- 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
news
Nick Freeman Mr Loophole talkRadio Mike Graham (talkRadio)Expect carnage and more danger...Mr Loophole rants about Highway Code changes to talkRadio's Mike Graham
Nick Freeman, often know by his Mr Loophole nickname, made an appearance on Mike Graham's talkRadio show this morning to slam the new Highway Code changes, and warned of "carnage" on Britain's roads.
Freeman, who regularly makes headlines for getting celebrities off driving charges, was highly critical of the changes which come into effect on Saturday 29th January, particularly the Hierarchy of Road Users.
Under this, road users most at risk in the event of a collision are at the top of the hierarchy and should receive priority over road users that are less vulnerable. Pedestrians are at the top of the hierarchy, followed by cyclists.
Speaking on 'The Independent Republic of Mike Graham', Freeman predicted "carnage" and warned "our roads are going to be much more angry and much more dangerous."
"It's well-intentioned but ill-conceived," he said. "The whole point of this is to increase safety. We're all in favour of trying to make our roads safer. Safety doesn't equal priority. I fear it is going to be carnage. Particularly for the most vulnerable people.
"Pedestrians and cyclists have this sense of entitlement, and they're now going to have the force of the Highway Code behind it, which will only increase this sense of entitlement. It seems to lack common sense. Wouldn't it be more sensible to say to those who are most vulnerable 'you have to share this responsibility as well?'"
> Press misrepresents Highway Code changes – just days before they come into force
Under the changes cyclists have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians in the same way the less vulnerable driver has a responsibility to both.
On the issue of road positioning, Freeman was characteristically outspoken, saying the advice for cyclists to ride in 'primary position' (in the centre of the lane) in certain situations "would not end well".
The Code will tell riders to adopt primary position on quiet roads (but to move over when road users approach from behind), in slower moving traffic, and approaching junctions where overtaking is dangerous.
Freeman said this would "infuriate motorists, increase frustration and lead to many incidents because motorists are not going to want to sit behind a cyclist. You can see how this is going to unfold, and it's not going to unfold well.
"I think what the government needs to do is let everybody use common sense, and that tends to work because most people have common sense.
"What they're trying to do is control us, take that away, by putting these rules in place it is going to have the reverse effect. One wonders who is advising the government. Who are the people saying this is a good idea?
"There needs to be a balanced, sensible approach which works for everybody not just for a tiny minority, that's what we've got here. Cyclists need to play their part. I saw a picture of Chris Boardman cycling the other day. He wasn't wearing a helmet or a hi-vis jacket. It doesn't send out the right message."
Freeman went on to echo a sentiment expressed by the AA's head of roads policy Jack Cousens over the weekend, warning the lack of publicity, and polls showing many road users are unaware of proposed changes is worrying.
"The other very alarming thing is that nobody knows about it," Freeman explained. "It's coming in on Saturday but the polls suggest a significant amount of motorists don't even know there is going to be a change, and of those, some are saying 'we're not even going to look, we don't care', which isn't healthy as motorists obviously need to be educated."
The discussion also included criticism of the Code's guidance on cycle lanes, with host Graham asking "if cyclists are now being told they don't have to use cycle lanes what was the point of butchering the road system to put all those cycle lanes in at a significant cost to the taxpayer?"
Freeman replied: "They never had to use them anyway. They're spending hundreds of millions of pounds on cycle lanes but it was never a mandatory requirement that they use them. So what is the point? Either have them and say they're there for a reason or let's not bother at all."
With the lawyer off the call, Graham ended the segment with a rant of his own, calling the changes "absolute and utter madness".
"I'm not going to mince my words here this is not to do with cyclists vs drivers or pedestrians vs cyclists, this is to do with road safety for everyone. And what these measures say to me is that there will be a lot more accidents, a lot more injuries, a lot more deaths on the road, and that is not really a very good idea, is it?"
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- Laz 1 hour 3 min ago
hopefully, that will be the last time we see that van in drivable condition
- Nick T 2 hours 19 min ago
Come again chief? The Tarmac in size 56 has a 73.5 degree HTA, the Addict in the same size comes in at 73.4 degrees. In terms of bike fit that's...
- TheBillder 4 hours 1 min ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 4 hours 17 min ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 4 hours 20 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 4 hours 24 min ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
- David9694 4 hours 34 min ago
Car flips in Millennium Way, Sheerness, near former Aldi supermarket that reopens as Home Bargains this weekend...
- RoubaixCube 5 hours 3 min ago
Ive been using the same £2-3 dish brush I bought from wilko, tesco or pound land for as long as I can remember. I dont understand why anyone would...
- S.E. 6 hours 39 min ago
I'm thinking CX tyres...
Add new comment
94 comments
"pedestrians" AKA people....
