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.




















133 thoughts on “Top Gear on Cycling: Well, what did you expect?”
It’s at times like this that
It’s at times like this that I turn to Stewart Lee for consolation: http://youtu.be/K7CnMQ4L9Pc
I thought that it would at
I thought that it would at least have been funny but it wasn’t.
Well, besides the “Christ on a bike” bit. B-)
Pretty glad I was spared
Pretty glad I was spared subjecting myself to such a farce being in the States.
Might have to watch it when I’m back next week just out of curiosity.
The bloke is an absolute
The bloke is an absolute cock, it’s not just push bikes he has a vendetta about, it is also motorbikes, most of which would leave his car for dead. As for the other two (both motorcyclists) not having the bollox to have an opinion of their own.
And to think our hard earned goes towards their wages and that dross of a show. Give me motorcycle racing or a GT over that crap anyway. As per normal the BBC can air what it likes.
Shep73 wrote:
And to think
No it doesn’t.
It felt like it was missing
It felt like it was missing some sort of revelatory punch line to make it all worthwhile.
CB and Jesus, nice beards,
CB and Jesus, nice beards, link?
Buses are a nightmare and some other BS
“He’s wearing normal clothes. You are going to die!”
Comedy not even up to normal Top Gear standards.
Don’t forget Top Gear has already proven that bikes are superior:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkOzNK4l8KY
It was heinous and I felt
It was heinous and I felt seriously hurt by it. I know some will think this is taking it waay too far.. yet cycling in this country is getting WORSE in regards to driver attitude. I’ve cycled for 25yrs and I’ve never know it this bad, I seriously wonder the cause if this and I’m convinced its YouTube camera cyclists, I know quite few live the aspect of angle towards showing the plight of the cyclists viewpoint but I feel this is the cause. In December I has 3 near fatal misses to the point I nearly stopped cycling even though it’s my life. In light of the popularity of the sport now, I wonder how many of those that laughed this eve’ with this programme cheered Bradley Wiggins on his momentous year in 2012.
I sincerely hope for all reading this and hope you all well’ riding the byways of this very varied country.
Jesus christ this is
Jesus christ this is predictable. Not the show (well, to a degree, yes the show) but the response.
I’m sorry but you’re a bit thick if you can’t notice when someone known to play an idiot persona for the sake of a laugh a lot of the time… is playing an idiot persona for the sake of a laugh. Taking what they say literally to make a point makes you look a cnut.
This is Daily Mail quality journalism.
totally agree nuclear coffee
totally agree nuclear coffee
nuclear coffee wrote:Jesus
It’s not funny when someone nearly kills me then parrots one of Clarkson’s lines out of their window. Who cares whether it’s a persona or not? Millions of people who drive cars think what he says is serious and adjust their attitudes accordingly.
Stand-up comedians are allowed to push the envelope because they are… stand-up comedians. The same does not apply to presenters. If Clarkson wants to get up behind a mic and do a proper comedy routine then I’ll laugh along with the rest. But when he’s appearing on a programme that actually affects the attitudes of people who put my life in danger on a daily basis, then he needs to show a bit more care.
Bikebikebike wrote:nuclear
No I don’t think so. This is cart before the horse thinking. Clarkson didn’t invent car culture. People don’t like watching nice cars or take an interest in automotive technology because he tells them to. And they don’t cut you up because Clarkson is controlling their minds. Millions of people are interested in this stuff. Car mags are the biggest selling media week after week. All Clarkson does is reflect a widespread interest in cars in an un PC humorous way which appeals to the demographic and more widely families so that the programme becomes an entertaining programme and it’s about cars as well. The trick is so that you get a wider audience than the hard core car nuts. Which in turn means you can get on prime time telly and in turn that means you can get a bigger budget and have the production values that a allow you to sell the programme to a international market.
People go to the circus and watch a clown making a fool of themselves and laugh. Then they go home. Not many of them decide they want to be the clown themselves no matter how much they enjoyed the performance.
oozaveared wrote:Bikebikebike
No I don’t think so. This is cart before the horse thinking. Clarkson didn’t invent car culture. People don’t like watching nice cars or take an interest in automotive technology because he tells them to. And they don’t cut you up because Clarkson is controlling their minds. Millions of people are interested in this stuff. Car mags are the biggest selling media week after week. All Clarkson does is reflect a widespread interest in cars in an un PC humorous way which appeals to the demographic and more widely families so that the programme becomes an entertaining programme and it’s about cars as well. The trick is so that you get a wider audience than the hard core car nuts. Which in turn means you can get on prime time telly and in turn that means you can get a bigger budget and have the production values that a allow you to sell the programme to a international market.
