Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jeremy Clarkson = Idiot
- Thread starter swiftaw
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not as expert as some others on these forums when it comes to the subject of politics, but I think that to become Prime Minister you need to be elected into office rather than get a load of people signing an online petition.
I might be wrong, mind.
True, but if it gets enough posts then someone replies to it with an answer which doesn't answer your question at all but makes you feel like being heard
.I remember I read one about the RAF not being allowed to fly at the 2012 Olympics because they're "too British" and the reply was something along the lines of "We never said that they couldn't.. Blame the Tories."
Or something to that effect, anyway.
This whole 'speeding' thing really has been blown out of proportion.
Yes, some deaths have been caused by excessive speeding, but this is only an issue when dangerous driving is also involved.
Germany, for example, has derestricted AutoBahns, where you'll be overtaken even if you're traveling at 140mph, and yet, the number of deaths on UK roads is going up whilst Germany's is going down? While Germany may have a higher number of deaths on it's roads per year than the UK, this is in relation to the number of people actually on the road.
Speed does not kill, it's suddenly stopping that gets you
Maybe one of Jeremy Clarkson's funniest quotes, but there is a certain degree of meaning behind this. A good driver can drive at speed without any issues on a good road. The problem is, people don't know what's a good speed to drive. In and around town, 20 mph is generally a very good speed, sometimes lower, and rarely higher. On A and B roads outside towns/cities, 40 mph seems like a sensible amount, sometimes up to 60 mph.On a well designed motorway however, there should be no need for a speed limit.
The other major problem is, motorways are crowded, poorly designed and as a result, suffering from a higher number of accidents than there really should be.
The government should screw their heads on the right way round and realise that speed cameras are dangerous, and speed ultimately is not a killer, it's their crap roads and lack of which causes issues.
Don't believe me? Linky. Only just found this, but it seems pretty much in line with most of my dad's research...
Er, speed does kill pedestrians, cyclists and other road users alike. Speed cameras are not responsible for extra deaths; that suggestion is just laughable... the roads and motorways are clogged because of the ridiculous car-culture cultivated in this country by successive governments.
Comparing the autobahns to where most road deaths occur in the UK, which are in built-up areas is disingenuous. Giving your average car driver carte-blanche to drive as fast as they like is a recipe for disaster.
Fact: Almost all car-drivers think they're a better driver than they really are.
Comparing the autobahns to where most road deaths occur in the UK, which are in built-up areas is disingenuous. Giving your average car driver carte-blanche to drive as fast as they like is a recipe for disaster.
Fact: Almost all car-drivers think they're a better driver than they really are.
However once the new style of driving test is passed, I'd expect to see a decrease in accidents of new-drivers because of their higher calibre.
I agree. However, there are no pedestrians or cyclists on the motorway
I disagree. If we aren't going to drive cars, then what are we supposed to do? Trains are pretty much jam-packed, and the rail service is already groaning at peak times.
The fact is, cars are the only viable method of transport. Train systems will never work financially, and are very impractical when it comes to traveling. I myself would find a train useless in many respects. Fancy going to London on a train carrying a pair of PA speakers, laptop, mixing desk, microphones, keyboards, drums, guitars and amps?
Yes, definitely, because people don't know what speed to drive.
Deaths in built-up areas happen because the speed limits are wrong in these areas, they should be lower. As I said, 20 mph seems a reasonable speed to drive in and around town, 30 mph at the absolute max.
However, on a well designed motorway, there should be no need for a speed limit.
Agreed. People should know how good/bad they are. Too many young drivers go way too fast, despite their massive lack of experience. My dad can happily cruise along at 130 mph on an Autobahn without any issues at all. He knows what he's doing, never had an accident and knows exactly what to do to prevent them.
However, Kevin in his pimped up Vauxhall Astra will come hurtling round country lane bends at 50 mph, and collide with people such as my mother who nearly had her car written off last year in such an incident.
Speed cameras are generally a bad idea, but there are places where they would work well. However, the government seems more interested in placing them where they're going to catch the most 'speeders', rather than improve safety. Catching more 'speeders' = more money.
