# Jeremy Clarkson... 'Road Tax??'



## som3blok3 (6 Feb 2011)

Love 'Top Gear'. Used to be better but still enjoy it. Any body else just see Clarkson defend motorists against camera wearing cyclists, using the phrase... AND I QUOTE 'Who pays the road tax'..............

I would of thought a man who knows everything about motoring would know the basics from 1937.

Guess not.

Maybe it's to do with the amount of beer he drinks, 'hey, we all pay VED'

Whatever, he just went down in my list of watchable people. I know they'll be those that say he never was but hey, I thought he was alright until then.


----------



## iAmiAdam (6 Feb 2011)

In before the rage.

Just ignore it, it doesn't matter, it's only a TV show, nothing will change because of it.


----------



## Muddyfox (6 Feb 2011)

Its an entertainment show .. Clarkson thrives on this sort of stuff 

Get a Life


----------



## Zoiders (6 Feb 2011)

And I am supposed to be shocked by any of this because?

Life is too short chaps.


----------



## gaz (6 Feb 2011)

I applaud hammond for bring it up anyway, he is a cyclist after all.

We all know that clarkson can be a complete 'car' and he can be quite funny.
I informed carlton reid of this (aka the owner of ipayroadtax.com) hopefully he can get something out of the bbc!


----------



## 661-Pete (6 Feb 2011)

I find all this arguing about the semantics of "Road Tax" v. "VED" boring. That's all it is - playing upon words. As far as I'm concerned, each time mine comes up for renewal  it says "tax disc" on the form and that's good enough for me.

More to the point, is that a good many cyclists pay for the tax disc, on a car that spends a lot of its time gathering dust on the driveway whilst we take the bike instead. So I'm shelling out some £160 or whatever, for *not* using my car...

As for C***son's enchilada escapada, I fail to understand how he has 'immunity' whereas Woss/Brand didn't....


----------



## 400bhp (6 Feb 2011)

Muddyfox said:


> Its an entertainment show .. Clarkson thrives on this sort of stuff
> 
> Get a Life



Aye.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Feb 2011)

som3blok3 said:


> I would of thought


----------



## Jezston (6 Feb 2011)

The problem with gits like Clarkson coming up with the whole 'you don't pay Road Tax' bollocks is that it implies drivers pay for the roads and cyclists don't, when in fact we all pay for the roads with our council tax and general taxation, including people who neither drive nor cycle.

I'm very disappointed that Hammond didn't challenge him on this and just backed down, even though he obviously pays a ton of VED because he owns numerous certainly dirty cars! It would have been a very good opportunity to educate a lot of the kind of people who require this education.

I'm afraid I'm not going to chill out about this. People are being abused, put in danger, injured and often killed by drivers who have developed an attitude towards cyclists perpetuated and justified by gits like Clarkson. However considering the fact they totally got away with serious racism* last week suggests there's little I can do by complaining.

I do enjoy Top Gear, but I fear at some point they are going have pissed off so many people there will be no one left watching.



(*anyone who thinks that their comments about mexicans were in any way acceptable last week may want to consider the following: 1) imagine the reaction if you replaced 'Mexicans' with 'black people' in what they said and; 2) might want to find out more about how Mexicans are treated by the US and how they might be a little sensitive towards the kind of abuse given by the three last week)


----------



## thomas (6 Feb 2011)

som3blok3 said:


> Love 'Top Gear'. Used to be better but still enjoy it. Any body else just see Clarkson defend motorists against camera wearing cyclists, using the phrase... AND I QUOTE 'Who pays the road tax'..............
> 
> I would of thought a man who knows everything about motoring would know the basics from 1937.
> 
> ...





I wouldn't worry yourself - it's all done for effect (and to annoy people like you).

However, what you really need to remember is that however many million people watched top gear and know about helmet camera cyclists...they also know that Hammond cycles, which can't be a bad thing...and most people know that Clarkson says things for effect - and even admitted in the bit he doesn't mind cyclists.

Now, even had the whole road tax thing been cleared up correctly, I'm not sure it would really make any difference to the standard of driving.


----------



## downfader (6 Feb 2011)

Clarkson.... such a peach of a guy!  

(Beaten to it by Gaz)

I'm amazed they raised it, I bet they (Hammond and May are regular cyclists, it has to be said) all thought... mention this as its pretty interesting. Clarkson is the Alf Garnet of motoring though. Loved the bit when Wossy slapped him in the face.


----------



## downfader (6 Feb 2011)

http://www.topgear.com/uk/

Hmm tempted to see if theres an email section to nag them for a go on their track - cyclists vs noncyclists 

We could say "does cycling make you a better driver?"


----------



## potsy (6 Feb 2011)

It's a comedy/entertainment programme, anything Clarkson says is purely for comedy value.
I for one won't be complaining about it, just continuing to enjoy one of my favourite shows






I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned the fact is what a Frenchman and his comments about the silly accent


----------



## thomas (6 Feb 2011)

potsy said:


> I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned the fact is what a Frenchman and his comments about the silly accent



Vell, zit ist truee issn'ttt eeett??!!


----------



## cyberknight (6 Feb 2011)

Started a similar thread on chat 

Yes hes a complete nkbo but that's whats he gets paid for i guess , i emailed them with a link about "road tax " and as he pays so much tax at least hes fixing the potholes he makes


----------



## 661-Pete (6 Feb 2011)

Jezston said:


> (*anyone who thinks that their comments about mexicans were in any way acceptable last week may want to consider the following: 1) imagine the reaction if you replaced 'Mexicans' with 'black people' in what they said and; 2) might want to find out more about how Mexicans are treated by the US and how they might be a little sensitive towards the kind of abuse given by the three last week)


I'm surprised that this forum isn't yet boasting a 28-page thread in P&L about JC's latin american antics. But perhaps P&Lers can't be a**ed?

You know, it gives one a comforting feeling to imagine that the only person harmed by JC's brand of idiocy is himself, that the more he does it the more of an Alf-Garnett buffoon he becomes.

But is that so?

I felt like 'showing off' the other day, so, flexing my dimly-remembered grasp of Spanish idiom, I thought I'd put together a comment to post in the _Mexican_ press, touching on JC's previous form and what we (I mean Guardianistas like myself) really think of the idiot. I'd put together all the previous gaffes (_"cambiar de velocidad .... cambiar de velocidad .... mirar el retrovisor .... matar a una prostituta .... cambiar de velocidad"_ - geddit?)

Then I googled a likely-looking Mexican daily and prepared to paste it in.

Alas! I chickened out. Looking at the other comments in that esteemed _periódico_, looking at the wholesale anti-British sentiments, looking at the "Hitler should have won the war" sort of stuff, I felt I was only opening up trouble. My Spanish just ain't good enough.

I hope that what I stumbled upon was the Mexican equivalent of the _Daily Mail_. But maybe not. I don't know. This is the *real* damage C***son inflicts on us...


----------



## Norm (6 Feb 2011)

[QUOTE 1305251"]
He knows fair well. He only said it because he knows it winds some cyclists up. Which is good in a way because it means that he (or at least the TG researchers) know what the issues are.
[/quote]+1, it was done for effect, to take the p155 out of the stereotype that he portrays. 

They had, after all, not long previously featured a car which was in the £0 road tax bracket.


----------



## classic33 (6 Feb 2011)

He & richard hammond also pointed out the piece about cyclists wearing cameras, with Hammond saying that he might get one.

Road Tax aside at least they managed to bring up the subject on a show which a few people who drive cars will watch.


----------



## mangaman (6 Feb 2011)

661-Pete said:


> I'm surprised that this forum isn't yet boasting a 28-page thread in P&L about JC's latin american antics. But perhaps P&Lers can't be a**ed?
> 
> You know, it gives one a comforting feeling to imagine that the only person harmed by JC's brand of idiocy is himself, that the more he does it the more of an Alf-Garnett buffoon he becomes.
> 
> ...



Pete - I think Clarkson's virtuarlly untouchable at the BBC because of the money he brings in.

Without getting all conspiracy theory, Andy Gray was probably similar at Sky until he sued Murdoch.

The money Top Gear makes worldwide for the BBC is dwarfed by upset UK cyclists / Mexicans.

Sadly, the moral line of broadcasting acceptability has become so obscure, he will continue to push the boundaries.

Randomly, and every now and again, people like Russell Brand / Jonathan Ross are considered to have crossed the line - but they are both already back in broadcasting.

This "moral line" is extemely flexible, I would imagine, at BBC HQ.

And much harder to reach for Top Gear than, for example, Gardners' World. It's just money. No point in complaining.

And I find Top Gear mindless rubbish, so I'm not defending it.


----------



## som3blok3 (6 Feb 2011)

Muddyfox said:


> Its an entertainment show .. Clarkson thrives on this sort of stuff
> 
> Get a Life



Is that aimed at me? I have a life and it's great, thanks for the offer though.


----------



## som3blok3 (6 Feb 2011)

thomas said:


> I wouldn't worry yourself - it's all done for effect (and to annoy people like you)




People like me?


----------



## som3blok3 (6 Feb 2011)

Jezston said:


> I do enjoy Top Gear, but I fear at some point they are going have pissed off so many people there will be no one left watching.



So true, anybody seen 'Total wipeout' recently? Hammonds career in two words....


----------



## mark barker (6 Feb 2011)

OMG, what a crazy over reaction to a comedy show!


----------



## som3blok3 (6 Feb 2011)

mark barker said:


> OMG, what a crazy over reaction to a comedy show!




Fair play, end of. Just spent the last half hour wathcing the end of 'wild at heart' and came back to a can of worms that I didn't mean to open. Oops!

Just for the record, spent the first half of my life on a pushbike and the second half driving 7.5T lorries and selling Mercs at dealership level (not any more though, back on the pushie). Not sure thats too relevant, just threw it in.


----------



## som3blok3 (6 Feb 2011)

Post # 50, get in.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Feb 2011)

"Narcissistic personality disorder"

The following are symptoms:



> *Grandiose sense of self-importance* (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
> *Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love*
> *Believes that he or she is "special" and unique* and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
> *Requires excessive admiration*
> ...



Tick off five or more and you have a diagnosis.... how many does Clarkson tick?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Feb 2011)

It's a sitcom for, and made by, overgrown Vith formers. Who gives a four stroke cycle for what he has to say?


----------



## dondare (6 Feb 2011)

som3blok3 said:


> Love 'Top Gear'. Used to be better but still enjoy it. Any body else just see Clarkson defend motorists against camera wearing cyclists, using the phrase... AND I QUOTE 'Who pays the road tax'..............
> 
> I would of thought a man who knows everything about motoring would know the basics from 1937.
> 
> ...



Of course he knows. He knows what Road Tax is and what it isn't and he knows how to annoy people and how to entertain people. You might as well complain about Alf Garnet being a bigot as complain about Clarkson being offensive.


