"Antisocial [rude word removed]"

[Pedalling Pete]

I can recommend George Monbiot's article in the Guardian (page 25 of Tuesday December 20th): It puts Clarkson in his place, together with the rest of the "anti-anything that gets in my way" brigade, including references to Thatcher, and the present Government's transport policies.

[Pedalling Pete]

You can hopefully read the article at:

www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1671053,00.html

[zeb]

Reminds me of the link people published to Clarkesons article. This website is turning into the BBC where we must have rubbish from both sides published for fairness.

[gar]

The article by Monbiot is good and draws the proper conclusion from an article which is merely an attempt to be witty by Jerkson.

The one I like is the legacy of Thatcher which is that the Mway system has merely destroyed
the agricultural industry, impoverished farmers who have lived on their development gains, and provided second homes at fancy prices for most of the middle classes every where from LE
to Jog.

Meanwhile All those people could have cycled to their new homes given the huge increase in efficiency in the push bike since 1980.
and been thoroghly healthy and no burden on the NHS.

As it is they want CARS and motorway systems in China.... for Pekinger holiday homes in Lhasa,Tibet!

We used to be among friends in China once we crossed the border, but where is the cyclist now? All they want to do is look at new cars,
not bicycles at all.

[gar]

I'll put that bit by clarkson on the BBc message board and see what they say when I tell them he should be had up.

[mel]

The absolute maximum speed limit in this country is 70 mph, so why are the motor vehicle trade allowed to market cars which are in some cases capable of three times that speed? My first car was a Ford 8 and it would do 45 mph flat out but it got me everywhere I wanted to go. Today even the average family saloon can do over 100 mph. 50 cc mopeds and some passenger vehicles are fitted with speed restrictors, why not fit restrictors to all vehicles, I suggest maximum 50 mph? The big question is, does anyone buy a car, or motorcycle, capable of 200 mph just to tootle along?

[jb]

Quite a good article.

Can’t see a Sun reader struggling through that though.

Until they get someone as witty & in touch with his audience as Clarckson his example will always lead the unthinking masses.

[gar]

If I did not know jb's correspondence I might not know that he is being witty. Is wit recognisable by voice inflection and not so much by the written word in this instance?

[jb]

He is witty and in touch to those he preaches to, you can't say he has not done well for himself.
It's just that he does not care who he drives over to get there.

[Andy]

I appreciate and fully understand that Mr Clarkson's rocked a few boats, but really guys.... Moaning and groaning about Clarkson's not going to solve ANY of the issues that us Cyclists have to deal with... The more that he's talked about, the more it'll provoke... and I'll bet you'll all be arguing about that now!!!!

[gar]

jb is clearly making a very careful analysis of
Clarkson's personality, including the roads littered with dead cyclists at red traffic lights.

[Andy Tallis]

A great encouragement to read that article.
I once saw another article in the times on how unfair car culture is - the majority of risks entailed in motoring are borne by those who do not reap the benefits (cyclists and pedestrians.)
I agree that modern cars are generally too fast. Speed restrictors would probably arouse some complaints about civil liberties though so how about this: Classify cars into power ratings and give the highere classes tougher licensing restrictions. E.g. to drive a high power vehicle you must have a clean licence and maybe even an advanced driver certificite. It is rediculous that after passing my test, never having driven anything more than a 1.2 corsa, I was legally allowed to take a ferrari out on the motorway the next day.
As for the speeding thing, I always feel pleased when I hear someone complain about how they were caught by a speed camera because they didn't see it in time to slow down. The speed limit is the law. There are therefore only 3 possible reasons to disobey it:
-Not realising the limit or not realising how fast you were going (I can find both difficult but ultimately it is the responsibility of every driver and if you fail in this enough to get caught then you're messing up.)
-Being forced into a situation where you have to (e.g. you have to change lanes on a 30mph dual carriageway where everyone does 40) but this is rare, especially underneath a camera.
-Wilful disobedience of the law showing a disregard for the sasfety of others.

Besides, I doubt that vehicle exise license fees, speeding fines and even petrol duty really account for the full costs to this country of cars. £11.4bn the article said. And we aren't considering how every mile driven diorectly detriments the health of other individuals via atmospheric pollution.

Cars are necessary but they are not a superior force, nor a symbol of success.

[gar]

GSO tracking on a per mile basis for every car will be here before long and then there will be no argument about who may use the roads...those who pay pro rata.

Even if a cyclist payed pro rata cf the car it would be how much? Take a weight comparison penny for penny. What does a car weigh compared with a bike? 30x? 1/30p for a cyclist to use a road per mile and 1p for a car driver.

[Andy Tallis]

Excellent - £5 and I'm paid up for 15000m. Where do I pay? Does a car only weigh 30x what a bicycle does though? That would be 450kg for a 15kg bicycle.

[Elucasr]

Andy, I think that should be more like 60x to be realistic, and should the large 4x4's be 2x the normal car?