People go to the circus and watch a clown making a fool of themselves and laugh. Then they go home. Not many of them decide they want to be the clown themselves no matter how much they enjoyed the performance.— nuclear coffee
Very well put, i dont even think top gear is really for petrol heads anymore, its a family entertainment programme that occasionally mentions torque and bhp.
oozaveared wrote:
No I don’t
Bit of a false dichotomy there though, no?
You don’t have to invent a culture to either pander to it and feed it on the one hand or to instead try and resist it. Bernard Manning, say, didn’t invent racism either, but that doesn’t mean one can’t have a view on whether he made a problem better or worse.
In general, Clarkson panders to damaging attitudes for fun and profit (even while he’s smart enough to know better). I know it feels futile to rail against it, but I don’t see why I have to accept people denying the obvious. He makes a choice – self-interest comes first.
Anyway I can’t speak with authority on this particular program as I didn’t watch it. It is true though that TG makes a profit for the Beeb (mainly because of the huge dominance of car-culture in the US) so its not exactly ‘licence payers money’.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Bit of a false dichotomy there though, no?
You don’t have to invent a culture to either pander to it and feed it on the one hand or to instead try and resist it. Bernard Manning, say, didn’t invent racism either, but that doesn’t mean one can’t have a view on whether he made a problem better or worse.
In general, Clarkson panders to damaging attitudes for fun and profit (even while he’s smart enough to know better). I know it feels futile to rail against it, but I don’t see why I have to accept people denying the obvious. He makes a choice – self-interest comes first.
Anyway I can’t speak with authority on this particular program as I didn’t watch it. It is true though that TG makes a profit for the Beeb (mainly because of the huge dominance of car-culture in the US) so its not exactly ‘licence payers money’.— oozaveared
Unfortunate that you used Bernard Manning as an example. He famously said that the only point in telling a joke was that it was funny. His famous Joke that got him banned for being antisemitic was “A member of my family died in Auschwitz – He fell out of the watchtower” was roundly condemned,
Bernard Manning served in Manchester Regiment and during National Service was a guard at Spandau prison. He guarded Hess, Doenitz and Speer. Manning found that a difficult experience because he had a Russian Jewish / Irish Catholic background and later his home in Manchester was called Shalom and sported a large jewish piece of art called Shalom above the door.
He also found being called an anti-semite very funny.
Sometimes people hear what they want to hear.
oozaveared wrote:
Sometimes
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.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
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.— oozaveared
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!
Bikebikebike wrote:
It’s not
Meh, at some point I just get sick of culture having to be created so that idiots can’t wilfully misinterpret it. Anyone who takes pretty much anything Clarkson says seriously already drives like a dick: if there’s one thing I respect him for, it’s that he generally expects people to be smart enough to draw their own conclusions, which may not necessarily be his. It’s a good trick, actually.
Come on, did none of you
Come on, did none of you laugh at the Lance Armstrong gag?
I also thought the red/green was funny too.
Lighten up everyone!
Lance Armstrong joke was good
Lance Armstrong joke was good 👿
It was such an opportunity.
It was such an opportunity. And they might, just might have taken it – there was after all a ‘race’ across London from Richmond to City Airport when Hammond on a Specialized Sirrus beat May in a car, Clarkson in a boat and Stig on the Tube.
I own two cars and four bikes, I love driving, I love cycling, I just wanted it to be funny.
It wasn’t.
I know I’m going to get shot
I know I’m going to get shot down here but the “Red and Green” comment I totally support. I’ve been stopped at a red light (on my bike) and cringed with a mixture of fear, embarrassment and anger at the stupid riders who have come passed me and weaved through oncoming and crossing traffic rather than wait the 30 seconds for the lights to change and then caught and passed those same riders within a couple of minutes, and they couldn’t understand what they had done wrong when I had a go at them 😕 ~X(
paulfrank wrote:I know I’m
Because of course no motorist has ever jumped a red light, ever. In fact most surveys suggest motorists do it more often than cyclists. A more truthful ad would have said “all you, lot, learn the difference”. I can understand why Clarkson peddles lies about this, but quite why we have to support them here puzzles me.
Sorry, can’t agree with the
Sorry, can’t agree with the response here at all.
Yes, they rehashed the same old jokes – as satire. I thought that was pretty obvious. And they ended the segment with what’s probably the most important message to their petrol head audience: be considerate, give enough room.
They also included a lot of the things drivers would do well to remember (e.g. more cyclists = fewer cars) cleverly disguised in their jokes.
