It's been all go for the last couple of days down at the Wikipedia page celebrating TV food-molestor James Martin, who's earned himself a bit of a Wikikicking from irate cyclists following an entertaining review of the Tesla Roadster for the Mail. James Martin Martin (pictured) wrote: "God, I hate those cyclists. Every last …
I'd never heard of him;
but this "James Martin" fellow gets an instant place in my Hall Of Awesome.
This is what the world amounts to these days ?
Upset someone and get twittered/wiki'd and facebook group'd about ?
Fuck sake. What a pathetic species we've become.. (he said, posting a comment on a news site and appreciating the irony).
Quite right too
And his coffee grinder is a cheap piece of crap, too.
... many of the detractors of this sport will still be chuffed to see Team GB slay all comers at the Olympics etc. Which is probably why I saw a line of 3 or 4 cars patiently steering round a Team GB training session (consisting of maybe 6 riders) on Manchester roads the other day. Contrary to popular thinking, they do actually have as much right to be on the roads as you, and the majority of the 'lycra-clad' contingent will likely be fully insured against accidents etc. It's more often the casual ride-to-work-or-shops lot that cause problems.
Incidentally, get ready to see cycling become a lot more popular: The new Murdoch-sponsored Team Sky professional squad look like maintaining a fairly high profile as of next season. Take that Martin!
Go go Wiggo!!
I hate him and cyclists.
Personally I think James Martin is a pratt of the highest order, but I also have to agree with his opinion of cyclists. Tossers, every last one of them.
I don't fear James Martin, I pity the fool!
I mean, the poor sod so desperately wants to be Jeremy Clarkson.
Not only does he have to suffer not being able to fulfill his wish (he isn't a carrier of the freakishly giant gene, for a start), but to actually want to be Clarkson?!? What a horrible ambition.
But hey - these days an opinion isn't worth expressing if it isn't backed by bitter vitriol. The press just doesn't like rational, reasoned judgements any more.
Don't get me started...
..on these lycra clad bastards, think they own the bloody place. Well done to Mr. Martin for saying what everyone else thinks.
Don't get me wrong, I think cycling in general is a good thing, and the vast majority are probably very nice people indeed.
It's the tossers who don't understand the principles behind pavements, pedestrain crossings, and RED LIGHTS!! They mean stop, yes, you too.
I find myself wanting to stand up for him, despite his writing for the Daily Heil. Whilst I'm sure there are many considerate law-abiding cyclists out there, the number of times you see idiots with no helmets going through red lights, or bombing down the middle of the road past people trying to turn right, and the fact that their response to James Martin is to put some rude words on Wikipedia leads me to believe that, unfortunately, a large proportion fo them are, in fact, idiots.
I've had a disinct dis-like of James martin for some time, especially as he's from the wrong side of the pennines.
But now I've changed my mind, he's a hero to everyone who's had to wait behind a bunch are sweaty arses riding 4 abreast on narrow lanes talking to each other instead of following the highway code and riding in single file...
He should give cars a scare the shit out of cyclists Rating :)
i have to admit living just outside of London i do get annoyed when cyclists Swarm our streets cycle 2 -3 abreast blocking the entire road. but then again they have every right to be there.
Personally i think most British people Drive like complete and utter assholes :/ so why should cyclists be any different
I have to agree with James on this one. While I don't mind a bit of riding myself, I do find the smug holier than thou attitude of a vast majority of riders to be quite annoying. It's if they think they are singlehandly saving the planet from us car users.
"Yes I could cycle to work, but 20 miles each way doesn't really sounds appealing. I'll stick to my car thanks."
And then when they've annoyed all the drivers on the road (who by the way pay via the medium of tax for the roads these bikers use) they then cycle on the pavement like they own it killing old grannys and young kids.
And that's without even mentioning they're lack of ability to obey the highway code and not drive through traffic lights, ignore one way streets etc etc.
Most of them need a good kicking.
Makes me mad.
Stop sign, cos the bastards always ignore them.
@ Ed Blackshaw
NEWSFLASH: It isn't illegal to not wear a helmet.
...sending El Reg invoice for new keyboard after...
cup to mouth failure
He does raise...
He does raise a good point.
Re: "agree with his opinion"
``I also have to agree with his opinion of cyclists. Tossers, every last one of them.''
No, he only said he hates the ones who drink herbal tea and vote for Harriet Harman. The rest of us are alright (unless we're cycling four-abreast round his neighbourhood in Spiderman cossies).
As a cyclist I have to agree, I blow through stop signs at every chance, and the speed I go through them is equal to the speed most cars go through them too. I may be a tosser but I'd rather be a tosser than a twat which is what every last car driver is.