----------



## dondare (6 Feb 2011)

661-Pete said:


> I find all this arguing about the semantics of "Road Tax" v. "VED" boring. That's all it is - playing upon words. As far as I'm concerned, each time mine comes up for renewal  it says "tax disc" on the form and that's good enough for me.
> 
> More to the point, is that a good many cyclists pay for the tax disc, on a car that spends a lot of its time gathering dust on the driveway whilst we take the bike instead. So I'm shelling out some £160 or whatever, for *not* using my car...
> 
> As for C***son's enchilada escapada, I fail to understand how he has 'immunity' whereas Woss/Brand didn't....



More to the point cyclists without cars also pay for the roads through the other taxes that they can't avoid and irrespective of any individual's contribution to the exchequer all have the same right to use the road.


----------



## beastie (6 Feb 2011)

som3blok3 said:


> Just spent the last half hour wathcing the end of 'wild at heart'
> 
> C'mon that bit has to be a wind up


----------



## Dan B (6 Feb 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> "Narcissistic personality disorder"


Oi, I resemble that remark!


----------



## 661-Pete (6 Feb 2011)

Sometimes I wish they'd ditch TG and bring back _Wheelbase_. Now, there was a motoring programme I used to _watch_.

But it'll never happen.


----------



## Davidc (6 Feb 2011)

661-Pete said:


> I find all this arguing about the semantics of "Road Tax" v. "VED" boring. That's all it is - playing upon words. As far as I'm concerned, each time mine comes up for renewal  it says "tax disc" on the form and that's good enough for me.
> 
> More to the point, is that a good many cyclists pay for the tax disc, on a car that spends a lot of its time gathering dust on the driveway whilst we take the bike instead. So I'm shelling out some £160 or whatever, for *not* using my car...
> 
> As for C***son's enchilada escapada, I fail to understand how he has 'immunity' whereas Woss/Brand didn't....



It is a tax disc - excise duty is a tax, as it is when I have a pint of beer.

It contributes little to the roads though. AFAIK They're paid for out of general taxation for trunk network and motorway roads, from local taxation for local roads.

It's all very silly though, as economical low emission cars like some Fiestas, Corsas, Smarts, Citroens etc dont pay VED either!

Clarkson of course drives a Merc which definitely qualifies for lots of VED. Good.


----------



## som3blok3 (6 Feb 2011)

If I watch TG, the wife gets to watch the last part of WAH,,,,, does it deserve an acronym?? PC and TV are in the same room so I get to be here and there, lucky me.


----------



## thomas (6 Feb 2011)

Just got back from a little night ride....and half of Norwich must of seen top gear tonight (or at least half of the dozen people that were outside)...and I think they were all eyeing up my camera


----------



## downfader (6 Feb 2011)

thomas said:


> Just got back from a little night ride....and half of Norwich must of seen top gear tonight (or at least half of the dozen people that were outside)...and I think they were all eyeing up my camera




No. That was the reflective patch you sat on.. when the car head lights hit your shorts... need I say more.


----------



## buggi (6 Feb 2011)

Perhaps someone should write into the show and say "cyclists don't pay for sex either". That's the sort of humour they enjoy, and it would probably actually get a better reaction than if you complained.


----------



## Stephenite (6 Feb 2011)

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0i0RXMvzMs&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/media]


hehe


----------



## mangaman (6 Feb 2011)

Stephenite said:


> [media]
> ]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0i0RXMvzMs&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/media]
> 
> 
> hehe





That's top notch stuff.

Particularly good about the idiocy of Hammond I thought.


----------



## downfader (6 Feb 2011)

Stuart Lee has summed up Hammond rather well. Not a big fan of his but this is shockingly accurate in places.


----------



## mickle (6 Feb 2011)

That few seconds of conversation might have done more for cycling safety than anything I can think of.

'Attention motorists, cyclists now have CCTV'.


----------



## thomas (7 Feb 2011)

mickle said:


> That few seconds of conversation might have done more for cycling safety than anything I can think of.
> 
> 'Attention motorists, cyclists now have CCTV'.



+1...or at least puts something in the back of people's mind. I don't expect any obvious change.


----------



## darkstar (7 Feb 2011)

Just watched TG on iPlayer, and came on here straight away as I'd knew you guys look for any excuse to have a moan about Clarkson/Tog Gear/Cars/anything. I was not disappointed


----------



## lukesdad (7 Feb 2011)

darkstar said:


> Just watched TG on iPlayer, and came on here straight away as I'd knew you guys look for any excuse to have a moan about Clarkson/Tog Gear/Cars/anything. I was not disappointed


----------



## asterix (7 Feb 2011)

som3blok3 said:


> Love 'Top Gear'. Used to be better but still enjoy it. Any body else just see Clarkson defend motorists against camera wearing cyclists, using the phrase... AND I QUOTE 'Who pays the road tax'..............
> 
> I would of thought a man who knows everything about motoring would know the basics from 1937.
> 
> ...


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

Jezston said:


> I'm afraid I'm not going to chill out about this. People are being abused, put in danger, injured and often killed by drivers who have developed an attitude towards cyclists perpetuated and justified by gits like Clarkson. However considering the fact they totally got away with serious racism* last week suggests there's little I can do by complaining.


Clarkson is an intelligent man who earns his money by pretending to be the sort of boorish oaf you'd make excuses to move out of earshot from in the saloon bar. That is his tragedy, albeit a sadly lucrative one. I find it impossible to watch Top Gear because of it.



> "[Clarkson] is either an idiot, who actually believes all the badly researched, lying, offensive sh*t he says, or he's a genius, who's worked out exactly the most accurate way to annoy me."
> -Stewart Lee


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

downfader said:


> Stuart Lee has summed up Hammond rather well. Not a big fan of his but this is shockingly accurate in places.



"He's not a real hamster".

Still makes me laugh.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Feb 2011)

Stephenite said:


> [media]
> ]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0i0RXMvzMs&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/media]
> 
> 
> hehe



wowser! I'd never heard of this chap! He doesn't mess about, does he? 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/feb/05/top-gear-offensive-steve-coogan Steve Coogan offers a more conciliatory reproof


----------



## Cush (7 Feb 2011)

Just watched the Stuart Lee clip and was disgusted with it. I am not a great fan of TG but I found stuart Lee as bad as Clarkson.


----------



## asterix (7 Feb 2011)

Steve Coogan doesn't like Clarkson. I've never taken Coogan seriously before..

Anyway I just think Clarkson has become a boring old fart masquerading as a media clown. (No, not ageism, Jezza, just British humour)


----------



## Simon_m (7 Feb 2011)

I think that it will reinforce drivers attitudes to cycles because of the road tax thing. People are easily led by TV and like to behave like their heroes, ie Clarkson. But hey, it's an "entertainment" show which I still love and enjoy. Wouldn't mind going to Albania though, looks pretty cool. Not on a bike though


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Feb 2011)

Cush said:


> Just watched the Stuart Lee clip and was disgusted with it. I am not a great fan of TG but I found stuart Lee as bad as Clarkson.


it's a joke. As he makes clear. I thought it was hilarious.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

Cush said:


> Just watched the Stuart Lee clip and was disgusted with it. I am not a great fan of TG but I found stuart Lee as bad as Clarkson.


Lee himself said this about his Top Gear routines;

"I mean, you can't be on _Top Gear_, where your only argument is that it's all just a joke and anyone who takes offence is an example of political correctness gone mad, and then not accept the counterbalance to that.

...

He claimed that he would still use the material if the _Top Gear_ team turned up to his show and added: "Clarkson is a right-wing libertarian so he'd probably be all right with it.

"I'd happily debate the routine with Hammond and I think he'd get what it's about, that he's being used as a symbol of the sort of debased crassness that passes for controversial humour these days."

when Clarkson joked about lorry drivers, Hammond said this;

Richard Hammond told Newsbeat: "Jeremy was just being Jeremy, just being himself and that's what people watch the show for, so why change it?"

when he joked about Hammond's ("Speeding kills", he smirked) crash, the BBC said this;

A BBC spokesman said: "Jeremy Clarkson did not say it was untrue that speed kills. On the contrary, he made the statement without qualification and allowed viewers to draw their own conclusions. The laughter shown was a true reflection of the atmosphere at the studio, where the audience were determined to celebrate Richard's strength and survival."

Lee should probably just get someone to roll up and say "Oh, that's just Stewart", as it seems to work for Top Gear presenters.


----------



## asterix (7 Feb 2011)

> Just watched the Stuart Lee clip and was disgusted with it.



Yeah, but all true, though. 

(except for where he is joking of course)


----------



## theclaud (7 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> wowser! I'd never heard of this chap! He doesn't mess about, does he?



Blimey Zeqq! Has Ben Lovejoy got hold of your login?


----------



## DrSquirrel (7 Feb 2011)

Everyone write and complain....

Then top gear will announce an apology from the "angry cyclists" on air, and make some further joke about it, like they always do...

...ie, don't waste your time complaining.




661-Pete said:


> I find all this arguing about the semantics of "Road Tax" v. "VED" boring. That's all it is - playing upon words. As far as I'm concerned, each time mine comes up for renewal  it says "tax disc" on the form and that's good enough for me.
> 
> More to the point, is that a good many cyclists pay for the tax disc, on a car that spends a lot of its time gathering dust on the driveway whilst we take the bike instead. So I'm shelling out some £160 or whatever, for *not* using my car...
> 
> As for C***son's enchilada escapada, I fail to understand how he has 'immunity' whereas Woss/Brand didn't....



It's to try and get away from making the tax sound like it pays for the road.

And if your logic worked based on you using your bike with your car taxed on the road, why can't we have 2 cars and only tax one? Sadly I hate this "I have a car that is taxed at home blah blah" argument itself.



Though of course, how most others here will take it - it's there just for effect, like most of the other comments about a billion and one minorities, nations and whatnot...




661-Pete said:


> Sometimes I wish they'd ditch TG and bring back _Wheelbase_. Now, there was a motoring programme I used to _watch_.
> 
> But it'll never happen.



Watch Fifth Gear then, if Top Gear added more road tests in I would be bored. I like the semi-... well mostly-scripted random antics of the show more than driving cars around.

[QUOTE 1305284"]
My favourite comment on Clarkson was the old Stig saying he wasn't a very good driver.
[/quote]

Even Clarkson admits that though...


----------



## 661-Pete (7 Feb 2011)

A lot of comparison has been drawn between JC and Alf Garnett. There's a fallacy there, however.

Alf Garnett was a wholly fictitious person, and was never represented as otherwise. The sitcom in which he featured was represented as just that - a sitcom, written by scriptwriters, portrayed by actors. Indeed the actor behind Alf Garnett - Warren Mitchell - was (still is) a thouroughly likeable individual, as far removed from the character he portrayed as it's possible to be.

