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? THIS IS THE PROBLEM

…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?

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.

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=cyclists

Is 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.

I can understand the logic of that on a country lane, or even in a narrow side street in Fulham. But sadly, some cyclists 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.

aracer – Point 1, I’m not getting into an oh no he didn’t pantomime argument, we’ll agree to disagree.

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.

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).

Mark Chapman killing Lennon after reading Catcher in the Rye, so it does happen, people are influenced, especially if they are “easily” influenced.

That is insane, he should have gone out and shot Salinger for writing it, it’s a shit book.

5thElefant – Member

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.

😕

Indeed – it seems he has a problem with being politely told he’s wrong, but doesn’t have a problem with his “fans” threatening to run cyclists over.

aracer – Member
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).

Right, read yer man flatbhoys explaination of journalism, he’d have a responsibility if that’s what he was, but he isn’t. He’s a light entertainment-ist, and in that he’s obliged to do everything he can to boost ratings(He’s doesn’t particularly have any responsibilities beyond that and living within the confines of the law). Bugging people like you is one way he likes to do that.

As far as I’m aware it isn’t yet illegal to wind up cyclists in print or on twitter.

Like I say far too serious.

Anyhow, enough of this trival nonsense(I mean it’s clarkson ffs hardly the most influential person on the planet), can we get back to the important point of someone telling me why separate cycling networks are a bad idea? Or unthinking as it was described?

he should have gone out and shot Salinger for writing it, it’s a shit book.

😀

Yeah, where’s the like button when you need it?

5thElefant – Member

He’s not a journalist. A columnist, light entertainer and comedian all fit. Journalist doesn’t.

Wow, you’re really scraping the barrel here, aren’t you?

kelvin – Member

Clarkson is like an alternative Alf Garnet: always entertaining: talks a lot of shit: entertaining shit.

Hmmmn.
Johnny Speight was trying to highlight the stupidity of racism with Alf Garnett. Most people, apart from the genuinely stupid, seemed to get it:
Speight & Mitchell’s views were the complete opposite of Garnett’s.

Clarkson’s genius is that he has convinced the people he actually despises that he’s laughing with them, not at them.

Amazingly, even when his behaviour shows this to be self-evident, people still believe him.

Alf Garnett once said ‘I borrowed a pair of boots to walk 15 miles to vote Tory’. 😀

Some things never change, eh?

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? THIS IS THE PROBLEM

Is it?

Just the same as Clarkson does for cyclists, you are describing the exception as if its the rule there.

IME the majority of drivers don’t behave like that, they just want to get from A to B without any incidents, 95% of my journeys by bicycle don’t involve the sort of behaviour from drivers that you describe…

Most of those who gob off on DM comments sections etc about mowing down cyclists are just trying to stir up a response, they know using a car as a weapon is socially and morally unacceptable but joining in in the pretend glorification of MAMIL murder is “funny”.

The very small minority of genuine psychopaths who would actually mow a cyclist down in cold blood just for existing, probably don’t actually need additional encouragement from Clarkson, they are already nutters…

Same as the Gun debate really, Car don’t kill people, Drivers Do, if you are actually wired to kill with a car, blaming some prick writing in a paper for “Inciting” you to do afterwards, won’t help your case…

What, the one which suggests he is one?

he’d have a responsibility if that’s what he was, but he isn’t. He’s a light entertainment-ist, and in that he’s obliged to do everything he can to boost ratings(He’s doesn’t particularly have any responsibilities beyond that and living within the confines of the law).

Ah, so it would be OK for him to write anti-gay or racist stuff (yes it is still legal to write that – certainly if he dressed it up in the same way he does his anti-cylist stuff)? Because he’s just entertaining after all.

Like I say far too serious.

So is it that you don’t believe that what he writes has consequences on people’s behaviour in the real world, or do you just not care? If the former, don’t you believe that some drivers deliberately buzz cyclists, or don’t you believe that any of them follow Jezza?

So is it that you don’t believe that what he writes has consequences on people’s behaviour in the real world, or do you just not care? If the former, don’t you believe that some drivers deliberately buzz cyclists, or don’t you believe that any of them follow Jezza?

It’s the former I don’t believe Clarkson influences people on the road. I believe people are bellends on the roads, becasue, well, they are capable of being bellends all by themselves.

seosamh77 – Member

It’s the former I don’t believe Clarkson influence people on the road.

Do you believe that advertising has any effect on the consumer?

Do you believe that advertising has any effect on the consumer?

As a Graphic Designer, not particularly. 😆

So most drivers aren’t trying to kill us – that’s OK then. Who cares about the other 5% of your journeys (I note you don’t suggest 99%, which implies it has happened). Only 122 cyclists killed on the roads in 2012 – not really that many.

Most of those who gob off on DM comments sections etc about mowing down cyclists are just trying to stir up a response, they know using a car as a weapon is socially and morally unacceptable but joining in in the pretend glorification of MAMIL murder is “funny”.

Except plenty of them will quite happily ignore the safety of a cyclist, even if they don’t go out to intentionally run cyclists down. This group is far from a small minority, and will be influenced by what Jezza writes. Have you really never heard of drivers endangering cyclists and then saying something about cyclists not belonging on the roads to justify their actions – this is the sort of thinking such articles encourages.

