Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Top Gear producer: Cycle safety piece wasn't anti-cyclist, aimed to promote mutual respect on the road

Andy Wilman defends BBC show following complaint over Jeremy Clarkson and James May's cycle safety film efforts...

The executive producer of the BBC motoring programme Top Gear has defended a segment regarding cycle safety aired earlier this month in which presenters Jeremy Clarkson and James May, claiming it was not biased against cyclists and that it’s main message was that “motorists and cyclists should show respect.”

Andy Wilman was responding to a complaint made to the BBC about the programme, which aired on Sunday 2 March, by road.cc reader Adam Rees who forwarded us a copy of the reply.

As the comments to our article on the programme showed, it divided cyclists, some saying it trivialised the issues, while others insisted that since Top Gear is a light entertainment programme characterised by an irreverent approach to its subject, it shouldn't be taken seriously.

The issue of cycle safety is a serious one – more than 100 cyclists are killed on Britain’s roads each year, and thousands more seriously injured – but referring to the overall tone of the segment, Mr Wilman said: “The Top Gear film on cycling was always going to be done in a Top Gear tone, and I believe justifiably so.”

The show followed Jeremy Clarkson and James May as the attempted to make a cycle safety public information film to present to a panel including British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman at Westminster Council.

Their efforts weren’t well received, with the first film presented giving advice to cyclists to work harder so they could buy a car – a well-worn joke of Clarkson’s – and another telling them act their age and buy a car.

Mr Wilman said that those first two films were “specifically made to be absurd, and the joke here is centred on the hopeless misinterpretation by Jeremy and James of the brief given to them by Westminster Council.”

The programme also showed Clarkson and May riding through London’s West End, the former opining that since he was riding a bike, he could ignore red lights, which was the subject of another film the pair produced which told cyclists: “Red and Green. Learn the bloody difference.”

According to Mr Wilman, that reflected “a common perception of cyclists,” but he insisted that otherwise, May and Clarkson were “not critical of cyclists.”

“At what point does the film say cyclists should not be treated with respect on the road?,” said Mr Wilman. “It doesn’t – when Jeremy and James go out on their fact finding cycle around London, they make it clear that they believe buses to be the main danger point.”

But in London, it is in fact lorries that present the greatest threat to the safety of cyclists. Making up 2 per cent of the city’s traffic, they are involved in more than half of cyclist fatalities.

The show, which included images of mangled bikes and one sequence that showed a basket of fruit and vegetables being dropped from a height, supposed to represent a dead cyclist, followed by a bicycle.

Debbie Dorling, whose husband Brian was killed by a lorry at Bow Roundabout in October 2011 told road.cc after the programme aired that she had tuned in as a fan of the show, but had found that sequence particularly “distressing.”

She also said that she believed the programme had “totally missed the point of cycle safety.”

In his reply to Mr Rees, however, Mr Wilman insisted that the point of the programme was to reinforce the need for mutual respect between road users, whether on two wheels or four.

“The end film does state that both cyclists and drivers should respect each other on the road, and surely that is the important point Top Gear can get across,” he said.  “Does it matter if we make childish jokes about cyclists’ clothes or body odour as long as we advocate that both parties respect each other’s road space?”

He concluded: “I would also say that although Top Gear brings its own distinct voice to the cycling/motoring issue, we are at least bringing more awareness to the debate, and if the main message from a such a car based programme is that motorists and cyclists should show respect, then that’s ultimately to the good.”

The programme is still available to watch on BBC iPlayer until tomorrow, Sunday 23 March.

Is the executive producer's rejection of criticism of the show justified? Did Top Gear really bring more awareness to the road safety debate and highlight that there should be respect between cyclists and drivers? Let us know in the comments.

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

40 comments

Avatar
efail replied to zanf | 10 years ago
0 likes

Stewart Lee, Top Gear, You Tube
Just watched this. Made my day. Thanks.

Avatar
paulfg42 | 10 years ago
0 likes

The screengrab at the top of this article says it all really. Clarkson and the whole Top Gear crew make me vomit.