But JC is represented as a real individual. The programme is represented as some sort of _documentary_ - i.e. factual. If it were to transpire that JC was a fictional character played by an actor (presumably with an entirely different name and personality), and that the TG programme were in fact a _scripted sitcom_, I'd feel more comfortable about it.

Perhaps someone can fill me in on this idea?


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

From the piece about the Mexico joke on Chortle.co.uk;

"However, in his column in The Sun yesterday, a defiant Clarkson wrote: ‘There are calls in Britain at the moment for all offensive humour to be banned. But what people don't realise is that without offence, there can be no jokes.’"

I think a key difference is that a lot of this sort of humour used to be people "punching upwards" (I think Richard Herring said that). I.e., people are making fun, and being offensive, but at the expense of people more powerful/rich/successful than them. Top Gear, and some other humour (Some of Ricky Gervais' stuff, I think) seems to be the powerful "punching downward", uncomfortably close to the nature of the school bully.

There's a big thread about it on Chortle (not to do with Clarkson, but on whether that sort of comedy is akin to bullying, and whether that's acceptable here - there's some bad language in it, sensitive types).


----------



## joebingo (7 Feb 2011)

som3blok3 said:


> So true, anybody seen 'Total wipeout' recently? Hammonds career in two words....



Genuinely entertaining?


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

joebingo said:


> Genuinely entertaining?



Not as good as Takeshi's Castle? (Actually 6 words there, but you know...)


----------



## downfader (7 Feb 2011)

I'm sure I was one of the originals to compare Clarkson to Garnet.

What we have to remember is that the Top Gear, on air Clarkson, and to some extent in his columns for the Times and Sun, are deliberately obtuse. When Clarkson writes or speaks seriously he is quite gracious, as he has been with his charity stuff iirc. 

Gervais was mentioned, and thats a good example. Ricky does this same kind of humour (albeit MUCH better) but it highlights where the problem really is. 

I do notice from the times I have read Jezza's Sun column, that when ever he mentioned something in a deliberately obtuse manner that theres always a chime of people going: "You're SO right Jezza!"

Some do beleive him, this is because they are thick. If you want to say anything to Top Gear, say something positive about cyclists, let them know how many cyclists watch and love their show. Turn it to an advantage that is in some way inclusive without being like Hammond laughing inanely at Jezza's jokes.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2011)

661-Pete said:


> Perhaps someone can fill me in on this idea?




Top Gear is the televisual equivalent of the "Commando" pocket sized war story comics I used to read as a lad. It is based on facts but isn't factual. It may contain some element of truth, just like some Nazi may well have once said "Achtung Spitfeuer!" or "For you Tommy ze var is over" but it present the truth simply in two-dimensions. It is simply a form of reality television with paid professionals taking the lead roles. Some of the slapstick/pratfall stuff is genius TV; big boys playing with and destroying big boys toys, but the conversations revolve around (offensive) stereotypes which I don't find funny, and often are at the level of primaty school playground banter e.g. "That car is gay".

I admire Clarkson for playing the part of opinionated bigot-oaf so well. Smart guy. Very wealthy guy as a result. Draws in millions of viewers with a hugely profitable franchise that sells globally. Crap journalist though. In fact I'd say ex-journalist. He's detached himself from reality and has becme the tory rather than simply the reporter.

and if he is a genuine libertarian why does he seek to influence people opinions on what cars to buy? why does the magazine carry advertising for cars?


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

Yawn . 


as we were watching this my wife said " ooh the forum lot are going to be unhappy" 

he is a presenter and knows which buttons to press to annoy people.

he is the TV presenter equivalent of marmite.

love him or hate him. 

me , I think he is great. cos he doesn't give a monkeys about who he upsets WITH WHAT HE SAYS. 

he hasn't knocked a cyclist off or run over one nor has he encouraged anybody to do that sort of thing. the moment he does then he does need to removed from the media. until then if he upsets you, don't watch him.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> me , I think he is great. cos he doesn't give a monkeys about who he upsets WITH WHAT HE SAYS.



Hmm.

O Tempora, O Mores. &c


----------



## asterix (7 Feb 2011)

GregCollins said:


> *Top Gear is the televisual equivalent of the "Commando" pocket sized war story comics I used to read as a lad. It is based on facts but isn't factual.* It may contain some element of truth, just like some Nazi may well have once said "Achtung Spitfeuer!" or "For you Tommy ze var is over" but it present the truth simply in two-dimensions. It is simply a form of reality television with paid professionals taking the lead roles. Some of the slapstick/pratfall stuff is genius TV; big boys playing with and destroying big boys toys, but the conversations revolve around (offensive) stereotypes which I don't find funny, and often are at the level of primaty school playground banter e.g. "That car is gay".
> 
> I admire Clarkson for playing the part of opinionated bigot-oaf so well. Smart guy. Very wealthy guy as a result. Draws in millions of viewers with a hugely profitable franchise that sells globally. Crap journalist though. In fact I'd say ex-journalist. He's detached himself from reality and *has becme the tory rather than simply the reporter.
> 
> ...



Well, I'd forgotten all about those! It all comes back to me.. We used to swap them at school and they were called 'trash mags'. Even at 11 ot 12 we knew what was rubbish even when they did provide low-grade entertainment. Overall the problem I have with TG is summed up very well by John the Monkey but I'd guess it brings the BBC a lot of money from overseas exposure unlike the Hammond book.

As regards Total Wipeout, I'd be far more entertained if I was a contestant, but it's getting a bit boring as a spectacle.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> he hasn't knocked a cyclist off or run over one nor has he encouraged anybody to do that sort of thing. the moment he does then he does need to removed from the media. until then if he upsets you, don't watch him.




THE CHARGE: ROAD-HOGGERY, THREATENING BEHAVIOUR, AND ALL-ROUND OFFENSIVENESS

Clarkson is hereby accused of knowingly, and in the interests of controversial amusement, putting people's lives at risk. The cycling lobby took particular umbrage after the bombs of 7 July, when Clarkson wrote some

_
_

_ "handy hints to those setting out on a bike for the first time"_, including 


_
_

_"Do not cruise through red lights. Because if I'm coming the other way, I will run you down, for fun",_





and




_"Do not pull up at junctions in front of a line of traffic. Because if I'm behind you, I will set off at normal speed and you will be crushed under my wheels."_

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-people-vs-jeremy-clarkson-515063.html


----------



## Jezston (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> he hasn't knocked a cyclist off or run over one nor has he encouraged anybody to do that sort of thing. the moment he does then he does need to removed from the media.





> What I want to do at times like this is bang on their cycling helmets and say I find their poverty offensive. But I’m made from stronger stuff so I turn the other cheek and *run them down*





> Trespassers in the motorcars domain, they do not pay road tax and therefore have no right to be on the road, some of them even believe they are going fast enough to not be an obstruction. *Run them down* to prove them wrong.





> Do not cruise through red lights. Because if I’m coming the other way, *I will run you down, for fun* and do not pull up at junctions in front of a line of traffic. Because if I’m behind you, I will set off at normal speed and *you will be crushed under my wheels.*



This is all acceptable because it's 'just a joke', right?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

Top Gear is a big joke, and not meant to be taken seriously. Fine. 

However, can we honestly say that a significant subset of its audience (the stupider end) are not influenced by its rather hostile attitude towards vulnerable road users? 

Is this not something to be concerned about? 

(For instance, I note in passing that the "cyclists have no rights because they don't pay for the roads" meme seems to have emerged over the last decade, during a period in which a particular programme has become rather popular).


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

Another example - the idea that I am "too poor" to afford a car. Again, this is all a big joke on Top Gear. 

Not so funny, though, when you're on the receiving end of fast and proximate overtakes by cretins who apparently view me as a lower species because I'm not behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. 

No connection?


----------



## mark barker (7 Feb 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> However, can we honestly say that a significant subset of its audience (the stupider end) are not influenced by its rather hostile attitude towards vulnerable road users?


So far the only people that I've heard that have taken the comments seriously are cyclists, so what does that say about us?


----------



## totallyfixed (7 Feb 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Top Gear is a big joke, and not meant to be taken seriously. Fine.
> 
> However, can we honestly say that a significant subset of its audience (the stupider end) are not influenced by its rather hostile attitude towards vulnerable road users?
> 
> ...




I agree, TG has a huge audience, and epitomises a "boys and their toys" approach to entertainment. Incidentally, I have only ever watched 5 mins of it but was surprised to see so many [mainly young] women in the studio audience. The worrying aspect for me is that I would like to bet a significant percentage of the more mindless element think that when Clarkson makes a joke about cyclists, they think cyclists are a joke. If he thinks it's ok to run down a cyclist, then there is no doubt in my mind there will be those who watch the show who think it is also ok.
It may be that much of this show is meant to be tongue-in-cheek [I hope] but as in life in general there is always an element that cannot tell the difference.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

mark barker said:


> So far the only people that I've heard that have taken the comments seriously are cyclists, so what does that say about us?



The Top Gear forum had posters boasting about ramming cyclists.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

mark barker said:


> So far the only people that I've heard that have taken the comments seriously are cyclists, so what does that say about us?



That we've heard the crap Clarkson trots out shouted at us by stupid motorists who've nearly killed us once too often?

Or is that a rhetorical question?


----------



## 400bhp (7 Feb 2011)

This is one of those threads that gets sent around other forums, entitled something along the lines of "look at these lot getting their knickers in a twist"



IT'S A TV PROGRAMME. IT ISN'T REAL LIFE. 

actually most respondents here appear to understand that.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> This is one of those threads that gets sent around other forums, entitled something along the lines of "look at these lot getting their knickers in a twist"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have a choice whether to watch it or not.

I don't have a choice when it comes to sharing the roads with homicidal ****wits who take it seriously.


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

Jezston said:


> This is all acceptable because it's 'just a joke', right?




oh FFS 

has he actually run anybody off ?? Has he? really? 

No .


looks like my wife was right about the forum.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> ****wits who take it seriously.



Ironic that.


----------



## downfader (7 Feb 2011)

mark barker said:


> So far the only people that I've heard that have taken the comments seriously are cyclists, so what does that say about us?




People once said the same thing about rape and racism victims.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> Ironic that.



Cheeky quoting! 

Lots of folk outlining why it's a problem though, aren't there, with experiences from their rides to back it up as well.


----------



## Dayvo (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> This is one of those threads that gets sent around other forums, entitled something along the lines of "look at these lot getting their knickers in a twist"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Er, no!

*I don't think you've been reading this properly!

Yes, it is a TV programme, and yes, I enjoy it and think it's both entertaining and funny!

What isn't funny, are the morons (and there are FAR TOO ANY) who worship Clarkson and take his every word as gospel and look to deliberately target a cyclist, ANY cyclist, who momentarily is in front of him!

