Opinions on this rubbish?

[yellowjack]

Mr F**kwit sorry, "Mr Loophole", Nick Freeman, spouting some utter billiards about cycling...

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/mo...

...quite frankly, I think he'd be better served by letting his clients take the convictions and punishments they so richly deserve. That'd be a far more useful contribution to "Road Safety".

I've seldom seen a face I'd be more happy to punch. Repeatedly*. Smug, stupid hypocrite, spouting drivel about a subject he likely knows very little about.

“The Government must look at introducing a raft of legislation which deals with identification, visibility, compliance with road traffic regulations, insurance, cycle excise licence and compulsory use of a helmet. This list is not exhaustive... ...The goal is to improve the quality of driving and cycling by both parties, thus increasing accountability and enhancing road safety.”

Please. Somebody set fire to his suit. Preferably with him still in it*. I realise that by writing some of this post, I've probably dragged myself down to his level, but why, oh why, would anything this horrible specimen of a human being says be of interest to anyone with the responsibility for creating and amending Statute Law?




* disclaimer - please, don't do these things. It was meant as a humorous attempt to emphasize a point. I wouldn't actually punch him (probably) and don't condone setting fire to his suit, either occupied or not (definitely).

[gazza285]

He's a knobhead.

[Rob_T]

Sorry I disagree. I agree with most of what he says. Unfortunately the majority of cyclists I see seem to ride with a disregard of their own safety, the safety of others, with a sense of superior entitlement and with a total disinterest in obeying the basics of the Highway Code. They put themselves in harms way and seek out confrontation. I hate seeing large packs of weekend warriors blocking the road dawdling along whilst chatting amongst themselves oblivious to the queues of traffic building up behind them.

Yet I love cycling, ride between 2 and 3 hours a day most days of the week and want to see more people on bikes. But just doing it right...

Licensing is not the answer though. Maybe just a good thrashing would help them learn. Don't know what the answer is.

[gazza285]

He's a knobhead.

[SystemParanoia]

he just wants big brother to get bigger

[Justin S]

Agree with Rob T. Cyclists are their own worst enemies at times. Seen then plough through red lights , no respect by riding many abreast on main roads of other uses, ride with no lights at night. I am happy with excise duty, as unless you include my farts, I am cleaner than a Prius, so will pay the same, which is nothing. Registering my bikes with license plates, amounts to currently 11 sets of documents , which will never happen, as where do you draw the line.
We even had a cyclist launch across the bonnet of a works van in London recently. How did that happen ? When the cyclist flew out of a red lit junction, straight onto the roundabout and didn't want to stop, so he got hit. Luckily the policeman, who watches that roundabout for crap drivers/ cyclists etc witnessed it and booked the cyclist.
I love riding my bikes, but certain people do think they are a law above being sensible and ruin it for others.

[ecsrobin]

Justin S said:

Agree with Rob T. Cyclists are their own worst enemies at times. Seen then plough through red lights , no respect by riding many abreast on main roads of other uses, ride with no lights at night. I am happy with excise duty, as unless you include my farts, I am cleaner than a Prius, so will pay the same, which is nothing. Registering my bikes with license plates, amounts to currently 11 sets of documents , which will never happen, as where do you draw the line.
We even had a cyclist launch across the bonnet of a works van in London recently. How did that happen ? When the cyclist flew out of a red lit junction, straight onto the roundabout and didn't want to stop, so he got hit. Luckily the policeman, who watches that roundabout for crap drivers/ cyclists etc witnessed it and booked the cyclist.
I love riding my bikes, but certain people do think they are a law above being sensible and ruin it for others.

I have to agree with this, sadly it seems on a normal short commute wether in my car or on my bike in my local town that far more cyclists break the rules than motorists. Funnily enough it's also nearly always the guys that appear to be the serious cyclist enthusiast. And that's never going to win the cycling community any fans! If I'm on my bike I'll give them st but in my car I'd expect a torrent of abuse back.

[SteveSteveson]

The guys an idiot and going too far, but I do think cycling pressure groups are also a major issue in the other direction. They want to paint cyclists as being perfect. We are not, and there are a lot of idiots who make us all look bad. We need a balance.

However I disagree that the "serious" cyclists are the major issue, but this may be more of a reflection of Oxford, where cycling is seen as more of a form of transport than other places. Cycling groups should start to address the idiots on bikes as much as the idiots in cars an vans. They may only be directly a danger to themselves in general, but they annoy other road users, who see us all as one lump and treat us all badly.

[Roger Irrelevant]

What we need is a law that says cyclists must obey the law - that'll sort it.

