Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Mr Loophole and 'Britain's most hated cyclist' – Dave Sherry call for crackdown on delivery cyclists who break the law

Say time has come for government to introduce legislation “which will regulate cycling and these types of businesses”

Nick Freeman, the traffic lawyer who calls himself Mr Loophole, has joined well-known helmet cam cyclist Dave Sherry in calling for the government and police to crack down on delivery cyclists who break the law. The pair says that riders working for Deliveroo are some of the worst offenders and have released one of Sherry’s videos as an example of what they mean.

In August, Sherry - who has been variously described in the media as  a 'cycling vigilante' and 'Britain's most hated cyclist'  took Freeman for a bike ride in London, but the experience didn’t change his view that cyclists should be made to wear helmets and high-vis clothing, with their bikes carrying registration plates.

> 'Mr Loophole' lawyer urges drivers to fight back at helmet camera users

Freeman has returned to these themes, saying that Deliveroo and other businesses that use cyclists to deliver goods have a duty to ensure their riders are properly equipped for the job and know the Highway Code.

“In fact, before they strap one of Deliveroo’s insulated bags to their backs – which in my mind should be reflective and have an identifying number on it – the minimum the riders should undergo is a cycling proficiency test.

“The time has come now for the Government to look at introducing legislation which will regulate cycling and these types of businesses. Whilst Deliveroo will say the riders are self-employed, the company must be responsible for the welfare and safety of those who work on their behalf.

“Likewise, they must assume some responsibility if the riders break the law. Just like their colleagues who ride motorbikes, those on bicycles must be identifiable and therefore accountable. If that was the case, then I’m sure we would see far less lawlessness.”

> West Midlands Police rejects Mr Loophole criticism over "turning a blind eye" to law-breaking cyclists

As well as urging the Government to regulate companies that use cyclists to deliver goods, Freeman and Sherry are also calling on the police to strictly enforce the law.

Sherry said he was in “total agreement” with Freeman on the issue.

“It is crucial that cyclists also follow the letter of the law, and I suspect those who ignore red lights or cycle on footpaths do so because they think they will never be caught. A lack of identification renders them anonymous.

“I’ve filmed Deliveroo riders take terrible risks. Many ride at night without lights and they often ignore red traffic lights. Very few wear reflective clothing. And, in case they are involved in an accident, they should be insured.

“I get incredibly angry when I see drivers illegally using mobile phones. I get equally angry when cyclists break the law. When they do, they are a danger not only to themselves, but also to others.”

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.

Add new comment

44 comments

Avatar
bassjunkieuk | 7 years ago
11 likes

Points above aside I think it's just this scumbag looking for publicity, seems a bit f**cking rich someone who has got a name for himself of getting drivers who have no regard for the law off their charges on "technicalities" should then put cyclists up for greater scrutiny! 

 

But then I think his views are quite like that of a lot of drivers "Cyclists should obey the highway code!" but then fail to grasps even the basics themselves.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
12 likes

I've just been thinking about the practicalities of identifying any and all cyclists. Obviously we need some kind of mandatory registration, but how do we stop non-registered cyclists from jumping on a bike and destroying the fabric of our society? The only sensible answer is to have mandatory citizen registration of every person in the country - something like a DNA sample and facial picture for every citizen so that all un-licensed cyclists can be tracked and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Also just thought that people's faces can change over time, so maybe we should have a weekly update of everybody's face and hairstyle. It'll be costly and time consuming, but it's the only way we can combat the number one problem in Britain (i.e. cyclists).

Avatar
Danger Dicko replied to hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
7 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

I've just been thinking about the practicalities of identifying any and all cyclists. Obviously we need some kind of mandatory registration, but how do we stop non-registered cyclists from jumping on a bike and destroying the fabric of our society? The only sensible answer is to have mandatory citizen registration of every person in the country - something like a DNA sample and facial picture for every citizen so that all un-licensed cyclists can be tracked and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Also just thought that people's faces can change over time, so maybe we should have a weekly update of everybody's face and hairstyle. It'll be costly and time consuming, but it's the only way we can combat the number one problem in Britain (i.e. cyclists).

I don't think you're thinking enough about this.

