Use People Cycling and Driving vs Cyclist and Drivers for more positive outcomes

Our name is the EU Cycling Group and not EU Cyclist Group.

There are good reasons why we decided that this was the best name for us. 

The core issue revolves around the deliberate use of language to either form or avoid distinct groups.

The discussion about intentional language use, sheds light on the importance of the terms we choose and their effects on group dynamics. 

Depending on the context, such categorization can be beneficial or detrimental. 

Inclusive “Us” vs Creating Groups

Creating groups brings clarity, making concepts easier to understand, which the human brain generally appreciates. However, this can also lead to oversimplification, opposition, and division. 

Explorations into this topic, particularly regarding cycling, suggest that changes in mobility occur more smoothly when the discourse embraces an inclusive “us”.

This approach encompasses everyone, highlighting the common goal of helping people moving from one place to another and allowing for changes in transportation modes and habits.

It directs attention to transport forms and the activity itself. 

In contrast, referring to “drivers” and “cyclists” emphasizes group identities rather than mobility.

This shifts the focus to the rights and entitlements of each group in a zero-sum game, where gains for one group are seen as losses for another.

It also perpetuates the notion that drivers always drive, and cyclists always cycle, stereotypically confining them to fixed roles. 

For example, creating a bike lane with this language suggests giving something to cyclists while taking from drivers, who may perceive it as a loss.

Instead, thinking should centre on people generally, who move from point A to B using various modes of transport. 

Loss Aversion

Moreover, psychological aspects, such as loss aversion, often eclipse the appreciation of benefits.

When drivers perceive a reduction in their rights, a substantial sense of loss occurs as something familiar is relinquished. 

The concern is that framing the discussion in terms of drivers’ rights versus cyclists’ rights could quickly devolve into a “conflict,” hampering progress.

Therefore, it is essential to employ inclusive language that underscores shared objectives and mobility solutions for everyone. 

In Summary

The use of inclusive language that focuses on shared mobility goals rather than group-specific identities leads to more positive outcomes. 

Therefore, we talk about inclusively people and staff, and people cycling, walking, driving, using public transport or staff cycling walking and driving. 

^{Read the following articles:}

• ^{“Don’t Say ‘Cyclist’ Anymore, But ‘Person on a Bike'” | GRACQ  Ne dites plus “cycliste” mais “personne à vélo”}.

• ^{The original article from Seattle, where the communities attitude shifted significantly by paying attention to words.}