Whilst Lycra Louts are a pest and should be strung up or shot (and that includes all those who run red lights), that was a clear example of Dangerous Driving from James Martin. I hope the police prosecute.
As for the bleating of the two-wheeled-tards; once they start having to pass a test, paying tax and insurance, then they can have an opinion. Until then they can shut up; they are simply free-loading off everyone else.
Can't say I like the man myself...
...but that was bloody funny.
!! News Just In !!
There are some inconsiderate people out there, some of 'em drive cars, some of 'em ride bikes, and some of 'em even walk.
(Some) pedestrians walk out in front of cyclists without looking; (some) cyclists go through red lights; (some) motorists turn left across a cycle lane without indicating and/or looking (yes you bastard, you're not as sorry as I was).
I agree with James Martin, a little bit.
Many cyclists, no problem, even down my leafy country lanes (or as leafy as they get in the fens), but the tossers when I get in to Cambridge on my daily commute - well, RED MEANS STOP you twat's. You would be the first to complain if a car knocked you down, but the highway code is there to STOP that happening - it applies just as much to you as to cars.
argh the dilema!
On the one hand, he's an annoying prick, on the other hand (and discounting his prudish attitude towards lycra, yes it hugs their ass, yes you can see their cock IF you look at their groin) cyclists need to have some more respect for other people, not just road users, pedestrians too. that does mean no cycling in pedestrianised areas, on pavements.
<rant> oh and contra to traffic flow, and without lights, reflectors, helmet, whilst wearing black, on a black bike and skipping a red light AT NIGHT, cycling into the side of my car, kicking my bumper repeatedly and swearing at me <\rant>
Hmm, Bradley Wiggins has eased back a bit with is language.
I like the other 'Jabba the Hut' reference.
Innit amazing how drivers are all so bloody wonderful and never do anything wrong.
Twats who have never witnessed thier own shite behaviour.
I just love it..
Whatever else he may be at least he still has the balls to speak his mind. As for cyclists taking the bike for a ride in the car, that always makes me chuckle.
Fat-boy James has a point....
It never ceases to amaze me how these righteous twits in cycling clubs get away with it. On one hand, they treat anyone else on the road (I include horse riders and leisure cyclists - the non-Lycra, normal fat blokes..) as beneath them while they think have the god given right to rule the road.
They frequently break the law regarding how many ride abreast (It's a maximum of two -check out rule 66 of the Highway code for cyclists http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837). I see many sail through red lights (See rule 71) and then take offense when someone points it out to them.
God help you if you're a car driver - that makes you inherently an evil, child-killing psychopath, even though cyclist are as dangerous as cars (and have been known to kill a few pedestrians).
James may be a bit up himself, but on this, he ain't wrong.
Obviously not very bright
Not sure that printing a description of how you drove without due care and attention/consideration (to the point of causing people to crash off the road) in a national newspaper is a smart way to go.
If I were one of cycling organisations I'd find the cyclists in question and then prod the plod to prosecute rather than pratting around on wikipedia.
Having said that, I agree with him to a point.
Current advice is that you should cycle in a position such that people notice you (i.e two abrest, or near the middle of the lane), HOWEVER you are then supposed to note that people are following you and let them pass, not just carry on your slow and merry way, blocking the road.
As a non-lycra-wearing, red-light obeying, law-observing, occasional cyclists, the condom clad peddlers really get my back up, because they annoy so many other people, who then assume that we are all the same.
Some of us actually remember what we learnt in our cycling proficiency lessons at school.
And why *IS* a tosser of a chef reviewing a car? Jeeze, the Mail really are scraping the barrel.
It's about respect
I'll admit sometimes cyclists don't do themselves favours when it comes to earning the respect of other motorists but that doesn't justify blanket hatred of one of the most vulnerable groups of road users.
Do cyclists run red lights? Yes, but this cyclist doesn't.
Do cyclists ride on the pavements? Yes, but this cyclist doesn't.
Do cyclists use up the whole road? Yes, but sometimes it's because they can see there's not even enough room to attempt to pass.
Do cyclist vandalise Wikipedia pages of TV chief's who have upset them? Yes, unfortunately like the general population, some cyclists are Twats.
This sort of opinion re-inforces the dangerous "Us vs them" mentality of cyclists and motorists. And when it comes to a head it's the cyclist that normally comes out worse.
have to agree...
...we get the same arse in the lanes by us, all the gear, no idea.
Then you get the twats:
1) wearing ipods 9how the fuck do you expect do hear me moron
2) No lights, yup it's coming to "guess where the moron in black is at night" time of year
3) Red lights are for cars only
4) I don't know how to turn right at an island.
