Support BikePortland - Journalism that Matters

National org wants to know: What should we call this thing we do everyday?

Posted by on August 25th, 2014 at 2:39 pm

pfbsurvey

People for Bikes, a national advocacy group funded by the bicycle industry, wants to change cycling in America by coming up with a new name for it. Specifically, the group wants help figuring out what to call everyday cycling in order to differentiate it from recreation and fitness riding.

Here’s the set-up from People for Bikes via an email they sent out today:

“Lots of people ride bikes for recreation, exercise and sport. But there’s another kind of bicycling that’s becoming more and more popular in communities across the country. It’s difficult to quantify, because folks call it a lot of different things. And it doesn’t have an official name…

Imagine you’re rolling out on your bike right from your garage—no spandex involved, you’re wearing normal, everyday clothes.

You’re heading somewhere you need to go—like work, a meeting, or the grocery store. This might be part of your daily routine, or maybe you’re in the mood to run errands or get from point A to point B by bike, because it’s gorgeous outside…

This trip isn’t about exercise. You’ve got a destination in mind, and the bike’s the way you get there…

Help us name it by taking this survey!”

Advertisement

It’s worth noting that People for Bikes is the same group behind the Green Lane Project, a program that’s working to hasten the development of protected bike lanes across the country. They say they want to establish a new word for this specific type of cycling in order to, “quantify it, count the people who do it, and grow the movement.”

In an online survey, they offer four choices (they also allow you to fill in with whatever name you like). Here they are:

  • Everyday Biking
  • City Riding
  • Community Cycling
  • Functional Bicycling, or Funcycling

In my opinion, when it comes to language issues, I like to keep things simple and I try to avoid creating new labels whenever possible. When ideas like this come up, I also like to compare how it’s handled from a car-oriented perspective (I figure they’re a good model to emulate, giving the popularity and political dominance of driving). Does the AAA have separate terms for driving? I don’t think so. Do we differentiate between recreational driving trips and more serious, utilitarian driving trips? Nope.

One concern I have is that by slicing cycling up into its sub-parts, we’ll only make each group smaller and thus lessen the collective voice. We also might unintentionally create more divisions and cliques when what we need (in my opinion) to make major national progress for cycling is a large and unified voice pushing in (mostly) the same direction.

And who’s to say that a ride into work or to the store can’t also be recreation, fitness, and fun?!

Given those thoughts, I have used the term “everyday cycling” when I want to make it clear that I’m talking about people who aren’t suited up in lycra or riding for a workout.

What do you think?

Take the survey here.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. BikePortland is an inclusive company with no tolerance for discrimination or harassment including expressions of racism, sexism, homophobia, or xenophobia. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

54
Leave a Reply

avatar
38 Comment threads
16 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
43 Comment authors
Yvette MaranowskiOpus the PoetDavidwsbobMossby Pomegranate Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Clarence
Guest
Clarence

How about biking?

Justin Carinci
Guest
Justin Carinci

Transportation cycling

Patrick Barber
Guest

Driving.

Allan
Guest
Allan

We do have other words for different types of driving. Racing, cruising, going for a drive, road tripping, etc

SilkySlim
Guest
SilkySlim

Sportsin’, and lifestylin’.

Peejay
Guest
Peejay

Everyday biking comes closest, but implies that those who cannot get out on their bikes every day are somehow deficient. I really don’t like any of these choices, and I don’t understand People for Bikes pushing for a new label. Does it change things if I happen to be riding to a friend’s house, a pub, work, or a 40 mile loop on a nice day? Are my safety needs different? Is my right to get there in one piece more or less worthy?

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

When shopping for a car, one aspect I look at is how the vehicle would be as a “daily driver.” Basically, riding around towns/cities on shorter trips in stop-and-go traffic.

Given this is being proposed by the bike industry, perhaps a term like “daily rider” is appropriate.

Mike
Guest
Mike

Why do we need a cycling-specific term at all?

“Commuters” could go by car, train, motorcycle, bicycle, skateboard, foot, jet pack, Google self-driving vehicle, velomobile, ski lift, etc. — the issue is not what you call it, the issue is that policy makers make laws that favor one mode over another or prevent infrastructure improvements that might shift the mix.

