“Gathers momentum” are the words used in a BBC News headline to an article published yesterday referring to the petition launched back in June by solicitor Nick ‘Mr Loophole’ Freeman calling on cyclists and e-scooter riders to be required, among other things, to wear hi-vis tabards with identification numbers – the only problem being that the petition actually closed last week.
And while, as the BBC correctly points out, the number of signatures it attracted means the government will have to give a response to the petition, we already have a strong hint of what the answer will be thanks to a question asked in the House of Lords back in June.
In its article, the broadcaster said that the petition aimed to “crack down on nuisance cycling” – even though the changes to the law being called for by the Manchester-based solicitor, who has helped celebrity clients including David Beckham and Sir Alex Ferguson secure acquittals on motoring-related offences, would apply to anyone riding a bike.
Like all petitions published on the Parliament.uk website, the petition ran for six months. It was posted in June, ran for six months, and it closed last Tuesday 7 December having amassed 10,498 signatures.
It broke the 10,000-signature threshold above which the government is obliged to provide a response – due within the next nine days – with less than 24 hours to go until it closed, despite Freeman repeatedly taking to print and broadcast media, including The Telegraph and BBC Radio 4, to urge people to support it.
Posted under the heading, Introduce new requirements for cyclists/e-scooters: visible ID, licences, etc, Freeman wrote:
The Government should require cyclists and e-scooter riders display visible ID, require that cycle lanes be used where available, and introduce a licensing and penalty point system for all cyclists and licensing system for escooter riders.
Roads are now shared with more cyclists and e-scooters than ever. Yet cyclists and e-scooter riders aren`t currently held accountable in same way as drivers.
Cycle lanes can be safer yet are often not-used. A licence scheme and penalty points system should ensure responsible cycling and e-scooter use.
"Without some kind of registration scheme we have no idea who might be riding a bike or an e-scooter,” Freeman – who in 2007 got Jeremy Clarkson cleared of a speeding charge because the prosecution had been unable to prove that the then Top Gear presenter had been driving the car in question at the time of the alleged offence – told the BBC.
“Those who use them can recklessly flout the law with impunity – say, jumping red lights, weaving on and off pavements and even knocking down pedestrians,” added the solicitor – who has previously called for pedestrians to be forced to wear reflective clothing at night after a driver he represented was convicted of causing the death of a rabbi through careless driving.
> Make pedestrians wear reflective clothing, says ‘Mr Loophole’ lawyer who defended killer driver
And as for what we expect the government’s response to the petition to be, at least insofar as it relates to cyclists?
Well, at the end of June – three weeks after the petition had been posted and Freeman had made his initial rounds of the media to promote it – Lord Berkeley, patron of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling & Walking, posed a written question to the government in the House of Lords on the issues it raised.
> Minister repeats there is no prospect of requiring cyclists to be licensed as ‘Mr Loophole’ lawyer Nick Freeman continues to push his petition
In a written question, he asked the government “what assessment they have made of the possible (1) advantages, and (2) disadvantages, of introducing a licensing system for cyclists.”
Responding to the Labour peer, Baroness Vere of Norbiton, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, said: “The government considered this matter carefully as part of the cycling and walking safety review in 2018, and has no plans to introduce such a system.
“Cycling brings many benefits, particularly in terms of health and the environment, and the government is keen to encourage rather than restrict it.
“Cyclists must respect the rules of the road as set out in The Highway Code and enforcement of cycling offences is a matter for the police.
“The introduction of a licensing system would be likely to deter many people from cycling and the costs and complexity of introducing and administering such a system, would be likely to outweigh any road safety or other benefits,” she added.
Earlier this month, Freeman was set straight by Surrey Police’s road policing unit on Twitter after he posted a video in which he suggested – incorrectly – that a group of cyclists riding two abreast ahead of the vehicle he was travelling in on a winding road were breaking the law.
> Mr Loophole fury at perfectly legal two abreast cyclists "riding with impunity" (+ Surrey traffic cops aren't impressed)
And while his petition may, at the 11th hour, have gone over the 10,000 signatures it needed for the government to have to respond, it secured barely a tenth of the 100,000 needed for it to even be considered for a House of Commons debate by the Backbench Business Committee.
Add new comment
43 comments
.
Do adults really add NOT at the end of sentences? Thought that was American teens in the 90's.
Excellent!
"The Government should require cyclists and e-scooter riders display visible ID, require that cycle lanes be used where available, and introduce a licensing and penalty point system for all cyclists and licensing system for escooter riders.
Roads are now shared with more cyclists and e-scooters than ever. Yet cyclists and e-scooter riders aren`t currently held accountable in same way as drivers.
Cycle lanes can be safer yet are often not-used. A licence scheme and penalty points system should ensure responsible cycling and e-scooter use."
So says the fuckwit solicitor who makes a fortune out of getting dangerous drivers off the hook on a technicality. Idiot, he's a complete waste of 8 pints of blood.
The thing I hate was the two most famous "Loopholes" letoff's that got him really famous were not actually loopholes but just Magistrates being starstruck.
"My client didn't want to shit himself" is not a loophole that allows you to drive down the hard shoulder of a motorway passed traffic. But hey look, it is a famous football manager of the area so let him off.
And considering only two years before we learned the tragic consequences of speeding to escape the Paparazzi instead of using legal means, why was it safe for someone to drive 76mph in a 50 for the same reason, someone who was banned on totting up but got away with it as the appeals judge decided he might get a kiss from Posh Spice if he didn't stop the Millionaire who could afford a chauffeur from driving dangerously.
Still at least Boo posted a link to a famous loss which are very rarely reported it seems when he couldn't get Fwank off a few years ago in a similar argument. Be intereting this time around.
When we have to refer to him, can we please spell his name correctly - it's Mr Poophole - the lawyer that talks out of his sphincter!
Yet another complaint to be written to the BBC about their blatant anti-cycling bias, perfectly demonstrated by this article, which only gives the story of the nasty little loophole lawyer. Nothing from any cycling organisation, or even from an individual cyclist, and as road.cc points out, the headline is just a lie, since the petition has closed and it can't possibly get any more, or less, momentum.
CUK, BC, Sustrans, please get together and blast some sense into the BBC. Other media are run by billionaires, but the BBC has a charter and editorial guidelines that supposedly guarantee impartiality and the views of all sides, and the BBC's bias has been utterly blatant for decades.
The BBC has Jeremy Vine.
Who doesn't do his pro-cyling agenda in his BBC time.
TalkRADIO presenters definitely DO have ANTI cycling time on their shows. Farage too when he was on LBC.
Which is why it is disappointing when the BBC who like to promote impartiality on stories (unlike the other priavte stations), yet let people like Freeman on as a "Road Safety Campaigner" because he wants to punish cyclists with unmanagable and costly red tape but with nothing solid more behind the headline soundbites.
I think last time they did have "the other side " represented they had someone who public speaks for a living against a guy who occaisionally makes the news because he catches people on his camera sometimes. Yes, very fair debate there.
I posted elsewhere questions any journalist should ask in any interviews before Freeman is allowed to do his anti cycling speil. His resident brown-noser on here replied Poophole has apparently answered them before without providing links to those answers and then went on to answer from his own warped opinion rather then Nick's.
Same with LBC. Nick Ferrari is endlessly whinging about the cyclists holding up his chauffeur driven car that takes him from his home in Blackheath to Leicester Square. I stopped listening to him because he's too thick to realise that some of his audience are actually the people he's slating.
Unfortunately.
Pages