Forum menu
If you can't figure out the answer to this one yourself, you really shouldn't be allowed to drive.Most of the article is gash, but he has a point about cyclists riding down the middle of wide roads. Unless there is a good reason to e.g. potholes or entering a junction, why do it?
5thElefant - MemberYou've claimed for as long as I can remember that his attitude toward cyclists was 'a joke' and no reflection of his real views.I don't think that's true (the context is rarely cyclists). You'll need to search all my posts and quote me.
I don't think I have to - you're contributions to this thread display your attitude quite nicely.
I'm quite happy to believe he finds cyclists annoying. Like most motorists.
You're also happy that he lies about his encounters with cyclists, then encourages others to share his views by broadcasting his lies and publishing them in a Sunday paper?
his attitudes toward cyclists are 'a joke'
(not actually quoting anyone, just a common statement about him)
Bernard Manning said the same thing about many of his 'attitudes' didn't he? Still, whatever he really thought it drew a following from a certain section of society who chose to find some meaning that suited them. His fault? Just the way it is? Easy to write him off as an idiot? All 'maybe' but the end result is there and he hardly helped improve matters for those at the butt of the jokes.
[i]I'd hazard a guess most cyclists don't deliberately ride down the middle of the road to p1ss people off.[/i]
Indeed. The last thing any cyclist wants is an angry dickhead in a rangerover up his arse. There will always be a good reason when a cyclist puts themselves in conflict with other road users. it will usually be the least risky option.
As for does all the noise make a difference? Absolutely. I don't think that all the people passing out death threats on social media will actively carry them out but open voicing of prejudice will certainly translate into more dangerous behaviour on the road by the more easily influenced followers.
On the other hand, if Clarkson told all his followers to respect cyclists, give them room and be patient then I guarantee that would translate into a visibly better experience for cyclists in this country. But he won't.
I’m therefore neutral in the whole debate,
Yes. Yes he is.
This is awkward but I think I agree with him, maybe I read it wrong but he is saying it is 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other.
i.e. some car drivers are ****ers, so are some cyclists.
Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have to exercise that right.
[i] Given this is meant to be a serious piece[/i]
Is it? He thinks (and a lot of morons agree with him) that he's a comedian. I've never found him funny, but now he provokes violent thoughts.
[i] some car drivers are ****, so are some cyclists.[/i]
There's a massive difference though, isn't there. On the roads?
So all those saying it's entertainment and light hearted, and reasonable for him to publish his views that cyclists shouldn't be on the road:
1) have you read all the tweets in reply to his suggesting he should have run the cyclist over?
2) have you never had a driver deliberately pass you closer than they need to or in any other way deliberately drive to put you in danger - if not, have you never heard of that happening to other people?
3) do you not think it at all likely that his public attitude is encouraging point 2?
4) do you think there's a chance that points 2 and 3 will result in at least one additional cyclist being injured or killed by a car (see cases where cyclists have been killed due to drivers paying them too little respect - plenty of those about)? For the record I think it's almost certain that is the case.
I read the article on Sunday in the paper.
Clarksons piece basically did the classic "some particlar cyclist did something wrong in my eyes, ergo all cyclists are mad/shouldn't be on the road."
Don't think Vine really covered himself in glory either. His first line went somwhere along the lines of "Every day I strap on a hugely powerful light to my head so I can dazzle motorists".
so hes just a professional troll
He knows that something as extreme/stupid/presented as comically as 'murdering truck drivers' is taken differently as more subtle comments that echo widely-held opinions about bikes on the road. He can then blame people for taking his comments out of context if anyone has a go. He's not stupid. He also seems to have an ego that overrules any sense of responsibility his position comes with. It's just playing to the crowd, we get media characters that appeal to society. Jordan and JC.. wonderful )
I quite like him, and I agree that lots of cyclists I see on the roads are inconsiderate dicks. Probably a similar percentage to those that drive cars funnily enough.
