Comments by Sir Bradley Wiggins have raised the question of what it takes to be a ‘cyclist’ is riding a bike enough to qualify you as a cyclist or is more required – like a British Cycling membership card?
> Wiggins: London cyclists need to stick to the law
According to Oxford Dictionaries, a “cyclist” is “a person who rides a bicycle.” But the country’s most famous cyclist appears to suggest an even narrower definition – perhaps even implying that he or she must also be a member of British Cycling.
He said that people on bikes who commit offences such as riding through a red light “are termed under the phrase ‘cyclist’ but they’re not cyclists as such, they are not membership holders of British Cycling.”
The ins-and-outs apart of the wider points Wiggins was making – and his words have attracted plenty of comment here and elsewhere – he does raise an interesting philosophical point; what is a “cyclist”?
Is it enough simply to use pedal power to get around, or do you need to have certain competences, to be a member of some organisation before you can truly call yourself one?
Or does the act of thinking of yourself as a cyclist – metaphorically affixing that six letter label – to the inside of your head automatically confer ‘cyclist’ status?
It’s the kind of thing you might see in forum postings, or in below-the-line comments to news articles on websites such as this one that report on cyclists breaking the law whether traffic-related, or some other type of offence.
You don’t have to wait too long for someone to point out that the person in the article wasn’t actually a “cyclist” but just someone who happened to be on a bike.
Many will point out that it’s wrong an entire class of people get tarred with the same brush due to the actions of a few – the “all cyclists jump red lights” mentality some motorists hold, for example.
But the fact remains that to most non-riders, people on bikes are a pretty homogenous bunch, and “cyclists” is what they call them; no-one ever seems to suggest that a motorist committing a string of offences shouldn’t be called a “driver.”
So, are you a cyclist? And how would you define what it takes to be one – someone on two wheels (or a unicycle, or a trike), or does it take something else and if so, what? Let us know in the comments below.
60 thoughts on “What is a cyclist and… are you one?”
His definition is wrong and
His definition is wrong and unhelpful. But it’s something that we’re all guilty of to an extent. Where we see a story about a yob on a bike we tend to try and rationalise them out of our group.
For me his comment about who is a cyclist is more worrying than his belief that I should expect to be treated in accordance with how others view my sub group.
bendertherobot wrote:
I don’t think he’s saying or implying we *deserve* to be treated like that, but alas that is the reality – and in that part he’s right. Works in all sorts of group scenarios, cyclists aren’t exempt from it, probably not a group on Earth that doesn’t have an unwelcome but vocal proportion afflicted by it either – unfortunately the only surprise is that it’s still a surprise to some.
Thought Brad’s comments are
Thought Brad’s comments are quite funny in light of his reaction at the TdF when asked about doping. He didn’t like being lumped in with a bunch of people that cheated and couldn’t see why he had to prove he was innocent.
The guy gets paid to ride a bike, not for talking, and it is obvious why.
You don’t need to be a helmet
You don’t need to be a helmet member of British Cycling to be a cyclist, apart from in the competitive sense. However simply riding a bicycle shaped object also does not make you a cyclist. In my head at least there is a difference between cyclists and wheeled pedestrians.
“Or does the act of thinking
“Or does the act of thinking of yourself as a cyclist – metaphorically affixing that six letter label – to the inside of your head automatically confer ‘cyclist’ status?”
7 letter label. 6 would be cyclis.
Wiggins said: “Traffic lights
Wiggins said: “Traffic lights are there for a reason. Jumping traffic lights … you get run over by traffic coming the other way. The next morning that’s another cyclist that’s died. They are termed under the phrase ‘cyclist’ but they’re not cyclists as such, they are not membership holders of British Cycling.”
Who knew? Being a member of British Cycling makes you a real cyclist.
I got my first road bike back in ’62. I’ve done countless thousands of miles since then. I don’t jump traffic lights and try to observe the highway code at all times, not because I’m a do-gooder, but for my own safety. However, according to Wiggins, I’m not a cyclist as such because I have never felt the need to become a member of British Cycling.
I don’t lump myself in with every other cyclist, or, for those of you not members of British Cycling, people on bikes. I don’t consider them representative of me or me of them.
Is it the case that not one member of British Cycling ever jumps a light, or is Wiggins just trying to boost their membership?
I’m one, are you?
I’m one, are you?
Leviathan wrote:
I am. But mostly cos of the insurance, CRC and Halfords discount. #shallow
bendertherobot wrote:
You get CRC discount as a member?
Cyclist is an individual
Cyclist is an individual using a bike often and regularily, in case you have a problem to work it out, Sir 😉
So since cyclist going
So since cyclist going through red lights is apparently the biggest issue on the roads today, when are they phasing out the car operated lights that don’t change until s big metal box arrives? Why do I need to be accompanied through the junction by a motor vehicle?
