Living Car Free - Why the term Cager?

Back in my ruff tuff creampuff Harley Sportster riding days I read a magazine called Easy Rider on occasion. In the magazine devoted to the "biker" culture they referred to car drivers/motorists as "cagers". It seemed an apt term at the time as this was in the late 70's early 80's when riding a Harley was still uncool and the Harley bikers were not welcome most places. I felt sorry for cagers. As a Harley rider would call them.

Riding my Motobecane bicycle in the same time zone I felt uncool with the Harley"bikers" standards as well.

So I am just saying that terms like bikers,cagers both refer to motorists. Unlike the term "cyclist" which refers to a human powered mode of transport.

Many people drive cars because they have to. Not because they want to. They are part of a car culture by necessity.

So why do cyclists degradingly label them with the term "cager". It seems elitist and immature to me. Cager and Biker are often one of the same today now that having a Harley means having arrived in a priviledged economic class. So I feel it is time to drop old labels that are no longer relevant.

If I am way off track on this or if you agree what is your reason for doing so?

"Cager" is a word that's loaded with an element of contempt. It's a fine word to choose if you specifically want to express contempt. In general, though, the careless use of loaded words short circuits clear thinking and civil discussion.

"Cager" is a word that's loaded with an element of contempt. It's a fine word to choose if you specifically want to express contempt. In general, though, the careless use of loaded words short circuits clear thinking and civil discussion.

Gee Platy, I read it as loaded with an element of pity not contempt. I also first ran across the word in motorcycle magazines. I'm not sure I've used it in any posts but if I have I meant to express pity for the pathetic driver trapped in a metal cage. Isn't that how it was used in the post from fordfasterr about helping a motorist so isolated from his fellow motorists that he only got a hand from someone not in a cage? I thought the motorcyclists were using it to distinguish the freedom of being "in the wind" from being restrained and surrounded by glass and steel.

Gee Platy, I read it as loaded with an element of pity not contempt...
I can see your point there. Do you think the connotation has changed? When I was a kid a hacker was a term of admiration for a clever programmer. Now a hacker is an unauthorized user with criminal intent. So I've stopped using that word.

It still is, to those who know what a script kiddie is anyhoo...

Many people drive cars because they have to. Not because they want to. They are part of a car culture by necessity.



True enough. Our infrastructure is so poorly designed that it is difficult, even impossible, for some people to do without their cars. But I don't think very many of these people would change their ways, even if they lived on a bus line that ran every five minutes--with a private bike path from their front door right to their workplace.

I sure don't see many people who have been "forced" to drive a car out there riding bikes or protesting for transit alternatives. So, I'm not inclined to pity them--or release them from their responsibility to do whatever they can to make better transit choices.

P.S. Is this really a concern of yours, or are you just looking for an argument? If the latter, I'll not participate further in your thread.

I mostly agree with Roody's sentiment, that some people who use a car use it out of necessity....... but that most people who do use a car out of necessity, as well as the majority of people who don't need a car, would use one if they can afford it, regardless of whether there is a fairly convenient public transit or bicycle alternative.

I consider littledog to be pretty much right on the money, though, that calling people cagers out of pity or out of contempt (and if someone is told she's pitied when she doesn't think she deserves it, it will feel like contempt) does little to further our cause. Making people angry can work sometimes, but in this situation I think it's just a way to make enemies.

P.S. Is this really a concern of yours, or are you just looking for an argument? If the latter, I'll not participate further in your thread.[/QUOTE]

Yes,it is a real concern. It just doesn't seem right to belittle people who need to own a car and can not really afford even a junker. So they go into debt Yet public transportation-the bus- is not adequate in that it doesn't have enough routes or run often enough on weekends or holidays or night hours. A lot of people work 2nd or 3rd shift jobs when the buses don't run. Also weekends and holidays. Like hotel maids,restaurant and bar employees,janitors,nurses aids and such. The jobs of the new service economy.

Yes,it is a real concern. It just doesn't seem right to belittle people who need to own a car and can not really afford even a junker. So they go into debt Yet public transportation-the bus- is not adequate in that it doesn't have enough routes or run often enough on weekends or holidays or night hours. A lot of people work 2nd or 3rd shift jobs when the buses don't run. Also weekends and holidays. Like hotel maids,restaurant and bar employees,janitors,nurses aids and such. The jobs of the new service economy.

It is hard for folks who don't have much money. I know a single mother on disability due to a bad back. The only way to get her kids into a good school was to move to subsidized housing in a small town. Her car payment on a used minivan takes almost a third of her income. She "needs" the car because the closest bus is a couple miles away, and the kids have to go places too. I couldn't argue with her logic.

