- 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 (YouTube)Mr Loophole says cyclists are "abusing" rules on riding two abreast
Highway Code rules allowing cyclists to ride two abreast are currently "being abused" according to ‘Mr Loophole’ – the lawyer Nick Freeman. Changes are being proposed to the wording of the relevant rule. Freeman says he believes it should be a legal requirement for cyclists to ride single file in certain circumstances with “appropriate penalties” for those who transgress.
Rarely one to pass up an opportunity to call for greater regulations on cyclists, Freeman told the Express: “The problem is that, as it stands, the Highway Code is being abused by cyclists who steadfastly ride two abreast when they shouldn’t – such as on a busy, narrow or winding road.
“It needs to be a legal requirement to cycle single file on a busy or winding road – with appropriate penalties such as fines or a point system for those who transgress.”
The Department for Transport (DfT) has just closed a consultation on proposed changes to the Highway Code.
The current wording of Rule 66 of the Highway Code says that while cycling, “You should … never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.”
The proposed new wording would say that, “You should … ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast.”
Dame Sarah Storey and British Cycling recently urged people to respond to the consultation to ask that it be made clearer that cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast – and to emphasise that they often should for safety reasons.
“The intention of the proposal is to make it clear that riding two abreast is not just legal but it’s also safer and more convenient for all road users – and that includes drivers as well,” she explained. “However, our concern is that the proposed wording doesn’t achieve that goal and the existing ambiguity around this issue remains.”
Highlighting some of the situations where it was wise for cyclists to ride two abreast, she said: “If you think about a situation where you might be riding with your child, as I do on a regular basis, you want to make sure that you have your child on the left of you so that if somebody is passing too quickly or closely you are offering them some protection. In this situation we don’t believe that a parent should ever feel compelled to ‘single out’.
“Similarly, if you’re out on the road in a group, if you’re in single file there’s a much longer line of cyclists for a driver to pass. On the road it might not be possible to do this safely while maintaining a safe distance from the group, particularly if there’s a bend ahead or a traffic island. If you’re riding two abreast, it makes it much easier for the driver to overtake safely and they’ll also have better visibility of what is coming towards them.”
Freeman, predictably, disagrees, arguing that only a motorist can gauge whether it’s safe to overtake.
“If cyclists ride two abreast it effectively means that they, the cyclists, decide if a motorist can overtake them or not – since clearly it is only safe to do so when they ride single file.
“Yet cyclists don't have any of the ingredients needed to make this decision. They don't have the same view of the road as a motorist. They can't judge the power of the vehicle behind them.
“Especially since cyclists rarely have mirrors. They can't assess the space needed for a car to overtake. The decision to overtake should be the motorist’s and the motorist’s alone.”
Freeman then moved on to his favourite cycling hobby horses: compulsory helmets, compulsory tabards with a registration number on them, compulsory insurance and a points-based penalty system.
Back in June, Freeman used World Bicycle Day as a pretext for again making his case for these measures, while arguing that lockdown had led to a “culture of toxic cycling.”
He has since said that children shouldn't be allowed to cycle on the road without adults who have passed a proficiency test.
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.
Latest Comments
- grOg 3 sec ago
Where does it state in the article that Ashley purchased the stock? it does state that Ashley bought the brand and intellectual property, not the...
- rogerwb 2 hours 40 min ago
Jump off the bike and run across. I cycle in trainers though.
- momove 3 hours 43 min ago
Cheers for the lesson! Wasn't expecting one so was pleasantly surprised, especially getting to find the origin of "laconic"!
- ktache 4 hours 30 min ago
Isn't it a rights issue?
- AidanR 5 hours 20 min ago
Same here - it took me by surprise. 10:30am doesn't feel like a dangerous time to cycle; apparently I'm wrong on that.
- Daddy Feebs 5 hours 33 min ago
If anything, it looks a bit like an SL6
- wtjs 6 hours 9 min ago
Other commenters have different views True!
- Daclu Trelub 6 hours 24 min ago
Incredibly bone-headed.
- Sriracha 8 hours 26 min ago
Lidl have a window poster emblazoned, "Black Friday. Starts Sunday".
Add new comment
55 comments
It was worth saying twice.
There's a word for him...on the tip of me tongue...begins with C, ends in T, has a U and an N in the middle and it's not "coconut".
I don't think it's communist either....
