Mr Loophole fury at perfectly legal two abreast cyclists “riding with impunity” (+ Surrey traffic cops aren’t impressed); Cattle grid conundrum; Van Aert hopes to make peace with Remco; Josh Quigley set for round the world finale + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Aberdeenshire farm crowned Tour of Britain land art competition winner for its creative straw bale display
Wout van Aert may have won the race, but Craskins Farm in Aberdeenshire won the people’s Tour of Britain prize. The work of Dr Jenna Ross, parents Brian and Alison and brother Stewart, this ‘mini peloton’, made from straw bales and recycled materials collected from roadside verges around the farm, has been awarded the 2021 AJ Bell Tour of Britain national land art prize.
The judging panel, which included AJ Bell Tour of Britain race director Mick Bennett, chose the display for its novelty factor as well as its environmental credentials. Ned Boulting commented on the display during the ITV4 live coverage of the race, saying: “Cycling fans have used bales to represent bicycles for decades and I’ve never seen as inventive a use as that!” Big praise from a man who sees the best of what the French have to offer every year at the Tour.
Dr Ross had previously made a straw bale display in support of the NHS, and the mini peloton was repurposed into a Halloween display after the race had passed. “It was such a pleasure to have this world-renowned event come to our very special corner of the world,” Dr Ross said.
“The art was inspired by my younger brother, Duncan, who is registered blind and is passionate about cycling. Unfortunately the pandemic massively impacted his ability to get on his bike due to the social distancing challenges of a tandem bike. So this was for him!”
Let's get all the Mr Loophole stuff out the way early...
Tragic figures on roads – cyclists should wear helmets, high viz jackets and must drop into single line as a soon as a car is behind them.
Please sign petition https://t.co/mJTs4R9eBnhttps://t.co/zVAhbx82l2— Nick Freeman (@TheMrLoophole) December 1, 2021
You’ve had one Mr Loophole post already, let’s get this one out the way too…for a slightly different interpretation of the official data, check out Simon’s deep dive into the numbers from yesterday…
"I've never been angry, I was disappointed": Wout van Aert hopes to clear the air with Remco Evenepoel over World Championships tactics
Wout van Aert says he’s keen to move on from the disappointment of failing to win the rainbow jersey at his home World Championships. Much of the narrative was around young starlet Remco Evenepoel apparently ignoring team orders to attack with 180km to go.
It then emerged Remco had skipped the post-race debrief, where Van Aert had hoped to address the decision. The Jumbo-Visma rider told HLN before the Kristallen Fiets award ceremony the pair hadn’t addressed their concerns since…”It hasn’t happened for the time being, because right after the World Championships, I didn’t really care about it. I was disappointed with myself and for the group, because I hadn’t been able to deliver,” Van Aert told former rider Dirk De Wolf.
“Remco then chose not to attend the debriefing. That was a pity. After that, the season was soon over and everyone took a vacation. I’ve never been angry. I was disappointed because I just didn’t think it was smart to spark a controversy in the media afterwards. But you’re right: we need to sort it out because we will often be in national teams together.”
Rapha partners with All In Racing on #RainbowLaces and socks
Rapha and All In Racing have produced limited edition Rainbow Socks in support of #RainbowLaces day on Wednesday 8th December. All In Racing is a new initiative within competitive cycling which aims to help the sport become more inclusive for LGBTQ+ people.
Stonewall’s #RainbowLaces campaign, which runs in December every year, has support from football’s Premier League but until now has held a lower profile in endurance sports.
All In Racing and Rapha are bringing #RainbowLaces to the new Clanfield Cross cyclocross event in Hampshire on Saturday 11th December. They are providing a free pair of Rainbow Socks to anyone in the Men’s and Women’s Elite UCI races who would like to show support for LGBTQ+ inclusion.
Anyone else racing the Clanfield Cross event can request socks via the All In Racing website.
In addition, 120 pairs of socks are publicly available for sale at £10 (including postage) through the All In Racing website. To mark the #RainbowLaces day, on Wednesday 8th December at 6.30pm, Josh Jones from All In Racing will host an open Zwift ride with journalist Myles Warwood, where they will chat about the initiative.
All In Racing will formally launch in spring 2022.
Josh Quigley touches down in Texas after brief lost bike scare
Really nice to go back to my old rehab centre Texas Neuro Rehab Centre in Austin, Texas.
I spent a couple weeks there after my accident in Texas, nice to go back and see them again and thank them for getting me back on the bike!
Wouldn’t be here without them!
🚴♂️🥇🏆🌎 pic.twitter.com/svHjvZzEbu
— Josh Quigley (@JoshQuigley2026) December 2, 2021
Josh Quigley’s attempt to finally complete his round the world cycle two years later gets underway tomorrow. Today he took some time to return to the Texas Neuro Rehab Centre where he was treated after a driver collided with him while travelling at 70mph.
There was a brief scare when his bike didn’t arrive in Austin…
I’ve made it back to Texas 🇺🇸🌎
My bike didn’t but 🙄
Credit to @united who tracked it down and delivered it at 3am 😂👏
Amazing to be reunited with Reynold and Olivia who drove almost 100 miles to visit me in hospital when I was here last time I was here.
I love Texas 🇺🇸❤️ pic.twitter.com/WrU3Pt6YV0
— Josh Quigley (@JoshQuigley2026) December 1, 2021
Mr Loophole taken back to school by Surrey traffic cops
As the saying goes…cometh the hour, cometh the regional roads policing unit armed with facts and a no-nonsense attitude…
The Surrey traffic cops were quickly on the scene of the Mr Loophole road safety horror show, and got back to him about both his posts: the video of the two abreast group ride and this questionable interpretation of the news cyclist deaths had spiked on rural A roads.
