Yesterday’s report about The Royal Parks, the charity that runs London parks including Richmond Park and Regent’s Parks, wishing to prosecute cyclists who break the 20mph speed limit had already drawn a lot of views and reaction from many cyclists, including many from our readers too.
So it was only a matter of time that Nick Freeman, or Mr Loophole, as he’s more commonly known around parts of the internet would have something to say about it too.
Just for a quick catch-up with the news, The Telegraph reported that The Royal Parks chairman Loyd Grossman (the former presenter of MasterChef and Through the Keyhole) wrote to Sir Chris Bryant, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, asking the government to amend laws so that cyclists failing to adhere to the parks’ 20mph speed limits can be prosecuted for speeding.
> Cyclists riding “at excessive speeds” and causing crashes prompt Royal Parks to review cycling policy, as charity cancels time trial events because “they directly encourage cyclists to go faster than speed limit”
And as a response to that, Freeman, the lawyer famous for obtaining not guilty verdicts for celebrities charged with driving offences, wrote on social media: “No-brainer of an idea. But how do you enforce a bicycle to travel within the speed limit when there is no legal requirement for it to have a speedometer? The need for legal parity with all road users is long overdue.”
Cyclists seem to not have taken very well to this take, with many criticising the lawyer, who has previously accused by popular camera cyclist CyclingMikey for “stoking cyclist hate for publicity”, for ignoring the offences conducted by motorists while driving in the parks and instead shifting the blame on the vulnerable road users.
One person wrote: “Perhaps the government should look at putting 70mph speed limiters in cars first?”, while another commented: “Parity for all road users? So compulsory speedos for pedestrians, now? You're ridiculous.”
A few other responses on Freeman’s tweet…
“You’re right but man has always looked at making transport quicker. Why do they make cars that do 200mph when the national speed limit is 70mph?”
“I take it tachographs in cars is not the kind of legal parity you are campaigning for? MOTs for horses?”
“So, the lawyer who makes our roads more dangerous by getting rich car drivers off the hook is going on about a tiny minority of cyclists, who ride the least dangerous vehicles of all. He’s not interested in the truth, just lining his pockets.”
> "Stoking cyclist hate will get him more publicity": CyclingMikey hits back at Mr Loophole's latest attack on "snitch society" camera cyclists
The discussion around speed limits follows after a string of events over the past few years that have called into question cyclists’ conduct in the Royal Parks. Despite initially suggesting speed limits did apply to cyclists, in 2021 it was confirmed that the park's speed limits (which range from 5mph to 20mph) do not apply to cyclists, a stance in line with the wider law.
In July, we reported that a group claiming to represent cyclists who use the park (Richmond Park Cyclists) had clashed with the charity over its speed limit advice for riders using the park.
A number of cycling events were also cancelled by The Royal Parks this year, including this summer’s Richmond Park Time Trials — praised for enabling beginners to compete on road bikes and on almost traffic-free roads due to their 6am starts — as well as last month’s London Duathlon.
The Royal Parks has received plenty of criticism over the years for its approach to improving road safety in its parks. Many, including the London Cycling Campaign (LCC), have repeatedly asked why through-traffic is still allowed to use Richmond Park as a shortcut, the campaign calling the cancellation of well-organised events “weak” while “daily rat-runs” continue.
Add new comment
11 comments
Nick Freeman has opined for sometime for cyclists to display a registration number. It is long overdue for Mr Freeman to put the 'flesh on the bones' of his proposal.
What/who should be registered?
A) Is he proposing the cycle should be registered with the DVLA?
B) Or is he proposing the cyclist should be registered with the DVLA and display a personal ID number?
If it is A), what details will the DVLA hold for the cycle? Frame colour, size, material. What about components (gears/wheels)? What happens when the bicycle is sold, will a new V5 be issued? What happens when the bicycle is scrapped? What happens when the cycle is repainted? What size will the registration plate be? Where will it be fitted? What material will the plate be?
If it is B), citizens riding a bicycle must display a personal ID number, and Nick Freeman has suggested in the past this should be printed on a tabard. Firstly, how does this conflict with human rights legislation? The registration on a car does not indicate the identity of the driver, so is Nick Freeman now advocating drivers of motor vehicles should also wear a personal ID tabard too? That would bring equity with cyclists then!
WILL SOMEONE PLAESE ASK MR LOOPHOLE/CLICKBAIT these detailed questions. Perhaps it will shut him up when he is forced to admit his ideas are just f*rts in the wind!
Nick Freeman should be better known as "MR CLICKBAIT". He makes these pronouncemounts just to get publicity.
He knows that the ideas for registration numbers for cyclists, or speedometers are a complete non starter, but he publishes these ideas knowing it will get him publicity.
Never really understood that. But Loophole would spit out his morning marguerita if someone suggested legislation to restrict motor vehicle max power or max speed.
Coming next from the ever-fertile brain of Mr Poophole, all cyclists to carry a full set of front and rear indicators, brake lights, windscreen wipers on their glasses, seatbelts, have a minimum 1.6 mm tread depth on their tyres and of course the beloved front and rear numberplates. Cupholders, crumple zones and surround sound stereo systems optional but highly recommended.
It's interesting that there is now a lobby for cyclists to carry speedometers in order to make them adhere to 20 mph zones when the very same people doing the lobbying are the ones who complained about 20 mph zones, with one of their major arguments being that it would make cars more dangerous because the drivers would be constantly monitoring their speedometers. Given the relative size and less accessible positioning of cycle speedometers, surely the same applies only more so?
You'd think he'd want these requirements extended to pedestrians too.
For sure: my commute (until the clocks go back next week) takes me through Brompton Cemetery where the speed limit for motorised vehicles is 5 mph, and yet there are countless joggers who come roaring through at speeds sometimes close to twice that. It's about time they had some perfectly reasonable restrictions imposed upon them before somebody is killed. "It's only a matter of time."
Do these people who call for “legal parity with all road users” apply this thinking to pedestrians too? I'm guessing not.
Presumably they don't call for legal parity between butter knife ownership and zombie knife ownership, but the nonsense they spit out appears similar to me.
I quite often see cats and dogs crossing roads, so it's only fair to fit them all with speedos too.
Not sure I want to see animals in speedos.
Never mind them - what about the cows that are fatally running over numbers of people every year?
They should
have numberplateshave hornswear hi-visbe regularly inspectedbe confined to special cow infra (drove roads)be speed-limited!What!? You want to see naked animals?
With the significant danger of cows, it's about time that they're subject to an annual MooOT to check that their horns work
Cows do have horns, but they don't work. That's why they have bells around their necks.