New word needed to differentiate cyclists

OP
Dogtrousers

Dogtrousers

Kilometre nibbler
The fact that in the eyes of some all cyclists are "lycra louts" is the same thinking that all football supporters are hooligans.

We all know both are untrue but it does impact.
Football hoolingans really do exist. I'm not so sure about "lycra louts". Well, unless the definition is (as I suspect) "someone who has the temerity to ride a bike while I am driving my car".
 
Football hoolingans really do exist. I'm not so sure about "lycra louts". Well, unless the definition is (as I suspect) "someone who has the temerity to ride a bike while I am driving my car".
I didn't say they didn't, what I said was all football supporters are assumed by some to be hooligans and thus treated as such.

If you think there aren't bad mannered, selfish, bad tempered cyclists out there you need to be a lone cyclist on a cyclepath coming towards a "club group" who "own the path"
 

SkipdiverJohn

Über Member
Location
London
The fact that in the eyes of some all cyclists are "lycra louts" is the same thinking that all football supporters are hooligans.

We all know both are untrue but it does impact.
The hooligan element in cycling is far larger in percentage terms than the hooligan element in football. Just observe any road junction in London and count the number of aggressive morons on bikes recklessly cutting in and out of the traffic and completely ignoring the red traffic lights. I was stopped at Holland Park roundabout the other day at a red light and four out of the five cyclists that passed me went straight through the red light. Lycra louts is a very accurate description for these idiots, because all four of the RLJ'ers were wearing lycra gear and riding road bikes, whereas the only cyclist who obeyed the law was dressed normally and riding a flat bar hybrid.
 

Borderman

Active Member
On the streets of Withington, South Manchester, where I work I see cyclists all the time riding different types of bikes. Almost every one of those cyclists are different in the way they ride, the clothes they wear and the rules of the road they choose to bend or break. I wouldn't say any of them were louts by common definition of the word, but then I only see a snapshot of them as they pass by, many disregarding the safety of pedestrians, especially at lights (as mentioned by Skipdriver John above) as they go through on red at speed, which I absolutely hate. I always stop at red lights, always have done, always will do. I don't even jump the pavement to bypass the red light.

Those cyclists I have seen have been focussed, cautious, pleasant, but also ignorant, arrogant and oblivious to others, some listening to music or texting! Because they have every right to be on the road they also have to abide by the rules of the road and many don't; that can make them as dangerous as other road users, which can be another reason why cyclists are disliked on so many different levels.

But finding words to differentiate cyclists is a tough one because of the different types of cyclists "out there." Some cyclists tarnish the good nature of other law-abiding cyclists and that's all it takes to continue this general negative outlook. It's a shame really.
 

Venod

Eh up
Some cyclists tarnish the good nature of other law-abiding cyclists and that's all it takes to continue this general negative outlook. It's a shame really.
Unfortunately that's true but why? a bad motorist does not reflect badly on all motorists but a bad BMW/Audi driver labels all BMW/Audi drivers as bad, its seems minority groups whatever their make up are easy pickings.
 

bozmandb9

Insert witty title here
The problem is not the word, it's labelling, and treating us as a group, and discriminating against us. Frankly, we should enjoy minority protection. If you look at some of the hate posts against cyclists, and substitute the word cyclist, with a religious or ethnic group, arrests would be made. On a daily basis, our lives are put at risk due to this prejudice, and I would guess that there are more cyclists killed and seriously injured than all other protected groups due to 'hate crimes'.

Yet people continue to boast about punishment passes, and what they'll do to 'cyclists'. One problem is us being guilty of encouraging it, by such talk as 'blah blah blah - gives us a bad name'. You never see somebody posting about a driver doing so and so giving all drivers a bad name, it's just 'what an idiot'. Also, I tend to avoid this forum now, because of the open abuse by some, of sub groups of cyclists they choose to demean. If we want as a community to stop being abused, probably best to start with respecting eachother.
 