No they shouldn’t Nick.
Drivers should drive their one tonne vehicle more carefully and stop killing 5 people every day.To use your opinion in a different analogy, should kids in American schools wear bullet proof jackets in case of a mass shooting?
— Roads Policing Unit (RPU) – Surrey Police – UK (@SurreyRoadCops) December 1, 2021
In reply to the video, the Surrey cops echoed much of the sentiment seen elsewhere in the replies…
Interesting that the male voice in your video says that what they’re doing is “completely illegal” – hopefully you can point us in the direction of where that piece of legislation is…
Also, the MAXIMUM speed for that road would be 60. It’s wet and narrow, so would expect less.
— Roads Policing Unit (RPU) – Surrey Police – UK (@SurreyRoadCops) December 1, 2021
How Mr Loophole's tweet should have read?
Took this video (from TfL cam) on 30mph road. Forced to filter thru line of traffic due to obstruction caused by #drivists ahead queuing 3 abreast. Dressed in black and driving with impunity. Law should be changed to force them to drop into single file when faster cyclists behind pic.twitter.com/X6Ywc2dIcn
— always last (@lastnotlost) December 2, 2021
Tickets for Eroica Britannia on sale 9am Monday 6 December
Tickets for the cycling lifestyle festival Eroica Britannia at Goodwood go on sale from Monday at 9am. The event involves family-friendly fun, cycling heritage and live music over the weekend of 6-7 August 2022.
It is a celebration of Sussex and cycling’s past, with three rides across the South Downs, starting and finishing at Goodwood’s famous motor circuit. On Saturday, visitors can participate in various activities at the motor circuit, where there will be live DJs and bands, pop-up shops, cocktail bars and food stalls.
On Sunday, ‘The Ride’ ticket holders have a choice of three routes: a 25-mile all abilities route, as well as 60 and 100-mile options. All the routes will take in Goodwood’s iconic hill climb and pass the historic 1982 UCI World Championships finish line at the top of Kennel Hill.
Surrey road cops' road safety debunking bonanza
Tea.
It’s always tea, and maybe a choccy biscuit.— Roads Policing Unit (RPU) – Surrey Police – UK (@SurreyRoadCops) December 2, 2021
Whoever’s behind the Surrey Roads Policing Unit’s Twitter account had their Weetabix this morning (plus a few choccy biscuits)…it’s been another vintage day for everybody’s favourite police account. It all began with those delightful replies to Mr Loophole. But was that the end of it? Not one bit. Loophole may not have come back for a second bite, but the anti-cyclist bingo lot did…
Fear not, fuelled by mugs of tea, our admirable admin continued the good fight. The only tricky decision is where to start?
So every car driver causing a traffic jam gets a ticket now, so they?
No, of course not. The driving or riding needs to fall below a standard. Their riding was safe, legal and in life with current guidance (the HC is due to be updated on this area as it’s currently out of date)
— Roads Policing Unit (RPU) – Surrey Police – UK (@SurreyRoadCops) December 2, 2021
— Roads Policing Unit (RPU) – Surrey Police – UK (@SurreyRoadCops) December 2, 2021
That was fun, fortunately there’s more…
Roads Policing and Road Safety is our specialty (hence the name).
Unfortunately many drivers have irrational hatred towards other road users, this leads to angry driving which leads to road rage, criminal offences and people getting hurt.— Roads Policing Unit (RPU) – Surrey Police – UK (@SurreyRoadCops) December 2, 2021
More visible…like a fully marked (big reflective and high viz stickers) traffic car with flashing lights?
Nope, drivers still can’t see them. pic.twitter.com/Y9uzfFOS0o— Roads Policing Unit (RPU) – Surrey Police – UK (@SurreyRoadCops) December 2, 2021
Anger management classes are available if you feel it would help. If you get so angry when delayed when driving, then you might want to consider a different mode of transport and return your licence to the DVLA, as the vast majority of delays are caused by motorists.
— Roads Policing Unit (RPU) – Surrey Police – UK (@SurreyRoadCops) December 2, 2021
Was anyone keeping score? I think I lost count at 6-0 to the traffic cops…
Selfridges criticised for selling 50mph e-scooter
Our friends at e-bike tips have the full story about Selfridges facing a fair bit of criticism for selling a 50mph e-scooter, currently illegal to use on public roads and pavements…
For the full story head over to e-bike tips…
Pep and Pog talk...footy? Cycling? The benefits of Middle Eastern investment?
— Cycling out of context (@OutOfCycling) December 1, 2021
We’ve had Mr Loophole, now it’s time for Mr Financial Fair Play Loophole…meeting Tadej Pogačar at City’s Manchester training base. I wonder what these two megastars bonded over? A shared hatred of Manchester weather perhaps?
According to City’s official news report, the two-time Tour de France winner took a break from his cycling exploits to take a look around and was invited to watch a training session, where he met Guardiola and his backroom staff, before presenting the City boss with a commemorative jersey.
