Nick Freeman, often know by his Mr Loophole nickname, made an appearance on Mike Graham’s talkRadio show this morning to slam the new Highway Code changes, and warned of “carnage” on Britain’s roads.
Freeman, who regularly makes headlines for getting celebrities off driving charges, was highly critical of the changes which come into effect on Saturday 29th January, particularly the Hierarchy of Road Users.
Under this, road users most at risk in the event of a collision are at the top of the hierarchy and should receive priority over road users that are less vulnerable. Pedestrians are at the top of the hierarchy, followed by cyclists.
Speaking on ‘The Independent Republic of Mike Graham’, Freeman predicted “carnage” and warned “our roads are going to be much more angry and much more dangerous.”
“It’s well-intentioned but ill-conceived,” he said. “The whole point of this is to increase safety. We’re all in favour of trying to make our roads safer. Safety doesn’t equal priority. I fear it is going to be carnage. Particularly for the most vulnerable people.
“Pedestrians and cyclists have this sense of entitlement, and they’re now going to have the force of the Highway Code behind it, which will only increase this sense of entitlement. It seems to lack common sense. Wouldn’t it be more sensible to say to those who are most vulnerable ‘you have to share this responsibility as well?'”
> Press misrepresents Highway Code changes – just days before they come into force
Under the changes cyclists have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians in the same way the less vulnerable driver has a responsibility to both.
On the issue of road positioning, Freeman was characteristically outspoken, saying the advice for cyclists to ride in ‘primary position’ (in the centre of the lane) in certain situations “would not end well”.
The Code will tell riders to adopt primary position on quiet roads (but to move over when road users approach from behind), in slower moving traffic, and approaching junctions where overtaking is dangerous.
Freeman said this would “infuriate motorists, increase frustration and lead to many incidents because motorists are not going to want to sit behind a cyclist. You can see how this is going to unfold, and it’s not going to unfold well.
“I think what the government needs to do is let everybody use common sense, and that tends to work because most people have common sense.
“What they’re trying to do is control us, take that away, by putting these rules in place it is going to have the reverse effect. One wonders who is advising the government. Who are the people saying this is a good idea?
“There needs to be a balanced, sensible approach which works for everybody not just for a tiny minority, that’s what we’ve got here. Cyclists need to play their part. I saw a picture of Chris Boardman cycling the other day. He wasn’t wearing a helmet or a hi-vis jacket. It doesn’t send out the right message.”
Freeman went on to echo a sentiment expressed by the AA’s head of roads policy Jack Cousens over the weekend, warning the lack of publicity, and polls showing many road users are unaware of proposed changes is worrying.
“The other very alarming thing is that nobody knows about it,” Freeman explained. “It’s coming in on Saturday but the polls suggest a significant amount of motorists don’t even know there is going to be a change, and of those, some are saying ‘we’re not even going to look, we don’t care’, which isn’t healthy as motorists obviously need to be educated.”
The discussion also included criticism of the Code’s guidance on cycle lanes, with host Graham asking “if cyclists are now being told they don’t have to use cycle lanes what was the point of butchering the road system to put all those cycle lanes in at a significant cost to the taxpayer?”
Freeman replied: “They never had to use them anyway. They’re spending hundreds of millions of pounds on cycle lanes but it was never a mandatory requirement that they use them. So what is the point? Either have them and say they’re there for a reason or let’s not bother at all.”
With the lawyer off the call, Graham ended the segment with a rant of his own, calling the changes “absolute and utter madness”.
“I’m not going to mince my words here this is not to do with cyclists vs drivers or pedestrians vs cyclists, this is to do with road safety for everyone. And what these measures say to me is that there will be a lot more accidents, a lot more injuries, a lot more deaths on the road, and that is not really a very good idea, is it?”
97 thoughts on “Expect carnage and more danger…Mr Loophole rants about Highway Code changes to talkRadio’s Mike Graham”
Strange that he identifies
Strange that he identifies that drivers will not care about heirachy and priority, and so will be dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians expecting to them, and yet reaches a conclusion that cyclists, rather than drivers, are entitled.
Let’s ignore Freeman’s only
Let’s ignore Freeman’s only supporter on this site when he posts on this thread.
He has polluted enough threads over the last couple of days with his transparent nonsense.
Sniffer wrote:
Are they not the same person?
Sniffer wrote:
Ftfy
Thank you.
Thank you.
I apologise for my error.
What a cracking picture of
What a cracking picture of Mike Graham at the top of this article. He actually looks as thick as he sounds!
