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.

54 thoughts on “Press misrepresents Highway Code changes – just days before they come into force”
On the assumption that the
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
Are you forgetting where Boris learned his “trade”?
Sriracha wrote:
Exactly. Misinformation yes; accidental no.
Im not sure if a headline by
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-neighbourhoods-slowed-3000-fire-engines-last/
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.
Awavey wrote:
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
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
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 ?
Awavey wrote:
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
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.
Awavey wrote:
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.
Anyone else thinking that if
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
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
Agreed, also if drivers are being told they must give 1.5m then they might not realise that 1.5m is just a guide.
IanMK wrote:
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.
If the “Dutch technique” is
If the “Dutch Reach technique” is merely guidance and not mandatory, why include it at all? It’s a clearly ablist, divisive measure to sow the seeds of confrontation between drivers and cyclists.
If you’re opening a car door, look before you open it. If you don’t look and you knock someone off their bike, you’ll be liable. The end.
As prominent road safety expert and campaigner Nick Freeman remarked on Twitter: “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.”
It’s also disappointing how little of the forthcoming Highway Code change coverage has focused on cyclists having more responsibility for pedestrians – having witnessed lawless cycling in London, there could be absolute carnage when these new rules come into effect. I can’t remember seeing an article pointing this out.
Nick, you’re not a campaigner
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
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.
AidanR wrote:
Ignoring the impotent rage of your final sentence, the rule – as it stands – is entirely ablist. There is no accessible alternative offered to this technique, nor is it stated anywhere in these new guidelines that disabled drivers should not attempt to perform the action.
I can only assume that these guidelines were thought up by the same people who conceived LTNs: another hare-brained scheme which shuts off leafy middle class streets from the working classes, while at their worst making disabled people virtual prisoners in their own home.
Garage at Large wrote:
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.
Garage at Large wrote:
The Highway Code also includes arm signals. Is that ablist, too?
The actual wording of the
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
“”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.
Signor Garage only wants to
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!
Garage at Large wrote:
Not everyone can drive a car, therefore the entire highway code is an ableist ploy to sow division among all of society.
Wingguy wrote:
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”…
“Media in inflammatory
“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
Surely the moronic papers
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?
I was pleasantly surprised
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.
mancrider wrote:
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
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.
OldRidgeback wrote:
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.
I’m listening at the moment –
I’m listening at the moment – Nicky Campbell making a good point that cyclists and motorists should “See the other side”… Now where have I heard that one before? ?
Edit – it’s pretty clear that these rules are going he to lead to more calls for cyclists to be registered and identifiable.
Garage at Large wrote:
[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.
GMBasix wrote:
[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.— Garage at Large
Well, no. The reason it’s happening is because cyclists aren’t at the bottom of the hierarchy of road users. They rank as having more responsibility than pedestrians, but without adequate regulation will effectively have carte blanche to ignore their new-found responsibilities.
With just days to go, I haven’t seen a single article from any of the major cycling media about extra responsibility that will fall onto the shoulders of cyclists. Instead, I’ve seen piece after piece salivating at the idea that motorists might be held up for longer than they are at the moment.
Garage at Large wrote:
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…
brooksby wrote:
Correct, I don’t consider any of the stuff (apart from the annoyance at children riding on pavements) to be particularly controversial, but it’s been written and framed in a way to deliberately get people at each other’s throats. Especially unnecessary stuff about riding down the middle of the lane, Dutch Reach tecniques etc. All just inflammatory nonsense.
On the hierarchy of road users, cycling website have mentioned it, but only from the perspective of “motorists will have to give cyclists more leeway”.
I also think the stuff about giving way at junctions will fail / not be observed too – in fact it sounds vaguely dangerous in a lot of situations.
Garage at Large wrote:
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
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.
I won’t proactively wear a
I won’t proactively wear a high viz tabard, I’ve already said I think it’s a bad idea. Which is why I think this whole “hierarchy” idea is a badly conceived.
Whatever colour you like then
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
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
Reasonable coverage on Radio4
Reasonable coverage on Radio4’s today program at 0721 if interested to listen on BBC sounds.
Thanks for that
Thanks for that
On the app it starts at 01:21:09 and lasts 7 mins.
CyclingMikey gets a short interview.
The Gaurndia has a good
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:
Today’s metro.co.uk has an
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?
brooksby wrote:
Those cars should be much further to the left, so that their nearside wheels are in that red bit.
brooksby wrote:
It can be perfectly legal for that car to be in the ASL if it crossed the line before the lights turned red.
brooksby wrote:
The cyclists are stopped at the red light?
I must be that I can actually
I must be that I can actually see cyclists. I thought they are normally invisible.
They are both wrong – why is
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
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.
brooksby wrote:
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.
brooksby wrote:
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
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)?