WHEN, not if, you have an unpleasant experience, being knocked off, being verbally possibly physically abused, being cut up, have something thrown over you from a car, EVEN KILLED, then, and ONLY then MIGHT you understand why this isn't a joke! Look at the commuting section here for daily evidence of what I have written.

The programme isn't the problem, just a number of the idiots who watch it!


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

Top Gear is encouraging young drivers to break the limit, a Government-backed report claims. 

It accuses the BBC2 show, along with computer games such as Gran Turismo and films such as The Fast And The Furious, of creating a 'cachet of excitement and glamour around speeding'. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uraging-teen-drivers-speed.html#ixzz1DHDQjevW


----------



## 400bhp (7 Feb 2011)

Dayvo said:


> *Er, no!
> 
> *What isn't funny, *are the morons (and there are FAR TOO ANY) who worship Clarkson and take his every word as gospel and look to deliberately target a cyclist, ANY cyclist, who momentarily is in front of him!*
> 
> ...



Another ironic post.

Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> This is one of those threads that gets sent around other forums, entitled something along the lines of "look at these lot getting their knickers in a twist"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What part of 



> "Top Gear is a big joke, and not meant to be taken seriously. Fine."


 



do you not understand?


You've missed the point. Some people *don't* think it's a joke, or even if they do, it colours their attitude towards vulnerable road users.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> Top Gear is encouraging young drivers to break the limit, a Government-backed report claims.
> 
> It accuses the BBC2 show, along with computer games such as Gran Turismo and films such as The Fast And The Furious, of creating a 'cachet of excitement and glamour around speeding'.
> 
> http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1DHDQjevW



Classic - posted as I was writing my reply!!!


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

> has he actually run anybody off ?? Has he? really?



 
Ah, it would only be a problem if he had _actually_ run someone over. 

Does this work for jokes about slapping women too?


----------



## Dayvo (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> looks like my wife was right about the forum.




Let's hope that your wife never has to open the front door to a policeman who informs here there has been 'a tragic accident'!

If she does, then she'll understand why the forum reacts as it id does!

It's not the programme that's the problem, but the large percentage of 'drivers' who don't/can't/won't accept that cyclists have the same rights to be on the raod as they do.


----------



## Nortones2 (7 Feb 2011)

[/quote] You've missed the point. Some people *don't* think it's a joke, or even if they do, it colours their attitude towards vulnerable road users. 
[/quote]

And the police are not immune from a car-centred attitude.


----------



## Dayvo (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> Another ironic post.
> 
> Do you read the Daily Mail by any chance?




I doubt you have the intelligence to understand irony!

And no, I don't read the Daily Mail! I read _*Aftenposten*_, if that means anything to you! You probably don't even know where Oslo is!


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> Classic - posted as I was writing my reply!!!



Strange as it may seem, the Daily Mail does occasionally write things that are true, when it's not wittering about cancer and house prices. 

Difficult to believe, I know.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Feb 2011)

Dayvo said:


> I doubt you have the intelligence to understand irony!
> 
> And no, I don't read the Daily Mail! I read _*Aftenposten*_, if that means anything to you! You probably don't even know where Oslo is!



Really. 

Dumbass


----------



## magnatom (7 Feb 2011)

That's me back from my trip to Boston, and back to commuting....

Did I miss anything whilst I was away.....

I'm going to have to find something else to do, now that Helmet cameras have gone mainstream! I have noticed I am getting significantly more abuse on my youtube videos recently!


----------



## 661-Pete (7 Feb 2011)

This thread has turned into something which is very little to do with *Commuting*, at the very least.
I suggest a move to P&L .... if not more severe action.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

661-Pete said:


> This thread has turned into something which is very little to do with *Commuting*, at the very least.
> I suggest a move to P&L .... if not more severe action.



It should probably have been in P&L right from the start - not too much about commuting in the initial post.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> he hasn't knocked a cyclist off or run over one nor has he encouraged anybody to do that sort of thing. .


actually he has.......


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

Dayvo said:


> Let's hope that your wife never has to open the front door to a policeman who informs here there has been 'a tragic accident'!
> 
> If she does, then she'll understand why the forum reacts as it id does!
> 
> It's not the programme that's the problem, but the large percentage of 'drivers' who don't/can't/won't accept that cyclists have the same rights to be on the raod as they do.



what like when the doc said " we are really sorry but the baby is dead. when my wife got splatted by a cyclist on a crossing."

yeah been there done that which is why the obblocks that gets spouted about cyclists don't kill, really gets on my tits.

perhaps if all those who are up in arms about TG spent as much time writing to Mps councillors action groups etc as they did on here, all cyclists would likely be in a better position .


----------



## Simon_m (7 Feb 2011)

I wonder if the caravan forums were going on and on like this one is, when he was joking about them


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

And the police are not immune from a car-centred attitude.


of course. because if you get pulled for any offence on a bicycle its never your fault its always somebody elses.

e.g.
I went through the red light because its "safer" to do that. : sniggers: 





and having rewatched the little section on TG 

at least hammond admits there are "militant" cyclists


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

Simon_m said:


> I wonder if the caravan forums were going on and on like this one is, when he was joking about them



PMSL probably not. they just shrugged and got on with life.

the same for the lorry drivers. 

my dad laughed and said he knew a lot of drivers who fitted the stereotype portrayed.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> Classic - posted as I was writing my reply!!!




It's a government-backed report, not a report carried out by the Daily mail.

Any chance of reining in your sarcasm and insults?


----------



## Dave Davenport (7 Feb 2011)

Does anyone honestly believe that the dickheads who pass too close on purpose and/or yell abuse, quite often involving 'pay some road tax!' are not influenced/encouraged by Clarkson and his ilk?


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

If stuff on TV doesn't influence people I guess advertisers are wasting an awful lot of money.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

It would be funny if it was absurd - if the very idea that someone might claim a greater right to the road because they pay VED was _laughable_, if the chance that someone might deliberately overtake you too close, or swerve at you merely because you were on a pedal cycle was _patently ridiculous_.

I submit that we aren't there yet, in the UK.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> PMSL probably not. they just shrugged and got on with life.
> 
> the same for the lorry drivers.
> 
> my dad laughed and said he knew a lot of drivers who fitted the stereotype portrayed.



You really don't see the difference in vulnerability between those groups and cyclists, then?


----------



## jack the lad (7 Feb 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Does anyone honestly believe that the dickheads who pass too close on purpose and/or yell abuse, quite often involving 'pay some road tax!' are not influenced/encouraged by Clarkson and his ilk?




Perhaps it is the other way round. Those people would exist without Clarkson, but he might not exist without them.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> Any chance of reining in your sarcasm and insults?



Now that is ironic.


----------



## Ravenbait (7 Feb 2011)

I'm reminded of the arguments that Jim Davidson's and Bernard Manning's misogyny and racism were just a bit of harmless fun, don't take it so seriously.

As the Joker might say

"Why so serious?"

Or as Manning himself, said: "I tell jokes. You never take a joke seriously."

Top Gear used to be entertaining. Then they became caricatures of themselves and it turned preposterous. Even my father, who insisted we watch TG at Christmas in the same way I insisted we watch Dr Who, declared that it had become stupid, annoying and offensive.

Sam


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

He's not even a real hamster.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

jack the lad said:


> Perhaps it is the other way round. Those people would exist without Clarkson, but he might not exist without them.



You just blew my mind.


----------



## joebingo (7 Feb 2011)

They probably are Dave, but it doesn't reflect on the actions of the other xx million people who tune in weekly. Much like RLJ'ers, ninjas and pavement cyclists don't reflect on the actions of us.

I doubt that anyone would watch clarkson and say "Y'know what, he's so right. I'm going to go out and endanger lives because of him". It's probably more like "Oh, I'm a thick headed numbskull who endangers peoples lives because they don't pay road tax... GO ON CLARKSON, YOU TELL 'EM"


----------



## 400bhp (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> It's a government-backed report, not a report carried out by the Daily mail.
> 
> Any chance of reining in your sarcasm and insults?



Not with anyone who quotes the Daily Whail, no.

Have you actually read the report?

It's political posturing.


----------



## Dave Davenport (7 Feb 2011)

jack the lad said:


> Perhaps it is the other way round. Those people would exist without Clarkson, but he might not exist without them.




Granted, they'd be twats with or without Clarkson but I still think he and his various wannabes encourage them.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> Not with anyone who quotes the Daily Whail, no.
> 
> Have you actually read the report?
> 
> It's political posturing.




What part of the report do you think wrong?


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> You really don't see the difference in vulnerability between those groups and cyclists, then?




they have feelings too you know  

people bite far too easily here.


----------



## Ravenbait (7 Feb 2011)

joebingo said:


> They probably are Dave, but it doesn't reflect on the actions of the other xx million people who tune in weekly. Much like RLJ'ers, ninjas and pavement cyclists don't reflect on the actions of us.
> 
> I doubt that anyone would watch clarkson and say "Y'know what, he's so right. I'm going to go out and endanger lives because of him". It's probably more like "Oh, I'm a thick headed numbskull who endangers peoples lives because they don't pay road tax... GO ON CLARKSON, YOU TELL 'EM"




This. There will always be a core group of people who think that cyclists should be run over on sight, immigrunts are coming here to steal our jobs and maybe our women, women should be at home looking after the kids and cleaning the house, a man has no business going anywhere near a washing machine unless it's broken and he's fixing it, or all of the above. That's why Have Your Say is only readable having been put through the SYB filter.

That doesn't make the jokes acceptable. We are not yet at the point in our culture where these things shouldn't be taken seriously, in the same way that Chris Rock gets to make jokes about African-Americans but Frankie Boyle probably shouldn't.

While the problem exists, it's not a joke.

Sam


----------



## jack the lad (7 Feb 2011)

It's TV, not education. Clarkson is playing up to an audience of juvenile petrolheads and just being one of them. Producers will try to reflect what their audience wants to hear, not lecture them on what they 'ought' to think or do. Is TG really any worse than the rest of the TV schedules overloaded with greed shows, murder mysteries, dysfunctional family life, prurient freak shows and all the other dross that passes for entertainment.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> people bite far too easily here.



Maybe I'm just trolling too? 

AH!

Pfft.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

David Neave of Co-operative Insurance compiled the report.


----------



## Dave Davenport (7 Feb 2011)

jack the lad said:


> It's TV, not education. Clarkson is playing up to an audience of juvenile petrolheads and just being one of them. Producers will try to reflect what their audience wants to hear, not lecture them on what they 'ought' to think or do. Is TG really any worse than the rest of the TV schedules overloaded with greed shows, murder mysteries, dysfunctional family life, prurient freak shows and all the other dross that passes for entertainment.



I don't think top gear is any worse than and is maybe not as bad as some things on the telly, but that's because there's lots of absolute garbage on.


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpQLMHGDtYc&feature=player_embedded


i wonder if Clarkson saw this guy and just got confused.