Surely we need all cyclists to wear a special symbol, maybe a star made out of spokes? They should also have to register every day at their local police station and they can only wed other cyclists.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Danger Dicko | 7 years ago
2 likes
Danger Dicko wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

I've just been thinking about the practicalities of identifying any and all cyclists. Obviously we need some kind of mandatory registration, but how do we stop non-registered cyclists from jumping on a bike and destroying the fabric of our society? The only sensible answer is to have mandatory citizen registration of every person in the country - something like a DNA sample and facial picture for every citizen so that all un-licensed cyclists can be tracked and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Also just thought that people's faces can change over time, so maybe we should have a weekly update of everybody's face and hairstyle. It'll be costly and time consuming, but it's the only way we can combat the number one problem in Britain (i.e. cyclists).

I don't think you're thinking enough about this.

Surely we need all cyclists to wear a special symbol, maybe a star made out of spokes? They should also have to register every day at their local police station and they can only wed other cyclists.

Yay!  Godwin's law invoked within a few hours of the story being posted!

Avatar
Ush replied to hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
2 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

I've just been thinking about the practicalities of identifying any and all cyclists. Obviously we need some kind of mandatory registration, but how do we stop non-registered cyclists from jumping on a bike and destroying the fabric of our society? The only sensible answer is to have mandatory citizen registration of every person in the country - something like a DNA sample and facial picture for every citizen so that all un-licensed cyclists can be tracked and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Also just thought that people's faces can change over time, so maybe we should have a weekly update of everybody's face and hairstyle. It'll be costly and time consuming, but it's the only way we can combat the number one problem in Britain (i.e. cyclists).

I think that when we cost these measures and apply the appropriate inflation-corrected indices it will become obvious in the cold-light of day to every one that opposes terrorism that the best thing for our big society is to just ban cycling.

Avatar
Rod Marton | 7 years ago
3 likes

I've always assumed the logo on the back of the Deliveroo box is a stylized two-fingered salute.

Avatar
Pierre | 7 years ago
15 likes
Quote:

Very few wear reflective clothing.

Deliveroo riders in London are required to wear Deliveroo jackets, and sometimes trousers, which are versions of Proviz's Reflect360 jackets - they're more or less entirely reflective.

And those big boxes are silver and turquoise, which makes them pretty visible. I think they may be reflective too, round here.

Avatar
Arceye | 7 years ago
1 like

Although I personally don't agree with the law enforcing the use of helmets as their possible benefit is unproven. I personally never go out without my helmet, so if the law enforced them, I wouldn't care. 

If the law is going to enforce high vis clothing then the law should also make every car be painted in high vis colours too.  The use of lights negates the need for high vis. 

Maybe, minimum requirements for acceptable lights ( perhaps only allow lights that can be seen clearly at more than 100Meters distance ) , Some of the lights available are of no use and should not be acceptable as lights. Enforce the law on lights usage more strongly.

Cycling on the footways should be only allowed when it is a shared footway, and cyclists using the footway when not allowed should not get away with it.

Cyclist in my opinion should hold 3rd party insurance, I have it via British cycling for £37 per annum. If using the cycle for business usage then Insurance should be mandatory for business usage.

I have suggested in the passed and still stand by the idea of removing every cycle path in the country and forcing all cyclists over 12 years on to the road, as it will force more motorists to be aware of them.

Although I will never condone a cyclist running a red light even a pedestrian crossing red light when there is nobody crossing. If the law is going to clamp down on things like that then every driver should be accountable for them breaking almost EVERY applicable law EVERY time they drive. Speeding, overtaking when it isn't safe or even legal, parkin where illegal, jumping red lights as often as cyclsits, stopping in the cycle box at lights ( the first solid white line is where they should stop)  Need I go on ???.

The cyclist may appear to be taking risks, but it can be assured the cyslist is very aware of what they are doing, with better spacial awarness, and more alert than any driver, don't forget if the cyclist makes a bad error in judgement they DIE!! where the motorist scratches their vehicle.

Avatar
kraut replied to Arceye | 7 years ago
3 likes
Arceye wrote:

I have suggested in the passed and still stand by the idea of removing every cycle path in the country and forcing all cyclists over 12 years on to the road, as it will force more motorists to be aware of them.

 

You want my 13 year old daughter to be a rolling speed bump? I'm sure the hit and run drivers will drive so much more carefully.

 

Nope. And learn to spell.

Avatar
urbane replied to Arceye | 7 years ago
0 likes
Arceye wrote:

Although I personally don't agree with the law enforcing the use of helmets as their possible benefit is unproven. I personally never go out without my helmet, so if the law enforced them, I wouldn't care. 

