Are you a cyclist or a person who cycles?

An advocate's counsel on how to refer to people on wheels brings to mind the 'people-first language' used to refer to those with disabilities.

Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor
A cyclist rents a bike from Hubway outside North Station, on May 17, 2013 in Boston, Massachusetts. Hubway is a bike-sharing system with more than 100 stations and 1000 bikes available in Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, and Somerville.

Do you get around, at least occasionally, on a bicycle? If so, are you a cyclist – or a person who cycles?

If you heed the counsel of Glen Koorey, a transportation researcher and cycling advocate in New Zealand, you'll call yourself a "person who cycles."

And if you want to lobby city hall for changes to make it easier to get around on two wheels instead of four, please, please, please, don't ask officials to "provide cycling facilities." Ask instead that they "provide for cycling."

Advocates for a better cycling environment have to be careful about how they present their case, lest they "score an own goal," Dr. Koorey warns – or, as we say in the United States, "shoot themselves in the foot."

His concern is that "cyclists" often conjures up "images of a relatively small bunch of 'weird' people," whereas "people who cycle" leaves open the possibility that these are otherwise normal people who also own and drive cars. And a call for "cycling facilities" is likely to suggest a need for major road rebuilding. But communities can "provide for cycling" without necessarily having to build anything, he says.

Koorey originally set forth these ideas in a brief paper in 2007. But they've just sparked a flurry of debate on a mailing list to which I subscribe. Somehow Koorey's paper, floating like a message in a bottle on the vast information ocean of the Internet, caught the attention of Jonathan Maus in Oregon. He's editor and publisher of a website called BikePortland.org. Someone on my list linked to his piece on Koorey's paper.

Mr. Maus feels he has found a soul mate: "It's as if he crawled inside my brain and then reported back what he found," he writes of Koorey. Maus particularly agrees that using the term "cyclists" is likely to backfire by suggesting some kind of bloc – "[a]s if we are all friends and we hang out in some basement plotting our next move."

He quotes Koorey: "It can be simple descriptions like this that can subtly serve to question the rights of those who cycle."

The mailing-list debate also involved the best terminology for people who walk. One contributor urged, "Let's all try to refrain from using the word 'pedestrian.' We're all people. We just happen to spend most of our lives not in cars."

But another countered, "Sometimes the word 'pedestrian' as in 'pedestrian-friendly' is unavoidable.... Sometimes 'people' works just fine, but other times it does not. We need many words to describe people on foot."

Koorey's paper is an interesting example of an advocate thinking aloud about how to choose his words in order to advance his position. But both his paper and the exchanges about walking call to mind the efforts for "people-first language," used in referring to people with disabilities.

This is the movement that has urged such formulations as "people who stutter" rather than "stutterers." The idea is "they're people first."

Such formulations, though not universally accepted, do help make the point, even if it takes a few extra words, that people are not their diagnoses.

As for cycling and walking, however: Good for Koorey, Maus, and their kindred spirits for being alert to this set of nuances. But I'm too steeped in the ethos of "Omit needless words" to be comfortable giving up on cyclist. Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't this why we have nouns in the first place?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.