Only viable method? This is more of the same Thatcheresque-Clarkson nonsense that's precisely lead us to where we are today, with a public transport infrastructure that's been poorly thought out and underfunded, with a road and car lobby that's had the cream of public funds for the last 40 years or so. We've got to this stage because things have been designed around the car, and by far, the majority of car journeys are short ones with single passengers... not carrying drum kits around.
I've lived in the UK for the last 20 years and have never owned a car here, funny how 'impractical' trains got me all over the UK last year with ease... I even have colleagues preferring to take the train for trips up to Sheffield from London because the tickets are cheaper than filling up the tank with petrol, they can have a drink and chill out on the train, don't have to worry about parking fees etc.
Jeremy Clarkson, with his oft-spoken contempt for other road users apart from car drivers, his denial of climate change, and his infantile penis-substitute obsession with cars and speed is a symptom of the problem, not the solution. The guy is a political throwback, a dinosaur in the 21st century, a middle-class version of Richard Littlejohn, a homophobic and xenophobic clown... and he's not even that funny, just in love with his own publicity and the little boys who worship him.
Anyone who 'jokes' about cyclists being fair game for hit and run motorists is just a sick mind...
L
Lau
Guest
No, speeding is a form of dangerous driving.
Speed does not kill, it's suddenly stopping that gets you
It's not even remotely funny actually, well only if you feel like laughing at the man. This is a perfect example of his absolute ignorance towards most current issues. Speed does kill, I can assure you. I don't even have to get into the science to point out that if you are traveling fast and hit something, it is much less likely to survive than if you were traveling slow.
Again, this is just plain wrong. It has very little to do with being a good driver whether or not you are involved in an accident. That is why they are called 'accidents', and you are much more likely to have one traveling at a faster speed.
This is one thing I agree with you on.
True to a point, yes. The motorways in our country are in need of an upgrade to accommodate more traffic. Either that, or a reduction in the number of cars on the road is required. However, this does not distract from the simple face that a reasonable speed limit is still necessary. The faster someone is driving any vehicle, the less control they have over it.
No, speed in itself is a killer, I can assure you. Just like falling from a great height is likely to kill you compared to if you feel from a shorter height.
To me, safety cameras are necessary. The argument that they cause dangerous driving is just nonsense. This is because if a driver was driving at the speed they should be on a particular road, they would have no reason to brake as soon as they approach a camera. If a driver has to brake because they see a speed camera, it is their fault, and only their fault.
No, cars are not the only viable method of transport. They are ONE viable method of transport. Not everyone travels long distances with that amount of luggage. In fact, as far as I am aware, the majority of people traveling on a daily basis do so to commute to their workplace/college etc, and have minimal luggage.
Now now, there's nothing wrong with a friendly bit of sarcastic xenophobia
Was this sarcasm as well, then?:
And [Britain] is now rapidly being overtaken by foreigners
PC Brigade
Outstanding post, sums up my thoughts entirely.
Speeding not dangerous? Lord above. The number of deaths in our local town is ridiculous. They put up speed cameras in hot spots and guess what? Less accidents where they were placed. They still happen of course but the numbers dropped right down.
My friends brother was smashed into by a car going at 100mph in (I don't drive so I don't know what they're called exactly) one of them "national limits" areas. There's a pub on said road. Poor guy.
And yea. My dad likes Clarkson, thinks he's one of the most entertaining presenters on TV. He's never had a problem obeying the speed limit. What actually is the point in breaking it?
I think he's an entertaining enough presenter within the little niché he's carved out for himself. But when he steps outside of that and tries to paint himself as some sage 'voice of reason'? I think not, somehow.
So if someone drives at 100 mph, it's instantly dangerous, regardless of whether the conditions around the driver? No, that's not the case. Being out of control is dangerous.
When cars first became mainstream, any speed above ~20 mph was prohibited, as it was deemed dangerous to drive 'so fast'. The fact is, it was back then. However, motorways now enable people to drive at much higher speeds with great safety (as the German autobahns have shown).
An accident which isn't down to any of the people involved can only be due to bad road design.