If the law is going to enforce high vis clothing then the law should also make every car be painted in high vis colours too.  The use of lights negates the need for high vis. 

Maybe, minimum requirements for acceptable lights ( perhaps only allow lights that can be seen clearly at more than 100Meters distance ) , Some of the lights available are of no use and should not be acceptable as lights. Enforce the law on lights usage more strongly.

Cycling on the footways should be only allowed when it is a shared footway, and cyclists using the footway when not allowed should not get away with it.

Cyclist in my opinion should hold 3rd party insurance, I have it via British cycling for £37 per annum. If using the cycle for business usage then Insurance should be mandatory for business usage.

I have suggested in the passed and still stand by the idea of removing every cycle path in the country and forcing all cyclists over 12 years on to the road, as it will force more motorists to be aware of them.

Although I will never condone a cyclist running a red light even a pedestrian crossing red light when there is nobody crossing. If the law is going to clamp down on things like that then every driver should be accountable for them breaking almost EVERY applicable law EVERY time they drive. Speeding, overtaking when it isn't safe or even legal, parkin where illegal, jumping red lights as often as cyclsits, stopping in the cycle box at lights ( the first solid white line is where they should stop)  Need I go on ???.

The cyclist may appear to be taking risks, but it can be assured the cyslist is very aware of what they are doing, with better spacial awarness, and more alert than any driver, don't forget if the cyclist makes a bad error in judgement they DIE!! where the motorist scratches their vehicle.

I agree about having decent lights: chip or COB, not indicator LEDs (!), no narrow beam torches, over 1W and 100's of lumen front light, and 100's of lumen from a wide view back light. All lights must be grit, water, and drop resistant (Exposure!!), and preferable USB rechargeable, so that they can be recharged anywhere.

I only agree about pedestrian paths when used without consideration. Some estates are so damned clogged with cars parked on both side of the road, with no parking restriction lines(!), that I sometimes need to briefly need to hop on and off a clear path to let cars past and make progress!

A bicycle and cyclist are unlikely to cause much damage to a motor vehicle, without the cyclist getting seriously injured or killed, so probably not in a state to provide insurance details, unlike most vehicle drivers, so 3rd party bicycle insurance is backwards; better cycle or comprehensive insurance!

It is a crazy idea to close all cycle paths, especially off road ones! A lot of roads where I live are dual carriageway or far above 30MPH speed limit, and with lots of roundabouts. This would stop a lot of people cycling, cause more traffic slowdowns thus more inevitable road rage, and require significant detours during road maintenance. I can get some places faster by off road cycle paths because I don't have to deal with lots of roundabouts, or try to cross busy roads, and can cut across estates on shared use cycle paths, when more direct, and avoid their shocking speed bumps, and use a lot more bridges across railway lines, major roads, and canals. Also having to cycle on a road exposes cyclists to more exhaust pollution, especially horrible Diesel dust from the stupidly pushed Diesel vehicles!

Cyclists may have better front and side visibility, but don't have three easy to adjust mirrors to see behind, don't have as much acceleration to move out of danger have to avoid poor road surface areas, have to avoid brake locking, and vehicle lights at night can be just as dazzling to cyclists!

Avatar
whobiggs replied to Arceye | 6 years ago
0 likes
Arceye wrote:

Although I personally don't agree with the law enforcing the use of helmets as their possible benefit is unproven. I personally never go out without my helmet, so if the law enforced them, I wouldn't care. 

 

When did this law come in?

Avatar
ktache | 7 years ago
10 likes

And start looking at delivery drivers, tipper trucks and HGVs.  Some of the drivers are good.  Many are an absolute liability.  

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 7 years ago
13 likes

Ok. First, let's address the issue of lawlessness on the roads in some kind of logical order, maybe dealing with the most numerous offences first or possibly the offences that lead to the largest number of KSIs?

However, I don't have handy statistics available to me, so I'm gonna assume that speeding motor vehicles is the number one issue possibly followed by mobile phone use in running motorised vehicles. (I'd guess that red-light jumping motorised vehicles might be number three).

So, let's see a crack-down on speeding drivers and when that's all done and dusted, they can move down the list of priorities.

Avatar
atgni | 7 years ago
4 likes

Odd interpretation of HC 112 on horn use for those so concerned with strict compliance.
Don't see how that warned anyone of danger.

Pages

Latest Comments