Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Top Gear on Cycling: Well, what did you expect?

James May and Jeremy Clarkson learn to beware of the buses but not much more… And they need some new cycling jokes

When news emerged that this evening’s edition of the BBC’s hugely popular motoring programme, Top Gear, was due to feature a segment on cycle safety, it seemed too good to be true – and that’s exactly how it turned out, as it resorted to a to a re-hash of old jokes and pantomime prejudice against cyclists.

Aired on the eve of the launch of a major new road safety campaign by the AA aimed at fostering more awareness between people in cars and those on two wheels, Top Gear could have seized an opportunity to highlight that they are often one and the same.

Indeed, just as AA president Edmund King called in November 2012 for an end from what he described as a “Two Tribes” mentality that often sees motorists and cyclists viewed as breeds apart, Top Gear co-host James May told the My Orange Brompton blog last year, “I particularly hate road sectarianism.”

You wouldn’t have known that from last night’s show as May, on his Brompton, embarked on what was laughably described as a fact-finding bike ride through London’s West End, accompanied by Jeremy Clarkson on a hybrid.

The tour was undertaken after a panel of experts reacted with dismay to Clarkson and May’s initial efforts to produce what was billed as a “public information film” to help stop cyclists being injured.

Those experts were British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman, Westminster Council’s commissioner of transportation, Martin Low and Alan Kennedy of Road Safety GB.

Speaking to road.cc last week about Top Gear's pre-filmed cycling segment Chris Boardman told us this: 

“Anything to do with Top Gear is playing with fire, which is why people watch it,” he said. “On the flip side, it’s also a chance to reach a wider (motoring) audience and portray ourselves as ‘one of you’ rather than cycling fanatics. Just normal people with a sense of humour, who’d like to see more cycling.

“I’m not in control of the edit but knowing a bit about making telly, I could see how they could cut it to look several different ways!

“We’ll see on Sunday if the gamble has paid off.”

We saw.

Clarkson’s film showed a man leaving the office after working late and driving home to his family. “John works hard,” went the voiceover, “which means he can afford to drive a car. That means he gets home to his family safely every night.”

The strapline, against the image of a bicycle laying on the road with buckled tyres, was “Work Harder. Get a car,” an old Clarkson joke and used often enough to be more or less his catchphrase when it comes to cycling.

May’s showed people from a variety of professions and trades – medicine, the law, workmen in hi-viz jackets – frolicking in a children’s playground.

The message, as a man rode past on a bicycle? “You stopped playing with children’s toys when you grew up. So why ride a bicycle? Act your age. Get a car.”

“You just haven’t got it, have you? Absolutely crazy,” said Low, his comments presumably unscripted. Meanwhile, Boardman winced.

So off trooped May and Clarkson to undertake their fact-finding mission, clad in hi-viz jackets and wearing cycle helmets and sporty eyewear, concluding that drivers were incredibly courteous, even at Hyde Park Corner, with the exception of those in charge of buses. Indeed their close encounters with a number of London buses did look genuinely terrifying - even the presence of a BBC film crew is it seems no protection.

Disingenuously, executing a right turn was highlighted by the pair as the biggest source of danger to cyclists, so instead they followed a route composed entirely of left-turns. No mention of the dangers posed by cars or lorries, no mention of improving infrastructure.

The films they returned with were as excruciating as the originals. Clarkson’s had a cyclist blown up while attempting to defuse a bomb because of his inability to distinguish between red and green.

“Cyclists: red and green – learn the bloody difference.” (Traffic lights, geddit?)

May’s began hopefully – footage of Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream’ speech, giving rise to vain hopes of a share the road message. Instead, via John Lennon and Yoko Ono and Christ on the cross, we were told: “Righteousness is no guarantee of safety.”

It was head in the hands time again for the panellists.

But wait. There was a fifth film. It was better than the others, which isn’t saying much, but it’s message was that more people taking to bikes, while disconcerting for their work colleagues due to their body odour, meant less congestion on the roads – and topped off by a car being driven up a deserted Whitehall.

You might ask, why does this matter? Top Gear is at heart a light entertainment programme, and Clarkson no more than a pantomime villain, not to be taken seriously.

