Learn Hardcore Greek: Όποιος ποδηλάτης καπνίζει τσιγάρο καθώς οδηγεί, δεν βλέπει καλά τον δρόμο και αυτό είναι κίνδυνος. - Any cyclist who smokes a cigarette while riding does not see the road well and this is a danger.

Όποιος ποδηλάτης καπνίζει… literally: “whoever cyclist smokes…”
→ idiomatic English: “Any cyclist who smokes…” / “Whoever cyclist smokes…”

If you said Ο ποδηλάτης καπνίζει…, that would mean “The cyclist smokes…”, referring to some specific cyclist already known from context.

So:

Όποιος ποδηλάτης… = any cyclist that fits this description (generic rule).
Ο ποδηλάτης… = a particular cyclist we both know.

Why is ποδηλάτης in the singular if the meaning is general (about all cyclists)?

Greek often uses singular + Όποιος / κάθε to talk about people in general.

Όποιος ποδηλάτης καπνίζει… = Any cyclist who smokes… (generic).
Κάθε ποδηλάτης καπνίζει… = Every cyclist smokes… (also generic, but different meaning).

This is similar to English sentences like:

“A cyclist who smokes can’t see the road well.”
“Whoever smokes while riding is in danger.”

So the singular ποδηλάτης here has a generic meaning: it stands for any one cyclist, and thus for all cyclists who fit the condition.

Is ποδηλάτης masculine? How would I talk about a female cyclist?

Yes, ποδηλάτης is grammatically masculine, and also the usual generic word for “cyclist” (any gender).

For specifically a female cyclist, you can say:

η ποδηλάτισσα – female cyclist

So:

Όποιος ποδηλάτης καπνίζει… = any cyclist (gender not specified)
Όποια ποδηλάτισσα καπνίζει… = any female cyclist who smokes…

The forms change:

masculine: όποιος ποδηλάτης
feminine: όποια ποδηλάτισσα
neuter (for things): όποιο ποδήλατο (whichever bicycle)

Why do we need τσιγάρο after καπνίζει? Can we just say καπνίζει?

You can say just καπνίζει and it would still be understood as “smokes (cigarettes)” in most contexts.

However:

καπνίζει τσιγάρο is a bit more explicit: “smokes a cigarette”.
It can emphasize the physical object (the cigarette) or contrast with other forms of smoking (e.g. pipe, cigar, etc.).

So both are grammatically correct:

Όποιος ποδηλάτης καπνίζει καθώς οδηγεί…
Όποιος ποδηλάτης καπνίζει τσιγάρο καθώς οδηγεί…

The original just makes it crystal clear it’s about cigarettes.

Is καπνίζει “smokes” or “is smoking”? Greek doesn’t have a continuous tense?

Modern Greek doesn’t have a separate continuous tense like English (smokes vs is smoking).

The present tense (ενεστώτας) can mean both:

Καπνίζει = he/she smokes (habitually)
Καπνίζει = he/she is smoking (right now)

Context decides which is meant.

In this sentence:

Όποιος ποδηλάτης καπνίζει τσιγάρο καθώς οδηγεί…
The context (καθώς οδηγεί = while riding) suggests “is smoking while riding” (an action happening at the same time as riding).

What does καθώς mean here? Is it the same as όταν or ενώ?

Here καθώς means “as / while” in a temporal sense: two actions happening at the same time.

καπνίζει τσιγάρο καθώς οδηγεί
= smokes a cigarette *as/while he rides*

Comparisons:

όταν = when (time, but more neutral; can be repeated events or one-time)
- Όταν οδηγεί, προσέχει. – When he drives, he is careful.
ενώ = while/whereas (often a contrast or opposition)
- Ενώ οδηγεί, μιλάει στο τηλέφωνο. – While he’s driving, he’s on the phone (and that’s somewhat bad or surprising).

καθώς is often used for simple simultaneity: two things happening at the same time, without strong contrast.

Who is the subject of καπνίζει, οδηγεί, and δεν βλέπει? There is no pronoun like “he”.

The subject of all three verbs is the same: Όποιος ποδηλάτης.

