Mr Loophole secures acquittal of cyclist accused of causing crash

Mr. Loophole wrote:

“This has taken up three hours of time,” he continued. “It’s cost the taxpayer probably thousands of pounds."

Cumulative time amassed in the comments - days. Thank god we're all volunteers / generously funded by our employers / parents.

Nick, you know fuck all about cycle safety. If you cycled to work during peak times instead of being chauffeured, you would learn what safety measures are needed. Guess what? Getting dangerous drivers off criminal charges by exploiting loopholes is the exact opposite of what is needed to improve cycle safety, you tosser.

Nigel not equal to Nick (although one is generally bigging up the other). But agreed - may be worth listening to lawyers on their view of road law but they're certainly no more "expert" on "road safety" (cycles or otherwise) than lawyers, civil engineers, politicians or the police. Blind men and elephants and all.

Considering the 'use a thief to catch a thief' rationale, getting a formidable enemy to swap sides is no bad thing..

Then you have fallen for the hype.

Garage at Large wrote:

I note Nick Freeman has sprinkled a bit of his stardust on Road.cc by name checking this article on Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/TheMrLoophole/status/1479427717372252163?ref_... Fantastic to get this recognition - wouldn't it be great to have him on a road.cc podcast or catch-up, where I'm sure he would convince many of the nay-sayers of his wholesome and positive intentions regarding road safety and cycling safety?

I note how you think that posting on his twitter feed a short video following a small group of cyclists on winding country roads, decrying the cyclists for not riding single file saying that "Took this video(from passenger seat) on 60mph road. Forced to travel in line of traffic at 20mph due to obstruction caused by cyclists ahead riding 3 abreast. Anonymous and cycling with impunity. Law should be changed to force them to drop into single file when vehicles behind" show he has positive intentions regarding road and cycling safety.

Despite the fact that it was pointed out that nowhere was it safe to travel at 60mph on the road in question, nowhere during the short clip was it safe to overtake cyclists due to repeated 90 degree bends in the road.  And if the group had been forced to drop into single file as he suggests ..... it would have been equally unsafe to overtake, if not more unsafe to overtake as they would have had to be on the wrong side of the road for longer.

Or how about the "spoof" video where he rolls out anti-cycling bingo accusing cyclists of riding through 20mph school zones at 60mph amongst others to enhance road safety stir up anti-cycling hatred... all the while he specialises in getting people off on speeding charges.... for example 

• A motorcyclist was acquitted of a 132 mph speeding charge when Freeman quoted case law from 1922
• Joe Cole was caught speeding at 105 mph but Freeman persuaded magistrates to delay the 50-day ban as Cole's wife was unable to drive.
• Andrew (Freddie) Flintoff doing 87mph in a temporary 50mph limit was cleared on a techicality

If Nick Freeman was so concerned about road safety surely he would be working with the government to ensure the Loopholes he frequently exploits are closed, rather than working with people who are serial offenders to get them to keep their driving licence.

One of these days the renowned road safety expert that you think he is will no doubt be in the news when one of the clients he has kept on the roads puts someone in hospital or kills them.

Garage at Large wrote:

But Mr Freeman *has* frequently campaigned to have these loopholes closed. There's a plethora of information, indeed newspaper articles that he wrote himself on closing loopholes, retesting people over 70 etc. A whole range of sensible and proportionate measures for road safety. You just have to open your eyes and read it - you might learn something!

Your defense of Nick Freeman is laughable.  He is akin to a donor to an "Environmental Charity" spending most of their time jetting around the world in their private jet and driving their fleet of expensive petrol supercars as if one balances out the other.   Do as I say don't do as I do.

Has Nick Freeman ever once suggested any road safety measures of any worth.

