During trips around the area at night in my vehicle, I have encountered people on bicycles who had no lights on their bicycles, no helmets on their heads, and no reflective clothing on their bodies. The most recent occurrence was on a two-lane road with a turning lane in the middle, which is bounded by double yellow lines to mark it as a no-passing zone. It was dark, and this individual was clothed seemingly in black and was wearing no helmet The only way I detected his presence initially was one quick flash from the reflector on one of his pedals. This road is not illuminated with street lights, and the posted speed limit is 50 mph. I thought that if a vehicle moved into the turning lane either to make a turn or to perpetrate an illegal pass, this fellow would have been toast.

Then there was the recent thread about an individual who had been riding a bicycle who, after he had dismounted the bike, discovered the joys of high voltage by being connected to the business end of a taser.

So, would you consider the individuals in these two examples to be cyclists? Certainly they were or had very recently been riding a bicycle. An analogy is that someone who drives a car is considered to be a motorist, but does that analogy extend to anyone who rides a bicycle?

What you point out is part of the reason cycling injury stats are worthless. Cycling injuries include the cat 3 racer, the weekend warrior, the drunk wobbling home at midnight, the illegal heading to work on the sidewalk at 5:00 a.m. the 5 year old just learning, and everyone in between. To the public, they're all cyclists.

Unsavory as you may find these "cyclists", they are on bicycles. Im sure the public would rather not deal with "drunk motorists" or "uninsured motorists" but they have to anyway. I don't think we get to pick and choose who we want the term cyclists to apply to. How different would that be from road bikers not wanting to call freeriders cyclists or bent riders not being afforded entry into the cycling community.

As Kerlenbach says (although I think his meaning is different from mine) "To the public, they're all cyclists."

If you're on a bike, you fit the profile. Add intelligence or reason to the description, and the universe starts shrinking.

Ditto.

Cyclist = one who rides a bicycle. No politically correct trappings required.

+1

+1

That is the deciding factor. The great thing would be if they were reported as a Competent cyclist- A Good cyclist or An idiot cyclist- but then we would still get categorised into the idiot category.

Daft thing is that if a Car driver gets caught breaking the law- It does get broken down into categories- Drunk Driver- Young Driver- OLD driver- Mother of 3 with 4 kids in the back- Or "Of a previous good driving record."

I just ride a bike. If someone does or doesn't want to call me a cyclist isn't going to make a bit of difference!

It's all about you, isn't it?

I agree that a cyclist is not a cyclist if they own a bicycle but can't ride it.

I suspect however that bicycle riders in Bangkok or Rome or Beijing would consider this another american "if its not done to my standards it must be wrong" idea.

I'm not going to look at anyone on a bicycle as something other than a cyclist.

Obviously, I appear to be in a quite small minority, but:

When I see someone blow through an intersection on the red light in front of cars, I don't see a cyclist. I see a "jerk" who just potentially made my life more difficult.

When I see someone slide by on the right curb to pass cars waiting at a red light, I don't see a cyclist. I see a jerk. Maybe an ignorant (i.e., uninformed) one, but still a jerk.

When I see someone idly swerving back and forth on the roadway because ... who knows why, I don't see a cyclist. I see a fool - who may be endangering my well-being.

When I see someone turning without using signals, I don't see a cyclist. I see a jerk.

When I see someone riding erratically in a group, surging and slowing and swerving, I don't see a cyclist. I see someone that I don't want to be near.

When I see someone at 5 am riding the sidewalk without a helmut or visibilty enabling gear or devices, I don't see a cyclist. I shake my head and wonder about the horror awaiting the motorist that may one day run over and kill that one.

When I see someone riding the wrong way, I don't see a cyclist. I know the cyclists in the area will have that stupidity lumped upon them, and I sometimes think of the footer to a BikeForum member: wrong way cyclist, DEAD AHEAD.

