- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Chris Boardman reacts to Top Gear.pngTop Gear on Cycling: Well, what did you expect?
When news emerged that this evening’s edition of the BBC’s hugely popular motoring programme, Top Gear, was due to feature a segment on cycle safety, it seemed too good to be true – and that’s exactly how it turned out, as it resorted to a to a re-hash of old jokes and pantomime prejudice against cyclists.
Aired on the eve of the launch of a major new road safety campaign by the AA aimed at fostering more awareness between people in cars and those on two wheels, Top Gear could have seized an opportunity to highlight that they are often one and the same.
Indeed, just as AA president Edmund King called in November 2012 for an end from what he described as a “Two Tribes” mentality that often sees motorists and cyclists viewed as breeds apart, Top Gear co-host James May told the My Orange Brompton blog last year, “I particularly hate road sectarianism.”
You wouldn’t have known that from last night’s show as May, on his Brompton, embarked on what was laughably described as a fact-finding bike ride through London’s West End, accompanied by Jeremy Clarkson on a hybrid.
The tour was undertaken after a panel of experts reacted with dismay to Clarkson and May’s initial efforts to produce what was billed as a “public information film” to help stop cyclists being injured.
Those experts were British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman, Westminster Council’s commissioner of transportation, Martin Low and Alan Kennedy of Road Safety GB.
Speaking to road.cc last week about Top Gear's pre-filmed cycling segment Chris Boardman told us this:
“Anything to do with Top Gear is playing with fire, which is why people watch it,” he said. “On the flip side, it’s also a chance to reach a wider (motoring) audience and portray ourselves as ‘one of you’ rather than cycling fanatics. Just normal people with a sense of humour, who’d like to see more cycling.
“I’m not in control of the edit but knowing a bit about making telly, I could see how they could cut it to look several different ways!
“We’ll see on Sunday if the gamble has paid off.”
We saw.
Clarkson’s film showed a man leaving the office after working late and driving home to his family. “John works hard,” went the voiceover, “which means he can afford to drive a car. That means he gets home to his family safely every night.”
The strapline, against the image of a bicycle laying on the road with buckled tyres, was “Work Harder. Get a car,” an old Clarkson joke and used often enough to be more or less his catchphrase when it comes to cycling.
May’s showed people from a variety of professions and trades – medicine, the law, workmen in hi-viz jackets – frolicking in a children’s playground.
The message, as a man rode past on a bicycle? “You stopped playing with children’s toys when you grew up. So why ride a bicycle? Act your age. Get a car.”
“You just haven’t got it, have you? Absolutely crazy,” said Low, his comments presumably unscripted. Meanwhile, Boardman winced.
So off trooped May and Clarkson to undertake their fact-finding mission, clad in hi-viz jackets and wearing cycle helmets and sporty eyewear, concluding that drivers were incredibly courteous, even at Hyde Park Corner, with the exception of those in charge of buses. Indeed their close encounters with a number of London buses did look genuinely terrifying - even the presence of a BBC film crew is it seems no protection.
Disingenuously, executing a right turn was highlighted by the pair as the biggest source of danger to cyclists, so instead they followed a route composed entirely of left-turns. No mention of the dangers posed by cars or lorries, no mention of improving infrastructure.
The films they returned with were as excruciating as the originals. Clarkson’s had a cyclist blown up while attempting to defuse a bomb because of his inability to distinguish between red and green.
“Cyclists: red and green – learn the bloody difference.” (Traffic lights, geddit?)
May’s began hopefully – footage of Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream’ speech, giving rise to vain hopes of a share the road message. Instead, via John Lennon and Yoko Ono and Christ on the cross, we were told: “Righteousness is no guarantee of safety.”
It was head in the hands time again for the panellists.
But wait. There was a fifth film. It was better than the others, which isn’t saying much, but it’s message was that more people taking to bikes, while disconcerting for their work colleagues due to their body odour, meant less congestion on the roads – and topped off by a car being driven up a deserted Whitehall.