All in all I was both moderately amused and happy with the outcome – which is totally not what I expected from a show like Top Gear. It’s a small step, but a good one IMHO.
Clarkson, Hammond & May are
Clarkson, Hammond & May are well past their use by date when it comes to comedy value.
The “right turn” danger as shown, was useful to highlight to the public how dangerous it is for cyclists to go right at a junction like that. Maybe they’ll keep that in mind next time they see a cyclist do something similar. I did wholeheartedly agree about bus drivers. They are a menace to road users (not limited to cyclists only).
I thought the “Lance Armstong” gag was funny, but that was about it.
You can wear normal
You can wear normal clothes!
Buses are the enemy!
Sometimes you should cut the red wire!
To be fair they extraced the precise amount of urine required.
Had me in stitches!
I did like the “cyclists need
I did like the “cyclists need to learn the difference between red and green” and also the Lance poster.
I think only one person has come out of this looking bad. Chris Boardman.
We all know by now what Clarkson will be like, but Boardman sat there, said nothing, is sh*t at acting and got paid for it….He needs a good slap around the face and told to wise the f*ck up.
He wants to be this “leader” of cyclists…not a hope in hell now. I’ve noticed the tone on twitter was pretty damming of his involvement with this.
All in all, I saw the funny side of it. I liked 2/5 of their informational videos. If you take Top Gear seriously, then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror….
Gkam84 wrote:I did like the
For all we know he may well have made some very good comments, and then had them edited out because it spoiled the ‘comedy’?
Gkam84 wrote:I did like the
That’s pretty undeserved criticism. You do realise Clarkson has full control of the edit, right?
if Boardman says something and Clarkson doesn’t like it, it doesn’t go in. If , say, James Blunt mentions he’s wildly successful and rides a bike (not the first to do so on TG) and Clarkson doesn’t like it, it doesn’t go in. So if you have seen it, that means he’s okay with it, even if it makes him look bad.
By appearing, Boardman gains a slightly raised media profile, and Clarkson gets an entertaining show and possibly some behind-the-scenes input (the two seem actually pretty closely ideologically aligned based on what they’ve written). Expecting an entertainment show to do more is foolish.
There’s an aspect of cycle advocacy that’s very childish at times. Last night a programme openly marketed at petrolheads ended a piece on cycle safety with the messages that you should drive with consideration around cyclists:
What more could you expect?
“There’s an aspect of cycle
“There’s an aspect of cycle advocacy that’s very childish at times. Last night a programme openly marketed at petrolheads ended a piece on cycle safety with the messages that you should drive with consideration around cyclists:
What more could you expect?”
I don’t agree. The overwhelming message that came across to me was that cycling was abnormal and dangerous. The very brief comment on giving cyclists more room was a throw-away add-on at the end, not remotely expanded on and easy to miss or ignore.
There also seem to be plenty of people willing to support the way the ‘red and green’ thing was portrayed. Why is no-one mentioning the cyclists (many of them female) who have been killed by left turning lorries whilst waiting at a red light? Why is no-one discussing the possibility that ‘unlawfully’ passing a red light might keep you alive?
don_don wrote:Why is no-one
Because a lot of these that I’m aware of tend to be cyclist technique errors – shouldn’t be sat on the inside of a lorry/bus/etc. at the lights and shouldn’t be moving up a line of traffic on the inside either.
I’ve just watched it and felt
I’ve just watched it and felt it was an opportunity missed. Yeah I know some of it was intended to be satire but you just have to look at how many people repost The Onion or Daily Currant satirical stuff as fact to realise that sometimes subtlety doesn’t cut it. If more people got satire Snopes.com would have far fewer stories to look into!
No big surprise that Clarkson was keen to point out that every single car driver they came across seemingly behaved themselves and it was the big, bad public transport that caused all the problems. Again sweeping generalisations either on the show or on this site (which is either that all drivers are prospective candidates for sainthood (Top Gear) or that they are all maniacs who set out to purposely kill as many cyclists as possible (some of the contributors on here)) were not challenged and as Top Gear is in a prime position to reach out to many drivers as possible it was a wasted chance- the simple message that not all cyclists are red-light jumping clichés, just as everyone behind the wheel of a vehicle with an engine is not a powderkeg of fury about to be unleashed on cyclists would have done a lot more. And while they probably did intend that message to be got across in what they did I go back to my original point-sometimes subtlety is not enough and can go on to be used to justify prejudices that inspire bad actions. (It was also noticeable that the issue of lorries was totally absent).
The show did prove one thing
The show did prove one thing (as if it needed proving) – that Clarkson/May are a complete NOBs and that Top Gear is to motoring as the Daily Mail is to journalism.