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> I don't think top gear is any worse than and is maybe not as bad as some things on the telly, but that's because there's lots of absolute garbage on.



It's definitely better than "Snog, Marry, Avoid". Probably.


----------



## Jezston (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> they have feelings too you know
> 
> people bite far too easily here.



You saying you are deliberately trolling, then?


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

nope. not trolling. its called being devil advocate. 

can't all be back slapping amigos . 

some posters here get a bit overemotional.


I have had the discussion with the doc though. it wasn't the best day i ever had.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Feb 2011)

take a look at the studio audience. A more pustular, nerdy, shirt-tucked-securely-in-waistband crew you could never hope to meet. They're not hooligans, leaning out of cars and shouting abuse, they're young men who've never discovered the joys of masturbation - men who take a pride in their hatchbacks.

So you could argue that Clarkson is performing some kind of social service, giving meaning to lives that would otherwise be completely vacant...except that he ramps it up. He doesn't go out to shock, he does the very opposite - he offers a comfort blanket to the terminally dull. He says things that are unpleasant, making social some deep seated personal inadequacies in his wider audience, within which we find people so devoid of moral imagination that they can take the Clarkson attitude second hand and turn it in to the most significant parts of their identity. Nobody leans out of a car window and hurls abuse at a cyclist because they've got something about them - they've got nothing about them other than the tawdry little fantasy of belonging that they've bought from Clarkson.

So, yes, I do hope he, and Hammond, die a nasty, drawn out painful death sometime this week. 

That's a joke, by the way.....


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> So, yes, I do hope he, and Hammond, die a nasty, drawn out painful death sometime this week.
> 
> That's a joke, by the way.....



LOL

some people might find that offensive  


i didn't.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> What part of the report do you think wrong?



The report states 3 sources.

One of them was a set of questions - none of which asked the respondents about their influence of the media on their driving habits.

One of the other sources was from industry "experts".

And the quote in question was from an individual no doubt keen to promote his particular ends.

Anyone with half a brain should be able to clearly see through such Daily Whail sub-quotes.

You haven't read it have you


----------



## 400bhp (7 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> take a look at the studio audience. A more pustular, nerdy, shirt-tucked-securely-in-waistband crew you could never hope to meet. They're not hooligans, leaning out of cars and shouting abuse, they're young men who've never discovered the joys of masturbation - men who take a pride in their hatchbacks.



The BBC have a particular policy on that show to have a 50/50 male/female audience split.


----------



## Flying Dodo (7 Feb 2011)

They have a policy of putting the women at the front, but I can't see 50% being women.

Overall, when they show the audeience, the men do seem to be 35-45 ish on the whole.........

Regardless of any comments made, it's not going to change the viewpoints of the target audience.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> The report states 3 sources.
> 
> One of them was a set of questions - none of which asked the respondents about their influence of the media on their driving habits.
> 
> ...




Once again, it had nothing to do with the daily mail.

can you link to the report so we can see its failings?


----------



## 400bhp (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> Once again, it had nothing to do with the daily mail.
> 
> can you link to the report so we can see its failings?



So, you haven't read the report yet you appear to know whether the Daily Whail's comments were out of context.

5 mins search and you'll be able to find the report yourself.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

David Neave, director of general insurance at Co-operative Insurance, said: “It is undoubtedly the case that games, TV and films have fuelled the increase in speeding. The Fast & The Furious (computer game) and Top Gear are devoted to speeding and are targeted at a younger audience who are more likely to be encouraged to speed.”

He added: “What is the insurance industry doing to combat this problem? Unfortunately speeding offences are not viewed by society in the same way as drink-driving convictions and yet they can have a more devastating impact.

“We need to create the same stigma for speeding that currently exists now against drink-driving.”

http://blog.goodwithmoney.co.uk/topics/campaigns/2-young-2-die/2-young-2-die-progress/


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> So, you haven't read the report yet you appear to know whether the Daily Whail's comments were out of context.
> 
> Find the report yourself.




For the third time, the report had nothing to do with the Daily Mail.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> So, you haven't read the report yet you appear to know whether the Daily Whail's comments were out of context.
> 
> 5 mins search and you'll be able to find the report yourself.




You quoted from it, why not simply post the link?


----------



## 400bhp (7 Feb 2011)

You can't help some people


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

Road safety campaigners and politicians accused Top Gear today of sending out an "irresponsible" message to viewers that speed does not kill.

Brake said the BBC programme's Jeremy Clarkson "glamorised" speeding in comments last night about co-presenter Richard Hammond's dragster crash.

Dramatic footage of Hammond's 288mph accident was shown for the first time on last night's Top Gear.

Aired on the first show of the new series, it revealed the 36-year-old's miraculous escape when he crashed while filming a stunt for the programme in September.

Dianne Ferreira, spokeswoman for Brake, said: "Jeremy Clarkson said on yesterday's programme 'speed kills' and then pointed at Richard Hammond as if to say 'speed doesn't kill'.

"This glamorised speeding. The programme is watched by impressionable young people, many of whom who have just passed their test and they are mad about cars.

"They are easily influenced and remarks like that are very irresponsible and could tempt them to speed."

The Scottish Green Party joined the attack, demanding Clarkson publicly apologise for the comments and accusing him of "childish arrogance".

Party leader Robin Harper MSP said: "Jeremy Clarkson should publicly say sorry. The glamorisation of driving at high speeds is unacceptable.

"People die on our roads every day and speed is often the main culprit. Mr Clarkson's almost childish arrogance contrasts sharply with such a serious problem."



http://www.metro.co.uk/news/35060-clarkson-attacked-over-top-gear-speed-comment#ixzz1DHgsGxbA


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> The report states 3 sources.
> 
> One of them was a set of questions - none of which asked the respondents about their influence of the media on their driving habits.
> 
> ...




None of this is true:

http://www.cfs.co.uk/corp/pdf/A_Question_of_Speeding_FINAL.pdf


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> The BBC have a particular policy on that show to have a 50/50 male/female audience split.


really? I can't think they've succeeded. 

Whoops, FD beat me to it......


----------



## MacB (7 Feb 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Does anyone honestly believe that the dickheads who pass too close on purpose and/or yell abuse, quite often involving 'pay some road tax!' are not influenced/encouraged by Clarkson and his ilk?



sums it up nicely for me


----------



## Woz! (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> Road safety campaigners and politicians accused Top Gear today of sending out an "irresponsible" message to viewers that speed does not kill.




In response to this, I would ask what are statistically the safest roads in the UK?


----------



## thomas (7 Feb 2011)

ones still being built?


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

Woz! said:


> In response to this, I would ask what are statistically the safest roads in the UK?




If you mean motorways citing their relatively low fatality rate is a red herring.

No corner shops on motorways. No schools, zebra crossings, pedestrians or cyclists.

So saying speeding on motorways is safe so it must be safe everywhere is daft.


----------



## Woz! (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> If you mean motorways citing their relatively low fatality rate is a red herring.
> 
> No corner shops on motorways. No schools, zebra crossings, pedestrians or cyclists.
> 
> So saying speeding on motorways is safe so it must be safe everywhere is daft.




Saying 'speed kills' is daft too.

"A combination of factors relating to road complexity, speed, driver awareness and car maintenance along with other things too numerous to mention...kills" is a less glib but also less snappy way to describe it. 

I actually think Clarkson understands this and was trying to make that very point.


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Feb 2011)

Woz! said:


> In response to this, I would ask *what are statistically the safest roads in the UK*?



Empty ones, with no traffic on them.

As soon as a human being in a hurry, stressed, enraged, not looking, on the phone, applying make-up, pissed, smacked up, driving a defective vehicle, or not wanting to wait a few seconds....ya di, ya di, ya dah................. turns a key in the ignition, then we're ALL in the firing line.

3000 deaths a year back that up.

Or were they all *'accidents'*?

I think the Beeb should put an advisory on Top Gear - like a cigarette packet -"Driving kills if not perfomed responsibly" - better still, a notice about how many people died in car 'accidents' since last weeks' hour of joviality.

Now here's 60 minutes of people crashing cars, caravans, lorries and buses - please be aware they do this with a full safety crew, and a risk assessment - you out there don't have such luxuries.

Trouble is, our country hasn't got the balls or any understanding of the concept of personal responsibility to accept they have got it wrong, and it's always someone else's fault.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

Woz! said:


> Saying 'speed kills' is daft too.




Nope.

The human body is designed to survice running into a tree or rock at up to 20mph. Above that speed the chances of death or serious injury decrease dramatically.

Take 20mph zones:


Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[<A href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap80.htm#note106">106] in injury accidents of:



— Total accidents -56 per cent


— Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent


— Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent


— All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent


— Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/557/557ap80.htm

Speed kills.


----------



## Silver Fox (7 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> they're young men who've never discovered the joys of masturbation



Er, that comment just doesn't seem right somehow 

Anyway, I enjoy Top Gear and take Clarkson with a pinch of salt.

I noted he was wearing a Help for Heroes wrist band so respect to you Jeremy for that.


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> Empty ones, with no traffic on them.
> 
> As soon as a human being in a hurry, stressed, enraged, not looking, on the phone, applying make-up, pissed, smacked up, driving a defective vehicle, or not wanting to wait a few seconds....ya di, ya di, ya dah................. turns a key in the ignition, then we're ALL in the firing line.
> 
> ...



Bold- quite true. and that goes for all road users.

as for the advisory , can we have one on Candleford and all the other period dramas.

warning: this prgramme if it doesn't bore you to death will certainly want to make you stick knitting needles in your eyes.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2011)

Silver Fox said:


> Er, that comment just doesn't seem right somehow
> 
> Anyway, I enjoy Top Gear and take Clarkson with a pinch of salt.
> 
> I noted he was wearing a Help for Heroes wrist band so respect to you Jeremy for that.



nah. he means they are w*nk*rs but they do it in a completely joyless way.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2011)

jack the lad said:


> Perhaps it is the other way round. Those people would exist without Clarkson, but he might not exist without them.



bang on the money. you don't need to pass an iq or eq test to get your drivers licence more's the pity.


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> Nope.
> 
> The human body is designed to survice running into a tree or rock at up to 20mph. Above that speed the chances of death or serious injury decrease dramatically.
> 
> ...



can't dispute the fact that 20mph zones do reduce deaths /injuries. 

But. its not speed on its own that kills. yes its a factor but remove or reduce any of the factors and the rates will fall. thats how a risk assesment works.

those that repeat the mantra speed kills are as bad as Clarkson , just at the opposite end of the spectrum.


if speed was the cause of all then why would TfL ( ok not the best example ) raise the speed limit on the A13 between Goresbrook and Beckton ? incidentally CS7 runs along this route but is separated from the carriageway by a quite wide verge.

the reason they did it to reduce accidents is the average speed cameras set at 50mph rather than static gatsos etc at 40mph which encourage people to brake even if they are travelling under the limit. this causes accidents.



a good analogy in the stupidity of both is the christian right in USA saying islamic extremists are bad . the reality is both are as bad as each other.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

Cameras are inert, static objects. They no more cause drivers to brake than tuna sandwiches. If you panicked and braked on your driving test would you pass?