To many militants on either side...
That's the thing isn't it, it's an entertaining show overall and they're good at what they do.I quite like him
Bit of an exaggeration there. This is what he said, [b]halfway[/b] through the article:Don't think Vine really covered himself in glory either. His first line went somwhere along the lines of "Every day I strap on a hugely powerful light to my head so I can dazzle motorists".
It is perfectly possible to keep the light pointed down and away from motorists' eyes most of the time, so it is not indiscriminate. If you've ever ridden a roundabout at night and had a car almost T-bone you despite being lit up like a Christmas tree you would understand why he does it.The £165 light on my helmet is so powerful it will temporarily dazzle any driver I direct it at — unfortunately necessary to ensure he doesn’t suddenly shoot out of a side street and push me into a bus
[quote=tpbiker ]I quite like him, and I agree that lots of cyclists I see on the roads are inconsiderate dicks. Probably a similar percentage to those that drive cars funnily enough.
To many militants on either side...
How many drivers have been killed by cyclists riding aggressively?
[quote=jameso ]That's the thing isn't it, it's an entertaining show overall and they're good at what they do.
He's good at inflaming drivers so that they drive in a way which endangers cyclists (more than they would otherwise)? Yes, I think you're right, he is good at that.
I am at least now past the point where I'm surprised at people on a forum supposedly for cyclists supporting the motorists side on such issues.
If you've ever ridden a roundabout at night and had a car almost T-bone you despite being lit up like a Christmas tree you would understand why he does it.
I think we've done this to death in other threads as to why it might not be a good idea to temporarily blind someone in a 2 tonne vehicle.
Regardless of whether Clarkson is 'joking' or serious it's clear that plenty of people are not intelligent enough to take the 'joke' with the requisite pinch of salt needed...therefore he should just stop with the anti-cycling stuff, either way.
I generally don't care/listen/rise to the anti-cycling stuff in the media but Clarkson has a gigantic platform and it's not like he would die or get sacked if he stops spouting it- he'd still make plenty of cash and get plenty of work I'm sure. So it's incredibly poor form and childish and yes, pretty reckless, to keep peddling his ill-formed/ contrived (delete as appropriate) opinions.
There's a lot of cause and effect in all of this.
I've cycle in places where road traffic just works fine and bad driving towards cyclists is rare. People just get along and road users are equals, just people (maybe my perceptions are not the reality but I certainly see a big difference compared to thwe UK).
So in the UK when cyclists get defensive, ott lights, shouty stressed guys with cameras, whatever, why is that happening? Doesn't take a genius to figure out where it started. Bikes could never be the dominant or bullying party on the roads.
Getting back from where we are is the tricky bit. JC is in some ways just a harmless figurehead, in others a part of the difficulty in changing the status quo. Back to my Bernard Manning comment.
He is a highly educated, Yet Miss informed baffoon that not only cannot drive very well, but actually has very little knowledge of the industy he is in.
He is a journalist that says what he is payed to say to make as much money as he possibly can, and gives journalist such as my father (in the same industry) a bad name and reputation.
No, he's a comedian.
Maybe. It's not really a brilliant idea to allow a 2 tonne vehicle to smash into you because SMIDSY either though, is it?I think we've done this to death in other threads as to why it might not be a good idea to temporarily blind someone in a 2 tonne vehicle.
[i]I am at least now past the point where I'm surprised at people on a forum supposedly for cyclists supporting the motorists side on such issues.[/i]
Of course... most cyclists are motorists.
Clarkson is like an alternative Alf Garnet: always entertaining: talks a lot of shit: entertaining shit.
The idea that "the roads are for cars" is an attitude that needs challenging at all times though. My worry is that the more segregation we get to make cycling safer, the more this position becomes entrenched, and the more cyclists will be seen as "encroaching on to roads" instead of staying in their little segregated area.