Rumours the boss wants to shell out £20million on Pog as a third choice right back remain unconfirmed…
Mr Loophole fury at perfectly legal two abreast cyclists "riding with impunity"
*This post is pinned from this morning*
Took this video(from passenger seat) on 60mph road. Forced to travel in line of traffic at 20mph due to obstruction caused by cyclists ahead riding 3 abreast. Anonymous and cycling with impunity. Law should be changed to force them to drop into single file when vehicles behind pic.twitter.com/u3Qt9mRTQu
— Nick Freeman (@TheMrLoophole) December 1, 2021
The new Highway Code changes have been announced, we’ll be bringing you all the details ASAP. In that context, Mr Loophole timed his latest anti-cyclist rant perfectly, sharing a video of a group ride travelling safely along a narrow, twisty country road. Mr Loophole, real name Nick Freeman, claimed the riders were three abreast and holding up traffic at 20mph when drivers could have been going 60mph…
In the video shared to his Twitter followers, Freeman can be heard saying, “So here we are now on a 60mph derestricted road with seven cyclists two abreast, not going to give way so all the cars have to go at 19 or 20mph because they’ve got no intention of moving over…and there’s no means of holding them to account. What they’re doing is completely illegal.
“This is not right and why we need to know who they are. They’re cycling without consideration for other road users, we factually know that is correct, but who is it? We’ve no idea because there’s no means of identifying them.”
> Rural A roads are where cyclists are most likely to be killed, road.cc analysis reveals
The lawyer seemed to ignore the fact the road would not have been suitable for travelling at 60mph regardless of how many cyclists were using it…something many pointed out in the numerous replies to the post…
So…
1. It’s a limit, not a target… those bends aren’t 60mph.
2. No safe place to pass till suddenly the video ends.
3. Also, as Mr Loophole… you must also think horse riders and pedestrians are anonymous to?
4. Non this matters as you can’t safely overtake no matter what.— Thomas O. Cornwallis (@UrbanistTOC) December 1, 2021
You should only overtake when safe to do so, not when you feel impatient. Single file wouldn’t have allowed you to overtake safely. For a lawyer, its impressive how little you know
— Herzberg (@herzberg19) December 1, 2021
He also seemed oblivious to the reason that most of us ride two abreast — it’s safer for those on bikes and easier for motorists to overtake because it shortens the overtaking distance in half…if only the group had been riding single file, Mr Loophole could have got round on those tight bends…
Took this photo from a bus on 30mph road. Forced to travel in line of traffic at 3mph due to obstruction caused by drivers in single occupancy cars with seating 2 abreast. Driving with impunity. Law should be changed to force them to pull over when busses are behind. pic.twitter.com/h6LEMNj2hg
— Asclepius (@NaturalMessiah) December 1, 2021
He’s got history with this sort of thing. Last year, Mr Loophole claimed cyclists were “abusing” rules on riding two abreast. While earlier this year he started a petition calling for all cyclists to be insured.
Mr Loophole, save us all some time and have a read of our ‘Why do cyclists ride two abreast?’ explainer…
He's still going...
Shot this video from passenger seat of cyclists flouting Highway Code ie R59 should wear helmet & light/fluorescent clothing.R 66 Should never ride more than single file on narrow/busy roads & when riding around bends.R68 You MUST NOT ride in inconsiderate manner #cycling #law pic.twitter.com/waDXPz5Ngw
— Nick Freeman (@TheMrLoophole) December 2, 2021
Goodnight folks! Undoubtedly we’ll have more on this in the morning, can’t wait…
2 December 2021, 09:07
2 December 2021, 09:07
2 December 2021, 09:07
2 December 2021, 09:07
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
104 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Hi-viz makes no difference if drivers do not bother to look and simply use so called "cycle lane" markings as the give way line. My size and large orange hi-viz vest is visible in the reflection of this driver's right side window. The clip does not clearly show her mild shock at seeing me so close. https://youtu.be/vEeljHmz6KA
Get some help you tedious fool This is how it's done, All Mouth No Trousers Boy, by people who are actually out cycling and submitting cases for the benefit of the cycling community, as opposed to those sitting at home making up self-aggrandising stories about 'nailing' the correct way of submitting to achieve 'vastly improved' numbers of NIPs/ letters while being unable to display one video or any evidence of the police 'action'. https://upride.cc/incident/se19hwu_mini_closepass/ You are Pathetic Trolling Toad and ICMFP
“The public made 150,000 video allegations across England and Wales in the last year, and most were prosecuted/ 2/3rds from drivers with dashcams, and 1/3rd from cyclists and pedestrians” This is obviously untrue- virtually none of a large number of submissions to Lancashire Constabulary are being 'prosecuted'. If you look at Benthic's A&S police 'database' above you will see that almost all of the claimed actions are 'Warning letter' and a lot of the rest are 'Positive outcome'
"I promise to make sure that I am seen..." Good luck with that. Hi viz doesn't work for stupid and inobservant, as we all know.
[Stupid comment editor - ignoring line breaks :o( ]
And it's not just the RSA, most Irish motorists believe that if they are barrelling down country roads, in the dark, in the lashing rain, travelling much faster than they can stop in the distance they can see, that if they encounter a pedestrian and only just miss that pedestrian, then it was _the pedestrian's fault_ the driver didn't see them in time cause they weren't wearing high viz. Just check out the number of comments in this insane reddit post backing the bonkers driving of the OP: https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/1r7xczz/venting/ Shite driving and victim blaming is utterly normalised now.
Whenever I drive my overlarge car I'll make sure I know where people are And make it all the way safely home By putting away my goddamn phone!
The RSA is _obsessed_ with hiviz. They regularly have campaigns giving out hiviz to pedestrians, to school kids. I am convinced someone high up in the RSA is very good buddies with a hiviz vendor, and is funneling the government money to them in return for kick-backs. Only way to explain the insane level of obsession RSA has with neon-yellow plastic.
"According to the Hi Glo Silver Pledge, children in Ireland’s schools sign up to the following (not legally binding, I assume) agreement: “When I walk or cycle, night or day, after school or when I go to play, I promise to make sure that I am seen, in reflective clothing that is bright orange, yellow, or green.”" This is actually quite dark. How about, "When I drive I'll use my lights, 'cos unlike the dim drivers I'm quite bright, I look out for others because I should and, erm, the end."