This infrastructure only reenforces red light jumping.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Move to France, drive your car and you’re sat there with no traffic as the sensors don’t exist. Every one has to either wait or jump the light.
ChancerOnABike wrote:
Move to France, drive your car and you’re sat there with no traffic as the sensors don’t exist. Every one has to either wait or jump the light.— wycombewheeler
Lights work on timers then? Which is fine, same for everyone. But some lights here will never change without a car. How long to wait? 5 minutes? 10? An hour?
wycombewheeler wrote:
My steel bike seems to be able to trigger the sensors on the lights at the end of my road. I need to do some more checks to be sure.
vonhelmet wrote:
My steel bike seems to be able to trigger the sensors on the lights at the end of my road. I need to do some more checks to be sure.— wycombewheeler
I definitely trigger my local side-road lights during my commute; I’ve been putting that down to the 100kg lump that is me, my bike and my work gear.
davel wrote:
Pretty certain there are some that I don’t. Tempted to test this by occupying the sensor space at busy times to see if I can hold everyone up.
davel wrote:
It’s not weight, but usually either an induction loop or movement sensors. OK, maybe the latter… I’ve set off some speed awareness signs…
wycombewheeler wrote:
On one of my regular routes, there is a stretch of road which is cyclist only. At the end there is a traffic light, with a sensor. I’m a big lad, but that sensor doesn’t register my presence. It’s a busy junction, so many cyclists take to the footpath to reach the push button on the crossing just round the corner.
Pity no one thought to replace the sensor with a push button.
Who the heck wants to know
Who the heck wants to know that and what for? I ride my bicycle and I don’t care what people call me in doing so. I don’t ride it to obtain a name for that.
So despite 4 bikes (currently
So despite 4 bikes (currently), thousands of miles a year and the requisite metal plate in my collar bone, Sir Bradley doesn’t think I am a cyclist? I will restrain from suggesting what groups I might consider him a member of, or not.
So does CTC not count then?
So does CTC not count then?
Maybe it’s like ‘artist’ –
Maybe it’s like ‘artist’ – you are one if you say you are.
But it doesn’t mean you’re any good.
Nixster wrote:
Qualify good please.
Nixster wrote:
What’s a cyclist that’s not any good, one that keeps falling off? Accidentally cycles backwards sometimes? Accelerates instead of brakes sometimes?
Might be a little
Might be a little philosophical but to me cycling is a mindset and an approach, to other people that ride bikes and to other road users. Enjoying the space, the fresh air, the social aspects of a group ride with like minded people.
There are lots of poeple that ride bikes for different reason. I have witnessed fashion victims, lycrad up MAMILS riding like choppers in and around large groups, shouting for a right of passage as if they own the road. Not being aware of those around them or the need to let others know there is a parked car or pothole or drain cover, not letting people know what is going on chopping and changing lines, cutting people up. I often feel these will be the same choppers that tailgate and flash when they are in their fashion victim, perceived to be prestige German cars and they feel they are being delayed.
Strava warriors for whom a 100m segment is a challenge, really get a life and go and do a TT, no segment should be less than 5 miles.
These people may be on a bike but they have no sense of the responsibility, the respect, the brotherhood and I would probably not consider them to be cyclists merely people that use cycles.
I live in China, (Qingdao)
I live in China, (Qingdao) and I’m surrounded by people on bikes.
I’m thinking it’s similar to what I say about the most of the locals on their bikes.
They can ride a bike, but they don’t know how to ride.
I haven’t got the best bike handling skills, but I am far more safer on my bike then they are.
Just because they can make the bike go forward, doesn’t mean they have the skills, nor the want, to be on a bike everyday.
Is this a news story or just
Is this a news story or just a bit of page padding….
Yours,
Phil Space
WolfieSmith wrote:
I’m pretty sure it’s news if the UK’s best known cyclist suggests that his definition of a cyclist is whether you’re a card carrying member of British Cycling or not. Or at least it is to cyclists.
…Hang on! Maybe THAT’S the definition – whether you think it’s news or not
If your first impulse is to
If your first impulse is to reach for gloves and panniers instead of the car keys… 🙂
I don’t carry a British
I spent a lot of time riding bikes including BMX, road and mountain bikes
I don’t carry a British Cycling membership card
Does that mean I’m not a ‘cyclist’?
Mindless criticism of red
Mindless criticism of red light jumpers, the simple fact is traffic lights were not made for cyclists, they were made for motor vehicles and then imposed upon cyclists in a rudimentary manner, so many road rules are like this, one way roads, no turn left/right, all to deal with motor vehicle problems and then thoughtlessly applied to cyclists who simply don’t need them.