Making a few routes safer for cycling may result in bikes being seen (even more) as invading aliens on the roads. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have these safe routes, just that we all have to be aware that they will make the fight to show that "the roads are not just for cars" even harder, and even more necessary.
5thelefent I think you'll find he is a professional journalist.
Comedy is funny, what he does is bully and insult, people who find this funny are genraly people with a Low IQ and no morals, people who wouldnt stick up for some one beeing bullyed or who would sit back and watch it happen infront of them.
I'm not saying you are one of these people as I don;t know you but that's my Genral findings with in his fan base.
I don't see a great deal wrong with the points in the article tbh... he's right, when cyclists use the road they should be courteous. The fight for safer cycling isn't about making the roads biased towards cyclists, it should be about creating separate cycle networks from the roads.
5thelefent I think you'll find he is a professional journalist.
journalist
noun
1.
a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television.
He's not a journalist. A columnist, light entertainer and comedian all fit. Journalist doesn't.
[i]The fight for safer cycling ... should be about creating separate cycle networks from the roads.[/i]
See, this is exactly my worry...
If the networks are designed properly, there'd be very little need to go on the roads.kelvin - Member
The fight for safer cycling ... should be about creating separate cycle networks from the roads.See, this is exactly my worry...
but regardless I don't share your fears, of what? cyclists being banned from roads.
What's your point cycle networks shouldn't be created? I'm confused?
The fight for safer cycling ... should be about creating separate cycle networks from the roads
this is not the solution. it is such an unthinking statement - the idea could and should not be applied across the UK
creating separate cycle networks from the roads.
It won't happen here. The money and political will isn't there and fighting for it in some ways creates the sort of division that JC exploits.
"Cyclists demand £15 million for new bikeways when our hospitals are closing" etc
Not saying Sustrans etc is pointless at all (I'm a supporter) but as a solution it's only a minor fix for some. Rights on the roads and respect is what's needed. Horse riders get it and can ride 2-abreast all day.. Choose your battles / be practical etc.
Horse riders get it and can ride 2-abreast all day..
Yes, and... as soon as they see a car they go single file and pull over so you can pass. Then smiles and waves are exchanged.
Exactly the same as when I'm cycling.
His basic view seems to me that because he's in a car he has a greater right to use the roads than cyclists.
He's smarter than that, I believe it is more likely that his basic view is writing about controversial topics in a provocative manner encourages reader interaction driving up his (perceived) value within the on-line and print media.
Clarkson isn't a real person, OK he's a real person, but his TV and print persona is just a caricature of a Middle Aged, upper-band income, home counties dwelling, Tory type. That's fine, I sort of think of him a bit like Alan Partridge a compilation of exaggerated character flaws designed to entertain...
If there are people Stupid enough (and I know a couple) to agree with and parrot the cobblers he espouses then I'm sure they will eventually be rounded up and shot for stupidity, or simply ignored into joining UKIP by the rest of society like all the other loons.
As for arguing with [I]"JC"[/I] forget it, you might as well engage Top Cat in a debate on the root causes of low level street crime.
Jeremy Clarkson is a symptom of our cultural Lob-on for the motor car, its not really worth examining him or his commentary too closely, he does make the odd insightful or even amusing point now and then (although these seem to be fewer and fewer in recent years). But perhaps its worth looking at the issues in our society which he reflects, Namely Dickheadishness and entitlement on the roads (from members of all user groups)...
There are cocks in cars, and there are cocks on bicycles...
This is not actually news to anyone.
[quote=seosamh77]I don't see a great deal wrong with the points in the article tbh...
let me pick some bits out for you:
Naturally there were a lot of replies from car drivers saying that I should have run him down. But these were drowned out by a cacophony of abuse from people saying that I was somehow to blame
...so the ones complaining at him are far more of a problem than the ones suggesting he should run cyclists down.
taking the road network away from the very people for whom it was designed is silly.