Except, many do. And it’s reasonable to draw a connection between the abuse cyclists suffer daily on the roads is partly due to the impact of shows such as this – abuse, moreover, that the same people do not get when they are in their car, or on foot.

Reaction on social media varied. AA president King said: “Top Gear - cyclist advice interesting. AA to film our own tomorrow,” while Spin LDN said: “Jeremy Clarkson patronising cyclists not funny, cool or even worth screen time..so out of touch, total yawnfest.”

Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign said: “If @BBC_TopGear have to make fun of themselves and tries to turn people against bus drivers, does this mean uk #cycling has come a long way?”

Meanwhile, Wes Streeting, deputy leader of Redbridge Labour Group and the Labour Party's prospective parliamentary candidate for Ilford North at next year's general election, added: “Cracking episode of Top Gear tonight. 'Red and green. Learn the bloody difference'. Brilliant.”

We’d hoped against hope that the show might give its fans some insight about the issues cyclists face while riding city streets, ones that cause danger and lead to people being killed or seriously injured.

Instead, we got a piece that played for and got cheap laughs, and that reinforced old prejudices, the very same ones that May said he loathed.

If you missed it judge for yourself - point making, if provocative public information film or pointless rehash of old jokes and pantomime prejudice that missed a chance to do some good? It's on the BBC iPlayer now.

Still, on the bright side – at least there was no mention of bloody road tax.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

133 comments

Avatar
wwfcb | 10 years ago
0 likes

Can't be arsed wading through the 89 comments, so apologies if anyone else has posted this up, but saw this link via Cycling Plus Facebook page

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/James-May-on-bicycles-2012-12-14

Avatar
stefv | 10 years ago
0 likes

Clarkson and his minions are professional trolls, so I'm not really surprised at the piece at all and usually enjoy the show by filtering out the moronic jokes that would annoy me and laughing at the other moronic jokes that I find funny.

I think it is a shame Boardman lent his name to the piece without a chance for at least some decent balance though. I assume he took a punt on that and was let down.

Avatar
levermonkey | 10 years ago
0 likes

Jeremy Clarkson is, by his own admission, the uncoolest man on the planet. [See 'Cool Wall', Top Gear, ad nauseam!]

Clarkson is uncool - therefore anything he thinks is cool is not cool - ipso facto everything Clarkson finds uncool [e.g. cycling] is really cool.

If you accept that Clarkson is uncool then cycling (and therefore cyclists) is cool. Everything is right with the world after all.  16

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 10 years ago
0 likes

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/de-rosa-protos-super-record-eps-2014/
So, we buy bikes because we can't afford cars, eh?

 4

Avatar
alanjerram | 10 years ago
0 likes

Haha....get a proper job so we can afford a car eh? I bet most of our bikes are worth more than a lot of the cars out there (and are in better shape!).

Avatar
levermonkey replied to don simon fbpe | 10 years ago
0 likes
don simon wrote:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/de-rosa-protos-super-record-eps-2014/
So, we buy bikes because we can't afford cars, eh?

 4

Here we are in the middle of a serious debate and YOU go and lead me astray looking at porn! Have you any idea how close I am to n+1=divorce?

Some people just have no concept of social responsibility.  4

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 10 years ago
0 likes

Best I don't show you what I'm considering for those cycling weekends away then, levermonkey.
Oops! Sorry...  21

Avatar
Guyz2010 replied to oozaveared | 10 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:

Well it wasn't what I was expecting. It was disappointing that Chris Boardman didn't use it more to his advantage. But I did think it did a bit of light mockery of some of anti-cycling tropes. My feeling was that it sent up a lot of anti-cycling stereotypes. It was funny. Didn't help the cycling safety effort. I'm not sure it was intended to. That's about it.

I'm not sure the producers gave the honourable Mr Boardman a chance to get political. Think they spent all their killer joules on other energy.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 10 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
oozaveared wrote:

Sometimes people hear what they want to hear.

As you do here! I note your comment doesn't relate to what I said! You seem to be responding to another comment entirely.

Where did I say that Bernard Manning was an anti-Semite?

Are you saying one can't have a view on whether he made racism better or worse when he said things like "no pakis at Dunkirk"?