Do we consider people not to be drivers if they only drive occasionally? If they’re not members of an auto-club? If they drive badly?
kie7077 wrote:
Regardless of whether you like the rules of the road they exist, and they are to be obeyed. Just because you don’t like red lights, or not being able to turn right or left sometimes doesn’t give you the right to ignore those rules.
These rules certainly haven’t been applied ‘thoughtlessly’ either, they’ve just been applied according to the needs at the time – given the growth of cycling in the UK someone’s noticed the need for change, as there’s an increasing number of cycle exemptions popping up in London which give cyclists the right to turn where vehicles can’t, and even run in both directions on a One Way street, so things are changing for us.
STiG911 wrote:
‘needs at the time’ I don’t agree that the infrastructure created was the one that was ‘needed’ something a lot better could have been created but wasn’t because it was thoughtless like I said and if it wasn’t thoughtless to start with then why did they need to change it later? You don’t create cycling infrastructure because there are cyclists, you create cycling infrastructure to encourage cycling – and it works. Enfield mini-holland is a good example of this, 0% modal share cycling, that will likely change a lot if the planned changes go through.
I don’t agree that we should blindly follow laws, have you ever complained that a taxi didn’t have a bale of hay, have you ever stopped anyone eating mince pies on cristmas day?
I’ll decide for myself whether or not laws make sense and whether or not I think they apply to me as a cyclist when they were clearly written for people driving motor vehicles.
kie7077 wrote:
Sounds like civil disobedience to me.
I agree; the laws don’t seem to be protecting vulnerable road users so why should vulnerable road users care about following them?
kie7077 wrote:
I said the rules were created according to the need, not the infrastructure. The infrastructure, since you mention it, has to be designed or changed according to need for the majority at the time like it or not, but IS changing and I believe I noted that. Look at the amount of cycle lanes have been put in place in the last year or two, and how many are due to come online soon.
Frankly I’d like to see almost no cars or lorries on London streets as it’d be a far nicer place for everyone (and given that air quality has been in the toilet for so long I’d like to think we’re not too far from a bigger crack-down) but the physical layout of London and other cities in the UK make it a difficult task to overcome.
It’s not about blindly following laws either – you should adhere to the ones which apply to you where and when you are. Stating that you’ll decide for yourself is unbelievably arrogant and simply feeding the notion that all cyclists are law-breakers.
STiG911 wrote:
If you want other people to do your thinking for you then you are free to do so, I don’t give a damn about laws, I care about people and the environment and choose to make my decisions accordingly. Blindly follwing laws is a bad idea.
kie7077 wrote:
You don’t give a damn about laws, but care about people and the environment. Right.
Other people doing my thinking for me – i.e. creating laws – is what happens when people like you feel free to make their own decisions instead of acting like responsible adults.
LOL – it’s lucky he’s good at
LOL – it’s lucky he’s good at cycling.
He’ll have joined the Professional Speaking Association before saying that obviously.
I must remember to join The Ramblers before walking to the post box and of course The Road Haulage Association before bringing the shopping back from Tesco.
It’s simple. If you often
It’s simple. If you often ride a bike, then you’re a cyclist. That includes the old man cycling half a mile to the pub on an old rust-bucket, the gang of youths posing on BMXs and the RLJer causing mayhem on the road.
We’re all cyclists and we’re all different.
Brad ( Sir ) also claims to
Brad ( Sir ) also claims to be a Mod . However , Mods only actually existed during the 1960s which was when I was a member. So where is your membership card Brad ?
We rode Lambrettas and Vespas and had hairy legs !
“I don’t want to belong to
“I don’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member”
Groucho Marx
According to this site it
According to this site it seems that being a cyclist is someone that wants to jump on anything said by one of our finest!
Yes Brad speaks from a priviliged position, and probably doesn’t want to be lumped in with every Herbert on a bike, quite frankly nor do I. The reference to British Cycling is perhaps a little specific but he was probably referring to those of us who take an active interest. Do I consider myself different to a lady nipping to the shops with a basket on the front, yes; to a pannier carrying blackpool illuminations commuter, yes.
I take an active interest; equipment, technique, training etc. It doesn’t make me think i am superior, a person could be in several categories (i commute by day and sportive by weekend).
I think Brad is simply pointing out that there’s plenty of sub categories, differences within categories etc. All are not the same.
alansmurphy wrote:
You can easily contrast the comments made on Chris Boardman’s statements and Brad’s statements. A lot of us don’t like what Brad is saying as it’s not helpful and directs attention away from the actual, real problem of deaths on our roads.
I’m quite happy to be included in the large cross-section of society known as “cyclists”. I feel some connection with anyone who enjoys riding a bike, no matter whether they’re a lycra-clad olympic champions, or a five year old girl on a pink bike with stabilisers. Brad can include/exclude himself in any group that he wants, but I don’t think his comments are helpful and are at best a time-wasting distraction.
I am Spartacyclist!
I am Spartacyclist!
