- 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
Brian and Debbie DorlingTop Gear: Cyclist’s widow tells Jeremy Clarkson: 'Look me in the eye'
Debbie Dorling, whose husband Brian was killed by a lorry at Bow Roundabout in London while riding his bike to work in October 2011, has challenged Jeremy Clarkson and James May to look her in the eye over their piece about cycle safety in Sunday evening’s edition of the BBC TV show, Top Gear.
Mrs Dorling told road.cc that the programme “totally missed the point of cycle safety”, and that she found one sequence particularly “distressing”, when vegetables were dropped from height onto a hard floor, with a bike following.
“What’s it meant to be?” asked May. “It’s a cyclist after an accident,” explained Clarkson.
The episode of the show, which is watched by millions of viewers in the UK and around the world, saw Clarkson and May present a series of cycle safety videos to a panel of experts including former world and Olympic champion Chris Boardman, now policy advisor at British Cycling.
It quickly became apparent that there was no intention of addressing the subject seriously, as the segment descended into a litany of well-worn stereotypes about cyclists being red light jumpers who can’t afford a car.
Serious issues were barely touched upon, and the danger posed by lorries — which make up 4 per cent of London's traffic, but are involved in more than half of cyclist fatalities — not mentioned at all.
In the comments to our article and on our Facebook page, many pointed out that as a light entertainment show, no-one should have expected anything different. People were told to lighten up and enjoy the jokes.
But others wondered how you might feel if someone who had lost a loved one while cycling were watching the programme, and saw the subject being treated with such triviality.
As it happened, Mrs Dorling was watching it with her daughter. She told us: “I have a sense of humour, so does my daughter. We were laughing then the laughing stopped because it went too far.”
Mrs Dorling, posting as Brians Wife, made a comment to our article on the programme, in which she said:
I sat and watched TG with my daughter as it is one of our favourite programmes. However after the initial laughter at the cycling piece we were both shocked and sickened by the content. Sorry guys, this was not good TV for a family whose cyclist husband and father was killed by a lorry. This missed so many opportunities and I am quite saddened by what went on air, had I realised I would not have watched.
Her husband Brian, an experienced cyclist who rode around 200 miles a week, was killed at Bow Roundabout in October 2011 on his way from his home in Hounslow to work as a surveyor at the Olympic Park.
Since then, the family has had to endure not only their grief at his loss, but also a criminal court case in which the driver of the lorry involved was sentenced to 24 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for a year.
They also sat through an inquest in which the coroner was highly critical of the Cycle Superhighway Mr Dorling was riding on, which she said gave cyclists “a false sense of security”.
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
- HLaB 3 sec ago
I think they might have. I was half asleep when I scrolled through my phone last night and came across the video of the two cyclist at the...
- Gkam84 54 min 20 sec ago
I'd love to list them, but due to the ongoing processes, I cannot make them public. I'm just trying to highlight there is more than one. Publicly...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 17 min ago
Pathetic. They should have create a sub-committee to advise on the desirability and feasibility of undertaking a study......
- andyk 1 hour 20 min ago
I like the shape of the frame, a modern look but with classic lines of a traditional bike....
- chrisonabike 1 hour 22 min ago
Of course this kind of stuff is entirely to be expected from humans where mass motoring exists. The con is we don't factor this in sufficiently...
- S.E. 1 hour 44 min ago
Even online-shops offer very limited discounts... I waited for this week to get a 10-25% but nothing on the articles I need....
- levestane 2 hours 17 min ago
What we need is a hanger that can be bent back.
- Bungle_52 3 hours 8 min ago
Gloucestershire have told me the outcomes to nearly all my reports. I have to wait 12 months to find out now whereas I got them immediately before...
- Andrewbanshee 3 hours 28 min ago
In my experience drivist use the pavement as a continuation of their drive and pull out across it at speed without the cursory glance, and often...