Are you arguing that as racism exists nobody has to make any choices about whether to further it or not? I note you support my very point by yourself expressing a view on the topic with regard to Manning, which is the very point I was making!

That a bad situation exists doesn't mean nobody can have a view on whether someone is part of the problem or not.

ok you don't get comedy. I explained that Bernard Manning wasn't a racist and why. The same applies to Warren Mitchell left wing Jewish of Russian descent from the East end that also sent up racists famously as Alf Garnett.

Warren Mitchell was attacked as a racist because some people don't get satire. there was a bit of satire going on last night. Silly stuff. The red and green one the work harder one and the Lance Armstrong one so silly as to be satire. ie ridiculous tropes. There will alsways be some twit motorists with no sense of humour that thinks it endorses their view of cyclists. There will also be someone that thinks it isn't satire but advocacy. Those two groups differ on their perspective but both lack a sense of humour.

yes you implied Bernard Manning was a racist. ie you didn't get it. He just recanted the racism he heard and offered it up as ridiculous. ditto Mitchell. Last night TG made a funny unserious comedy sketch sending up anti cyclist prejudice. Hello Hello!

Avatar
jakx | 10 years ago
0 likes

If Clarkson had had a member of his family injured, maimed or killed whilst cycling in London, I venture to suggest he might not have been quite so keen to get involved in this (otherwise very serious) comic caper?

Avatar
Jonny_Trousers | 10 years ago
0 likes

Haven't watched it yet so won't comment specifically.

I used to like cars and I used to like Top Gear, but the whole format became rather tired a few years ago - one man tries to drive nice car from one location to another quicker than other man tries to do a similar journey in a completely pointless, unrelated way, ad nauseum - Clarkson and his two dweeby little cronies are challenged with building something ridiculous and having huge japes as it inevitably goes wrong, ad nauseum - Clarkson et al open mindedly try their hand at a pursuit they've previously ridiculed, but watch out! Crikey! Comedy mayhem ensues.

I do think it would be a good idea if someone cool from the pro cycling world who likes cars (I believe there are several) was to do the star in a reasonably priced car. I'm sure they'd get a great time and would show that you can enjoy cycling and driving.

Ps. Bring back Tiff Needell

Avatar
harrybav | 10 years ago
0 likes

Glad that Boardman's profile got a lift with the bootcut jeans demographic, because I reckon he'll use that extra reach well. He's a bright guy and a good advocate for us.

Avatar
ColT replied to Jonny_Trousers | 10 years ago
0 likes
Jonny_Trousers wrote:

I do think it would be a good idea if someone cool from the pro cycling world who likes cars (I believe there are several) was to do the star in a reasonably priced car. I'm sure they'd get a great time and would show that you can enjoy cycling and driving.

Bang on the money. In our celebrity-obsessed society, one of the best ways to get a message across to Joe Public is popular TV. Peta Todd's been on TG, so get the old fella on there too.  3

I've been advocating this kind of thing since the summer of 2012 when cyclists were actually in the public eye - sideburns, Olympics, SPOTY etc. Tried persuading Cookson and BC in general to exploit the likes of Cav, BW, Hoy and Pendleton, but nowt happened as far as I know.

As for TG - love it or loathe it, it gets seen by a lot of people. Having cycling on there in (pretty much) any format has to be a good thing, doesn't it?

Avatar
RPK | 10 years ago
0 likes

James May: "Cyclists are pedestrians really, since they are leg-powered. They've just added a few levers and cogs to improve their own efficiency."

Avatar
seven | 10 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Still, on the bright side – at least there was no mention of bloody road tax.

The difference of course being that, unlike with VED and roads, our license fees DO actually pay for Clarkson and May's wages.

Avatar
SideBurn | 10 years ago
0 likes

I thought it was pretty good, focus on the positives;
The majority of drivers are very courteous, which in my experience is true.
Another piece on TG with cycling in it.
More bikes can equal less cars.
A good bit of pantomime.
But still no cycling star in a reasonably priced car?
Tiff Needell... he always caused me confusion; mainly because I heard, Tiffany Dell....  22

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 10 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Haven't watched it yet so won't comment specifically........................................................................................
Clarkson et al open mindedly try their hand at a pursuit they've previously ridiculed, but watch out! Crikey! Comedy mayhem ensues.

