Update: A cyclist who was on the receiving end of a close pass from a bus driver while riding in a painted cycle lane in Edinburgh city centre, only to be later told by the police that the overtake wasn’t against the law because “everyone was in their own lanes”, has now confirmed that Police Scotland have reported the case to the Procurator Fiscal, following an internal review of the incident.
The cyclist, who posted a clip of the close pass on Twitter last week – which can be viewed in the original article below – wrote on the social media platform on Tuesday afternoon: “Following a review (initiated by me putting a complaint in), the police have changed their mind and will be reporting the case to the [Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service]!”
Responding to road.cc’s request for comment, Police Scotland’s Road Policing Inspector Steve Manson said: “It is imperative all road users, including cyclists, are aware of their vulnerability irrespective what mode of transport they are using.
“When passing a cyclist, you should ensure you allow sufficient time and distance to do so without compromising their safety by making sure you can see far enough ahead to know it is safe to complete the overtake. Frustration or lateness are not excuses to risk someone’s safety.
“There is room for everyone on our roads and we all have a right to be there. We encourage all road users to show consideration and respect for the safety of each other.”
Original article below:
A cyclist in Edinburgh, who was on the receiving end of a close pass from a bus driver while riding in one of the city’s painted cycle lanes, has slammed Police Scotland’s response to the incident, after he claimed that officers told him that the overtake wasn’t against the law as “everyone was in their own lanes”.
The cyclist, who uses the handle EdCycleHome on Twitter, where he regularly posts videos of close passes and poor driving, was riding in the cycle lane on South Bridge, near Edinburgh city centre, on the morning of 28 March when a bus driver narrowly squeezed past him.
Police just confirming that the close pass below wouldn’t be against the law, since everyone was “in their own lanes”!!
So if you are cycling, DO NOT use @CllrScottArthur‘s painted cycle lanes for your own sake! I certainly won’t be anymore!pic.twitter.com/y3ynZInWYm
— Edinburgh’s Finest (@EdCycleHome) April 5, 2023
Posting the video of the dangerously close pass on Twitter, the cyclist claimed that Police Scotland officers who viewed the footage told him that the close pass “wouldn’t be against the law, since everyone was ‘in their own lanes’!”
The cyclist also alleged that officers told him that “if I’d been hit then this would have been a different story”.
He continued: “So apparently in Scotland we need to get killed before the police could raise a finger.”
“At the moment it passed you”… according to Police Scotland!
— Edinburgh’s Finest (@EdCycleHome) April 6, 2023
Turning his attention to the City of Edinburgh Council’s transport convenor Scott Arthur, who has been criticised in recent months by cyclists over what they believe to be the local authority’s questionable active travel policies, the Twitter user then warned other cyclists in Edinburgh to avoid using the city’s non-segregated painted bike lanes “for your own sake”.
“I certainly won’t be anymore!” he tweeted.
Speaking to Edinburgh Live, the cyclist – who wishes to remain anonymous – said the close pass was “a shocking reminder as to why hitting the council’s declared 30 percent reduction in car journeys would be unachievable with the current non-existing cycling infrastructure.”
In response, Labour councillor Arthur said in a statement: “Changes to the Highway Code include guidance that drivers should give cyclists a car width’s space when passing them, and I would urge all drivers to heed this regardless of whether there is an advisory cycle lane in place, in the interests of vulnerable road users’ safety.
“We take cycle safety, along with that of other vulnerable road users, extremely seriously in Edinburgh. I am certain, however, that segregation is preferable to advisory cycle lanes. That’s why we’re investing in a range of projects to expand cycling, walking, and wheeling infrastructure across the city, as well as improving road safety and raising awareness amongst drivers.”
Lothian Buses, replying to the cyclist’s complaint concerning their driver’s conduct, apologised for the close pass and insisted that they “place great importance on our driving staff displaying professional knowledge, awareness, and skills when behind the wheel of our vehicles, which includes the rights of other road users.
“We have highlighted the problems that cyclists encounter on the roads through our cycle awareness training schemes and placed information notices in our depots instructing drivers to allow for extra space and time when carrying out a manoeuvre involving a cyclist.”
After further prompting from the cyclist, the bus company said that the incident was currently being investigated by the relevant garage manager, but that they are “unable to divulge the outcome or action taken with a driver”.
The close pass in Edinburgh isn’t the first time this year that Police Scotland have been criticised by cyclists when it comes to their alleged indifference to poor driving.
In February, one cyclist blasted what he said was Police Scotland’s “appalling” inaction that enabled a motorist to escape punishment for an alleged hit-and-run, which the rider claims left him with a broken bike and “unable to sit down for a week”.
Cyclist Alan Myles told road.cc that, despite contacting East Dunbartonshire Police around 30 times in relation to the incident, he only received two responses – with one officer even taking over six months to reply to an email containing the crash footage.
Myles also claims that those investigating the apparent collision failed to contact two witnesses, and that an officer told him that, due to the lengthy delay in tracking down the motorist, the offence had been downgraded from dangerous to careless driving because “the driver couldn’t remember the incident”.
The cyclist added that he only discovered that the case had been thrown out after contacting the Procurator Fiscal, who dismissed the police’s report as time-barred – over a year after the alleged hit-and-run took place.
“This was not my first disappointment either, so it doesn’t feel like a one off,” he told us. “Whilst I know that there will always be bad drivers, the lack of action from the police has had a greater and longer lasting effect.