Howeer, like most addictions, a car dependency is often at least part psychological. People think they need a car, therefore they do need a car.

I consider littledog to be pretty much right on the money, though, that calling people cagers out of pity or out of contempt (and if someone is told she's pitied when she doesn't think she deserves it, it will feel like contempt) does little to further our cause. Making people angry can work sometimes, but in this situation I think it's just a way to make enemies.


Gee Platy, I read it as loaded with an element of pity not contempt. I also first ran across the word in motorcycle magazines. I'm not sure I've used it in any posts but if I have I meant to express pity for the pathetic driver trapped in a metal cage. Isn't that how it was used in the post from fordfasterr about helping a motorist so isolated from his fellow motorists that he only got a hand from someone not in a cage?



No, fordfasterr is quite clear in his numerous posts; he uses the term "cagers" to express his contempt for those who do not share his views about the evil of motorists. See fordfasterr's use of the term in the thread title and message to help spin/distort an incident to fit his contemptuous attitude - http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=338123

Showing contempt for the "enemy" is the intent of such name calling.

I must be a cager. I drive a mazda B2200, a HINO single axle roll off bin truck for work, a GMC tandem axle (also roll off).

there are good cagers and bad cagers, just like there are good cyclists and, well, hipsters on fixies..

So I am just saying that terms like bikers,cagers both refer to motorists. Unlike the term "cyclist" which refers to a human powered mode of transport.

WRONG!

A motorcyclist can be a 'cyclist as well. And a motorcycle is technically a motorized bicycle, because it has 2 wheels.

If you are going to argue terminology, at least get it right.

WRONG!

A motorcyclist can be a 'cyclist as well. And a motorcycle is technically a motorized bicycle, because it has 2 wheels.

If you are going to argue terminology, at least get it right.

You haven't been around many Harley or other large bike riders have you? I took my BMX cruiser to a "bike" blessing this spring. The bikers who knew me from my biking days were friendly,although a little distant. Asking me "Don't you ride a bike anymore?" The other bikers just flat out ignored me when I tried to initiate a conversation. If I would of called them "cyclists" it might of lead to an interesting conversation though. A couple of them did mention they rode a bicycle but gave it up due to having leg/knee problems from motorcycle accidents. One of them tried to sell me his bicycle because of his knee problem and proudly told me how he walks 5 miles every day. I guess he didn't know how to change gears on his bicycle? I don't know. I didn't push him for an answer. The bikers just seemed to have a condescending attitude of bicycles as being toys for their children. As many motorists do.

I must be a cager. I drive a mazda B2200, a HINO single axle roll off bin truck for work, a GMC tandem axle (also roll off).

there are good cagers and bad cagers, just like there are good cyclists and, well, hipsters on fixies..

Not to mention fixie eliteists:D

I hate cagers. I drive a car. Therefore I hate myself.

5 hail marys

I think being a cager has more to do with attitude than actually driving a car. A cager is the person who acts aggresively towards legal bicycle behavior. The person riding a bicycle facing traffic is a cager. Most of the unsafe actions the enhanced pedestrian cyclist's display is the behavior of a cager, they simply are not in a car. The car driver who is courteous and defensive minded is not a cager. It is all about the intent.

I can see your point there. Do you think the connotation has changed? When I was a kid a hacker was a term of admiration for a clever programmer. Now a hacker is an unauthorized user with criminal intent. So I've stopped using that word.

Maybe the connotation has changed. When I began programming a hacker was someone not formally educated in the things he/she was doing so was getting the job done but not the way a professional would do it. With such a new technology this wasn't necessarily bad and the good self taught programmers (hackers) were very much admired. The ones I came across were often part time musicians who worked irregular hours. When I see 'cager' though, I think of the animals in the zoo. Every time I go to the zoo I want to free all the animals. Sometimes I feel that way about motorists stuck in traffic. Don't they see how much more fun I'm having? I can see the scowls on their faces and sometimes hear their angry remarks to each other. That is no way to live.

Yes,it is a real concern. It just doesn't seem right to belittle people who need to own a car and can not really afford even a junker. So they go into debt Yet public transportation-the bus- is not adequate in that it doesn't have enough routes or run often enough on weekends or holidays or night hours. A lot of people work 2nd or 3rd shift jobs when the buses don't run. Also weekends and holidays. Like hotel maids,restaurant and bar employees,janitors,nurses aids and such. The jobs of the new service economy.

Neither me, my wife or our four Cadillacs feel the slightest bit belittled by being called cagers. We are waving at you through our dark tinted glass windows - with the climate control on of course...