• Has he suggested that the time limit for a NIP to be issued to a driver be increased from the current 14 days to 28 days?  Nope because that's an easy loophole for him to exploit
• Has he ever suggested that people who should be banned under totting up should have the extreme hardship clause removed?
  • How many drivers are running about with upwards of 15 points on their licence?  Most of those drivers will have had more than one "extreme hardship win"
• Has he suggested stronger sentences for drivers who kill or injure vulnerable road users?  
• Has he suggested stronger penalties for those individuals driving whilst using mobile phones whilst driving? Like for example his client who killed the Rabbi where actual evidence (Not Garage at Large Opinion) showed that they were speeding and had been using their mobile phone while driving.

His idea of sensible and proportionate measures for road safety are make cycling so utterly prohibitive then no one will want to do it.

Garage at Large wrote:

You need to do more research on Nick Freeman rather than believe the picture being painted here by cyclists who don't like him because they themselves are reckless law breakers. Nick has campaigned on many of the points you raised, I'll leave it for you to look them all up. For example https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6332745/Celeb-lawyer-Mr-Loophol.... Do more research

I've just done some more research on him

So do you agree with his stance on upskirting?  As I have said one or two good things don't make a good person

https://twitter.com/TheMrLoophole/status/1007573280096751616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1007957600397340672%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-3081335564656871840.ampproject.net%2F2111242025001%2Fframe.html

Dare I say more proof that he is a victim blamer?

Garage at Large wrote:

 The point holds that if you actively do things to make yourself less safe, then if something bad happens you've contributed to your own downfall. I don't see that as controversial at all.

Oh Nigel, you are vehemently against riding two abreast, which is widely recognised as being a safer way to cycle when you ride in a group..... but somehow you agree with Mr Loophole that riding two abreast should be demonised.

I mean if I am cycling in a group on a road where riding in primary position or riding two abreast is safer for the cyclists, and we move into single file as you and Nick Freeman think cyclists should.   Then a driver makes an ill advised attempt at overtaking the group of cyclists, bails out half way through and wipes out one of the group... what in your opinion is safer, is abjectly unsafe..... but yet you continue to bleat about riding two abreast or in groups.

And I will bring this one up again.

You want to give the police power to stop groups of more than 4 cyclists and seize their bikes and sell them at auction.  Do you still hold that viewpoint?

Garage at Large wrote:

I'm not here to defend every single thing Nick Freeman (or anyone else for that matter) has said or written in their entire life, and I think in that case it was clumsily written.

Clumsily written? Is that all? I guess I'll have to assume that you agree with the underlying sentiment that women should accept being violated by strangers as the cost of wearing a skirt, and that prosecuting perverts and sex offenders is a waste of the courts' time.

Wingguy wrote:

Clumsily written? Is that all? I guess I'll have to assume that you agree with the underlying sentiment that women should accept being violated by strangers as the cost of wearing a skirt, and that prosecuting perverts and sex offenders is a waste of the courts' time.

I refer to my previous quote about Nigel....

TriTaxMan wrote:

There is also lots of evidence that Garage at Large makes stuff up to attempt to further his points.  When it gets pointed out to him.... he goes silent on it..... or tries to say that his statements were taken out of context.

So he uses the same arguments in defence of Nick Freeman.  Clumsily written is just another way of Nigel trying to say that Nick never meant what he tweeted......

However, the fact that his tweet is still live on his Twitter feed shows that is exactly what he believes.  If he thought differently he would have deleted the tweet.

Garage at Large wrote:

I'm not here to defend every single thing Nick Freeman (or anyone else for that matter) has said or written in their entire life, and I think in that case it was clumsily written. The point holds that if you actively do things to make yourself less safe, then if something bad happens you've contributed to your own downfall. I don't see that as controversial at all.

So please enlighten myself and others on this forum who have all gone out our way to make ourselves visible with kit, reflectors and decent lights and yet some of us have been left with life changing physical and mental trauma due to the inability of motorists to see us. The same motorists consistently demonstrate their inability to make use of an empty lane 2 or oncoming lane. The same motorists sit less than a car length from our back wheel. They overtake on blind bends in the dark. They undertake when you move right out to the line due to the shoddy surface that even a gravel bike would struggle with.  They enter/exit single lane roundabouts when we are on them or joining/exiting  All things I was taught not to do when learning to drive 35 years ago. 

