- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Nick Freeman (YouTube)Mr Loophole says cyclists are "abusing" rules on riding two abreast
Highway Code rules allowing cyclists to ride two abreast are currently "being abused" according to ‘Mr Loophole’ – the lawyer Nick Freeman. Changes are being proposed to the wording of the relevant rule. Freeman says he believes it should be a legal requirement for cyclists to ride single file in certain circumstances with “appropriate penalties” for those who transgress.
Rarely one to pass up an opportunity to call for greater regulations on cyclists, Freeman told the Express: “The problem is that, as it stands, the Highway Code is being abused by cyclists who steadfastly ride two abreast when they shouldn’t – such as on a busy, narrow or winding road.
“It needs to be a legal requirement to cycle single file on a busy or winding road – with appropriate penalties such as fines or a point system for those who transgress.”
The Department for Transport (DfT) has just closed a consultation on proposed changes to the Highway Code.
The current wording of Rule 66 of the Highway Code says that while cycling, “You should … never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.”
The proposed new wording would say that, “You should … ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast.”
Dame Sarah Storey and British Cycling recently urged people to respond to the consultation to ask that it be made clearer that cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast – and to emphasise that they often should for safety reasons.
“The intention of the proposal is to make it clear that riding two abreast is not just legal but it’s also safer and more convenient for all road users – and that includes drivers as well,” she explained. “However, our concern is that the proposed wording doesn’t achieve that goal and the existing ambiguity around this issue remains.”
Highlighting some of the situations where it was wise for cyclists to ride two abreast, she said: “If you think about a situation where you might be riding with your child, as I do on a regular basis, you want to make sure that you have your child on the left of you so that if somebody is passing too quickly or closely you are offering them some protection. In this situation we don’t believe that a parent should ever feel compelled to ‘single out’.
“Similarly, if you’re out on the road in a group, if you’re in single file there’s a much longer line of cyclists for a driver to pass. On the road it might not be possible to do this safely while maintaining a safe distance from the group, particularly if there’s a bend ahead or a traffic island. If you’re riding two abreast, it makes it much easier for the driver to overtake safely and they’ll also have better visibility of what is coming towards them.”
Freeman, predictably, disagrees, arguing that only a motorist can gauge whether it’s safe to overtake.
“If cyclists ride two abreast it effectively means that they, the cyclists, decide if a motorist can overtake them or not – since clearly it is only safe to do so when they ride single file.
“Yet cyclists don't have any of the ingredients needed to make this decision. They don't have the same view of the road as a motorist. They can't judge the power of the vehicle behind them.
“Especially since cyclists rarely have mirrors. They can't assess the space needed for a car to overtake. The decision to overtake should be the motorist’s and the motorist’s alone.”
Freeman then moved on to his favourite cycling hobby horses: compulsory helmets, compulsory tabards with a registration number on them, compulsory insurance and a points-based penalty system.
Back in June, Freeman used World Bicycle Day as a pretext for again making his case for these measures, while arguing that lockdown had led to a “culture of toxic cycling.”
He has since said that children shouldn't be allowed to cycle on the road without adults who have passed a proficiency test.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- David9694 29 min 5 sec ago
I cling on to the notions drivers/ people verbalise like "wasn't Center Parcs lovely" and "I've got no choice" in the hope that they may one day...
- brooksby 43 min 44 sec ago
Ah, but the terrorists build their invisible bases under those hospitals and refugee camps, and some of those children are just really short adult...
- chrisonabike 55 min 9 sec ago
Am I right in thinking that this has been the case in NL for over half a century (or 30 years nationally)? With a brief interruption from 2003 -...
- Bezzard74 1 hour 58 sec ago
100% agree on all points! ...
- cyclisto 1 hour 7 min ago
I think this mostly....
- chrisonabike 1 hour 51 min ago
A good point - cyclists are somewhere between pedestrians and motorcyclists (a few - electric motorcycles mainly, which are not legal) in terms of...
- Rendel Harris 4 hours 5 min ago
Welcome - probably didn't show as they tagged it "not near miss of the day"?
- David9694 11 hours 25 min ago
Cambridgeshire boy, 13, crashes Audi into garden wall after taking it from home...
- mattw 16 hours 8 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
Add new comment
55 comments
There is little to be gained in expressing surprise at the self-publicising antics of someone for whom the term 'shyster lawyer' might have been invented. Leopards do not change spots, etc and he is there for readers of the hyper-junk press.
He's a clever fellow that Nick Freeman. Let's get all cycles/cyclists registered, with ID plates and insurance, then bring in tougher laws. Then when they start to get prosecuted I'll step in with a whole load of loopholes, make myself even more cash and be the champion of the wealthy but hard done by cyclist. Genious, another lucrative business stream.
On the other hand, maybe he's just a big mouthed bellend who's made a career out of keeping dangerous drivers on the road.
This is just a piece of self serving publicity from a nasty, aggressive, impatient, self entitled motorists that is designed to appeal to his typical client base, and typical Express readers.
" Hey guys I'm one of you I know just how angry you feel when you take out a cyclist and you are faced with losing your license - Give me a call, I'm on your side"
If I was on the bench, and he appeared for the defence, I'd be in "think of a number and double it" mode.
