“Gathers momentum” are the words used in a BBC News headline to an article published yesterday referring to the petition launched back in June by solicitor Nick ‘Mr Loophole’ Freeman calling on cyclists and e-scooter riders to be required, among other things, to wear hi-vis tabards with identification numbers – the only problem being that the petition actually closed last week.
And while, as the BBC correctly points out, the number of signatures it attracted means the government will have to give a response to the petition, we already have a strong hint of what the answer will be thanks to a question asked in the House of Lords back in June.
In its article, the broadcaster said that the petition aimed to “crack down on nuisance cycling” – even though the changes to the law being called for by the Manchester-based solicitor, who has helped celebrity clients including David Beckham and Sir Alex Ferguson secure acquittals on motoring-related offences, would apply to anyone riding a bike.
Like all petitions published on the Parliament.uk website, the petition ran for six months. It was posted in June, ran for six months, and it closed last Tuesday 7 December having amassed 10,498 signatures.
It broke the 10,000-signature threshold above which the government is obliged to provide a response – due within the next nine days – with less than 24 hours to go until it closed, despite Freeman repeatedly taking to print and broadcast media, including The Telegraph and BBC Radio 4, to urge people to support it.
Posted under the heading, Introduce new requirements for cyclists/e-scooters: visible ID, licences, etc, Freeman wrote:
The Government should require cyclists and e-scooter riders display visible ID, require that cycle lanes be used where available, and introduce a licensing and penalty point system for all cyclists and licensing system for escooter riders.
Roads are now shared with more cyclists and e-scooters than ever. Yet cyclists and e-scooter riders aren`t currently held accountable in same way as drivers.
Cycle lanes can be safer yet are often not-used. A licence scheme and penalty points system should ensure responsible cycling and e-scooter use.
“Without some kind of registration scheme we have no idea who might be riding a bike or an e-scooter,” Freeman – who in 2007 got Jeremy Clarkson cleared of a speeding charge because the prosecution had been unable to prove that the then Top Gear presenter had been driving the car in question at the time of the alleged offence – told the BBC.
“Those who use them can recklessly flout the law with impunity – say, jumping red lights, weaving on and off pavements and even knocking down pedestrians,” added the solicitor – who has previously called for pedestrians to be forced to wear reflective clothing at night after a driver he represented was convicted of causing the death of a rabbi through careless driving.
> Make pedestrians wear reflective clothing, says ‘Mr Loophole’ lawyer who defended killer driver
And as for what we expect the government’s response to the petition to be, at least insofar as it relates to cyclists?
Well, at the end of June – three weeks after the petition had been posted and Freeman had made his initial rounds of the media to promote it – Lord Berkeley, patron of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling & Walking, posed a written question to the government in the House of Lords on the issues it raised.
In a written question, he asked the government “what assessment they have made of the possible (1) advantages, and (2) disadvantages, of introducing a licensing system for cyclists.”
Responding to the Labour peer, Baroness Vere of Norbiton, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, said: “The government considered this matter carefully as part of the cycling and walking safety review in 2018, and has no plans to introduce such a system.
“Cycling brings many benefits, particularly in terms of health and the environment, and the government is keen to encourage rather than restrict it.
“Cyclists must respect the rules of the road as set out in The Highway Code and enforcement of cycling offences is a matter for the police.
“The introduction of a licensing system would be likely to deter many people from cycling and the costs and complexity of introducing and administering such a system, would be likely to outweigh any road safety or other benefits,” she added.
Earlier this month, Freeman was set straight by Surrey Police’s road policing unit on Twitter after he posted a video in which he suggested – incorrectly – that a group of cyclists riding two abreast ahead of the vehicle he was travelling in on a winding road were breaking the law.
And while his petition may, at the 11th hour, have gone over the 10,000 signatures it needed for the government to have to respond, it secured barely a tenth of the 100,000 needed for it to even be considered for a House of Commons debate by the Backbench Business Committee.





