So please. Tell us why all this crap happens to me and the others on a daily basis when we cycle responsibly and dress appropriately   Stats consistently demonstrate that the motorist is the greatest contributor to KSI's on our roads and yet gets away scot free. I don't dispute that there are irresponsible peds and cyclists out there. The onus though is on the motorist to be continually making risk assessments while they're behind the wheel and not switch to auto pilot. 

Garage at Large wrote:

You can be perfect in your conduct but just be unlucky in what happens to you - no one denies that. I myself have been close passed although fortunately never hit by a car when out on my bike, and I understand that some motorists' conduct is simply unacceptable. That's why Nick Freeman has campaigned to strengthen the law around all forms of transport, including car drivers by proposing several loophole-closing legislation changes such as changing the oft-abused "totting up" and "exceptional hardship" arguments, regular retests for people of the age of 70, and other interventions to make the roads safer. Anyone of a sound mind agrees with you. However, that doesn't mean that other cyclists can't do more to keep themselves and others safe. If you have other cyclists who ignore traffic controls, the highway code, ride without lights at night, etc, then they are putting themselves in danger. If they are abusive to others as they ride or ride in a dangerous fashion, they are tarnishing the image of cycling, undermining the goal of diversifying the cycling case, and making the roads more dangerous for everyone, you and I included. You wouldn't go out into a thunderstorm with a metal umbrella and stand under a tree would you? The same is true of going out at night in black clothing on a dimly lit street, it's about minimising risk.

Seriously Nigel?

You began your comment so well....  You really should have just stopped after your first sentence.

Then you descended into your Nick Freeman Loveathon anti-cyclist bingo/whataboutery ending with your personal favourite of going out at night wearing black..... Yet you get all defensive when cyclists point out that the very things drivers accuse cyclists of doing.... drivers do as well.

I mean you STILL wont admit that you lied about the fact that you KNEW the lights in the Thursday blog post were broken.  You expressed your opinion as fact, a fact that could not be proved.

You still haven't explained to me why I and others have been left with life changing mental and physical injuries even while we take the appropriate steps to protect ourselves. All you have done is deflect your answer back to those who are irresponsible cyclists.  

All Mr Freeman does is fan the flames of intolerance that motorists hold towards cyclists especially those who cannot think critically or objectively.

I again refer to my driving lessons where it was impressed on me by both my father and instructor that I had great responsibility due to my operating a piece of machinery of greater weight, horsepower and less agility than those on foot or two wheels. This has stuck with me all the years I've been driving and I struggle to understand why many motorists fail to follow the most basic concepts of care, consideration and courtesy. 

So please. Answer my original question of why motorists fail to see visible, considerate cyclists and go out of their way to bully them off the public roads. 

You won't get an answer from Nigel.  He will continually deflect and lie because he himself wants to flame the fans of intolerance, and when he gets called out on his nonsense he claims that he is being bullied or his words get taken out of context.

Garage at Large wrote:

An important life lesson that everyone should know is that you can only control what you can control.

also you 

Garage at Large wrote:

However, that doesn't mean that other cyclists can't do more to keep themselves and others safe. If you have other cyclists who ignore traffic controls, the highway code, ride without lights at night, etc, then they are putting themselves in danger. If they are abusive to others as they ride or ride in a dangerous fashion, they are tarnishing the image of cycling

Which is it to be?  Are we to be responsible only for the things we can control..... or for the actions of all cyclists?  I'm confused

Garage at Large wrote:

We're on a cycling website which is presumably read by quite a lot of other cyclists. If I can act as a positive role model for others and influence their behaviour I will do, but I do understand the limitations of that influence. We are clearly not responsible for things outside our control, that would be ridiculous. My point wasn't that we can control everything, but to understand that the way other cyclists behave (or misbehave) influences other people's perceptions, and therefore impacts on how I -myself - am viewed when I'm out on a ride

Positive role model? 

Last time I checked positive role model's don't make stuff up, especially not as often as you do.

