- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Video: 'Cycling vigilante' takes 'Mr Loophole' on a bike ride - but lawyer's views haven't changed
A lawyer who calls himself “Mr Loophole” has joined a helmet camera-using cyclist for a bike ride in London. But his experience hasn't changed his view that cyclists should be made to wear helmets and high-visibility clothing, with their bikes carrying registration plates - an attitude a road safety campaigner describes as "extremely worrying."
Nick Freeman of Manchester-based Freeman & Co Solicitors joined Essex-based Dave Sherry - who has been described as a "cycling vigilante" in the mainstream press - on the ride in June.
> 'Britain's most hated cyclist' films driver who appears to be reading newspaper at wheel
Sherry, who claims that the footage he films has helped convict dozens of drivers, invited the lawyer to join him for a ride after Freeman said motorists should "fight back" against cyclists who use helmet cameras. The cyclist uploaded a video of the ride to YouTube.
> 'Mr Loophole' lawyer urges drivers to fight back at helmet camera users
Freeman has helped a string of clients including household names such as Jeremy Clarkson and Wayne Rooney avoid convictions for motoring offences, often by exploiting legal technicalities, hence his "Mr Loophole" nickname, which he has trademarked.
Many of the cases Freeman handles concern offences such as speeding where there is no injury element, but he has also represented motorists in cases where they have been charged with causing the death of a vulnerable road user.
After learning of his ride with Sherry, road.cc contacted Freeman to ask him whether it had changed his perception of cyclists.
Cyclists "totally vulnerable" on roads
He told us the ride had been an eye-opener, because of “asphyxiation from fumes, something that I’d never considered … and total vulnerability.”
“At all times you’re aware if you make a mistake and fall you’re dead meat," he said. "You only want a slight swerve, or someone looks down at their phone or something, and irrespective of the fault you are totally vulnerable.”
However, the experience hasn’t changed Freeman’s mind that cyclists should be identifiable for actions like riding two abreast on country roads. Even though this is not illegal (Rule 66 of the Highway Code, permits cycling two abreast, as illustrated by this video featuring Chris Boardman and Master Driving Instructor, Blaine Walsh), he believes it constitutes “inconsiderate cycling”.
He said: “You can’t say to me you’ve got a three mile stretch of straight, 60mph road, that drivers should sit behind a row of cyclists doing 20-25mph for that three miles.”
“On those rare occasions when they’re cycling on a narrow country lane, and they know they will be identifiable, they will be less inclined to breach the Highway Code and they will be more inclined to go in single file,” he added.
He also believes dedicated cycle lanes should be built but their use should be mandatory, as should that of cycle helmets.
Duncan Dollimore, road safety and legal campaigns officer at the charity Cycling UK, told road.cc he viewed the comments as “extremely worrying” and stressed that though Freeman specialises in defending motorists, he is repeating “tired mantras of those reluctant to share the roads”, without evidence to back up his arguments.
Freeman spoke to us about two specific cases in which he had acted for drivers accused of causing the death through careless driving of vulnerable road users.
Cyclist, 77, killed by left-turning driver "would have got up and walked away" if she'd worn a helmet
In one, the victim was an 83-year-old rabbi walking along a road at night, while the other concerned the death of a 77-year-old woman who was cycling to visit her husband's grave, which she did daily.
The woman was killed when Freeman’s client overtook her before turning left into a Porsche garage, hitting her, with the driver only becoming aware she had struck her when she was told by other motorists after parking her car.
However, Freeman insisted the victim was partly responsible because she failed to brake in time, and was not wearing a helmet.
“My client overtook her, no suggestion she was going too fast, then she had to pull in front of her to go to the Porsche garage; she was driving a Porsche Boxster," he said.
“The lady wasn’t wearing a helmet, she was in her 70s and [Freeman's client] pulled in front of her, the lady didn’t brake, so there was an error in judgement on both sides I would say and that seemed to be accepted by the court.
"The most minute of contacts, which had fatal consequences for the old lady. She wasn’t wearing a helmet and the evidence was had she been wearing a helmet she would have got up and walked away.”
The victim, Margaret Ward, suffered head and chest injuries in the collision, but a Manchester Evening News report of the case in September 2013 made no mention of whether she would have survived had she been wearing a helmet, nor was it reported that she was found to be at fault.