So many people have tiny brains which are incapable of distinguishing between "acting entitled" and "being entitled"
I must say I'd like to feel entitled not to become entangled under the wheels of a motor vehicle. Is he talking to me?
...Won't you think of the children?... No. So "Children on foot ... have a sense of entitlement".
I think we've given this far more thought than he ever has.
Pretty much the only "change" is that peds now have priority when approaching a side road to cross. Which is what any competent driver expects, particularly where there are children.
The addition of hierarchy of responsibility is at this stage in the HWC only. Whether this foundation continues to be built on is another matter.
All the other stuff is clarification of existing rules and norms.
The press seem to be concentrating on the rule change when turning left in to a side street. I haven't seen any mention of giving way to Peds when turning right or even when coming out. Actually, some advice on best practice would be welcome. Ie do you treat them like two separate give way instructions.
Having said that, this rule really needed updating. Let's be honest previous advice equated to don't run anybody over
Trying not to run anybody over is the basis for all good roadcraft surely.
That and not crashing into other vehicles and stuff.
You say that like it's easy...
If we only started to make side streets quieter (as many of them should be - rather than cut-throughs) - then we could provide drivers with even more help. Currently our side street "tell" drivers to wizz through with our high urban speed limits and our wide corner radii. We need a bit of:
... and if we have a genuinely busy / more major side street then there's a fix for that too (from an analysis here by BicycleDutch):
This was also an existing rule. On my motorbike test a few decades ago, my instructor advised that a single dotted line = give way to pavement users (i.e turning into a side road) and the second dotted line = also give way to cars (i.e. exiting a side road)
And also, of course, not to left hook cyclists.
Already in - HWC 167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
Overtaking is explained in massive detail in rules 162 - 169, and rightly so. It is by far the most dangerous manouer that you can perform, even when done legally.
If you're a good and competant driver, any changes shouldn't cause any issues. They only people who it will affect are those who probably need more training & education; also known as ignorant idiots.
I.e. not the drivers that Mr Loophole represents.
Freeman replied: "They never had to use them anyway. They're spending hundreds of millions of pounds on cycle lanes but it was never a mandatory requirement that they use them. So what is the point?
I'm not sure over what period the 'hundreds of millions of pounds' refers to, and it self-evidently doesn't take a genius to say it, but when councils build rubbish infrastructure, people won't use it (so what is the point?).
What's worse is the failure to acknowledge that motorways are built at extreme cost (we wish they'd only be hundreds of millions - approx 30 million a mile). They are also optional as you can tell by the quantity of motor traffic on A roads and that is despite motorways being generally fit for purpose and not ending at a beg button.
And that many motorways have been upgraded - at enormous cost - to 4 lanes, specifically to provide extra capacity, but the extra lanes goes largely unused (despite them being totally fit for purpose and mandatory)
Out of interest. Has anyone read, seen or heard an article when it was actually suggested that drivers (and cyclists and pedestrians) actually pick up (download) a copy of the Highway Code and actually read the f*!@ing thing rather than rely on abridged (and often biased ) analysis.
In this article alone Graham is actually corrected by Freeman on what the HC currently states so there's not even any evidence that commentators on the "changes" know what it says now.
FFS. If anything is making the roads more dangerous, it's loonies like this being given airtime to spout their deliberately provocative and divisive drivel.
Freeman's 'aving a go at the pedestrians, now!
As the rarely get prosecuted for road offences he can make very little money off them...
I particularly like the "entitlement" argument. As members of the public we are all (certain restrictions and local suspensions aside) absolutely entitled free access to public highways. It is only the few self appointed voices of the motorist who seem to have a problem with this fundamental right enshrined in common law that we all enjoy.
BTW, as a motorist I am more than happy with my status of having to be licenced to drive a vehicle on the public highway. I expect that nearly all other motorists are likewise happy with that state of affairs in not just allowing anyone to jump in a vehicle and drive it on the road.
I think I've commented on the "ironic" use of entitlement by the press. It really should be called out, it's so damaging.
This being the same public figure that believes you can grow concrete? The biggest thing to come out of all this is the fact that most motorists don't seem to keep abreast of the Highway Code. It's not like you have to pay for a book everytime it's updated. It's available free online. So before they criticise cyclists they should be criticising motorists for being the greatest menace on the roads. The 99% of all roads users.
What a cracking picture of Mike Graham at the top of this article. He actually looks as thick as he sounds!
As thick as homegrown concrete, one might say...
Nothing like a nice bit of homegrown......
I prefer dedicated refractory materials for my pipe and I certainly wouldn't settle for plaster of paris instead of meerschaum...
Strange that he identifies that drivers will not care about heirachy and priority, and so will be dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians expecting to them, and yet reaches a conclusion that cyclists, rather than drivers, are entitled.
Pages