5) Should i occasionally stop at a red light, I will do it in the middle of the road in front of all the traffic
And as for cyclist have as much to be on the road....
really, so how much Road tax do you pay?
As i say if people quit the car, gave up fags and cut out booze, this country would be bankrupt within a month.
Oh and I ride a lot, but understand where he is coming from...
I want to know will being a cyclist or a chef bar you from working with children?
I think it should
Re: Don't get me started...
"It's the tossers who don't understand the principles behind pavements, pedestrain crossings, and RED LIGHTS!! They mean stop, yes, you too."
He's clearly a twat for writing for the Mail, so anything that he writes can instantly be discounted as ignorant bollocks.
Yes I ride a bike a lot on the roads. Admittedly the roads of Finland are somewhat different...
...But still. I for one mostly support what he has said. The U.K. highway code says the following (2007 edition): "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" that is part of rule #66. Yes they should be dressed very brightly so Mr. Martin should shut up about this. As for not stopping at the lights, Mr. Clarkson once (or maybe more than once) mentioned using Police marksmen to shoot people driving down the motorway's in a manner that annoyed him, well shooting bike riders who don't stop at red lights is both easier and more rewarding in my opinion!
Oh one final thing, the riders who Mr. Martin claims to have dumped in a hedge should also have a look at rule #67 and the part that says this: "be aware of traffic coming up behind you"...
Every right to be there...
AAAAND every right to be prosecuted for obstruction if you're are slowing down the flow of traffic four abreast.
I am a cyclist as well as a motorist and it really pisses me off when I see a cyclist weaving down the road in time to whatever his/her ipod is playing, paying no attention to the rest of the road.
As for the helmets, there is a reason motorcycle helmets are the shape they are - to protect the skull. The only reason I can see for the shape of cycle helmets is to say "I'm a twat!" to everyone within view.
He should come over here (S. France). Local councils spent Dieu knows how much of our taxes tearing up pavements to build cycle lanes all round the place. Where do the lycra-clad twunts ride? In the middle of the bloody traffic, getting in everyone's way. I'm sorely tempted to drive down the cycle lanes, they're empty.
Highway code ?
"instead of following the highway code and riding in single file..."
That would be the bit that says you can ride 2 abreast then ? (section 66 "never ride more than two abreast")
"a large proportion fo them are, in fact, idiots."
I also think you could say the same of the driving community if you only read their opinions in the Sun, plenty of cars I see speeding, not wearing seatbelt, talking on mobiles or jumping red lights
Dont tar everyone with the same brush, is it any problem if you get delayed by 2 mins going to B & Q on a Sunday ?
Why not try it you may like it ?
@AC "Don't get me started"
> It's the tossers who don't understand the principles behind pavements, pedestrain crossings, and RED LIGHTS!!
If only the tossers who /design/ pavements, pedestrian crossings and red lights understood the principles behind cycling.
In Birmingham the lycra-clad OCD-victims ride at speed on the pavements, weaving between pedestrians. They often use pavements to go the wrong way through one-way systems.
I've been hit once (luckily just a glancing blow) and near-missed once, on a pedestrian crossing complete with illuminated green man.
Under the wheels of a No 25 bus is too good for 'em :-)
He gets away with it because there are more irritating TV chefs, but there's an overbearing, bullying streak in his dirty nerthern presentation which always winds me up. Don't get me wrong - using Tesla's latest to stealthily and rapidly creep up to, then scare the wits out of a bunch of wannabes, so that they fall over, is great sport, but you've got to have a fuckload more charm than James Martin to publish that and think people will laugh along with you.
One difference between Clarkson and Martin: Martin thinks he's cool.
@ Heh Heh
Urm 2 abreast is allowed the high way code says you should not cycle more than 2 abreast which is a suggestion for the protection of the cyclists. Note that the parts you have to do are labelled MUST.
Of course I am an off road cyclist and have always lived in the country so I am coutious enough to drop into single file when cars come when travelling between tracks (yes Cyclists annoy me to when trying to get somehere in my car). That is unless you don't hear them coming.
And the fact that he admitted to blairing his horn and driving as close as he could to the cyclists (which is against the code) should imo get him points on his license if not a fine.
...with Mr Martin. I have a car, a motor bike, and a bicycle, all of which I use regularly. No matter which one I am using, the utter stupidity of cyclists - particularly the militant lycra brigade - never ceases to amaze me. They seem to think that none of the rules apply to them and they can do what they are like because they are the most vulnerable party and therefore the 'victim' in any accident/disagreement.
I particularly hate the ones who ride in packs. No regard whatsoever for other road users trying to go about their normal journeys.
And while we are on the subject, why the spiderman outfits? Does normal clothing melt at such those speeds, or does it make them feel as if they belong to some kind of elite club? Perhaps it's the "screw you I'm wearing my uniform and the highway code doesn't apply" club....