----------



## Amheirchion (7 Feb 2011)

400bhp said:


> The BBC have a particular policy on that show to have a 50/50 male/female audience split.



If memory serves, you can only get tickets in pairs, 1 male and 1 female. There was some stink that they were discriminating against homosexual couples due to this if I remember right.


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Feb 2011)

Speed in itself doesn't kill.

A motorist's inattention and lack of awareness, coupled with the speed of the vehicle compounds any mistake made. And in a lot of incidents, it is the resultant collision, the speed of it, and the forces meted out on casualties that determine fatalities. I am always shocked to hear of deaths in 30mph limits, because of the (supposed) relatively slow speeds involved.

If you can't bring your vehicle to a stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear in front of you, then you are driving too fast.


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Feb 2011)

Amheirchion said:


> If memory serves, you can only get tickets in pairs, 1 male and 1 female. There was some stink that they were discriminating against homosexual couples due to this if I remember right.



But the 'pretty', fawning, eyelash-fluttering girls seem to be always at the front?

Not sexist, just a fact. 

Look at any show and it's the females who now have the presenter's attention.

Any bloke spoken to is usually ridiculed for being ginger, or for driving a citroen.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2011)

"Speed kills"

drive a car into an immovable object at 5mph whilst not wearing a seat belt. Walk away smiling.

do same with identical car at 10 mph 20mph. only speed has changed. you will probably get bruises and a nosebleed

try same trick at 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, regular little MIRA thing going by now, and let me know at what speed you decide to quit.

Then consider the effect of hitting a pedestrian in circumstances where speed on impact is the only variable. 10mph most will walk away. 30mph most won't.

"Speed kills." Killed my friend Nick. Works for me.


----------



## Norm (7 Feb 2011)

I think this thread has gone way off the original comments on last night's Top Gear.

Essentially, they said that lots of cyclists are now wearing cameras (a good thing for them to say), Hammond cycles a lot (a good thing for them to say), Clarkson is an idiot (a good thing for them to say) and we don't pay road tax (a good thing for them to say).

Much as you might be able to dredge up negative comments from Clarkson's ingloriously opinionated past, I saw little that wasn't good on last night's motoring-related entertainment magazine programme.



GregCollins said:


> drive a car into an immovable object at 5mph whilst not wearing a seat belt. Walk away smiling.
> 
> do same with identical car at 10 mph 20mph. only speed has changed. you will probably get bruises and a nosebleed
> 
> ...


It's not the speed which kills, it's inappropriate speed or driving badly enough that you hit something.


----------



## Trevrev (7 Feb 2011)

It's just tongue in cheek humour. Clarkson knows how to press buttons! He's very good at it, but i just love him. In fact my whole family think Top Gear is a cracking programme. You just need to be a little light hearted.
Take a chill pill and relax..........PMSL!


----------



## Dave Davenport (7 Feb 2011)

Norm said:


> It's not the speed which kills, it's inappropriate speed or driving badly enough that you hit something.




So if, overnight all vehicles were automatically restricted to 75% of the posted speed limit (lazers from space or something) the death and injury rate would remain the same?


----------



## Norm (7 Feb 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> So if, overnight all vehicles were automatically restricted to 75% of the posted speed limit (lazers from space or something) the death and injury rate would remain the same?


Anyone for Straw man?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

Norm said:


> Much as you might be able to dredge up negative comments from Clarkson's ingloriously opinionated past, I saw little that wasn't good on last night's motoring-related entertainment magazine programme.



Except for Clarkson stating that cyclists deserve to be cut up. 

Which is, of course, a hilarious joke. 

Even if a large subsection of the audience actively buy into this bollocks.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

Trevrev said:


> It's just tongue in cheek humour. Clarkson knows how to press buttons! He's very good at it, but i just love him. In fact my whole family think Top Gear is a cracking programme. You just need to be a little light hearted.
> Take a chill pill and relax..........PMSL!



Your whole family deserve to be run over. 

If you don't like me saying that, well, just take a chill pill.


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Feb 2011)

If it's down to size/tax scale, then if a cyclist deserves to be forced off the road for not paying tax, then a car deserves to be forced off for not paying as much as a lorry?

Isn't there a statistic somewhere that 1 in 20 cars on the roads in great britain are not 'taxed' or insured?

Don't they deserve to be outed by Top Gear, after all, they're 'don't pay Road Tax'


----------



## Trevrev (7 Feb 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Your whole family deserve to be run over.
> 
> If you don't like me saying that, well, just take a chill pill.



I'm fine with you saying that, you grumpy prick!


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

Trevrev said:


> I'm fine with you saying that, you grumpy prick!




Think of me typing it with a sardonically raised eyebrow, rather than with bulging eyes and gritted teeth.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

[QUOTE 1305400"]
LOL, I'll probably be driving a big truck at the weekend. Does anyone know of any motorists in the home counties area that they want 'disposed' of? After all all lorry drivers are murderers. 
[/quote]


Point missed, yet again. 

You are not grasping the distinction between causing offence, and the advocation of violence.


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Feb 2011)

[QUOTE 1305403"]
Sorry but it's you that is missing the point. 

If you can prove to me that on the back of Dickheads comments last night that motorists will actively 'go after' (for want of a better term) cyclists then I'll happily say I'm full of shoot and I don't know what I am going on about. 

edit: No doubt I expect to see a sharp increase in the number of reported incidents between cyclists and motorists after last nights commnets.
[/quote]

Ever had a motorist tell you (after they almost hit you) that you shouldn't be on the road, as you don't pay tax?

Where do they get this 'script' from?

Do you not see how irresponsible his comments were? Comments which passed editing by an 'intelligent BBC team' and are subsequently beamed to MILLIONS of people.

I like TG and laugh at all their stunts, but where's the balance?

At what point do they say, 'joking aside, we (as motorists) kill thousands of people every year.......now here's Jeremy with a derogatory comment about.....[insert minority group]'


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

Where do you think the hostility exhibited towards cyclists by a minority of the general public has come from? 

I don't think some people are getting the "joke". 

EDIT - Directed at User3143. ComedyPilot has made essentially the same point while I was posting.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

[QUOTE 1305406"]
<Groan> Bored already, come back and post something that is worth me responding to.
[/quote]

Ah, the "Alan Clark" defence to an awkward question.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

One of the joys of Canada is that practically no-one has heard of Jeremy Clarkson.


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Feb 2011)

Flying_Monkey said:


> *One of the joys of Canada *is that practically no-one has heard of Jeremy Clarkson.



....you can go off some people.............


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Feb 2011)

[QUOTE 1305408"]
Nothing awkward, however I do feel that you are somewhat ignorant to *what drives *(pun intended) *motorists to dislike cyclists.*
[/quote]

WGF may be ignorant, but I'm all ears.....?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Feb 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> ....you can go off some people.............



he he - on the negative side, they have no sense of humour, so you almost start to miss even the crapness of Clarkson (almost).


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

[QUOTE 1305408"]
Nothing awkward, however I do feel that you are somewhat ignorant to what drives (pun intended) motorists to dislike cyclists.
[/quote]


You seem to be presuming that I think Top Gear is solely responsible. I don't.

However, _you_ seem to be presuming that the kind of witless "banter" that routinely appears on the programme has no effect whatsoever. 

I think that's a rather casual assumption.


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> You seem to be presuming that I think Top Gear is solely responsible. I don't.
> 
> However, _you_ seem to be presuming that the kind of witless "banter" that routinely appears on the programme has no effect whatsoever.
> 
> I think that's a rather casual assumption.




no I/we don't.
I have no doubt it has an effect on moronic tw@s that would _shout or scream it anyway_, so even if TG was taken from the air or toned down the barragge we suffer daily wouldn't change. 

Motorists used to shout abuse at cyclists/other road users long before telly was invented, who taught bthm to scream it , or has Clarkson managed time travel now.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

[QUOTE 1305414"]
Talking of assumptions....
[/quote]


Evidently you don't understand the meaning of the word _seem_.


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Feb 2011)

In life we gather values from all sorts of places: family, friends, school, uni, work, the pub and also to a lesser or greater degree the media.

I believe the media do not take this responsibility at all seriously.

How else would they broadcast (or print) the drivel thay do, and not expect 'some' of the millions of viewers/listeners/readers to take up some of those values/mantras/opinions as their own?


----------



## Norm (7 Feb 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> Except for Clarkson stating that cyclists deserve to be cut up.
> 
> Which is, of course, a hilarious joke.


I don't remember him saying that. If he did, then it was pretty thoughtless and, IMO, wrong, whether it was intended to be funny or not.

It remains, though, that I think it was good to get publicity about the camera discussions, it was good that Hammond said he cycled (his winning the race across London remains one of the best races that they have done, IMO) and it was good that Clarkson was called an idiot for the point of view he was expressing.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> Motorists used to shout abuse at cyclists/other road users long before telly was invented




True, but that, unfortunately, does not establish that Top Gear has no effect on making those kind of attitudes more widespread and socially acceptable. 

I am not arguing that cyclists were never subjected to abuse, hostility or dangerous driving before Top Gear came along.


----------



## Dayvo (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> Motorists used to shout abuse at cyclists/other road users long before telly was invented, who taught bthm to scream it , or has Clarkson managed time travel now.




Don't know where you got that 'fact' from, but I certainly dispute it!

As a kid in the 60s and 70s, I and my friends were NEVER shouted at by any motor vehicles when we were out and about. 

There was considerable less traffic on the roads then and 'accidents' were unheard of. Road road, as it is today, is a relatively new phenomenon.


----------



## Norm (7 Feb 2011)

Oh, and it's good that Clarkson said we don't pay road tax. I think that the economic benefits remain amongst the bigger rewards of cycling, just try smiling and saying "Yeah, it's great isn't it" the next time the line gets thrown at you when you are riding.


----------



## Dayvo (7 Feb 2011)

Norm said:


> Oh, and it's good that Clarkson said *we don't pay road tax*. I think that the economic benefits remain amongst the bigger rewards of cycling, just try smiling and saying "Yeah, it's great isn't it" the next time the line gets thrown at you when you are riding.




I like the comment someone here used in replying to that: 'Are you a fukkin' tax man?'


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

Norm said:


> I don't remember him saying that. If he did, then it was pretty thoughtless and, IMO, wrong, whether it was intended to be funny or not.



http://www.bbc.co.uk...s_16_Episode_3/


About 21:30 in.



> Hammond - Now you know Breakfast News on the television? Well earlier this week, they were running this story about cyclists wearing video cameras on their crash helmets, so they can video examples of road rage, and people cutting them up, on their bikes.
> 
> Clarkson - But cyclists deserve it.