Greek normally drops subject pronouns (αυτός, αυτή, etc.) when the subject is clear from context or verb ending.

So:

Όποιος ποδηλάτης καπνίζει τσιγάρο καθώς οδηγεί, δεν βλέπει καλά τον δρόμο…

Literally:

“Whoever cyclist smokes, (whoever) drives, (whoever) does not see the road well…”

In fluent English:

“Any cyclist who smokes while riding cannot see the road well…”

Why is there τον before δρόμο? In English we’d just say “see the road well”, but sometimes we say “see road well” in Greek?

In Greek, the definite article is used much more often than in English.

τον δρόμο = “the road” (accusative masculine singular: ο δρόμος → τον δρόμο)

In this sentence, we are talking about the road that the cyclist is on, so it’s specific:

δεν βλέπει καλά τον δρόμο
= “he doesn’t see the road well”

You normally cannot drop the article here (✗ δεν βλέπει καλά δρόμο sounds wrong).

Greek often uses articles:

where English uses the
but also sometimes where English would use no article, e.g. with professions, abstract nouns, etc. (depending on context)

So τον is required here for natural Greek.

Why do we say δεν βλέπει καλά instead of something like δεν βλέπει τον δρόμο καλά? Does the position of καλά matter?

Both δεν βλέπει καλά τον δρόμο and δεν βλέπει τον δρόμο καλά are grammatically correct and natural.

Here:

καλά is an adverb (“well”) modifying βλέπει (“sees”).

Word order options:

δεν βλέπει καλά τον δρόμο
– neutral, common.
δεν βλέπει τον δρόμο καλά
– also natural; can slightly emphasize τον δρόμο.

Greek word order is relatively flexible, and the position of καλά does not change the basic meaning. It’s more about rhythm and slight emphasis.

What does αυτό refer to in και αυτό είναι κίνδυνος?

αυτό is a demonstrative pronoun meaning “this”.

Here it refers to the whole situation just described:

a cyclist who smokes while riding and therefore cannot see the road well.

So:

και αυτό είναι κίνδυνος
= “and this is a danger”
(This = the fact that he doesn’t see the road well because he is smoking while riding)

Why do we say είναι κίνδυνος and not είναι επικίνδυνο? What’s the difference?

Both are possible, but they are slightly different structures:

αυτό είναι κίνδυνος
- κίνδυνος is a noun = “danger”
- literally: “this is (a) danger”
αυτό είναι επικίνδυνο
- επικίνδυνο is an adjective = “dangerous”
- literally: “this is dangerous”

Meaning-wise:

είναι κίνδυνος slightly emphasizes the risk itself (“this is a danger / a hazard”).
είναι επικίνδυνο describes the situation as dangerous.

In everyday speech, both would be understood in almost the same way:

και αυτό είναι κίνδυνος
και αυτό είναι επικίνδυνο

The original simply chooses the noun form.

Why is there a comma before δεν βλέπει καλά τον δρόμο?

The comma separates:

the condition / description:
Όποιος ποδηλάτης καπνίζει τσιγάρο καθώς οδηγεί,
from the consequence / result:
δεν βλέπει καλά τον δρόμο και αυτό είναι κίνδυνος.

It’s similar to English punctuation:

“Any cyclist who smokes a cigarette while riding, doesn’t see the road well and this is a danger.”

In both languages, the comma helps show that the first part sets up the situation, and the second part states what happens and why it’s bad.

Could we replace Όποιος with Αν (if) and say something like Αν ένας ποδηλάτης καπνίζει…? Would the meaning change?

Yes, you could say:

Αν ένας ποδηλάτης καπνίζει τσιγάρο καθώς οδηγεί, δεν βλέπει καλά τον δρόμο και αυτό είναι κίνδυνος.
= If a cyclist smokes a cigarette while riding, he can’t see the road well and this is a danger.

Differences:

Όποιος ποδηλάτης…
– focuses on “whoever cyclist fits this description”, a universal rule.
Αν ένας ποδηλάτης…
– uses a more typical if–then structure, similar to English conditional sentences.

Both are correct; Όποιος sounds a bit more like a general statement / rule about any cyclist who does this.