A "cager" is a basketball player (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cager). If folks want to invent pejorative jargon for car drivers, they should at least get their own word.

I would still find the project mildly embarrassing.

The person riding a bicycle facing traffic is a cager.

I don't see where you get the idea that bicyclists doing dumb things in traffic become "cagers".

It's kind of like the way racists see someone they don't like, and say the person belongs to a race they don't like. They don't have much in common except that you dislike them.

I don't see where you get the idea that bicyclists doing dumb things in traffic become "cagers".

It's kind of like the way racists see someone they don't like, and say the person belongs to a race they don't like. They don't have much in common except that you dislike them.

Or sorta like a bicycling expert calling all cyclists, "incompetent" if they don't ride in the guru approved manner.

You haven't been around many Harley or other large bike riders have you? I took my BMX cruiser to a "bike" blessing this spring. The bikers who knew me from my biking days were friendly,although a little distant. Asking me "Don't you ride a bike anymore?" The other bikers just flat out ignored me when I tried to initiate a conversation. If I would of called them "cyclists" it might of lead to an interesting conversation though. A couple of them did mention they rode a bicycle but gave it up due to having leg/knee problems from motorcycle accidents. One of them tried to sell me his bicycle because of his knee problem and proudly told me how he walks 5 miles every day. I guess he didn't know how to change gears on his bicycle? I don't know. I didn't push him for an answer. The bikers just seemed to have a condescending attitude of bicycles as being toys for their children. As many motorists do.

You went to a bike blessing, of course you're going to find a bunch of cruisers and poseurs. I know a bunch of racers that pedal to keep in shape. That's all beside the point. All I am saying is that a motorcycle has two wheels, and is therefore a motorized bicycle. So you do NOT have the term cyclist all to yourself. It's not restricted based on the lack of motor.

You went to a bike blessing, of course you're going to find a bunch of cruisers and poseurs. I know a bunch of racers that pedal to keep in shape. That's all beside the point. All I am saying is that a motorcycle has two wheels, and is therefore a motorized bicycle. So you do NOT have the term cyclist all to yourself. It's not restricted based on the lack of motor.

You are correct. I was wrong.

Now I need to put some loud pipes on my BMX cruiser cycle. Or maybe some Mylar/Kevlar cards in the spokes of the rear wheel. Gotta think safety. After all those small bikes are hard to see.

And a motorcycle is technically a motorized bicycle, because it has 2 wheels.

If you are going to argue terminology, at least get it right.I'm pretty sure a motorized bicycle or moped require the rider be able to provide some sort of consistent, reasonable propulsion. While a motorcycle or scooter only need to have two wheels and an engine/motor of some sort. There are also speed/size/wheel configurations that fall into different categories, depending on yer DMV, so YMMV, but for the most part I haven't seen a motorcycle defined as a motorized bicycle.


Definition of a Motorcycle
400. (a) A "motorcycle" is any motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider, designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, and weighing less than 1,500 pounds.
(b) A motor vehicle that has four wheels in contact with the ground, two of which are a functional part of a sidecar, is a motorcycle if the vehicle otherwise comes within the definition of subdivision (a).
(c) A motor vehicle that is electrically powered, has a maximum speed of 45 miles per hour, and weighs less than 2,500 pounds, is a motorcycle if the vehicle otherwise comes within the definition of subdivision (a).
(d) A farm tractor is not a motorcycle. (e) A motor vehicle that has an enclosed seating area for the driver and passenger, and is used by local public agencies for the enforcement of parking control provisions, is not a motorcycle.
(z) The fact that (d) or (e) needed to be clarified is hereby officially noted as frightening.
;)

I'm pretty sure a motorized bicycle or moped require the rider be able to provide some sort of consistent, reasonable propulsion. While a motorcycle or scooter only need to have two wheels and an engine/motor of some sort. There are also speed/size/wheel configurations that fall into different categories, depending on yer DMV, so YMMV, but for the most part I haven't seen a motorcycle defined as a motorized bicycle.


;)

I'm going by the purest definition, the word's origins. You can clearly see that bicycle = 2 wheels. Regardless, 'cyclist can just as easily be short for motorcyclist as bicyclist. There is no need for all the hate between the two groups. Sadly most of it is caused by bicyclists' attitudes and improper riding. It's VERY safe to ride in the right half of the lane and let a motorcycle slowly pass in the left half, but there are too many bicyclist with a bee up their butt that try to keep everyone from passing them.