…and Jezza encourages them. Something influences these people to behave the way they do – there is certainly a culture of cars having more right to the road than cyclists, and will be until drivers stop uttering the words “I pay road tax”. Jezza might only be a small part of this, but it’s extremely naive to suggest that a man with 2.8m twitter followers and a very popular TV show has no influence at all on attitudes.

…and Jezza encourages them. Something influences these people to behave the way they do – there is certainly a culture of cars having more right to the road than cyclists, and will be until drivers stop uttering the words “I pay road tax”. Jezza might only be a small part of this, but it’s extremely naive to suggest that a man with 2.8m twitter followers and a very popular TV show has no influence at all on attitudes.

Road Rage has been around long before twitter, Clarkson is inconsequential to it.

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…

I don’t think that it’s an act, I’ve seen his ‘act’ and he was a very angry man in charge of a big metal box.

I don’t think that it’s an act, I’ve seen his ‘act’ and he was a very angry man in charge of a big metal box

EDIT: Just twigged the user. I’ll refrain…

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!

Oddly enough I was at a party this week where somebody from Top Gear turned up. They were exactly the same! They must clone Clarky.

5thElefant – Member

I don’t think that it’s an act, I’ve seen his ‘act’ and he was a very angry man in charge of a big metal box

EDIT: Just twigged the user. I’ll refrain…

Why?
Have the courage of your convictions – why wouldn’t you say what you really think?

And let’s face it, out of all of us, itsme is the most qualified to comment.

Arguing with hobbyist offended is one thing. Arguing with someone who has good reason to be offended is something quite different.

So you’re trolling then?

Do you not believe what you’re saying or is it just that when faced with facts you can’t justify your position?

It’s the former I don’t believe Clarkson influence people on the road. I believe people are bellends on the roads, becasue, well, they are capable of being bellends all by themselves.

A much more concise way of putting it than I did.

So most drivers aren’t trying to kill us – that’s OK then. Who cares about the other 5% of your journeys (I note you don’t suggest 99%, which implies it has happened). Only 122 cyclists killed on the roads in 2012 – not really that many.

If you choose to read my comments that way, fair enough, I’d not weight my estimated percentages too heavily if I were you, I get a beep and “Salute” maybe once every 800-1000 miles, the remaining 5% are mostly just lacking in manners…

I don’t actually think any motorist has actively attempted to kill me yet (touch wood). I think what Clarkson has maybe managed to achieve is not so much an army of foaming at the mouth Rabid drivers, trying to kill cyclists, perhaps instead he’s planted the fear that this group exists in the minds of a few cyclists.

A bit of positive reinforcement in the media for a certain way of thinking doesn’t make people right…

Clarkson likes to moan about speed camera’s and limits and cycle lanes and all sorts of other legally enforced elements of our road traffic environment, but its just whining, he doesn’t actually spearhead campaigns or actively lobby against these things, he just picks topics and sentiments that he knows motoring dullards will agree with.

They’d hardly buy the papers he writes in, or tune into Top Gear if he spent all his time berating the masses for being impatient, overweight morons sat in a metal box, Spewing fumes into the atmosphere, when they could cycle to work about as quickly, improve their health and save money…
He knows his target audience and what they like…

So you’re trolling then?

I’m arguing with the hobbyest offended.

Do you not believe what you’re saying or is it just that when faced with facts you can’t justify your position?

Which facts? That Clerkson is a serious journalist who prints what he believes? He wants to decapitate motorcyclists?

Yeah, I’m quite happy with my position on those facts.

He clearly had an altercation with a cyclist. He finds cyclists annoying. Fine with that too.

5thElefant – Member

So you’re trolling then?

I’m arguing with the hobbyest offended. [/quote]
So you ARE just trolling then?

But not willing to debate the subject with one of only two people who actually knows what happened?

Which facts? That Clerkson is a serious journalist who prints what he believes? He wants to decapitate cyclists?

Yeah, I’m quite happy with my position on those facts.

He clearly had an altercation with a cyclist. He finds cyclists annoying. Fine with that too.

You’ve conveniently ignored everything that undermines your position and refused to answer the majority of questions asked.

The questions are all up there, btw.
Have a go at them when you’re feeling up to it.

Rusty, you are a supreme arguist. You might as well be talking about badger baiting you’ve twisted things so extravagantly.

New series is next week is it?

I haven’t twisted anything. 🙂
I’ve asked you a few questions which you’ve declined to answer.

New series is next week is it?

I’m already painfully tumescent with anticipation. 😀

you might as well engage Top Cat in a debate on the root causes of low level street crime.

surely you mean Officer Dibble? 😆

Maybe we should tweet that at him – I’m sure he would be far more upset to know that people consider him inconsequential. Unfortunately he isn’t in so far that his publicly expressed views are part of a certain culture which needs eradicating.

aracer – Member
Unfortunately he isn’t in so far that his publicly expressed views are part of a certain culture which needs eradicating.

Check you getting all Gestapo! 😀

We’ll agree to disagree on Clarksons influence on the fate of humanity!