You still haven't accepted that you made up the whole "I know the traffic lights weren't working"..... or that you made up that the woman who was subject to the vile abuse at the hands of a deranged cyclist was "Suffering from PTSD" when the news article you quoted said she was distressed.

If you wan't I will go back further and find more instances of you making stuff up.

TriTaxMan wrote:

Garage at Large wrote:

We're on a cycling website which is presumably read by quite a lot of other cyclists. If I can act as a positive role model for others and influence their behaviour I will do, but I do understand the limitations of that influence. We are clearly not responsible for things outside our control, that would be ridiculous. My point wasn't that we can control everything, but to understand that the way other cyclists behave (or misbehave) influences other people's perceptions, and therefore impacts on how I -myself - am viewed when I'm out on a ride

Positive role model? 

Last time I checked positive role model's don't make stuff up, especially not as often as you do.

You still haven't accepted that you made up the whole "I know the traffic lights weren't working"..... or that you made up that the woman who was subject to the vile abuse at the hands of a deranged cyclist was "Suffering from PTSD" when the news article you quoted said she was distressed.

If you wan't I will go back further and find more instances of you making stuff up.

From last week there was the lie that "With Omicron there is little to no difference in terms of infection or spread whether you are vaccinated or not" when the evidence clearly shows a vaccine effectiveness over 50% after 3 doses for 8 weeks and possibly longer"

I also remember another covid thread where he claimed the risk from the vaccine was equivalent to the risk of long covid - and was out by 4 orders of magnitude...
 

Garage at Large wrote:

With Omicron there is little to no difference in terms of infection or spread whether you are vaccinated or not. It can't be a lie if it's a fact.

You enjoy getting 7 boosters a year on top of your vaccines though, if it makes you feel happy for... checks notes... an alleged 50% booster effectiveness against Omicron. I'd personally contend that you'd be far better served doing something about your BMI - the average ICU patient with COVID has a BMI of over 30.

You will recall a couple of months ago, cyclingmikey calling himself "fully vaccinated cyclingmikey". To confirm, was he fully vaccinated or wasn't he?

Oh wrong again Nigel. It isnt a fact; you yourself posted an article that links to a study proving you wrong. And your reading comprehension is as bad as ever. 
 

I get the fact that you don't understand what a peer reviewed scientific paper is, and therefore this debate is sadly one sided, but thank you for reminding me of another of your covid related mistakes/lies as you have repeatedly failed to grasp the nature of the J shaped curve relating BMI to covid. 
 

If cyclingmikey had 2 doses of vaccine he was vaccinated against the delta (and many other) variant of covid. If he had 3 he was vaccinated against omicron as well. Not too hard to understand surely??

Garage at Large wrote:

This is - sadly - false. "Fully vaccinated" according to https://www.gov.uk/guidance/countries-with-approved-covid-19-vaccination... (i.e. the official government website), means having 2 doses of the mainstream UK vaccines. The UK government definition overrules your fake definition I'm afraid. As for ICUs, there are official statistics for BMI from the ICNARC, which is responsible for health statistics. This showed an average BMI of 30.2 across the last six months of 2021 for ICU admissions for COVID.

Ah yes the notoriously unreliable BMI whic looks at height vs weight and nothing else.  I could pick plenty of elite athletes who have BMI at or in excess of 30.

Garage at Large wrote:

I'd personally contend that you'd be far better served doing something about your BMI - the average ICU patient with COVID has a BMI of over 30.

Ah yes.... how would you propose people do that?  They could perhaps join a cycling club.  Nope you don't want that.... Remember you want to give the police powers to seize and sell bikes if people go out in groups of more than 4 which coincidentally would ban social rides and school bike trains for example.

You do realise that the social aspect is part of the reason that a lot of people cycle but you think everyone should be a sad bitter loner when they go out on their bike and should only go out if it is a worthwhile journey.

Are you now saying that a leisure ride in order to lose weight is something you agree with? Or do you want to add caveats such as only solo riders who are only allowed to ride on very quiet roads and if the are approached by a vehicle they should immediately stop and climb off their bike and bow to their motoring overlord?