As thick as homegrown
As thick as homegrown concrete, one might say… 😉
brooksby wrote:
Nothing like a nice bit of homegrown……
Captain Badger wrote:
I prefer dedicated refractory materials for my pipe and I certainly wouldn’t settle for plaster of paris instead of meerschaum…
This being the same public
This being the same public figure that believes you can grow concrete? The biggest thing to come out of all this is the fact that most motorists don’t seem to keep abreast of the Highway Code. It’s not like you have to pay for a book everytime it’s updated. It’s available free online. So before they criticise cyclists they should be criticising motorists for being the greatest menace on the roads. The 99% of all roads users.
I particularly like the
I particularly like the “entitlement” argument. As members of the public we are all (certain restrictions and local suspensions aside) absolutely entitled free access to public highways. It is only the few self appointed voices of the motorist who seem to have a problem with this fundamental right enshrined in common law that we all enjoy.
BTW, as a motorist I am more than happy with my status of having to be licenced to drive a vehicle on the public highway. I expect that nearly all other motorists are likewise happy with that state of affairs in not just allowing anyone to jump in a vehicle and drive it on the road.
I think I’ve commented on the
I think I’ve commented on the “ironic” use of entitlement by the press. It really should be called out, it’s so damaging.
Freeman’s ‘aving a go at the
Freeman’s ‘aving a go at the pedestrians, now!
As the rarely get prosecuted
As the rarely get prosecuted for road offences he can make very little money off them…
FFS. If anything is making
FFS. If anything is making the roads more dangerous, it’s loonies like this being given airtime to spout their deliberately provocative and divisive drivel.
Out of interest. Has anyone
Out of interest. Has anyone read, seen or heard an article when it was actually suggested that drivers (and cyclists and pedestrians) actually pick up (download) a copy of the Highway Code and actually read the f*!@ing thing rather than rely on abridged (and often biased ) analysis.
In this article alone Graham is actually corrected by Freeman on what the HC currently states so there’s not even any evidence that commentators on the “changes” know what it says now.
Freeman replied: “They never
Freeman replied: “They never had to use them anyway. They’re spending hundreds of millions of pounds on cycle lanes but it was never a mandatory requirement that they use them. So what is the point?
I’m not sure over what period the ‘hundreds of millions of pounds’ refers to, and it self-evidently doesn’t take a genius to say it, but when councils build rubbish infrastructure, people won’t use it (so what is the point?).
I love my bike wrote:
What’s worse is the failure to acknowledge that motorways are built at extreme cost (we wish they’d only be hundreds of millions – approx 30 million a mile). They are also optional as you can tell by the quantity of motor traffic on A roads and that is despite motorways being generally fit for purpose and not ending at a beg button.
And that many motorways have
And that many motorways have been upgraded – at enormous cost – to 4 lanes, specifically to provide extra capacity, but the extra lanes goes largely unused (despite them being totally fit for purpose and mandatory)
If you’re a good and
If you’re a good and competant driver, any changes shouldn’t cause any issues. They only people who it will affect are those who probably need more training & education; also known as ignorant idiots.
I.e. not the drivers that Mr
I.e. not the drivers that Mr Loophole represents.
Pretty much the only “change”
Pretty much the only “change” is that peds now have priority when approaching a side road to cross. Which is what any competent driver expects, particularly where there are children.
The addition of hierarchy of responsibility is at this stage in the HWC only. Whether this foundation continues to be built on is another matter.
All the other stuff is clarification of existing rules and norms.
The press seem to be
The press seem to be concentrating on the rule change when turning left in to a side street. I haven’t seen any mention of giving way to Peds when turning right or even when coming out. Actually, some advice on best practice would be welcome. Ie do you treat them like two separate give way instructions.
Having said that, this rule really needed updating. Let’s be honest previous advice equated to don’t run anybody over
Trying not to run anybody
Trying not to run anybody over is the basis for all good roadcraft surely.
That and not crashing into other vehicles and stuff.
ktache wrote:
You say that like it’s easy…
If we only started to make
If we only started to make side streets quieter (as many of them should be – rather than cut-throughs) – then we could provide drivers with even more help. Currently our side street “tell” drivers to wizz through with our high urban speed limits and our wide corner radii. We need a bit of:
… and if we have a
… and if we have a genuinely busy / more major side street then there’s a fix for that too (from an analysis here by BicycleDutch):
Captain Badger wrote:
This was also an existing rule. On my motorbike test a few decades ago, my instructor advised that a single dotted line = give way to pavement users (i.e turning into a side road) and the second dotted line = also give way to cars (i.e. exiting a side road)
And also, of course, not to
And also, of course, not to left hook cyclists.
