Does language matter when discussing issues affecting use of roads?

[Brandane]

Assuming we're pro cycling on here

Yes, I am pro cycling.
Just a pity that so many CYCLISTS are total nobbers....

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

The language used in the media is very telling and I think clearly indicates where their biases lie.

With everyday people it's a lot more nuanced, but subtleties in language can be important. I always try not to de-personify, i.e. 'the driver', not 'the car' but as careful as I am, I fall short.

Where it becomes especially important is oft heard and repeated statements like 'roads are dangerous' and 'that road is dangerous'.

The construction of and the use of the road might be dangerous but the reality is that people mean it is drivers and traffic that are dangerous. The common choice of language around them it is problematic and infers acceptance of the motornomative status quo.

Another example is 'car accident' as if to suggest there was no one at fault, the incident was completely unavoidable.

 

[ColinJ]

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.

It is often worse that though, isn't it...?

"An elderly cyclist was in a collision with a car" which at best sounds like the blame was 50-50, but to many people would sound like a stupid cyclist caused the 'accident'.

 

[Dogtrousers]

It is often worse that though, isn't it...?

"An elderly cyclist was in a collision with a car" which at best sounds like the blame was 50-50, but to many people would sound like a stupid cyclist caused the 'accident'.

Well let's face it, the old dodderer should know better than go out on his bike crashing into cars. Probably gone senile.

 

[matticus]

Another example is 'car accident' as if to suggest there was no one at fault, the incident was completely unavoidable.

And here we go....

 

[Drago]

Source for that assertion please

You don't have to look too hard.

Firstly, '"Cycle ownership remains most prevalent amongst school aged people under 17 years old." Its the government gov.uk that tells us so.

Secondly, the RAC Foundation tells us that 77% of UK households have access to a car. The ONS tells us the average household has 2.36 humans, of which 1.75 are children - in simple maths that means well over half of people within the 77% of households that can access a car cannot drive one by virtue of age alone.

It is very likely the case that the likes of us that are interested in cycling above and beyond the norm are indeed car drivers as well, but across the population as a whole it is not the case that the majority of cyclists are also motorists.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

No.

I thought I saw at figure of 80% of adult cyclists have a driving licence. Of course, doesn’t mean they drive. Plus majority of cyclists are likely kids, in the context of the question. Hence no most likely true.

 

[Time Waster]

The language used in the media is very telling and I think clearly indicates where their biases lie.

This media is on cyclechat. Such as the thread asking if cars can be trusted. As someone said upthread, it's giving agency to cars.

So what does that tell us about the people posting on here? Are we too often biased against ourselves as cyclists?

 

[Rusty Nails]

This media is on cyclechat. Such as the thread asking if cars can be trusted. As someone said upthread, it's giving agency to cars.

So what does that tell us about the people posting on here? Are we too often biased against ourselves as cyclists?

I'm pretty fair...biased about everything.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Absolutely it matters.

”War on Motorists” compared to “Drivers are asked to be safe and considerate around other road users, consider walking or cycling for short journeys, and use public transport where possible”.

 

[BoldonLad]

You don't have to look too hard.

Firstly, '"Cycle ownership remains most prevalent amongst school aged people under 17 years old." Its the government gov.uk that tells us so.

Secondly, the RAC Foundation tells us that 77% of UK households have access to a car. The ONS tells us the average household has 2.36 humans, of which 1.75 are children - in simple maths that means well over half of people within the 77% of households that can access a car cannot drive one by virtue of age alone.

It is very likely the case that the likes of us that are interested in cycling above and beyond the norm are indeed car drivers as well, but across the population as a whole it is not the case that the majority of cyclists are also motorists.

I thought I saw at figure of 80% of adult cyclists have a driving licence. Of course, doesn’t mean they drive. Plus majority of cyclists are likely kids, in the context of the question. Hence no most likely true.

I get the logic, and, accept “no” on that basis, but….

Ownership/possession of a bicycle does not mean you actually cycle

 

[Time Waster]

I thought I saw at figure of 80% of adult cyclists have a driving licence. Of course, doesn’t mean they drive. Plus majority of cyclists are likely kids, in the context of the question. Hence no most likely true.

Based on the 2018 NTS:

a. 30% of the people who hold a driving licence also cycle
b. 98% of the people who cycle and hold a driving licence also drive
c. 85% of people aged 18+ who cycle hold a driving licence
d. 83% of the people aged 18+ who cycle also drive

As most kids under 17 can't legally drive on the road I think you have to assume you'd automatically exclude such people. I did. So reword it, aren't most cyclists who can legally drive also drivers? On a thread started with a pedantic premise I would be picked up on my wording.

 

[Drago]

Ah, there it your problem - you made an assumption.

You asked, "Aren't most cyclists also drivers?" A simple question for which I provided a simple answer. Indeed, an accurate answer.

Accuracy is not pedantry.

Had you framed the question in different terms I would have replied differently. However, you did not.

Accusing someone of pedantry for simply being accurate is undignified, and I would have expected better from you, a CCer for whom I had some respect. Then attempting to reframe the question to fit the answer you had hoped for only digs you in deeper.

Just accept that you did not ask the correct question, and you can move on with a shred of dignity remaining.

 

[All uphill]

Well let's face it, the old dodderer should know better than go out on his bike crashing into cars. Probably gone senile.

Oi! I resent that!

 

[All uphill]

The language used in the media is very telling and I think clearly indicates where their biases lie.

With everyday people it's a lot more nuanced, but subtleties in language can be important. I always try not to de-personify, i.e. 'the driver', not 'the car' but as careful as I am, I fall short.

Where it becomes especially important is oft heard and repeated statements like 'roads are dangerous' and 'that road is dangerous'.

The construction of and the use of the road might be dangerous but the reality is that people mean it is drivers and traffic that are dangerous. The common choice of language around them it is problematic and infers acceptance of the motornomative status quo.

Another example is 'car accident' as if to suggest there was no one at fault, the incident was completely unavoidable.

My favourite misattribution is from the traffic news:

"The M25 is moving slowly near Heathrow this evening"