I'm going by the purest definition, the word's origins. You can clearly see that bicycle = 2 wheels. Regardless, 'cyclist can just as easily be short for motorcyclist as bicyclist. There is no need for all the hate between the two groups. Sadly most of it is caused by bicyclists' attitudes and improper riding. It's VERY safe to ride in the right half of the lane and let a motorcycle slowly pass in the left half, but there are too many bicyclist with a bee up their butt that try to keep everyone from passing them.

Hmmm... Well,I am not even going to go there. But many motorcycles did have pedals on them as late as 1919.

It seemed an apt term at the time as this was in the late 70's early 80's when riding a Harley was still uncool and the Harley bikers were not welcome most places.

A Harley rider is in no position to look down on anyone. Here's a dime, get yourself a freak'n muffler already! Yeesh!

Or sorta like a bicycling expert calling all cyclists, "incompetent" if they don't ride in the guru approved manner.

Wrong forum, dude. I think you were looking for a fight on Vehicular Cycling.

I'm going by the purest definition, the word's origins. You can clearly see that bicycle = 2 wheels. Regardless, 'cyclist can just as easily be short for motorcyclist as bicyclist. There is no need for all the hate between the two groups. Sadly most of it is caused by bicyclists' attitudes and improper riding. It's VERY safe to ride in the right half of the lane and let a motorcycle slowly pass in the left half, but there are too many bicyclist with a bee up their butt that try to keep everyone from passing them.

So where are you seeing this big rift between the various two-wheeled tribes? And where do you see bicyclists trying to keep people from passing them, when it's safe to be passed? I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. And even the molehill is imaginary, as far as I can tell.

Motorcyclists have been using the term "cager" at least as long as bicyclists have. Whether it expresses contempt, hatred or pity (or is purely descriptive) depends on the context and on the individual.

Odd how the original title has been edited.


No, fordfasterr is quite clear in his numerous posts; he uses the term "cagers" to express his contempt for those who do not share his views about the evil of motorists. See fordfasterr's use of the term in the thread title and message to help spin/distort an incident to fit his contemptuous attitude - http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=338123

Showing contempt for the "enemy" is the intent of such name calling.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
No, fordfasterr is quite clear in his numerous posts; he uses the term "cagers" to express his contempt for those who do not share his views about the evil of motorists. See fordfasterr's use of the term in the thread title and message to help spin/distort an incident to fit his contemptuous attitude - http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=338123

Showing contempt for the "enemy" is the intent of such name calling.

Odd how the original title has been edited.

I don't think the OP can edit a thread title. I assume one of the mods (Brian perhaps) also felt that the original over the top title, as I remember it "Cager crushes 12 cyclists" was more descriptive of the OP's over riding antipathy towards motorists ("Cars Suck") and overactive imagination, rather than any description of the actual event.

So where are you seeing this big rift between the various two-wheeled tribes? And where do you see bicyclists trying to keep people from passing them, when it's safe to be passed? I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. And even the molehill is imaginary, as far as I can tell.

Motorcyclists have been using the term "cager" at least as long as bicyclists have. Whether it expresses contempt, hatred or pity (or is purely descriptive) depends on the context and on the individual.
You. Yes, you are an excellent example of bicyclists' hatred of motorcycles. You think you are better than anything with an internal combustion engine.

Two wheels good.
Four wheels bad.

It would have been nice if the other discussion of the word "cager" was as civil.

definition of cycling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclist) according to Wikipedia:

"Cycling is a means of transport, a form of recreation, and a sport. The bicycle carries riders across land, through tunnels, over bridges, or, much less frequently, over ice (icebiking). Cycling involves the riding of bicycles, unicycles, tricycles, quadricycles and other similar human powered vehicles (HPVs)."

Lauren's definition is out of keeping with best practice. It is similar to claiming that 'anti-Semitic' means 'anti anyone speaking a Semitic language'; simple confusion between historical etymology and current meaning. I suppose if I were to call lauren 'nice', she would get offended because i called her stupid...

definition of cycling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclist) according to Wikipedia:

"Cycling is a means of transport, a form of recreation, and a sport. The bicycle carries riders across land, through tunnels, over bridges, or, much less frequently, over ice (icebiking). Cycling involves the riding of bicycles, unicycles, tricycles, quadricycles and other similar human powered vehicles (HPVs)."

Lauren's definition is out of keeping with best practice. It is similar to claiming that 'anti-Semitic' means 'anti anyone speaking a Semitic language'; simple confusion between historical etymology and current meaning. I suppose if I were to call lauren 'nice', she would get offended because i called her stupid...

