TV Presenter in "critical condition"

The news that the BBC's Top Gear presenter Richard Hammond has been seriously injured in a car crash whilst filming for the programme is one of those news items that initiates two instant reactions.

The first reaction goes something along the lines of "Oh poor sod, I like him, hope he's ok" but then a few seconds later the second reaction that kicks in is something like "I'm not suprised though".

I like Top Gear. I like the three presenters. The BBC have messed about with the format until they have accidently stumbled upon a winning formula. Led by the extremely dry witted Jeremy Clarkson, a man who is very funny in ten minute doses but would have to be on everyone's list of "The ten most irritating people to spend a four hour train journey with".

He is counter balanced by the dullness and university lecturer presenting style of James May, a "BBC man" in the old-style true sense of the word, you just can't imagine May working for a commercial channel and if he wasn't presenting Top gear you'd imagine that he'd have a day job as the pub bore who sits quietly at the corner of the bar every night only interjecting to offer the correct answers to various pub arguments, he probably knows all the chemical element symbols - he's that sort of bloke.

And then you have Richard Hammond, a diminutive man who can't seem to stand still, even when he's standing still talking to camera, he is this generations John Noakes, a TV presenter who can't just talk about dangerous things but has to actually get down and dirty and do them too.

So I hope he makes a full recovery, not just survives, but makes a full recovery, because I can't imagine that Top Gear would continue without him and it wouldn't be very nice to watch if he was in any way permenantly incapacitated by his injuries, which is a selfish thing to say, but head injuries are the most unpredictable things to heal and many victims of serious head injuries are affected by non-physical scars for the rest of their lives - I hope he makes a full recovery.


But to address the other issue that is lurking in the background - are we suprised by this ?

No has to be the truthful answer.

As someone pointed out in a TV interview this morning, once upon a time a programme like Top Gear would have a presenter standing next to a car talking about it, someone like Raymond Baxter, James Burke, or Fife Robertson dressed in a suit and tie would wax lyrically about the rocket powered 300mph car that Richard Hammond was trying to break a land speed record in, but they would never in a month of sundays ever dream of sitting in the thing, even with the engine switched off - the driving of the car would be left to those who knew what they were doing and/or didn't care if they died in the attempt.

But that is not good enough now, we as viewers ask, demand more than that from our TV programmes. Its not enough for a factual documentary style TV programme to inform, it has to entertain too or else we will switch off. This point was also made just two weeks ago with the death of Steve Irwin, another presenter who was prepared to get down and dirty with his subjects, and another presenter who paid the ultimate price.

But that is only the tip of the iceberg - I have one big problem with Top Gear.

Enjoyable as the programme is, it is fixated with speed.

Years ago it was a half hour programme on BBC2 that presented car related items in a magazine style, very simple and straightforward, various presenters would talk about all things to do with cars and they would test drive one car a week, usually a bog standard family saloon that had been upgraded by the manufacturers, a new ashtray or coat hanger here, a slightly bigger wing mirror, or a wing mirror at all. It was all staid and proper and factual and achievable and men (mainly men) would watch it and think "hmmm, a wing mirror, thats a good idea" and the besuited presenter would take it for a spin around the block and that would be that, even when they employed Tony Mason, an ex-rally driver, they let him do nothing more than take a spin around the block in this weeks bog standard saloon.

But that is not enough today, today we need (apparently need) speed and its apparently vital for us to know that a sports car that costs more than our house can accelerate to 100mph half a second faster than the sports car that cost more than our house that they had on last week - that sort of information is apparently vital to us viewers and we apparently demand this information of a show like Top Gear.

We also apparently demand to know just how fast a celebrity guest can drive a bog standard Toyota Corolla around a pre-described racing circuit, not just drive it, but drive it as fast as they dare, sometimes on two wheels, and then its vital that we know how many seconds they took and just how that compared to the multitude of other celebrities that did the same daft thing a few weeks ago.

Its all about speed and how fast they can make this weeks car go and how loud they can make it scream for mercy in each gear - and I must be the only one who shouts at the TV that its completely irrelevant to someone like me who drives his car on the normal roads at normal speeds for five days a week to do his job.

And so, harsh though it may seem, Richard Hammond's terrible accident is at the same time his own fault, and the fault of the presenters who think driving fast is good, and the fault of the shows producers who think driving fast is what the viewers want to worship on TV, and its the fault of all of us who watch the programme every week and don't bother asking for some items that actually relate to driving in the real world.