Here is a picture of a cat.
Here is a picture of a cat.
I’m glad I didn’t see it. But
I’m glad I didn’t see it. But I hate Clarkson anyway.
Top gear is a joke. Have they
Top gear is a joke. Have they ever treated any subject seriously on that show? The format has been the same for years. The only change is its presenter’s ageing. The facial expressions And comments Of boardman and co did nothing to endear cyclists to non cycling motorists.
I suppose it could have been
I suppose it could have been worse based on my low expectations but still cringed at people laughing at mangled bikes given all the killings we’ve had recently. The fact is there’ll be plenty of nobs shouting “work harder” etc at commuters this morning instead of “pay road tax”.
I’m a big fan of Boardman but he needs to make a statement today or he risk looking stupid imho
‘I know I’m going to get shot
‘I know I’m going to get shot down here but the “Red and Green” comment I totally support.’
This. Idiot cyclists give us a far worse name than Clarkson et al could ever manage.
andyp wrote:’I know I’m going
I see far more idiot car drivers and idiot lorry drivers than idiot cyclists. How bad a name should I use for anyone in a motor vehicle, or would that be unfair?
Look…..it got motorists
Look…..it got motorists watching, and would, I assume hold their attention and demonstrate, through the film, rather than the ‘comedy’ sections, just what riders need to deal with in traffic.
The programme was repetitive after 2 series, cycling just happened to be this weeks theme, it could be ‘bloody foreigners’ next week.
‘In fact most surveys suggest
‘In fact most surveys suggest motorists do it more often than cyclists.’
reference please?
andyp wrote:’In fact most
Here’s one from Direct line
http://web.archive.org/web/20111105053141/http://directline.com/about_us/news_22082011.htm
I thought it was brilliant.
I thought it was brilliant. Typical TG rabble rousing. What did ANYONE expect??? These guys love to get a ride out of people and apart from the religious, cyclists are probably the next best group to gun for.
The red and green skit was really funny, Christ on a bike excellent.
If you don’t get the TG humour, then stay on your bike and don’t watch it…
Interesting article. Any
Interesting article. Any which actually back up what you say?
Their ‘ride around London’
Their ‘ride around London’ may have been a bit pathetic, but it was still more than the MPs who are supposed to be debating cycling safety have managed…..
Top Gear’s conclusion on
Top Gear’s conclusion on cycling, as far as I saw it:
“Cyclists are smelly, self-righteous, law-breaking, lazy w*nkers (and cycling is f*cking dangerous) so why would you want to be one?”
There was just a tiny fraction of reason at the end, as a pretence of balance, which most non-cyclists would (I suspect) have either missed or ignored.
Top Gear and the BBC just did a great big sh*t on cycling in Britain. I hope Boardman’s reputation survives this.
I think the red/green video
I think the red/green video should go viral on YouTube. It was entertaining, and it does apply to some people. A light hearted joke, and likely fitting of the original brief to create an awareness video.
I actually quite liked the
I actually quite liked the fact that it made an effort not to pander to the common media image of a cyclists Vs motorist road war. That’s the real lazy path that too many TV programmes and news items take.
The humour wasn’t the best the show has done, but nothing I’d take offence at. Though “Christ on a bike” was funny.
And the end point was a good one. In London, the belief that “cyclists cause congestion” seems to have become the new “you don’t pay road tax” for a certain type of driver.
I know it was supposed to be
I know it was supposed to be a bit of standard top gear poking fun stuff but I really can’t see where the humour was. Surely humour lies in the unexpected – this was just the usual blah that my brother in law comes out with every time I see him. Maybe it was executed slightly better but it was the same stuff – no expectations were confounded and no thoughts were provoked. This was nothing. This was just “Where are my pants?” (apologies to anyone who hasn’t seen the Lego Movie).
Nobody takes Clarkson
Nobody takes Clarkson seriously, he is a comic.
Red/Green funny.
Seeing
Red/Green funny.
Seeing crushed bicycles not funny.
Anything that reinforces prejudice is bad. Some nutters out there watching this sort of stuff could take it as licence to put fellow road users at risk.
I have complained to the BBC.
I thought the strongest
I thought the strongest message was the attitude of TFL Bus drivers, although it was a pity they didn’t encounter any left turning HGVs or buses in the video. I did chortle at the Lance Armstrong, Hitler and Christ gags though.
Dunks517 wrote:I thought the
The most frightening thing about that is the bus drivers’ attitude and driving has got much better… now they have external cameras which show quite well how poor their driving can be and they’ve been used in court.