- PRSboy 3 hours 34 min ago
Interesting review, particularly their good behaviour in crosswinds... @Stu Kerton, have you tested the carbon-spoked Elan version yet? I'm...
Add new comment
66 comments
I cannot understand how the BBC deserves the TV licence fee.
They can do what they like, knowing their revenue is protected, and that they will always have enough to pay ridiculously high salaries to JC and the scum like him.
He has offended many times, and surely the question must be asked - "When is enough enough ?".
I think a campaign to abolish the TV license fee would not be out-of-place. It would make the gravy-train quasi civil servants reflect on what they allow to come out.
PS How DO you spell licence, or license ?
JC is annoying but makes profit for the beeb (I'd rather he didn't and they had nothing to do with him, but your argument that he costs us cash is flawed). The beeb plays a role in offsetting the Fox News tone of some other private tv coverage, it is said. Unless you are quite far right of centre, you should be wary of rightwing attempts to diminish it.
Re licence / license, you can remember it by thinking of advice / advise. Or try replacing the licence/license with "card". If card fits, go with "licence" and you'll mostly be right.
guyz2010. Clarkson is just an oaf. Period.
When I am annoyed by BBC TV, I complain to them. It's very easy to do it online. Only takes 2 minutes. I get a reply from them defending themselves, but at least I've registered my opinion with them.
I complained several weeks ago. You know the sort of TV where the presenter is driving somewhere and he or she is constantly taking their eyes off the road to talk to the camera they have installed on the passenger seat.
I also complained about this Top Gear episode.
It was desperately unfunny and wholly insensitive. Time and time again the tiresome trio knowingly tease and mock anyone not using a car hiding behind the 'it's just a joke' excuse. It's quite obvious that a percentage of motorists believe in the guff they spout and this latest piece simply reinforces dangerous attitudes.
The vegetable references are not a mistake, the entire TG production crew should go visit brain injured patients and stand there making their jokes. They wouldn't have the audacity and disrespect but somehow on an isolated TV show its just fine.
Quite how this show continually escapes authoritative intervention defies me. The work harder reference is horrendous, does this also apply when I drive my car and pass someone in a cheaper one? Can I hurl abuse and adopt some kind of moral superiority over them or is that different because cars are involved?
If was nothing but another dig at a vulnerable group of people designed purely to take the p$$$ out of us all and mock serious injury and death. Clarkson is a callous self serving cretin who should be forced to break the news to a devastated family that one of his dim petrol head disciples has just stolen a life. See how funny it really is.
Did I even reply to the right post?
I think people are crediting Top Gear with too much influence and power here. Those who have bad attitudes towards cyclists will have them regardless of what Clarkson says.
Just in the same way that people who dislike Clarkson will dislike him regardless of what he says.
And in fact, if you look back at the episode, he was advocating cycle safety - in his own, crap, missing-most-of-the-point way! so 'poisoning the debate' is far fetched. He just didn't say what you wanted him to say, that's all!
Oh and a tip: if you get the 'work harder' line, or similar, from some yoof in a hot hatch, a good reply could be 'my bike's worth more than your car you ******* chav!'* **
*I'm not actually advocating this as it may contribute to conflict between road users, it was an attempt at comedy.
**But it has worked for me and does give some satisfaction in the face or moronic abuse!
No need to qualify it- haven't you been paying attention? You can say anything you like, as long as you then claim you were just being ironic, or that it was a 'piece of satire'. That means that if anyone has a problem with what you said it's because they're thick, or a boring fun sponge or something.
Actually the "work harder" line is very much of a piece with the (I'm pretty sure apocryphal) comment attributed to Thatcher that "anyone who rides the bus after the age of 30 has failed in life" (sometimes given in the even more un-Thatcher-like form of "only losers take the bus").
Its an unpleasant remark on many levels, regardless of the cost of one's bike.
Plus I'd say the real tagline is "be more selfish and irresponsible - drive a car". (Though, then, not being a professional troll, I'd have to acknowledge that for many people driving a car doesn't feel like a choice, and its a collective organisational problem much more than an individual one).