In court the judge told the driver, 51-year-old Tracy Capal, who had pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving that Mrs Ward had "met her death as a result of your driving.”
"Religious people" should wear hi-vis
In 2015, after his client Simon Martins, aged 24, was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court after pleading guilty to causing the death through careless driving of Rabbi Hyman Steinberg, known as Chaim, Freeman called on the government to make it compulsory for pedestrians to wear reflective clothing at night.
Speaking to road.cc, he reiterated his view that "religious people" who wear dark clothing due to their beliefs should wear high-visibility clothing.
“He [Rabbi Steinberg] was dressed in black, black hat black robes, it was dark, he crossed in front of this car, it was pouring with rain, one of the streetlights wasn’t working, I said, look, people if they’re out in certain conditions, religious people should wear some form of hi-vis jacket. It would have made him noticeable and he wouldn’t have been hit in that particular incident.”
Last year, Freeman said drivers should “fight back” by recording cyclists who break the law, and insisting that some riders deliberately "goad motorists."
Those comments were made after a video posted to YouTube entitled 'Clown takes a pratfall' became a viral hit. However, the driver was later cautioned by police for a public order offence, threats to commit criminal damage and assault. The man later admitted the offences and apologised to the cyclist via the police.
Lawyer's views "extremely worrying," says safety campaigner
Cycling UK’s Dollimore called Freeman’s comments "extremely worrying."
“It is difficult to know where to start when commenting upon Mr Freeman’s view on the responsibilities of different road users,” said Dollimore. “He appears to believe that a rabbi, unsurprisingly dressed in black, is somehow at fault when killed crossing the road without wearing a hi-viz jacket. Presumably Mr Freeman also objects to black cars which, when silhouetted against a dark road surface, must be equally invisible?
“Perhaps it is not surprising that the lawyer who once encouraged drivers to ‘fight back’ now suggests that a cyclist questioning a motorist about his driving was ‘goading’ him to lose his temper, but fails to condemn the subsequent attempted assault upon the cyclist, preferring of course to blame the victim.
“Alas it would probably be naive to expect a more informed debate from someone who, despite claiming to be a specialist road traffic lawyer for many years, had not realised that the roads were paid for by general taxation and not specifically by motorists, and who repeats the tired mantra of those reluctant to share the roads with cyclists, namely that cyclists should be licenced. An argument oft floated and never explained.”
Freeman says his job is to “provide proper representation” for drivers, but admits the “net effect of certain cases” might be that dangerous drivers get off without prosecution.
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 3 sec ago
That would not withstand challenges given it's an "advisory cycle lane". So not illegal to drive or park in. In fact in many cases it would make...
- matthewn5 22 min 40 sec ago
A friend in my cycling club has a new Ribble Allroad, I think the model with 105, and when I asked how he was finding it (before reading this...
- Rendel Harris 31 min 45 sec ago
Well yes but that's if you're looking at an equation x = n x 3 where n is any number less than 5. If you're looking for a number that is three...
- check12 1 hour 49 min ago
Get them back? They've never gone away for me, cheap tdf winning bikes on eBay with rim brakes and cheap rim brake aero wheels, just don't tell...
- Simon E 2 hours 32 min ago
It used to be called Buy Nothing Day as a protest against the the Black Friday discounting madness. The constant BF adverts, promos and stuff...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 47 min ago
Apologies - you're quite right! Something about presentation and comprehension...
- wtjs 5 hours 8 min ago
You can find out whether they're lying about 'taking action' by asking them what they actually did. When they refuse to tell you, citing various...
- chrisonabike 9 hours 53 min ago
Also don't forget - Sustrans are a charity *....
- chrisonabike 10 hours 4 min ago
Yes ... but (just due to the large numbers of people affected) this likely would only proceed in the UK at a very ... cautious ... pace....
Add new comment
47 comments
By his own logic ALL car drivers should wear helmets as 50% of head injuries are motor vehicle occupants.
There is no point arguing with stupid people. "They bring you down to their level and then beat you with their experience."
All cycling needs is a bigger, ballsier lawyer to pick on our cause and take on this muppet.
He says that if the Rabbi had been wearing a hi-viz the accident wouldn't have happened. Why didn't someone ask how he could be so sure? Why do defence lawyers roll over?
All it needs is someone with balls (and a law degree) to take this twat on.
Dear road.cc,
Looks as if there's a need for an 'offensive and threatening' button?