When I see a teenager riding at all out speed on the sidewalk of a major street at 11 pm - keeping even or ahead of me in my car because I'm waiting for traffic signals and he is not, without a helmet or visibility enabling gear, I don't see a cyclist. I figure that someone is doing what they think is the best thing to minimize their being late for a parent enforced curfew. But what I worry about is the possibility of that young person never having to worry about curfew, ever again.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

And despite all the above, and more, I know that the "news" media, and the public at large think that everyone that rides a bike is a cyclist.

But they're not.

I think it is the same thing as not all horse riders are horsemen(women).

We are not lemmings all racing to the sea.

We are human beings, with brains. Brains with which we ought to recognize that even if it is a hopeless cause to educate the non-biking humans, we still need to try.

Not everyone on a bike is a cyclist. Some of us are just bike riders.

How about riding on the road without a helmet, commuting to/from work for over 30 years? I'm lit up pretty damn good, so I know you see me...but am I a cyclist?

While I certainly did not list all potential foolishnesses or stupidities that would make me think someone was not a cyclist,

I don't think I listed a single LEGAL or SAFE thing.

So, if one reads what was written, and infers what was implied, and does not skew the understanding, I see no reason why anyone would even wonder about riding on the road, well lit up.

Or care, for that matter.

But I will double-check to make I sure I posted nothing LEGAL or SAFE as being "non-cyclist".

Of course, we can each define words any way we wish, but I see all the jerks, fools and persons to avoid that skiffrun listed as "cyclists". Not good cyclists. Not safe cyclists. Not desirable cyclists. But cyclists none the less.
Most I see as cyclists doing dumb things that endanger themselves and others, including we cyclists who make better choices. It is because they are cyclists that their behavior concerns us.

Tonight I witnessed the benefits of bright blinkies. Was driving on a flat straight road and noticed two flashing red lights ahead of me. One high, one low. Turned out to be a guy riding in the bike lane and who was about a third of a mile ahead of me when I spotted him. At 300 yards behind him, I don't know how one could have missed seeing him, the lights were so bright and obvious.

I would no more consider these people to be "cyclists" than I would consider someone splitting logs to be a "woodworker."

I have to side with Dawg here. These may be uneducated cyclists. They may be from other cultures or places where our "notions of proper cycling" do not apply. They may be kids on BMX bikes just blasting around the neighborhood. In my neck of the woods they may be freeriders who have more tatoos and body piercings than the local Hells Angles Chapter. (they have little use for helmets but their cycling skills are far far superior to mine and I have learned quite a bit from some of them).

I certainly wish that they would follow the traffic laws because it would make my life much easier and perceptions of all of us on bicycles by the public would be improved. For their own good I would wish they wore helmets or perhaps traveled with better lighting. I mostly wish I had more time and the ability to teach them about why some of us ride the way we do.

What I cannot do though is be elitist enough to simply percieve them as "jerks". That would make me no better that the so called "public" who will see all of us as cyclists anyway.

I've been reluctant to call myself a cyclist lest it give a non-cyclist the impression that I'm one of those elite roadies on the street. But I ride often enough and seriously enough to say it, so I do. I wouldn't necessarily call an illegal without any other mode of transportation who rides on the sidewalk at 5:00 a.m. a "cyclist", but I deeply admire them for getting up that early and doing whatever it takes to get to work to make a living. I see them often on my own trek to work at 5:30 a.m. from the comfort of my heated car, and I always feel a sense of admiration and respect when I see them.

Why not? Are they not riding bicycles?

I believe anyone riding a bike is a cyclist. That said, when I returned to biking, it was quite a while before I could accept that I was a cyclist.

I do not consider myself a "cyclist." I think of myself as a recreational bicycle rider, who is on the verge of moving up to the fitness bicycle rider class.

I don't know... I suppose that's based on my assumptions. I consider a "cyclist" to be like a "runner"... if I see someone running to catch a bus I wouldn't say that person is a runner. If I see someone in running attire (running shoes, athletic attire), then I'd say that person is a runner. So I guess I'm using the same criteria to define a "cyclist" -- one who rides a bike for fitness. However (I'm thinking this through now...), that eliminates commuters. Generally people don't jog to work, but they do cycle to work. OK then, they're cyclists!