Top Gear theory.

Papa Smurf

I agree, Clarkson is out of order with the things he says. As much as I like him, I hate the way he refers to us bikers etc.

My biggest problem with this whole issue is a colum he once wrote about how cyclist don't pay to be on the road. But in all fairness, why should we? We keep ourselves to ourselves and cause less than none economical damage or damage to the road surface. So what exactly are we paying for? Cycle lanes? That's called taxes...

bracestower

Papa Smurf wrote:

I agree, Clarkson is out of order with the things he says. As much as I like him, I hate the way he refers to us bikers etc.

My biggest problem with this whole issue is a colum he once wrote about how cyclist don't pay to be on the road. But in all fairness, why should we? We keep ourselves to ourselves and cause less than none economical damage or damage to the road surface. So what exactly are we paying for? Cycle lanes? That's called taxes...

We do pay for the roads. Maintenance comes out of our council tax. Road tax is for vehicle emissions which (unless you're particularly flatulent) doesn't apply to cyclists .

Nigel-YZ1

Call it Road Tax, call it VED, it'll be called something different soon depending on how much guilt we're expected to feel to justify the amount. We all pay for the roads. Money is Money, Tax is Tax, whatever the name.

All this wordplay bores me senseless.

Whether I go on the road in my car, or on the MTB or the roadie, by some means I've paid through the nose for that potholed, undrained, off-cambered thoroughfare and I demand the right to get where I'm going unmolested and alive.

We have to educate the people that think we shouldn't be there - and telling them that the 10 grand for their car, fuel duty, VED, etc actually entitles them to nothing isn't going to persuade many. It won't persuade cyclists when a future government thinks cycling tax is a good way of getting a few pennies more. They'll probably call it 'Cycling Facility Subsidy' or something.

pliptrot

The whole fiscal argument is hopelessly biased in favour of the motorist - when roads are built, the costs are referred to as an "investment", and anything else - particularly the railways (and particularly before the private sector f&*ked them up even further) money spent is called a"subsidy". It's pathetic. If the egotistical tin junk that is the motor car was put in it's proper place, we could (1) allow the Middle East to be used for it's intended purpose (dumping nuclear waste) and (2) enjoy a little freedom out there.

bad company

Clarkson is great fun but not to be taken too seriously. Clearly there can be a problem when a few idiots do just that.

Number should never ever be taken remotely seriously though I know he loves me. :oops:

clarkson

Deuce wrote:

The best thing I ever read about Clarkson was in a review of his short run of a chat show in Private Eye where they pointed out that he ran a "dictator of the week" piece until Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and he suddenly dropped this strand like the squalid little coward he is.

sou you're not keen on him then!!?? we need more people like him who can stand up for themselves and say what they think without worrying about what other people may think/do.

number9

I think it would be funny if Clarkson got a facial cancer that ate away at his features till the mere sight of him would make children and old ladies cry!

Nigel-YZ1

I think it would be hilarious if I hadn't watched 2 relatives and a close friend die slowly of cancer.

No one deserves such a vicious bastard of a disease.

number9

Nigel-YZ1 wrote:

I think it would be hilarious if I hadn't watched 2 relatives and a close friend die slowly of cancer.

No one deserves such a vicious bastard of a disease.

Ah!

But, hang on...

When Clarkson "jokes" about running over and killing cyclists who have done nothing wrong, we're supposed to laugh it off or be accused of being humourless!

Looks like the humour card is a one-way street...

Nigel-YZ1

No. I'm not defending him at all.

If he said it in my prescence then I would ask him to his face if he's met the families of people mown down by ignorant or malicious/murderous drivers. I'd ask him if they'd joked about it with him.

He should be faced with the reality of such a stupid and humourless statement.

BTW isn't there something going around about him having been photographed using a handheld mobile on a motorway? Heard it on Talksport last night.

SamWise72

Clarkson is a self-created parody. He's OTT for the sake of entertainment, and he knows that. And, he's very funny, and very entertaining. I could take offense when he has a pop at cyclists, but frankly, everyone can find a time when Clarkson has had a go at some group of people which includes them. The only possible problem with Clarkson is that there are some numptys who will take him seriously, but let's face it; there aren't many.

Parkey

SamWise72 wrote:

Clarkson is a self-created parody. He's OTT for the sake of entertainment, and he knows that. And, he's very funny, and very entertaining. I could take offense when he has a pop at cyclists, but frankly, everyone can find a time when Clarkson has had a go at some group of people which includes them. The only possible problem with Clarkson is that there are some numptys who will take him seriously, but let's face it; there aren't many.

My thoughts exactly.

Frankly if he didn't poke fun at cyclists we should feel left out, because he does it to everyone else.

huggy

Perhaps the solution to motorists' attacks on cyclists should be a compulsory day of cycling in a built-up area as part of their test.

MoonCircuit

..

NGale

Actually sometimes I think Clarkson is taking he mickey out of some of the people who we think are like him. Personally I would say don't take what he says too seriously. If you do then you don't really get him.

Also anyone remember the feature they did when they travelled across London at peak time with Clarkson in the speedboat, The Stig on the tube, May in the car and Hammond on the bike? firstly one of the funniest things I have seen, but also something was highlighted during that piece...we complain about motorists language towards us, but Hammonds' language towards the car and bus drivers was appalling at times, and yes we have all been guilty of it.

