One issue that seems to appear often in discussions of social politics is the issue of language. And those discussions often deal with one central question: To what extent do the terms we use shape our perceptions of people?
And while this is obviously relevant in determining why certain racial and sexual slurs are taboo, it’s not impossible for words that seem perfectly neutral to end up under a microscope.
For instance, many of us may see the word “cyclist” as a simple descriptor of someone riding a bike, but there could be more to it than that.
RELATED STORIES
Right off the bat, it should be noted the argument to do away with the term “cyclist” isn’t necessarily coming from activists.
When protests around issues of urban cycling do arise, they tend to be like this one in Montreal, Canada. As the Montreal Gazette reported , this die-in centered around road safety following a high toll of cyclist fatalities.
Instead, the idea to change terminology is based on a study by Queensland University of Technology and Monash University in Australia.
Narelle Haworth, who is both a professor at QUT and the director of Queensland’s Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, told The Daily Mail , “We need to spread the idea that those people [cyclists] could be any of us. There is need to grow a culture of mutual respect for people on bikes.”
Whether banning the term will accomplish much or not, there’s a clear reason why Haworth would suggest this.
As The Daily Mail reported , the study questioned 442 in an online survey and found that 55% of non-cyclists and 30% of drivers participating considered cyclists “not completely human.”
Part of the survey involved a test called the “dehumanization trait scale,” where participants could agree, disagree, or remain neutral on various statements.
Some examples of these statements included, “I feel like cyclists are mechanic,” and “I feel like cyclists aren’t sophisticated.”
There was also a section that asked about their behavior towards those riding bikes, and this part was particularly illuminating.
In addition to some who admitted to yelling and throwing things at people on bikes, one in five of participants have intentionally blocked them on roads, while one in 10 said they used their car to cut one off.
The study went on to link the dehumanization of cyclists to this deliberate road aggression.
And since it is often not difficult for road aggression to turn dangerous, if not deadly, when a car meets a bike, this compelled Haworth to suggest swapping out “cyclist” for “person on a bike.”
She’s also not suggesting that a simple change in terminology will magically fix all issues people on bikes face on the road.
As she told The Daily Mail , “Infrastructure is paramount. The best thing would be not to have to share the road.”
But until any infrastructural changes can happen, her goal is to remind drivers that these people on bikes are completely human.
Again, whether the term “people on bikes” catches on or not, the risks of not seeing them as entirely real people are clear and potentially tragic.
h/t: The Daily Mail