...do I need to explain?
Vine says that all he wants when he is on his bicycle is to be safe. But that is impossible (just as it is impossible for other road users to be safe).
...which gets one of these from me:
[img]
behave like the horse rider
...OK, in the same spirit of those who say cyclists will only get stuff to help when they behave (a sentiment I'm sure Jezza agrees with), I'll behave like a horse rider when car drivers treat me like one.
BTW I should credit Carlton Reid for making that article available (it's his dropbox, and his comments at the top).
Horse riders getting respect...
[quote=5thElefant ]
Horse riders get it and can ride 2-abreast all day..
Yes, and... as soon as they see a car they go single file and pull over so you can pass. Then smiles and waves are exchanged.
Exactly the same as when I'm cycling.
How much room do car drivers give horses when they overtake?
Horse riders get it and can ride 2-abreast all day.
However, it has been a long time since horse riding has been a major form of commuting transport. If people commuted by horse I think things may kick-off a bit more. It's really commuting in cities where there the problem lies between cyclists and motorists IMO. One thing I'd like to see all agree on is better quality roads, and better road designs. Potholes are dangerous for everyone, and the type of road narrowings you see somewhere like Cowley Rd in Oxford are also and p*ss people off.
[quote=cookeaa ]If there are people Stupid enough (and I know a couple) to agree with and parrot the cobblers he espouses then I'm sure they will eventually be rounded up and shot for stupidity, or simply ignored into joining UKIP by the rest of society like all the other loons.
Except they won't actually will they? They'll drive their cars around like tossers, deliberately driving closer to cyclists than they need to, grabbing their handlebars, trying to force them off the road. Did you not see the chorus of his sycophants suggesting he should have run the cyclist over? Do you think they're all joking? [b]THIS IS THE PROBLEM[/b]
...so the ones complaining at him are far more of a problem than the ones suggesting he
you can read between the lines if you like, but he is just stating 2 facts there. you're the one extrapolating from it, not him.
taking the road network away from the very people for whom it was designed is silly.
...do I need to explain?
In the context as of road regulator cyclists who try to take over the road, he has a point, these type of cyclists are knobends that would ban all cars from the road. (I take the middle often myself, but shift over once I don't need it anymore)
Vine says that all he wants when he is on his bicycle is to be safe. But that is impossible (just as it is impossible for other road users to be safe).
This is true if cars are cyclists are going to mix there is always going to be an element of risk. how can you eve dispute that?
asterix - Member
The fight for safer cycling ... should be about creating separate cycle networks from the roads
this is not the solution. it is such an unthinking statement - the idea could and should not be applied across the UK
I can cycle from my work to my ma's house about 75% completely away from traffic(I know loads of other routes like it too), in what planet is that a bad thing?(and btw I have no fear of traffic, i'm very comfortable in it) but a route free from motor vehicles is always preferable.
In what way is it unthinking?
[quote=seosamh77 ]you can read between the lines if you like, but he is just stating 2 facts there. you're the one extrapolating from it, not him.
No - he's the one who uses such words as "drowned out" and "cacophony of abuse". Not exactly stating facts, especially given there was very little abuse in the tweets from the cyclists, and plenty of it in the tweets from drivers wanting to run cyclists down.
In the context as of road regulator cyclists who try to take over the road, he has a point, these type of cyclists are knobends that would ban all cars from the road. (I take the middle often myself, but shift over once I don't need it anymore)
Who is suggesting banning cars from the roads? I don't see what's wrong with cyclists claiming an equal right to the road, though Jezza clearly does (and it looks awfully like you do as well). Cyclists aren't trying to take over the road, they're simply trying to stop cars from doing so and then as Jezza does claiming that they own it (I have a feeling he was itching to mention road tax). Try reading the first couple of paras of the article to put this in context - the bit where he implies that cyclists are going where they don't belong.
This is true if cars are cyclists are going to mix there is always going to be an element of risk. how can you eve dispute that?
