While his former co-host Jeremy Clarkson might be busy taking digs at Jeremy Vine (and cyclists) — claiming that a roundabout branded “one of London’s most dangerous” is “fine because I have a car, not a child’s toy” — James May has once again come out batting for cyclists, saying that driving a car doesn’t give you any “extra rights on the roads” and that he much prefers riding a bike in a city because it’s “efficient and quick”, unlike sitting behind a steering wheel which is “very boring”.
Speaking on Newstalk’s The Hard Shoulder, May said: “I find driving in cities very boring. I’m a big fan of cycling in cities. I think it’s very efficient and quick.”
And while the “war on motorists” rages on in national headlines and Twitter threads, often fuelled by none other than Clarkson, May poured cold water on the idea that owning a car somehow guarantees free rein over the roads.
“Yes, you technically are [allowed to drive where you like], but that doesn’t mean you have to,” he said. “It doesn’t give you any extra rights on the road, and it doesn’t mean you’re obliged to get value for money by using your car every waking minute.”
“I say this as someone who loves cars. I don’t want them to be vilified or taken away from us… I find that cars are not enjoyable and not particularly useful around a city. They’re actually excellent for going between places.”
The former Top Gear and Grand Tour presenter said he believes driving should be kept for the times when it actually makes sense — like when transporting something awkward.
“It is [useful], in town if you have to collect heavy things. I can’t go on my bicycle up to town and pick up a large vase, for example. I’ve never been to town and picked up a large vase, but you know, that’s an example,” he said (perhaps he’s not too familiar with the concept of cargo bikes, but we’ll let this one pass).
However, just a few days after infamously telling councils refusing to build cycle lanes to “stop being t***s”, he’s sort of done a 360: “There is a case for making bicycle lanes and cycle infrastructure. We’ve got tons of it in London, but some of it can be a bit overdone, in my view, and also pedantic.”
“I think what’s happening here is people, they’re trying to control bicycles in the same way that they do motor traffic with endless lights,” he continued. “So, we’ve got junctions with lights for cars, filters for cars, lights for pedestrians and another set for bicycles. It’s very expensive, I suspect, and I think it’s too much.”
Instead, the 62-year-old said that a little trust in people to navigate spaces without being funnelled by rules might not be such a bad idea: “I think you can leave a lot of this stuff — certainly where pedestrians and casual cyclists are concerned — to the wit of humanity.”
He added: “They [rules] are to a certain extent necessary for cars, vans and trucks because they’re big and heavy and not that wieldy. But I’m not sure it’s really necessary for people and bicycles and joggers and scooters and so on.”
> James May tells councils to stop being “t***s” and build more cycle lanes
Pointing to his experiences abroad, May said not all countries micromanage the roads in the same way. “I’ve been to plenty of countries where there are virtually no markings for these things on the road — namely, well, Holland and India, for example.”
“If you leave people to it, they work it out pretty well,” he said. “The human computer is a remarkable device — better than an algorithm.”
May has been quite frank in sharing his thoughts on cycling lately, which diverge quite sharply from remarks made by his loud-mouthed colleague. Two weeks ago, he spoke to the London Cycling Campaign about his love for life on two wheels, his views on cycling issues, and about the “over 25 bicycles” he now owns, including three Bromptons, a 1980s Moser and an Orbea Orca.
Commenting on councils who refuse to accommodate cyclists with safe and accessible infrastructure, May suggested “some of it smacks of sheer bloody-mindedness”.
“Kensington & Chelsea Council says it’s not going to have any cycling infrastructure — well, why not? There’s plenty of space. Big, wide roads. Why are they being t***s about it?
“Most of the anti-cycling rage that I read, like that nonsense in the Daily Telegraph about bicycles doing 50mph, is clearly just rubbish. The most I’ve ever managed, according to my Garmin, is 31mph, and that was downhill in Richmond Park, and the world record is something like 40mph. I don’t understand how the editors and subeditors could have looked at that front page and not thought, hang on a minute.”
In March, he was once again in the news for the right reasons, as cyclists concluded that May “gets it”, after he criticised “vehicle levels of traffic control for bicycles”.
> James May rubbishes “nonsense” ideas to regulate cyclists in response to fatal collision
Asked what he dislikes about bicycle infrastructure, May said: “You don’t need vehicle levels of traffic control for bicycles. People on bicycles are really just pedestrians. A bicycle is just an elaborate bit of footwear.
“As long as people cycle in a sympathetic way, and pedestrians are still at the top of the hierarchy – the world belongs to people, not machines – then it ought to work.”
He continued: “For example, there’s a bicycle traffic light near me at Turnham Green in Chiswick. But really it should just be a ‘give way’ sign, and we should allow for the wit of humanity.
