Debbie Dorling, whose husband Brian was killed by a lorry at Bow Roundabout in London while riding his bike to work in October 2011, has challenged Jeremy Clarkson and James May to look her in the eye over their piece about cycle safety in Sunday evening’s edition of the BBC TV show, Top Gear.
Mrs Dorling told road.cc that the programme “totally missed the point of cycle safety”, and that she found one sequence particularly “distressing”, when vegetables were dropped from height onto a hard floor, with a bike following.
“What’s it meant to be?” asked May. “It’s a cyclist after an accident,” explained Clarkson.
The episode of the show, which is watched by millions of viewers in the UK and around the world, saw Clarkson and May present a series of cycle safety videos to a panel of experts including former world and Olympic champion Chris Boardman, now policy advisor at British Cycling.
It quickly became apparent that there was no intention of addressing the subject seriously, as the segment descended into a litany of well-worn stereotypes about cyclists being red light jumpers who can’t afford a car.
Serious issues were barely touched upon, and the danger posed by lorries — which make up 4 per cent of London's traffic, but are involved in more than half of cyclist fatalities — not mentioned at all.
In the comments to our article and on our Facebook page, many pointed out that as a light entertainment show, no-one should have expected anything different. People were told to lighten up and enjoy the jokes.
But others wondered how you might feel if someone who had lost a loved one while cycling were watching the programme, and saw the subject being treated with such triviality.
As it happened, Mrs Dorling was watching it with her daughter. She told us: “I have a sense of humour, so does my daughter. We were laughing then the laughing stopped because it went too far.”
Mrs Dorling, posting as Brians Wife, made a comment to our article on the programme, in which she said:
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.
Her husband Brian, an experienced cyclist who rode around 200 miles a week, was killed at Bow Roundabout in October 2011 on his way from his home in Hounslow to work as a surveyor at the Olympic Park.
Since then, the family has had to endure not only their grief at his loss, but also a criminal court case in which the driver of the lorry involved was sentenced to 24 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for a year.
They also sat through an inquest in which the coroner was highly critical of the Cycle Superhighway Mr Dorling was riding on, which she said gave cyclists “a false sense of security”.
Add new comment
66 comments
It was desperately unfunny and wholly insensitive. Time and time again the tiresome trio knowingly tease and mock anyone not using a car hiding behind the 'it's just a joke' excuse. It's quite obvious that a percentage of motorists believe in the guff they spout and this latest piece simply reinforces dangerous attitudes.
The vegetable references are not a mistake, the entire TG production crew should go visit brain injured patients and stand there making their jokes. They wouldn't have the audacity and disrespect but somehow on an isolated TV show its just fine.
Quite how this show continually escapes authoritative intervention defies me. The work harder reference is horrendous, does this also apply when I drive my car and pass someone in a cheaper one? Can I hurl abuse and adopt some kind of moral superiority over them or is that different because cars are involved?
If was nothing but another dig at a vulnerable group of people designed purely to take the p$$$ out of us all and mock serious injury and death. Clarkson is a callous self serving cretin who should be forced to break the news to a devastated family that one of his dim petrol head disciples has just stolen a life. See how funny it really is.
When I am annoyed by BBC TV, I complain to them. It's very easy to do it online. Only takes 2 minutes. I get a reply from them defending themselves, but at least I've registered my opinion with them.
I complained several weeks ago. You know the sort of TV where the presenter is driving somewhere and he or she is constantly taking their eyes off the road to talk to the camera they have installed on the passenger seat.
I also complained about this Top Gear episode.
guyz2010. Clarkson is just an oaf. Period.
I cannot understand how the BBC deserves the TV licence fee.
They can do what they like, knowing their revenue is protected, and that they will always have enough to pay ridiculously high salaries to JC and the scum like him.
He has offended many times, and surely the question must be asked - "When is enough enough ?".
I think a campaign to abolish the TV license fee would not be out-of-place. It would make the gravy-train quasi civil servants reflect on what they allow to come out.
PS How DO you spell licence, or license ?
JC is annoying but makes profit for the beeb (I'd rather he didn't and they had nothing to do with him, but your argument that he costs us cash is flawed). The beeb plays a role in offsetting the Fox News tone of some other private tv coverage, it is said. Unless you are quite far right of centre, you should be wary of rightwing attempts to diminish it.
Re licence / license, you can remember it by thinking of advice / advise. Or try replacing the licence/license with "card". If card fits, go with "licence" and you'll mostly be right.
He's a lot more than being just 'one of those car drivers'. In case you hadn't noticed he appears on TV and in the papers quite a lot, generally in a context directly related to driving and driving culture.
You also seem to have changed my analogy even as you objected to it. I said nothing about being a doctor with direct power over the hypothetical hospital involved. Just being part of that wider peer group would be enough to make such a joke deplorable.
I get weary of people insisting nobody is allowed to express disgust over bullying and poor morals.
We have freedom of speech do we not? Is it OK for people to point out they find many of Clarkson's attitudes and statements to be loathesome and irresponsible? Or should that be banned in your view?
Pages