Does language matter when discussing issues affecting use of roads?

[Ming the Merciless]

My favourite misattribution is from the traffic news:

"The M25 is moving slowly near Heathrow this evening"

Well the continents are moving. The M25 is moving in geological time.

 

[Time Waster]

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.

To be pedantic about this, I said on a thread started with a pedantic premise (my pedantry) I was picked up on it. I was not calling you pedantic just pointing out I got picked up on it. Quite rightly I might add! I simply didn't think of kids when saying what I did.

How was my rewording?

Aren't most cyclists who can legally drive also drivers?

 

[Ajax Bay]

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.

As you know, your use of those data and stats to show that "most cyclists are not drivers" is super-flawed, but all the more entertaining for it.
There were about 35M private cars owned in UK and the adult population (to age 85) is about 58M.
So a majority of adults (say 30M) are car owners.
About 75% of UK adults (2019, so about 40M) have driving licences: https://www.statista.com/statistics/314886/percentage-of-adults-holding-driving-licences-england/ Can we say they are all drivers? Certainly we might assume that 30M who own cars are drivers.
About 13% of English adults are cyclists (once or more each month).
If 75% of them are drivers that's 5.6M drivers who are also cyclists, and 1.9M who are cyclists and not drivers.
The 6-17 population is about 6M and none drive, legally. To sustain "most cyclists are not drivers" you'd need the percentage of children (6-17) who self-identify as cyclists to be 63%. That seems unlikely.
CyclingUK report has some stuff: https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics
This is answer to one of the FAQs:

12. How many drivers cycle? And how many cyclists drive?​

Figures for 2021 from the Department for Transport (England), suggest that:

• Almost every adult cyclist who holds a driving licence also drives
• More than a third of people with a driving licence also cycle

Note that this Cycling UK assertion (bullet 2) probably uses a much broader definition/idea of a "cyclist" than the one I relied on above (cycles at least monthly) and the 13% I used above would be 33% and suggest there are about 13M drivers who cycle (or cyclists who drive).
I leave you @Drago to provide a figure for how many people in UK, of any age, cycle or are 'cyclists'. Good luck! If it's more than 26M there's a good chance you're not wrong.

 

[Punkawallah]

Well the continents are moving. The M25 is moving in geological time.

And physical space. No wonder it has all the traffic jams - it must be hell for the drivers to deal with the spinning and whooshing through space. Is it any surprise they just want to sit sit still?

 

[Punkawallah]

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.

If we leave aside the fact that the UK government is telling us this, we have to remember that the quoted statement only really tells us that cycle ownership ‘in those surveyed’ remains most prevailing amongst school aged people under 17 years old. Not used by, not travelled the most miles per head, etc. Once again, more remarkable for what it does not say than what it does.

 

[Punkawallah]

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.

 

[steveindenmark]

Language does indeed matter.

The average car driver talks bollocks.

I think that can apply to cyclists as well. 🙂

 

[Alex321]

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.

IMO, owning a bike doesn't make you a cyclist.

Many of those school aged people who own bikes will hardly ever use them.

Most of the people I see on bikes, even on the city part of my commute at school run time, are adults.

 

[presta]

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'.

This is a good explanation, from a journalist.

 

[Dogtrousers]

This is a good explanation, from a journalist.

Excellent. Worth a read.

 

[presta]

Excellent. Worth a read.

It is, isn't it. He systematically goes through the different ways of phrasing the story, and shows how the other alternatives are all either absurd, or potentially contempt of court.

 

[mustang1]

It creates biases. With cyclist, someone is to blame. With car, you can't really blame it.

We all know we don't talk about the car, but the driver, but when it is written, read or spoken, I think biases do occur. If it happens among the general public, you could perhaps forgive them but when journalists write and speak those words, well, I would like to hold them to a higher standard.

 

[presta]

I once had a bright spark on Twitter telling me that the number of drivers who cycle is greater than the number of cyclists who drive.

 

[matticus]

It creates biases. With cyclist, someone is to blame. With car, you can't really blame it.

We all know we don't talk about the car, but the driver, but when it is written, read or spoken, I think biases do occur. If it happens among the general public, you could perhaps forgive them but when journalists write and speak those words, well, I would like to hold them to a higher standard.

I agree that journalists should know better. They're trained in these things.
But why do you think one party has to be to blame? Why can't blame be shared? Is there never such a thing as an accident?

 

[mustang1]

I agree that journalists should know better. They're trained in these things.
But why do you think one party has to be to blame? Why can't blame be shared? Is there never such a thing as an accident?

No no, I didn't mean one party always has to be blamed (of course, if they are in the wrong then sure blame them in which ever proportion is appropriate). But I was only giving an example of how words are written, spoken and heard.