Same bloody script every week
Same bloody script every week (that is why I stopped watching it ages ago). It isn’t even funny anymore. Very tired format. About time to retire Clarkson & Co.
I once made the mistake of
I once made the mistake of going on BBC’s Watchdog to pass comment on ‘dangerously assembled bikes’. Never again. Almost everything I said was edited out. The stuff that was left, to suit the storyline, was gimmicky nonsense spliced together from the bits where they got me to wear a cowboy style holster with tools in it (I refused to wear the hat). I suspect Chris Boardman has had similar treatment. When stuff like this is put together, most of it is left on the cutting room floor…. well, the digital equivalent of that
If the only thing that came
If the only thing that came out of last night’s Top Gear was that anyone (cyclist, moped, motorbike, car, bus, hgv) running a red light got blown up, I would be a happy cyclist.
Armstrong poster was also very funny.
It it just me that finds the
It it just me that finds the BBCs classification of Top Gear as ‘factual’, farcical ?
I though most of it was light
I though most of it was light hearted & tongue in cheek, and typical of TG. But the pile of food dropped from a height to simulate “a cyclist after an accident” was in pretty poor taste.
caaad10 wrote:I though most
I thought it quite a clever touch that it was all veggy…
My fear when I heard Boardman
My fear when I heard Boardman was involved in this was a hatchet job on him.
He has been putting his head over the parapet on behalf of cyclists and grabbing peoples attention, even non or “anti” cyclists have started to agree with his points. Many people starting championing him as our man for cycling and terms like Cycling Czar get banded around.
The BBC then completely ignore his more recent comments about cycling safety and his points about helmets not being in the top ten things to improve cycling safety.
A week later he’s doing a piece with one of the BBC’s biggest dickheads and hatchet merchants.
I’d be very wary of a campaign to discredit him, so the “petrolheads*” can laugh and sneer at the bloke we’ve put up on a pedestal. Make him look stupid on one point and make a huge, public deal out of it and then you can undermine everything else he says, whether it makes good sense or not.
Raging paranoia perhaps? But you’ll have to forgive me for having zero faith or trust in the BBC and as Joseph Heller taught us, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.
*I can not fathom why anybody other than awkward, tube sock abusing, spotty virgins label themselves as petrolheads.
I watched this through
I watched this through clenched teeth up to the point where Clarkson had a jet engine strapped to his bike and looked like a mutant cross between Mr Toad and Muttley the dog. It then went on to have Hitler and Jesus on bikes and I just switched off. It was pointless puerile bollocks and a totally wasted opportunity.
It just make me think even
It just make me think even more why does anyone want to live or work in London
Chris Boardman did himself
Chris Boardman did himself and British Cycling a great dis-service by pandering to these idiots. Did he really think that a TV programme whose total audience is aimed at everything that is “Car related” would honestly show an even & balanced review of cars and cycling? With hindsight would he do it again having seen the end product, I think not. Maybe the “Cycle Show” can do the same type of review but from the cyclist’s view? Somehow I don’t think they would be as biased, or insulting to car drivers as Top Gear was to cyclists and cycling. I am sorry, but I found it very offensive and maybe a TV company that watched it will come up with something more balanced across both areas of motor vehicle driving & cycling.
Sadly comments on cycling
Sadly comments on cycling friendly forums won’t achieve much. I don’t think taking to twitter, facebook or any other social media will help either and will probably fan the flames of the “Them agaisnt us” or “two tribes” mentality.
No idea of it actually will work but the only rational thing I can think of is to write to the BBC. If it annoys you enough to post on a forum etc and you mean it, spend an extra 5 mins and write a calm, objective letter to Auntie.
https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=#anchor
Maggers wrote:Sadly comments
Tbh I’d rather you didn’t. Guess what happens when cyclists complain about everything? What’s the point of trying to please the unpleasable?
So how many people had “work
So how many people had “work harder – get a car!” shouted at them on their commute today?
a quick check of #topgear
a quick check of #topgear will reveal the immense hurt and sympathy that the public feels. Oppressed minorities rock 😀
I agree: don’t complain. TG
I agree: don’t complain. TG is set up to get a certain number of complaints, it’s what they do. BBC simply replies “well, it’s been going for ten years now, you knew exactly what you were watching, what did you expect?” The best response is silence.
Also – don’t worry about your licence fee having gone towards it: TG is one of the most profitable shows they make (up with Doctor Who and Strictly), it’s shown in over 100 countries.
What I should have said before is that it’s a missed opportunity to use TG and Clarkson’s broad reach to change the perception of drivers who see cyclists as an inconvenience. The last film almost did it. The fact that all the roads they went on seemed to be empty might have been a subtle hint (next time you drive in London, look at all these cars, wouldn’t it be better if they weren’t here!) – but it was too subtle in my view.