Could I suggest that you do indeed take time to watch it. In between the middle aged japery there were a few serious points made.
Namely that a bit of courtesy generally reaps rewards.
Bus drivers are a danger.
Right hand turns can be dangerous for cyclists.
RLJing generally winds people up.
More bikes = fewer cars.
I didn't think it was too bad and if you remove the blinkers from both sides (some of the worst behaved people I see out and about are cyclists), we should all be able to get on.
I'm speaking as a pedestrian, cyclist and car driver.

Avatar
rggfddne replied to SideBurn | 10 years ago
0 likes
SideBurn wrote:

But still no cycling star in a reasonably priced car?

+1 get Cav on! Not because of cycle advocacy, because he'd be a great guest. By all accounts a petrolhead, capable of banter, and it's a probably the most relatable part of cycling to driving - the speeeeed....

Avatar
cat1commuter replied to oozaveared | 10 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:

Well it wasn't what I was expecting. It was disappointing that Chris Boardman didn't use it more to his advantage.

He wasn't in control. He was edited. Top Gear couldn't afford to let him express his views, because he talks too much sense and makes his points too well.

Avatar
Yennings | 10 years ago
0 likes

Amusing to see how many people are getting their knickers in a twist about a light entertainment show that's basically a teatime comic book for kids along with adults of similar intellect...

Avatar
nicholassmith | 10 years ago
0 likes

It was typical Top Gear, but rather than complaining (which is pretty ineffectual, the Beeb have come to expect TG related complaints), you could try and play them at their own game and do some equally ridiculous public safety videos. It'd probably get a bit more traction than a complaint.

Avatar
a.jumper | 10 years ago
0 likes

Yes, it's TV for the hard of thinking, but it influences the hard of thinking that drive cars, usually faster than is safe. What they did this week was extremely reckless.

And on this morning's ride to work, I had the first "Work Harder" shouted at me from a car. Two young lads in a red hot hatch, setting off the flashing speed limit sign just down the road. I'm just surprised it didn't happen yesterday.

Avatar
Chuck | 10 years ago
0 likes

I think the "We were only joking- where's your sense of humour?" defence only goes so far.
IMO the way that things people don't know much about, might be a bit suspicious of already, or can't be bothered to think about too much are portrayed in the media can have a significant influence on their perception. It can keep things alive and ready to be lazily trotted out long after they should have been forgotten about- ideas like still paying road tax, or that cyclists are either poor or boring treehuggers, etc. etc. Also works for racial stereotypes, since someone was talking about Bernard Manning earlier.
Anyway, whenever tired old stereotypes are rehashed I think some damage is done, and they're kept alive that little bit longer. Whether or not good old Jezza and his yes-men were just having a laugh makes no difference. If things are going to change this sort of stuff needs to stop really, or certainly not be given a taxpayer-funded platform on prime time TV.

Avatar
700c | 10 years ago
0 likes

I've got mixed views. Usually I'd side with comedy over 'people getting their knickers in a twist' type reactions, but it really was a poor piece - boring stereotypes, lack of comedy value, virtually no sensible conclusions made about road safety or harmony between groups.

I don't blame Boardman for the missed opportunity, not his fault, but TG had a great chance to help reduce cycling casualties through influencing driver behaviour and attitude, and they basically undermined any good points they made with their mediocre final film which really missed the point.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 10 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:

ok you don't get comedy. I explained that Bernard Manning wasn't a racist and why. The same applies to Warren Mitchell left wing Jewish of Russian descent from the East end that also sent up racists famously as Alf Garnett.

Warren Mitchell was attacked as a racist because some people don't get satire. there was a bit of satire going on last night. Silly stuff. The red and green one the work harder one and the Lance Armstrong one so silly as to be satire. ie ridiculous tropes. There will alsways be some twit motorists with no sense of humour that thinks it endorses their view of cyclists. There will also be someone that thinks it isn't satire but advocacy. Those two groups differ on their perspective but both lack a sense of humour.

yes you implied Bernard Manning was a racist. ie you didn't get it. He just recanted the racism he heard and offered it up as ridiculous. ditto Mitchell. Last night TG made a funny unserious comedy sketch sending up anti cyclist prejudice. Hello Hello!

