- 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
Dutch ReachPress misrepresents Highway Code changes – just days before they come into force
Days before revisions to the Highway Code aimed at protecting vulnerable road users come into force, the mainstream media is highlighting the new rules to motorists – but in some cases the forthcoming changes are being misrepresented in the press, which Cycling UK says underlines the need for the government to launch a public awareness campaign.
The changes to the Highway Code, which outlines not only the laws that road users are required to follow but also contains advice aimed at improving safety, include the recommendation to motorists that they use the ‘Dutch Reach’ technique to reduce the chances of dooring a cyclist.
It is already an offence to open a car door, or cause or permit it to be opened, so as to cause injury, punishable by a maximum fine of £1,000.
But two major press outlets have this weekend headlined their coverage of the advice that will be contained in the new version of the Highway Code by suggesting incorrectly that motorists not using the Dutch Reach technique - face being fined, asserting that it is a new law.
“New Highway Code rule will fine drivers £1,000 for opening door with wrong hand” is the misleading headline to an article published yesterday by the London Evening Standard, while the Express ran with, “POLL: Do you support new fine for opening car with wrong hand as cyclists given priority?”
Other outlets have focused with similar lack of accuracy on different changes due to come into force on Thursday, with Mail Online, for example, saying that one new rule “tells cyclists to pedal in the middle of the road” when in fact it provides advice about road positioning in certain situations such as on quiet roads or in slow-moving traffic, and riding in primary position has been encouraged by cycling instructors for decades.
As we reported yesterday, road safety campaigners have warned that without a public awareness campaign from the government, people will not be aware of the forthcoming changes, and the inaccurate reporting of the new rules particularly in headlines means not only that many will be misinformed, but may also make roads less safe for cyclists, warns Cycling UK.
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at the national cycling charity, told road.cc: “A government led public awareness campaign should have started by now, with simple, accurate and memorable messages.
“Instead, less than a week before major Highway Code changes are being introduced, too many people are hearing about them through inaccurate news reports like this from the Evening Standard.
“Endangering or injuring anyone when you open your car door has been a criminal offence for many years, and the current highway code rule already reflects that. New rule 239 adds much needed advice, reminding people to look around and use their mirrors before opening their door, with additional guidance outlining the safety benefits of the Dutch Reach technique, but it doesn’t create a new offence.
“The inability of some in the media to understand the difference between a legal requirement, a ‘must’ or ‘must not’ in the code, and something which is advisory, such as using the Dutch Reach, is deeply disappointing.
“Telling people they’ll be fined if they use the wrong hand not only breaches the accuracy provisions of IPSO’s Code of Practice, it’s also damaging in road safety terms, as people read that headline and switch off from the substance and reality of much needed and beneficial highway code reforms.
“Sadly, Cycling UK has already had to contact other media outlets in recent days to point out inaccuracies in their reporting of the forthcoming changes, so the Evening Standard aren’t the only culprit, and we’d urge all editors to check, review, and where necessary correct their content on this issue before it becomes an issue for press regulators,” he added.
Cycling UK has campaigned for a number of years for an offence of causing death or serious injury by car-dooring to be introduced, including after Leicester teacher Sam Boulting was killed in 2016 when a taxi passenger opened a door in his path outside the city’s railway station, throwing him into the path of a van.
> Call for new car dooring offence as cyclists gather for Sam Boulton memorial ride in Leicester
The passenger, Mandy Chapple, was fined £80 after admitting opening a car door, or causing or permitting it to be opened, so as to cause injury, while private hire driver Farook Yusuf Bhikhu was fined £300 plus costs for the same offence.
The van driver, Nigel Ingram, received a suspended prison sentence after admitting failure to stop and driving while over the legal limit for alcohol.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- SimoninSpalding 2 min 28 sec ago
Just to add, is this why people think cyclists are odd, the fact that a brush can ellicit such strong views? 🤣
- Oldfatgit 20 min 59 sec ago
I guess I'm odd as this time of year I'd normally do a 4 hour gravel ride on 1/2 bottle of water, a latte and a bacon roll....
- Eton Rifle 1 hour 9 min ago
The system for elderly drivers in the UK is insane. Basically, once you hit 70 years old, you have to re-apply for your driving licence every three...
- Moist von Lipwig 1 hour 38 min ago
Bit of googling gone wrong in the article - the JAT is the Junction Assessment Tool, the Joint Approval Team appears to be a coutner terrorism...