Complaining to the BBC is the
Complaining to the BBC is the ultimate sign that you require a sense of humour transplant.
It was pretty obvious to me that the parts with Boardman et al were pretty scripted…there was no genuine outrage just the poor acting of people who aren’t actors. Boardman looked like he was hiding smiles for most of those segments.
Red and Green – genuine issue. The others were largely the stock TG jokes that most people know are meant in a joke way (those that don’t are the idiots who believe foreigners are taking all our jobs and can’t be helped anyway).
Frankly the best thing of the whole piece was the Lance Armstrong poster.
RE complaining, if we’re
RE complaining, if we’re honest most of the jokes were funny (Lance poster) but there were some in poor taste – especially with mangled bikes.
Personally I have complained not because the jokes were poor but because Top Gear is a popular show and their VT will influence driver behaviour to the detriment of vulnerable cyclists.
Why should I have people leaning out their windows shouting ‘GET A JOB GET A CAR’ in my face, just because the BBC thinks it is funny?
I’m not a great fan of TG, it
I’m not a great fan of TG, it passed it’s sell by date a few years ago, and the cycling thing was just lame
However, buried in the crap were a few salient points (in sort of order)
1. The conditions of the roads are serious issue for cyclist, especially as the woefully inadequate infrastructure and convention tends to force less confident riders into the worst part of the carriageway – of course they went off on a toilet tangent with a unfunny joke about various creams etc
2. Hi Viz Gear didn’t make any difference to behaviour of other drivers, the bus drivers had seen the cyclists but pulled out anyway
3. They did point out that increased cycling will reduce congestion and benefit everyone
4. Pedestrians are not tuned into cyclists and often step out without warning, and yes it is because they rely on traffic noise as a warning.
5. Possibly the most important point, that lots of drivers can be courteous and leave plenty of space (especially if you are filming with at least two camera crews on motorcycles just in front of you). BUT and it’s a large one, this only lasts as long as you don’t impinge on their perceived right to get from A to B without the slightest hold up. This has created the environment where buses indicate and pull out in one manoeuvre, cars pull into cycle lanes to try and force their way into traffic queues, when the carriageway narrows the amount of space they leave reduces, all with the thought that they have no choice.
Such a missed opportunity, I’m sure a decent motoring show could have put this across in a light hearted way..unfortunately TG is a stale imitation of that, and is only kept going as it is a money spinner for the BBC
RedfishUK wrote:I’m not a
Agree with all of that.
And one other thing which is pertinent is the red/green. It does annoy motorists, and as a cyclist it annoys me too. There are rules to the road and everyone should obey them, the minority of cyclists who ride through red lights do a total disservice to the whole cycling community. Fact.
I don’t know why people are
I don’t know why people are suggesting this was a “missed opportunity”. It’s Top Gear, what do you really expect? It’s for people who really like cars or really like the entertainment/sense of humour that TG offers. It’s not there to promote cycling or road safety, much as some here might like it to.
I’m no fan of Top Gear, but I
I’m no fan of Top Gear, but I watched the cycling piece, and I’m trying to grasp a few positives.
1. It showed normal guys on bikes, hinting that it’s possible to ride a bike even if you’re middle aged and inexperienced. A lot of people are intimidated by the fast boys, just like going to the gym for the first time and feeling like you’ve just entered the set of some body building film.
2. It showed a decent shop with a friendly shop assistant, who treated them well. Again, something that will encourage peeps to go to their LBS.
3. The actual cycling looked pretty safe, and far more accurate than the relentless portrayal of death and injury cycling horror documentary footage so prevalent elsewhere.
4. Chris Boarman came across as polite, patient and rational, which must give power to his political elbow.
5. The point that cyclists ease congestion may well have been grasped by a fair number of petrolheads, who may not have thought of cyclists as an advantage before.
6. As cycling becomes ever more popular, pieces like this will subliminally hasten peoples’ desire to disassociate themselves from any anti-cycling sentiment.
No matter how bizarre the piece, I think on balance that cycling comes out the winner.
Having pondered the piece, it
Having pondered the piece, it did make some good points.
– I commute in Liverpool where there is no where near the traffic of London, but when I have ridden there I was shocked at the attitude of cyclists (yes, some self-righteousness shock horror) and I was terrified of the buses (there was some pretty aggressive gesticulation), exactly as portrayed.
– Cyclists not obeying the law winds me up never mind car drivers.
– The bits about riding toys and not being able to afford a car really made me laugh.
– There was a message to be more considerate and that road design is wholly outdated.