So question is, as cyclists are we really any better than a motorist? just because we choose a diffreny form of transport to get us from A to B does that really give us the right to get on our high horse and say that it is the motorist who is the Devil, when we really don't help our own case sometimes.

I am both, I am a motorist and a cyclist (also a motorcyclist at that) and I see appaling attitudes and behaviour from both sides of the arguement each and every day. So really we are a bad as each other.

always_tyred

Ngale, I agree with you

but

Human nature dictates that the level of responsibility when operating a vehicle bears some relationship to the level or damage you can cause. I know that in theory bikes can kill pedestrians and cause road accidents, but very roughly speaking, when a cyclist does something stupid, the only life they are risking is their own. Thus, a cyclist running a red light (which I don't condone) is NOT the equivalent offense to a car running a red light and a cyclist hopping on to a pavement is NOT the equivalent of a car driving on the pavement, and nor should the outrage from motorists be.

Its not correct to do these things, but the reaction is disproportionate and I have a problem with cyclists transgressions being singled out over and above meandering pedestrians, speeding motorists weaving motorcyclists.

No, cycling on a pavement is about in the same league as parking on a yellow line, or (heaven forefend) stopping at an advance stop line.

Running a red light is probably in the same league as doing 35- 40 in a 30 zone (which, for a motorist is fine unless you run someone over, in which case you are 5 times more likely to kill them.... ) but motorists don't get up in arms about it and its certainly very very common.

Unquestionably cyclists are becoming a national pet hate for no particular reason.

chuckcork

Always Tyred wrote:

Ngale, I agree with you

Unquestionably cyclists are becoming a national pet hate for no particular reason.

Well, the media have to hate someone, don't they, and cyclists are a nice safe target.

We don't form a significant voting block, don't control any particular votes in parliament, if we went on strike nobody would notice, we don't pay a particular cycling tax we could threaten not to pay, don't have any lobby groups that have anything like the power of motoring related groups (oil industry, hauliers, road user groups like the AA, car manufacturers and so on), and a nice safe target because 'everyone knows it is true'

Even if most of the cr@p is irrelevant, badly written, poorly thought out criticism that is often wrong, and when there are much bigger dangers out there like unlicenced uninsured drivers, writing about it is for the average journalistic hack a nice safe bet to sell papers and generate outrage, sorry, debate.

And cyclists are of course quite visible when their doing it, whereas for all that vehicles have numberplates there are so many of them that herd anonymity is guaranteed.

Clarkson is an entertainer and a popular one. Saying it is all in jest isn't good enough though. If he went on TV and said to people that (insert minority group here) are a threat to you and your families, go and burn them out of your neighbourhood, he'd be arrested for his own protection from the group he disparaged as the first point; as a second some dimwit would take it as instruction to go do it.

To quote Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility. Clarkson maybe a cartoon figure all the same but even in the comics there is a code that the good guys win and the bad guys don't and so on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_book_code and he pretty much violates it by being an irresponsible git.

'Nuff Said.

sicknote

Hi All
I am someone that use to ride alot a feew years ago but stopped because we had just had our daugther and I had had a few near misses.

I have got back to something I love after 10 years off and what you say Ngale does have some very good point but for one big thing.
Being on a bike and having someone take your life in they hands and show they are not bothered about it.
Like a few saturdays ago when a van driver almost hit me going passed my instead of waiting for the space to do so safely.
Then when I taped the back of his van ( as you might guess I was not happy about it ), his then call me a black basturd ( yes I am black ), so I gave chase and an chatching up with him, his son gets out with a hammer.

I was not too bothered as I had just come back from training ( 12 years karate ).
I did get back in the van without ty to use the hammer.

Now I drive as well and have to as I work for myself but I have also made mistakes on the road but make sure you other person sees that in was not intentional by saying sorry.

This does go both ways but cyclest is the one that will come out second if at all, if there is a accident

All it takes is for ggod cyclests to to pay attention but the biggest thing I hate is when I driver does someone they would not do if you where a police man/woman on a bike, and put you life at risk

Jay dubbleU

I think its a matter of degree - if I do something stupid or careless on a bike then the only person likely to suffer is me - if I do the same in a car or an HGV then I'm likely to kill someone therefore it is down to car/lorry drivers to be aware of cyclists and to take appropriate evasive action - the problem is motorists see cyclists running red lights or riding on the pavement and it irritates the hell out of them - cyclists need to be have responsibly too

gavintc

Almost every time I wait at a crossing in either a car or bike, I see a car going through red. The problem is a car driver one - not a cyclist problem. But car drivers are typically blind to their own problems.

sicknote

Jay dubbleU wrote:

I think its a matter of degree - if I do something stupid or careless on a bike then the only person likely to suffer is me - if I do the same in a car or an HGV then I'm likely to kill someone therefore it is down to car/lorry drivers to be aware of cyclists and to take appropriate evasive action - the problem is motorists see cyclists running red lights or riding on the pavement and it irritates the hell out of them - cyclists need to be have responsibly too

Sorry but ( just some ) you are not saying that if a driver is irritated about people riding on the pavement, then that is ok to drive like they do, plus I can see why some do ride on the pavement.
Its because of some of them drivers that they dont feel safe on the roads