Why, OH WHY do people cite wikipedia when trying to prove a point? It's like trying to win an argument by saying 'Because my Aunt Alice said it's true!' At least try to pull something from Encyclopedia Britannica or Dictionary.com. They at least have to do some verifiable research before publishing their information. Nine times out of ten your Aunt Alice WAS the person who typed in the Wiki entry. Or that guy that calls you DOOOOOD at the Taco Bell. Wikipedia is for people that believe everything they read, or want to because it's easier than digging deeper. Bad Wiki, BAAAAAD! Okay, I'm through flying off the handle with my mock rant...

And to get back to the topic...considering I see 'cagers' used on every second thread I run into on BF, I think it's here to stay, regardless of the malice or derogatory undertones it may convey. I personally wouldn't use it because it's easier to single out the 'a#$*ole in the red car' than to reference 'some cager' who tried to run me over even when I was on the shoulder gravel already. It makes it look like you're trying too hard just to use your new slang word of the month.

So why do cyclists degradingly label them with the term "cager".

Because the term "dogie" hasn't won universal acceptance yet.

You. Yes, you are an excellent example of bicyclists' hatred of motorcycles. You think you are better than anything with an internal combustion engine.

You sure are sensitive and defensive for a motorcycle chick!

Yeah, I think ICEs are inherently pollution sources, no matter how many wheels are attached to them. But that's fact, not opinion or judgment, and you'll sound pretty lame if you try to argue against a fact.

I don't think I'm better than anything with an engine, because I don't think humans and engines are in the same class, so it doesn't make any sense to compare them. But I do think bicycles are way cooler than motorcycles. That's an opinion so you're free to disagree. If it's wrong to say that bikes are better on a bicycle forum, then you can shoot me.

I also think that, while motorcycles are clearly not automobiles, they are "cars" in the sense that they're motor vehicles for personal or private use. There's a lot of dispute whether motorcycles pollute more or less than autos. I've read good arguments both ways. My suspicion is they're about the same.

While I like the term cager, it falls short in my book. It's not derogitory enough! It is a good one size fits all term.

While I like the term cager, it falls short in my book. It's not derogitory enough! It is a good one size fits all term.
Hate to say this, but you're a mental cager.

While I like the term cager, it falls short in my book. It's not derogitory enough! It is a good one size fits all term.

Do you like JAM? (I don't mean the kind with peanut butter. :p)

Do you like JAM? (I don't mean the kind with peanut butter. :p)
Hmm.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=JAM

I Jammed that Jam until I had no more Jam. Then we Jammed and hit the Jam before we got to the jam. Digg?



Hate to say this, but you're a mental cager.

Skull = Good cage, car = bad cage

At least I'm not a BDC. Brain Dead Cager as in:
BDC on the phone, yelling at her kids in the backseat pulled out in front of me. ***** now has a size 11 dent in her passenger door.

Skull = Good cage, car = bad cage

At least I'm not a BDC. Brain Dead Cager as in:
BDC on the phone, yelling at her kids in the backseat pulled out in front of me. ***** now has a size 11 dent in her passenger door.
I don't think you understand. You're a stupid elitist on par with many of the motorists you hate so much.

I don't think you understand. You're a stupid elitist on par with many of the motorists you hate so much.

You insulted the guy once, he was cool and friendly about it, so you come and slam him again. What kind of a person are you?

We don't go in for the name calling on this forum, unless it's in fun. Also this type of post is prohibited by forum guidelines (http://bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=general_principles#faq_respectfulness). So play nice or get lost.

forum guidelines (http://bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=general_principles#faq_respectfulness)
May I quote the specific forum guideline to which you are referring:

We expect our member to show respect for others. Respecting their person, their views, their time and their opinions, and their belief systems ... even if you disagree with them.

Yeah, you guys don't call names in this forum alright. You know, you would never make sweeping generalizations about large groups of people, would you? That's just not nice!

Yeah, you guys don't call names in this forum alright. You know, you would never make sweeping generalizations about large groups of people, would you? That's just not nice!
Insulting a specific person and criticising a general group of people. You really can't see the difference?

I understand the difference. The only problem with that logic is that you think sweeping generalizations are somehow inoffensive.

I understand the difference. The only problem with that logic is that you think sweeping generalizations are somehow inoffensive.
Sweeping generalizations can be used in a very offensive way. In fact, it's a preferred troll technique here to couch attacks against individuals in the form of sweeping generalizations because it's not specifically in violation of any forum guideline. However, I think sweeping generalizations arise more often from hasty, superficial thinking.

Much insight can be gained by discussing issues in a straightforward way without hot rhetoric. I think it's more fun to do it that way.