This clip on Cycling Mikey's channel states: "The public made 150,000 video allegations across England and Wales in the last year, and most were prosecuted/ 2/3rds from drivers with dashcams, and 1/3rd from cyclists and pedestrians." https://youtu.be/rjnAiHOuIx8?t=113
104 thoughts on “Mr Loophole fury at perfectly legal two abreast cyclists “riding with impunity” (+ Surrey traffic cops aren’t impressed); Cattle grid conundrum; Van Aert hopes to make peace with Remco; Josh Quigley set for round the world finale + more on the live blog”
That self-publicity obsessed
That self-publicity obsessed lawyer says that it is “completely illegal” to ride three abreast? Doesn’t say much for his ability as a lawyer, considering that it is perfectly legal to do so
Perhaps a petition to the
Perhaps a petition to the government along the lines that immoral lawyers who continuously use loopholes in the pursuit of financial gain should be dis-barred to protect the legal system from exploitation.
Rigobear wrote:
Bit of a tall order considering that such lawyers make up a large part of parliament…
The old gag was that any
The old gag was that any lawyer that could count would have become an accountant or banker!
the little onion wrote:
I am vaguely wondering whether an SRA complaint could be raised, as the video is stating a legal action is illegal in his specific, well publicised area of expertise. I.e. he is deliberately misleading the public which appears to be a violation of professional standards…
(SRA code of conduct : “You do not mislead or attempt to mislead your clients, the court or others, either by your own acts or omissions or allowing or being complicit in the acts or omissions of others (including your client)”. )
I know this has been said
I know this has been said before, but I just can’t understand how someone whose whole professional and social media persona is based on finding legal tricks to avoid drivers being held accountable for their poor driving, is given any credence in any discussion about use of public road.
Why do you give this bloke a
Why do you give this bloke a platform ?
Wasn’t sure at first if you
Wasn’t sure at first if you were talking about Freeman or Nige, but then I noticed he commented after you.
kamoshika wrote:
But equally applicable in either case. (I’m not sure how Nige can describe Loopy as a ‘road safety expert’ as his professional life is based on increasing road danger by helping dangerous drivers avoid accountability.)
Presumably they both give
Presumably they both give clicks for road.cc who seem less interested in what their subscribers would like.
hirsute wrote:
The Live Blog is a collection of anything vaguely bike related and does end up with a lot of social media tripe. I think of it as going through a restaurant’s waste bins rather than eating at a table though I like it’s informal tone and scavenging style.
hirsute wrote:
Advertising innit? Clicks for road.cc, enjoyable frothing for posters, free billboard for a lawyer.
Top tier lawyer Nick Freeman
Top tier lawyer and road safety expert Nick Freeman is once again completely justified in pointing out this disgraceful group’s blatent disregard of the highway code:
“you should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.”
As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t believe that Nick’s proposed registration scheme is proportionate. However, there are other means to ensure this kind of antisocial behaviour is discouraged, with my own preference being to limit group rides to 4 people maximum, with police being at liberty to confiscate law-breakers’ bikes and sell them to fund road safety measures.
Nonetheless, a fantastically articulated video from Mr Freeman, and one which I’ve shared with my mum. I’ll report back when she’s reviewed the footage and given her opinion.
Garage at Large wrote:
Absolutely right. We should take his phone away from him and his mummy should restrict his access to the internet.
road is not narrow (narrow
road is not narrow (narrow roads tend not to have centre lines), road is not busy, there is nothing coming the other way for the entire duration of the film, and likely only two cars behind the cyclists, or else your mancrush would have demonstrated the long line of cars behind in the video.
cycling single file would not enable any cars to overtake here, infact as the group would now be twice as long it would be harder.
The car in front is a particularly small car and still fills nearly the entire lane. so there is no way any car could share the lane with the cyclists even for a dangerous pass.
Troll, Troll, Troll, Troll…
Troll, Troll, Troll, Troll……
Wow – that’s a lot of
Wow – that’s a lot of fuckwittery to unpack this early in the morning, Nige.
For the record – those cyclists aren’t more than two abreast, and the road is neither narrow nor busy, so they don’t have to drop to single file to ride round the bends, plus, at no point in this clip would it have been possible to overtake them even if they were in single file. Given the road conditions, I doubt very much the driver would’ve been able to get near 60mph either.
Calling what they’re doing – like every other driver moron – ‘antisocial’ despite it being perfectly legal is basically hate speech, to say nothing of the fact that you think Freeman is a ‘road safety expert’. No he is not. He helps drviers get away with breaking the law, and that’s it. (BTW, he says ’60mph derestricted road’, which doesn’t exist – top ‘lawyering’ that)
Maybe you could get your Mum to make your breakfast a bit earlier in the morning, so you don’t show up firing on no cylinders. As usual.
Garage at Large wrote:
your mum?
Argos74 wrote:
your mum?— Garage at Large
yo momma….
Captain Badger wrote:
Yo momma’s so classless, she’s a Marxist utopia
Captain Badger wrote:
Yo momma’s so fat, she will have to ride at the front of every peloton so as to not block motorists’ view of the other riders.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Yo momma’s so fat she couldn’t get a room at Hilbert’s hotel
hawkinspeter wrote:
Surreal!
chrisonatrike wrote:
yo Momma so fat she needs a boomerang to put her belt on
Argos74 wrote:
your mum?— Garage at Large
Honestly, that was the line that scared me the most. I’m now imagining a cycling Norman Bates……..