Is it a type of conduit?
Columnist? Might explain why he tries to get media attention so much...
It's CUNT
HTH
Oh yes, that'll be it...
My first is in cable but not in wire
my second is in tuba but not in piano
my third you will find in Biden
my last you will find in Trump
Define "narrow, winding or busy".
Legally meaningless, unquantifiable terms and utterly subjective at best.
The only solution is to either state explicitly that cyclists may not cycle other than in single file unless overtaking another cyclist or make it clear that other road users should expect groups of cyclists to take up the entire lane, be that 2, 3 or whatever abreast. For avoidance of doubt I'm not in support of the first option.
The highway code should do more to emphasise the need for respect and consideration between road users of all sorts and the responsibilities of drivers, riders and pedestrians commensurate with the danger their mode of transport represents to other road users.
I have to point that "winding" is a work that Freeman used and that the HC says "bends". However, you right too many subjective terms in the HC and yes, before you say it, the term "bend" is even more open to interpretation than "winding".
Man who defends road users based on the "letter of the law" attacks other road users for adhering to the "letter of the law".
What a cunt.
"...since clearly it is only safe to do so when they ride single file." F***wittery afoot here. That's what the other side of the road is for - you know the place where dragons lurk on the other side of the white line, 1.5 m minimum away from a cyclist.
What this needs is Froome, Storey or Vine to invite "Mr loophole" out on a bike ride to see what it's really like.
I think that this is likely to result in one of two outcomes;
He wouldn't go as he has no interest in a balanced view, he is speaking to his audience. Drivers who know that they break the law, and rely on solicitors like him to get them off on the occasions that they get caught.
He would go, but knowing which side his bread is buttered. Would produce a similar statment as he has in past. It's too dangerous for riders to ride double and even more important that they have registration and insurance. Then claim that his view point has more weight now because "he's ridden a bike".
Highway Code rules regarding speed limits for motor vehicles are currently "being abused" - says me
This guy really seems to dislike cyclists, judging from his rants.
You must be really late to the party - this guy turns up on here regularly. Personally, if Bonfire Night weren't banned, I'd be happy for some figure of him to be ritually burned on a bonfire...
I dont know if he likes or dislikes cyclists, he has a bee in his bonnet about some things,but he certainly likes to self promote himself, how else to maintain the illusion of being a celebrity lawyer with a high media profile and the media fall for his poor downtrodden motorists routine every time
I would honestly not be surprised if, in private, he had no strong opinion one way or the other about cyclists.
He's made a very lucrative business from getting dangerous drivers off on technicalities and loopholes.
I think this is part of an overall business stratagy to increase his public profile in this demographic, as well as throw some distracting mud around. Real drivers are hard done by, look at what they have to put up with, look at what cyclist get away with.
What an utter tosspot this plank is. How many dangerous drivers has this pillock kept on the roads over the years? I doubt the twat has ever spent any time in the saddle, yet decides to pontificate on what is the best way to facilitate an overtake. He is one of the worst types of cyclist hater - one with the means to make our lives and wellbeing worse.
HAHAHAHA!
Doesn't he abuse the rules for a living getting off dangerous drivers...
a winding road is exactly where cyclists should not ride single file, encouraging an overtake when there is no visibility of oncoming traffic and extending the time the overtking vehicle must spend on the ther side of the road.
I don't think I have ever come across a winding road where there was sufficient width for a car to overtake a single cyclist without crossing the centre line.
ITYM there are no winding roads where it's safe to overtake without crossing the centre line,width isnt the problem, because it's that you can only rarely see what's coming towards you in that instant,which is important if you have crossed the centre line.
if the road is 4m each side of a centre line then cars pan pass cyclists at reasonable space regardless of oncoming trafic so you don't need to see what is coming. But roads of this width are extremely rare and tend to be straight, not winding. Width is definitely an issue.
Winding roads severely limit visibility of oncoming traffic. Winding roads also tend to be narrow enough to force vertaking cars to use the other lane. The combinaton of these two factors leads to them be unsuitable for overtaking.
This idiot lawyer would obviously try to clear a driver who hit someone while squeezing through on the same side of the road, or hit an oncoming car at a blind bend.
And of course we know what happens when drivers like Dr Helen Measures try to overtake single file cyclists on winding roads. Riding two abreast is the best defence against this occurance.
Pages