Calling it “hoop gliding” instead of the politically-poisoned “cycling” won’t change the fact that voters, financiers, and the politicians they both help get elected are not screaming loud enough for change.

colton
Guest
colton

Really?? Some people have to overthink everything. Call it cleaving for all I care.

Lisa
Guest
Lisa

I say we just call it “riding” and if you’re doing something different like mountain biking, training, touring, etc. (as you would for a car- racing, four wheeling, road tripping) then you specify that.

JJJJ
Guest
JJJJ

I do think it’s an issue.

Cyclist does conjure up the idea of lycra
Biker? Thats taken by motorcycles

I do like bicyclist and bicycling. It’s longer to say, and jumbles the tongue…but sounds less threatening.

And as pointed out above, we do use driver, motorists, commuter, racer, etc for different context, along with joyriding, commuting, cruising, etc.

Dave
Guest
Dave

Damn the torpedoes and all of this idiotic oversensitivity–what in the world is wrong with calling cycling cycling?

groovin101
Guest
groovin101

Well we often differentiate amongst groups, on this very blog, by calling out the “8 to 80 crowd”, so there does appear to be some usefulness in recognizing different types of road users.

Tony H
Guest
Tony H

I usually say something to the effect of, “I’m going to the store”, “I’m going to work”, whatever. Obviously, I am on my bike! Pretty much the same language I used when I drove everywhere.

Andrew Squirrel
Guest
Andrew Squirrel

Smugcycling!

GlowBoy
Guest
GlowBoy

Of the 4, I chose Everyday Cycling, but I “wrote in” Transportation Cycling as my preferred term.

gutterbunnybikes
Guest
gutterbunnybikes

Started to take the survey, and found all the choices completely stupid and asinine. All it appears to be is trying to define a new niche for selling more useless, high end, overly designed, utterly useless garbage to people.

Why do bicycle riders need to be categorized in such a way? Operators of automobiles and trucks aren’t. They’re simply driving and drivers. Airlines are perhaps the only mode of transport that makes distinctions on their travelers. But it is more of a economic division (1st class/coach) than one of the intended purpose of the trip.

I believe the term they (we) are looking for is “Riding a bike” or you can cut it down a syllable to “Bike riding” or “Bike rider”. Take your pick, but both terms pretty much sum up anything you’re doing which requires two wheels and pedals, regardless of function.

At best the choices they present will only make bike riders look even more pathetic and arrogant to the non bike riding public than we already do.

Any term other than “bike riding” is just there to divide and conquer bicycle riders by getting us to argue over minutia that isn’t particularly relevant to anyone, and does nothing for moving or promoting the activity forward.

Andyc of Linnton
Guest
Andyc of Linnton

Ha! What?!
I’m totally funcycling in to work tomorrow.

Mossby Pomegranate
Guest
Mossby Pomegranate

I guess we’ve run out of real issues to address in cycling.

Barney
Guest
Barney

Trans-cycler has a Portland vibe.

Charlie
Guest
Charlie

I call it “going to work”. No extra words needed.

q`Tzal
Guest
q`Tzal

-9,000 for “Funcycling”.

It has the same connotation for “non-bikey” people as “toy bike” has for us.
If you want to have important trips to work, retail and schools devalued in the public space mentally connecting the activity with “!!!FUN!!!” is the way to go.
Everyone “knows” fun is never serious business.

Suburban
Guest
Suburban

Portland and Seattle bicycle industry companies would be wise to steer clear of this People for Bikes organization. What is this thing we do every day? We do not spend money at businesses affiliated with this .org or sporting it’s logo on stickers. We get away from idiots and let them stew in their own marketing driven fake-inclusiveness, we use language (including English) with precision, not manipulation: Yucky, dirty, sticky, cuss word, yuck.

Dwaine Dibbly
Guest
Dwaine Dibbly

“Vacuuming”, because when bikes are knit into modern life as commonly as vacuum cleaners, transportation cycling will no longer be an afterthought during planning. Maybe Hoover or Dyson will sign on as another corporate sponsor.

Cheif
Guest
Cheif

Thundercycling! For some reason whenever I ride more than about twenty miles in a day I fart a lot.