I actually thought the segment suffered from not being deliberately offensive enough though!
We all suffer at the hands of some terrible drivers and this wasn’t acknowledged. I followed the reaction on twitter and far too many people failed to see the points aimed at drivers. Too often people tweeted how they loved the anti-cycling piece and that Clarkson had got one over on the cyclists.
We might feel challenged when there is criticism aimed at us and had the film taking the p!ss out of car drivers more, the twitter masses would also have had more food for thought.
Finally (if anyone is still reading this!) I was initially aghast at the mangled bikes, which I thought was offensive to families of those who have been killed. I’m still abit uncomfortable with this but it did reinforce the fact that accidents are serious and cyclists fragile. Maybe that isn’t a bad thing.
Didn’t actually see it as in
Didn’t actually see it as in general I cant abide the BBC.
But I will never understand how motorists seem to be so blind to their own red-light jumping habits. Many cyclists seem to have absorbed this selective blindness and will join in with self-flagellating complaints about cyclists exclusively. In my view the complaints about cyclists RLJing have a major element of ‘projection’.
I can only assume that drivers think it doesn’t ‘count’ if you do it shortly after the lights change. But, especially when combined with Boris shortening the pedestrian phase, it is a kind of theft, stealing time from the pedestrians who have learned to hang back, taking such RLJing entirely for granted.
I’d be fine with a crackdown on RLJing as long is were applied equally to all road users.
You’ve got a typo. The catch
You’ve got a typo. The catch line for the first video was ‘Work harder. Get a car’, was it not?
TG is earning the Beeb (and
TG is earning the Beeb (and Clarkson) millions and they will put out whatever they think sells. The bad-toothed, fat, ugly baboon man (AKA Clarkson) probably has editorial control anyway so his schoolboy humour will prevail. Boardman is no idiot so I am sure he knew what was coming.
Best to shrug and move on. The more we protest the more the baboon man will see it as proof of the lack of SOH of cyclists.
I watch TG as I can’t abide “Call the Midwife” and I need some Sunday evening sofa fodder. A small amount is faintly amusing and the car technology can be interesting (e.g. the Maclaren P1). I fast forward the inane bits the baboon man is in. It long ago became tired, boring and formulaic and the Beeb, the baboon man and co are lazy and arrogant about their audience. It needs a major revamp soon and if I were running the Beeb I would sell all their rights to it now for a very large lump sum – but that will never happen.
Funniest thing I’ve seen in
Funniest thing I’ve seen in ages. Loved the lance Armstrong poster – ‘cyclists are untrustworthy’. That’d make a great jersey. It’s supposed to be entertainment. I was entertained. Job done.
I thought it was alright.
I thought it was alright. It illustrated that the vast majority of car drivers are fine. It showed how awful the roads are and how dangerous large vehicles behave. I think the last message showing a nice empty road with a cyclist and a car driver co-existing and a positive message about giving us an inch so they could have a mile will have more impact on drivers than any public safety commercial. I’m sure I got a bit more width today riding in than usual!
It seems to me that many here
It seems to me that many here overestimate the effect of what would be perceived as a “boring” safety ad and underestimate the effect of what the TG audience thinks of as “funny” entertainment.
It’s not an ideal world, and a lot of people are rather thoughtless. You have to pick them up where they are, instead of expecting to find them where you would like them to be.
Loved it, but what do people
Loved it, but what do people expect from Top Gear, it was never ever going to be helpfull to cyclists so why get so upset over it ?
Chris Boardman is normally
Chris Boardman is normally spot on. http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/04/27/get-britain-cycling-is-chris-boardman-right-to-be-angry-at-the-pms-response/ This time he took a gamble (with an officer from a Borough which is pretty hopeless for cycling and someone from the so-called “road safety” lobby) and it didn’t pay off.
Of course, you don’t get anywhere without taking a gamble, but in my view he should have known that he was unlikely to get anywhere.
My problem is that the specimens on Top Gear are not “just a joke” and that we as licence payers pay for this drivel.
Chris Boardman is normally
Chris Boardman is normally spot on. http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/04/27/get-britain-cycling-is-chris-boardman-right-to-be-angry-at-the-pms-response/ This time he took a gamble (with an officer from a Borough which is pretty hopeless for cycling and someone from the so-called “road safety” lobby) and it didn’t pay off.
Of course, you don’t get anywhere without taking a gamble, but in my view he should have known that he was unlikely to get anywhere.
My problem is that the specimens on Top Gear are not “just a joke” and that we as licence payers pay for this drivel.
Well it wasn’t what I was
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.
oozaveared wrote:Well 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.
oozaveared wrote:Well it
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.