[Fastpedeller]

Rob_T said:

Sorry I disagree. I agree with most of what he says. Unfortunately the majority of cyclists I see seem to ride with a disregard of their own safety, the safety of others, with a sense of superior entitlement and with a total disinterest in obeying the basics of the Highway Code. They put themselves in harms way and seek out confrontation. I hate seeing large packs of weekend warriors blocking the road dawdling along whilst chatting amongst themselves oblivious to the queues of traffic building up behind them.

Yet I love cycling, ride between 2 and 3 hours a day most days of the week and want to see more people on bikes. But just doing it right...

Licensing is not the answer though. Maybe just a good thrashing would help them learn. Don't know what the answer is.

So do you every drink alcohol? That causes immense problems so that should be banned! Get real Rob T, putting ALL cyclists in hi-viz isn't the answer - but those who do jump lights etc deserve a punishment, as do the motorists (to a larger extent because they are more likely to cause damage to others). Mr Loophole is no supporter of road safety, given his record of getting miscreants off their crimes.

[Rob_T]

Fastpedeller said:

So do you every drink alcohol? That causes immense problems so that should be banned! Get real Rob T, putting ALL cyclists in hi-viz isn't the answer - but those who do jump lights etc deserve a punishment, as do the motorists (to a larger extent because they are more likely to cause damage to others). Mr Loophole is no supporter of road safety, given his record of getting miscreants off their crimes.

No one is saying anything about banning anything. Nor did I mention anything about high viz jackets. Your mention of alcohol as the analogy is as interesting as it is revealing though.

Very poor debating skills Fastpeddler. I grade you D- for effort, articulation and execution. Must try harder!

[Fastpedeller]

Rob_T said:

Fastpedeller said:

So do you every drink alcohol? That causes immense problems so that should be banned! Get real Rob T, putting ALL cyclists in hi-viz isn't the answer - but those who do jump lights etc deserve a punishment, as do the motorists (to a larger extent because they are more likely to cause damage to others). Mr Loophole is no supporter of road safety, given his record of getting miscreants off their crimes.

No one is saying anything about banning anything. Nor did I mention anything about high viz jackets. Your mention of alcohol as the analogy is as interesting as it is revealing though.

Very poor debating skills Fastpeddler. I grade you D- for effort, articulation and execution. Must try harder!

You didn't specifically mention hi - viz, but you did say you agree with most of what he says! So what of Mr Freeman's words do you disagree with?

[Rob_T]

Fastpedeller said:

You didn't specifically mention hi - viz, but you did say you agree with most of what he says! So what of Mr Freeman's words do you disagree with?

Under his picture:

Paragraph 1: Disagree
Paragraph 3: Without wishing to introduce anarchy to the street, on the basis everything in moderation - agree
Paragraph 4: High viz and helmets aren't the answer. But cycling responsibly, with consideration, defensively and with anticipation is
Paragraph 5: Agree
Paragraph 6: Logistically impossible if nothing else, so irrelevant but making bold statements is a way to encourage debate, this is why he has said this
Paragraph 7: Agreed - who wouldn't?
Paragraphs 10 - 12: Agreed
Paragraph 13: In an ideal world yes. In the real world, won't happen so not relevant

[Fastpedeller]

Rob_T said:

Fastpedeller said:

You didn't specifically mention hi - viz, but you did say you agree with most of what he says! So what of Mr Freeman's words do you disagree with?

Under his picture:

Paragraph 1: Disagree
Paragraph 3: Without wishing to introduce anarchy to the street, on the basis everything in moderation - agree
Paragraph 4: High viz and helmets aren't the answer. But cycling responsibly, with consideration, defensively and with anticipation is
Paragraph 5: Agree
Paragraph 6: Logistically impossible if nothing else, so irrelevant but making bold statements is a way to encourage debate, this is why he has said this
Paragraph 7: Agreed - who wouldn't?
Paragraphs 10 - 12: Agreed
Paragraph 13: In an ideal world yes. In the real world, won't happen so not relevant

Yes, I think that's reasonable. The Insurance issue is something which some non-cyclists put forward as some sort of 'label of irresponsibility', however as there is a liability for all to pay for any damage they cause, it could be argued that because motorists have insurance cover they MAY take less care because THEY won't foot the bill for their actions? The emphasis really should be taken away from that of blaming the victim (which I have no doubt Mr Freeman does regularly) to one of blaming the perpetrator who for whatever reason hasn't seen the victim. A simple "I didn't see him because I was blinded by the sun", for instance, really isn't acceptable - but how many times has this been agreed by a court of law as a valid excuse?