The potty-mouthed individual calling his/herself Kevin - above - seems to think s/he's entitled to take up rather an excessive amount of space, for very little useful commentary and in a manner that displays an unfortunate degree of verbal incontinence.
Perhaps there should be a vote?
"Freeman" has a job, which is to get his clients off charges where they are obviously guilty through "loopholes" in the legislation. Part of his role, is to plead innocence on behalf of his clients, if he didn't do this, he wouldn't be particularly good at his job. He charges substantial sums of money for these services, which are reprehensible as it seems is the way the law works.
The problem is, the more publicity he gets, the more his views will become the norm. I doubt he actually believes what he is publically saying, but he obviously can't claim anything different, it would end his career.
Pretty weird video. I suspect road.cc is being trolled
1. No sound for most of it apart for a brief, unpleasant "techno" segment. Can't hear what they're saying at all.
2. The opening "credits" appear to suggest that this is a "PR" advertisement of some sort and the credit is given to a David Simister who appears to be this UKIP councillor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUNr7pqcNOM
A pair of pricks tbh. But Freeman is a callous prick.
The only way the poophole might change his views is if one of his loved ones dies at the hands of one of his blameless motorists.
I'd go farther than the comments of CUK's Duncan Dollimore; Freeman is a totally unreconstructed Top Gear idiot.
Frankly, if he can't tell the difference between cause and effect, as in the left hook of his client, he really doesn't seem to have any morals at all, but that's hardly a surprise. Nor is the fact that he doesn't seem to know much about road safety or the law, just loopholes to deny justice to victims and allow his clients to endanger more people.
Giving lawyers everywhere a bad name.
Mr loophole is vastly overrated, he can only do as the name suggested, find errors. My mate has been up against him on a number of occasions and destroyed his crappy arguments, if you are guilty you are going down.
Dear Kevin,
Most fatalities in road collisions are caused by head injuries, wearing a helmet has at least a 0.0001% chance of improving the drivers safety. Drivers should not take the risk hence helmets should be mandatory.
"If you dont understand the differences between walking at 4mph with easy 360degree visibilty"
Are all the pedestrians that you engage with owls? Their visibility is no different to mine, unless they are chasing pokemon about and then it is zero. Furtheremore, again living in an ideal world, if everybody was behaving as they should and the infrastructure was perfect, there wouldn't be much need to look around. I spend most of my time checking that an arrogant, self important twat isn't going to try and overtake me when I'm signalling to turn right. And just so you are aware, cars have blind spots, I believe they call them erm blind spots. Great engineering on a tonne of metal that hutles around at 70mph.
You also forgot to address the point on those pesky kids in their revealing clothing forcin all the molesters to do wrong...
One of your latter arguments, the thousands of roads in Scotland that are 3 miles, dead straight, clear visibility... I decline to increase my carbon footprint and have to put up with somebody that is so foul mouthed but challenge you to post 5 of them, simple google map links would be grand (p.s. motorways don't count)...
Should rabbis have to wear a hiviz yellow star?
Thank you Kevin for your input. However you message is somewhat devalued by you ability to operate an internet forum. Double posts are just careless, quintuple posts are just... umm, Lance Armstrong.
Can we get Mr. Loophole and Mr. White Peugeot together?
He said: “You can’t say to me you’ve got a three mile stretch of straight, 60mph road, that drivers should sit behind a row of cyclists doing 20-25mph for that three miles.”
--
No I expect the drive the cross the white lane and overtake properly when there is no oncoming traffic (which they can clearly see). They can do this perfectly easily whether cyclist are single file or two abreast.
If there is oncoming traffic I do not expect them, to try to squeeze past a single cyclist anyway, either passing dangerously close, or stealing some of the opposite lane, which the oncoming car will usually object to.
I can't think of any roads which are too narrow for this (generally indicated by the lack of a centre line marking) which are straight for three miles.
come to scotland i will show you thousands of miles of those roads.
Dear Kevin,
What if all cyclists think the general public are twats? Or just you?
Bikes have to be lit up in poor visibility. Please tell me, what is your point?
If you truly believe that all cyclists should wear hi-viz and helmets, why not all pedestrians and all those driving a motorised vehicle?
Yours with disdain,
Low viz cyclist
Again with displaying why so many cyclists on roadcc are utter dickheads. If you dont understand the differences between walking at 4mph with easy 360degree visibilty, cycling at 20mph with limited rear visibilty and being in 1tonne protective metal cage then me trying to explain it isnt going to help you much!!
