# New word needed to differentiate cyclists



## Dogtrousers (2 Apr 2019)

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...ntiate-cyclists-says-britains-top-paralympian

_The English language needs a new word to describe people who ride a bike as a form of transport rather than sport, because of the animosity towards “cyclists”, according to Britain’s greatest Paralympian, Dame Sarah Storey, a 29-time world champion in cycling and swimming

In Dutch, a “normal” cyclist is a fietser. A Tour de France-type cyclist on a racing bike is a wielrenner. English should make a similar distinction, ... We need to realise that a cyclist isn’t just a Lycra-clad yob, as per the stereotype, and that cyclists are just people on bikes moving around on a mode of transport._

I think that's a bit daft.

Because it buys into and accepts the concept of the "lycra clad yob" as if such a thing is really widespread. Because a lot of people commute wearing lycra. Because as soon as you start to look hard at the idea and come up with a clear and unambiguous definition for the word, there are so many edge cases and exceptions it starts to lose any meaning.

Lastly, because it will make me feel discriminated against: As non utility but non sport cyclist, who doesn't wear lycra I demand my own word!

Please merge if already posted. I did look but didn't find.


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Apr 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...ntiate-cyclists-says-britains-top-paralympian
> 
> _The English language needs a new word to describe people who ride a bike as a form of transport rather than sport, because of the animosity towards “cyclists”, according to Britain’s greatest Paralympian, Dame Sarah Storey, a 29-time world champion in cycling and swimming
> 
> ...




I totally agree, just because you wear lycra does not make you a yob. I liked the simple 'person on a bike' to humanise things, but let's be honest the average motorist just sees us an an inconvenience.


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Apr 2019)

I'm a lycra lout and proud of it.


----------



## sheddy (2 Apr 2019)

If motorists prefer to be called 'drivers' then maybe cyclists could be called 'riders' ?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (2 Apr 2019)

sheddy said:


> If motorists prefer to be called 'drivers' then maybe cyclists could be called 'riders' ?


As long as they don't mistake us for horse, motorcycle or moped riders


----------



## Racing roadkill (2 Apr 2019)

As per usual I think she makes a valid point. I won’t tell anyone I’m a ‘cyclist’ anymore, because I’ve found that most people associate the term with a FPKW, HDAU, shouty, self righteous, hand wringer. I tend to tell people I like to ride a bike, that seems to invoke less instant bile spouting.


----------



## bladderhead (2 Apr 2019)

I just tell people I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike. When they ask me if I ride it on the pavement I tell them I want to ride it where I like.


----------



## kapelmuur (2 Apr 2019)

I’m in Flanders on holiday and was bombing along at 20mph+ (an 18mph tailwind) on my road bike and in full Lycra when I heard a woman telling her children ‘pas op, fietser’

I was very offended as I was sure I was a wielenner.


----------



## lane (2 Apr 2019)

I ride for leisure and wear lycra but I do not need a special word to make it clear to the casual observer I am not a tdf competitor. 

In seriousness there is a more clearcut differentiation in Holland the difference is easy to observe but not so much in the UK.


----------



## bladderhead (2 Apr 2019)

If I was in Holland I would be a liegfietser.


----------



## Gravity Aided (3 Apr 2019)

In the States, we have many modifiers for cyclist, but refer to the cyclist not ordained into the lycra as a "Fred"or "Doris". This includes commuters, it seems, although commuters vary as well. Some are folks who cannot get a car,(or driver's license, because the judge won't let them, due to previous DUI or DWI conviction) and those who ride to work for health, although it probably would be healthier if we all rode away from work. Perhaps we should be either racing cyclists or volkscyclists.


----------



## DaveReading (3 Apr 2019)

I'm a bicyclist.


----------



## bladderhead (3 Apr 2019)

Gravity Aided said:


> volkscyclists


They just beetle along.


----------



## Gravity Aided (3 Apr 2019)

bladderhead said:


> They just beetle along.


I'm air cooled, as well.


----------



## PK99 (3 Apr 2019)

lane said:


> In seriousness there is a more clearcut differentiation in Holland the difference is easy to observe but not so much in the UK.