I understand your claim, I am simply saying I don't agree with it. I don't care whether Bernard Manning was in some intrinsic sense 'racist' or not. That's (significantly) missing the point. People often seem to do that - switch from a claim about effects of behaviour to some unprovable statement about someone's inner identity. As I say, its missing the point.

(Also I presume you didn't mean "recanted" - recited?)

I've heard some of his Asian neighbours defended him on a personal level. He might very well have had positive qualities in person. I've known guys who said vile racist things yet treated actual-existing non-white people they knew perfectly decently.

But I didn't know him personally. All I know is when he commented publicly about "Pakis" he didn't help, he made things worse. He was not, functionally, on my family's side and nor (with regard to cycling rather than race) are the Top Gear buffoons (who have a lot in common with Boris Johnson - very clever people with expensive educations playing the clown because it serves their self-interest).

A claim of ironic intent is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It can be a kind of cowardice. Especially when, as with TG, its a paper-thin one. Those guys are not really being satirical, its just irony as a form of plausible deniability. Its not really that sophisticated.

And yeah, of course I know about Alf Garnett, that was a _character_ and there was little doubt about what the creator - technically Johnny Speight not Warren Mitchel) intended - though even at the time I recall it was very often observed (including by everyone I knew who watched the program) that the joke got misinterpreted (what TVtropes calls "misaimed fandom") and might well have ended up doing more harm than good.

It sounds like Speight's subsequent creations were notably more severely misjudged (a blacked-up Spike Milligan as an asian guy? FFS!). His intentions were good but the execution seems to have been increasingly poor.

But Top Gear doesn't even have that defense. TDUDP was insightful and multi-layered in comparison.

Edit - oh, and you've still moved the goalposts from the original point - which wasn't that Manning was/was not 'a racist', it was that the pre-existence of racism doesn't mean nobody can have a view on whether he was part of the problem or part of the solution. That was where this began, when you seemed to be arguing that a pre-existing bad road culture means one can't have a view on JC's role as part of that culture.

Edit2 - Oh God that was a long post. Sorry.

Avatar
Brians Wife | 10 years ago
0 likes

I sat and watched TG with my daughter as it is one of our favourite programmes. However after the initial laughter at the cycling piece we were both shocked and sickened by the content. Sorry guys, this was not good TV for a family whose cyclist husband and father was killed by a lorry. This missed so many opportunities and I am quite saddened by what went on air, had I realised I would not have watched.

Avatar
700c | 10 years ago
0 likes

Ok now we have claims of racism, can we invoke Godwin's Law, and kill this thread?

If not, I reckon FluffyKitten's pretty much killed it anyway..!

Avatar
Daclu Trelub | 10 years ago
0 likes

Why does anybody pay any attention to what that / those buffoons on TG say or do?
I'm a petrolhead, long before the word was in common parlance - I still get a great deal of pleasure from riding fast motorcycles (rather, riding my elderly m'cycles fast) and hoofing along quickly in cars, but I ceased watching TG years ago, when it became a parody of itself. It's nothing more than Sun telly, appealing to those with a viewing age of 7 years old.

Avatar
Team Rux | 10 years ago
0 likes

Lighthearted perhaps and poor taste in places, yes. But overall it was quite a funny bit of TV I thought. Bear in mind the audience that they are playing to - you only have to look at the mugs in the studio to appreciate the balance they had to negotiate.

TG couldn't just go out and do a 'Lets Respect Cyclists' feature so they opted for a serpentine storyline that allowed Clarkson and May to be 'educated' about the issues faced by cyclists and they sort of delivered a message by the end too - albeit only that drivers should give cyclists more space on the road.

This is TG for chrissakes! You are bound to get a few of the clichéd digs at cyclists and a few stereotypical observations, but there was a message there for some of the more intransigent pistonheads to absorb. And also a few laughs along the way too!

In their own clumsy way, Clarkson and May were actually fighting our corner for once, so lets not knock them too much, eh?!

Avatar
paulfg42 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Clarkson is an ignorant twat? Who'd have thunk it?

Pages

Latest Comments