What’s in a name? That which we call a bike path, by any other name would…

[cyclingfool]

@PotomacCyclist 102685 wrote:

Dropping commas is a time-honored tradition. Or a nod to the fact that the use of a comma will be inconsistent and many will get confused by it. One prominent example in DC is the name of St. Elizabeths.

I find the confusion over “its” and “it’s” distracting.

, = comma

‘=apostrophe

While we’re still derailed on this thread, another major common mistake, and perhaps one of the the greatest annoyances to me is lose vs. loose. Either learn the difference or clean the syrup out of the O key on your keyboard. :mad::p

[PotomacCyclist]

How the heck did I confuse a comma with an apostrophe? It must have been caused by the blinding light on the bike of a passing cyclist or car (even though I haven’t ridden at all this week, or this month).

Edit: I just looked at that earlier post. I don’t see any references to commas. And no, I did not edit that earlier post. No sirree. No way, no how. Or if it has been edited, it was not me. I never lie. The previous sentence is false.

[Henry]

@PotomacCyclist 102721 wrote:

How the heck did I confuse a comma with an apostrophe? It must have been caused by the blinding light on the bike of a passing cyclist or car (even though I haven’t ridden at all this week, or this month).

Edit: I just looked at that earlier post. I don’t see any references to commas. And no, I did not edit that earlier post. No sirree. No way, no how. Or if it has been edited, it was not me. I never lie. The previous sentence is false.

Wait, those little tick marks have names?

[KLizotte]

Who says cyclists are dumb jocks?!

[PotomacCyclist]

I just came across this interesting post about “beg the question.” It sort of sums up with I think about the phrase. It’s confusing in its very construction and it appears to have originated from a bad translations of the original Greek into Latin and then English. It’s just asking to be misunderstood because it doesn’t use terms the words they normally are used in the English language.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290

Plus the other points brought up in the post are worth noting. All this is why I already follow the recommendation to avoid use of the phrase. Most people now use it to mean one thing, while the traditional meaning is unfamiliar to most, which can lead to a great deal of confusion and criticism of language use. If a phrase causes that many communication problems, it may be time to retire it. At least I plan to.

****
In the future, if people do begin to assume that bikeways are always protected and separated from other traffic, will there be objections to the phrase “protected bikeways”? This could be a good thing. It would mean that there are a lot of these protected bikeways, enough where many people (not just transportation planners and cycling enthusiasts) talk about them casually. Some problems are good to have.

[americancyclo]

[h=1]How smart language helped end Seattle’s paralyzing bikelash[/h]

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/how-smart-language-helped-end-seattles-paralyzing-bikelash

relevant, I think.

also, google trends chart on language:

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=bikelash%2C%20war%20on%20cars%2C%20scofflaw%2C%20protected%20bike%20lane%2C%20bike%20lane&cmpt=q&tz=

[PotomacCyclist]

I’ve already tried to stick with “collision” instead of “accident.” Dictionaries tend to reveal a car driving bias in their definition of “accident.” They note that such an incident is unintentional but they don’t really distinguish between true random collisions and those that are likely because of driver behavior (speeding, texting, drunk driving, red-light running). So I’ve avoided using the word “accident” for traffic incidents lately, although I still slip up from time to time.

The “people walking, people biking, people driving” phrases are interesting. I’ll have to think about it. I think there might be some natural resistance to the phrases, if only because of laziness or impatience. If someone is discuss transportation and using those phrases frequently, it’s much more cumbersome than to type/say walkers, pedestrians, cyclists, drivers. (Well, “pedestrian” is probably a wash in terms of length and the awkwardness.)

I like “transportation choices.” It sounds less wonkish than “alternative transportation” or “multimodal transportation” (which I have used at times on the forum), and it doesn’t assume that car driving should be the automatic and exclusive standard for transportation.

[Alcova cyclist]

@PotomacCyclist 107754 wrote:

I’ve already tried to stick with “collision” instead of “accident.” Dictionaries tend to reveal a car driving bias in their definition of “accident.” They note that such an incident is unintentional but they don’t really distinguish between true random collisions and those that are likely because of driver behavior (speeding, texting, drunk driving, red-light running). So I’ve avoided using the word “accident” for traffic incidents lately, although I still slip up from time to time.

Since there’s already been a lot of hijacking on this thread, a quick story… Back in the dark ages a while the NJ DOT driver’s manual had a phrase warning motorcyclists not to “crashally” [sic] gun the throttle while attempting to pull the brake (or maybe the clutch… whatever — I’m a cyclist not a biker). It took me a few seconds to figure out what I was reading when I saw this. Apparently, someone had taken a draft of the manual and done global search-and-replace of “accident” with “crash.”

[PotomacCyclist]

Lol

[Author]

Posts