[Closed] Clarkson's Sunday Times Piece

He had a point about Vine's show being shite. That was about the only thing I agreed with.

I read the first few words until I saw where he was going with the rugby analogy and concluded from that that it wasn't worth reading the rest. Irrelevant drivel.

A new series of Top Gear starts next week, he's trolling for publicity. He's also a ****.

I do like the way he upsets people.

kiwijohn - Member

I do like the way he upsets people.

Do you like the way he abuses & threatens cyclists too?

Do you like the way he encourages millions of others to treat us like we have no place on the road?

lemonysam - Member

A new series of Top Gear starts next week......

Hopefully the last.

Vine's show being shite.

Irrelevant drivel.

He's also a ****

I once had the misfortune to be in the same restaurant with Clarkson - He was at the next table and was surrounded by several whimpering middle-aged floosies who he bored with endless tales of places he'd been on trips paid for by the BBC licence payers - what a Knob!

my daughter is over 10 now and decided she didn't want a Top Gear Annual this year

I really hope he falls from 'BBC' grace, Hard. What a pleb.

What a pleb.

Steady now, you're not allowed to say that sort of thing you know!

It would appear from the above that you are allowed to say ****, however. 😉

So, Flashy, still of the opinion that he's just a scamp, or has his recent behaviour changed your mind?

I was disappointed there was no mention of lorry drivers murdering prosititutes or ****less mexicans in the piece....

A new series of Top Gear starts next week

5thElefant - Member

Excellent. Must set the recorder.

What about you?

Still think his behaviour is just an act?
Or do you actually agree with most of what he says?

Rusty Spanner - Member

So, Flashy, still of the opinion that he's just a scamp, or has his recent behaviour changed your mind?

The City Boy (and wannabe city boy) Chelsea Tractor brigade need to stick together.

Or do you actually agree with most of what he says?

This will freak you out. I liked watching Mike Tyson fight.

5thElefant - Member

Or do you actually agree with most of what he says?

I don't care either way. He's entertaining.

This will freak you out. I liked watching Mike Tyson fight.

Do you still believe that his views expressed on the TV are fiction, as you've always previously stated?

Or do you now think that his recent behaviour has shown he genuinely holds cyclists in contempt?

5thElefant - Member
I don't care

If this is coming from a commuting cyclist, it's a worry.

It could be Darwinism at play though.

clarksons just a miserable old man who like to whinge a lot and he sees cyclists as an easy target

I think his fans latch on to this hero of our modern age because he sticks 2 fingers up to a 'PC gone mad' world that they like to blame for their own shortcomings and general dislike of the world around them.

on the plus side his heavy smoking, eschewing of healthy living and sizeable beer gut suggest that he might not be around for too much longer

Do you still believe that his views expressed on the TV are fiction, as you've always previously stated?

Or do you now think that his recent behaviour has shown he genuinely holds cyclists in contempt?

The hysteria he generates from the hobbyist offended is priceless, regardless of his inner thoughts.

Calls for his arrest for taking a photo! You couldn't make it up.

kimbers - Member

on the plus side his heavy smoking, eschewing of healthy living and sizeable beer gut suggest that he might not be around for too much longer

lol, I was literally just typing the same thing.

I don't think he's long for the earth.

 

5thElefant - Member
The hysteria he generates from the hobbyist offended is priceless

Wow, that's similar language to what he uses.

Are you saying you don't think pieces like that above are unhelpful re. cyclists' safety?

Are you saying you don't think pieces like that above are unhelpful re. cyclists' safety?

I think the intolerance shown on both sides is pretty nasty. That's why there is confrontation.

lol, ...I don't think he's long for the earth.

Wishing someone dead because they don't agree with you? Take a long look at yourself

5thElefant - Member

I don't doubt the reality is somewhere between the two (but I doubt he hates mexicans), and no I don't have a problem with him finding cyclists irritating.

So you've changed your mind then?

Your previous position was that it was all a joke and he didn't mean any of it.

Now you agree that he genuinely believes what he says about cyclists, but you're not fussed?
Brilliant.

I assume this will be the defence used by most of his acolytes.
It's not very convincing, is it?

It won't make any odds at all. Why would it?

He uses that platform to tell his millions of fans that cyclists are scum.
Yet you don't believe that will influence anyone?

I don't believe you.

