Jeremy Clarkson in the Sunday Times

Did anyone see Top Gear last night?

I anticipate some complaints and apologies coming on

Hammand, May and Clarkson spent probably 10 minutes discussing how the government has no interest in the views of the people. They discussed options for dealing with silly decisions from the ministry of transport including putting the transport minister's head in a milling machine and seeing if it was possible to make his head cube shaped, or a mass protest on the motorways. Clarkson wanted to know why it was ok to talk about revolution and milling the transport ministers head, but not ok to talk about killing Peter Mandelson. It was quite comical, but at the same time serious. It is the closest thing I've ever seen to a call for revolution being made on prime time telly.

 

If only there were more calls for revolution. It astounds me that this country led the way in free thinking, liberal government, freedom of speech and the right to protest for centuries yet in a few short years, the perceived threat and paranoia of terrorism has made it increasingly similar to Communist East Germany. What will it take before we have people out on the streets, demonstarting en masse, as we had with the Poll Tax riots? They were only over a change from rates to a tax on how many people lived in your property...a drop in the ocean compared to the loss of freedom we are experiencing now.

As for car drivers being penalised, try being a motorbiker. Brighton police have a campaign at the moment stopping bikers to advise them to wear a hi-vis vest. All well and good, but it also gives them a chance to check out your motorbike, run it through their computer to check for insurance, road tax and check out any of those borderline legal additions you might have (smaller number plate, after market exhaust). That is pure victimisation - you don't see them stopping ever car driver for a similar reason.

We are fast walking into a police state, but it's happening so slowly most people either don't realise, or sadly, dont care. Hear about the BBC photographer stopped and cautioned by the cops in London as a terrorist threat...for taking a picture of St Paul's Cathedral at sunset?

 

:lollol:

 

The government (collectively, not just the current one) has been trying for years to get rid of bikers.

You must be aware of the old loose chippings thing, the warning sign hidden in the long grass at the side of the road right where the chippings start? I wonder how many bikers that claims. I know it claims a few because every time they do it on the main road that runs in front of my land it is never long before a bunch of flowers appears just over the road from my gate. Agricultural vehicles being exempt from road tax, despite dragging lots of fresh mud onto the road. Does anyone clean it up? Nope, why bother? Cars might do a little skid on it, but a bike has less chance of staying the right way up when the tyres loose grip. A couple of years or so ago there was an outrage in the news because bikers were being fined for not having road tax in the winter, despite declaring their bikes SORN. A lot of bikers garage up their pride and joy over winter and so don't pay tax while they are off the road, but loads of them got fined anyway despite doing everything by the book. Mysteriously several thousand SORN declarations seemed to go missing in the post, but only bike ones, cars that were SORN'ed were recorded by the DVLA.

Then there's the latest one. The new bike test apparently has you do a very sharp emergency swerve at speed. Lots of safety groups are complaining that lots of inexperienced (they are doing their tests so they must be inexperienced) bikers are coming off badly during the test. I'm not a biker (as a kid I had an off road bike but that's a different kettle of fish) but my dad was when he was younger, and he tells me that under normal circumstances you would never need to swerve, and if the need did arise you expected to come off anyway. He reckons in situations like that it is not about avoid a collision, it is about minimising the effect of the almost inevitable collision, but they put it in the test now.

 

Yes, I know about the absurd new test and swerving. Biking organisations are trying to get rid of it, but with little success. Every swerve in the real world is different - one may throw you off, another may not. They'd be better off emphasising and drumming into novice riders the importance of observation and forward planning/thinking. Actually, make that ALL road users!

And yes, I also am aware of the 'temporary road surface' councils seem to put down, then forget about. The latest in West Sussex is to save money by resurfacing each side of the road at different times (and here's the good bit) leaving a gap down the middle of the road where the white lines go. Sometimes it's enough to create a sizeable 'trench' which if you drive into in a car (overtaking) can be unsettling. On a bike it's scary and hit one wrong, could also throw you off.

Then there's the pot holes, roads that have been dug up then refilled with a shiny edging which is lethal in the wet and my personal favourite, diesel all over the roads, from idiots who overfill their tanks.

Crazy me, I ride over winter. The exception is ice and snow of course!

 

They've done that right on a roundabout near my dad's. It is scary. If you catch it it pulls the car over. The first time it happened it unsettled me a bit, and I learned to avoid it happening, but last time I went that way I caught it good and proper with a back wheel. The car was literally jolted out of control. It took all my skill and experience to recover it before crashing. My mate (a non driver) went quiet and I had given up trying not to crash and was focusing all my efforts on minimising the severity of the impact that I thought was inevitable. In my mind I knew we were going to ram the curb sideways, my goal was no longer to avoid that, but to avoid going straight over the embankment that was just beyond the pavement. I wasn't even going fast (about 25-30mph max), and this happened in a two tonne Volvo estate. I'd hate to have done it on a bike. As luck would have it I managed to regain control before we hit anything, but I can tell you the adrenaline was going some.

Like I say, if it can snatch a two tonne car so violently, I dread to think what it could do to a bike.

 

my hubby rides a bike, thru winter too. we live in the sticks and i need to have the car once a week or so (docs appointments, shopping etc). luckily when he leaves in the morning (about 5am) the roads are clear, but coming home is another matter, rush hour.
i hate the way bike riders are victimised! they tell us to curb our carbon footprint, so we buy bikes/mopeds which cause less co2, but theyre still not happy! bikes (on the whole) dont cause accidents, its car drivers and like you say, road conditions. why would a biker do anything to risk a crash, when he/she would come worst off?

i've just watched top gear (recorded) and i hope to hear many more jeremy rants like that! since when did we become a people who lay down ready for "authority" to trample us? it's time for that to stop, i say!!

