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

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

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!).

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

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?

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

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.

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."

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.

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....

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..!

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.

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?!

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

This was a light hearted piss take and anyone who gets upset or takes it seriously is, frankly, an idiot.

Get a life, people.

Never have I watched something that filled my with so many feelings.

Yes there were alot of parts that where insensitive, idiotic, pointless, pathetic and only there to shock.

But on the other hand I think it is well thoughout, entertaining and educational. Very much like dear old Boris, behind the razmataz and buffoonary there were a large number of salient points. The way it started as anticyclist, "Work harder and get a car". Through the various "crash" scenes and actual footage. To the last bit, "Give them an inch as they've given you a mile" especially with both Hamster and Captn Slow stating the highway code of 6 feet.

The question is, how many of the procyclist points will be taken by those non-cyclists? Or will the great and gormless carry on regardless.

These comments about people not getting irony are bizarre. They don't understand what irony is, and how many levels it can hide. What is being said by Clarkson is fake ironic; underneath is a real belief in what he's saying on the surface. He is obviously a genuine reactionary tosser pretending to make light of irrational, reactionary, conservative views. He can laugh at, and insult, people like cyclists and then look all surprised when they protest and say 'can't you take a joke?' This is a classic technique used by bullies and control freaks. If you look at his books (in a bookshop, please don't buy them and encourage him) it's clear that this is what's going on. He's seriously pro-military, anti-conservation etc., it's not genuinely ironic, it is certainly not satire. Top Gear is propaganda for an ideology, in the guise of comedy and interest in cars. I saw the programme, it was just depressing. Not to mention insulting to all those who have lost someone close due to dangerous driving.

If you dismiss it as 'only' irony or comedy or whatever, you've been taken in. The programme's ideology has to be taken seriously because of the massive influence it has.

By the way, Bernard Manning was in fact very racist. You obviously haven't seen him live, or even seen the documentary about him where, for instance, he's going around in his big car, fuming about the 'pakis' he sees. No 'irony' at all, very serious. When it was suggested this might be offensive, he said, as a serious point: 'It's my country, I'll say what I like'.

Quote:

He's seriously pro-military, anti-conservation etc.,

If I may, I'd just like to pick up on a single point here. I'm not sure that Clarkson is anti-conservation, he's clearly not a fan of Greenpeace or so-called ecomentalists, but this isn't the same as being anti-conservation, is it? I mean, being an anti-conservationist would probably get in the way of his birdwatching hobby, wouldn't it?
Just saying, like.

I mainly use my car for travel. Some car drivers should learn the difference between red and green too. The majority of car drivers think other car drivers shouldn't be on the road anyway. I see a few who have very good safety awarness and some cyclists do too. I have cycled a lot in my life and feel there's room for improvement in the way roads are maintained, planned and used. The two tribes approach of discussion is kronk. End of.

Godwin's law needs updating anyway to include mentions of Th*tcher.

The BBC's reply to my complaint about the cycling feature. I didn't really expect anything better.

Dear Mr *******

Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘Top Gear’ broadcast on the 2 March.

Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response and we are sorry you have had to wait on this occasion.

We understand you were unhappy with the cycling segment of the programme.

Concerns about this segment were raised with the Executive Producer, Andy Wilman, who replied as follows:

“The Top Gear film on cycling was always going to be done in a Top Gear tone, and I believe justifiably so. Firstly, the point about bias-at what point does the film say cyclists should not be treated with respect on the road? 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. Apart from the point about cyclists jumping red lights – a common perception of cyclists – they are not critical of cyclists. The bias in the early Public Information films “Work Harder Get a Car” and “Act Your Age, Get a Car” are 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 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. 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.

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.”

We’d like to assure you that we've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is an internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily and is available for viewing by all our staff. This includes all programme makers, along with our senior management. It ensures that your points, along with all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints