UKH

Just reading another stupid inflammatory headline trying to drum up a bit more driver vs cyclist hate and I'm wondering how do you go about stopping/changing this crap.

The article in question is in the Evening Standard and concerns the recent changes in the highway code. The headline being "Highway code rule will fine drivers £1,000 for opening the door with the wrong hand" and it illustrated by a more than likely staged photo of a cyclist gesticulating at a driver who's opened a door into them.

The real change in the highway code is that you could get fined up to £1,000 if you injure someone by opening the door into them. But that's far too sensible and doesn't stir up the comments section.

I looked at the IPSO website and it turns out that the evening standard haven't joined up so they can't do anything.

How do we fight against this gutter journalism?

Stop reading it. 

Everything by Reach Plc., like my local shitrag Nottingham Post/Nottinghamshire Live, run these stories and it's ridiculous. They are baiting people against cyclists, they are baiting people against students, they are baiting people for and against the vaccines, literally anything divisive if it brings clicks. Genuinely, if that company went bust tomorrow I would shed zero tears about anyone on its payroll.

I've thought this, but then that doesn't help me when one of their devoted readers who believe this crap decides to pass me on my bike within inches and feels empowered to do so by these articles.

I wonder what is actually going to happen to journalism in the modern age. Newspapers (particularly local papers) are absolutely worthless, biased piles of junk. The newspaper websites are pretty much unusable with all the advertising, pop-ups & links all over them. I now only tend to use the BBC as although it still definitely has a narrative that it tries to follow, it still tries to be informative and doesn't seem to take the piss.

Is there an actual decent, independent news source?

Quite. But by doing so you’ve done the ‘journos’ job by turning an impression to a click and earned the rag their advertising revenue and provided an additional reader on their figures to sell more ads. 
I think there’s probably a good discussion to be had on whether these sorts of articles make bad drivers empowered, “well I read it in the news so it must be ok” feels a bit clutching at straws. Ignorant folk always will be. Same goes for any other divisive topic, too.

Well the headline isn't entirely inaccurate, but definitely on the inflatory side. On the positive side at least an attention grabbing headline like that will get people reading and talking about it and so spread awareness of the changes to the highway code being made.  Such changes are always going to have polarised views. The cyclist vs car "debate" has been raging for a long time and will certainly continue to do so for some time to come.

Not really for all reasons you mentioned. Alternativly though...

• UKC? As good as anything. Mostly
• 9GAG - in amongst the dank memes you can pick up global real-time news stories waaaay faster than traditional sources.  Probably wrong format for serious bias.  Comments are 'fun' too...
• Full-fact and other fact checkers are good reading. Unless your a Tory cabinet supporter or an anti-modern medicine wacko

Stories with inflammatory headlines (posted on social media) with the actual facts and truths that respond or even contradict such headlines, hidden in articles behind a paywall are the worst.  Not quite mis-information but definitely manipulative.

I'd say it is, you could go a lifetime opening car doors with any hand you like and be perfectly fine so long as you check you're not about to hit someone.

Yes but, shock horror, you have to pay.

Well. What is it?

I started a thread on this not that long ago. Tl;dr no, there isn't. DW or maybe Reuters or AP are about all I can stomach now. Sometimes the ft and The Conversation. BBC is turning into nothing more than a list of who tweeted what.

Given the new text in the highway code 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, 
use your left hand to open a door on your right-hand side. This will 
make you turn your head to look over your shoulder. You are then more likely to avoid causing injury to cyclists or motorcyclists 
passing you on the road, or to people on the pavement."

So it does now advise you which hand to use to open a car door, so if there is a collision and the fine for not following the highway code is £1000 (I would need to vafify that to be sure) then it isn't entirely wrong. Chances of proving which hand you used though are pretty slim.

'Advise' is the key word there I think, when the Highway Code says what you "should" do.  It isn't an offence to fail to do something unless the Highway Code says you "must" do it.

"should" in the Highway Code is advisory not law (unless that's changed too)

I think they use "must" for things that are actual law.

Damn: beaten to the draw ☹

The key is "Should", not "Must". Should = guidance, must = legal.

You could open the door using the Dutch reach as the suggest and still hit someone and face prosecution.

You can not be prosecuted for using the wrong hand to open a door, even if some rag claims you can.

The FT

New york times

New Statesman

The Atlantic

The Economist

The Times (yes, yes...)

Its a bit more than advisory in the sense of "a good idea". If there is an accident it will be strong evidence of fault if you haven't followed it.

Valid points re. "Must" vs "should".

However the "should" rules can still be used in order to establish liability in an incident. So this rule could now be used for that purpose and in doing so result in a fine being given. Will this ever happen? Maybe not, but it is now possible.

"The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

What does “opening the door with the wrong hand” mean ? 
 

Serious question.

Gethin's point remains valid though, even if this were to happen.  Whether or not the rule played a part in establishing carelessness, the person getting fined wouldn't be fined for opening the door with the 'wrong' hand, they'd be fined for 'dooring' a cyclist.

Highway Code rule 239 already includes advisory bits and compulsory bits, and an additional bit of advice won't change the fact that it's a "must" part of the rule that is key here:

• you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic

In order for those lurid newspaper headlines to be true it would have to be possible to be fined for opening the door with the 'wrong' hand without causing an accident.

The 'wrong' hand is the hand closest to the door.  (So the right hand if you're sitting in the driving seat of a RHD car.) 

The new rule advocates the 'Dutch reach':
https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/cyclists-and-motorcyclists/dutch-r...

32 years driving and I have managed to open my door multiple times every day without hitting anyone. It's not a difficult thing to do. 

The Dutch method is bugger all good in a van, if I look over my shoulder I see bulkhead. Mirrors are where it's at but you must move your head whilst looking in the mirror to emilinate the blind spot. 

But it remains that this additional rule could now be used to reinforce a case. As I said before there's a good chance it never will but it is now a possibility which did not previously exist.

I'm not saying it is a good headline or even a well written headline but it is also not 100% wrong either. Having not read the article itself I don't know if it goes on to further clarify the headline. Let's face it the purpose of any headline is to grab attention and this headline does that.

But that's just rubbish, isn't it? If "this additional rule could now be used to reinforce a case", then there must first be a case to reinforce. Which, by definition, means that a driver is never being fined "for opening the door with the wrong hand", but rather for something along the lines of not looking properly and opening the door into a passing cyclist. Just because an action may add evidential weight to a criminal case does not mean it becomes a criminal offence in itself.

No it's not rubbish. I'm not sure starting off by telling someone what they have said is rubbish is a great way to enter a discussion. It could be considered quite rude.

It is an additional part of the highway code which previously did not exist that can now be used 

If it is being used to reinforce a case then of course there needs to be a case to reinforce. The reinforcement may just increase the chances of a conviction which may then result in a fine. As I said before, is it likely? probably not, but it is now a possibility.

Exactly, nail on head, it doesn't matter how someone opens a door and nobody is going to fine anyone for doing it with whatever method they want so long as they do as you do and take a moment to think about other road users.

Rude or not, it's unarguably correct.

The headline was that "Highway code rule will fine drivers £1,000 for opening the door with the wrong hand".

If you could explain any way such a fine can be levied without a subsequent collision having happened, I'd agree the headline may have an element of truth. But that seems impossible, so the opening with the wrong hand simply cannot be the reason for the fine.

If you're not able or prepared to accept that much, then there's little point in further discussion.

"unarguably correct" quite a claim. I don't think with that kind of attitude there is any point engaging with you.

"Highway code rule will fine drivers £1,000 for opening the door with the wrong hand."

We'll just have to agree to disagree there, to my mind this headline clearly is 100% wrong.

Okay so lets take the change:

"a new technique, commonly known as the ‘Dutch Reach’. This advises that road users should open the door of their vehicle with the hand on the opposite side to the door they are opening which naturally causes the person to twist their body making it easy to look over their shoulder and check for other road users. The new text will read: you should open the door using your hand on the opposite side to the door you are opening, e.g. use your left hand to open a door on your right-hand side. This will make you turn your head to look over your shoulder. You are then more likely to avoid causing injury to cyclists or motorcyclists passing you on the road, or to people on the pavement"

Note all the "shoulds". For it to be here is a 1k fine if a copper happened to be passing when you innocently opened the door it would be "must". As it is all it is doing is suggesting ways that you could avoid taking out cyclists, or for that matter, losing your door to a passing car although there is more chance of spotting those.

So I am not sure how you feel that the headline is anything other than complete crap?

Though the headline is 100% factually incorrect it's doing its job 100% by getting people to click on the link driving traffic to the site and monetising the advert space.

Click bait is one of the most annoying problems on the Web.