44 thoughts on “Mr Loophole’s cyclist ID petition “gathers momentum” says BBC – except it closed last week”
Yet another complaint to be
Yet another complaint to be written to the BBC about their blatant anti-cycling bias, perfectly demonstrated by this article, which only gives the story of the nasty little loophole lawyer. Nothing from any cycling organisation, or even from an individual cyclist, and as road.cc points out, the headline is just a lie, since the petition has closed and it can’t possibly get any more, or less, momentum.
CUK, BC, Sustrans, please get together and blast some sense into the BBC. Other media are run by billionaires, but the BBC has a charter and editorial guidelines that supposedly guarantee impartiality and the views of all sides, and the BBC’s bias has been utterly blatant for decades.
The BBC has Jeremy Vine.
The BBC has Jeremy Vine.
Who doesn’t do his pro-cyling
Who doesn’t do his pro-cyling agenda in his BBC time.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
TalkRADIO presenters definitely DO have ANTI cycling time on their shows. Farage too when he was on LBC.
Which is why it is
Which is why it is disappointing when the BBC who like to promote impartiality on stories (unlike the other priavte stations), yet let people like Freeman on as a “Road Safety Campaigner” because he wants to punish cyclists with unmanagable and costly red tape but with nothing solid more behind the headline soundbites.
I think last time they did have “the other side ” represented they had someone who public speaks for a living against a guy who occaisionally makes the news because he catches people on his camera sometimes. Yes, very fair debate there.
I posted elsewhere questions any journalist should ask in any interviews before Freeman is allowed to do his anti cycling speil. His resident brown-noser on here replied Poophole has apparently answered them before without providing links to those answers and then went on to answer from his own warped opinion rather then Nick’s.
Same with LBC. Nick Ferrari
Same with LBC. Nick Ferrari is endlessly whinging about the cyclists holding up his chauffeur driven car that takes him from his home in Blackheath to Leicester Square. I stopped listening to him because he’s too thick to realise that some of his audience are actually the people he’s slating.
Unfortunately.
Unfortunately.
When we have to refer to him,
When we have to refer to him, can we please spell his name correctly – it’s Mr Poophole – the lawyer that talks out of his sphincter!
“The Government should
“The Government should require cyclists and e-scooter riders display visible ID, require that cycle lanes be used where available, and introduce a licensing and penalty point system for all cyclists and licensing system for escooter riders.
Roads are now shared with more cyclists and e-scooters than ever. Yet cyclists and e-scooter riders aren`t currently held accountable in same way as drivers.
Cycle lanes can be safer yet are often not-used. A licence scheme and penalty points system should ensure responsible cycling and e-scooter use.”
So says the fuckwit solicitor who makes a fortune out of getting dangerous drivers off the hook on a technicality. Idiot, he’s a complete waste of 8 pints of blood.
The thing I hate was the two
The thing I hate was the two most famous “Loopholes” letoff’s that got him really famous were not actually loopholes but just Magistrates being starstruck.
“My client didn’t want to shit himself” is not a loophole that allows you to drive down the hard shoulder of a motorway passed traffic. But hey look, it is a famous football manager of the area so let him off.
And considering only two years before we learned the tragic consequences of speeding to escape the Paparazzi instead of using legal means, why was it safe for someone to drive 76mph in a 50 for the same reason, someone who was banned on totting up but got away with it as the appeals judge decided he might get a kiss from Posh Spice if he didn’t stop the Millionaire who could afford a chauffeur from driving dangerously.
Still at least Boo posted a link to a famous loss which are very rarely reported it seems when he couldn’t get Fwank off a few years ago in a similar argument. Be intereting this time around.
“Cyclists must respect the
“Cyclists must respect the rules of the road as set out in The Highway Code”.
What about?
Members of Parliament must respect the rules of the land as set out in the Ministerial Code”.
I thought not. Well, fuck it. I’m not going to wear my seatbelt whilst cycling then.
Great stuff. That’s a really,
Great stuff. That’s a really, really adult reaction. [NOT – just in case there was any doubt.]