I'm not, I'm simply pointing out that JV isn't either - when he says he wants to be safe he means he wants to be safer - which is indeed the common usage of the phrase, as even getting out of bed isn't safe (and nor is staying in it). By doing exactly the same as you've just done, Jezza is suggesting that because it is impossible to be absolutely safe, let's not bother doing anything about making cyclists safer. Or did you think there was some other reason for him dismissing JV's comment like that?
aracer - Point 1, I'm not getting into an oh no he didn't pantomime argument, we'll agree to disagree.
Point 2, you seem to be taking cyclist as one group, and motorists as another. nothing could be further from the truth, clarkson points out that he has no problem with people taking the road if they need it, it's another group he's on about, cyclists that continue to take the road after they don't need it, these cyclist do exist. I don't see why it's difficult to understand that clarkson is making a differentiation here and is just talking about one type of cyclist?
Point 3, I've no idea who vine is so, haven't a scooby on his view point, so I'll leave that at that.
[quote=seosamh77 ]you seem to be taking cyclist as one group, and motorists as another.
No - I'm simply picking up on the theme in that article that roads belong to cars, not cyclists (if anything it's him doing the separating). I quoted before:
But taking the road network away from the very people for whom it was designed is silly.
...do you really not see the problem with that as a statement? Do you not get the implication that cyclists aren't supposed to be there?
here are some more:
I’m beginning to get exasperated with the way the nation’s 35m car drivers are constantly being elbowed into the bushes by bus lanes and cycling-friendly junctions and pedestrian spaces. It’s like being evicted from your house by squatters.
MANY TOWNS and villages have an area of open space where, on a Sunday morning, for a hundred years or more, a group of lads have met to play a game of rugby. But then one day, a family decide that since the open space belongs to them just as much as it belongs to the rugby players, they will sit on the 22-metre line and have a picnic.
...I'm going to have to explain that one to you: rugby players = drivers, family=cyclists
Is it really so hard to understand that the basic point behind this article is that cyclists are intruders?
...I'm going to have to explain that one to you: rugby players = drivers, family=cyclistsIs it really so hard to understand that the basic point behind this article is that cyclists are intruders?
The trouble is that Transport for London has issued advice saying that cyclists may “take the lane” — ride in the centre of the road — if they feel the road is too narrow for them to be safely overtaken.[b]I can understand the logic[/b] of that on a country lane, or even in a narrow side street in Fulham. But sadly, [b]some cyclists[/b] seem to think they are entitled to “take the lane” everywhere. That it’s their job to stand up for the little man in the face of the forces of oil and gas.
you are taking his attempt at humour far too seriously.
Yep, he is saying that because the majority of road users are car drivers ten there is no place on the roads for anyone who gets in the way,
People have read stuff and gone out and done lunatic things, i.e. Mark Chapman killing Lennon after reading Catcher in the Rye, so it does happen, people are influenced, especially if they are "easily" influenced.
At the very least it just continues to paint a negative, confrontational picture that appeals to lowest common denominator IQs who still think they pay road tax etc etc etc, and so the cycle (no pun intended!) goes on, downwards.
[i]aracer - Point 1, I'm not getting into an oh no he didn't pantomime argument, we'll agree to disagree.[/i]
Just a note. Clarkson said on his twitter feed 'How do I blanket ban cyclists?'. At no point did he ask 'how do I blanket ban sociopathic morons who think it's OK to fill my twitter feed up with death threats?'
On the horse point, drivers hit horses 8 times a day in the UK. I don't think horse riders think they're treated very well.
[quote=seosamh77 ]you are taking his attempt at humour far too seriously.
Ah, the good old Edinburgh defence (and I don't think JC even knows TJ). I've already explained why it being supposedly "humorous" doesn't make it acceptable to stir up hatred from those stupid enough to take it seriously (assuming it isn't).