Borderman

Active Member
There are lots of alternative words for cyclists in the English Language , I hear them all the time , but the Mods of CC do not like us to use them !
That's understandable. I can think of a few nouns that would be suitable but they wouldn't be allowed, however, other nouns such as rider and pedaller are pretty generic and don't really carry the topic any further.

Unfortunately that's true but why? a bad motorist does not reflect badly on all motorists but a bad BMW/Audi driver labels all BMW/Audi drivers as bad, its seems minority groups whatever their make up are easy pickings.
Well said, good analogy and so very true.
 

Borderman

Active Member
The problem is not the word, it's labelling, and treating us as a group, and discriminating against us. Frankly, we should enjoy minority protection. If you look at some of the hate posts against cyclists, and substitute the word cyclist, with a religious or ethnic group, arrests would be made. On a daily basis, our lives are put at risk due to this prejudice, and I would guess that there are more cyclists killed and seriously injured than all other protected groups due to 'hate crimes'.

Yet people continue to boast about punishment passes, and what they'll do to 'cyclists'. One problem is us being guilty of encouraging it, by such talk as 'blah blah blah - gives us a bad name'. You never see somebody posting about a driver doing so and so giving all drivers a bad name, it's just 'what an idiot'. Also, I tend to avoid this forum now, because of the open abuse by some, of sub groups of cyclists they choose to demean. If we want as a community to stop being abused, probably best to start with respecting eachother.
Well said. I hadn't looked at it that way.

This whole post sums up the problem of discrimination perfectly but sadly there isn't any easy way of making effective change to stop the labelling and discrimination of cyclists, but what you say about respecting each other is good starting point. In reality it's not going to be as simple as that, as much as I would like it to be.

The act of saying something to anyone that is aggressive, argumentative or threatening is just human nature because it's always easier to be the aggressor at something we don't fully understand. I don't agree with it but that's the way modern society has changed the way people behave.
 

Jody

Veteran
The problem is not the word, it's labelling, and treating us as a group, and discriminating against us. Frankly, we should enjoy minority protection. If you look at some of the hate posts against cyclists, and substitute the word cyclist, with a religious or ethnic group, arrests would be made. On a daily basis, our lives are put at risk due to this prejudice, and I would guess that there are more cyclists killed and seriously injured than all other protected groups due to 'hate crimes'..
I've been saying this for a while. Some of the stuff written online is disgusting and as you say swap cyclist with gay, trans, goth, etc would have the police involved.
 
Well, the Oxford & Cambridge dictionaries don't seem to have any problem with it:

View attachment 460775

But hey, what do they know?
Try the following test.

If the word is removed, does its removal have any impact on the meaning of the sentence?

If the answer is 'no', which in the case of 'substantive' it always will be, then leave it out.

The example you quote from the Cambridge dictionary is particularly waffly and wordy.

'The introduction accomplishes several substantive tasks' and 'the introduction accomplishes several tasks' mean the same.

The word 'substantive' is added in an attempt to impress the reader.
 

swee'pea99

Legendary Member
Try the following test.

If the word is removed, does its removal have any impact on the meaning of the sentence?

If the answer is 'no', which in the case of 'substantive' it always will be, then leave it out.

The example you quote from the Cambridge dictionary is particularly waffly and wordy.

'The introduction accomplishes several substantive tasks' and 'the introduction accomplishes several tasks' mean the same.

The word 'substantive' is added in an attempt to impress the reader.
Ok, try this test: look in the Concise Oxford:

upload_2019-4-17_10-7-54.png


That's quite some listing for a non-word, wouldn't you say?

I used the word in its correct sense - to draw a distinction between the ongoing discussion over terminology (which, by implication, is not substantive - which is to say, it's vague, ethereal, lacking in any real substance) and the proposal that 'them & us' thinking is more dangerous to cyclists than anything a helmet can prevent - a proposal which, I'm suggesting, has a firm basis in reality, making it important, meaningful. Would anything be lost be its removal? Yes. That distinction. Which is why I included it.
 
Top Bottom