Are you banking on Rendel
Are you banking on Rendel having the day off?
Foolish if so – like
Foolish if so – like Pinkerton’s, “We Never Sleep”!
.
.
Do adults really add NOT at
Do adults really add NOT at the end of sentences? Thought that was American teens in the 90’s.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Excellent!
I did submit a complaint to
I did submit a complaint to the BBC for the biased and inaccurate manner in which the article was written. It seems in general the BBC shows bias against cycling as a means of transport or allows reporters to introduce such a bias and gives up with fair or reasonable reporting. It is difficult to know what Mr Freeman is trying to do other than create publicity and discontent his proposals will have no meaningful impact on road safety but risk the opposite. He offers no basis in fact or evidence but through hs legal work should know a licence is no regulator of behaviour. On average 42 pedestrians are killed each year on pavements by licenced drivers in registered motor vehicles. How is road safety improved by wasting rescources and time on a form of transportation that leads sadly to about 3 people being killed a year with unknown fault and on any part of the highway. He writes cycle lanes can be safer so who decides which are these lanes and why, is he raising a campaign to improve those lanes that are not safe ? Then why should a license system improve the safety of those lanes ? About 220 people each year are killed by knife attacks is he suggesting everyone walks around by carrying a visible number plate to make them be identified easier ?
nikkispoke wrote:
by pedestrians?
Because any crimes commited by someone who happened to have a bike with them would be laid at the door of cyclists.
Freeman has not even
Freeman has not even qualified the actual problem he is attempting to address. If road safety was a genuine concern* then cyclists would be way down the list of priorities. Licencing, tabbards, MOTs, hi viz, helmets, insurance and the other crap are simply ways to make cycling such a hassle that no-one will bother. I don’t even think that this is Freeman’s ultimate motive. He simply uses cycling as a lightning rod to ensure his continued visibility in the media.
*That Freeman is rolled out as any sort of road safety campaigner is an utter travesty given his chosen line of work.
He is the same as a lot of my
He is the same as a lot of my ex workmates who didn’t like cyclists. They all wanted no music, no radios, compulsory helmets, hi-vis on hot summer days and loved it when it rained.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I think I have posited before that, having seen a surge in cycling, he may actually be going after cyclists as a new client base: “yes m’lud, that is my client’s registration tabard, but the prosecution can’t prove that it is my client wearing it”. But most likely he just hates us.
“Cycle lanes can be safer yet
“Cycle lanes can be safer yet are often not-used.”
Where is the danger coming from, Mr Freeman?
Anyone offended by the BBCs
Anyone offended by the BBCs one sided story, make a complaint to them, it takes five minutes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints
Copy and paste this link to the story.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59649900
Mr Freeman said: “We are all
Mr Freeman said: “We are all delighted with the results of the petition since something must be done to make road space safer for everyone.
But it’s OK for this dickhead who makes a fortune getting dangerous footballers amongst others off the hook, thus ensuring that road space is kept dangerous by letting lunatics keep their licenses.
Hypocrite, fuckwit, dickhead.
Have always puzzled over the
Have always puzzled over the irony of when motorists demand licensing, registration and insuring of cyclists. It’s not like any of those three areas have really reduced traffic offences committed by motorists.
I’m sure the world is a
I’m sure the world is a slightly better place for having those things. Drivers want us all to suffer/ suffer them equally. Windshield bias and a way to remove the simplicity, accessibility and spontaneity of cycling.
There’s a dual personality thing, the self-styled “innocent motorist” and “what corner cutting (everyone else does it) can I get away with today?” Layered with the many expenses and hassles of running a car – a roller-coaster of whizzing along comfortably one minute, then a jam and nowhere to park the next.
For all you Nick Freeman fans
For all you Nick Freeman fans out there, the legend himself will be commenting on the Katie Price case on LBC tomorrow morning at 9am. Please note, Ms Price is not a client of Mr Freeman.
She has been previously.
She has been previously.