“Not every action needs to be controlled. I find it slightly extremist.”
7 thoughts on “James May says driving a car doesn’t give you any “extra rights on the roads”, as he claims cycling in cities is “efficient and quick”, but driving is “very boring””
?The spirit of what May says
?The spirit of what May says is spot on. The detail a little off the mark, though.
Apart from the fact that Holland is not a country; it’s a historic county, or half a health food shop, the Netherlands actually does have quite a lot of infrastructure where separation and priority is necessarily stated – in high volume traffic situations. Indeed, cyclists can be penalised for not using it. Where they have little funnelling, such as woonerven, there are overarching contorls that reinforce the equality of modes, such as 15kph speed limits, presumed liability, and well engineered street design. Other areas, such as Almere, have complete separation of modes: cycles and pedestrians; buses; private vehicles.
I know nothing of India, but the impression I get is of a chaos that seems to work, until it doesn’t. Which is often.
Rhetorical over-simplification. We know what he means, but we need more empathy among all road users for that to be the case while acknowledging the differences between walking and cycling.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Bit like his former partner Clarkson he’s actually just articulating the “popular understanding” (but obviously from another position). And if you asked people in the “country colonised by one of its provinces” you’d probably get similar themes also.
When I first arrived a Amsterdam Centraal I thought it was “chaos” like I’d seen in e.g. Thailand. And yes – there are similarities, in that in general “lots of people” means lower speeds and lower speeds means more time to adjust (and usually less severe consequences for crashes). And it is a bit like how people behave as pedestrians.
BUT in fact it is much safer in NL (compared to e.g. India / Thailand) because there are rules. And clever design to guide people (it’s notoriously hard to make “sufficiently simple” things which may be blindingly obvious in retrospect). The rules may not always be written on a sign but in fact they are there, and formally taught [1] [2], as well as being absorbed through practice.
And beyond that in NL there is “invisible infra”. That’s at the “network” level [3] [4] which means that although most of the space is “shared” in fact interactions between modes are reduced and made safe (and it’s often more convenient to cycle). And in the “processes and procedures” and indeed in “organisational structures and responsibilities” which makes this all work.
Of course we have the last in the UK but that does not work in favour of active travel! e.g. things like funding linked to measures like “journey time impacts” which end up favouring “one more lane for driving”…
Also agree that the “cyclists are basically pedestrians” is often an unhelpful thing to assert – that leads (the UK…) to “shared use paths” and “design for ‘nervous cyclists’ / slow cycling” which limit active travel and make cycling unattractive
Nice set of links there.
Nice set of links there. Worth reading, although sadly time prohibits for now.
Unfortunately I can only like once.
I’m 52 and love cycling, it’s
I’m 52 and love cycling, it’s only in the last 10/20yrs that roundabouts have been turned into ‘straight roads’, with lane discipline of military proportions!
“It’s very expensive, I
“It’s very expensive, I suspect, and I think it’s too much.”
Wow! Wait until he hears how much providing for drivers costs! No, sorry James, it isn’t too much, it’s far, far too little. I appreciate the fact that you’re an ex-tv motoring pundit who has now realised that cars aren’t the answer and have 30+ bikes, but you still aren’t quite getting it totally. Congratulations on the progress you’ve made though, quite an example to many others.
Not sure read what he said
Not sure read what he said but just blurted. As an elderly cyclist, he doesn’t like the way bicycle traffic is managed like motor traffic with so many lights etc to control bicycles. Then he compares Holland and India.
Ah. Just got it. You’re a car driver who wants bicycles guided out of your way.
Having cycled in London as my main transport since 1980, I can say I far preferred the days of no bike lanes, fewer traffic lights, more space for motor vehicles so I could ride between them and, in the evening, average up to 20mph East Ham to Earls Court or Chelsea. However, I’d only see a couple of other bikes. The mass use of bikes in town is a joy to behold and a huge improvement but nowhere near as much fun for me as back then
Pretty sure a lot of that
Pretty sure a lot of that “more space for motor vehicles” was because fewer motor vehicles (also marginally “smaller motor vehicles”).
There are in fact plenty of places – even in urban areas * – where you can have that “just me and a few cars” feeling still. But you might need to cycle less social hours.
A few thoughtful folks (e.g. here) do raise some queries about the exact role of cycle infra in changes in some places (beyond the “bikes / bike lanes cause congestion” mantra). But since there are relatively few cycle lanes (never mind separate cycle paths that aren’t just rebranded footway) and they’re usually narrow I’m pretty confident in guessing it’s just “as time goes on, more journeys made by car by more people”.
* Don’t know about London but geographically it’s a big place…