mikeybikes

So, do you find the term "segregated" cycling offensive?

If so, what term would prefer to be used?

BarracksSi

I don't, but the word has been branded by racist laws. I wouldn't complain if it were replaced with something else, though.

mondaycurse

I think you're thinking about it too hard.

cudak888 

No, I do not find the term "segregated cycling" offensive.

I find people who find the term "segregated cycling" offensive, offensive.

-Kurt

thehick

Words have meaning. And feeling. Segregated doesn't even describe it properly. Obviously using that word is to advance a particular agenda. Doesn't sound like a positive adjective to me. If I'm segregated, I CAN'T ride somewhere else. That's not even the case. But, as usual, folks like to stir things up. Kinda fun I guess.

Digital_Cowboy

I'm against any kind of infrastructure that purports to treat cyclists as equal road users but keeps us from fully using the road, or makes it difficult to safely use the road. Separate but equal is rarely both. Dedicated bike paths (not that I am knocking the Rails-to-Trials program) but considering that they do work to convert old unused railroad beds into trails they seldom go everywhere a person who is walking or riding a bike want to go.

So they are separate, but they are not equal. The same with streets with bike lanes. As we all know there are plenty of people who see "all the great amount of money spent" on bike lanes and think that we cyclists should:

a) drop to our knees and thank whatever deity we pray to for them
b) use them regardless of their condition
c) should only ride on roads that have them

Yet those of us who are in the "trenches" on a daily basis know that bike lanes and dedicated bike paths while a good idea on paper aren't always a good idea out in the field. As they are located in the car door zone, or are located to the right of right turn only lanes. Or they are full of tire eating debris or are in a state of disrepair. Or they are on a curve that too many motorists enter when making the turn. Or they are just too bloody narrow to be used safely. A lot of them I think are just an after thought to "appease" us "nut jobs" who like to ride instead of driving their cars.

I liked the suggestion not only in the comments of one of the articles that was recently linked to but that has also been made here that suggested that the speed limit be slowed down. I mean really what difference does it make if one can get to the mall in an five minutes or an hour?

Machka 

How about "integrated".

Metzinger

No, but on reflection, perhaps my opinion shouldn't matter.
If the above term bothers others, 'separate' seems adequate.

UnsafeAlpine

No. Cyclists are not a class of people. Any comparison of the need for adequate road rights to the civil rights fights that have happened and are still happening is asinine. You can change your behavior to avoid being the "oppressed minority."

twinquad

"Physically separated" seems to be gaining traction as the preferred term for this type of facility, for whatever reason.

"Segregated" has a specific, value-neutral meaning, but it also carries social-historical baggage. It's perfectly possible to use it with a value-neutral intention, but it isn't really possible to use it without the hearer being reminded of the baggage.

sggoodri

I agree, and while I've tried to use the term in a value-neutral way, the effectiveness of my communication was limited by the social-historical baggage.

I usually have to speak my way around to the same meaning, by saying "separation by vehicle type" and describe the means of designating the separation, be it my markings or physical barriers. I think "separation by vehicle type" is the clearest and most accurate description, because the markings and laws involved in such separation focus on vehicle type rather than vehicle users or their relative speeds and destinations. This makes such traffic engineering fundamentally different from most other engineering of vehicular traffic patterns on typical streets.

SCROUDS

I think the description is in line with the historical connotations. It goes hand in hand with seperate but equal, and we all know how that went.

I understand how we're not a protected class, but anything short of an equal opportunity to use the roads and we'll still be considered lesser people.

UnsafeAlpine

This is moronic. Lesser people? Just make a different choice if you don't like it. Cripes...

RazrSkutr

Yeah, if you don't like being in the back of the bus then just don't use it. Cripes ... moronic indeed.

SCROUDS

In some places, its use is becoming mandatory.

Seattle Forrest

I'm not certain whether you're saying rails-to-trails specifically or bike paths in general rarely go where people want to be; it's a bit difficult to tell, the way this is written. But the Iron Horse (rail to) Trail follows I-90. You're right in that most cyclists in Seattle aren't going to see Idaho as a destination. Nor do many of us get on our bikes carrying skis into the back country. The trail does serve Snoqualmie Pass, though, a number of camping options, hiking trails, and a few small towns. There would be more destinations if the tunnel was open, but...