You might ask, why does this matter? Top Gear is at heart a light entertainment programme, and Clarkson no more than a pantomime villain, not to be taken seriously.
Except, many do. And it’s reasonable to draw a connection between the abuse cyclists suffer daily on the roads is partly due to the impact of shows such as this – abuse, moreover, that the same people do not get when they are in their car, or on foot.
Reaction on social media varied. AA president King said: “Top Gear - cyclist advice interesting. AA to film our own tomorrow,” while Spin LDN said: “Jeremy Clarkson patronising cyclists not funny, cool or even worth screen time..so out of touch, total yawnfest.”
Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign said: “If @BBC_TopGear have to make fun of themselves and tries to turn people against bus drivers, does this mean uk #cycling has come a long way?”
Meanwhile, Wes Streeting, deputy leader of Redbridge Labour Group and the Labour Party's prospective parliamentary candidate for Ilford North at next year's general election, added: “Cracking episode of Top Gear tonight. 'Red and green. Learn the bloody difference'. Brilliant.”
We’d hoped against hope that the show might give its fans some insight about the issues cyclists face while riding city streets, ones that cause danger and lead to people being killed or seriously injured.
Instead, we got a piece that played for and got cheap laughs, and that reinforced old prejudices, the very same ones that May said he loathed.
If you missed it judge for yourself - point making, if provocative public information film or pointless rehash of old jokes and pantomime prejudice that missed a chance to do some good? It's on the BBC iPlayer now.
Still, on the bright side – at least there was no mention of bloody road tax.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- slc 2 sec ago
I have seen long queues on Blackswarth Rd, but they seemed to be dying down towards the end of the last week. I wondered if the queues were...
- hawkinspeter 24 min ago
Quite a few years ago, a friend of mine got into serious trouble running a half-marathon due to dehydration. I don't know how fast he was, but he...
- chrisonabike 33 min 31 sec ago
She did say (in comment) they'd suggested to the council to make this access and emergency vehicles only and the council said no....
- S.E. 17 hours 34 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 17 hours 58 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 17 hours 6 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 18 hours 9 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 19 hours 10 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 19 hours 35 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
Add new comment
133 comments
I thought it was brilliant. Typical TG rabble rousing. What did ANYONE expect??? These guys love to get a ride out of people and apart from the religious, cyclists are probably the next best group to gun for.
The red and green skit was really funny, Christ on a bike excellent.
If you don't get the TG humour, then stay on your bike and don't watch it...
'In fact most surveys suggest motorists do it more often than cyclists.'
reference please?
Here's one from Direct line
http://web.archive.org/web/20111105053141/http://directline.com/about_us...
Look.....it got motorists watching, and would, I assume hold their attention and demonstrate, through the film, rather than the 'comedy' sections, just what riders need to deal with in traffic.
The programme was repetitive after 2 series, cycling just happened to be this weeks theme, it could be 'bloody foreigners' next week.
'I know I'm going to get shot down here but the "Red and Green" comment I totally support.'
This. Idiot cyclists give us a far worse name than Clarkson et al could ever manage.
I see far more idiot car drivers and idiot lorry drivers than idiot cyclists. How bad a name should I use for anyone in a motor vehicle, or would that be unfair?
I suppose it could have been worse based on my low expectations but still cringed at people laughing at mangled bikes given all the killings we've had recently. The fact is there'll be plenty of nobs shouting "work harder" etc at commuters this morning instead of "pay road tax".
I'm a big fan of Boardman but he needs to make a statement today or he risk looking stupid imho
Top gear is a joke. Have they ever treated any subject seriously on that show? The format has been the same for years. The only change is its presenter's ageing. The facial expressions And comments Of boardman and co did nothing to endear cyclists to non cycling motorists.
I'm glad I didn't see it. But I hate Clarkson anyway.
Here is a picture of a cat.
The show did prove one thing (as if it needed proving) - that Clarkson/May are a complete NOBs and that Top Gear is to motoring as the Daily Mail is to journalism.