Argos74 wrote:
your mum?— Garage at Large
This more than anything suggest that Mr. GaL is on a very elaborate pisstake on here.
marmotte27 wrote:
On Eben Weiss’s blog, there’s a regular commenter (Leroy) who always posts along the lines of “My dog always thinks that…” or “My dog says…”
Also reminds me of Emma’s sister in law in ‘Emma’ – “My friends say that… “
Perhaps our Nige is a bit like that (“My mum says…”).
It says “Should” not “Must”,
It says “Should” not “Must”, not law not a requirement, just a suggestion.
Simple soloution to make everyone happy is for the cyclists to move to Single file and ride primary position.
Totally in line with the HWC then.
Garage at Large wrote:
Nick, you’ve surpassed yourself with todays first post!
I’ve never seen anyone support Nick Freeman in any way ever apart from, 1) Nick Freeman the publicity whore himself 2) those who profit from his work… and now you. I reckon if you started a Nick Freeman fan club, Nick Freeman would be very pleased about that indeed, he might even send you a signed picture of himself, wouldn’t that be nice!
Am I missing something here?
Am I missing something here? I thought the Garage at Large persona was a parody account…
Compact Corned Beef wrote:
He’s usually serious, but after todays post.. honestly I’m not sure anymore..
That’s Nasal Forage although
That’s Nasal Forage although the lines are getting rather blurred.
Garage at Large wrote:
Does she know Geoff Boycott’s mum?
“Top tier lawyer and road safety expert” – sorry that’s just too much for one post, I haven’t laughed so much in ages. It’s like calling OJ Simpson’s lawyer an expert on advocacy in preventing Femicide.
Mr Loophole is just angry that this “disgraceful group” is doing him out of business by calming the traffic. How’s anyone supposed to speed or drive dangerously in such a situation? The absolute swines – he’ll be claiming for loss of earnings next.
Highway code for that rule is
Highway code for that rule is ‘should not’, not ‘must not’. Therefore there is no legal obilgation for them to ride single file whilst traffic builds up, just that ‘should’ ride single file.
matt_cycles wrote:
In addition it is advice for cyclists, and bears no relevance for those following. It is more about ensuring that you don’t meet oncoming fackwits cutting corners – a bit like that fackwit poophole, or whoever was driving him
Garage’s Mum
Garage’s Mum
“Top tier lawyer”
“Top tier lawyer”
In that case one cannot but wonder what lawyers from the lower tiers are actually worth…
Depends hoe you define worth
Depends how you define worth in this field. Geoffrey Cox is probably right near the bottom on my measure.
Garage at Large wrote:
Ok Nige…. where during that video was it safe to overtake a group of 7 cyclists riding 2 abreast? In my opinion nowhere, as there was not a sufficently long stretch with clear visibility to overtake the group of cyclists.
Ergo, logically it also means that there were no suitable places to overtake a group of 7 cyclists riding single file.
The only thing riding single file would have done would have been to put the cyclists in danger as some drivers would see thinning down into single file as an inviation to overtake.
Even if it was a group of 4 cyclists there were no real places for the cars to overtake safely. Again you are trying to praise a person who makes a living out of getting rich people out of breaking laws on technicalities, whilst simultaneously berating law abiding road users.
Garage at Large wrote:
OK, my mum has had chance to review Nick Freeman’s footage and she’s articulated her opinion via Whatsapp. Here’s her response verbatim:
“Why do these overgrown schoolchildren always spend their Sunday mornings blocking the roads? They aren’t even making a bona fide journey! They are using the roads as their own overgrown playground it’s pathetic, didn’t their mothers ever teach them any manners? Make sure you wear a helmet and stay off these busy roads son. Love you, mum”.
Love my mum, she’s great isn’t she?
So are you actually going to
So are you actually going to answer the question….. when in the 1 minute video was it safe for either of the drivers to overtake any cyclists. Either a solo cyclist, a group of 4 or the 7 in question.
I’m going to guess you won’t answer, because you know that there were no opportunities to safely overtake due to the twisting road and high hedges.
TriTaxMan wrote:
The point isn’t whether it was safe or unsafe to overtake during Nick’s video clip – the point was that this group of cyclists had set off on a jolly without giving any kind of forethought as to whether their actions might anger and frustrate other road users and whether their behaviour aligned with the highway code.
I’m assuming Mr Freeman and the driver had already been held up for a long time prior to the start of filming, as I’m pretty certain he doesn’t go around permanently filming on his mobile phone permanently, hoping to spot a group of cyclists behaving badly. It therefore stands to reason that this group had already exasperated and tested the courtesy of the waiting motorists for a number of minutes before filming began.
Garage at Large wrote:
I wonder where Mr. Freeman was going?
Maybe there’s your answer. As he is a Top Self-Publicist could this be a trip out for exactly this purpose? Getting in the papers is pretty easy for him but it takes some work.
Garage at Large wrote:
There are many lawful things I do as a driver and cyclist which seem to anger and frustrate other road users – observe 20mph speed limits, stop when the traffic lights change to amber etc. It is not reasonable to be angered and frustrated by other road users behaving lawfully, so why should their unreasonable frustration change my behaviour?
Garage at Large wrote:
You and your assumptions again.
Assuming that they had already been held up with absolutely zero proof. Because that fits your narrative. Just as likely they just came across the group and then decided to take their phone out and film them.
But the point remains on roads like that it does not matter if it is one cyclist or 50 if it’s not safe to overtake its not safe to overtake.
