Nick Freeman, the lawyer known as 'Mr Loophole' who has helped celebrities including David Beckham and Jeremy Clarkson avoid motoring convictions, says that lockdown has led to “a culture of toxic cycling” and has repeated calls for cyclists to be licensed and insured.
Yesterday was World Bicycle Day, and at a time when cycling is booming in the UK as a result of lockdown, the solicitor did the round of media outlets including BBC Look North and BBC Radio Scotland to call for tougher regulation of cyclists.
Freeman claims to be a supporter of cycling, but insisted there was a “dangerous entitlement” on the part of many cyclists since the country went into lockdown.
Quoted on the Daily Mail-owned website This Is Money, he said: “Boris Johnson recently said the near future should be a new golden age for cycling. And I agree – cycling is such a healthy and eco-friendly way to travel.
“Unfortunately, while there are many responsible cyclists, some seem to have abandoned all road sense since lockdown began.
“Lack of cars has allowed a culture of toxic cycling to prevail on our empty roads as some riders claim the highways as their own,” Freeman continued.
“It has made some cyclists ride with a sense of dangerous entitlement.”
Freeman’s solution to that perceived problem remains the same as he has regularly trotted out before – compulsory tabards with a registration number on them, a points-based system similar to that operating for drivers who break the law, as well as compulsory insurance.
In the past, he has also called for helmets and hi-viz clothing to be made compulsory.
He has also criticised cyclists for filtering and for riding in primary position in the road – leading cycling author and journalist Carlton Reid to say, in 2015: “I’m surprised that a lawyer specialising in transport could be so ignorant about the various Road Traffic acts and the Highway Code.
“It is not illegal for cyclists to undertake and to ride in the middle of the road.
He added: “Mr. Freeman’s point about registration plates assumes that cyclists would be somehow more law abiding if they had them fitted.
“If registration plates were so effective Mr Freeman would be out of a job because motorists wouldn’t dare to break the law for fear of being identified.”
Freeman’s latest comments come at a time when police forces across the country have highlighted a big increase in drivers speeding due to emptier-than-usual roads during lockdown.
So, while he may fret about cyclists, at least he won’t need to worry about his caseload defending motorists being prosecuted for breaking the law drying up any time soon.
Add new comment
64 comments
The man is a cock of the highest order!
please a little bit of sympathy for this chap who seems to crave attention any one with children will recognise the ...pay me attention.... syndrome, in a four year old it is dealt with by mild rebuke in a ageing chap such as this its a cause for sympathy for a man being slightly pathetic
Sorry I can't agree with your comment. Attention seeking is best dealt with by ignoring the behaviour, therebye not providing the attention so much needed.
Freeman is a twat, peddling mostly debunked arguments to the gullible. His court work can be characterised the same way.
Personally I'd prefer not to give him the oxygen of publicity. Or any oxygen at all, to be honest.
If one followed the "logic" of this numpty's argument, then pedestrians, prams, wheelbarrows, children on scooters and wheelchairs should also be licensed and insured. Pathetic attempt at publicity by a third-rate lawyer.
This idiot was on my Regional News program, Look North, spouting this crap last week. 1st time I've ever seen Peter Levy put up a real challenge to a guest and all Freeman could do was give opinions, no evidence at all. Man's a dick who specialises in getting celeb's off dangerous motoring offences.
Nick Freeman can simply fuck off
Double post. ARRGGHH!
Duplicate
The man and his ideas are not worth a single penny of his hourly charge rate.
Cyclists having compulsory insurance etc is not going to make motorists slow down, be more considerate of other road users or make the roads any safer. Yes, there are some dangerous cyclists and I've seen plenty of lycra'd up riders going through red lights. They are not helping the cause and this annoys me.
There are countless drivers not insured, not qualified etc and I wonder how many others would pay for insurance if it were not compulsory.
If the police and local councils don't have the resources to monitor and stop motorists breaking the law or driving dangerously, how are they going to do it wth cyclists as well. I just don't see his point except to keep him in the media spotlight.
Out of interest, is the a motorists equivalent of the NMOTD (or similar site) where the cyclist is at fault?
Motorist NMOTD - now there's an idea.