Avatar
Simmo72 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Who cares. JC only has a few series left before his hips finally give way to the strains of inserting his huge fat arse into a sports seat in some italian supercar. He'll end up on 'top mobility scooter'........though he'll still be whinging about bikes.

Avatar
mattanthony replied to workhard | 10 years ago
0 likes
workhard wrote:

Reminds me of folk who say "I'm not a racist but..."

I complained.

I complained about specifics.

I got a stock generic e-mail response.

I got a stock generic e-mail response that didn't address my specific complaint.

Conclusion? The Top Gear crowd are so far up their own smug arses they won't listen to anything but their own conceited point of view. Because it sells. To morons.

Did the same - got a stock reply that was so unsuitable to what I had said it was insulting.

Top Gear is a tired format now and is being used to upset as many people as possible in the pursuit of cheap jokes. Unfortunately the cheaper the jokes the less appealing they are and I suspect that I am not the only one tired of this programme now.

The Stewart Lee clip on Youtube about Top Gear sums it up nicely!

 41

Avatar
jashem | 10 years ago
0 likes

Motorists - 4ft and 4 inches. Learn the bloody difference.

Avatar
Sedgepeat | 10 years ago
0 likes

But the concept of road cycling especially now and in busy cities is a highly dangerous one. I know it angers many but to describe it as, placing one's unprotected body, on two slender wheels, among many large fast moving essential machines, operated by complete strangers of varied ability and mental capacity, is an accurate description isn't it?

Would humans normally consider doing anything like it and expect to survive?

Let's face the truth instead of burying our heads while people are being killed and maimed daily.

Avatar
sean1 replied to Sedgepeat | 10 years ago
0 likes
Sedgepeat wrote:

But the concept of road cycling especially now and in busy cities is a highly dangerous one.

Not really.

More pedestrians, motor cyclists and motor vehicle occupants are killed or seriously injured in London each year than cyclists. This fact is usually omitted when talking about cycling 'danger'.

The World Health Organisation report this week estimated 6 million people a year are killed due to pollution related issues, half of that due to outdoor pollution.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26730178

And air pollution is greater inside a motor vehicle than outside.

http://www.air-quality.org.uk/06.php

Avatar
shay cycles | 10 years ago
0 likes

Sedgepeat - you are quite simply wrong and Seanbolton makes the point perfectly well.

I wonder if your views might be at all skewed by the type of bike you ride - the Honda Goldwing in your profile is hardly the type of bike we generally talk about on here is it?

If cycling, being a pedestrian, being a motorcyclist and being a motorist in the busy city are all dangerous (to varying degrees) then the solution can be found simply by looking at the vehicles causing the damage. Make the cities less busy with those vehicles and you'll increase safety for everyone.

Very simple, but politically very difficult - we can yet only dream of cities with hardly any motor vehicles putting their citizens at risk!

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Sedgepeat | 10 years ago
0 likes
Sedgepeat wrote:

But the concept of road cycling especially now and in busy cities is a highly dangerous one. I know it angers many but to describe it as, placing one's unprotected body, on two slender wheels, among many large fast moving essential machines, operated by complete strangers of varied ability and mental capacity, is an accurate description isn't it?

Would humans normally consider doing anything like it and expect to survive?

Let's face the truth instead of burying our heads while people are being killed and maimed daily.

But the concept of road driving especially now and in busy cities is a highly dangerous one. I know it angers many but to describe it as, placing large fast moving machines among many unprotected bodies, on two slender wheels or on foot is an accurate description isn't it?

FTFY

I am tired of the way people play games with the ambiguous meaning of the word 'dangerous'. We need more emphasis on the transitive sense rather than the intransitive. The former seems to be completely ignored these days.

Oh, and why is some lazy sod's 1 mile drive to the shops 'essential' in your view while a worker's 5 mile cycle commute apparently isn't? I note you misuse the word 'essential' as much as you do the word 'dangerous'.

Avatar
PhilRuss | 10 years ago
0 likes

[[[[[ Wilman's responses? Evasive, and economical with the truth, and he knows it full well. Disgraceful.
P.R.

Pages

Latest Comments