The _Kaner wrote:
No; I am Spartacyclist!
I don’t race or ride fast, I
I don’t race or ride fast, I ride my bike to Lidls or the Co-op, it’s steel and has a coaster brake, an always on dynamo and a saddle you could sleep on. I don’t wear a helmet or special shoes and clothes. I’m probably a bike shop’s worst nightmare. But I don’t own a car, my bike does my heavy haulage for me and I’ve been riding for about 20 years longer than Bradley Wiggins has been on this earth. I’m not a cyclist, I’m just a fat bloke on a bike.
Being the pedant I am, surely
Being the pedant I am, surely we should be called cyclers not cyclists? After all if a racist hates people of different race, a sexist hates people because of their sex so therefore…
hairyairey wrote:
I see your pedantry and raise you all in.
The suffix -ist means several things (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ist) and while I’d prefer the meaning “a person with a particular creative or academic role e.g. artist, violinist, botanist”, I think the alternative meaning “a person who holds bigoted, partial views” may also apply. (However there isn’t the associated “cyclism” so maybe that doesn’t apply).
Anyhow, I’d say that you’re more an etymologist or grammarist (if that’s even a word) than a pedant.
I’m Brian and so is my wife
I’m Brian and so is my wife
Jimbonic wrote:
Mr Wiggins clearly meant to refer to all users of vehicles having less than four wheels: he really shouldn’t be taken so literally, you know…
Sir Brad says some funny
Sir Brad says some funny things sometimes. As far as I’m concerned there are 2 main categories of cyclist. Firstly, and most obviously, the person on a bike. Anybody, whilst in the act of riding a bike is a cyclist for the time that they are riding. Secondly there are those of us who are cyclists all the time regardless of whether we have a bike between our legs.
Anyone who pedals a vehicle
Anyone who pedals a vehicle with wheels (one, two, three or four), regularly, occasionally, well or badly or just once is a cyclist whilst doing so.
So come on people, including Bradley, get over yourselves; if you want an exclusive term for those who are members of something, or those who ride in a particular way or those who wear certain gear then all you have to do is qualify the word “cyclist” by putting another word in front of it. Examples you might consider include:
Serious cyclist
Professional cyclist
Occasional cyclist
Hipster cyclist
Racing cyclist
Commuting cyclist
Utility cyclist
Card-carry XXX member cyclist (insert your favoured organisation at XXX)
You can of course also change the word by adding to the beginning of it to define the type of cycle being ridden. Examples here would include:
Bicyclist
Unicyclist
Tricyclist
Quadricyclist
Motorcyclist (just to provoke some controversy 😉 )
Wait, Brad. If a black person
Wait, Brad. If a black person commits a crime, do you hate all black people? Or are some of them not really black?
More thoughtless comments from a posh, pro helmet-law twat.
Go back to cycling and leave us “non-cyclists” in peace.
mrfree wrote:
I think even now Wiggo would balk at being referred to as posh.
I’m a member of BC and I went through a red light this morning [whoopsie-emoticon]
If only philosophical clarity
If only philosophical clarity could be conferred as easily as a knighthood…
(@ShayCycles: I’m a private cyclist myself)
Maybe the key is here in the
Maybe the key is here in the article:
But the fact remains that to most non-riders, people on bikes are a pretty homogenous bunch, and “cyclists” is what they call them; no-one ever seems to suggest that a motorist committing a string of offences shouldn’t be called a “driver.”
Driver and Rider simply indicate the selected form of transport, motorist and cyclist suggest some deeper attachment to the collective. The application of the terms in the article is mixed.
To me, this is a massive case
To me, this is a massive case of the No True Scotsman Fallacy being committed by Bradley Wiggins. Quite simply, he is fed up of being in the same group as people who break laws while riding their bikes. This group is called ‘cyclists’. Therefore, if the people who he’d like to exclude from the group aren’t true cyclists, then his group is safe to continue calling themselves cyclists, while the ‘other’ will need to be called something else, like ‘people who ride bikes’.
He has moved the goal posts to cyclist-manship from owning a bike, to owning a bike and having a British Cycling membership card.
No True Scotsman Fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Well what a silly debate.
Well what a silly debate.
This just allows for the use of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
What a barmy argument. It’s
What a barmy argument. It’s all about the definition of a word, ‘cyclist’. What the dictionary says is what it means, i.e. anyone who is riding a bike. A five year old who’s just got onto their first bike is a cyclist because he or she is riding a bike. It’s not about the status or expertise of the rider, just the fact that they’re riding a bike. Crap riders are crap cyclists, not non-cyclists.
By the way, I see that Wiggo has joined the beard and standy-up hair clone club. Which means that he’sa fashion sheep and not a cyclist at all.
All neatly summed up here
All neatly summed up here http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/03/14/the-rise-of-the-idiots/#more-2448