"oh now look at this, bloke he's just veered into the middle of the road what a shocker - ok ease, off give him lots of space "that's all right, mate - social distancing from a pedestrian, fair enough"
"Ok, what's this here, mum at the back, two kids tottering along then dad courageously leading from the front, well, this is going to take a bit of thought to pass them safely..."
now you mention it, there's a distinct lack of dashcam of cyclists when you might expect there to be. It's frequently all played out in the comments section of your local newspaper or Facebook.
Isn't that what FB is for, though? Passive-aggressive criticism of a person or activity that you didn't actually deal with face to face??
Double post
Yes, unfortunately a whole host of new cyclist may cause some disruption, especially in city surrounds. (My neighbour for one...although I applaud his new found hobby...his roadcraft is non existent).
Lockdown in Ireland has meant a 2km radius sphere, recently extended to a 5km radius...and hopefully a 20km radius by next Monday 8 Jun...which has been a bind, sticking to the same roads for the past few months.
I happened across a few FB posts by The Irish Gardai roads unit.
Car clocked at 101kph in a 50kph zone, penalty points for another for overtaking on a solid white line...the usual stuff, empty roads meaning driving rules are out to lunch, etc.
I enquired if they were interested in following up on close passing of cyclists, having been the victim of at least 10 or so in 4 days of cycling.
Only to be met with the usual anti cycling torrents...one driver was livid that he could not "safely" pass two cyclists (side by side - socially distanced the requisite 2m).
He would have to go over to the other side of the carriageway to safely pass...but how could he as it was a solid white line...they should have gone single file....blah blah blah, been more corteous to the driver , etc.
Then the usual road tax, registration, insurance balderdash gets thrown up...
I posted a picture of one of the close passes I received...which got a handful oh "ha ha" emojis. (Caring, concerned and upstanding people...)
I was close passed within about 4 inches on an 80kph limit road.
I was cycling uphill (20 to 25 kph).
The car came from behind, at 80+kph, stayed completely within the lane and overtook on the approach to a blind summit.
My language was "choice" to say the least.
This was followed (less than 5 minutes later) by another dangerous overtake, just past a 90° blind bend on a solid double white line, with a choke point (Road works sign directly in my path), the driver overtaking into the path of oncoming traffic, then slams on their brakes...
How can any cyclist be bothered these days? The mentality of other road users is just so piss poor.
What's to stop any cyclist from carrying some form of
offensive"defensive"(sic) weaponry...oh yes, the law...because we as cyclists (well me anyway) abide by the law as much as is possible.
The law, and those supposedly enforcing it...that never seems to be there to protect us...
I also live and cycle in Irl , and just as in many other jurisdictions , the police and judiciary and local and national politicians and people with influence and power are made up mainly of auto-philes, and so their primary world view is car-centric. This in my view is the greatest hurdle for cyclists when it comes to safety on the roads, pro-cycling policy, and fair enforcement of the law. We can but chip away at it, year on year, and hope more join our ranks and gradually effect change
“Unfortunately, while there are many responsible drivers, some seem to have abandoned all road sense
“Lack of bikes has allowed a culture of toxic motoring to prevail on our roads as some drivers claim the highways as their own,” Freeman continued.
“It has made some motorists drive with a sense of dangerous entitlement.”
There, fixed that for him.
"I wouldn't tell any of the above to the wife as she wasn't happy I took my bike out in the first place"
Let's hope she doesn't read roadcc!!
Lol. Let's hope not.
Toxic lawyer who gets rich people off driving offences claims other people are the problem.
I think that headline would suit better.
