Jeremy Clarkson has urged readers of his column in The Sunday Times to take to two wheels – and has confessed he has bought a bike himself which he says he uses “for short distances of up to 100 metres in London.” He also reveals himself to be firmly anti-cycle helmet.
The column appears to mark a further thawing of the Top Gear presenter and petrolhead-in-chief’s typically frosty relationship with cyclists – last year, he said he’d move to Copenhagen “in a heartbeat” after discovering how pleasant a city could be where the bicycle, not the motor car, was the preferred choice of transport for everyday trips.
True to his trademark style, there are plenty of digs at those of us who choose pedal power as a regular form of transport – the headline, Bums on saddles, folks – let’s rout the pushbike Bolsheviks sets out the article’s premise, that current cyclists are a militant bunch and the only way to counter that is to introduce more moderate types to their ranks.
If there’s an analogy with the creation of New Labour that saw the party move away from solid left-wing policies and led to its election victory in 1997, it’s one Clarkson fails to appreciate, or chooses not to deploy.
“Cycling used to be how you got about if you were poor,” he maintains. “Then it became a pastime for children. Now though, it has evolved into something more. It’s gone beyond a way of life and become a political statement. A movement.
Clarkson takes issue with cycling shorts, which look “stupid,” cycle helmets which he asserts offer minimal protection and cyclists (all, apparently, vegetarian) using GoPro cameras “so that the shortcomings of van-driving painters and decorators can be uploaded to YouTube.”
On helmets, Clarkson says: “If you actually wanted to protect your head, you would wear the sort of thing that motorcyclists use, and if you wanted all-round visibility you would go to the people who supply the British Army. But instead cyclists choose to wear five hardened bananas on their bonce. It’s the 21st-century equivalent of the British Leyland donkey jacket.
He continues: “As far as they [cyclists] are concerned the roads are theirs by right. And the pavements. They do not ride through red lights to make their journey quicker; they do it to show the Tories that they will not be enslaved by convention. It’s political.
“And now they are demanding that their ecological, high-visibility, fair-trade, non-nuclear, meat-free lifestyle be accommodated into the mainstream, with junctions designed to put the bicycle first. They want the car and the van banished. Today the Embankment. Tomorrow the Bank of England.”
So far, so vintage Clarkson, as the column heads towards its conclusion. But then there’s an unexpected departure from the longtime bête noire of the cycling community.
“There’s only one way they can be defeated. And that’s for normal people to start riding bicycles,” he says.
We’ll skip over the fact that millions of normal (and, if we’re going to be totally honest, no-so-normal) people already do just that.
But it’s worth making the point that intentional or not, in eschewing helmets and cycle-specific clothing and promoting cycling to “normal” people, Clarkson seems to be aligning himself with the Copenhagenize school of cycling advocacy.
“We need to swell their ranks with moderates, people who ride a bike because they’ve had a drink and because taxis are too expensive,” Clarkson goes on.
“Ordinary people who ride in jeans and T-shirts and with no stupid helmet.
“People who will walk into a restaurant with a sign on the door saying, ‘Cyclists welcome’ and ask for meat, with extra meat.
“I’ve started the ball rolling by buying a bike,” he admits. “And when I ride it I have a sign on the back of my jacket that says, ‘Motorists. Thank you for letting me use your roads.”
If Jeremy’s reading this, we’d strongly recommend an educational virtual visit to Carlton Reid’s websites, I Pay Road Tax and Roads Were Not Built For Cars – ed.
Add new comment
46 comments
Lord Clarkson, huh? He speaks and, like the Oracle at Delphi ... everyone listens.
This is wisdom - at its worst. His own unique brand of insane ugliness.
Have a fight with the tarmac, Clarkson, as I have several times - and every single time the hardened banana helmet I ALWAYS wear has stopped massive injury and even more ugliness to my unfortunate gurn.
