Log in

View Full Version : Clarkson Article


gettin2dizzy
19-11-07, 11:21 AM
Found this, thought it may be of some interest

Last year in Britain, slightly more than 5m people died. Over the course of my lifetime 250m people have died. And yet it was only last week that I saw my first dead body.
It was lying at the side of a country road near Johannesburg, one of the most dangerous and lawless cities on earth, so initially I thought it had been shot. But then, a few hundred feet down the road, I passed a big Suzuki motorbike, all battered and broken, and just as dead as its owner.
Of course there was no way of knowing the man was dead. He was surrounded by a thousand emergency vehicles and several million paramedics. But there was something about the way they moved, a lack of urgency, that gave the game away.
And it was all confirmed two hours later when I drove back down the same stretch of road. Because the big broken bike had gone. The ambulances and police cars had gone. And all bar one of the personnel had gone. But weirdly the body was still there.



I haven’t been able to get the image out of my head since. Who was he? What had he said to his wife that morning as he’d put on his leathers and gone outside to get on his big bike? What was he planning to do later that day? Or at work the following week? Had he planned a holiday this year? What would his kids do now, without a dad?
One minute he’s a human being thundering down a lovely road in an area known, ironically, as the Cradle of Humankind. The next he’s meat, a nuisance, a handful of ticks and crosses in a police investigator’s report.
Doubtless his wife will have spent the time since wailing and weeping and wondering why the bloody hell he’d gone and got himself a motorbike. And I’m with her. Why indeed?
You get hit by lightning and it’s bad luck. You die in a car accident and it’s one of those things. You have to drive to get about and people die while driving. You have an accident at work and it’s the same story. You get shot by a robber and even then you can still see the logic: “If I steal your wallet and then kill you, I stand less chance of being caught.” But dying in a motorbike accident seems so completely futile.
I know they’re a thrill. I know it gives you a buzz to hurtle down a country lane on a sunny day while encased entirely in leather. I know all that. But one tiny mistake, which might have nothing to do with you, and you’re a memory, you’re a smudge in the hedgerow. You’re playing a lottery where the prizes are small and the cost of failure is just gigantic. And I don’t get that.
In Britain bikes account for just 1% of all road transport. Yet they account for nearly 20% of all fatalities. Of course, dead bikers do provide a valuable public service in that people with fatal diseases can have new eyes and fresh spleens, but having seen the accident in South Africa last week, I think we could go further. Instead of taking the body away, why not just leave it in place?
All of us fear death, but when you actually see it, you become even more determined to give it a wide berth.
After seeing a body for the first time I have genuinely slowed down a bit. Coming home from London the other night I pulled out to overtake when I was 98% certain the road ahead was clear. But then an image of that poor man’s twisted head popped into my head and I abandoned the manoeuvre before it had really begun.
Yesterday, while driving into my local town, a mother was walking down the pavement with a little girl of three or four. Normally I’d have slowed and covered the brake in case the toddler leapt into the road, but after my South African experience, I damn nearly stopped.
And I can’t tell you how that felt when, moments later, the little girl did indeed run into the road. That dead biker, then, 6,000 miles away in Johannesburg, had unwittingly saved the life of a little girl in England.
You may think this all a bit too convenient. A bit too editorial. But it happened. I really was thinking of the dead man, and braking when the girl ran out. If I’d been doing 30 I’d have hit her. But I was doing 10, maybe less. So I didn’t.

DanDare
19-11-07, 11:23 AM
Cheerful for a Monday morning.

gettin2dizzy
19-11-07, 11:23 AM
Yeah sorry! Was just a change to hear him not being a prat.

G
19-11-07, 11:37 AM
Read that along time ago.

Always like to reads his coloumns on the timesonline website.

Mogs
19-11-07, 11:37 AM
He works on a programme that straps a man in a jet powered car, and that's not futile.

He's still a prat.

Pedrosa
19-11-07, 12:14 PM
I actually like JC's style of presentation tbh. The article simply amde me raise the following question..

What if his first ever sighting of a dead body had been that of a car driver? You must remember that JC does have a very jaundiced view of motorcycling,he just does not understand what it is about. That is where all of his anti biking comments come from.

gettin2dizzy
19-11-07, 12:17 PM
Me too. As above:- timesonline has got loads available. Under driving & Comment sections :)

thor
19-11-07, 12:17 PM
I guess he's just pointing out that it's a dangerous hobby. Very few of us are forced to ride, we choose to.

