Shock news: Clarkson is wrong

veronese68

Surprised I haven't seen something about this on here, apologies if I missed it elsewhere.

rolf_f

You have to question the judgement of someone who would choose to drive a Range Rover in central London. He's chosen the slower form of transport and is complaining about a faster vehicle getting in his way. Silly man.

raymondo60

Quite obviously the man should have his own roads without anyone else getting in his way at all so he can drive those big cars using all the POWER he wishes and good luck to him.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Hmm. A degree of "shoot the messenger" at play here? I dunno. Isn't it a fair observation that *any* road user gets annoyed when they are held up unnecessarily?

The key, though, is "unnecessarily". In the context of that photo, it's pointless getting excited when you're in the car because there's bugger all scope for going faster than the bike. OTOH, riding in the middle of a lane just for the sake of riding in the middle of the lane, and thereby semi-inadvertantly (ie knowingly) holding people wins you no favours. In this vein, I despise moped riders who ride in the middle of the lane at 22 mph when there's nothing in front of them, then continue to filter at 22mph when they hit traffic.

FWIW, trying to ride such that I am not perceived to be holding up traffic generally (touch wood) has kept me out of trouble. Of course, if someone is then foolish nonetheless to beep me, they get the full on, ride primary at 12 mph treatment, simply because I know that is what will annoy them.

jzed

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I despise moped riders who ride in the middle of the lane at 22 mph when there's nothing in front of them, then continue to filter at 22mph when they hit traffic.

Scalp them......

greg66_tri_v2.0

JZed wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I despise moped riders who ride in the middle of the lane at 22 mph when there's nothing in front of them, then continue to filter at 22mph when they hit traffic.

Scalp them......

I'd do it in the car, but I'm told that driving straight over the top of other traffic and crushing it is frowned upon.

Even if they are a moped rider.

Political correctness gone mad, I tell you.

rolf_f

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Hmm. A degree of "shoot the messenger" at play here? I dunno. Isn't it a fair observation that *any* road user gets annoyed when they are held up unnecessarily?

Exactly. So what would be really handy is if there was someone who is regarded as being reasonably knowledgeable about cars and roads etc, to highlight this issue (for example by photographing an example of such behaviour) and posting it in a very public place. And then explaining why the cyclist behaved that way so that instead of inflaming a situation dangerous for cyclists, instead they actually helped to calm it all down. Which would have been terribly constructive both for the cyclist (who is less likely to be dead) and the car driver (who won't think the cyclist is doing it just to piss him off).

If only there was someone who could have done that. What a useful person they would have been.

naive

Never mind the junction, according to the highway code rule 191: "You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.". The zig-zag lines indicate the area where this rule is in force, so Clarkson need not be concerned about a cyclist in the middle of the road at that point.
Probably the most-ignored rule on the road (Ok, after speed limits!).
Cheers, N

itboffin

Greg you've NEVER riden faster than 12 mph

tgotb

Rolf F wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Hmm. A degree of "shoot the messenger" at play here? I dunno. Isn't it a fair observation that *any* road user gets annoyed when they are held up unnecessarily?

Exactly. So what would be really handy is if there was someone who is regarded as being reasonably knowledgeable about cars and roads etc, to highlight this issue (for example by photographing an example of such behaviour) and posting it in a very public place. And then explaining why the cyclist behaved that way so that instead of inflaming a situation dangerous for cyclists, instead they actually helped to calm it all down. Which would have been terribly constructive both for the cyclist (who is less likely to be dead) and the car driver (who won't think the cyclist is doing it just to wee-wee him off).

If only there was someone who could have done that. What a useful person they would have been.

Aside from the fact that Clarkson is unlikely to take the side of the cyclist in public because he has a highly bankable persona to maintain (and who wouldn't do the same in his position?) the cyclist appears to have missed the opportunity to educate him by entering into a shouting match instead. This is also not surprising, because proving you are in the right (whether by shouting and swearing or by posting videos on YouTube) seems to be a far more popular activity amongst cyclists than having sensible discussions or even just riding defensively and accepting that many road users are f*ckwits...

asprilla

TGOTB wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Hmm. A degree of "shoot the messenger" at play here? I dunno. Isn't it a fair observation that *any* road user gets annoyed when they are held up unnecessarily?

Exactly. So what would be really handy is if there was someone who is regarded as being reasonably knowledgeable about cars and roads etc, to highlight this issue (for example by photographing an example of such behaviour) and posting it in a very public place. And then explaining why the cyclist behaved that way so that instead of inflaming a situation dangerous for cyclists, instead they actually helped to calm it all down. Which would have been terribly constructive both for the cyclist (who is less likely to be dead) and the car driver (who won't think the cyclist is doing it just to wee-wee him off).

If only there was someone who could have done that. What a useful person they would have been.

Aside from the fact that Clarkson is unlikely to take the side of the cyclist in public because he has a highly bankable persona to maintain (and who wouldn't do the same in his position?) the cyclist appears to have missed the opportunity to educate him by entering into a shouting match instead. This is also not surprising, because proving you are in the right (whether by shouting and swearing or by posting videos on YouTube) seems to be a far more popular activity amongst cyclists than having sensible discussions or even just riding defensively and accepting that many road users are f*ckwits...