Watching this, I have just noticed the blonde woman in the background nodding in solemn agreement with this comment. 

Hilarious.


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

Dayvo said:


> Don't know where you got that 'fact' from, but I certainly dispute it!
> 
> As a kid in the 60s and 70s, I and my friends were NEVER shouted at by any motor vehicles when we were out and about.
> 
> There was _considerable less traffic on the roads_ then and 'accidents' were unheard of. Road road, as it is today, is a relatively new phenomenon.



so using basic extrapolation. more cars will equal more abuse. I would suggest the percentages were very similar. i can remember my grandad telling me about a car driver who shouted at him when he was cycling to work in the 1930s. my grandad was a farm worker and saw him later when he was on the tractor and the car was in a ditch. 

where did kenneth grahame get his inspiration for Mr Toad ? bet that wasn't Top Gear. hey maybe we should blame him for sparking off road rage back in 1908.


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

[QUOTE 1305425"]
13 pages in 24 hours? Clarkson has achieved his aim, and his next pay check is on its way.
[/quote]


yup.


----------



## Dayvo (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> so using basic extrapolation. more cars will equal more abuse.




It isn't just the increased volume in traffic.

Motorists show far more respect to cyclists on the continent, so maybe it's a British 'thing'.

Certainly over the last 15-20 years, standards have declined, discipline in schools and at home is non-existent and selfish and bullying behaviour has increased at a ridiculous rate.

And therein lies the problem: unless punishments fit the crime, then society will accelerate to a level where it almost becomes anarchy.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

I like where this is going. 

Next up - we'll be arguing it's fine for Jeremy Clarkson to suggest that women who wear short skirts deserve to have their bottoms groped, because, after all, sexism has been around for ever, and sexists will always try and grope women's bottoms.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

It's offensive on the grounds of it's lack of comedic value, I'll grant you that.


----------



## Trevrev (7 Feb 2011)

[QUOTE 1305430"]
<Groan>

Have you not got any ironing to do or dishes to wash?
[/quote]


hahahaha!!


----------



## Norm (7 Feb 2011)

Dayvo said:


> I like the comment someone here used in replying to that: 'Are you a fukkin' tax man?'


Pah! **spit** They are the enemy. 



WheelyGoodFun said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk...s_16_Episode_3/
> 
> 
> About 21:30 in.


Sorry, WGF, I didn't mean to appear to be denying that it was in there, just that I didn't notice his aside during the broadcast.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (7 Feb 2011)

Norm said:


> Sorry, WGF, I didn't mean to appear to be denying that it was in there, just that I didn't notice his aside during the broadcast.



And I didn't mean to appear to suggest that you were denying it was in there. 

This is getting complicated.


----------



## Norm (7 Feb 2011)

Moving on before this goes too much further, four good things from it and (on re-viewing it) one bad. I'm still thinking it was a good piece overall, although it could have been better.


----------



## dand_uk (7 Feb 2011)

Number of people in UK increasing
Number of cars per household increasing
Number of people per car decreasing
Proportion of people using public transport decreasing
Number of cars on the road increasing
Traffic queue length increasing
Average speed dropping?
Driver frustration and stress increasing
Driver patience - non existent.
Attitude to cyclists = get out of my way

If people slowed down and chilled out they would get to their destination in a much better state of mind. It is the motorist who floor it from red light to red light that get on my tits. 

Also modern car design enable you to accelerate and brake sharply. Legal limit for maximum engine power????


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2011)

Norm said:


> It's not the speed which kills, it's inappropriate speed or driving badly enough that you hit something.



which part of the physics and biomechanics do people need explaining.

take an object, like a bullet

I throw it at someone at 10mph it hits them between the eyes. result? a bruised forehead

a major league base pitcher throws it at someone at 100mph, bang on the same target. result? probably a concussion and the possibility of a fractured skull

build a gun and fire it at someone at 1000mph result? no back of head

only the speed is different so if it isn't the speed that kills our headless sap what is it?


----------



## Norm (7 Feb 2011)

GregCollins said:


> which part of the physics and biomechanics do people need explaining.
> 
> take an object, like a bullet
> 
> ...


And which part of "inappropriate speed" are you missing, Greg? Throwing a bullet at someone might be an inappropriate action but the speed is ok. Shooting them between the eyes is an inappropriate action and the bullet has an inappropriate speed.

If you want to persist with the condescending BS, driving at 70 on the M4 at 3am is appropriate. Doing 70 in a higher risk urban environment is not appropriate. The speed is the same, the appropriateness is not.


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

GregCollins said:


> which part of the physics and biomechanics do people need explaining.
> 
> take an object, like a bullet
> 
> ...





a boulder weighing 1000kg at 20mph will do more damage than a boulder of 1kg at 20mph . 

see what we did there. speed was the same but the mass was different. 

its not speed. _its innapropriate speed_. 


i am not going to start discussing physics out of work!


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> a boulder weighing 1000kg at 20mph will do more damage than a boulder of 1kg at 20mph .
> 
> see what we did there. speed was the same but the mass was different.
> 
> ...



How many cars weigh 1kg?


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> How many cars weigh 1kg?




don't be so flaming obtuse.

if you want to start arguing using physics then you gotta use it properly.

changing either of the values changes the outcome. a gwizz has mass of ?? compared to bus of ?? 

their is a different energy transfer for both. newton worked this out before cars buses or even bikes were invented.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> don't be so flaming obtuse.
> 
> if you want to start arguing using physics then you gotta use it properly.
> 
> ...



In order to demonstrate something or other about cars, you asked what damage a 1kg boulder can cause.

1kg cars don't exist.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Adasta (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> newton worked this out before cars buses or even bikes were invented.



Yeah and I bet he would never have dreamt that his theories would be being banded about on a tinpot cycling forum of a Monday night!


----------



## darkstar (7 Feb 2011)

This is hilarious, knew you guys would come up with the goods always love a good moan, don't you! How about after 14 pages, you've discussed Clarkson enough? I know you all love him, but this is getting silly now.


----------



## som3blok3 (7 Feb 2011)

Wow, glad I watched TG last night, what have I started?? Although if it wasn't me I'm sure somebody else would have been on here within minutes opening the same can..........

At the root of it all, I was just saying that I think Clarkson should know the basic stuff, what with him being in the motor industry.

For a few seconds he wound me up, I normally laugh with him at others and for that moment I was being laughed at. 

That was yesterday and 14 pages of posts later. I'll still be watching TG next Sunday, as I have done for too many years.

James May is a good bloke, met him at my sons summer fete last year, shook my hand and had his picture taken with me.

As for Hammond, he's still a cock. (Admin, thats a male chicken cock )


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> In order to demonstrate something or other about cars, you asked what damage a 1kg boulder can cause.
> 
> 1kg cars don't exist.
> 
> Hope this helps.




no, bu not all cars have the same mass. not all drivers are car drivers. 

not all cyclists are as irritating as you thankfully


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2011)

the problem with the appropriate argument is that it relies upon the exercise of judgement whereas throwing the bullet merely relies on physics. it may be inappropriate for me to throw it, but I can't kill you by doing so. you hit me at 70mph wherever i am, trespassing on the motorway, or drunkely crossing the urban clearway, on our local bypass or down some cul-de-sac and I'm dead. Hit me at 20 and most likely I'm not.

The problem is, what one regards as an appropriate speed in a given set of circumstances can become shockingly inappropriate in an instant, and due to factors outside of one's control or which one failed to take into account when making one's judgement of appropriateness. Society calls these things 'accidents'. 3000 people die in them every year (actually on this point I agree with Clarkson - I'm gobsmacked it is only 3000 per year and not much higher but the emergency services are so gifted these days). that is condescending BS; listening to people witter on about appropriate speed covering up a cull of 3000 lives under the blanket of accident.

30mph in most urban environments is legal. I must therefore assume it is regarded by the powers that be, and the people that drive past my house, as appropriate. (I guess the ones doing 40 down our road think that is appropriate too and would view my objections as me being picky)

Hit a kid, or a cyclist, or a pensioner,crossing the road, with a car at a perfectly legal 30mph outside my house and most likely you get a dead person, at 20mph many survive, at 10mph nearly all do.

Which part of speed kills isn't working exactly?


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Feb 2011)

People, physics has nothing to do with the driver's ability to maintain a safe distance and speed for the conditions. It only comes into play when they aren't looking, driving too close, too fast etc for the conditions. Speed compounds mistakes, the faster you go, the less time you have to react and deal with any eventualities.

It is not a cause, but a resultant factor of the outcome.

A solid object moving on wheels will hit something unless a braking/steering input is made.

That responsibility belongs to the driver.

Sadly, around 2-3000 people are murdered killed on the roads every year because drivers are not willing to take care of themselves or others.

There'd be uproar if 2-3000 people were shot and killed every year.....so why is it so 'ok' for it to happen in a car 'accident'?

Not the best analogy to give, but people seem to excuse death on the roads as an 'accident'.

Would they shoot a kalshnikov in a crowded football stadium? 

No

But the same person will happily jump behind the wheel of 2 tons of metal and drive at speed on a daily basis, too close to the car in front, in icy/foggy/wet/crowded road conditions, or down a suburban street at 40mph, whilst on the phone, applying make up, or looking in the glove box, and not seeing the small child that ran out for their ball......................

'Accident' my arse.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> a boulder weighing 1000kg at 20mph will do more damage than a boulder of 1kg at 20mph .
> 
> see what we did there. speed was the same but the mass was different.
> 
> ...



REALLY Well i never....

you changed a variable; mass.

now try again keeping the mass of the object constant.

what causes more damage to an unprotected human being a 500kg car at 10 mph or a 500kg car at 100mph?

_(for objects for the same mass) speed kills_

my last word on the subject before I say something inappropriate


----------



## som3blok3 (7 Feb 2011)

Is this going to turn into a Monty Python sketch?

A swallow carrying a coconut.............


----------



## subaqua (7 Feb 2011)

thats the operative word.
inappropriate. 

a time and a place for things.

IMVHO 30mph is wholly _inappropriate _its far too much in a built up area.

couldn't agree more. but as a blanket statement then no speed kills is a feck off misnomer, but like somebody posted somewhere else Inappropriate speed kills is not quite as snappy.


----------



## Norm (7 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> In order to demonstrate something or other about cars, you asked what damage a 1kg boulder can cause.
> 
> 1kg cars don't exist.
> 
> Hope this helps.


No, but it followed fairly logically from the analogy of the bullet. 

Not many cars weigh a few grams, not many cars travel at 1000mph. But I think that almost everyone (else) understood the point that Greg was making, though, without the need of further explanation.


----------



## turnout (7 Feb 2011)

I understand Greg's point perfectly and agree violently.

My post was addressed to subaqua.

