LIFE CYCLE WHAT’S IN A NAME?

Cyclist, or person who cycles? In Seattle the difference matters, as Rob Ainsley explains

Iwas once part of a cyclecampaign group that did an internal online survey on bike use. The opening question – ‘Are you (a) male (b) female?’ – provoked criticism from one member. Too restrictive, they said.

As there were only eight people in the group, none of whose gender was in doubt, this didn’t seem of primary relevance. Still, arguments raged. The survey collapsed. Four members resigned and set up a rival group. Ah, societies: the fewer people there are, the more there is to argue over.

But it raised a point. Labels affect how we are perceived. Do you describe yourself as ‘a cyclist’? I suspect not. You’d say you cycle a lot. We all mix modes of transport. Walking when appropriate, for example, between car park and office, or up the stairs to the bathroom. But you wouldn’t call yourself a ‘pedestrian’. (‘Oh, you’re one of those? Why do you lot walk so slowly in the middle of the path oblivious with your headphones on? Why do you walk through red lights? Why aren’t you carrying a bivvy bag? They should be compulsory. If they save JUST ONE LIFE… My cousin was mugged by a pedestrian once…’)

A West Coast US group, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways (SNG), recently published a list of suggested terms to avoid and rephrase, to stay clear of the kind of labelling that sees debate plummet into argument. We’re all familiar with the clickbait journo’s them-and-us tribal rhetoric of ‘war on cars’ and ‘Lycra-clad cyclists’, as if we are a terrorist group that wants to blow up taxis. It simply isn’t true: most of our clothing is made of polyester, not Lycra.

The group advises, don’t say ‘cyclists’, but instead, ‘people who cycle’. Similarly, refer to ‘those going by car’, or ‘people walking’. Avoid ‘cycle paths’, which sound exclusive, and say ‘greenways’ which sound inclusive: walking, cycling, skating, wheelchairs, families, mobility aids…

Examine any anti-cyclist rant in the mainstream media and you’ll see stereotyping all over the place

SNG’s suggestions extend to newspaper reporting. There’s a difference between saying ‘a cyclist involved in a collision with a Nissan Micra was taken to hospital’ (which sounds the car’s or the cyclist’s fault) and ‘a cyclist was taken to hospital after being knocked off by a driver’, which sounds more like what happened. My feeling is that news sources are gradually adopting this, possibly because all the editors have got into road cycling, or possibly because unpaid-intern reporters can’t afford cars.

I’m not convinced about SNG’s disapproval of ‘disabled people’ in favour of ‘people with a disability’. Like ‘Ukraine’ versus ‘the Ukraine’, one might be offensive, but it’s not obvious which or why. Here’s an interesting stat: 85 per cent of non-disabled people can cycle, and 18 per cent regularly do, finds Transport for London. What about disabled people?

The figures astonished me: 78 per cent and 15 per cent. Label someone ‘disabled’ and we don’t usually picture someone on a bike. That’s misleading. In debating possible new cycle facilities it’s common to see the requirements of ‘disabled’ set as opposite to ‘cyclists’. Campaigner Isabelle Clement, who gets around in a wheelchair that converts to a trike, points out the fallacy. She reckons the labelling business has a lot to answer for.

I’m wary about language policing, particularly when used by offence tourists to catch out well-intentioned people. But examine any anti-cyclist rant in the mainstream media (well, it’s the same rant every time, just rewritten by a different hack) and you’ll see stereotyping all over the place.

The temptation is to reply in kind, but that’s a war of words that will only be won by the ranter, because they’re paid to get that reaction. SNG believes that its language guidelines have helped de-escalate group tensions in Seattle, and therefore enabled better infrastructure for all to get through. (Maybe not prevented campaign groups splitting into irrelevant factions, though.) Labels can prejudice, shabbily so. An infuriated friend complains that on her cycling videos, comments refer to her and her female colleagues as ‘models’, but her male co-stars as ‘bike riders’. (I was taken aback. Really? Three correctly spelled words in a YouTube comment?)

So here’s to non-tribal cycling enjoyment for all, whatever your gender.