I think this is a cunning scheme to reduce congestion of the park and bike kind. Everyone leaves their car in car parks around the edges of big connurbations. They then simply cycle - singly - to their car. Thereby reducing congestion, pollution, obviating the need for inflammatory LTNs and incidentally fulfilling the all important "genuine journey" criterion. They can then drive wherever they have work, shopping, picking up the kids, dropping in on the relatives, accessing medical services - all those things that you can't do by bike. If use of the bike were limited to certain times of the day you wouldn't even need to have an unpleasant encounter with a discourteous cyclist en-route either! Except for the lagging slow or unfit who you'd be doing everyone a favour if you flattened.

Garage at Large wrote:

This is - sadly - false. "Fully vaccinated" according to https://www.gov.uk/guidance/countries-with-approved-covid-19-vaccination... (i.e. the official government website), means having 2 doses of the mainstream UK vaccines. The UK government definition overrules your fake definition I'm afraid. As for ICUs, there are official statistics for BMI from the ICNARC, which is responsible for health statistics. This showed an average BMI of 30.2 across the last six months of 2021 for ICU admissions for COVID.

Ooh Nigel you're a queer one aren't you?  I get my definitions from dictionaries not government websites. According the the OED vaccination means "The inoculation of an individual with any vaccine in order to induce or increase immunity".   Therefore if they do not have immunity they are not vaccinated. 

So your original statement is incorrect with regards to Omicron as either

A. 2 doses as per the UK schedule do induce immunity vs omicron so you are wrong or

B.  2 doses do not induce immunity and therefore people are not vaccinated vs omicron (but 3 do) and you are again wrong. 
 

Also I am interested as to why you picked ICU admission and not mortality for your point around BMI.

What relationship does mortality show with respect to BMI?

I suspect you know you are wrong about your statements on BMI vs covid risk but are just unwilling to admit it. I'm not sure why though as you have been proven wrong so many times now that you should be used to it surely?

Garage at Large wrote:

An important life lesson that everyone should know is that you can only control what you can control. Motorists are people. Some people are idiots, whereas most are perfectly law abiding citizens. Of course we want dangerous drivers to be taken off the road, and that's what the law aims for, but it's an imperfect system where some people who shouldn't be driving are able to drive as they either flout the law or haven't been caught. So to answer your statement, you've unfairly homogenised all motorists in your head as a single law-breaking monolith, much in the same way as some drivers homogenise all cyclists into aggressive, angry large pelotons of overweight white men who malevolently hold up everyone else by riding inconsiderately across the entire highway. While it would be ideal to remove terrible / aggressive / dangerous drivers off the road, we cannot always do this efficiently as we don't know who they all are, and we cannot simply ban driving, which is the only way much of society can function.

I can almost go with you at the start (!) but the differences are rather important and I've highlighted - at the cost of this being a bore now:

...you can only control what you can control.

Motorists are people. Some people are idiots, whereas most more or less follow laws.  More where they know about them, can understand them and don't feel that they are irrelevant, petty and / or there are no consequences to breaking them in which case they very often don't obey them. Of course we want dangerous drivers to be taken off the road, and that's what the law aims for, but it's an imperfect system. Indeed the system is - and most people are - generally biased to consider driving the norm and other modes of transport on the road as "lower status / only there as 'guests'".  We consider road "accidents" as inevitable. Breaking certain laws and driving in a manner that would lead to a failure of the driving test is judged to be not just standard but only fair - because once you've "earned" your licence you have a right to drive for the rest of your life.  It would be an excessive hardship to limit that for very long.  Also some people who shouldn't be driving are able to drive as they either flout the law or haven't been caught. This is because we don't prioritise these crimes due to the biases noted above. Not only do we not pro-actively consider the licence of people with e.g. health issues who should not be driving. There is almost never any feedback for dangerous drivers to become aware they're dangerous - or haven't kept up with changes in law - until a crash. Finally again motorists are people and people occasionally make terrible, inexplicable mistakes, don't pay attention when carrying out habitual activities etc. so even "perfectly law abiding citizens" will collide with each other / other road users / the environment. When they're driving a motor vehicle and make such a mistake the consequences to others can be drastic.