Most cycle commuters I've seen in Belgium and Holland are of the pootle variety on upright bikes and are in normal clothes riding quite short distances into work as cities are smaller.

A significant proportion of London cycle commuters are lycra clad speedsters riding longer distances on their commute, hence discussions here about showering facilities etc at work. Many (see discussions on here) seem to use commuting as training.


----------



## lane (3 Apr 2019)

PK99 said:


> Most cycle commuters I've seen in Belgium and Holland are of the pootle variety on upright bikes and are in normal clothes riding quite short distances into work as cities are smaller.
> 
> A significant proportion of London cycle commuters are lycra clad speedsters riding longer distances on their commute, hence discussions here about showering facilities etc at work. Many (see discussions on here) seem to use commuting as training.



Yes exactly my experience as well. In Holland the Lycra cyclists are out at the weekend especially Sunday rest of week mainly see the "pootlers"


----------



## roadrash (3 Apr 2019)

Why do we need yet another label, if someone is riding a bicycle then they are cycling , therefore a cyclist


----------



## rugby bloke (4 Apr 2019)

This is an interesting idea, however I feel that the subtle differentiation will be lost on the average angry, knuckle dragging cyclist hating road user and I fear it would be a test of both patience and imagination trying to explain.

Personally I feel conflicted - by the week I am a semi lycra dressed commuter, by the weekend I am a full on lycra lout ... do I get to have 2 names ?


----------



## Levo-Lon (4 Apr 2019)

How about " The Healthier People"

I couldn't care less what a none cyclist thinks, in fact I don't care what anyone thinks whatever I do...


----------



## Gravity Aided (4 Apr 2019)

I was accosted by a fellow parishioner at church last Sunday, asking me why I, and my liberal friends, had to take up part of street to ride our toys. I explained to him that there was room for both his and our toys on the street, as it's quite a wide street, and that some people, even in this paradise of capitalism, had no other means of getting about than riding their "toy" everywhere. Even to clean and prepare food for workers at a company that insures all such toys. Which is why that street, and not others.


----------



## lane (4 Apr 2019)

Yes any differentiation (not that's it's valid) will be lost on most people. I work with a BMW driver who doesn't really like cyclists. His comment one morning was that on his drive to work he saw a cyclist riding in the rain - "what is that all about?" was his honestly mystified response.


----------



## bladderhead (4 Apr 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> distinctly oddballs


We recumbent riders do not suffer from that condition.


----------



## swee'pea99 (4 Apr 2019)

At the risk of derailing a discussion on terminology (which, in passing, is IMHO a bit daft), it does seem to me to raise a substantive and significant issue. People often look at me like I'm crazy when I say I don't wear a helmet. (I got a lot of this from medical professionals recently after my accident.) I say I am at much greater risk from motorists than I am from anything I'm likely to hit my head on, and my best protection against motorists is to appear not as a 'cyclist' but as a bloke, who happens to be on a bike. Helmets, again IMHO, do more harm than good, in reinforcing this kind of us & them mentality - far more dangerous to any cyclist than head impacts.


----------



## Dogtrousers (4 Apr 2019)

Sharp intake of breath ...

@swee'pea99 you're treading on thin ice there. I hope you've got your tin hat on. Or not ... as the case may be.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (4 Apr 2019)

Car crazies
Car clowns
Dickhead drivers
Dangerous drivers

How should we classify our more sedentary folk?


----------



## roadrash (4 Apr 2019)

I stated upthread that I don't think we need another label, after some thought how about we use an existing label we already have, how about person or human being


----------



## Pale Rider (4 Apr 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> Sharp intake of breath ...
> 
> @swee'pea99 you're treading on thin ice there. I hope you've got your tin hat on. Or not ... as the case may be.



I agree.

Anyone using the meaningless word 'substantive' should be banned.