Again with displaying why so many cyclists on roadcc are utter dickheads. If you dont understand the differences between walking at 4mph with easy 360degree visibilty, cycling at 20mph with limited rear visibilty and being in 1tonne protective metal cage then me trying to explain it isnt going to help you much!!
Again with displaying why so many cyclists on roadcc are utter dickheads. If you dont understand the differences between walking at 4mph with easy 360degree visibilty, cycling at 20mph with limited rear visibilty and being in 1tonne protective metal cage then me trying to explain it isnt going to help you much!!
I don't understand - do walkers have eyes on the back of their heads? Can cyclists not look behind them? How curious.
Dear Road.cc, I no longer want to see stories related to "Mr. Loophole"
Thank you.
All cars should be painted hi-viz.
I can't tell you the number of black cars that I cycle into. They're basically invisible.
Cars legally have to be lit up in poor visibility. Which is one-up on hi vis. Why do you all insists on being such a bunch of cunts about things like this?!
You all think you are being clever and funny but instead you are just encouraging the general public into the belief that all cyclists are total twats.
Will0's back, everyone.
of course. Someone thinks that you have some responsibilty for your own road safety. Cant be two of those on the same website so it must be the same one again. Moron!
Well you're a pleasant character aren't you?!
Not wishing to 'feed the troll', but to explain what I think Matt_S' is getting at, and it's a view shared by many on this forum:
'Hi Viz' arguments are a bit of a red herring, just as helmet arguments can be too. The reason why cyclists may reject arguments to wear this gear, is that a focus on hi viz or helmets (neither of which will help you if hit at 60mph by 2 tonnes of car), can further a perception of blame onto the vulnerable road user in cases where they are hit but aren't wearing that gear. The whole reason why 'Mr loophole' is mentioning this, is to try and shift the blame away from potentially negligent drivers. Drivers have a responsibility to attend to the environment around them and drive safely for the conditions. Many don't and sometimes the unthinkable happens - I'm sure you can imagine a weasel lawyer using such arguments to get guilty clients off a charge and surely you cannot endorse that? If it was for GBH, murder, rape, child abuse etc then I'm sure you'd have a different view .
We all have a responsibility for our own safety whatever our mode of transport and nobody has said otherwise, have they? It's good practice to wear reflective gear in low light situations, and a legal requirement to be have lighting on a bike. Helmets too *might* help you if you fall off, but there's little evidence to prove they are effective at anything other than low speed knocks. Therefore they are rightly optional.
Finally, as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian, you're making strange assumptions about my character, depending on my mode of transport, which is quite irrational. Have you ever ridden a bike? If so, does that make you a c*nt? I suppose, by your logic, it does.
Make Life Shine - Yes, You Volvo
Is he being deliberately stupid? I liked this one -
"He said: “You can’t say to me you’ve got a three mile stretch of straight, 60mph road, that drivers should sit behind a row of cyclists doing 20-25mph for that three miles.”"
In the case above, why don't the drivers overtake? It sounds like the perfect bit of road to get by them?! Is he just talking in riddles and throwing the odd titbit out there that makes idiots go "Oh yeah, that makes sense"
he is quite clearly discussing roadhogging two-up cycling on single track roads where cars cant overtake unless cyclists single out. But as with all the other them vs us posts that road.cc is awash with the militant arm of the cycling brigade are out to pretend that everything is someone elses fault and cyclists are always right.
Single track roads where ANY over-taking is safe (except at passing places) are pretty rare. Also whilst the speed limit (for cars) on single track roads is often 60 MPH, it is rarely a safe speed. With heavy braking and accelerating, a car might able to safely reach 60 MPH in places, but I doubt the average safe speed is going to be much more than 20-25 MPH (given there can be horses, tractors, pedestrians, cyclists, oncoming vehicles around any (often blind) bend).
Getting annoyed by cyclists traveling at 20-25 MPH is ridiculous, when there may be cars traveling at -60 MPH.
One more thing, people overestimate the influence that maximum and minimum speed have on journey time. My last long car journey was 200 miles of mostly motorway, with an average speed of a little over 25 MPH - largely due to 'inconsiderate' motorists who didn't consider the consequences of travelling too fast and closely together (and as a result collided).
Pages