Also, its absurd to say those who dislike Clarkson would do so whatever he said. Its what he says that makes me dislike him! What he says is his defining characteristic - he's a presenter and a columnist. Its not his hairstyle that determines my opinion of him! (Though I do hate his hair as well). If he said different things I'd have a different attitude to him.
And finally, its silly to think that just because a general attitude already exists that a high profile person perpetuating and encouraging it is of no consequence. Where else do such attitudes come from?
I really wonder if a lot of people who aren't real petrolhead types don't minimise or excuse Clarkson and try desperately to interpret him positively ("its irony") because getting angry just feels undignified or makes one uncomfortably aware how little power one has over these things.
It is easy to understand that, taken literally, the scene in question would understandably disgust and hurt those who grieve for a loved one killed by a lorry driver. (It wasn't the lorry). However, the piece was ironic. I don't understand how many cannot seem to grasp this. They play the fool. The piece satirised those who hold the views portrayed by Clarkson et al. Conclusion; if you hold those views, then you are a fool.
The scene highlighted in the article then becomes an inditement on the trivialising of these killings by the CPS, the legal system, the impotent law, and the politicians. The purpose of these institutions is to protect the vulnerable. They become abhorrent to other vulnerable road users in their failure.
The closing vignette qualified this. The tone was positive; implying that the motor user bore the burden of responsibility and should be thankful for one less car on the road.
My television has an off switch, I believe many others do too, if you are offended by something anyone can use this handy facility to stop being offended!
Super daft comment, really. If you switch it off after you've been offended, you've already been offended. Switch it off before ... what, are you bloody precognitive?
Why do people recycle this ridiculous notion?
So - to fly perilously close to Godwin's law - if the Jews had objected to the Nuremberg rallies they should have just turned the radio off and it would have been fine?
If you're going to criticise something, it helps to know what you're criticising, right?
This isn't about causing offence. Personally, I am a huge fan of offending people, in constructive manners.
This is about reinforcing prejudices, about propagating a false dichotomy, about making political discussions more difficult, and about feeding a media mill with grist that turns all of those things into vicious circles.
This is about goading an audience to cheer at images that reflect real deaths that occur every three days as a direct result of the use of vehicles that the audience is there to celebrate.
It's not high art. It's not thought-provoking wit. It's not constructive offence. It's playing to bigotry and - albeit hardly on anything like the scale of the above analogy - hampering the progression of people's basic right not to get killed.
It's TG what do you expect? Clarkson and his stooges are arses.
Anyone can die of a heart-attack. Its not a form of death that uniquely affects a minority and that is in very often down to the behaviour of members of a majority. A comic joking about heart attacks is doing so knowing full well they might themselves go that way.
This is more akin to, say, a scandal about poor care in an NHS hospital resulting in many unnecessary deaths...and then a senior NHS doctor makes a public joke about those deaths. Callous barely covers it.
No - that's an overreaction and a poor comparison, IMO - how is Clarkson responsible for road safety, or the injury and death of people on the roads, in the same way that a senior NHS Manager is responsible for poor care in his hospital?
Or is he to blame because he's one of those nasty evil car drivers?!
I think those bereaved may have a point about being offended about the portrayal in the section about dead cyclists as fruit and veg (it was insensitive but attempting to be funny and failing), but the subject of this piece is more about the missed opportunity to promote safety - a shame, but nothing more, IMO.
I thought the piece was poor, unfunny and a missed opportunity. But this is an entertainment show and people over-reacting like this and being offended on others' behalf is depressing. And if taken to it's extreme conclusion, could result in excessive censorship - and people being scared to attempt any kind of comedy on TV. This is the kind of reaction that Clarkson thrives on, BTW - surely people know this?
What if it's inherently on behalf of people who are dead and cannot thus be offended themselves?