Cars don't weigh a kilo, above 20 mph the chances of serious injury or death increase dramatically, basic physics.

There is no excuse for drivers to treat roads as racetracks, there is no room for complacency with the carnage drivers cause on the roads.

Heard about the Zero Initiative?

The Swedish stated aim with regard to road safety is zero. No deaths. None.

They concede the aim may be unrealistic, but they've achieved spectacular results:


http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/en/Concept/








The Vision Zero approach to road safety is highly effective. Sweden has one of the world’s lowest traffic-related fatality rates - and the statistics clearly show that safety does not compromise mobility. On the contrary, increased mobility actually depends on effective road safety. 


*More traffic, fewer fatalities*
Traffic volume and fatality rates are partly linked to changes in economic growth. But we can clearly see that road deaths have continued to decrease despite a steady rise in traffic. This chart shows the growth in traffic volume (blue) and recorded traffic fatalities (yellow) from 1950 to the present day.


*Huge potential *
There are other positive effects. Fatalities involving unprotected pedestrians in Sweden have fallen by almost 50% in the last five years. The number of children killed in traffic accidents has also been cut. In 2008 the first traffic death involving a child did not occur until 22 October that year. And yet, the untapped potential remains huge. In Sweden, we could cut the death toll by a further 90% if we could eliminate technical system failures, failure to wear seat belts, speeding and drink driving - from 5 deaths per 100,000 to 0.5. This is what the Vision Zero is about: looking forward and creating strategies to take safety to new levels.


----------



## subaqua (8 Feb 2011)

turnout, 

the swedes aim for zero injuries with almost everything. company i work for is swedish and has a safety culture second to none, and it doesn't mean nannying of employees either. Its been discovered its all about education,in the case of road user this could be as simple as educating when use of speed is appropriate, but more importantly when it is most definitley INAPPROPRIATE. 
Any traffic officer will tell you the same, and i consider myself lucky to have been taught to drive by police driving instructor after i passed my test. ( best friends dad, who said he didn't want to attend an RTI where he would see the Fire service washing his sdons friends off the road) Yes that means i will happily barrel along the motorway at 70 when the road conditions dictate it is appropriate. it also means I know what is inappropriate too. as i said earlier IMVHO the limit in built up areas where there are more vulnerable should be lowwer than 30 and outside schools etc should be lower still. I think you will find Clarkson has said this too. I could trail through all of the online stuff from the times website to find the quote but i really cannot be bothered that much 

I would happily welcome the swedish system as it would make it safer for all.


----------



## MacB (8 Feb 2011)

subaqua said:


> Any traffic officer will tell you the same, and i consider myself lucky to have been taught to drive by police driving instructor after i passed my test.



That's the real crux of it, I've yet to see an advocate of the 'it's not speed that's the problem but inappropriate speed' that doesn't also consider that they have superior driving skills. The amount of accidents where speed is a significant factor would indicate that this isn't the case. A persons superior driving skills, judgement and awareness are only superior until they're not. Whether it's over confidence, an off day, someone elses fault or an alien spaceship landing in front of them. 

Now I know that all those muppets are not really good drivers and you're the real deal...but we only have your word and judgement on that and some would rather trust to speed limits than those.


----------



## adscrim (8 Feb 2011)

MacB said:


> That's the real crux of it, I've yet to see an advocate of the 'it's not speed that's the problem but inappropriate speed' that doesn't also consider that they have superior driving skills.




Amen to that. There was a study a while back asking drivers about driving standards (I shall be spending some time on google trying to find it!). From memory, more than 90% of male drivers assessed their own driving standard to be above average and MacB is right, this is the problem. We're asking people who have an inflated view of their own ability to determine what is appropriate for them.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Feb 2011)

young men, speed, two lane A-roads in 'middle England'. Death in the making. And part of that is down to Clarkson. He, as an individual, contributes to the deaths of young men (and their passengers). That's not good. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8401344.stm


----------



## Woz! (8 Feb 2011)

MacB said:


> That's the real crux of it, I've yet to see an advocate of the 'it's not speed that's the problem but inappropriate speed' that doesn't also consider that they have superior driving skills. The amount of accidents where speed is a significant factor would indicate that this isn't the case. A persons superior driving skills, judgement and awareness are only superior until they're not. Whether it's over confidence, an off day, someone elses fault or an alien spaceship landing in front of them.
> 
> Now I know that all those muppets are not really good drivers and you're the real deal...but we only have your word and judgement on that and some would rather trust to speed limits than those.




OK - how's this then: I'm at best an average driver*. 

How does the 'Speed kills' mantra help me in an urban environment when I want to retune my radio? Should I just slow down a bit?
How does it help me when overtaking a cyclist and there's not enough room? Should I do it slower so that I can squeeze past at a safe speed?
I guess it's fine for a cyclist to ride on a busy pavement so long as they go slowly?

It's a pointless, unhelpful bit of 'advice' that's chanted by people who would like a snappy way to attack motorists that can't be applied to cyclists.
The reality is more complex, and once again, I've heard Clarkson (and even the character he plays on his _entertainment show_ Top Gear) say this again and again.



*I believe I'm a good motorcyclist though. I feel much more aware of the road and always think the car drivers are out to get me. 20 (er rather more than 20 now I think of it) years of biking and one single accident. Which happened to happen when a car pulled into me at about 15 miles an hour while I was filtering. He was in the wrong and his insurance paid full costs.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (8 Feb 2011)

> I guess it's fine for a cyclist to ride on a busy pavement so long as they go slowly?



 
Clearly it is against the law. But are you suggesting that if they are travelling at walking speed, it is dangerous?


----------



## mickle (8 Feb 2011)

Woz! said:


> I guess it's fine for a cyclist to ride on a busy pavement so long as they go slowly?



Absolutely. Why not? They do it in Holland and no-one bats an eyelid.


----------



## Jezston (8 Feb 2011)

WheelyGoodFun said:


> [/size]
> Clearly it is against the law. But are you suggesting that if they are travelling at walking speed, it is dangerous?




Whilst technically against the law, home office guidance states police should not take someone to task on it unless they are being a dick.

Personally if I see an adult who doesn't look decrepid riding on the pavement when there's a perfectly good road next to them, I think that's pretty sad, but unless they are doing over jogging pace it doesn't wind me up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the same guidance apply to motor vehicles which occasionally have to cross pavements to enter driveways?


----------



## Woz! (8 Feb 2011)

OK - I'm out. You've ignored all my other points and picked up on a technicality of law.
Have fun.


----------



## theclaud (8 Feb 2011)

Woz! said:


> It's a pointless, unhelpful bit of 'advice' that's chanted by people who would like a snappy way to attack motorists that can't be applied to cyclists.
> The reality is more complex



Yawn. Actually, it _is _a snappy bit of advice with a simple message - slow the f**k down.


----------



## Lurpak (8 Feb 2011)

Why has Private Eye repeatedly mused whether Jeremy Clarkson is as fervant a supporter of super-injunctions as he is free speech? And why has the Daily Mail just run a story about a super-injunction of a high-profile TV person? And how would any possible revelation affect that man's job security? And how would the BBC cope with having to actually think up a more wholesome revenue stream that doesn't blatently advertise product and pander to a FHM readership's hazy understanding of libertarianism - under the guise of light entertainment? Oh, and he's not even a real hammock.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Feb 2011)

Woz! said:


> How does the 'Speed kills' mantra help me in an urban environment when I want to retune my radio? Should I just slow down a bit?


if you look at the BBC interactive map it's clear that drivers are safer in towns than they are out of towns. That is because they go faster out of towns

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8401344.stm Take a look at Devon and Cornwall, Thames Valley and Gloucestershire (I'm looking at the 2008 maps).


----------



## subaqua (8 Feb 2011)

MacB said:


> That's the real crux of it, I've yet to see an advocate of the 'it's not speed that's the problem but inappropriate speed' that doesn't also consider that they have superior driving skills. The amount of accidents where speed is a significant factor would indicate that this isn't the case. A persons superior driving skills, judgement and awareness are only superior until they're not. Whether it's over confidence, an off day, someone elses fault or an alien spaceship landing in front of them.
> 
> Now I know that all those muppets are not really good drivers and you're the real deal...but we only have your word and judgement on that and some would rather trust to speed limits than those.




i never said i was a superb driver.

i would say average maybe. 

being taught how to and being are very different. i do however have the road skills to drive ( and ride for that matter) at a speed commensurate with the conditions/location. safe road use is more than driving safely at speed, i have nowhere near enough practice nor the time to practice that in a safe environment. so i don't. 

i got caught out with over confidence at 18, i ended up upside down in a storm drain on christmas morning. luckily i didn't get hurt. It taught me a very valuable lesson and one i fiollow today is to know exactly where the limits are and keep well below them. 

helped me get all the other licences i hold. 

20 years with no at fault accidents is a fairly good record. getting hit from behind in stationary traffic is not fun in any vehicle

as somebody once said its a limit not a target.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (8 Feb 2011)

Woz! said:


> How does the 'Speed kills' mantra help me in an urban environment when I want to retune my radio? Should I just slow down a bit?
> How does it help me when overtaking a cyclist and there's not enough room? Should I do it slower so that I can squeeze past at a safe speed?
> I guess it's fine for a cyclist to ride on a busy pavement so long as they go slowly?



All these points seem to be a response to a claim that speed is the only factor involved in making driving, or cycling, safe. Unfortunately no-one here is making that claim. 

It remains true that cycling along a busy pavement is safer at walking speed than at 20 mph, if all other things are equal.

I suspect you've realized this, and that's why you've flounced off.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Feb 2011)

for an extremely balanced and delicately phrased exploration of this vexing question go to this link..

http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/foru...a41777849e43127a06ef04098117323&topic=27020.0

*Really Not Work Safe*


----------



## Leaway2 (10 Feb 2011)

potsy said:


> It's a comedy/entertainment programme, anything Clarkson says is purely for comedy value.
> I for one won't be complaining about it, just continuing to enjoy one of my favourite shows
> 
> 
> ...



I'm going to Mexico next month. I suppose the toilet will be cleaned with my tooth brush after his last rant  
(if they get round to it!)


----------



## classic33 (10 Feb 2011)

turnout said:


> How many cars weigh 1kg?




This one. 
Slightly over the 1kg mark at 1.2kg.
http://www.tamiyausa.com/product/item.php?product-id=58176

However, at 30 mph it still had sufficent energy to move a paving slab(22" X 34" X 2") over 10 inches. Slab was laying flat on a rough tarmac surface. A few minor scratches to the paintwork.


----------



## Milzy (31 May 2022)

Thread revival!! Whooooo whooooo whooooo!! I bet you wish it was 2011 again! 🤣


----------



## Ming the Merciless (31 May 2022)




----------



## Fab Foodie (31 May 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> View attachment 647079



Is it a bunch of tits racing round in cars?


----------