Hi all, new to Road.cc but been following for a short while now. Live in London and have driven a lot over the years. Whilst a driver I had made many of the same arguments against cyclists that get repeated over and over again, i.e. no insurance, no awareness of the Highway Code etc. Having started cycling again in London, after over a decade off the bike, due to the coronavirus outbreak and reluctance to use public transport, my opinions are thus based on the short 2 month period that I have been a daily commuter cyclist in central london. As traffic has picked up so has the slightly aggressive driving with close passes and lack of courtesy towards bikes. But unfortunately pretty much ever near miss I have had has been with other cyclists or pedestrians. With so many new cyclists on the road, many of whom have never even driven in London, at times its absolute chaos. Just a few days ago when the Sun was out I had multiple incidences which pretty much highlights all my issues: 1. Boris bike unable to go in a straight line constantly swerving left and right in the hyder park cycle lane - almost crashed into me as I was overtaking 2. Groups of cyclists (usually teenagers) who have just stopped in the middle of the cycle lane and completely blocked it 3. cyclists not understanding that the lanes only go in one direction, so almost had multiple head on collisions 4. Later the same day cyclists breaking red light almost crashed into me as I went across a junction 5. Almost another head on collision as a group of Boris bikes go up a one way road which doesn't allow contralateral cycle flow 6. Family walked into the road across a cycle lane without even looking, had to swerve radpidlly to avoid them 7. Similar thing happened again when a pedestrian with ear phones in just decides to start crossing the road without looking. He actually almost got run over by a car before I even got to him. The main issues I have had with cars is that they wont let me merge when in from the left and tend to speed up particularly on the busier roads. Some close passes as well.
So I do think the whole cycling and driving / Transport strategy needs to be overhauled to make it safer for all. Insurance is useful to help provide cover in case of an accident but ultimately we need better facilities and better awareness of road rules from both cyclists and motorists.
If the above sounds anti-cyclist - its not meant to be. I am finding cycling really liberating and very enjoyable. Just feel that it could be made safer. I wouldn't tell any of the above to the wife as she wasn't happy I took my bike out in the first place.
However at no point was your life in danger, so that pretty much pails into insignificance. It's the close passes from 2 tonnes of twat you want to be worrying about.
We do not need barriers to cycling. We need the opposite.
I agree, that cars can cause significantly more harm but I also don't think discounting serious injury from fellow cyclists is fair. Crashing head first into another cyclist doing 15-20mph whilst I am also doing 15-20 mph is the equivalent of a 30-40mph crash. I suspect that would cause some harm. Even being dropped onto the floor from the side by a way ward bike can lead to fractures and possible head injury depending on the exact angle of the fall.
Not so. Consider cycling into a brick wall at 15mph. You stop dead. Consider cycling into another rider of equal mass coming head on at the same speed. You stop dead. In both cases the deceleration is the same. Crashing into someone coming head on at Xmph is the same as crashing into a stationary car or wall at Xmph, not 2Xmph.
By that logic, walking into a hammer being held out in front of you is the same as walking forward while someone swings the hammer at your head. I don't recommend trying it out though.
The factor that matters is not whether or not you stop dead, it's where the energy dissipates to. If you rode into a brick wall, you would have 1x your amount of energy, dissipated (more or less) all through you. If you rode into another rider of the same size, doing the same speed, there'd be 2x the energy, dissipated between 2 of you, so your share would be the same. On the other hand, if you rode into the same rider while they were stationary, you'd have 1x the energy shared between 2 of you, so 1/2 as much each.
This might help, and it's more entertaining:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4
Used to quite enjoy myth busters. Thanks
Anyways...the point was that either mode of transport can cause injury to a cyclist and both should be recognized. Unfortunately the anti-car agenda and sentiment from cyclists, rightly or wrongly, breeds further anti-cyclist behavior amongst drivers. Attitudes on both sides need to change for cycling to become safer regardless of whether one causes more harm than the other. Rules should apply equally to both sides. Many complain when a motorist is caught doing 100+ miles an hour etc. But traffic offenses are proportional to the offense. Doing 35 in a 30 zone may be just a speed awareness course. Equally a cyclist breaking the Highway Code is not usually very dangerous and so the penalty should also be proportional. In my opinion it comes down to following a set of common rules that apply to all modes of transport that use the roads.
Not really. For comparison, you'd need to propel one car into the other while the second car was stationary.
Schoolboy physics suggests that mass plays a part too. I'd MUCH rather be hit by another 100kg cyclist travelling at 15mph, than by a 1000kg car travelling at 30mph. The car's got 40x as much energy that's got to go somewhere (usually by breaking bones).
This isn't true. There is no absolute fixed point of reference in this universe (your so called stationary wall in on a planet rotating at a 1000 Miles an hour for instance) so there is no way to differentiate between what you perceive as 2 cyclists coming towards each other with a speed of 20mph and one cyclist coming towards a stationary one at 40 mph. The reason the myth busters video works is because the cars are designed to deform and distribute energy whereas the wall does not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
Pages