Haitchaitch wrote:
Already in – HWC 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
Overtaking is explained in massive detail in rules 162 – 169, and rightly so. It is by far the most dangerous manouer that you can perform, even when done legally.
“Pedestrians…..have a sense
“Pedestrians…..have a sense of entitlement”
So that includes every motorist when they get out of their car.
Funny old worldview where
Funny old worldview where “not wanting to be killed or maimed” is a sense of entitlement. They can argue all they like about cyclists but, as even our resident moronic troll has acknowledged, pedestrians are at the bottom/top of the hierarchy (depending on which way you look at it), the fact that even they (or we, as you correctly point out we are all pedestrians without our vehicles) are regarded as being entitled for asking for priority over motor vehicles tells you everything you need to know about the way these people’s minds are really working.
Grahamd wrote:
“pedestrians” AKA people….
So many people have tiny
So many people have tiny brains which are incapable of distinguishing between “acting entitled” and “being entitled”
I must say I’d like to feel
I must say I’d like to feel entitled not to become entangled under the wheels of a motor vehicle. Is he talking to me?
Grahamd wrote:
…Won’t you think of the children?… No. So “Children on foot … have a sense of entitlement”.
I think we’ve given this far more thought than he ever has.
Mike Graham thinks you can
Mike Graham thinks you can grow concrete.
The End.
If you can’t grow concrete
If you can’t grow concrete then where do houses come from smarty pants.
Well, when a mummy and a
Well, when a mummy and a daddy house love each other very much…
These changes would
These changes would “infuriate motorists, increase frustration and lead to many incidents because motorists are not going to want to sit behind a cyclist.” And yet claims cyclists are the ones behaving with a sense of entitlement in this equation (usually by just being there).
MGIF is the sense of entitlement here.
festina wrote:
This is because so many people have tiny brains which are incapable of distinguishing between “acting entitled” and “being entitled”
It really is depressing that
It really is depressing that sensible and nuanced changes to the Highway Code have been hijacked by some to sow division.
Nick Freeman asked Mike
Nick Freeman asked Mike Graham who was responsible for advising the government on these changes, and Graham replied “I can help you on that… (ex-professional cyclist turned EU bore and transport bureaucrat) Chris Boardman”.
They acknowledged the emotional rationale behind Chris Boardman’s drive to make these rules, but that there needs to be a balanced sensible approach between cycling campaigners like Boardman, motorists and lawyers for a plan to work for everyone.
Nick Freeman also correctly took Boardman to task for being photoed the other day without a helmet, despite it being advised in the Highway Code. As the public face of these changes, he should be careful to deliver the correct message.
Nick was also interviewed by the BBC today on 3 Counties Radio – see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Mjmwm7MmM for more. When asked about the new rules encouraging cyclists to ride in primary, it was good to hear Nick approach this interview by encouraging harmony and discouraging anger in a rational and objective manner.
Its almost tea time…. lets
Its almost tea time…. lets not feed him eh.
There’s one thing that
There’s one thing that puzzles me, does the resident troll masturbate while writing those posts, or only while reading the responses?
Garage at Large wrote:
He’s not the face of the changes. It’s a document set before Parliament by the Secretary of state for Transport.
Chris Boardman has also made it abundantly clear what he thinks about any requirement to wear a helmet, as have British Cycling and CyclingUK. Chris Boardman has also taken guidance from experts in transport organisations such as TfGM, and Brian Deegan. He is so far ahead of the shower of uselessness you refer to that I’m not even going to mentione their names. Even if they said anything remotely accurate it would be of the ‘stopped clock’ timetelling value, shrouded as it is in the clutter of nonsense. They have nothing of value to tell us.
“And what these measures say
“And what these measures say to me is that there will be a lot more accidents, a lot more injuries, a lot more deaths on the road, and that is not really a very good idea, is it?”
I look forward to this clear statement being thrown back in it’s face when the stats show otherwise.
There is no real change,
There is no real change, because we don’t have Parliament-made traffic law, or judge-made traffic law- we have police-made traffic law. There’s no sign that the police will change their do-nothing policy over close passing (with the honourable exceptions of those areas which perform genuine close-pass operations), which is why we are looking not too far into the future for NMotD 1000. When police forces won’t tell you what they did about well-proven offences, it means they did as little as possible which means nothing, words of advice or the joke online driving course. It’s going to stay that way, in Lancashire at least.
“I think what the government
“I think what the government needs to do is let everybody use common sense, and that tends to work because most people have common sense.”