----------



## snorri (4 Apr 2019)

swee'pea99 said:


> .) I say I am at much greater risk from motorists than I am from anything I'm likely to hit my head on, and my best protection against motorists is to appear not as a 'cyclist' but as a bloke, who happens to be on a bike. Helmets, again IMHO, do more harm than good, in reinforcing this kind of us & them mentality - far more dangerous to any cyclist than head impacts.


Agreed, and even more so when cyclists wear coloured goggles which further conceal their identity, and gender!


----------



## swee'pea99 (4 Apr 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> I agree.
> 
> Anyone using the meaningless word 'substantive' should be banned.



Well, the Oxford & Cambridge dictionaries don't seem to have any problem with it:







But hey, what do they know?


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Apr 2019)

I refuse to be defined by a mode of transport regardless of whether i'm riding my bike or not.


----------



## Gravity Aided (4 Apr 2019)

snorri said:


> Agreed, and even more so when cyclists wear coloured goggles which further conceal their identity, and gender!


Or auto drivers have tinted windows that do the same. Although I think all cars have tinted rear seat windows anymore.


----------



## lane (4 Apr 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Car crazies
> Car clowns
> Dickhead drivers
> Dangerous drivers
> ...



I think you will find the sedentary folk clasify each other on various criteria mostly what vehicle they drive


----------



## Grant Fondo (5 Apr 2019)

Metro today ran the daft article (belatedly) about cyclists being percieved a 'non-human'.
WTF!


----------



## swee'pea99 (5 Apr 2019)

Grant Fondo said:


> Metro today ran the daft article (belatedly) about cyclists being percieved a 'non-human'.
> WTF!


That really was a bizarre survey. 







'Less than 90% human'? What's the other 10%+? Bison? Carrot? Lawnmower?


----------



## rugby bloke (5 Apr 2019)

swee'pea99 said:


> 'Less than 90% human'? What's the other 10%+? Bison? Carrot? Lawnmower?



Cycling god in my case !!!


----------



## david k (8 Apr 2019)

Leisure cyclist I suspect is the majority

Person on a bike I like


----------



## Ming the Merciless (8 Apr 2019)

Awesomeness


----------



## pjd57 (9 Apr 2019)

I think there are two main groups.

Cyclists , wearing what they want making their way from A to B, C, D etc in a fairly sensible manner.

Then there's **##@ with bikes.
Going along the pavement with their carrier bags swinging from the handlebars. No lights, no road sense.


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Apr 2019)

Those with black, grey/silver or white bike frames and those with coloured frames.


----------



## rugby bloke (9 Apr 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> Those with black, grey/silver or white bike frames and those with coloured frames.


What about those with black frames with coloured trims ? Can we have out own subgroup ?


----------



## Dogtrousers (9 Apr 2019)

rugby bloke said:


> What about those with black frames with coloured trims ? Can we have out own subgroup ?


Splitter!


----------



## Gravity Aided (9 Apr 2019)

50%+, according the atomic theory.
One of the subplots in _The Third Policeman_, by Flan O'Brien, is that the bicycle rider assumes more atoms of the bicycle, and vice versa, the more riding is accomplished. A symptom of this is leaning against a wall, or standing with one foot on the curbstone.


----------



## bladderhead (9 Apr 2019)

This is why I like lying down all the time. An effect of all the mileage I have done on recumbents.


----------



## david k (14 Apr 2019)

PK99 said:


> Most cycle commuters I've seen in Belgium and Holland are of the pootle variety on upright bikes and are in normal clothes riding quite short distances into work as cities are smaller.
> 
> A significant proportion of London cycle commuters are lycra clad speedsters riding longer distances on their commute, hence discussions here about showering facilities etc at work. Many (see discussions on here) seem to use commuting as training.


Pootlers?


----------



## Slow But Determined (15 Apr 2019)

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.


----------



## Dogtrousers (15 Apr 2019)

Slow But Determined said:


> 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".


----------



## Slow But Determined (15 Apr 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> 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"


----------



## User169 (15 Apr 2019)

"Wielerterrorist" seems to be the current designation for the weekend warriors in NL and BE.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (15 Apr 2019)

Slow But Determined said:


> 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 (16 Apr 2019)

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.