I've just watched it and felt it was an opportunity missed. Yeah I know some of it was intended to be satire but you just have to look at how many people repost The Onion or Daily Currant satirical stuff as fact to realise that sometimes subtlety doesn't cut it. If more people got satire Snopes.com would have far fewer stories to look into!
No big surprise that Clarkson was keen to point out that every single car driver they came across seemingly behaved themselves and it was the big, bad public transport that caused all the problems. Again sweeping generalisations either on the show or on this site (which is either that all drivers are prospective candidates for sainthood (Top Gear) or that they are all maniacs who set out to purposely kill as many cyclists as possible (some of the contributors on here)) were not challenged and as Top Gear is in a prime position to reach out to many drivers as possible it was a wasted chance- the simple message that not all cyclists are red-light jumping clichés, just as everyone behind the wheel of a vehicle with an engine is not a powderkeg of fury about to be unleashed on cyclists would have done a lot more. And while they probably did intend that message to be got across in what they did I go back to my original point-sometimes subtlety is not enough and can go on to be used to justify prejudices that inspire bad actions. (It was also noticeable that the issue of lorries was totally absent).
I did like the "cyclists need to learn the difference between red and green" and also the Lance poster.
I think only one person has come out of this looking bad. Chris Boardman.
We all know by now what Clarkson will be like, but Boardman sat there, said nothing, is sh*t at acting and got paid for it....He needs a good slap around the face and told to wise the f*ck up.
He wants to be this "leader" of cyclists...not a hope in hell now. I've noticed the tone on twitter was pretty damming of his involvement with this.
All in all, I saw the funny side of it. I liked 2/5 of their informational videos. If you take Top Gear seriously, then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror....
For all we know he may well have made some very good comments, and then had them edited out because it spoiled the 'comedy'?
That's pretty undeserved criticism. You do realise Clarkson has full control of the edit, right?
if Boardman says something and Clarkson doesn't like it, it doesn't go in. If , say, James Blunt mentions he's wildly successful and rides a bike (not the first to do so on TG) and Clarkson doesn't like it, it doesn't go in. So if you have seen it, that means he's okay with it, even if it makes him look bad.
By appearing, Boardman gains a slightly raised media profile, and Clarkson gets an entertaining show and possibly some behind-the-scenes input (the two seem actually pretty closely ideologically aligned based on what they've written). Expecting an entertainment show to do more is foolish.
There's an aspect of cycle advocacy that's very childish at times. Last night a programme openly marketed at petrolheads ended a piece on cycle safety with the messages that you should drive with consideration around cyclists:
What more could you expect?
"There's an aspect of cycle advocacy that's very childish at times. Last night a programme openly marketed at petrolheads ended a piece on cycle safety with the messages that you should drive with consideration around cyclists:
What more could you expect?"
I don't agree. The overwhelming message that came across to me was that cycling was abnormal and dangerous. The very brief comment on giving cyclists more room was a throw-away add-on at the end, not remotely expanded on and easy to miss or ignore.
There also seem to be plenty of people willing to support the way the 'red and green' thing was portrayed. Why is no-one mentioning the cyclists (many of them female) who have been killed by left turning lorries whilst waiting at a red light? Why is no-one discussing the possibility that 'unlawfully' passing a red light might keep you alive?
Because a lot of these that I'm aware of tend to be cyclist technique errors - shouldn't be sat on the inside of a lorry/bus/etc. at the lights and shouldn't be moving up a line of traffic on the inside either.
You can wear normal clothes!
Buses are the enemy!
Sometimes you should cut the red wire!
To be fair they extraced the precise amount of urine required.
Had me in stitches!
Sorry, can't agree with the response here at all.
Yes, they rehashed the same old jokes - as satire. I thought that was pretty obvious. And they ended the segment with what's probably the most important message to their petrol head audience: be considerate, give enough room.
They also included a lot of the things drivers would do well to remember (e.g. more cyclists = fewer cars) cleverly disguised in their jokes.
All in all I was both moderately amused and happy with the outcome - which is totally not what I expected from a show like Top Gear. It's a small step, but a good one IMHO.
