disability - disabled peopled are far too often "THEM, who we may choose to help", not part of US.

Was it Marvin in Hitchhiker who reflected (ish)? -

"Marvin wondered why humna being talked so much. First of all he thought it was because they needed to to survive. Then he decided that it was because if they stopped talking, their brains started working."

Good to see HH2G as always.

In fact I think "bicyclist" in the US was often an ideological position!  The vehicular cycling "cult".  A mix of elitism, counter-culture, individualist "live free or die!", useful and practical advice for surviving a hostile street environment ... and Stockholm Syndrome.

Much has been written about it (e.g. here) but one thing it would clearly never bring about (possibly by design) was "mass cycling" and getting lots of people out of their cars.

Thankfully I think the UK through history and proximity is more aligned with European models.  So cycle transport less as heros running with the bulls, or freedom fighters standing up for their rights, more a mundane provision of service (per good "health and safety" guidance taking into account "human factors").  Which can and should aim to empower and enable a wider range of people than motor transport: the young, the old, those with disablities, the poor, people doing mundane trips and people out for sport or other recreation etc.

You know I agree with you about 95%, even though I take different angles, expressed differently.

Here in my thinking I would regard "vehicular cycling" as a mode I switch into when on a road, and for example treat myself as traffic needing to dominate lanes at traffic islands and pinch points and in 20mph zones; the limitation on that would come in road areas which are not imo safe. Off road I switch into a more "sharing modes" style where I tend to run at say 10-11mph max unless it is very clear. 

In North Notts I don't really have a "cruise at 16-18mph" option off road, as there is no infra and dog walkers everywhere..

What works, works - if you *are* in traffic it is better to cycle a bit like drivers drive.

And there *is* something to the "different tribe" trope. Even in places with mass cycling there will be a minority who will still be racers, long distance enthusiasts, and even people who are strongly "I cycle, I don't drive". (Heck even amongst cycling pros there are Boardmans and more petrol-head types...)

Difference is just that self-selected cycling types are not *completely* at odds with the mainstream in mass cycling countries. And I believe (unlike some here and the Vehicular Cyclists, with capitals) that everyone stands to benefit from facilitating cycling as part of the national transport strategy* including them. Although they might then be a little less "special" and "unique". (But you can always take up fixed Audaxing, or get a velomobile or high-wheeler or unicycle - or just be punk in some other way).

* Mass cycling needing far more than just infra - e.g. a new transport philosophy, like Sustainable Safety, serious improvements in public transport including better integrating active travel with that. All of which ultimately end up effectively causing redesign of the built environment eg. where amenities are located.

...and 57 terms for different types of cycle infra?

Actually even the UK has several: "superhighway", "world-beating infra", "quiet routes", "national network"... oh, and the term that people who ride on it use which is "inadequate".

NL has got some pretty horrific cycling infrastructure too, which would be fine if you weren't obliged to use it and the road you're not allowed to use weren't so wonderfully smooth.

john_smith wrote:

NL has got some pretty horrific cycling infrastructure too, which would be fine if you weren't obliged to use it and the road you're not allowed to use weren't so wonderfully smooth.

Where?  I mean - where is "horrific"?  And is this "horrific compared to the UK" - I'd be interested to see that!

You shouldn't have any problems finding examples because there's a whole country's worth of it - as opposed to playing "hunt the cycle infra which isn't just a sign" in the UK.

Because it's "public infra" same as here it's certainly not all going to be up-to-current standards, well-build or the product of fine cycle-centric minds.  But though worst bits I've seen (not ridden - IIRC had no riding issues) were old and grubby and too car-filled they'd still outclass almost everything "Dutch-style" and "world-beating" I've seen in the UK?

(Doing your work for you here are some "bad" examples for you from BicycleDutch, NotJustBikes and a more general "NL could do better for cyclists" from David Hembrow).

Anything made of loose klinkers which suddenly veers off into the wilderness or stops or crosses on to the other side of the road and is narrow so you get stuck behind other traffic etc. is horrific IMO, if only a few feet away there's something that would be ideal for cycling and in pretty much any other country you'd be allowed to ride on.

Where that then? IIRC Kinderje mentioned some - but I certainly haven't encountered any in my forays there (admittedly I've only done a single tour there, other times I've been in cities).

Perhaps they only point the English down that lane, to provide them an experience they'd recognise?

EDIT - of course I'm not a fan of cobbles or loose tiled/brick surfaces either, but living in Edinburgh that's the normal anyway...

North Holland, South Holland.

Sorry Chris, your recollection is incorrect. It definitely wasn't me and I can't think who it would have been either. Nice to get a namecheck though!!

Also - you are correct that there are places where you have to use the cycle path, but beware the fallacy.  And the related "but it'll slow me down" - which sometimes comes from people who clearly think of riding their bike like driving a car e.g. sprint for 400m then stop and wait for a minute at the lights, repeat.

Luckily it's simple to visit (ideally in person but if not via the medium of videos and streetview) to check your opinions of the place.

There are in fact cycle paths which are not mandatory - presumably for exactly that reason e.g. the infra isn't great and the drivers of motor vehicles on the road have been suitably "calmed" by the speed limit / road design / lack of this being a through-route for traffic.  From here:

Holland Cycling wrote:

Must I always cycle on the cycle path?  No, you don’t always have to cycle on the cycle path. There are cycle paths that are compulsory and there are cycle paths that are optional. They are signed with different road signs. Cycle lanes are always compulsory.

Fortunately actual cycle lanes are not common in NL and hopefully getting rarer.

... but you're correct: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/lycra-on-the-streets-of-th...