- 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
- 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
- froze 1 hour 18 min ago
This was a very good listing of bikes for under 1,000....
- Hirsute 4 hours 39 min ago
Radar tells me their closing speed, if they are slowing and how far away. Then I decide to say a prayer. The change of light pattern is incidental.
- lonpfrb 4 hours 59 min ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 5 hours 25 min ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- don simon fbpe 6 hours 40 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 7 hours 20 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 8 hours 17 sec ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 8 hours 57 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 10 hours 12 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
Add new comment
47 comments
Today's metro.co.uk has an article on how the proposed changes will cause road rage (?).
They use the pictures below to illustrate how cyclists are now recommended to ride primary at junctions etc.
Can anyone else see what's wrong with the 'before' picture, and yet which passed without comment in the article?
Those cars should be much further to the left, so that their nearside wheels are in that red bit.
It can be perfectly legal for that car to be in the ASL if it crossed the line before the lights turned red.
I must be that I can actually see cyclists. I thought they are normally invisible.
They are both wrong - why is the white car overtaking the cyclist at a junction? Perfectly illustrates why the primary position discourages risky driving.
The picture is from the existing HWC Rule 178: Do not unnecessarily encroach on the cyclists waiting area. Not designed to illustrate the new rules.
The street design - that corner is practically a right-angle, that'll really slow down cars turning left. Needs a wide sweeping radius for a "design speed" of 30+!
Oh - and also the traffic light is not close enough to the middle of the footway, it looks like you can get a buggy past it without going onto the grass.
The cyclist in the white Tshirt is wearing a big ginger mullet?
The cyclist in the red t shirt's hair has gone white from fright due to the close pass?
The cyclists in the blue and yellow have dyed their hair unseemly colours?
None of the fackers are wearing helmets?
That £1000 trillion billion of road tax payers money was spent on a cycle lane that is never used and yet is illustrated being used by cyclists (who pay no tax at all)?
The Gaurndia has a good little debunking piece: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/24/common-myths-about-what-uk-highway-code-changes-will-mean
I like the final paragraph:
Reasonable coverage on Radio4's today program at 0721 if interested to listen on BBC sounds.
Thanks for that
On the app it starts at 01:21:09 and lasts 7 mins.
CyclingMikey gets a short interview.
I was pleasantly surprised this morning to watch some great coverage of the new guidance on the BBC breakfast show. I particularly liked the very reasonable comments made by Edmund King (President of the AA) - hopefully he is an individual motorists may respect and listen to. Everything focussed on these changes being common sense made official, that they we being made to ensure evreyone looks after the more vulnerable (not just making change for cyclists, which I know can send the conversation in unfortunate directions), and just generally being more kind to each other on the roads.
Big thumbs up for the Beeb. A great reminder why this institution is so important.
[one hand clapping] Well done for spotting what's already happening(!) [/one hand clapping]
It's already happening - partly because it's always happened (usually triggered by attention-seeking, shameless, ambulance chasers or their acolytes every now and then), and partly because the populist media see an easy target to trigger their knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, click-baited readers.
Unless, I suppose, you count the whole concept of the Hierarchy of Road Users?
But the point is that pretty much all of this isn't a change, it's just putting stuff into the HC that any reasonable and considerate road users (I know how you like them!) should have been doing anyway...
Well, no. If that was the case, all the comments from drivists would be about pedestrians, whereas the gammonist of them are only concerned about cyclists getting close to their precious motorised little empires.
And you haven't noticed anything from a certain, self-appointed road safety commentator and ambulance chaser calling for hiviz and insurance? What a goldfish memory you have.
Honestly, if it makes you feel safer and more accountable, you have carte blanche to wear a hi viz tabbard printed with your NI number, passport number, driving licence number, NHS number or even your name and address every time you step out of your front door and use the public highway. It is a free country, no-one is going to stop you and if you feel so strongly about the issue, there is nothing like leading by example.
Maybe start by persuading your family and friends to do likewise. I'm sure you will soon get valuable feedback on the idea.
Whatever colour you like then as long as the ID contrasts and meets regulation. Tattoo it on your forehead if you wish, then you won't forget it or pick up the wrong one when you leave your house.
If you think registration and rider specific ID is a good idea then lead by example. If not, then please stop fawning every time pantomime baddy Nick Freeman or some 3rd rate scribbler of inflammatory journalism proposes such a scheme.
I was toying with getting a show plate made up with either my car's reg or something funny to stick on the back of my bike as a joke!
If you really wanted to stir the pot, you could do one of the PM's cars...
N.b. I took this photo on this day as she arrived back from Salisbury. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43414824
That seems unusual for the BBC - they'd usually find the most bedraggled cyclist they could find and ensure they wear hi-ivz head to toe and probably multiple helmets and then not give them time to properly address the issues.
Maybe they mistook Mr King for a complete petrol head and didn't know that he enjoys cycling too?
King drives an electric car as well, so he's not even a petrol head any more. But his fondness for cycling is well known as he talks about it a lot and he's taken the AA in a positive direction in that regard. It's a pity other motoring organisations haven't followed suit.
Something he said a few years ago has always stuck in my head, which is to use the appropriate mode for the journey ... the example he gave was the actual journey he had made that morning, car to station, train into London, hire bike for journey from terminus to final destination.
Surely the moronic papers could have added something like 'we left the EU so we don't have to obey their daft diktats' just to inflame their moronic readers a bit more?
"Media in inflammatory clickbait headlines shocker..."
Which is why there should have been a clear, definitive explanation of the new rules, in a national government campaign - to reduce the opportunity for these sharp practices.
But, no, that can wait until 2 weeks after the rules come into play, and the "fake news" has already become ingrained
Nick, you're not a campaigner, you're an ambulance chasing lawyer that gets rich people off for poor driving on technicalities. Your opinion is worthless
As it is guidance and not mandatory, it is not ablist. If you are not able to do it, you do not have to. The Dutch reach is a sensible way of achieving proper observation before opening a door. This should help drivers and passengers avoid opening a door in such a way as it endangers or obstructs road or pavement users. It is not a "driver vs cyclist" matter.
But then you know that already, troll.
Not a rule. A suggestion. Not a tricky distinction, Nige.
I would imagine an alternative is what someone unable to perform this manoeuvre has always done, but with extra mirror checks.
The Highway Code also includes arm signals. Is that ablist, too?
The actual wording of the change is - "where you are able to do so, you should open the door using your hand on the opposite side to the door you are opening for example" (my emphasis). (Rule 239 here.)
""Dutch Reach physical impossibility for many motorists & distracts their mind from the spirit of the code - which is to ensure that there is nobody coming.""
If it impossible for many motorists to be able to swivel their head and look behind them, then I would suggest that they are not fit to drive a normal vehicle and should be driving a vehicle that has been suitably modified to accomodate their disability.
Rule 202 ... have a look.
Pages