Bit unfair. I'm generally pretty calm and most things are water off a ducks back for me but I've still lost it on occasion. I've also witnessed you have a go at a pedestrian on the crossing on URR so clearly none of us are saints. If you read the post in singletrack he's quite sheepish and regretful about the shouting abuse.

rolf_f

TGOTB wrote:

Aside from the fact that Clarkson is unlikely to take the side of the cyclist in public because he has a highly bankable persona to maintain (and who wouldn't do the same in his position?) the cyclist appears to have missed the opportunity to educate him by entering into a shouting match instead. This is also not surprising, because proving you are in the right (whether by shouting and swearing or by posting videos on YouTube) seems to be a far more popular activity amongst cyclists than having sensible discussions or even just riding defensively and accepting that many road users are f*ckwits...

I think a lot of people would choose not to maintain their bankability if the end result might contribute to someone getting killed. He could, of course, just have kept his flabby jowls shut thus maintaining his bankability and not stirring things up.

Funny Clarkson. He seems OK when he keeps off the subject of cars.

rick_chasey

Pretty sure you also shouldn't be fiddling around with a camera/phone when you're driving around too.

tgotb

Asprilla wrote:

Bit unfair. I'm generally pretty calm and most things are water off a ducks back for me but I've still lost it on occasion. I've also witnessed you have a go at a pedestrian on the crossing on URR so clearly none of us are saints. If you read the post in singletrack he's quite sheepish and regretful about the shouting abuse.

If I recall the incident correctly, the pedestrian was actually having a go at me, having been cut up by a different cyclist. But you're right, I have acted in ways I regret, just not on that occasion :-)

Barteos

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic ... ron/page/3
towards the end of the page.

The guy explains what actually happened.

Kieran_Burns

naive wrote:

Never mind the junction, according to the highway code rule 191: "You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.". The zig-zag lines indicate the area where this rule is in force, so Clarkson need not be concerned about a cyclist in the middle of the road at that point.
Probably the most-ignored rule on the road (Ok, after speed limits!).
Cheers, N

I always think rule 170 is most ignored (after speeding) myself. It's amazing that no one seems to know that pedestrians who have *started* to cross junction before you get there have right of way.

170

Take extra care at junctions. You should

watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see. Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are approaching from behind
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
watch out for long vehicles which may be turning at a junction ahead; they may have to use the whole width of the road to make the turn (see Rule 221)
watch out for horse riders who may take a different line on the road from that which you would expect
not assume, when waiting at a junction, that a vehicle coming from the right and signalling left will actually turn. Wait and make sure
look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely.

rolf_f

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I always think rule 170 is most ignored (after speeding) myself. It's amazing that no one seems to know that pedestrians who have *started* to cross junction before you get there have right of way.

I think the one about not reversing from a minor road into a major road is pretty high on the list as well. Especially the dipwits who live on main roads and drive forwards onto their drives. Surely, at some point in their lives, by doing that they are guaranteeing an accident?

notsoblue

If London ever "goes dutch" there will be so many road cyclists posting similar snapshots of people pootling along bikepaths on here.

moarspeed

Rolf F wrote:

I think the one about not reversing from a minor road into a major road is pretty high on the list as well. Especially the dipwits who live on main roads and drive forwards onto their drives. Surely, at some point in their lives, by doing that they are guaranteeing an accident?

I watched someone reverse onto a busy dual carriageway just yesterday, from the driveway of their rather large house (which had enough space to turn a car around).

Mikey23

Tired of clarkson and his drivel some time ago

PBo

Interesting comment from my sister in law who is a driver. My wife did a free cycle training through Enfield council, and told her sister about what she'd learned, particularly about taking the road. The SiL says she has noticed more cyclists taking the lane, and that it makes it easier for her to drive - she doesn't have to worry about making a decision and possibly messing up - the decision has been made for her!

jacknorell

We could all chip in and give your sister in law a medal, she deserves it!

CiB

The Driving section in today's Sunday Times has a two-page debate, Clarkson V Vine (Battle of the Jeremies :roll: ) with them both having a page to justify their stance. I'll admit to normally liking Clarkson but his original tweet was dumb, his page of wittering is dumber. This whole cyclist v motorist thing has become boring beyond belief these days. The Telegraph had a couple of stabs at click bait this week, end result being another few hundred comments based on all cyclists being Satan and all drivers being mad starey eyed killers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/r ... -long.html - if you have the stamina for 140 frothing at the mouth typing. Living in the sticks has its advantages.

jimmypippa

CiB wrote:

The Driving section in today's Sunday Times has a two-page debate, Clarkson V Vine (Battle of the Jeremies :roll: ) with them both having a page to justify their stance. I'll admit to normally liking Clarkson but his original tweet was dumb, his page of wittering is dumber. This whole cyclist v motorist thing has become boring beyond belief these days. The Telegraph had a couple of stabs at click bait this week, end result being another few hundred comments based on all cyclists being Satan and all drivers being mad starey eyed killers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/r ... -long.html - if you have the stamina for 140 frothing at the mouth typing. Living in the sticks has its advantages.

Has anyone pointed out the picture in the Highway code illustrating Rule #163?

or Rule #191?

191

You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28

rick_chasey

The Sunday Times has a driving section?

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Sunday Times has a driving section?

'In Gear'. It's hidden inside the homes and holidays sections. It also contains their cycling column.

jacknorell

I'm making a printable download of those overtaking rules...

rick_chasey

Asprilla wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Sunday Times has a driving section?

'In Gear'. It's hidden inside the homes and holidays sections. It also contains their cycling column.

Sounds grim.