Jeremy Clarkson's verdict on bikes: They'll kill you
We've had a flood of tip emails that Jeremy Clarkson's been seen on a Vespa, so you know he's been up to something. That something is a hilarious invective against motorbiking, with a short bit about the Vespa at the very end. The verdict: you will be killed. The main message is that riding a motorbike as a financial decision is dubious at best, as a bike and all its required equipment will run you more than a new VW Golf; oh, and you'll be killed. If you still want to try and cheat death, your cost of operation will be extremely low, as bikes are more fuel efficient than said Golf, and the first time you turn left, you'll fall off and dash your brains out, rendering yourself dead, which will make biking even more inexpensive for you. It's safe to say that the esteemed Mr. Clarkson prefers automobiles. Thanks for the tip, Kris![Source: TimesOnline, photo: Paul Hennessy/Gorilla Pictures]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
hatchbacks are cool 10:03AM (10/20/2008)
I have read this story like 2 days ago . There is no need to bother to post about it or do it about 2 days ago at least .
Reply
Alex 11:30AM (10/20/2008)
There is no reason to bother to comment on a post just to bitch that you already read it two days ago.
I didn't read it two days ago because two days ago was a saturday and i like to not be in front of a computer on saturdays.
Farris 11:35AM (10/20/2008)
Y'know hatchbacks... I read a comment exactly like this about 6 months ago, meaning there was no reason for you to bother posting it.
3seriesisking 10:05AM (10/20/2008)
True.....but they are lots of fun and chicks dig them
Reply
Mel. R 10:17AM (10/20/2008)
Two days ago? Try a week ago.
And this is one chick that doesn't dig them. Especially as the people around here try to get around the whole "getting killed" problem by driving them onto sidewalks and using pedestrians as buffers.
Reply
USCGTO 10:21AM (10/20/2008)
4 wheels move the body , 2 wheels move the soul...
Reply
Yar 10:54AM (10/20/2008)
...straight to heaven.
John P. 10:24AM (10/20/2008)
For me, one day on a motorcycle equals about a year driving a car as far as fun goes. Hey, to each his own.
Cluckson probably had people trying to run him over.
Reply
Gary 10:25AM (10/20/2008)
Everything that falls out of that man's mouth is exaggeration. A motorbike and related equipment as much as a new Golf? Depends on the model of bike.
I guess all he's been doing is going around the block making right hand turns?
Reply
Dazza 10:41AM (10/20/2008)
Americans just don't understand the irony of British humour. The reason he exaggerrated the obvious is simply because it's a fact that motorcycles are less safe than cars.
No wonder a country that spawned Friends and Third Rock from the Sun on an unsuspecting world don't quite understand Clarkson's sense of humour.
UltimoDragon 11:07AM (10/20/2008)
Why does anyone listen to that clown Clarkson anyway? Is he that entertaining? That's all he can be (to some), because there's no way I'd truly call him insightful or fair-minded. He's a blowhard!
Mel. R 11:28AM (10/20/2008)
@UltimoDragon: Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard, too. Doesn't stop people from listening to him.
homunculus 11:48AM (10/20/2008)
if clarkson weren't a blowhard, he wouldn't be clarkson. he's the shatner of car journalism. embrace it, get in on the joke.
meanwhile, james may writes a great column in the telegraph. it's funny in a more genteel way.
Bucket 10:49AM (10/20/2008)
If you decide to own a motorcycle, you won't not fall off it. It's pretty much a certainty.
Reply
Donald 10:58AM (10/20/2008)
This reminds me of the argument someone used against me about riding a motorcycle:
"My dad once said the he never met a motorcycle rider that wasn't in some kind of accident on the bike."
I countered:
"Really? Funny, I don't think I've ever met a car driver that hasn't been in some kind of accident."
Ride responsibly. Use your head when riding. That is advice that applies to both car drivers and bike riders.
tarheelsxl 1:35PM (10/20/2008)
@Donald:
Uh, except that an accident on a bike = auto-death.
"Motorcyclists were 35 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash in 2006, per vehicle mile traveled, and eight times more likely to be injured,according to NHTSA.
The fatality rate for motorcyclists in 2006 was 5.5 times the fatality rate for passenger car occupants per registered vehicle, according to the latest data from NHTSA."
Donald 2:10PM (10/20/2008)
I guess I could do the "uh" thing too, and spin it by listing the higher rate of fatalities for people riding in minivans than in cars (ignoring the factor that, on average, more people ride in a minivan than in a car, hence, the higher mortality rate).
But I'm familiar with the statistics of motorcycle fatalities, including what is ofter omitted from those reported stats... that a large number of the higher rates have been attributed to "returning riders" who are not receiving the proper riding education before hitting the road. The longer one rides, those numbers drop, because of their experience.
Teens are more likely to die in a car accident than adults, for the same reason. Should we argue that teens shouldn't be in a car? When would the driving begin? And would holding off to a later age only create the same beginner driver mistakes as what occurs with a young new driver?
The other thing the stats don't differentiate is the increase in helmetless riders over the past three years. Mortality rates have increased as more states have repealed mandatory helmet usage.
I don't want this to become a debate over state-vs-individual argument thread, but the points are:'
1. Using 'uh' in a response is just rude.
2. Stats are spun a hundred ways. While I know my chances of surving a serious accident on a bike are less than in a car, relying on the NHTSA stats haven't been to butress an arugment haven proven effective, as their reporting methods haven't differentiated the causes of the accidents and deaths.
3. Just as the original post was a generalization of "accident" was erroneous to make an argument against riding, making the statement of accident=death is also erroneous for the same reasons; sometimes an accident is just falling over when pulling away from a stop sign.
Now, if you want to make the argument for a graduated licensing system in the US to prevent new riders from hopping on 1000cc sport bikes when they get their license, I'm all for that!
Donald 2:14PM (10/20/2008)
...and why are these weird typos and usage errors popping up on my responses?
I hate this Autoblog response system sometimes.
Judy Zik 2:22PM (10/20/2008)
When I was a teen I insisted on having a really big full framed vehicle. I wanted something in between me and the other car in an accident. I am willing to compromise on the size of that vehicle a bit more these days with modern airbags and crumple zones but I just don't trust the other drivers out on the road enough to hop on a bike and BECOME a crumple zone.
It doesn't matter how skilled a driver you are too many accidents happen based on things out of your control like a drunk guy crossing the centre line or running a light. In a car you may live to tell the tale. On a bike you will be nothing but a trail.
Rufus 6:14PM (10/20/2008)
First off- 59% of accidents (vehicular in general, so this is bikes and cars and everything else) are single vehicle accidents.
Second- not nearly enough people wear protective gear. Not jeans and a t-shirt. I mean A DOT and SNELL approved helmets, and a (armored, CE approved) leather jacket, and pants. I've seen a crash where a chick on a bike gets hit by a guy who randomly U-turns into her, and she's still concious after her crash. Why? She wore good gear. And I'll admit gear can be very expensive ($1000), but it's worth it.
3rd- Too many people buy bikes they can't handle. Would you buy a 16 year old a Viper ACR? Becaue when a newbie buys a 600cc/1000cc sportbike(not cruiser, those are different), that's essentially what they're doing. Only bikes are a lot less forgiving than Vipers.