|
Jeremy Clarkson view of motorcyles
Just came accross this... FAF and worth reading to the end :rofl:
From Jeremy Clarkson.... Recently, various newspapers ran a photograph of me on a small motorcycle. They all pointed out that I hate motorbikes and that by riding one I had exposed myself as a hypocrite who should commit suicide immediately. Hmmm. Had I been photographed riding the local postmistress, then, yes, I'd have been shamed into making some kind of apology. But it was a motorcycle. And I don't think it even remotely peculiar that a motoring journalist should ride such a thing. Not when there is a problem with the economy and many people are wondering if they should make a switch from four wheels to two. Unfortunately, you cannot make this switch on a whim, because this is Britain and there are rules. Which means that before climbing on board you must go to a car park, put on a high-visibility jacket and spend the morning driving round some cones while a man called Dave - all motorcycle instructors are called Dave - explains which lever does what. Afterwards, you will be taken on the road, where you will drive about for several hours in a state of abject fear and misery, and then you will go home and vow never to get on a motorcycle ever again. This is called compulsory basic training and it allows you to ride any bike up to 125cc. If you want to ride something bigger, you must take a proper test. But, of course, being human, you will not want a bigger bike, because then you will be killed immediately while wearing clothing from the Ann Summers "Dungeon" range. Right, first things first. The motorbike is not like a car. It will not stand up when left to its own devices. So, when you are not riding it, it must be leant against a wall or a fence. I'm told some bikes come with footstools which can be lowered to keep them upright. But then you have to lift the bike onto this footstool, and that's like trying to lift up an American. Next: the controls. Unlike with a car, there seems to be no standardisation in the world of motorcycling. Some have gearlevers on the steering wheel. Some have them on the floor, which means you have to shift with your feet - how stupid is that? - and some are automatic. Then we get to the brakes. Because bikes are designed by bikers - and bikers, as we all know, are extremely dim - they haven't worked out how the front and back brake can be applied at the same time. So, to stop the front wheel, you pull a lever on the steering wheel, and to stop the one at the back, you press on a lever with one of your feet. A word of warning, though. If you use only the front brake, you will fly over the steering wheel and be killed. If you try to use the back one, you will use the wrong foot and change into third gear instead of stopping. So you'll hit the obstacle you were trying to avoid, and you'll be killed. Then there is the steering. The steering wheel comes in the shape of what can only be described as handlebars, but if you turn them - even slightly - while riding along, you will fall off and be killed. What you have to do is lean into the corner, fix your gaze on the course you wish to follow, and then you will fall off and be killed. As far as the minor controls are concerned, well . . . you get a horn and lights and indicators, all of which are operated by various switches and buttons on the steering wheel, but if you look down to see which one does what, a truck will hit you and you will be killed. Oh, and for some extraordinary reason, the indicators do not self-cancel, which means you will drive with one of them on permanently, which will lead following traffic to think you are turning right. It will then undertake just as you turn left, and you will be killed. What I'm trying to say here is that, yes, bikes and cars are both forms of transport, but they have nothing in common. Imagining that you can ride a bike because you can drive a car is like imagining you can swallow-dive off a 90ft cliff because you can play table tennis. However, many people are making the switch because they imagine that having a small motorcycle will be cheap. It isn't. Sure, the 125cc Vespa I tried can be bought for £3,499, but then you will need a helmet (£300), a jacket (£500), some Freddie Mercury trousers (£100), shoes (£130), a pair of Kevlar gloves (£90), a coffin (£1,000), a headstone (£750), a cremation (£380) and flowers in the church (£200). In other words, your small 125cc motorcycle, which has no boot, no electric windows, no stereo and no bloody heater even, will end up costing more than a Volkswagen Golf. That said, a bike is much cheaper to run than a car. In fact, it takes only half a litre of fuel to get from your house to the scene of your first fatal accident. Which means that the lifetime cost of running your new bike is just 50p. So, once you have decided that you would like a bike, the next problem is choosing which one. And the simple answer is that, whatever you select, you will be a laughing stock. Motorbiking has always been a hobby rather than an alternative to proper transport, and as with all hobbies, the people who partake are extremely knowledgeable. It often amazes me that in their short lives bikers manage to learn as much about biking as people who angle, or those who watch trains pull into railway stations. Whatever. Because they are so knowledgeable, they will know precisely why the bike you select is rubbish and why theirs is superb. Mostly, this has something to do with "getting your knee down", which is a practice undertaken by bikers moments before the crash that ends their life. You, of course, being normal, will not be interested in getting your knee down; only in getting to work and most of the way home again before you die. That's why I chose to test the Vespa, which is much loathed by trainspotting bikers because they say it is a scooter. This is racism. Picking on a machine because it has no crossbar is like picking on a person because he has slitty eyes or brown skin. Frankly, I liked the idea of a bike that has no crossbar, because you can simply walk up to the seat and sit down. Useful if you are Scottish and go about your daily business in a skirt. I also liked the idea of a Vespa because most bikes are Japanese. This means they are extremely reliable so you cannot avoid a fatal crash by simply breaking down. This is entirely possible on a Vespa because it is made in Italy. Mind you, there are some drawbacks you might like to consider. The Vespa is not driven by a chain. Instead, the engine is mounted to the side of the rear wheel for reasons that are lost in the mists of time and unimportant anyway. However, it means the bike is wider and fitted with bodywork like a car, to shroud the moving hot bits. That makes it extremely heavy. Trying to pick it up after you've fallen off it is impossible. What's more, because the heavy engine is on the right, the bike likes turning right much more than it likes turning left. This means that in all left-handed bends, you will be killed. Unless you've been blown off by the sheer speed of the thing. At one point I hit 40mph and it was as though my chest was being battered by a freezing-cold hurricane. It was all I could do to keep a grip on the steering wheel with my frostbitten fingers. I therefore hated my experience of motorcycling and would not recommend it to anyone. The Clarksometer If you like misery, climb aboard |
:rofl::funmeteryes:
|
I hardly ever find anything funny following a description of "Must read. Really funny." However, this one was really funny, and a must read.