@Top Chef #
"following the higway code and riding in single file"
No. When taking my cycling proficiency at school we were told time and time again that cyclists can ride abreast of each other up to the width of a single car.
> They frequently break the law regarding how many ride abreast (It's a maximum of two -check out
> rule 66 of the Highway code for cyclists > http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837)
Amazingly, riding more than two abreast is not actually illegal. If you care to read the link you provided it's an advisory note ('should not' rather than MUST NOT) as explained in the introduction to the Highway Code.
The Highway Code also suggest that cyclists 'should' wear a helmet. You might know that it is not illegal to ride a bicycle without one.
Maybe you should re-read your copy and understand its language this time.
Sure, it may not help your chances when establishing liability in the event of an accident and it's not something I would normally do myself, but it's not breaking the law to ride more than two abreast.
Red light jumpers do piss me off, though.
The Memory Hole being put to good use!
The version of this article that's currently up on the Mail website is now missing the most incendiary paragraph. It appears that he drove some cyclists off the road whilst testing the car out:
''The look of sheer terror as they tottered into the hedge was the best thing I've ever seen in my rear-view mirror.'' - James Martin
As found here: http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4628641./
No wonder the cyclists are outraged, although by snipping this vital detail from the online article the Mail are protecting him and making it look as though the cyclists are over-reacting.
If anyone can find a copy of the original unexpurgated article I'd like to read it. Thanks.
@AC (Fat Boy James...)
Your citation of Item 66 of the Highway Code as law is incorrect. You can check for yourself simply by looking at Item 64: "You *must not* cycle on a pavement. [Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]
Item 66 has no such wording ( "should" not "must" ) and no citation of the appropriate legislation regarding why performing any action described would be an offence.
Cyclists have right of way because they're more vulnerable. If their sense of self-importance overrides their sense of self preservation, let them handle the consequences. Don't let it be you who is caught handing it to them, though. You *will* end up on the wrong end of the law.
This is almost as good as the usenet flamewars before abysmal web discussion boards and their interfaces took over.
@John Tuffen, you might be horrified to know that if a cycle lane changes from a solid white line to a broken one at the junction, you are considered to be entering the main traffic lane and should therefore give way to cars turning left. This one has been through the courts, so beware.
Personally I think all commuter car drivers should be required to cycle their route to work (in small stages if it's too long) during peak hour, then they'd get a better appreciation of the other side. Similarly, it would be good for cyclists to drive the route and see where they can cause serious hold-ups and where it makes no difference (If I overtake a cyclist and he catches me up at the next traffic light then it's obviously not worth the effort).
As a motorist and a cyclist I see plenty of idiots on both sides. Defensive cycling sometimes requires being in the middle of the lane to make it quite clear that there is not enough space at the approaching traffic island to fit a car and a bike side by side. Offensive cycling, such as going through red lights ought to earn an appointment with Darwin, even if he lets you off with an introductory lesson and the promise of more next time.
Fat IT spacktards
So how much Road tax do you pay?
Exactly the same as you would for the car he was reviewing.
/quote/ really, so how much Road tax do you pay?
Same as you do idiot - none,
BTW it's called VED - the road fund license was abolished by Winston Churchill before WW2, as he correctly realised that paying directly for something leads the payees to assume (exclusive) ownership. Sadly people haven't evolved very much in 70 years.
And if you get yourself a zero-emission vehicle (doesn't have to be a bicycle) then you can pay zero tax too (assuming your self-esteem wouldn't be too badly damaged)
I could understand it if he'd written in a respected paper
But it's the bloody Mail for crying out loud, God, if you collated the amount of bovine excrement printed in it's pages on a weekly basis you'd have the gross output of all the cows in Europe, calm down, make yourselves a cup of tea and write a stern letter to Margaret Thatcher.
..all drivers are careful and considerate of course.
I too ....
.... Love to try and hit as many cyclists as i can in my car when passing them on the road. Another thing, what's this crap about cyclists having the same right as motorists on the road? cars and such have to pay a "tax" for using the roads. Usually based on the weight of the vehicle. Cyclists do not have to pay thus the car has the right.
Now, if this item had concerned the author of Telecommunications and the Computer, Design of Man-Computer Dialogues, The Wired Society, and many others...
You don't pay any road tax either - there's no such thing.
Hence the fail.
What I think you are referring to is "Vehicle Excise Duty" which has sod all to do with paying for the roads. And you'll probably find most cyclists DO actually pay it.
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- Special Report How Britain could have invented the iPhone: And how the Quangocracy cocked it up
- Massive! Yahoo! Mail! outage! going! on! FOURTH! straight! day!