For example, did you know that the highways agency won't replace a dangerous and therefore potentially fatal junction with a roundabout until there is a 'major incident' there? Yep, my dad's been trying to get a roundabout in a particularly dangerous junction here in Bath, and the agency said they would take no action until there was a major incident there to warrant something like a roundabout.
True, but a good/experienced driver will have more control over their car at 100 mph than a bad/inexperienced driver at 60 mph. Not to mention that experienced drivers will be able to judge when would be a good time to drive at high speed, whilst inexperienced drivers seem to think it's a good idea to hurtle around country lanes at 50 mph, which is MASSIVELY more dangerous than traveling at 100mph+ on the motorway.
True, or you could just not fall at all
True, but a lot of the speed limits are wrong, I often think the speed limits in country lanes/around cities/in more pedestrianised areas is too high (massively), but on motorways, it's too low.
True, I'm not saying that all other means of transport should be ruled out, but on a large scale, we are never going to be able to completely rely on public transport. Cars are the only method of transport we can be sure are always going to be up for it as long as the car itself works fine and you yourself are up to driving. Public transport isn't the same. Did you know that the UK is the only country to shut down bus services on new year's day?
Yes, the appropriate speed to drive is obvious, but often the speed limits are wrong, even when it's obvious. Speed signs are a good idea, but sadly they tend to misguide people.
For example, there's a pulling out from the village in which I live (just outside of Bath) which is at the bottom of a valley, with a long relatively steep slope on both sides, and as a result, people were going higher than 60 mph past the turning, making it impossible to pull out (almost completely invisible to drivers). It took quite a bit of battling to get the agency to install a 40 mph limit approaching the village (where there are often people walking around, due to the layout of the village). Even still, it should be a 30 mph limit.
Only when it's appropriate. Speed on motorways (100mph+) is fine, perfectly safe. It doesn't take a genius to work out that 40 mph in an crowded city is stupid, let alone the speeds which would be safe on the motorway.
True, but the chances of them happening on a well designed motorway, which isn't crowded, even at high speed is very low. All cars from the past 15 years will stay under far more control than would be needed if people drove carefully on the motorway at high speeds.
And my father knows perfectly well how to drive safely and prevent accidents. I know very few people who can say they've been driving for 43 and never had an accident. My dad has been crashed into, but only because of careless driving at high speed in a country lane.
They are when the government has a larger budget on speed cameras than they put into preventing crime (which DOES save lives).
You know why they do this? They make more money out of it than they put in
I have never seen a speed camera in a suitable place, where they could actually increase road safety. I see them in lots of places (such as on long dual carriageways which are impossibly safe in comparison to some of the roads in the UK) where they're just going to catch people they know are going faster than the speed limit, even if it's not going to increase safety at all.Blue Velvet said:
I find him quite funny, as do most people I know, and I wouldn't say the people I know are 'the wrong crowd'. It's just that sense of humour you either love or hate. I do think the above comments were a little unnecessary though, he may be a homophobic and xenophobic clown, but that's all part of the entertainment.
Is that what you would say about Bernard Matthews or Jim Davidson? What's so entertaining about listening to someone spouting offensive views? Where's the cleverness in being censured by Ofcom or your own employers, the BBC?
He panders to the lowest-common denominator element amongst those who misguidedly believe they're politically-sound, appealing to the unreconstructed white blokes of all genders who believe that all the gains made by civil libertarians are a sign of the world going downhill.
And of course, his fans will turn around and say 'It's PC gone mad' and make stupid remarks about muesli-eating and sandals a sure sign of someone well out of touch but what we really know, is that it's always straight white males who trot out that old sawhorse, when what they really mean is that the world doesn't belong by rights to them anymore.
Just because people find it amusing doesn't mean they agree? He does all this in a light-humour you realise? He often offends things I stand for/believe in, but it doesn't really bother me...
oh my god, think maybe some of you take your loathing of Jeremy Clarkson a bit toooooo seriously?
Why not address the points and his odious views, well-documented over the last 10 years, instead of casting doubt on other people? But I guess it doesn't matter, because he's funnaaayyy...