Whats worrying is there are plenty of 'petrolheads' that listen to him and think its ok to have the attitude to 'run down cyclists'. This kind of mentality is really worrying for commuters and road cyclists in general.
There are good cyclists and bad cyclists, same as there are good and bad drivers on the road, but why there has to be this hatred is beyond me. I went to France cycling a while ago and they are almost celebratory of cyclists, passing you with loads of room. They respect you and share the road.

The hysteria he generates from the hobbyist offended is priceless, regardless of his inner thoughts

ScottChegg - Member

I think the intolerance shown on both sides is pretty nasty. That's why there is confrontation.

lol, ...I don't think he's long for the earth.

Wishing someone dead because they don't agree with you? Take a long look at yourself

Oh deary me... Please point out where I was wishing him dead? I was making an observation, an opinion, just like you.

Take a good look at yourself.

Your previous position was that it was all a joke and he didn't mean any of it.

Now you agree that he genuinely believes what he says about cyclists, but you're not fussed?
Brilliant.

That is a joke.

Getting annoyed being stuck behind a cyclist isn't a joke. Nor does it make him abnormal or a threat to everyone on 2 wheels.

Take a good look at yourself

I do, and that's why I made a well balanced observation.

Try it; see what it's like.

You're awesome. You got sand in your vag because somebody has a different view.

You should write for the DM.

5thElefant - Member
It won't make any odds at all. Why would it?

Press articles like this have no effect whatsoever?

Press articles like this have no effect whatsoever?

In reality it's just noise.

5thElefant -

Excellent. Must set the recorder.

5thElefant - Member

You'd have to look at the context. He's previously advocated stringing piano wire outside his house to stop motorbikes coming past at 100mph.

That is a joke.

How do you know?
Sure it's not an exaggeration of his actual views?

You've claimed for as long as I can remember that his attitude toward cyclists was 'a joke' and no reflection of his real views.
We know now his behaviour shows that to be a lie.

5thElefant - Member

In reality it's just noise.

Oh come on, that's just pathetic.
You think that advertising doesn't work?
Political bias in the media is nothing to worry about?
Propaganda has no value?

-Chunky - I'm struggling to see why you have flown off the handle.

Can you help me understand why?

Without abuse, please.

How do you know?

Sure it's not an exaggeration of his actual views?

You've claimed for as long as I can remember that his attitude toward cyclists was 'a joke' and no reflection of his real views.

All designed to get the offended spluttering, which amuses the rest of us.

I'm quite happy to believe he finds cyclists annoying. Like most motorists.

We know now his behaviour shows that to be a lie.

Nah, we know now that he sees trolling about cyclists to be an effective way of generating publicity for his show. Similar to that other vocal group he also happened to accidentally offend in the last few weeks, GLBTs.

He's a cynical arsehole who knows how to get his name into the press and doesn't care whether he has to act like a bellend to do it. As such he's just a slightly toned down version of the people being discussed in the Stan Collymore thread and should be regarded in a similar light.

i ride mtb, road and commute by car/motorbike/bicycle.

therefore tomorrow i must run myself over with the car whilst on the phone whilst at the same time being a militant lycra lout riding in the middle of the road 3 abreast with myself, swearing and cursing at anyone and everyone in a car.

not everyone has the same views, so stop trying to force opinions onto others.

I find Clarkson hilarious, he does it for "entertainment" thats his job.

Can't wait for Top Gear

I don't think that's true. You'll need to search all my posts and quote me.
What he says in general is a joke - 'lazy mexicans', 'murdering truck drivers', 'decapitating motorcyclists', 'executing strikers in front of their families'.
All designed to get the offended sputtering, which amuses the rest of us.

so hes just a professional troll

what a hero!

so hes just a professional troll

what a hero!

so hes just a professional troll

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?

[b][i]"Some see the road network as a racetrack..."[/i][/b]

You don't have to watch every episode of Top Gear, which I probably have, the see the irony in that.

Unless there is a good reason to e.g. potholes or entering a junction, why do it?

I'd hazard a guess most cyclists don't deliberately ride down the middle of the road to p1ss people off.

Cyclist sees a pothole or bus pulling over or wet manhole cover or junction ahead and moves out.

Motorist only sees cyclist move out (not the reason for it), and concludes he's doing it for a wind up.

Thus theres a disagreement.

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 - Member

You'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'

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

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...

I quite like him

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".

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.

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...

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.

Horse riders get it and can ride 2-abreast all day..

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] [/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...

https://twitter.com/paulskip999/status/423568846776451073

https://twitter.com/mikesabz/status/422336489905991680

[quote=5thElefant ]

Horse riders get it and can ride 2-abreast all day..

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.