I feel particularly let down
I feel particularly let down by James May. He, after all, rides both bikes and motor cycles so should already know what it’s like on 2 wheels in London. I don’t know how he could appear in such cr..p without trying to influence the editorial input. I also expected some sort of input from Hammond since he’s also a keen cyclist. It just reinforces all the prejudice and inaccurate hearsay held by many “petrol heads”.
The jet bike was a good laugh though.
It was the portrayal of
It was the portrayal of injured cyclists as vegetables that prompted me to make my first complaint to the BBC. This was unacceptable. If their production office was in London rather than a deserted racetrack(?), then simply looking out of the window at the frequently jams would tell them that discouraging cycling like last night was a very silly idea. I’m not looking forward to the “work harder” abuse and only being given an inch during overtakes on my way home. 🙁
‘Red and green. Learn the
‘Red and green. Learn the bloody difference’
And drivers, learn to count. 30 means 30. 30 is 3×10, that’s a bit more than 20 but not 45 or 50.
My god, people actually wrote
My god, people actually wrote to the BBC to complain. Its top gear, not panor-stuffin-ama. I would have preferred to see it end with boardman bludgeoning clarkson with a track pump but that would have sent in dozens of complaints from the same viewers for the inappropriate use of tyre inflation device and how in the wrong hands it could blind a child…….argh, just go away.
Meh, lighten up and take a
Meh, lighten up and take a look at some real comedy about Top Gear as suggested above by Martin Thomas. I love the line the line about how he’d like to see Hammond decapitated! http://youtu.be/K7CnMQ4L9Pc
I’ve just watched the program
I’ve just watched the program on BBC iPlayer (I was out riding my bike when it was aired live) ironic, no?
I was so angered at the negative stereotypes, victim blaming, misinformation and appallingly insenstive depiction of mangled bikes and injured cyclists that I complained to the BBC.
First time in 50 years I’ve ever felt angered enough to do that.
Can’t be arsed wading through
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
Clarkson and his minions are
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.
Jeremy Clarkson is, by his
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. B-)
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/de-ro
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/de-rosa-protos-super-record-eps-2014/
So, we buy bikes because we can’t afford cars, eh?
😀
don simon
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. 😀
Haha….get a proper job so
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
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
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
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
Jonny_Trousers wrote:
I do
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. 😉
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?
Jonny_Trousers wrote:Haven’t
[quote=Jonny_Trousers]Haven’t watched it yet so won’t comment specifically.
Nor have I. And I have no intention of watching anything to do with the ultimate tosser Clarkson.
Was anyone really surprised that it was a piss-take?
Oh how I would have loved to be driving my car in the vicinity when Clarkson and Mays were out on bikes. Methinks the words “SMIDSY” might have been uttered (between clenched teeth).
Glad that Boardman’s profile
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
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
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,
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…. 😐
SideBurn wrote:
But still no
+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….
Quote:Haven’t watched it yet
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
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
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
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.
a.jumper wrote:
And on this
[quote=a.jumper]
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. /quote]
[[[[[[ Answer: “I am working harder—you’re just sitting on yer arse…”
P.R.
I think the “We were only
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’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
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
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
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..!
700c wrote:Ok now we have
There needs to be a meta-Godwin’s law, stating that as a thread goes on the probability that someone who doesn’t understand what Godwin’s law is will invoke it entirely incorrectly, approaches unity.
That happens a lot more frequently than an actual Godwin.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
There needs to be a meta-Godwin’s law, stating that as a thread goes on the probability that someone who doesn’t understand what Godwin’s law is will invoke it entirely incorrectly, approaches unity.
That happens a lot more frequently than an actual Godwin.— 700c
I think you’re the only person that I’ve seen who understands the law!
Why does anybody pay any
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
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?
Clarkson is an ignorant twat? Who’d have thunk it?
This was a light hearted piss
This was a light hearted piss take and anyone who gets upset or takes it seriously is, frankly, an idiot.
Get a life, people.
fret wrote:This was a light
Suggest you read this and tell the widow and other bereaved families the same thing http://road.cc/content/news/112817-cyclist%E2%80%99s-widow-tells-top-gear%E2%80%99s-jeremy-clarkson-look-me-eye
Never have I watched
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
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
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
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
Godwin’s law needs updating anyway to include mentions of Th*tcher.
The BBC’s reply to my
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
highto wrote: The bias in the
Maybe the BBC should tell the viewers it is absurd, got a bit of abuse of Cheltenham Race goers last week, using those words, funny thing they were stuck in their stationary flash car whilst I cycled past the queue.