Clarkson, Hammond & May are well past their use by date when it comes to comedy value.
The "right turn" danger as shown, was useful to highlight to the public how dangerous it is for cyclists to go right at a junction like that. Maybe they'll keep that in mind next time they see a cyclist do something similar. I did wholeheartedly agree about bus drivers. They are a menace to road users (not limited to cyclists only).
I thought the "Lance Armstong" gag was funny, but that was about it.
It was such an opportunity. And they might, just might have taken it - there was after all a 'race' across London from Richmond to City Airport when Hammond on a Specialized Sirrus beat May in a car, Clarkson in a boat and Stig on the Tube.
I own two cars and four bikes, I love driving, I love cycling, I just wanted it to be funny.
It wasn't.
Come on, did none of you laugh at the Lance Armstrong gag?
I also thought the red/green was funny too.
Lighten up everyone!
Lance Armstrong joke was good
Jesus christ this is predictable. Not the show (well, to a degree, yes the show) but the response.
I'm sorry but you're a bit thick if you can't notice when someone known to play an idiot persona for the sake of a laugh a lot of the time... is playing an idiot persona for the sake of a laugh. Taking what they say literally to make a point makes you look a cnut.
This is Daily Mail quality journalism.
totally agree nuclear coffee
It's not funny when someone nearly kills me then parrots one of Clarkson's lines out of their window. Who cares whether it's a persona or not? Millions of people who drive cars think what he says is serious and adjust their attitudes accordingly.
Stand-up comedians are allowed to push the envelope because they are... stand-up comedians. The same does not apply to presenters. If Clarkson wants to get up behind a mic and do a proper comedy routine then I'll laugh along with the rest. But when he's appearing on a programme that actually affects the attitudes of people who put my life in danger on a daily basis, then he needs to show a bit more care.
No I don't think so. This is cart before the horse thinking. Clarkson didn't invent car culture. People don't like watching nice cars or take an interest in automotive technology because he tells them to. And they don't cut you up because Clarkson is controlling their minds. Millions of people are interested in this stuff. Car mags are the biggest selling media week after week. All Clarkson does is reflect a widespread interest in cars in an un PC humorous way which appeals to the demographic and more widely families so that the programme becomes an entertaining programme and it's about cars as well. The trick is so that you get a wider audience than the hard core car nuts. Which in turn means you can get on prime time telly and in turn that means you can get a bigger budget and have the production values that a allow you to sell the programme to a international market.
People go to the circus and watch a clown making a fool of themselves and laugh. Then they go home. Not many of them decide they want to be the clown themselves no matter how much they enjoyed the performance.
Very well put, i dont even think top gear is really for petrol heads anymore, its a family entertainment programme that occasionally mentions torque and bhp.
Bit of a false dichotomy there though, no?
You don't have to invent a culture to either pander to it and feed it on the one hand or to instead try and resist it. Bernard Manning, say, didn't invent racism either, but that doesn't mean one can't have a view on whether he made a problem better or worse.
In general, Clarkson panders to damaging attitudes for fun and profit (even while he's smart enough to know better). I know it feels futile to rail against it, but I don't see why I have to accept people denying the obvious. He makes a choice - self-interest comes first.
Anyway I can't speak with authority on this particular program as I didn't watch it. It is true though that TG makes a profit for the Beeb (mainly because of the huge dominance of car-culture in the US) so its not exactly 'licence payers money'.
Unfortunate that you used Bernard Manning as an example. He famously said that the only point in telling a joke was that it was funny. His famous Joke that got him banned for being antisemitic was "A member of my family died in Auschwitz - He fell out of the watchtower" was roundly condemned,
Bernard Manning served in Manchester Regiment and during National Service was a guard at Spandau prison. He guarded Hess, Doenitz and Speer. Manning found that a difficult experience because he had a Russian Jewish / Irish Catholic background and later his home in Manchester was called Shalom and sported a large jewish piece of art called Shalom above the door.
He also found being called an anti-semite very funny.
Sometimes people hear what they want to hear.
Pages