----------



## Grant Fondo (16 Apr 2019)

I am getting generalisation overload from this thread


----------



## ozboz (17 Apr 2019)

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 !


----------



## Venod (17 Apr 2019)

Borderman said:


> 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 (17 Apr 2019)

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 (17 Apr 2019)

ozboz said:


> 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.



Afnug said:


> 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 (17 Apr 2019)

bozmandb9 said:


> 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 (17 Apr 2019)

bozmandb9 said:


> 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.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Apr 2019)

swee'pea99 said:


> Well, the Oxford & Cambridge dictionaries don't seem to have any problem with it:
> 
> View attachment 460775
> 
> ...



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 (17 Apr 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> Try the following test.
> 
> If the word is removed, does its removal have any impact on the meaning of the sentence?
> 
> ...


Ok, try _this _test: look in the Concise Oxford:







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.


----------



## byegad (17 Apr 2019)

I apply this test. 
If your ride is something like mine, and you ride in the same manner as me, you're RIGHT. Everyone else is WRONG.

Simple really.


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Apr 2019)

The problem I see with inventing a new word to subdivide cyclists is that the proponent is the "Active Travel Commissioner for the Sheffield region".

Her concern seems to be that the word "cyclist" has negative associations, and people will be reluctant to ride their bikes because they don't want to be - or don't see themselves as - "cyclists". So if we invent a new word, say, "pootler" people will dash down to Halfords safe in the knowledge that they are not about to become "cyclists". They can safely ride their bicycles, while they can continue to hate cyclists and run them off the road when driving. 

The problem I see with this is that it is divisive. The "pootlers" become the good guys, deserving of infrastructure and encouragement, and the "cyclists" are the bad guys, deserving of no respect at all.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Apr 2019)

swee'pea99 said:


> Ok, try _this _test: look in the Concise Oxford:
> 
> View attachment 462682
> 
> ...



Do you honestly think that makes any sense?

'Ongoing' is another one - it adds nothing to the meaning of the sentence.

Strip away all the wordy drivel and there's nothing left.

Dare I say it, very little substance.


----------



## ericmark (18 Apr 2019)

Once you have waited at a set of traffic lights for 5 minutes only to realise they do not detect a cyclist you must be forgiven for thinking they do not apply to you!

In some cases there are cycle tracks and buttons on traffic lights for you to request a green light, even seen them high up for horse riders, however the cycle track installers seem to have no idea about road safety, next to Flintshire County Council highways depot the cycle track takes you past the traffic light before it crosses the road, has no cross button, and from that position impossible to tell which roads have right of way, this is outside the highways depot, so what chance anywhere else?

Unless there is a national standard so you know a cycle track will not have areas where you need to dismount, I have to lay bike of floor to dismount no longer can I stand on pedal and swing my leg over. And wife with electric assisted it would shoot off leaving her in mid air if she tried it. Simple if it requires you to dismount it's not a cycle track.

I remember well in York seeing what it was like when the Chocolate factory shift ended, never seen so many bikes on a road, motor traffic simply had to give way, the whole city seemed to be designed for bikes, at least back in the 1970's cars were allowed on the roads if they were careful and gave bikes priority, ratio of 3 cars to 100 bikes. But today that's all gone, worst time to be on road is school opening and closing times, when I went to school I don't remember any one being dropped off or picked up at the school, very rare to see parents at school, playing truant was easy, write a letter from your mum, and make sure you never let a real letter from mum reach school. Everyone with shining morning face walked like a snail to school. And had been doing it without a problem since Shakespeare's time. 

Yes there are two groups of cyclist, those where it is transport, and those where it is a sport, however there are so many sub groups, those using it as exercise, those with a time constraint and those without, and when I go to pick up chips, as quicker by bike as cycle track reduces distance, I am in no hurry, but on return don't want chips to get cold. Other than that only ensuring home before dark needs any time consideration. But still annoying to stop at traffic lights only to find they don't detect bikes.