That’ll be why we have so many road laws, because common sense is neither common nor sense. If drivers had common sense we wouldn’t need speed limits, parking restrictions, or any driving laws at all.
Is this equivalent of the DM covered by Ofcom? I’m tired of complaining to the BBC, so it might be fun to do it to something even worse.
BBC Breakfast did quite a
BBC Breakfast did quite a good job of covering the rule changes this morning (it’s still available on iPlayer, but only until tomorrow at 9:15am). Starts at 1h:15m:30s:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0013w52/breakfast-24012022
Apart from the fact that they
…apart from the fact that they focussed on the cyclist/driver interactions too much, and completely bypassed the fact that the main theme of the changes is the overall hierarchy of road users – thereby ignoring the other 5 categories.
As I’ve said before, this should not be left to multiple, random, third party interpretations, but a single, definitive, national, information campaign – from the government
I didn’t get that from it,
I didn’t get that from it, they seemed to cover most of the categories (I think motorcycles were missed) and discussed the hierachy quite a bit.
I’m sure there will be a national information campaign when the rules get voted through. It’s not that massive a change after all, it’s not like we’re switching the side of the road we drive on.
Well, they were better than
Well, they were better than most other sources, but it’s the varied, unofficial coverage that really bothers me.
Why is it not surprising that
Why is it not surprising that Nick Freeman doesdn’t appear to know that the use of lights on a bike at night is goverened by the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations (RVLR) and not just advised under the HC
Out of interest, what exactly
Out of interest, what exactly is “the right message” that Chris Boardman isnt sending out (by riding in normal clothes sans helmet)?
That he’s a lycrist
That he’s a lycrist infiltrator? (If only they were clearly marked in some way…) If you think about that it might help you get into the mind of the objectors.
Respect?
Respect?
Nick thinks someone in the
Nick thinks someone in the public eye not wearing hi-viz or helmet is sending the wrong message. Is keeping dangerous drivers on the road by getting them off charges using loopholes the right message then?
What a tool.
What a tool.
The only way it “isn’t going to end well” is if a driver drives their car into a cyclist. There’s really no other way for harm to be caused because a cyclist poses no danger to a car or its driver in terms of physical harm.
Avoiding this is quite simple for drivers, slow down and exercise care and patience around cyclists. Exactly what the code is trying to codify.
I just don’t see what’s so difficult about that fundamental concept.
I honestly just don’t get all
I honestly just don’t get all the angst this is causing; just drive with attention & awareness, and there’s no reason to worry. If it’s causing people trouble, then I’d suggest they probably shouldn’t be driving a motor vehicle.
Velophaart_95 wrote:
Communist.
In the light of the point by
In the light of the point by road-safety expert Rod Liddle (is this right?) should this not be “Maoist”?
chrisonatrike wrote:
That as well. They’re all thesame. Probably likes avocados too….
Really?? Give your head a
Really?? Give your head a wobble….. I’m after safer roads….
Velophaart_95 wrote:
Ha! a guardian reader. I knew it!
Captain Badger wrote:
I trust you’re joking. However, in case you’re not, can I refer you to the pieces about the Highway Code in the Torygraph and the Daily Nazi this morning, in contrast to the comments by the Guardian on the same?
MattieKempy wrote:
I never joke. and how dare you impugn the names of those quality organs? I have a good mind to write the Times!
Surely the headline should
Surely the headline should read “Expect ranting and more loopholes…”
So a man who makes the roads
So a man who makes the roads more dangerous by allowing rich bad drivers to continue driving by finding loopholes in their charges is maoning about the dangers of road safety measures? This is beyond ironic.
Good old Mr @rsehole. No
Good old Mr @rsehole. No matter how bad life may get, he’s always there to remind us that things could be a lot worse – you could be the human equivalent of a dog egg on a very aggressively-treaded shoe sole.
Nick Freeman has bagged a
Nick Freeman bagged a spot on big-time, top-watched TV programme “This Morning” with Philip Schofield and Holly Willowby’s stand in – discussing the “controversial” and “drastic” changes to the Highway code.
Nick debated the issue with Dave Sherry in Harlow, a town which I live nearby.
“Militant, intransigent cyclist (Philip Schofield’s words)” Dave Sherry conceded that there will be more accidents and more road rage incidents as a result of the changes, but contended that in the long term there should be better functioning roads. Nick Freeman disagreed, saying that the changes are badly thought out and should not take effect. Everyone agreed there hadn’t been enough coverage of the changes, and that many people aren’t aware of them.
Nick framed the changes perfectly, eloquently illustrating their shortcomings, stealing the show with his friendly but no-nonsense demeanour. A must-watch.
