R. Emmett Tyrrell Does Not Like Cyclists

R. Emmett Tyrrell, the founder of The American Spectator, wrote a letter to the Indianapolis Star in 1980 in which he wrote about bike lanes and cyclists. Salon.com has more and some commentary.

Not only are bicycles dangerous, they are as antiquated a form of transportation as the rickshaw. In no advanced city on earth will you find civilized people cycling to work. The urban cyclist is generally a crank, either profoundly antisocial or hopelessly narcissistic and following the strenuous life in hopes of achieving immortality or a legendary sex life. When you encounter him give him a wide berth and never turn your back on him...

As I've said before, anyone who would ridicule a 100-year old technology that's still in use today doesn't understand technology. And I've heard Copenhagen and Amsterdam are quite civilized (well, maybe not the red light district).

Comments

[BlindPilot]

The only thing antiquated about all this is Mr. Tyrrell's way of thinking.

Following his logic, though, perhaps we should ditch the antiquated technology that is the car and/or the internal combustion engine. I mean, it's been in use for well over 100 years now, too. Does that make it obsolete?

Or trees. I mean, photosynthesis is 2.5 billion years old, and land plants 418 million years old. (Though in Mr. Tyrrell's world, they may have only been around for about 5,000 years.) Either way, they're just so antiquated!

Mr. Tyrrell, you are a douche. At least you were in 1980 when you wrote that letter. Though, given what I know about you, I doubt you've changed.

[microzen]

What are his list of advanced cities where people do not bike to work? I cannot think of any.

[Chris]

This is pure genius. In my case, I suspect that I'm hopelessly narcissistic, although that doesn't square with my lack of desire for achieving a legendary sex life.

Seriously, though, I believe that Tyrrell was known for these kinds of rants, which are meant to be over-the-top roastings of things that annoyed him. Point is, this might be a little out-of-context.

[w]

Germany is not mentioned by anyone here. It is one of the world's most advanced countries- and has a 15 % mode share of all trips in the entire country taken by bicycle. While city by city it is different- go to some of the mid-sized cities and there are huge numbers of cyclists going to work, shopping, etc., on bicycles. I was in Speyer last year- and grannies & pensioners, school kids, mothers with babies, suited up business people, lawer/banker types - all were cycling- and this city is not even on the map in most American cyclist's image of Europe. Go to Muenster and you see thousands of cyclists- same for Tubingen, Munich, Koln,Frieburg....

German cities are not civilized? They even have train cars reserved only for bicycles- and all of the train stations have maxed out bike racks ...

Who is this creep?

[Cycle Jerk]

You have to remember, this was written in the 1980's when they had different definitions for "civilized" and "legendary sex life".

[SJE]

It seems that in this case, Mr Tyrell forgot one of those other antiquated things, like thinking.

Alternatively, maybe Tyrell doesn't use other antiquated technology, like walking, eating, breathing. He must just be a brain in bottle, flying around in his hovercar, communicating telepathically. Maybe he is just a computer program, a-la the Matrix

[Chris]

I think maybe you all are taking the quote way too seriously.

[Bill]

Couple of typos I fixed:

Not only are cars dangerous, they are as antiquated a form of transportation as the rickshaw. In no advanced city on earth will you find civilized people driving to work. The urban driver is generally a crank, either profoundly antisocial or hopelessly narcissistic and following the sedentary life in hopes of achieving immortality or a legendary sex life. When you encounter him give him a wide berth and never turn your back on him...

[guez]

What, exactly, is the point of mocking a 30-year old piece-of-crap op-ed piece?

[Washcycle]

Tyrrell is still Editor-in-chief of a major American magazine. One read by the same kinds of people who influence policy. Policy about funding for roads, trails, etc... Funding that matters to cyclists, like those of us in DC.

[SJE]

I agree with Washcycle. While it is a 30 yo editorial, it is by a very influential and currently active person who has not done or said anything to make us think otherwise. At least, not that I am aware of. There is a general anti-bike bias on the right. It is almost a cultural norm. I do not know why, except perhaps a reaction to the left's hippy-esque embrace of bikes.

You can see this even in the libertarians who one would have thought would embrace something that makes you not only free from reliance on public transit (dreaded unions), but also free from various car registration taxes, foreign entangelements because of oil, etc.
Instead, they seem willing to attack gas taxes and "wasteful" spending on bike facilities, but not the large subsidies of car culture.

[SJE]

More on the hippy comment. You can see on the left a large group who embraces a somewhat romantic world view: back to nature, environmentalism, natural food, natural birth, bikes, etc. Elements on the right characterizes these people as unrealistic neo-luddites who want to force their world view on everyone else. I think that there is some truth in the criticism.

Unfortunately, you get "bikes" thought of as part of a "culture" that one either embraces or rejects (see BikesnobNYC for more on that). This prevents rational consideration of bike issues.

One thing that Washcycle etc are so good for, IMO, is that it explicitly focuses on bikes for the common person, especially commuters, and rejects bike "subculture" that makes it difficult for biking to advance beyond a niche.

[Chris]

I think the author of the Salon article has a certain bias too. He acknowledges that one might find the hyperbole in the letter to be what I would call deliberate exaggeration in order to be humorous (something my right-wing friends tell me Tyrell is known for), but apparently changes his mind when he discovers that the author of the letter is a wing-nut. I guess wing-nuts can't be satirists.

Don't get me wrong, I'm practically a Communist in my political views. I get confused with why Americans through around the word "socialist" like it's something bad, so I'm all in favor of painting right-wingers as anti-anything I like. But, seriously ... this is proof that there's a vast right-wing conspiracy against cyclists? I don't know; I'm not seeing it.

[SJE]

Chris: As for a vast right wing conspiracy: I don't think that there is a VRWC, mostly because cyclists are such a small community with little power. Not worth the time. However, you do not need a VRWC, just ignorance or indifference

As for the wing-nuts, I get your point. However, the most powerful opinion makers on the right are, right now, mostly the most extremist demagogues. I used to disregard the wackos on both sides, trusting the moderates, but think that is dangerous when, in the long term, various noxious views become mainstream and hard to challenge.

[Doodah]

At least he recommends giving us a wide berth.

[guez]

"Tyrrell is still Editor-in-chief of a major American magazine."

So what? Do you think that his conservative readers are going to cancel his subscriptions? This piece shouldn't have been dignified with a response 30 years ago, let alone now.

"One thing that Washcycle etc are so good for, IMO, is that it explicitly focuses on bikes for the common person."

Cyclists with blogs promoting bikes for the "common person" have practically become their *own* subculture that is ironically as shrill and as alienating as any other (see the rants about lycra in the comments on Copenhagenization, for instance).

[g]

"Cyclists with blogs promoting bikes for the "common person" have practically become their *own* subculture that is ironically as shrill and as alienating as any other (see the rants about lycra in the comments on Copenhagenization, for instance)."

I agree, but don't think that Washcycle is an example of this at all. Seems to me tha he's a promoter of biking for anyone and everyone who's interested. IMO, one of the best things about the blog (in addition to being a good source of info) is the inclusive attitude towards cycling.

[Washcycle]

Two other possible uses for the post.

2. It is interesting how many of the statements from 1980 (bikes are antiquated technology, cyclists are antisocial) are still made today.

3. It could be viewed as silly frivolity.

If neither if these do it for you, then perhaps this post isn't for you, but it may appeal to others.

If if fails to appeal to anyone, then we can just chalk it up as one of lesser posts. As my grandmother once said, "You can only make your best toast once."

[SJE]

Re: "Washcycle rejects bike 'subculture.' " g said it better than I: Washcycle is inclusive.