|
Classic Clarkson!!:clap:
|
Quote:
|
my wife an Clarkson are normally complete opposites in EVERYTHING!
My wife is still cute after 40, Jeremy has lost his boyish looks..... My by wife is female, Jeremy is far too hairy to be one despite his behavior around bikes.... My wife has lovely brown colour to her skin, Jeremy is pastey coloured. (maybe he's been driving a bike again?) my wife at less than 5 foot makes a good pillion......... But both think death lies round EVERY corner when you ride off using 2 wheels instead of 4 wheels doh. Still I can't have everything now can I? |
Well actually you have to consider all his points carefully because they're correct. What he doesn't mention is the absolute phenomenal feeling of freedom you get when you ride:clap:
|
Jeremy Clarkson feared deaths in Argentina number plate row | Television & radio | theguardian.com
No doubt another "accident" from Clarkson, just like all the other racist, chauvinist toss he accidentally "mispeaks". I just came from Argentina and will return for the TDF, Argentina - a country with great hospitality and one I loved traveling overland. Well, the story above is just great isn't it! Clarkson and his chums really are very far from the sort of people and mentality you want representing Britain. :ban: |
Quote:
Also it appears on first checks carried out on the cars and the reg numbers appear to be genuine to the cars - (even if they were not does it really matter so much) - the Argentinians did invade the Falklands an island under sovereign protection and that was whilst their own country was under the control of a raging despot dictator clinging to anything for power including wasting many lives on both sides of the war on an unjust campaign). As for top gear its a tv show with a degree of cheek. In anycase any anagram association the Argentinians have put to this is of little or no consequence. No doubt you object to John Cleese and the faulty towers - Germans sketch - which if anything was far more politically insensitive - but was taken for what it was Humour - along with many but also guess who - the Germans. The British have always tried to maintain a sense of humour and been able to laugh at ourselves as well as others, unfortunately this is becoming harder with the politically correction and racist police shouting the loudest at the slightest thing that might offend someone , anyone. Clarkson although not to everyone taste has tried to keep some degree of non politically correct options open in his writing and journalism. yes its laddish but so what. Somehow his TV programs have an almost world wide following except in certain countries where a sense of humour is lacking and the political police have ruled out everything else. In 1949 George Orwell wrote a book 1984 which depicted a rather totalitarian view of the world, unfortunately to a large extent this country has slid down that road and such sensitivities push us further down that road. On a final note - I served in the Falklands - and can tell you your very hospitible people the Argentinians were not all whom you seem to think they were, many were fine upstanding soldiers, sailors and airmen - but alas not all and their were some whom threatened and mistreated Civilian Falkland islanders - others ransacked outlying homes - the occupants were left without food or supplies - in what is believe me a very harsh environment and had to move out to the safety of other settlements - so no the Argies were not all saintly and goody goody. Tchus jake. |
Quote:
hardly marks you out as the voice of reason, openmindedness and equality does it! It's not supposed to be serious TV Shouldn't be so uptight about a set of islands hundreds of miles from their coast that they have no legitimate claim to!! |
Quote:
Quote:
Jake, Anyone who uses the n-word is beneath contempt as far as I`m concerned. Likewise, using "slope" to describe someone from Thailand is neither acceptable nor good comedy. I would agree with you about censorship, but comedy should be morally defensible. I am not familiar with the Cleese sketch, but I suppose the joke would presumably be pointed at attitudes or social discourse, rather than Germans or the atrocities of WWII per se. There was an interesting article by Steve Coogan in the Guardian, he said; As for the Falklands, I am sure everything that can be said has already been said. No doubt there are unscrupulous Argentinians out there, though my experiences of the country were overwhelmingly positive. Out of interest, have you actually been to Argentina and traveled around? Judging a people by the crimes their military commits during a war hardly seems a decent or fair comparison. It just seems to me that it is best to be compassionate about sensitive issues and try to be respectful of the history, laws and customs of the places you visit. Cheers! Rtw |
Ride the world - Firstly no i have not been to Argentina however I have been to Uruguay along with a few other south american countries and have no problem with south american people. I have a close mate that taught in Argentina as well as ran the national rugby team in Buenos Aires and speaks very highly of the people he encountered.