No point debating this post.
No point debating this post.
lesterama wrote:
Not even the spelling of “Willowby”?
lesterama wrote:
Garage at Large wrote:
What exactly was it that made the well paid car industry shill Philip Schofield call Dave Sherry a militant, intransigent cyclist?
Of course he’s millitant.
Of course he’s millitant. Claims to be a bus driver and got his mate to knock up some photoshopped video
In reality, the lorry driver used the other half of the carriageway to safely pass him.
hirsute wrote:
HIRSUTE!!! Someon’s hacked your account, and I think we know who….
I wondered why I had to sign
I wondered why I had to sign in just now.
Must be that Clem bloke.
Garage at Large wrote:
I bet there are a lot of burglars out there who are really angry that the police stop them entering other people’s property and stealing from it. Therefore I think we need to change the rules and legalise burglary.
Simple question:
Simple question:
Will making burglary a crime lead to less crime?
Try to see it from the other perspective. In reality it’s not homeowners vs. burglars but just two groups both concerned that property should not be unclaimed. But a minority in the media is manufacturing divisive rhetoric around this. Some of them even equate the enterprise and industry of Britain’s world-leading burglars with the selfish rapaciousness of capitalists! (I apologise, my Chinese mind is getting confused now.)
chrisonatrike wrote:
I have a friend who was jalied for his beliefs. He believed that nobody would catch him….
Captain Badger wrote:
Godber in Porridge: “I’m only here as a result of tragic circumstances.”
Fletcher: “Oh yeah? What are they then?”
Godber: “I got caught.”
F*ck off.
Go away.
after years and years of
after years and years of drivers complaining about lawless untrained cyclists who don’t know the highway code, we are now told that it’s unsound to give cyclists and pedestrians (travelling straight on) priority over cars (turning left) because the drivers may not give way to them and there will be accidents. Or other drivers will drive into the back of drivers stopping.
Perhaps drivers are not very good at following the rules after all.
There do seem to be a lot of
There do seem to be a lot of opinion pieces about how the Govt shouldn’t proceed with this because there’ll be terrible road rage and people will die and there’ll be collisions caused by impatient motorists, etc etc.
Seems to me that what they are all saying, is that the motorists are the problem…
Breaking news: Nick Freeman
Breaking news: Nick Freeman to be interviewed by Nigel Farage on GB News at 7.30pm.
Everything will be on the table in this no-holds-barred discussion: The legendary lawyer, the road safety campaigner, the man behind the sharp suits and sartorial refinement.
Be there… or miss out forever!
If only we could get
If only we could get extinction rebellion to glue them together it would halve the chance of meeting either of them when out and about!
Great comment. You owned him
Great comment. You owned him there!
If only we could get
If only we could get Extinction Rebellion to glue them together it would halve the chance of meeting either of them when out and about!
This observation only applies if the probability of the composite person being out cycling is the same as the probability of either of them individually being out cycling- as this probability is indistinguishable from zero at reasonable levels of precision, the point will require specialist maths to elucidate.
Garage at Large wrote:
can you explain how he has confused “cente of the lane” with the “crown of the road?”
I don’t agree that
I don’t agree that pedestrians and cyclists have this sense of entitlement – all I see is nervous pedestrians sucking up to car drivers, thanking them for stopping at zebra crossings and doing that little skippy run when a car offers them the opportunity to cross the road.
Not enough pedestrians or cyclists take the space they are entitled to in my opinion
griggers wrote:
You know, like every driver does when another driver stops at a give way line, and doesn’t just drive into the side of their car.
The All New Adventures of
The All New Adventures of Nick Poophole and Graham the Porcine!
Is that a bit like Ren and
Is that a bit like Ren and Stimpy?
brooksby wrote:
Or maybe like Happy Tree Friends? https://mondomedia.com/channel/HappyTreeFriends/
hawkinspeter wrote:
Or could be Pinky & the Brain. I wonder which one of them thinks he’s the Brain…?*
*Trick question – they are Pinky and Pinky’s clone; the Brain left.
drivers – why does it say
drivers – why does it say cyclists can ride in the middle of the road
cyclists – it’s middle of the lane, not middle of the road
drivers – you are being pedantic, that’s what we meant
Nick Freeman –
“Who says it is sensible for pedestrians to have the power to step out in front of a car at a junction and have priority?
“Or for a cyclist to take the crown of the road when we’ve got limited space?”
AS far as I am aware there is only one crown of the road, down the middle of the road, there is not a crown in the middle of each lane with gullies to trap water in between.