Adam Rayner is a ..........

dilemna

c*nt.

Sorry for the bad language but it is warranted IMHO.

Today, surfing the airwaves I caught a few minutes of that awful JV lunchtime show on R2. The piece was about peds crossing roads whilst listening to music with headphones on using i-pods, mobiles, etc causing drivers to have to slow down or stop. The programme had invited the c*nt Adam Rayner to speak as some sort of "motoring" authority, why I don't know as we all know he's an ar$e. Anyway taking a few minutes to rant about these peds, he then launches into cyclists calling us "arrogant no regard whatsoever etc" and that he tries to run cyclists down squashing then under the wheels of his car, to which the idiot JV says "Good point". WTF!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/jeremy-vine/

So the purpose of my post is to get as many of you to complain to the BBC about this moron Adam Rayner as possible and also Jeremy Vine for endorsing such reckless and dangerous behaviour. The BBC has guidelines as to what constitutes acceptable comment and behaviour and in this instance Adam Rayner's remarks were totally unacceptable and those of Jeremy Vine. They certainly did not promote a general impression of road safety.

I would urge you to listen to the programme on BBC i -player listen again. It's the last half hour of the show so 90 minutes in and the actual offensive remarks against cyclists by c*nt Adam Rayner must have occurred at about 1 hour 40 minutes in.

Please please listen to it and complain to the BBC as the BBC seems to have a policy that actively encourages hatred to cyclists and motorists to run us down and selects guests that support this view. Adam Rayner is a nasty piece of work who has form with his recent rant on Breakfast TV about cyclists and so does the Jeremy Vine show who has form himself. Surely the producer and editor of the show could not be unaware of the cyclists that have been recently killed on the roads.

northernneil

it was only a couple of weeks ago he said similar things on BBC breakfast and on Welsh Radio.

I am off for a listen now and will complain, anyway as he has overtaken James Martin as No.1 hate figure IMHO

northernneil

its not on iplayer yet, only yesterdays show.

you can email in though !

Gazzaputt

Don't worry he'll try it on with the wrong cyclist.

Hopefully me because the fat fecker won't get up after.

V5ade

We're giving him the publicity that he's craving. Any normal person will realise that his attitude is moronic. We can't change the opinions of the people that think this this is reasonable.
Anyway, if he does carry on like that he'll soon pick on the wrong person.

dilemna

V5ade wrote:

We're giving him the publicity that he's craving. Any normal person will realise that his attitude is moronic. We can't change the opinions of the people that this this is reasonable.
Anyway, if he does carry on like that he'll soon pick on the wrong person.

Given Adam Rayner IS a moron, but the people to now go for are the producers and editors at the BBC as it has now gone well beyond a joke and certainly outside acceptable standards and policies that the BBC is supposed to adhere to. How can they endorse or give air time to such an igorant moron who encourages one group of road users ie vehicle drivers or gives the impression that it is acceptable for them to run down other vulnerable road users such as cycliists? How can the BBC defend this? Their current position is untenable IMHO.

daviesee

Given that you can be fired/made to quit for say ing that women don't know the offside rule, where does that leave him after saying that "he tries to run cyclists down squashing then under the wheels of his car"?

or Jeremy Vine for endorsing that view?

dilemna

daviesee wrote:

Given that you can be fired/made to quit for say ing that women don't know the offside rule, where does that leave him after saying that "he tries to run cyclists down squashing then under the wheels of his car"?

or Jeremy Vine for endorsing that view?

Does Adam Rayner write for the Top Gear magazine which is owned by the BBC? If so then - Your fired. Clear your desk and don't nick any stationary. Security escort him off the premises.

Jeremy Vine - here is your P45.

GiantMike

What makes him a complete tw@t is that he DOESN'T run cyclists over, just says he does.

By the same reasoning, if I ever see that fat cnut I'm going to cut off his c0ck and shove it up his @r$e. Then I'm going to get really nasty and do something even more unpleasant, something I can't even think of yet, it's so bad.

Saying you'll do something and actually doing it are very different things. However, it's the largely illiterate impressionable muppets that believe this kind of drivel that go on to run down cyclists.

Ron Stuart

Complain to Ofcom and the BBC the more the merrier. I have.

Stewie Griffin

GiantMike wrote:

What makes him a complete tw@t is that he DOESN'T run cyclists over, just says he does.

By the same reasoning, if I ever see that fat cnut I'm going to cut off his c0ck and shove it up his @r$e. Then I'm going to get really nasty and do something even more unpleasant, something I can't even think of yet, it's so bad.