I do wonder if the lynch mob that set about clarkson and his team are representitive of the Argentinian people - acting without a hearing or a trial they set about people quite legally going about their business - even if you don't agree with it such actions are certainly not acceptable as a retaliation. Are those people going to be put before a court for affray criminal damage etc. I doubt it. I think the threats and damage far outweigh what they percieve as a dig from number plate referencing a war over thirty years ago. It all seems unbalanced to me and again the story is read only the way that certain people want to read it - that is without any form of balance or fairness. However do not like the way you interpret my words that i judge all the nation of Argentia by saying ' Judging a people by the crimes their military commits during a war hardly seems a decent or fair comparison.'. I never judged them and stated that many of the military were fine upstanding soldier, sailors and airmen. (Bye the way the Argentinian airmen pilots were notable in the bravery and skill). I also know that the men on the ground are just that -pawns in a game of chess played by regimes and government etc. At no point have i mentioned that the Argentinian people as a whole are bad or anything else. I simply pointed out that not all the men in the conflict were good or descent. At the end of the day people are people and I make no judgment on that. Clarkson recited an old poem and corrected himself before saying the N word as you put it and did not complete the word in anycase. As for the use of slope - yes a bad choice for an educated man but does not define him as racist per se . He like me is from an time when certainly up here in the north slang and names were used as everyday language - not i have to agree always correctly but not always used as a way of meaning offence either. Maybe he made a slip up from his past. At sea i worked with people from different nations Scots were jocks, Welsh were Taffies, Irish were micks or paddy's and Asians were paki's (no matter if they were pakistani or not) Dutch were clonkydonks and so on. None of the terms were at the time considered anything more than a description of the persons background neither negative or positive - now all that has changed. Now many of these terms are classed as racist, then we have the never ending interpretation of sexist and equality - i can not go on to that we will be here all day. To sum up i don't believe clarkson to be racist, he works for the BBC and will mix with people on daily basis from every walk of life, sexuality and culture so one would think he will be wholly comfortable interacting and working with anyone - this in itself is one of the greatest ways to break down barriers of predjudice around. I by the way do not judge nations by the actions of a few or despot leaders, I do not hold the English above anyone else nor do i believe in apologising for the past. I can't stand political correctness and the way it mutes and distorts free speech, thought and historical interpretation. I do not like the way facts are twisted and misquoted to achieve a perspective that suits the needs of such a system, nor the fact that it tells me what i can and can't like, think or agree with. I agree that one needs to be sensitive to peoples beliefs and culture but that does not mean being or requiring you to be dishonest to your own experiences, viewpoint and belief. Maybe in the eyes of the politically correct that make me a racist, homophobic, sexist then so be it. At least I will be free to give that opinion. Tchus jake. |
well, that cleared that relatively amicably!!
bier My comment about Argentinas claim to the Falklands is based on Historical evidence. The Argentinians stake their claim back to a particular point in History which conveniently suits their argument, one which was developed to drum up some sense of nationalism and distract the popoulation away from the problems at home (this may sound contemporally familliar closer to home!!) if you go right back, the British first discovered, claimed, and settled the islands (not all at the same time) You cannot lay a sovreign claim toa country based on the idea you think you owned it 400 years ago, if we did that we would be making claim to a sizeable chunk of the world! Not something I would particularly wish for. The Falkland Islanders have made their choices and those choices should be respected by all, including the UK |
Read this article it puts a different slant on the Clarkson / Argentina episode
Full Text of Jeremy Clarkson's article in the Sunday Times. (I got it from an electronic resource hub from my university. There are a few typos in the form I was able to access, but this is directly sourced.) Enjoy! : TopGear |
Loved the content of the initial post : ) Thanks for posting this excerpt. It reminds you that on the face of it riding bikes doesn't make sense. But it doesn't have to. Those who don't 'get it' leave those of us who do, feel a bit better about themselves as we are the enlightened ones!
As for the Argentinian event, well the Top Gear team do have a reputation.... to live down to |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 00:18. |