----------



## swee'pea99 (18 Apr 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> Do you honestly think that makes any sense?
> 
> 'Ongoing' is another one - it adds nothing to the meaning of the sentence.
> 
> ...


Putting to one side the question as how one might believe something makes sense dishonestly, yes. Absolutely. It makes perfect sense. Let's see if I can make the whole thing any clearer for you.

You asserted that the word 'substantive' is a non-word.
I showed how the Oxford & Cambridge dictionaries disagreed.
You ignored that, and reiterated your view that the word added nothing to the sentence in which it was used, and that its removal would make no difference.
I explained what the word was adding to the sentence, and what would be lost by its removal.
You asked me whether I thought that made any sense. Honestly.
I've now answered: yes. 

I hope that's clear. If you have any further difficulties understanding, do get back to me and I'll try to help. Though I have to say, it is proving to be uphill work...


----------



## bladderhead (18 Apr 2019)

'Going forward' is one that really annoys me.


----------



## Dogtrousers (18 Apr 2019)

ericmark said:


> Yes there are *two groups of cyclist*, those where it is transport, and those where it is a sport, however there are so many sub groups, those using it as exercise, those with a time constraint and those without...


But you can arbitrarily divide people who ride bikes however you like. Transport vs sport; disc brakes vs rim brakes (oh, and hubs too); Male and female; and so on and so on ...

Why take that particular sub-categorisation and choose to reinforce it by attempting to change language? The only result will be that "cyclists" (boo hiss, lycra louts) become more of an out group than before. Far better (and more difficult) is to to actually challenge the "_Lycra-clad yob, stereotype" _(to quote Ms Storey).


----------



## SuperHans123 (18 Apr 2019)

Roadies.
Hybrid snerts
Garden Shedders (When the sun comes out)
Carerra Wheelie Kids


----------



## SuperHans123 (18 Apr 2019)

bladderhead said:


> 'Going forward' is one that really annoys me.


Hear this all the time in work.
How about just saying 'from now on' like people used to.


----------



## rugby bloke (18 Apr 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> B Far better (and more difficult) is to to actually challenge the "_Lycra-clad yob, stereotype" _(to quote Ms Storey).



A simple example - I was cycling through a village last night and a father was out supervising his 2 young daughters as they road up and down the street on their bikes. The youngest could only have been around 4, on a tiny bike with stabilizers. As we passed we both smiled, waved and said hello to each other, both she and her Dad looked so happy. A simple interaction but it helped to demonstrate that a fully lycred up cyclist is also human.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Apr 2019)

swee'pea99 said:


> Putting to one side the question as how one might believe something makes sense dishonestly, yes. Absolutely. It makes perfect sense. Let's see if I can make the whole thing any clearer for you.
> 
> You asserted that the word 'substantive' is a non-word.
> I showed how the Oxford & Cambridge dictionaries disagreed.
> ...



Instead of patronising, try to grasp the 'fog factor'

http://www.readabilityformulas.com/gunning-fog-readability-formula.php


----------



## swee'pea99 (18 Apr 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> Instead of patronising, try to grasp the 'fog factor'
> 
> http://www.readabilityformulas.com/gunning-fog-readability-formula.php


I have an excellent grasp of the fog factor. What do you imagine it has to do with the issue at hand: whether or not the word 'substantive' is a non-word?

And in other news, have you any plans to stop digging anytime soon, or do you plan to dig on regardless?


----------



## rivers (18 Apr 2019)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> 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.



Yet the "lycra louts" are the law abiding cyclists around here. It's the one's on "normal" bikes wearing "normal" clothes that ride on the pavements, jump red lights, and are an all around menace


----------



## Dogtrousers (18 Apr 2019)

rivers said:


> Yet the "lycra louts" are the law abiding cyclists around here. It's the one's on "normal" bikes wearing "normal" clothes that ride on the pavements, jump red lights, and are an all around menace


Bloody normal louts.

We need to coin a new word for them.


----------



## Milkfloat (18 Apr 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> Bloody normal louts.
> 
> We need to coin a new word for them.



People?


----------



## SuperHans123 (21 Apr 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> People?


Snerts


----------

