Police Scotland shared this advert on Facebook over the weekend, raising awareness of the Highway Code and the need for motorists to give "at least 1.5m when overtaking people on bikes at speeds up to 30mph, and give more space at higher speeds"...

It's a familiar concept for a campaign promoting behaviour that will have a positive impact on cyclist safety — humanising people who use bikes as family, friends, partners of others, not just 'CYCLISTS'.

Simple enough, we'd say. Please make sure you do this small thing while driving a vehicle to ensure the safety of a more vulnerable road user who, like you, is a daughter/son/mother/father/sister/brother/wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend... seems fair enough to us. Apparently not, according to Police Scotland's comments section.

"It's not that when the bikers are squeezing in and out all the cars at lights to get by, they don't keep ther distance then! So why should we!!!!"

"When will you draw attention to cyclists who frequently disobey the Road Traffic Act, by non-compliance of red lights, one-way streets, and pavement violations."

Interesting mention of pavement violations on the day Edinburgh City Council begins enforcing a ban on pavement parking (link is external) with £100 fines. Some more from the comments...

"Cyclists are a menace should pay road tax or some sort of payment to be on the road."

"Agreed, however the focus is always on the driver of the car but we all know the road (and pavement) behaviour of cyclists is appalling. Police Scotland need to start focusing on the cyclists and not always look to the driver as the problem. Oh and tell them to put lights on and stop queue jumping by going onto pavements then back onto the road and holding up traffic ..."
Highway Code (Department for Transport)

Fair play to road.cc reader Craig Robertson who attempted a quick explainer....

"Cyclists v Cars

"Are you about to comment on this post suggesting cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road? If so, read this handy hints guide first. It'll save you tiring your fingers frantically bashing the keyboard in some kind of fact-devoid, blind rage.

"1. If your argument is centred around car drivers having a licence and cyclists not, realise that the vast majority of cyclists are also car drivers. Being a cyclist does not suddenly preclude you from owning or driving a car. Ergo, most cyclists also have a licence to be on the road.

"2. If you argument is about car drivers paying road tax to allow them to use the road, realise that 'road tax' does not exist. You pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED). This is based on engine power and emissions. Cyclists have neither engine power nor emissions, so even if they were to be taxed, it would be in the lowest rate tax band. Yes, £0. And since it would cost money to administer this, that cost would be added to your tax bill. That's right, the road upkeep is paid for by your council tax. And cyclists, since they too live in houses, also pay council tax.

"At this juncture you may also wish to circle back to point 1 - most cyclists are also car drivers, so even if you don't believe that VED is for emissions, then you still have to accept that cyclists who own cars also pay VED, or 'road tax' as you seem to be intent on calling it.

"3. If you wish to argue that cyclists should be insured because 'who's going to pay when they bump into my car and cause damage?' then you should know that being a member of British Cycling (£35/year) brings with it up to £10million of third party liability insurance. Additionally, since we've already established that cyclists live in houses (apartments, flats etc.) they most likely have home contents insurance too. If they do, there is a chance that it includes some cycle cover that may extend to third-party liability. If a cyclist bashes in to your car, that would be a good start point. If they have a valuable bike, then they probably have specialist insurance too and that very likely includes third-party liability.

"4. If you think it's wrong for cyclists to ride two-abreast, please reacquaint yourself with the Highway Code. Specifically Rule 66 (handily copied here: 'never ride more than two-abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends') so two-abreast is acceptable on normal roads. Rule 67 is also a good one 'look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path.' This is additionally pointed out in the official TFL advice to cyclists, 'Stay central on narrow roads. Try to ride away from the gutter. If the road is too narrow for vehicles to pass you safely, it might be safer to ride towards the middle of the lane to prevent dangerous overtaking by other vehicles'.

"5. If your argument is about cyclists riding badly — well, yes you're right, some do. They give the rest of us a bad name. Just like not all drivers are bad, just some of them. Unfortunately, a bad cyclist might slightly damage a car or get themselves killed. A bad car driver will kill other people, specifically vulnerable road users, like cyclists.

"The crux of this is simple — drivers, motorcyclists and cyclists all have a right to use the road safely. Those that do not adhere to the rules and those that drive or ride unsafely should be brought to task."

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-29-january-2024-306445