Saying you'll do something and actually doing it are very different things. However, it's the largely illiterate impressionable muppets that believe this kind of drivel that go on to run down cyclists.

Im saying that I dont hope that he gets gangrene in his leg after they cut his foot off due to diabetes.

a340driver

Complaint sent - took 30 seconds using the link above and scrolling down to the send us an email section.

What are you waiting for?

rajMAN

Complaint well and truly lodged. :x

Anonymous

Hmmm. Just listened to it. He doesn't quite say that.

-spider-

Liknk to prog - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b0 ... 27_01_2011

I agree with NapD - he doesn't quite say that - but it is pretty close and still worth a complaint - which I have now done. The Rayner rant starts at about 1hr 38 - his reference to cyclists is at about 1hr 41 (after Matthew and son).

Martincan

-spider- wrote:

Liknk to prog - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b0 ... 27_01_2011

I agree with NapD - he doesn't quite say that - but it is pretty close and still worth a complaint - which I have now done. The Rayner rant starts at about 1hr 38 - his reference to cyclists is at about 1hr 41 (after Matthew and son).

Seconed. He doesn't directly say it but the way he implied that only the law was retaining him from mowing cyclists down wasn't very bright, because of course, anyone travelling in any other way than a car should be looked down upon. We have radio 2 on in the office every day and JV is disagreeing with guests the majority of the time, so to act like a penis and agree in the way he did is pathetic and childish for someone with his type of show. They both deserve the complaints they receive, though I doubt anything would be done about it.

deptfordmarmoset

I'm not sure about that. He prefaced his example by say that such a form of rough justice would be ''medieval.'' Any upholdable criticism of what he said would have to demonstrate that he was advocating a return to that as some form of natural justice. Though I suspect he wishes he could act in such a way, I don't believe that the words he used would bear that out.

Don't worry, though. As long as he's still capable of walking, he will step out of line eventually. Cyclists will be waiting.

StillGoing

JV is an odious character. I can't believe he's from the same mould as the comedian Tim Vine. As soon as I hear JV's voice coming on, the radio gets switched off or over to another channel. I totally despise the bloke and only wish he would get caught out in an Andy Gray/Richard Keys moment. He's not even worth a job on hospital radio.

Pross

NapoleonD wrote:

Hmmm. Just listened to it. He doesn't quite say that.

I'm sure the OP would never massage the facts to suit an argument, you must be wrong!

Tom Butcher

Who cares what he says and doesn't say - we all know he's thinking it!

MrChuck

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I'm not sure about that. He prefaced his example by say that such a form of rough justice would be ''medieval.'' Any upholdable criticism of what he said would have to demonstrate that he was advocating a return to that as some form of natural justice. Though I suspect he wishes he could act in such a way, I don't believe that the words he used would bear that out.

Don't worry, though. As long as he's still capable of walking, he will step out of line eventually. Cyclists will be waiting.

+1

While it does seem that he thinks that having to actually pay attention to where they're going is an unafir burden on drivers he doesn't actually advocate running down cyclists in that program.

Hadn't heard that program before and it sounds like Vine is more Daily Mail than BBC- disappointing.

Anonymous

Yep, listening to the JV show is like having the Daily Mail read to you.

Le Commentateur

JV's a professional sheep-worrier and Rayner was just the particular dog he hired for that day's round up.

EKIMIKE

Gazzaputt wrote:

Don't worry he'll try it on with the wrong cyclist.

Hopefully me because the fat fecker won't get up after.

Hitting him is useless. The mass of fat which covers his body will absorb the blow and you... in one. You will then forever be stuck in the dire world of Adam Rayner.

The best tactics i think would be to catch him off balance and roll him over a cliff face. Even then i'd say there's a 50% chance he'd bounce back up the 40 or so feet, land on you and as above absorb you into his mass.

Why do the BBC persist in giving this farm animal air time?

garryc

I've never heard of him before.

And personally I don't think there's much to complain about, he seemed to more concerened about peds looking where they're going, I must say I agree with him. Cyclists arrogant? well if you wander around London and look at the cycling skills on display I tend to agree again.

deptfordmarmoset

garryc wrote:

I've never heard of him before.

And personally I don't think there's much to complain about, he seemed to more concerened about peds looking where they're going, I must say I agree with him. Cyclists arrogant? well if you wander around London and look at the cycling skills on display I tend to agree again.

Garryc, he's the new James Martin. http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12751528

dilemna

Pross wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Hmmm. Just listened to it. He doesn't quite say that.

I'm sure the OP would never massage the facts to suit an argument, you must be wrong!