 

Exactly! Within London, the City of Westminster has introduced parking charges for motorbikes, after a huge surge in commuters using two wheels to get into London after the congestion charge was imposed (motorbikes/scooters were exempt). The worry is that other boroughs in London will follow their example...and perhaps other cities. It's been shown time and again that two wheeled vehicles don't cause as much pollution or congestion as a car or van will.

And yes, a motorbike always comes off worse than a car. We don't call the latter, cages, for nothing. You do get the odd stupid biker (usually middle aged men who buy a supersports model and only ride it at the weekends when the sun is shining) who behave like idiots.

 

Unfortunately it is more dangerous to be on a bike than it is to be in a car, as far as which is the better road user well that is a different issue, I have seen some shockers from both types of road users. I am having the same argument with my son at present, that I had with my Mum when I was his age, the issue is he wants a bike, and my answer is over my dead body.

As far as which is the safer road user, well I have seen some shocking stuff from both sets of people. It's illogical to say that a bike user is better by virtue of being the most injured should anything happen, as a bad road user is bad regardless of his mode of travel. Bad bikers are not less likely to cause an accident, they are simply less likely to live through one. Car users are safer on the road, which isn't to say they are the safer drivers by a long shot.



There are inherent advantages and disadvantages to both types of travel. None of which have any bearing on the quality of road use.

As a car user I have no opinion on the various ways in which bikers are discriminated against, I can only say, it isn't all that rosy for me either. Bad driving in general, and poor road conditions are the problem, you don't have to cause an accident to be in one unfortunately.

 

There are mentalist bikers. My brother-in-law had his car totalled when a biker coming the other way chose the wrong moment to overtake and hit my brother-in-law's car head on. Fortunatel, and quite miraculously, nobody was badly hurt. The biker was thrown clear and landed in a hedge, my brother-in-law was mainly shaken up and had sprained both wrists with the impact jolting the steering wheel at him. Also, when I go up home I drink in a biker's haunt, and they are always mocking each other for being the last to arrive at their destination when they've been out for a ride.

However, there are also mentalist car drivers. I hear people boasting about their 0-60 and bhp figures, and regularly find myself annoyed when they fly down out street (a street where a lot of kids play out) at what I would judge to be 60+ when it is a narrow 20mph speed limit road.

In the biker's haunt I drink in, some of the bikers, particularly the 'proper' ones (big beards and black leathers and huge muscles from years of lifting engines in and out of their bikes) prefer more ploddy type bikes. The low slung Harleys and vintage Triumphs and the likes. They talk of riding out for the leisure of the ride rather than the adrenaline rush.

I think the reason why bikers are still persecuted even these days stems from American propoganda. I watched a documentary about it a while ago, apparently in the 60s, the Hells Angels (or was it Satan's Slaves - I get mixed up between the two) had a big scrap, and ever since then the reputation has stuck. Of course it probably doesn't help that there are bike clubs called The Hells Angels, and Satan's Slaves, but its just a cool name, I can't see how anyone would believe that they are actually demons.

I mentioned I like to drink in a biker's haunt when I go up home. The main reason for this is that I can't be pestered with trouble. The pub (The Station it is called) has a terrible reputation among the non-biking members of society. That's good, it means most of them daren't come in There is never any bother in there, but you go into town to the 'safer', 'less rough' pubs and bars, and there is always some drunken chav who has had one sniff of the barmaid's/barman's apron and suddenly thinks he can fight the world, or some girl that saw her boyfriend walk too closely past another girl, and suddenly you have eyes being scratched out and hair being pulled. So for me, the choice is simple. Irritating drunken youths, or hairy bikers who sup proper beer and have a harmless bit of banter.

Ok, I seem to have digressed slightly. I think people persecute bikers because they fear them, but they are just people. They have a passion for bikes, just like some have a passion for cars, and others have a passion for gardening, or football, or travel.

 

Actually, I think bikers are persecuted by authorities because they can. We're an easy target, easy to spot and a small minority give the rest of us a bad name. There is a problem when a bunch of petrol head sportsbike riders go out because the adrenalin takes over and once the first rider does an overtake, the others feel they have to follow. But you get that 'pack mentality' in every walk of life.

Never been to a bikers pub as such, but when we've been out for a ride we usually just have a cuppa and a bacon sandwich. Another reason why bikers have 'weight issues', all that biker cafe food!

Claire, if your son wants to learn to ride, let him take it slowly - a 125cc first, building up to larger bikers as he gets older. Otherwise he may be tempted to jump on a much larger and more powerful model when he can afford to, which IS dangerous! Then again, the insurance will be crippling at his age!

 

And tell him it IS possible to wheelie or even flip a 125, so there's no need for him to try it to find out for himself

 

"huge muscles from years of lifting engines in and out of their bikes",

Have to chuckle at this one, because at the risk of showing my age I have to say all the young virile men from my youth tempting me onto the back of their bikes back in the day seem to have very relaxed muscles now, course I ain't a size 8 anymore either lol.

If my lad gets a job and buys his own bike and pays for it himself he can have one, I will even pay for his lessons, but don't tell him that. He is his mother's son, he went watching Five finger death punch recently, so he is determined to get a bike at all costs lol. I don't know, it's not Guns n Roses and Sepultura anymore...........I think I am past it lol.

 

You could of course learn to ride a motorbike with him.