In the interests of road safety and all that, he helped her avoid a penalty for use of mobile phone whilst driving.
Whilst now also calling to
Whilst now also calling to treat mobile phone use in cars the same as drink driving with a 12month driving ban, but it’s the cyclists right https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/04/mr-loophole-calls-mobile-phone-ban-wheel-despite-defending-clients/
And don’t forget he also lost
And don’t forget he also lost one for her (not that his losses seem to get reported much) when his much vaunted “escape the paparazzi” defence wasn’t bought this time. I really must check the loophole in the law which he is exploiting there which isn’t just hoping the magistrate is starstuck.
As for the phone one, the defence won, not on her initial defence that she was using her perfume bottle and losing control of her car and not her mobile and losing control of her car, but on they told her then she was being prosecuted but apparently didn’t tell her by letter.
I’m pretty sure that apart from “Shitting myself” Fergie, all his other clients have been done multiple times before and since he might have got them off once. Yet still people laud him as a Road Safety Campaigner.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
No. People don’t. Our Nige does, but that’s about it…
brooksby wrote:
and the bbc apparently
Whilst I believe Boo has
Whilst I believe Boo has signed the petition multiple times, one for each of his personalities, I don’t think 10.5k times. So yes, “People don’t” but Arseholes and Journalists do, the latter of which do articles like the above without asking the questions I keep on mentioning or others like:
Do you give some of your wealth to road safety charities who campaign for victims of speeding and distracted drivers, most of which seem to be your clients?
Being as the majority of your clients are guilty of speeding in the majoritry of which you never deny the speeds in court, why haven’t you ever launched a petition to get the two week limit of notification dropped? Afterall that was brought in when most people were caught there and then and not by Cameras or filmed which can delay the process. Or a petition to remove telling the public where speed camera are located on sat-navs or giving notice on where mobile ones might be based? Afterall the speed limit is the same whether the camera van is there or not!
Garage at Large wrote:
Why would anyone be interested in his opinions on the case of a woman who has now been banned from driving 6 times, and on this occasion admitted driving under the influence of drink and drugs, while already disqualified and without insurance (notwithstanding that her disqualification would presumably have invalidated her insurance anyway)?
Exactly the sort of driver lifetime bans were invented for … such a pity they are never actually used.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
Do you have any link to her being already disqualified on this occasion – I thought she was, as she received a 2 year ban in October 2019 – but apparently she managed to get this reduced to 18 months on appeal.
Price, of Dial Post, Horsham,
Price, of Dial Post, Horsham, pleaded guilty to driving while disqualified, without insurance and while unfit through drink after rolling her BMW at 6.20am on September 28.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19788617.katie-price-police-consider-appeal-star-avoids-prison-drink-driving-crash-sussex/
hirsute wrote:
I think she needs psychiatric help. She lives a chaotic life. But I agree, she’s the sort of person lifetime driving bans were meant for.
Garage at Large wrote:
Nick, I think you meant bellend not legend.
When the world is full of
When the world is full of autonomous cars and with a lack of draconian cycling/scootering laws, he could perhaps use his skills to offer late homework excuses to the children of celebrities.
Almost 600 petitions have
Almost 600 petitions have reached the threshold to get a response. I wonder how many of the others the BBC have deemed as newsworthy.
If Nick Freeman is now really
If Nick Freeman is now really interested in road safety, after years of working very effectively at keeping dangerous drivers behind the wheel, has he had a road to damascus moment? OR is he simply looking to increase the number of prosecutions is thie essentially a marketing strategy?
Has he heard that a number of wealthy famous people also road bikes, so there is a market for a celebrity cycling defence lawyer?
Fkit bring it on. I want to
Fkit bring it on. I want to see all those entitled drivers faces when the police treat their complaints of cyclists “holding up traffic” or “jumping redlights” in the same way that i get when i report drivers actually trying to run me off the road (i.e. ‘yeah, we’ll look into it’ and never contact you again).
duh, Mr Poophole
duh, Mr Poophole