I look at what I do day to day, and motorcycling presents by far the biggest chance of me maiming myself. It's certainly something I think about.

Ceri JC
19-11-07, 12:24 PM
His argument doesn't hold water; he loves high speed flight, space travel, car racing. None of those things are essential to everyday life, like using bikes recreationally they are all "just because". Would the wife/kid of the man have been any less gutted if he'd died car racing? I doubt it.

As an aside, it's oddly out of character for him to concede that slowing down is sometimes a good thing.

licoricepizza
19-11-07, 12:44 PM
Yeah sorry! Was just a change to hear him not being a prat.

Brilliant!

neio79
19-11-07, 04:49 PM
His argument doesn't hold water; he loves high speed flight, space travel, car racing. None of those things are essential to everyday life, like using bikes recreationally they are all "just because". Would the wife/kid of the man have been any less gutted if he'd died car racing? I doubt it.

As an aside, it's oddly out of character for him to concede that slowing down is sometimes a good thing.
I think he does have a point. It is true to say yes but you can did in a car at speed etc. the room for error is much higher. You make a mistake on a bent spin out yes you will crash yes you might well be hurt but you have to really F it up to die. The car protects you and has so many other safer features to help you survive an accident. Where on a bike the point he is trying to get at is a small mistake that may or may not be your fault can kill, s front wheel goes you come off and hit an oncoming car or post and there is a very good chance of being dead, the same mistake in a car loosing traction is unlikely to result in death. A tiny error on a bike has infinitely higher consequences than the same mistake in a car.

The examples are endless, it purely down to our vulnerability that is the point he was trying to get at, and the fact that 90% of us choose to ride for pleasure. It is a dangerous hobby and a does carry a lot more risks than driving. Lets not forget that the speed and acceleration factor as well. Even the SV can out drag most super cars and we all speed on our bikes take risks we probably would not in a car adding to the danger, it’s the buzz and the reason we do it otherwise we would all ride

keithd
19-11-07, 05:30 PM
and give it a few weeks the memory will be distant and he'll forget the advise he's given himself and re-hurtle along the road, make a dodgy maneouver and everything will be fine, nobody in j'burg will have died, nobody will be made a widow.

we all make choices, we all make mistakes. we all live our own lives.

sinbad
19-11-07, 07:08 PM
I think he does have a point. It is true to say yes but you can did in a car at speed etc. the room for error is much higher. You make a mistake on a bent spin out yes you will crash yes you might well be hurt but you have to really F it up to die. The car protects you and has so many other safer features to help you survive an accident. Where on a bike the point he is trying to get at is a small mistake that may or may not be your fault can kill, s front wheel goes you come off and hit an oncoming car or post and there is a very good chance of being dead, the same mistake in a car loosing traction is unlikely to result in death. A tiny error on a bike has infinitely higher consequences than the same mistake in a car.

The examples are endless, it purely down to our vulnerability that is the point he was trying to get at, and the fact that 90% of us choose to ride for pleasure. It is a dangerous hobby and a does carry a lot more risks than driving. Lets not forget that the speed and acceleration factor as well. Even the SV can out drag most super cars and we all speed on our bikes take risks we probably would not in a car adding to the danger, it’s the buzz and the reason we do it otherwise we would all ride

I agree with Ceri JC. Clarkson isn't really discussing the risks or the percentage chance that you will die. I mean, he says it's not "pointless" to die in those other ways. I'm sure he'd say dying in action for the military is not pointless, that dying in a coal mine is not pointless or that dying aboard a trawler vessel in the north sea is not pointless - even if those activities (not certain if they are or not, but it doesn't matter) are more dangerous than riding a motorcycle.

What Clarkson IS saying (to my mind), is that to die on a bike is futile, because it's an unnecessary leisure activity. That's where it makes him seem like a hypocrite, because no matter what the percentage risk of death whilst driving a car might be - a death whilst driving a car for fun, or indeed in any other leisure pursuit, is equally futile and just as pointless as one whilst riding a motorcycle.

TOY40
19-11-07, 08:17 PM
On sunday night he said the 4% of accidents that were caused by high speed were probably bikers!.Hammon a fellow biker just smiled.hammond who (a biker)again took a bicycle tru London to see which was quicker a car or public transport or bicycle,why did he not take motorbike,would this not have been quickes and helped the plight of motorbikers trying to fight congestion charges in London.