Prat.

dilemna

Here's the interview with Adam Rayner.

Jeremy Vine = JV
Adam Rayner = AR

JV : ….. and nowadays you can chat to friends and check your emails or watch the latest episode of Eastenders on your mobile while you are walking down the street. It is quite amazing what technology has done but over in New York a senator wants pedestrians to be fined $100 if they are caught using their phones or things like I-pads and MP3 players while they are crossing the road. Researchers in America claim more than 1,000 people visited A&E departments in one year with injuries linked to walking whilst testing or talking on the phone. So do you cross the road while catching up with a friend or booking flights on your mobile? This is the sound you don’t want to hear if you are a pedestrian with a music habit [sounds of car horns beeping, background music, engines, music then car crashing]. It can end very badly. If you have seen one of these do call us. Joining me from our Luton studio is the motoring journalist Adam Rayner. Hello to you Adam.

AR : Good afternoon Jeremy.

JV : And … I think you are in favour of this are you not?

AR : Umm … I’m afraid I am. Yes, it’s err … umm …. When on the one hand, the New Yorkers can actually do this, they have actually done entire culture shifts in that city. Before when I was a lad growing up, it was known as the most terrifying murder capital of the world and Mayor what’s it Gi-ano fixed all that and they can do all that again plus the roads are so much bigger, but, erm ……. I was talking to a friend of mine this morning, he’s a truck driver, umm ….. surname ….. umm …. same as half of a very posh brand of car, but he’s actually regularly had to throw on the brakes. He describes these people as totally oblivious …… I mean, in my opinion, it’s like there is another under class of pedestrian zombie who is just not engaged with reality and you’re out there trying to drive nearby them and wondering whether they are just going to step out!

JV : We had the story in New York, I think, in 2008, of two people killed separately walking into traffic with headphones on. I can’t think of a story in this country, but it MUST have happened, but surely?

AR : Erm ….I’m sure it has, it’s one of those questions that, … umm … can be answered when you look at the medical records, but cause of death is going to be head injury, massive chest trauma, blood loss rather than cause of death – umm ….. I-pod. You know, they can’t necessarily say mobile phone is the cause.

JV : ….. but then it comes to court, surely, and the driver is accused of careless driving and he or she says “Well, wait a minute … ya know this person couldn’t hear, they couldn’t see, they were looking at their phone, they were, had, there is no way you can blame the driver in that situation.

AR : Umm …yes, although obviously the manufacturers of the electronics have for very many years have had warnings first of all about don’t play it too loud, it’ll make you deaf on your headphones ….. umm … and the largest legalese on so many of these things that use headphones is stuff about remaining aware to the … your surroundings, but it’s not only the sound level, it’s the degree to which it engages your brain. Umm …… RoSPA have famously on record are saying despite all of the regulations that say you are allowed to use a phone whilst driving, just don’t do it at all while you are driving cos the attention you pay to it is err …. death in their opinion.

JV : Is there not a point you’re doubtless welded to what ever phone you’ve got at the moment ….umm… I’m guessing, you might even play games on it , you probably watch the odd video clip on it. How do you discipline yourself?

AR : Umm …. Well, I’m terrible in terms of the time vampireness and I’ve got a, ya, one of those little ones with all the buttons so you can type great big things and emails and I’ve also got a err… a … a….. bucket for tunes and videos which isn’t a phone and so I’ve kind of got both …..umm …. And they are just so engaging. Some things are just so wonderful, when you don’t have to reach for the paper, press a little thinga-me-jig and you’ve got now and next on the Beeb ….. you know …. and so forth. Umm ….. and I can understand why people get so gripped by it but the primary job of being a pedestrian is to get there without getting flattened by a 16 wheel truck.

JV : Well, ok, we’ll …… I’m trying to think of a defence of a person who walks around with the headphones on – this is my attempt for you.

AR : Well it's very much like ….

JV : Let me try, let me try …. Sorry I was just trying, this is. I’m trying to give you a defence of this person and it’s this. The more drivers think that pedestrians might do something stupid like walk out in front of them with headphones on, the more carefully they drive, and so actually, these people with their cans on who are looking at their phones while they are crossing the road are creating safer roads for the rest of us.

AR : That’s the same argument as the “remove all the kerbs, furniture and the let the traffic and pedestrians as argue amongst themselves” as has happened in a couple of sea side towns, and err …. various places …. and the cars do literally have to slow down in terror, wondering what on earth is going on, but err …. yes, I can see.

JV : Well that’s good isn’t it, that’s the whole point?