Dave
Guest
Dave

True, I don’t know why PFB even exists–the League of American Bicyclists has done that job for decades. What we really need is a transportation organization that is anti-car to the degree that many gun groups are pro-excessive gun rights. LAB are pretty wussified also. We need an alternative transportation group that will grab publicity and be unafraid of who they might offend.

Suburban
Portland and Seattle bicycle industry companies would be wise to steer clear of this People for Bikes organization. What is this thing we do every day? We do not spend money at businesses affiliated with this .org or sporting it’s logo on stickers. We get away from idiots and let them stew in their own marketing driven fake-inclusiveness, we use language (including English) with precision, not manipulation: Yucky, dirty, sticky, cuss word, yuck.
Recommended 2

Clarence
Guest
Clarence

If I were to choose anything, I’d go with Active Transportation, a term that exists already that completely works. And yet it has only a very small percentage of the population comprehending its meaning. To introduce another term that is destined to the same fate seems pointless.

Ryan M
Guest
Ryan M

Cat 7

KristenT
Guest
KristenT

I use “commuting” for the kind of riding I do during the week. Because that’s what I’m doing.

Oh, wait, I also use “commuting” for the kind of driving I do during the week. Because that’s what I’m doing.

I don’t differentiate the kinds of riding I’m doing when I’m riding; I don’t do that when I’m driving, why would I do it when I’m riding?

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

‘Basic Biking’. Those two words together are kind of bland, but at least they’re something people might commonly say to refer to short hops on the bike for this and that, take care of business, or whatever.

The expression ‘grocery getter’, referring to basic bikes used for the implied purpose: more fun to hear, sounds better, but doesn’t really convey all the basic jobs those type bikes likely are used to get things done.

Gumby
Guest
Gumby

How about “Arrogant menace”? Wait, we’re already called that.

spare_wheel
Guest
spare_wheel

Check out the corporate sponsor for the “People for Bikes” booth at a recent PDX Sunday Parkways:

http://imgur.com/UyHEGFW

Das Auto indeed.

Cheif
Guest
Cheif

When people see my bike they don’t need a word for it. It clearly conveys what it’s capable of: anything and everything.

Atbman
Guest
Atbman

Agree with the poster who mentioned “utility” cycling. I always enjoyed cycling whether racing, recreational or commuting/shopping/visiting friends, so “fun” cycling is too generic.
Utility implies riding for a practical purpose as opposed to competition or recreation

jocko
Guest
jocko

Bi-cycling with non-competitive intentions.

danny
Guest
danny

Here’s a good idea: Let’s think up new ways to label people riding bikes so we can further divide the small percentage of people who ride bikes for *whatever* reason.

When I commute to work, I wear lycra so I can change out of my sweaty riding clothes into something more office-appropriate. I also get a fitness boost and have fun while I’m on my way to/from my workplace. So, according to People for Bikes, should people like me as a “basic” bike rider, get angry at me for taking up road space while being a “fun-cyclist,” or belittle me — even within the cycling community — because I’m one of THOSE riders who wear lycra.

Here’s my answer: If we spent a lot less time contemplating how to label people riding bikes and simply recognized them as PEOPLE riding bikes, we’d be better off. Then we can spend more time explaining to society and policy-makers that people on bikes have a right to be on the road (for whatever reason or reasons they choose) just like other users, and that increasing infrastructure conducive to cycling is beneficial to society for a wide variety of reasons.

So here’s my label: People riding bikes.

David
Guest

What a waste of time. And effort. And indication of priorities.

Riding a bike

Go fix a pothole or a wheel

Yvette Maranowski
Guest
Yvette Maranowski

One thing, though, about keeping all bike-use groups merged as one identity, is that there are inequities within such a merged group. One group may use the bike to keep their family alive, whereas another group may use the bike for recreation. Since keeping a family alive is non-negotiable, whereas recreation is, it is completely possible that, in discussions and actions toward benefiting a merged group…the folks who bike for recreation are more available–therefore have greater access–to shift the merged bike group advocacy toward recreational bike uses.

I just wanted to point that out to hopefully support bike unity around equity.

I love the idea of not “slicing cycling up into its sub-parts” as the author says, though, because I do think we should are stronger and happier as one voice.