this was the same peice in which Clarkson and May parked the electric cars in disabled parking spots, not off camera but in shot, during a bit where they stood around on the big painted disabled symbol and discussed the boot space of the two cars.
The Top Gear producer has apologised for that, and pointed out: - there were three other unoccupied disabled parking bays in the car park during shooting - Clarkson/May protested when they saw where the production team was preparing to do the shot - they had the full permission from the car park owner
As the article says: It's a "funny review" show, on a network that's legally required to not present false things as if they were true.
Meaning, deliberately giving a false impression of a vehicle's performance? Actually illegal, on the Beeb. Even on a comedy show, because they maintain the pretense of giving fair reviews.
It's not exactly a false impression. Electrical cars do stop through lack of fuel, as do petrol cars. The difference is that the infrastructure is there to support petrol cars, but not electrical cars.
Ob. disclaimer: I work for the BBC, don't speak for them. I love Top Gear *and* electrical cars.
It's not exactly a false impression. Electrical cars do stop through lack of fuel, as do petrol cars.
They do run out of fuel, but, and this is important, Top Gear presented them as unreliably running out of fuel suddenly and without warning, when actually the Top Gear personnel deliberately ran the car out of fuel while ignoring all the warnings, then cut the part where they did it so that the final episode just showed "driving, driving, driving, FUCKING ELECTRIC PIECE OF SHIT ARGH ELECTRIC CARS SUCK".
Which is a false impression, one deliberately created and deliberately presented in a deliberately misleading way.
The episode I saw basically had the presenters saying "Ooh, we're gonna run out of fuel, we're gonna run out of fuel, we're gonna run out of fuel" - indeed, pointing excitedly at the fuel gauge. And then they kept running it down until it did run out of fuel. In exactly the same way that that would happen with a petrol car.
Except they happened to do it foolishly and in an area with no easy access to an electrical car recharging point. Possibly picking the only city in the UK without said easy access.
It didn't break any more of the accepted conventional Top Gear rules of comedy and ludicrousity than their USA fly-drive special, or James May flying an aerial caravan into airport space.
Top Gear has, on two occasions, deliberately driven an electric vehicle to the point where the battery has emptied - or appeared to.
On both ocassions they have decieved the audience into believing that the vehicles have inadvertently failed to complete the planned journey in normal cicrumstances. This is patently untrue.
If either of those vehicles had, in the course of a standard trial, failed to complete the planned journey it would be completely accurate of Top Geasr to present that as the case.
That is not what they did. They presented deliberately contrived failures as routine failures.
By presenting an untruth as a truth, they lied. Reported a known factual inaccuracy. Mislead the viewing public. That is against BBC guidelines, and against the law.
Just to correct one thing: BBC editorial guidelines are not enforced or enshrined by the law of the land. It's not as if any legal action was taken against Jonathan Ross or Russell Brand.
I love Top Gear... but I'd never, ever use the show to make a decision on cars. The presenters are absolutely biased (even James "Captain Slow" May) and everything is staged to the n-th degree, to the point that when I see hazardous behaviour on-screen outside a closed track I get mad.
-- Steve was particularly angry after May's "flying caravaner" drifted into an airport's traffic control zone, and hopes the Beeb suffered some sort of hefty penalty for putting so many others at risk.
... knowledge of which, somehow, does not gruntle me.
-- Steve still is tempted to write in and suggest a complementary segment for "Stars in a Reasonably-Priced Car", called "Nobodies in a Bloody-Expensive Car."
I certainly wouldn't lend those yahoos a car without having every tracking option installed.
I've mostly stopped watching it. The occasional "try to drive across trackless wilderness in ridiculously inappropriate cars" special is worth watching in HD for the awesome BBC cinematography, but it's otherwise beginning to annoy me.
Let's face it, folks: If Top Gear didn't do this, they wouldn't get to test drive the latest new gas and diesel cars, now would they? They are completely beholden for their future as a viable program on every car manufacturer allowing them to play with the petroleum powered toys.