I regularly do solo rides on roads like that and occasionally I hold drivers up because it’s not safe for them to overtake and most drivers are courteous. So I guess on those occasions I have just set out on a jolly without giving any kind of forethought as to whether my actions might anger and frustrate other road users and whether my behaviour aligned with the highway code?
I mean, just the other day you insulted my partner on the basis of one of your assumptions which could not be further from the truth…… I mean you didn’t have the emotional intelligence to bite your tongue you just had to spout your reprehensible opinion
Don’t worry. Nige won’t
Don’t worry. Nige won’t / didn’t answer your question. He struggles with that kind of thing.
He routinely attacks riders going about their business in legal activity while defending drivers who carry out illegal manoeuvres.
I suggest we don’t waste our time. There is nothing in his conduct that suggests he reflects on any replies he receives.
It’s amazing how much effort
It’s amazing how much effort someone can put into being utterly wrong. Clearly the apple didn’t fall far from mum’s tree.
It’s like watching a James Bond villian – if they put as much effort and technology into doing good and legal things, surely they would be immensely richer than pursuing their private war against the world.
I mentioned before, his mum
I mentioned before, his mum hates cyclists, boo does cycle, hence his mum hates boo. Boo is then full of self loathing and trying to win mums love, hence boo hates cyclists.
But in reality, Boo is only here to troll and get responses. I’m not sure if he is ever warned or temp banned in his new guises which explains his occasional normalness, but it doesn’t take him long to post what is essentially “look at me, notice me” posts.
Crikey. Seek help.
Crikey. Seek help.
Garage at Large wrote:
…
my own preference being to limit group rides to 4 people maximum, with police being at liberty to confiscate law-breakers’ bikes and sell them to fund road safety measures.
…
Nonetheless, a fantastically articulated video from Mr Freeman, and one which I’ve shared with my mum. I’ll report back when she’s reviewed the footage and given her opinion.
…
OK, my mum has had chance to review Nick Freeman’s footage and she’s articulated her opinion via Whatsapp.— Garage at LargeThis account has gradually morphed into a parody (either that or it has been hacked).
This is NOT the real Garage. It’s too witty and self-aware.
In his audio commentary, Mr
In his audio commentary, Mr Loopy says what the cyclists are doing is “completely illegal” and yet in his text he says the law must be changed to stop them doing it. Not logical, Loopy.
I take back some of my
I take back some of my previous comments about Nick Freeman, from this video and accompanying commentary it appears that he does not know traffic law as well as his reputation suggests, with respect to cycling at any rate.
He should actually be grateful to the cyclists effectively calming the traffic here, imagine if his driver had decided to drive that road at 60mph and another motorist coming the other way had also decided that 60mph was the appropriate speed.
As for riding around with “impunity”, isn’t that what most of us freedom loving Englishmen call a basic right, enshrined in common law, to travel on the public highway without let or hindrance?
Mungecrundle wrote:
As his name implies, he only knows about loopholes, not laws.
Quote:
I’d like the chapter-and-verse for that, please.
Renault Kipling said it best:
Renault Kipling said it best:
If you’re chain-ganging the highway
Or you’re making an attack –
Know you must get out of my way
When my car is at your back.
You could single out or pull in
(For that choice is up to you).
Legality’s irrelevant
When I want to get through.
Ref those Lawyer scumbag
Ref those Lawyer scumbag posts @SurreyRoadCops are on fire at the moment!!
peted76 wrote:
In fact all the comments are on fire, that’s one of the ‘funnest’ tweets I’ve perused for some time.
Re get poophole out of way
Re get poophole out of way early
Road.cc, you are helping to provide him with publicity.
The soon to be introduced
The soon to be introduced Highway Code amendments can be viewed here:
Highway Code Amendments
This is the revision to Rule 66 and riding in groups:
“be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so”
So both MR LoopHole and our beloved Nigel are going to go ballistic when they read this.
Also worth pointing out that this is only guidance and not legally enforceable.
New rules won’t make any
New rules won’t make any difference, as clearly they were not “considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups”.
Yawn
Yawn
Garage at Large wrote:
“considerate of the needs of other road users” does not mean, “get out of their way“. “Consider” doesn’t mean “yield to”.
Considering others’ needs implicitly requires a road user to consider their own needs and balance accordingly. I don’t mean some fake argument about Freeman & co rushing to some conveniently important appointment, I mean weighing the inalienable right of each party to use the way as of right.
It is not incumbent on road users to get out of the way, just because somebody else wants to go faster. There is a right of way along the road, not a right of speed. And that right of way does not equate to priority – if it did, the priority arising from the legal duty of care rests with the vehicle users (cyclists) in front. If somebody in a car behind does have an urgent appointment, the general advice is to set out leaving good time allowing for things that might slow down your journey.
The cyclists have every expectation of the same consideration in return.
And since there is nowhere for them to go that would enable safe passing on this section of road, the prevailing speed of the traffic will be 20mph for the time being.
In any case, even that seems to be a bit beyond Freeman’s driver at the first bend, as the car appears to encroach on the centre line somewhat.
GMBasix wrote:
“considerate of the needs of other road users” does not mean, “get out of their way“. “Consider” doesn’t mean “yield to”.
Considering others’ needs implicitly requires a road user to consider their own needs and balance accordingly. I don’t mean some fake argument about Freeman & co rushing to some conveniently important appointment, I mean weighing the inalienable right of each party to use the way as of right.
It is not incumbent on road users to get out of the way, just because somebody else wants to go faster. There is a right of way along the road, not a right of speed. And that right of way does not equate to priority – if it did, the priority arising from the legal duty of care rests with the vehicle users (cyclists) in front. If somebody in a car behind does have an urgent appointment, the general advice is to set out leaving good time allowing for things that might slow down your journey.