- HKR 2 hours 53 min ago
Can't believe that child threw his bike on the floor at the end of that. Young people today have no respect... ;))
- Griff500 1 hour 40 min ago
Its not the same stem fitted to the two bikes though, and we aren't talking about HTA we are talking about stem inclination or "stem rise" to use...
- TheBillder 10 hours 54 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 11 hours 9 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 11 hours 13 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
Add new comment
47 comments
Signor Garage only wants to push your buttons. I very much doubt there's any real concern there for those who can't open a door - or even push buttons. Although I think we've had the "but what about all the cyclists impeding the old / the disabled who require cars". Doubt they're sponsoring Wheels for Wellbeing, lobbying against pavement parking, for all-age all-ability independent mobility etc. Or bemoaning that our whole "car required for full participation in society" reality is inherently ableist - and lots of other things.
Plenty of resources on what a less ableist system might look like (e.g. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/tag/disabled-people/ ) but we're straying away from the point (highway code). Which I think was Nige's point!
Not everyone can drive a car, therefore the entire highway code is an ableist ploy to sow division among all of society.
Well, yes - that's effectively where our decades-long choices around motoring have brought us. We've massively levelled up certain things and many have had a jolly good time of the last century. On the cost side though our highways have literally disconnected people in many ways and paradoxically lead to a lot of isolation and lack of access. That's leaving aside the effect of our quest for resources (oil and now increasingly rare earth metals) has elsewhere.
But to return to the point - as always with the viewpoint M'Garage is serving up only particular discrimination is an issue. And only some of the time. I've read nothing to suggest this isn't selective concern. Unfortuately "courtesy and politeness" can be a cover for some rather ugly opinions. And as for "respect"...
Anyone else thinking that if a motorist thinks they might great a grand fine if they don't use the crazy European reach, they might actually do it so it's not that bad a thing.
Ditto if drivers now think cyclists are supposed to cycle in the middle of the road (lane) at all times
Agreed, also if drivers are being told they must give 1.5m then they might not realise that 1.5m is just a guide.
2m - it's only 1.5m if you're driving at less than 30mph. When does that ever happen? We should just keep repeatuing that 2m is the legal minimum.
Im not sure if a headline by itself can be misleading, if the article explains the situation correctly eventually, even if most readers have given up by then, Id term it more of an exaggeration to hook you into reading it, but papers like the Express run articles like that multiple times weekly, theres always a shock headline "motorists must pay extra...." followed in the article explaining like yes motorists would pay extra if they got a speeding fine, or broke a driving law, laws which havent changed.
Blame it on the short attention span of their readers, though its an interesting point to cover what the cumulative impact of these articles is over time, do their readers then beleive there is more of a "war on the motorist" because the tone of every headline is constantly framed as always attacking the motorist with more fines.
Regardless of those types of "misleading" articles though, theres always these to get your teeth into... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/22/fury-low-traffic-neighbourho...
Basically the Telegraph claiming stats show LTNs contributed to up to 3,000 delays to fire engines responding to emergency calls in London (paywalled unfortunately), but nobody ever seems to challenge their stories in the same way the would if they featured in the Daily Mail.
i think they can. They are making a clear statement, which is in fact a lie. The "correction" in the article, which is usually so woolly and meandering so to be virtually meaningless is the equivalent of whispering the truth after shouting the lie.
Misleading story with illustrative photographs and a 30 point headline, on page 1. Correction in 6 point plaintext on page 37.
well if people think the headline is a lie they should report it to editor of the newspaper and then failing a satisfactory response, IPSO, and Ill just assume everyone who has an issue with those stories presented in that way by those newspapers, has already done that bit, right ?
Sorry Awavey, your [headline] point was that you weren't sure that a headline by itself can be misleading. I believe it can, quite clearly.
What action that an individual takes after that is another matter entirely.
But if you believe a newspaper is actually lying, not just exaggerating or misrepresenting in a headline, but actually lying, which I dont agree they are fwiw, but unless you complain directly to them and the relevant press bodies about it, nothing changes.
I'd argue that nothing will change anyway - see the engagement with a certain troll on these esteemed pages - but in any case that is irrelevant. My election to not engage with a known liar is no dereliction of duty on my part. The liar is the liar, and I have no responsibility (or desire) to engage with them. However neither does that place any burden on me to keep my views on their mendacity to myself.
On the assumption that the editors are not cognitively impaired, one has to conclude that they know they are sowing misinformation. Is there nothing in their professional standards about deliberately lying? They bang on about Boris doing it, yet they're quite happy to do the same when it suits their narrative.
Are you forgetting where Boris learned his "trade"?
Exactly. Misinformation yes; accidental no.
Pages