By the same logic, they should be trashing the Ferrarri or they won't get the new Aston Martin. And they should be faking breakdowns of the Aston Martin or they'll never get a new Rolls.
Not only is that argument bullshit, but it misses the real point: It violates the Beeb's rules to do this. If giving an accurate review to an electric car will tank their show, then the only thing they are allowed to do under BBC rules is not review the electric car at all
Did you watch the episode? Nissan's claim that the episode shows the LEAF "unexpectedly running out of charge" is completely false. There were minutes spent on showing the range figures dwindling. It was completely expected both in real life as well as in-show.
"at no point were viewers told that the battery had been more than half empty at the start of the trip." <- that is something that was actually true. But when the article attacking them gets one of their primary accusations wrong, well... not much point to the whole thing, is there?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 01:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 03:09 pm (UTC)- there were three other unoccupied disabled parking bays in the car park during shooting
- Clarkson/May protested when they saw where the production team was preparing to do the shot
- they had the full permission from the car park owner
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 01:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 01:47 pm (UTC)Meaning, deliberately giving a false impression of a vehicle's performance? Actually illegal, on the Beeb. Even on a comedy show, because they maintain the pretense of giving fair reviews.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 03:06 pm (UTC)Ob. disclaimer: I work for the BBC, don't speak for them. I love Top Gear *and* electrical cars.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 03:47 pm (UTC)They do run out of fuel, but, and this is important, Top Gear presented them as unreliably running out of fuel suddenly and without warning, when actually the Top Gear personnel deliberately ran the car out of fuel while ignoring all the warnings, then cut the part where they did it so that the final episode just showed "driving, driving, driving, FUCKING ELECTRIC PIECE OF SHIT ARGH ELECTRIC CARS SUCK".
Which is a false impression, one deliberately created and deliberately presented in a deliberately misleading way.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 03:51 pm (UTC)Except they happened to do it foolishly and in an area with no easy access to an electrical car recharging point. Possibly picking the only city in the UK without said easy access.
It didn't break any more of the accepted conventional Top Gear rules of comedy and ludicrousity than their USA fly-drive special, or James May flying an aerial caravan into airport space.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 03:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-09 03:58 pm (UTC)Top Gear has, on two occasions, deliberately driven an electric vehicle to the point where the battery has emptied - or appeared to.
On both ocassions they have decieved the audience into believing that the vehicles have inadvertently failed to complete the planned journey in normal cicrumstances. This is patently untrue.
If either of those vehicles had, in the course of a standard trial, failed to complete the planned journey it would be completely accurate of Top Geasr to present that as the case.
That is not what they did. They presented deliberately contrived failures as routine failures.
By presenting an untruth as a truth, they lied. Reported a known factual inaccuracy. Mislead the viewing public. That is against BBC guidelines, and against the law.
end of.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-09 04:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 03:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 03:07 pm (UTC)-- Steve was particularly angry after May's "flying caravaner" drifted into an airport's traffic control zone, and hopes the Beeb suffered some sort of hefty penalty for putting so many others at risk.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 03:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 05:02 pm (UTC)-- Steve still is tempted to write in and suggest a complementary segment for "Stars in a Reasonably-Priced Car", called "Nobodies in a Bloody-Expensive Car."
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 03:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-08 05:12 pm (UTC)I've mostly stopped watching it. The occasional "try to drive across trackless wilderness in ridiculously inappropriate cars" special is worth watching in HD for the awesome BBC cinematography, but it's otherwise beginning to annoy me.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-10 04:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-10 03:00 pm (UTC)Not only is that argument bullshit, but it misses the real point: It violates the Beeb's rules to do this. If giving an accurate review to an electric car will tank their show, then the only thing they are allowed to do under BBC rules is not review the electric car at all
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-17 08:26 pm (UTC)"at no point were viewers told that the battery had been more than half empty at the start of the trip." <- that is something that was actually true. But when the article attacking them gets one of their primary accusations wrong, well... not much point to the whole thing, is there?