The cyclists have every expectation of the same consideration in return.
And since there is nowhere for them to go that would enable safe passing on this section of road, the prevailing speed of the traffic will be 20mph for the time being.
In any case, even that seems to be a bit beyond Freeman’s driver at the first bend, as the car appears to encroach on the centre line somewhat.— Garage at Large
Spot on.
The list of “Needs of Others” in this situation would be topped with Safety, with Safety a close second, followed then by Safety.
“Get outta my facking way so I can get to the queue at the next junction first and grind my teeth as I watch you filter past” is an entitled want, not a need….
Captain Badger wrote:
I believe the case law for tractors would apply;
Consideration is pulling over where safe when significant traffic builds up behind; Where safe having been determined for tractors to be laybys as anything else could be tresspass and you can’t guarantee surface quality, visibility lines, sufficient room etc so don’t know if it is safe to pull in (or rejoin afterwards). So for example farm field entrances DON’T qualify.
I was once walking with my
I was once walking with my wife on a very narrow country lane. An old lady, probably mid-70s or older was making a hash of reversing out of her drive else we might have waited. A couple of minutes later she came up behind us. I said to my wife: keep going as there isn’t anywhere safe to stand at the side.
The woman revved and as I turned round to give her my best Paddington stare, she drove at me. In one of those stupid moments, I stood my ground, though in truth there was nowhere other than Hawthorne to hurl myself. After a face off, she wound her window down, and she berated me for not stepping aside to let her pass. I explained I was not prepared to clamber up a slippery verge to do so and risk slipping down in front of her, so she would just have to wait till I got to a suitable point. She seemed to think this was entirely unreasonable, and indeed declared I was rude (as opposed to her polite use of a car as a battering ram) but didn’t really have a choice.
What really p*ssed me off is that when there was a widening and I stepped to one side, it turned out to be about 6″ of mud caused by cars running off the tarmac, so I got wet boots anyway.
GMBasix wrote:
Not forgetting that there is no mandate against crossing lines, unless they are double lines with a solid line on your side.
The line exists so that WHEN vehicles are passing in opposite directions, each driver knows how much space they have priority in. when nothing is coming the other way use of the whole road is fine, indeed desirable in the case of overtaking.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Fine, but less than necessary and far from ideal on a bend where ther fence creates reduced visibility of oncoming traffic. If something comes the other way, the driver has the task of swerving quickly onto their own side of the line. Moreover, advanced driving would take the outer line of the bend to make effective use of sight lines. A good driver would tend to be over to the left (subject to other road users) on a right-hand bend and vice versa. Basically, and without overdoing the comment, it’s just a bit slioppy and telling of the entitled gammon attitude expressed in the video.
A word on priority. Very few signs or road markings actually give or imply priority to anybody; they state the opposite: that the road user has a duty to give way to other road users. Giving priority to road users is risky, because it leads to entitlement and an attitude that ploughs on regardless. The one exception I can think of is diagram 811 from the TSRGD. In the video, the driver did not have priority over anybody in view.
I thought the siight lines in
I thought the siight lines in this case were ptretty good, given that the fence is mostly see through
There are a lot of verticals
There are a lot of verticals in the fence that could mask a lot of smaller elements on the road, such as a pedestrian that an oncoming vehicle would have to negotiate. Admittedly the video quality is not good, but I can’t make out the cyclists through the fence.
Even assuming you can see through the fence irl, the sight line is limited to the coniferous tree, which excludes a view of anything approaching the bend and which may be travelling faster.
Garage at Large wrote:
“when you feel it is safe ot do so”
which clearly would not have applied to the clip in question, because there was no place in that footage where a car could safely have passed a single line of 7 cyclists
Garage at Large wrote:
nor were the motorists considerate of the needs of other road users.
sean1 wrote:
And this is how it will actually stick in the minds of loopholier-than-thou types and the ABD:
“be considerate of the needs of
other road usersCAR DRIVERS when riding in groups. [blah-blah-blah-unimportant-waffle]… Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example,bymoving into single file orstopping)when you feel it is safe to let them do soIMMEDIATELY WE [I mean car drivers] APPEAR“I agree.
I agree.
The phrase “be considerate” will be interpreted without question by the petrol heads of this world as meaning “get out of my way now….”.
I am not keen on the wording around “stopping when safe to do so”.
This will be argued that it is always safe to stop so by definition cyclists should stop immediately and get out of the way when a car is behind them.
At least the trope of “riding two abreast is illegal” is clearly addressed here and emphasised as being both legal and safe.
sean1 wrote:
None of this means anything until behaviour changes in reality. That will take time since there’s little enforcement against most law breaking by drivers. (Pavement parking anyone?). There are also no “refreshers” for motorists and it’s likely these changes will be brought in without huge fanfare e.g. no campaigns with this across the national media.
I agree this will be interpreted in favour of the defence (the driver). However that’s not news as there’s already a general bias in their favour operating in the courts. That’s because most people drive, driving is the “normal” mode and far fewer have much road cycling experience – or know people who do so. But you can clearly fall back on “but it says ‘when you feel it is safe to let them do so’ ” though. So the wording there – at least – is favourable.
sean1 wrote:
We have to be clear, when challenged, that the rules is, “… allow them to overtake… when [the cyclists] feel it is safe to do so”
Let’s put this in perspective
Let’s put this in perspective. Mr Loophole is the man who makes a very comfortable living getting rich people off charges for driving offences that they’ve actually committed by exploiting gaps in the system. Here he is complaining about people doing something perfectly legal. Anybody might think that this lawyer doesn’t actually understand the difference between legal and illegal? Anybody might think that his world view has become distorted by what he does?