So (before I changed my statement) I guess I wasn't really addressing your question as to why even when cyclists takes steps to protect themselves they are still harmed at all. Nor much why cyclists feel bullied. I think I was getting caught up in some kind of "us and them" dialogue, with me thinking the fundamental issue was the law - and I felt that this was "a given" and mostly OK as it is now.  I felt that you unfairly homogenised all motorists in your head as a single law-breaking monolith, much in the same way as some drivers homogenise all cyclists into aggressive, angry large pelotons of overweight white men who malevolently hold up everyone else by riding inconsiderately across the entire highway. I even catch myself doing this sometimes!

While it would be ideal to remove terrible / aggressive / dangerous drivers off the road, we cannot always do this efficiently as we don't know who they all are, and we cannot simply ban driving, which is the only way much of society can function. Luckily as with much of life this is actually a false dualism and there are signs that it is slowly beginning to be made irrelevant. Society is changing - as it always does - on multiple levels. We have recently had a rather major change in our travel patterns, not least with commuting. Through this and other current issues we can start recognising that we have over-prioritised driving as a mode of transport - and it's not making us all happier, healthier or wealthier. However we can start changing to more appropriate modes immediately - indeed this is relatively simple and inexpensive.  Getting more people out of cars and onto other modes of transport allows a virtuous circle to come in to being. This can facilitate fewer journeys by car, better driving, demonstrate the benefits of changing the infrastructure (and legal system) to prioritise safety and convenience for all on our roads and even make it simpler to enforce it!

In all fairness I haven't homogenised motorists into one guilty monolith. My only crime is my poor grammar and lack of indefinite pronouns.  I would have hoped that you would have picked up on that from other posts that I have made in the past. I've pretty much made a determined effort to make the distinction between responsible and irresponsible motorists.

Sadly as the country eases itself from the pandemic I have noticed as a road user regardless of whatever mode of transport I use on the public roads the skills and attitudes of many motorists have shockingly deteriorated. This last few days has seen some horrific instances which would have earned an automatic fail if the individual was sitting their test at the time. 

Society managed to get by quite successfully even up to 50/60 years ago without the motor car. People walked,  cycled or bused everywhere. They were fitter and suffered less from obesity.  While the car has been benificial to the modern era it has also been a curse in many ways.
 

They are not all guilty, there is always that virtuous 15% who manage not to break the speed limit on 20mph limit roads.

Unfortunately a third of them become lawbreakers at the weekend...

Example of Good and Bad drivers in one section recently.
One of the dashcam videos I watched recently showed a car being driven along (speed shown as 28mph). The occupants were moaning about people not keeping to the speed limit with the following mini already caught up to them. Road turns to 50mph and car behind sales past them literally at the speed change sign. The cammers car goes up to 48mph and it is obvious the mini is going faster then 50. So cammer is going at speed limit and does not accelerate to the new speed limit until after the signs change which is text book driving especially as GPS speeds are normally shown as a lower then car speedomters

Comment in the section: Cammer moaning about people not keeping to the speed limit when they are going slower then it and holding up traffic. And then are travelling at 20mph slower then the speed limit. They are the bad drivers. 

I said roads, generally they are 20mph limit streets.

Garage at Large wrote:

An important life lesson that everyone should know is that you can only control what you can control.

Nick Freeman can control what he can control too.

No matter what he says about 'road safety' he has made an active choice to contribute to the dangers faced by vulnerable road users by fighting to keep dangerous drivers on the road. No one made him choose that line of work. No one made him boast about his supposed ability to do it well in order to get even more dangerous clients he can keep on the road. 
 

Unless you can admit the blatantly obvious fact that Nick Freeman decided to build his professional career around fighting to make the roads less safe the there really is no common ground for anyone here to have a reasonable discussion with you.