Of course I realize that anyone who cycles for recreation amounts to "lesser people" in A&S. I don't know whether that includes biking for transit to a recreational destination?

Digital_Cowboy

As long as cagers/motorists can get away with nothing more but a slap on the wrist by saying "but officer I didn't see him/her" or "but officer they just swerved into my lane." And as long LEO's are willing to dismiss cyclists because after all they're NOT a "real or legitimate" road user that is exactly what we will continue to be. Yes, maybe comparing the indignities that cyclists face with the indignities faced during the civil rights marches is a bit much for some. But cyclists have rights as well, and if we don't fight for and defend them we can and will end up losing them.

Also as I think we know and was proven in the Trotwood case the LEO's in the street are not the ones in the best positions to be interpreting the law(s) as if I am not mistaken in not only the Trotwood case but others we've seen LEO's have been known to substitute their "better" judgment over what the law says.

If I am not mistaken there is/was a case around the time of the Trotwood. It involved a female cop (if I remember correctly) pulling over a cyclist who (again if I'm not mistaken) was riding legally i.e. having taken the lane, but the cop who had stopped him testified in court that she felt it was unsafe and therefore illegal and that that is why she had stopped him, and I can't remember if she said it or if it was implied. That she would do it again because she didn't feel that his actions were safe and therefore they were not legal.

So as long as motorists can use the "but officer I didn't see him/her" or "but officer they swerved right into my lane" they'll always have a "get out of jail" free card, as well as, as long as LEO's can substitute their judgment/opinion for what the law actually says we will be treated/seen as a "lesser people."

Mr IGH

WOW, how silly, some folks really struggle, it's an adjective here, perfectly used, nothing racial about the word:
seg·re·gate (sgr-gt)
adj. (-gt, -gt)
Separated; isolated.

BarracksSi

I understand what you mean, and I still ride anywhere I want, but... -- what about infrastructure that keeps you away from direct contact with cars and still lets you go everywhere you need to go?

What I mean is, I'd like to have routes where I'd feel comfortable riding with either my 9-year-old niece or 63-year-old dad. You and I, and most riders here, are indeed "nut jobs" by comparison -- we're sticking it out there with traffic going three times our speed and thirty times our weight.

I've been places where the bike route goes between the street and sidewalk, has different surface treatment, and has its own signaling at every intersection. It's SO easy to ride there.

JRA

"Segregated" doesn't translate well from British English to U.S. English. In the U.S. English, it's offensive.

Forester-inspired opponents of facilities use the term 'segregated facilities' precisely for its emotional effect. Any time an American talks of segregated cycling facilities, then later claims, "I had no idea anyone would find it offensive," I have a hard not calling BS on them. Any American who wasn't born yesterday must be aware of the connotation.

In the U.S., it's offensive.

There may be only one English Language but there are dialects.

apricissimus 

Why on earth would the term be offensive? Maybe you don't like the idea of segregated cycling, and hat's fine, but the term itself is neutral. It just an apt description of the concept of keeping modes of transportation separate.

BarracksSi

Looks to me like there were a lot who were born yesterday.

apricissimus 

I beg to differ. It never would have occurred to me to think that "segregated" is an offensive word, even in a racial context. Racial segregation is offensive as a concept, but not the word, which can apply to many things.

If someone finds the word itself offensive, then maybe they are not educated well enough in its use.

UnsafeAlpine

No, apparently you were born yesterday and should cry in horror and start comparing yourself to people who were not given the same rights based on the color of their skin. Because really, the mode of transportation you choose is similar to the color of skin you're born with.

Digital_Cowboy

Isn't that rather impossible? I mean at some point we are going to have to interact with cars Be it something as simple as having to cross the street, or entering a parking lot or what have you. Plus where is all the land going to come from to accommodate the new infrastructure?

I understand what you mean, we don't need firefighters who are "packing heat" taking pot shots at us when they feel that we aren't being safe. Sadly you are right, but it doesn't mean that we should give up the fight.

Where, I would like to see them.