AR : Well possibly, although here is the whole fear of running somebody over. Umm …. it’s got to be a bit like being a motorcyclist, because if you’ve got a crash helmet on, you really can’t hear as much and you certainly can’t see as much and I think it behoves the users of these devices to just at …. you know …. the moment you’re leaving the safety of the pavement to just look up, pay attention, you know, there’s pause – two little vertical ….. , pause, pause the thing, just hang on a moment I’m crossing the road if you’re on the phone.

JV : But, but, they have, this will sound very harsh, but if they’ve put their headphones on, they’ve chosen a course that may end in death and there’s no question about that is there?

AR : Well yes, but that’s a little bit of a medieval punishment for err …umm …. choosing to want to listen to music. I mean, it’s like cyclists, they could be as arrogant and stupid as they like but it really is my job under the law not to run ‘em over. Just crush ‘em under me wheels [yeahyahshabbagrrr sound] doesn’t really wash …..

JV : [Laughing]

AR : [Laughing]

JV : Ok alright, fine [laughing] Good point. Nothing the manufacturers can do I assume, I mean, they can stop these things working when there is a car nearby or anything like that?

AR : Oh well, though there are issues …. actually that’s where I can get horribly technical , I don’t want to bore anybody, but it’s to do with the output of the headphone systems themselves. Umm ….. in the very first days of the err …. original tiny winy is that a cassette! …. wowww type headphones they were capable of being blistering, but it’s well known that most MP3 players, they cannot raise a level that is able to crush your brain case with the sound, but there are some enormous headphones of great efficiency so there are still some issues but they all have warnings about hearing health and also will have warnings, err …. err …. about paying attention to the rest of the world.

JV : Adam Rayner great to speak to you. Thank you very much.

AR : Thank you Jeremy.

JV : Adam Rayner speaking from out Luton studio and crossing the road very carefully after he leaves it. Do tell us if you have been maybe a driver and you just cannot believe what that pedestrian just did while he or she was wearing headphones or watching a clip.

The issues he discusses, rather sensationally and poorly, more than likely affect cyclists as much as they do car drivers in towns and cities where there are obviously a lot more people. However his reference to cyclists and cycling was irrelevant to what was being discussed. It did not contribute to road safety either generally for pedestrians or any other road user let alone for cyclists. He yet again referred to cyclists to try to further hatred towards us. He is a huge fat petrol head who doesn't go anywhere unless it is in a car and has no idea how vulnerable cyclists are on the roads or the sharp rise in the numbers of cyclists who have recently been killed by being struck by vehicles. His words are ill judged and inflammtory. Being a so called "motoring expert" regularly given a platform by the BBC to speak he should take a more responsible, considered and mature viewpoint. I should imagine that the BBC also has obligations under it's Charter not to promote inaccurate, intolerant and offensive views. In this instance Adam Rayner does not appreciate that by far the largest proportion of road users are cars and other motor vehicles and therefore the drivers of these have to drive prudently and responsibly for the safety of all who use the roads other vehicle drivers, pedestrians crossing the roads or other vulnerable road users such cyclists who also have every right to be on the roads. Approximately 3000 people are killed on the roads each year and by far the greatest cause is error, excessive speed or aggression on the part of drivers.

downfader

Ron Stuart wrote:

Complain to Ofcom and the BBC the more the merrier. I have.

Good point. He has trivialised a serious issue

markyboy2005

I read that transcript, he really does not say what the OP originally told us.

He is basically arguing against JV's assumption that because someone puts on Headphones they are choosing to risk their life by saying he still has a responsibility NOT to crush cyclists under his wheels regardless of how aroogant etc they are.

No doubt the guys does not like cyclists from previous posts and he is fat, but in this case, nothing to complain about to be honest.

In fact he could be applauded for saying he maintains a responsibility to protect cyclists regardless of their approach to the road......

downfader

markyboy2005 wrote:

I read that transcript, he really does not say what the OP originally told us.

He is basically arguing against JV's assumption that because someone puts on Headphones they are choosing to risk their life by saying he still has a responsibility NOT to crush cyclists under his wheels regardless of how aroogant etc they are.

No doubt the guys does not like cyclists from previous posts and he is fat, but in this case, nothing to complain about to be honest.

In fact he could be applauded for saying he maintains a responsibility to protect cyclists regardless of their approach to the road......

Having now had a chance to listen in full yesterday without distractions I'm of the same opinion.

However I will temper that with my view that people still have the right to complain about his previous rants on the BBC etc to Offcom. Rayner has perhaps upset people enough now that they will now read into what ever he says as a negative.