OldRidgeback wrote:
Hoping it becomes illegal, then he can work his magic defending a new client base?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Mr Loophole is not only a lawyer, he’s an opinion maker or to be more accurate, opinion stirrer. This is a wedge issue for him. In short, he has Farageist tendencies.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Or indeed Garage at Large tendencies.
Quote:
Troubling – that looks like an impaled rider. Too low for top tube descending style.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Troubling – that looks like an impaled rider. Too low for top tube descending style.
It’s a warning – cyclists stay off my land
chrisonatrike wrote:
Troubling – that looks like an impaled rider. Too low for top tube descending style.
Looks like an illegal super-tuck to me.
That video is just over a
That video is just over a minute long, FFS! Is it really so terrible to be “held up” for that length of time?
Why does he say 3 abreast one minute, and then 2 abreast?
Sometimes when I am driving, I get held up by a car doing 20 mph. Am I allowed to dob them in to the cops because they have a reg plate?
And this from a “top lawyer”…”we factually know that is correct”…has he ever said that one in court?!
I suspect his media profile has dropped a bit lately, so he’s trying to raise it with this pile of shite.
Quote:
As someone on Twitter pointed out, the video ends at just the point the road opens up and safe overtakes are possible. Also I didn’t quite make it out but he seems to say they “have about 100 miles to go at this speed”. I suspect I misheard it but if not, Boo would be proud of that whopper.
Apparently it is illegal
Apparently it is illegal under rta 1988 s29
Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling.
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
That means every cycle journey is illegal as it is only reasonable to get off your bike every time an important motorist appears.
That’s the problem –
That’s the problem – motorists say ‘be more considerate’ when what they actually mean is ‘GET OUT OF MY WAY! I’M LATE, PAY ROAD TAX’ etc. etc.
Of course, those citing
Of course, those citing inconsiderate cycling will never have committed the equivalent inconsiderate driving offence, e.g. “flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way; misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane; driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed”
Consideration only means I
Consideration only means I need to consider another persons needs. If I decide that after consideration that your need to get past me and save a few seconds is not really that important then surely job done.
Excuse me. Let’s just call a
Excuse me. Let’s just call a spade a king shovel here for one minute. Firstly, the Garage is an idiot, as any fule no.
Secondly, the cyclists were not holding Loophole up. That was being done by the car in front of Loophole, which was going at the same speed as the cyclists. It was being driven, based on the evidence available, by a right-thinking person in control of both the vehicle and their faculties, with a sound understanding of when it was safe to pass other, slower road users. It’s not very difficult is it. I thought precision was all in Loophole’s world, but seemingly not.
The fact that the filming was done by someone sitting abreast of the driver is of note, as is the probability that they were carrying an empty three-seater sofa behind them. If you want freedom from impediments to the progress of a motor vehicle, take your own medecine, single up, and ride a motorcycle
Oh, and another thing, while
Oh, and another thing, while I’m about it. That road is a public right of way, open to all citizens if they are travelling on foot, by horse, or bicycle. But not by motor vehicle. Motorists use the road under licence, a licence which may be taken away if they fail to meet the specified standards.
In other words, the cyclists use it by right, motorists use it under licence.
Walking home this afternoon I
Walking home this afternoon I was following a pair of gray haired gents when I heard one say, “did you hear about those cyclists riding at 20 mph 2 abreast?”
I immediately started marshalling my arguments when the other replied, “well, they’re perfectly entitled to” and his friend agreed, saying that there were too many impatient drivers around.
Not what I was expecting!
I sincerely hope that the two
I sincerely hope that the two old gents (who were no doubt walking slowly and two abreast with impunity), moved to walk in single file and/or then pulled to one side to let you past. #bloodyslowerpedsmakinglifesimplyunbearableforthemasses
I’m an old gent myself and
I’m an old gent myself and was barely able to keep up in order to eavesdrop.
Blast from the past – what
Blast from the past – what the actual… ?
Those Surrey Police twitter
Those Surrey Police twitter team must have a laugh, trolling the trolls all day…
Unless they get their mum to do it? 😉
brooksby wrote:
Guess it breaks the monotony of the working day on the Twitterverse, which otherwise would only be punctuated with a solitary trip from the nice warm police office to Krispy Kreme.
Garage at Large wrote:
Says you!
Cav has signed for Quickstep!
Cav has signed for Quickstep!
Selfridges criticised for
Selfridges criticised for selling 50mph e-scooter – corporate manslaughter type charges, anyone? Encouraging the public to break the law?
brooksby wrote:
If I were them I’d be most concerned about the combination of speed (presumably accelleration too) and its tiny wheels. The last are not unique to this scooter but make it look about as fun as wearing open-toed steelies.
You know when a tiny lip of
You know when a tiny lip of an entry to a cycle path can tip you off… Imagine that with 70c wheels rather than 700c!
If there’s anyone out there
If there’s anyone out there NOT following the Surrey RPU team on twitter, go do it NOW (or at least once you have read here)
Easily the best public facing Police twitter group, pro-active, happy to dive in and correct people’s misconceptions, and with a truly great sense of humour.
It’s all well and good
It’s all well and good responding on social media to people who shouldn’t be on the roads and won’t change their attitudes.
If only Surrey Police actually took action again bad/dangerous driving when video evidence is presented to them. They’re no better than all the other forces on that score.
The last time I can recall a
The last time I can recall a caravan or tractor pulling over for a queue of motorists was about 1972.