Actually, Jez, old boy, by law the cyclists have right of way on the roads and, by process of evolution & invention - no doubt he will eagerly correct me if I'm wrong - it runs something like this ... man, horse, carriage, bike, car + Clarkson, self-crowned King of All To Do With Cars & Ultimate Arbiter of Everyone Else's Opinions.
I do so love riding my bike. For the most part it gets me away from windy old gas bags like him!!!!!
Top Gear and its presenters ceased to be of any use to consumers after their bad reviews had caused the closure of parts of the British motoring industry and, not being able to handle that responsibility, it morphed into a comedy show. They now only test the unassailable Veyrons, Mercs and Ferraris or do 'events' in 2nd hand cars.
The sting is in the tail. This is his message 'Motorists. Thank you for letting me use your roads.'. If he and his followers adopt this, one day you'll be asked why you're not wearing one.
Clarkson is funny and deliberately highly provocative of course. Can't disagree with most of what he says.
I think you will find that the British car industry went down the pan because they were crap cars compared to Japs, Germans and French cars. Which were cheaper and better made.
He makes some very good points about cycling needing to be normalised- as maccruiskeen points out, people like us making it look difficult and unattainable aren't necessarily helping there.
OTOH the line he (and others) usually takes in the media has a pretty big part to play in why cycling is in the state it is in this country so I'm reluctant to give him too much credit. Whether or not he's really mocking his fans as some sort of clever act is irrelevant- there are lots of people all too ready to lap it all up and incorporate it into their attitudes to the roads. Saying "Oh, he's only joking- he's really rather clever and it's just his TV character" doesn't wave it away.
And the roads are everyone's by right, aren't they?
Enormously Well Said. You've just nailed every point I try and make when a non cyclist talks to me about why I ride (I'm a driver too). People HATE being told what to do. Even trying to make it "cool" is futile really. People will only be drawn in when it makes sense for them and their lives.
...then it will dawn on them that they love it and they'll become spoke-sniffers too.
(And who would have thought that such clarity of perspective might have been prompted by our old chum Clarkson?)
I go on various other forums for sea fishing, freshwater fishing (both fly and coarse) and the football forums.
Every forum has the same attitude towards people in the public eye being in it for themselves and this forum is no different. If in the end Clarkson helps other people get on a bike then its a good thing regardless of whether people like him or not or whether that was never his intention.
Some people take their dislike of a person to far and it clouds their future judgement of whatever that person does or says, you just have to look at Armstrong.
Clarkson is a fat, middle aged twat, who comes out with shitty reactionary 'dad' jokes.
When people say they think he is funny, I presume they have brain damage.
Jezza is funny and I like his humour. I am a keeno rider and a petrol head, so have the fence right up my backside in respect of this article.
He makes a valid point, and if people can't see through he reactionary rhetoric, then they should lighten up a bit.
I do however take issue with the anti-helmet point. Having been knocked off mt bike by cars in central London twice in 6 years of commuting, I can say wearing a helmet makes a big difference.
Whilst a bike helmet is clearly going to be of little use if crushed under a vehicle or being smashed into at significant speed, I found that wearing a helmet prevented/minimised whip-lash when hitting the tarmac as my head remained level on impact. It also helped in that I had no surface head injuries or bleeding.
The simple point is, you have nothing to lose by wearing a helmet, so you should.
I think most of us could have a t-shirt which says 'I'm not driving my car today so you've got more room. You're welcome.'
I think I would buy that shirt ..... quick somebody make one up please
I will waive my IP rights in return for a free road.cc shirt with this in the back and a credit on the item's page. Otherwise you'll have to go through my publicist Max Cli...you what?!
This is making mountains out of the hills around the Mole valley.
Your all missing the point if you had hair as cool as clarkson would you wear a lid?
More people riding bikes = a good thing. If it's a town bike, a twin-shocked monstrosity, a Brompton, Raleigh Chopper or whatever. Two wheels, pedals, leg powered, lights in the dark. My eyebrows may be going a bit crazy, but is all good.
If you not have anything inside you don´t need to have anything on http://road.cc/sites/all/modules/smileys/packs/Yahoo!/grin.gif
Pages