Does language matter when discussing issues affecting use of roads?

[Time Waster]

Does it matter if your wording accurately describes the situation when discussing behaviours of road users? Does it matter if you accuse cyclists of offences but not drivers, applying the offence to the car?

One you're correctly accusing the person but the other transportation devices it is the vehicle being accused. Does this really matter? Does it create biases? Does it reduce driver's blame / increase cyclists blame? Is it negative, neutral or positive doing this? Am I just being pedantic? I'd like to know.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Referring to a cyclist and a car, rather than a cyclist and a driver, or a bike and a car irritates me. But that's not to say you aren't just being pedantic because I'm a terrible boring old pedant.

 

[matticus]

Does it matter if you accuse cyclists of offences but not drivers, applying the offence to the car?

Probably Yes, but only to a very small degree. The people who hear it as "the driver was not to blame" were most likely thinking that already. And us Enlightened Souls just get irritated by it (when we notice it), we already know the driver is responsible.

[I thought this thread would be about the definition of "Accident". Glad we're not raking over that again ... ]

 

[Time Waster]

Another question then.

Should us enlightened souls on a cycling forum not be pedantic with the phrasing in such discussions? Assuming we're pro cycling on here surely equality in language as in received rights be the same between drivers and cyclists to us.

 

[Drago]

Language does indeed matter.

The average car driver talks bollocks.

 

[Time Waster]

Oh dear, I talk bollocks too then, does that mean language doesn't matter? Aren't most cyclists also drivers? Besides it's reading this car did this thread posts on here by regular posters that got me starting this thread. Is it the driver in us using this inaccurate language or the cyclist?

PS enter the sandman on radio. What a tune! I digress!

 

[matticus]

Assuming we're pro cycling on here surely equality in language as in received rights be the same between drivers and cyclists to us.

I don't understand this sentence!

 

[Drago]

Aren't most cyclists also drivers?

No.

 

[Punkawallah]

Language always matters. Inaccurate or misuse use of words can and does cause serious problems. Even the lack of words can have meaning. ‘Read between the lines’, ‘listen not only to what is said, but what is not said’.

 

[Jody]

Another question then.

Should us enlightened souls on a cycling forum not be pedantic with the phrasing in such discussions?

It doesn't matter what you say, if anything I think being pedantic with language would have the opposite effect to most reading it.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Does it matter if your wording accurately describes the situation when discussing behaviours of road users? Does it matter if you accuse cyclists of offences but not drivers, applying the offence to the car?

One you're correctly accusing the person but the other transportation devices it is the vehicle being accused. Does this really matter? Does it create biases? Does it reduce driver's blame / increase cyclists blame? Is it negative, neutral or positive doing this? Am I just being pedantic? I'd like to know.

Words and language usage always matters.
English is a fabulously diverse and precise language, if only we appreciated that, pedantry should be applauded!

I certainly wish I was good enough to be truly pedantic.

 

[BoldonLad]

Oh dear, I talk bollocks too then, does that mean language doesn't matter? Aren't most cyclists also drivers? Besides it's reading this car did this thread posts on here by regular posters that got me starting this thread. Is it the driver in us using this inaccurate language or the cyclist?

PS enter the sandman on radio. What a tune! I digress!

Aren't 100% of drivers, and, 100% of cyclists people?

Some people are inconsiderate/pompous/stupid/thoughtless, some aren't. Other adjectives are available, I am sure.

 

[BoldonLad]

No.

Source for that assertion please

 

[Dogtrousers]

It seems like a cop out by assigning agency to the car and not the driver as in: "The car hit the sweet vulnerable old lady" in a way we would not do for a cyclist on a bike.

But the problem is that we all (ok some of us) do it for a simple reason: The person riding the bike is as clearly visible as the sweet vulnerable old lady. The cyclist hit her, the brute. The driver of the car is hidden from view. All we see is the car hitting her.

No sweet vulnerable old ladies were harmed in the making of this post.

 

[All uphill]

If we are talking about things that we consider important it helps to be precise in our use of language. I try hard to use plain English.

If others are unclear or imprecise, or downright misleading that's on them.

Now I'm off to clean the forks, peddles and breaks on my Raliegh.