Pre-conceived outcome.. not really in the spirit of justice is blind but I know for a fact it does happen in Australian courts.. can't speak for the U.K.
The proposed change says when it is safe to do so. The safety concerned is that of tbe cyclist. It is not up to the motorist to determine that. So just use Mr Loophole's argument back at him.
I am always amazed at how few drivers read the road and know where to pass. There seems to be an expectation of getting out of the way entirely rather than letting vehicles by.
Oh, and what is the cycling proficiency test?
Road.cc please stop giving this oxygen thief attention.
I disagree; it's always useful to know your enemy's arguments.
He has no arguments. Just comes up with whatever will upset us cyclists to get free press out of it.
Yes, but when those arguments are raised, you'll be able to refute them immediately because you've already seen them, and know the counter arguments.
We're hardly the MSM are we - that damage is already done.
No we aren't the msm, but with increasing interest in cycling and the downsides of driving, the msm will be paying it much more attention, and as knowledgable, articulate advocates, we can shoot down the car addicts' arguments with logic and facts.
Every club should have someone trained in media presentation who can present the case simply, clearly and with humour; it's what the car addicts do, so we've got to beat them at their own game. Also a press officer who can do the same in print and online.
I think the time has finally come that cycling could take its rightful place in our transport system, but we still have to fight for it, and have the resources ready to respond to the lies, myths and fairy tales our opponents will use against us. Be prepared!
Re:
Nick Freeman says only the motorist can judge when it’s safe to overtake a cyclist
Clearly this is an arrogant and stupid statement.
A cyclist using a 'winding road' is obviously ahead, with probably the advantage of a higher viewpoint, of a Motorist intent on overtaking and so the Cyclist can see further ahead than the Motorist.
My MO to send a signal to the greater majority of idiot Motorists, intent on overtaking despite being unable to see far enough ahead for doing so, is to discourage them by riding toward the right to.
Being on the wrong side of the road and faced by a rapidly approaching vehicle the overtaker will move to the left with a high probablility of wiping out the Cyclist being overtaken.
The Daily Express is a forum for thickos: 'we want our cuntry back', ignorant, divisive and plain thick opinion.
Isn't the DE basically for old people? Whenever I see it, the headline is either Diana or Maddie - like huge chunks of the population know them.
last time I looked, the country (need to pick up you on your spelling there) was still very much ours, and what a grand job we are making of it!
it would be interesting to compare a DE circulation map with a Brexit voting map.
Shut up Nick you scumbag.
I had intended to write an eloquent opinion of Mr Loopholes suggestion. But the only thing I can think of expressing is that he is a cvnt. I apologise.
Hmmm. Pardon me, but the last time I looked, The Highway Code is not LAW!
Some provisions within it are deemed to be Statutory, where they include the words 'Must' or 'Must Not', however, anything else is merely advisory. So no cyclist 'abuses' the Highway Code when cycling two abreast or not. This doesn't mean to say that it cannot be quoted as 'good practice' if a case gets to court, however, this job knockey of a barrister (Mr Loophole? More like Mr Asshole) doesn't let the inconvenient truth get in the way of a good story, nor the journalist who published it.
On a point of order - it's not that provisions are deemed statutory by the inclusion of 'MUST' - it's that they are enshrined in underlying legislation, and this is indicated by 'MUST. So you can't just make something statutory by inserting 'MUST' in the Highway Code - you have to legislate first, and then the HC is updated to reflect the legislation.
In other words, the entirety of the HC is essentially advisory, but in some places it's advising you that there is legislation that you need to abide by.
Mr Poophole
is what they call him on Twitter.
I'd like to see the twunt try and pass our cycling club A and B groups in single file...generally between 15 - 20 cyclists per group...and if they started off, say 2 minutes apart, with the B group setting off first...he'd have a field day...or a coronary...
Come to rural Ireland...where the road rage has road rage...
From a man who has made a career from abusing the law!
So says the man who has literally built a career and business dedicated to keeping dangerous drivers on the road.
Is there a link to that really ugly side of drivist society, the one that resents/somehow things it's above being caught, says vaguely menacing things like "don't tell tales"?
The "loophole" narrative appeals to populist notions of the little man vs the oppressive state and the newspapers seem to be short of news.
meanwhile the enforcement and justice systems are short of resources relative to the problem, and he acts in a way to further weaken and undermine it.
So as I always assume the car hassling me from behind is a gutless piece of shit with no power, then it's a level playing field on my decision on whether its safe for it to pass or not.
The piece is a usual Express, baiting story. Lonely, moronic journalist, stuck for a story, thinks.... I know I'll contact someone with little or no morals and see if I can extract a contentious comment to spice up my life and pay packet
Step forward Mr Freeman..... Cock 🐓
The dreaded double post strikes again. Surely us subscribers should have access to a delete button?
Man who abuses the law for money accuses cyclists of abusing the law for their safety. I didn't think he or the Express could possibly have got any lower, but I don't mind admitting I was wrong.
...for Mr Loophole?
My wife has assured me that pressing such a button would technically be illegal...
But desirable nonetheless.
Worth subscribing for!
Pages