But, as I say, it's not about being offended. It's about poisoning a debate. I'm against Page 3 and I'd support campaigns against it, but I'm not a woman. Does that make my view "depressing"?.
I'm not "offended" by Page 3: I'm just bothered that it promotes a social attitude that is detrimental to women, and I'll gladly say so.
And I'm not "offended" by the Top Gear piece: I'm just bothered that it promotes a social attitude that is detrimental to people who ride bicycles, and I'll gladly say so.
He's a lot more than being just 'one of those car drivers'. In case you hadn't noticed he appears on TV and in the papers quite a lot, generally in a context directly related to driving and driving culture.
You also seem to have changed my analogy even as you objected to it. I said nothing about being a doctor with direct power over the hypothetical hospital involved. Just being part of that wider peer group would be enough to make such a joke deplorable.
I get weary of people insisting nobody is allowed to express disgust over bullying and poor morals.
We have freedom of speech do we not? Is it OK for people to point out they find many of Clarkson's attitudes and statements to be loathesome and irresponsible? Or should that be banned in your view?
Clarkson a humourous oaf!
Problem is its gotta be so difficult to say anything in public without potentially offending someone about something they may find offensive.
I've changed my mind!initially I thought what's the fuss? It's meant to be funny and did make a valid point that a bike on the road is one less car. On reflection however the veg piece was a step too far given the cycling deaths all over the UK, not just London.
There is life north of Watford.......
they should expect this response after coming out with such a disgusting piece of television. I was appalled by it personally. The BBC should be held accountable.
Completely forgot about this TG cycle piece but caught a clip as I was changing a DVD over. Realised it was going to wind me up and quickly went back to the boxset.
JC can come and speak to me about the idiot who nearly squeezed me into a line of parked cars last night and, when I protested, got in front of me and rammed his brakes on. Only just stopped in time and his excuse was, "there were cars coming the other way"! Had to make some detours from my normal route as I reckoned he was looking to park up and have another go at me.
Not surprised at all about the feature. Disappointed though, as it was an opportunity to do some good, talk about everyone as road users and admit that cyclists also drive.
That Clarkson's wealth pyramid is based on a show we pay for makes it even more frustrating.
That a small groups of morons have just had all their prejudices re-enforced is the main problem whether you found the piece funny or not. It's not enough to shrug and say 'get a sense of humour'. Top Gear needs to get a sense of perspective and look at the whole picture rather than playing stereotypes for laughs.
Clarkson and Co are just paradies of themselves. Top Gear lacks its original sparkle and appeal and is on its way out. What was fun to begin with is now exceedingly tedious. They are one excoriating comedy parady away from them being consigned to the scrap heap of uncool.
They'll be able to hold pictures of themselves up and plant them at the end of their ratings board. Don't stress yourselves
It was boring. Must've been worse for the bootcut car fans with no bike interest.
Actually, one interesting thing in the show was the safety avoidance thing in the Golf GTI, mentioned but not discussed.
I think Stuart Lee said it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7CnMQ4L9Pc
"I hate Jeremy Clarkson more than anybody who has ever lived, including fictional characters"
Says it all really. Thanks Albert. Richard Hammond though but the 'It's only a joke!!' Is just perfect.
I watched this on Sunday and was wondering: "Is Top Gear taking the piss out of itself, or is it taking the piss out of cyclists?"
I genuinely don't know. Which either makes it high-art or utter shite...
Either way, making jokes about people being killed is not really funny, and I'm not surprised it upset people such as Mrs Dorling. She has every right to be offended.
I had hoped - silly of me in hindsight - that at the end of the sketch when they got on the wrong side of the buses that they actually might push a serious point. More chance of Kim Jong-un holding an open day in North Korea.
I have much sympathy for the lady in the article, however......... I am sure there have been many motorists who have been killed while Top Gear is doing a piece where they laugh at a car. Wouldn't it be a very sad thing if TV was to become a laugh free zone, because nothing funny for the majority of people was made.
Pages