“A different officer who I was giving a statement to about another incident of dangerous driving by a bus driver said, ‘Cyclists boil my piss too sometimes, but this driving is unacceptable’, which doesn’t seem like a level playing field to start a conversation on.”
Myles also joined the growing calls for Police Scotland to adopt an online portal for reporting instances of dangerous driving, along with “dedicated officers and resources that do not allow things like this to happen”.





















61 thoughts on “Bike lane-using cyclist claims police said close pass by bus driver wasn’t against the law – because “everyone was in their own lanes””
Narrow cycle lanes like this
Narrow cycle lanes like this are only of use to filter past stationary traffic.
That line of painted dashes
That line of painted dashes defines the gutter which you should keep out of at all times, it is full of glass and gravel pushed there by the traffic and is not fit for cycling on!
You’re right. I think UK
You’re right. I think UK cyclists would be much safer using Dutch cycle lanes and should all just move there.
Are you a new troll or just a
Are you a new troll or just a recycled one ?
Broken_Chain wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion but I think I’ll stay right where I am and continue to ride in the middle of my lane as the law allows, if any motorists get upset by this I will refer them to Police Scotland’s view of road safety.
“So apparently in Scotland we
“So apparently in Scotland we need to get killed before the police could raise a finger.”
I think we all know which finger the police service would raise.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
The collection of evidence to justify action is reasonable until that evidence is only Killed or Seriously Injured..
How many rational people would accept being Seriously Injured as an acceptable risk!
For Active Travel to succeed #VisionZero is the only acceptable target.
Does it pass the “I’d encourage my Mum to do it” test…
Cycling cannot be for “the bold and the brave”.
? When I left Edinburgh about
? When I left Edinburgh about 15 years ago that was one of the decent things about cycling in the city; the bus drivers were decent; but that was anything but decent ?
Even if Police Scotland tried
Even if Police Scotland tried to move forward, they’d drop it as soon as the bus alleged’ ‘driver” states that they “can’t remember the incident”.
There really is no point in reporting close passes / dangerous instances (one before last was dangerous overtake followed by a left hook by a vehicle being driven without an MOT.), Police Scotland are going to do nothing.
A Edinburgh buses are fitted
A Edinburgh buses are fitted with cameras now. So there’s no excuse
In a recent video that I
In a recent video that I submitted to PS, and despite half a dozen witnesses to the event, PS decided not to prosecute a driver when a plastic bottle with liquid in, was thrown from a moving car, which hit one of our group in the face.
PS stated that as the driver couldn’t remember the incident, there would be no prosecution.
PS are not interested in any evidence that supports an offence, where said offence is committed against a cyclist.
The left hook, mentioned above, was passed off as “the car isn’t registered around here” … so, despite clear sight lines of the roundabout, and it’s signage … and a HD video to boot … PS were completely, totally and irrevocably, not interested.
PS are not interested in any
PS are not interested in any evidence that supports an offence, where said offence is committed against a cyclist
ScotRozzer (I copied that from another poster) is not alone in its ability to generously forgive any offence against a cyclist, and the loathsome b******s at LancsFilth did not respond to either of these:
https://upride.cc/incident/yp13jko_cmax_closepassrain/
https://upride.cc/incident/mt13ykn_trafic_closepass/
However, LF has gone one better, and isn’t interested in any evidence which supports any offence committed by a motorist, so just ignores all evidence
https://upride.cc/incident/ye10aju_mini_redlightcross/
It’s not just RLJs and close-passing cyclist scum which LF disregards. DS13 ATX has had no MOT since failing for 4 serious defects on 21.11.22 (almost 5 months ago)- reported by me on 20th March but LF is so determined to show what tough guys they are in refusing to waste time on any reports from cyclists, that they’re quite happy to leave dangerous, uninsured vehicles on the road to ‘teach me a lesson’. If there was a collision involving one of these vehicles, they would just cover it up and act in favour of the crim. Bent coppers, eh?
Oldfatgit wrote:
really? I thought those sort of excuses didn’t even wash in Primary school
wycombewheeler wrote:
really? I thought those sort of excuses didn’t even wash in Primary school— Oldfatgit
“A big boy did it and ran away!”
brooksby wrote:
I only wish I was exagerating for effect – but unfortunatly I’m not. [Same reason was given to the hit a run victim over the other side of Scotland to me as reported on here]
I don’t know if they were a big boy … they weren’t brave enough to stop. But .. they certainly ran away, under the glare of HD cameras (I run with front and back) and that *still* wasn’t enough.
wycombewheeler wrote:
really? I thought those sort of excuses didn’t even wash in Primary school— Oldfatgit
They do in Scotland. In fact there’s now several precedents in place. The other one I get regularly is that the car is a company vehicle and that the driver forgot to sign the vehicle out. Seems to be forgetfulness is a trait amongst drivers.
giff77 wrote:
probably the result of sitting in a box with exhaust fumes.
Lazy cops will grab any
Lazy cops will grab any excuse to avoid paperwork..
It seems most if not all
It seems most if not all companies (and many other non cycling organisations) are misinterpreting GDPR to not follow up on complaints (it’s caused a scandal at unis with harassment cases). It appears to be a HR position that no one bothers running past a lawyer let alone reading GDPR correctly.
You can feedback without revealing any personal information about the driver except the results of the investigation.
Irrational Pi wrote:
A vehicle Registration is not Personally Identifying Information (PII).
Reporting an allegation of an offence to the responsible Police Service enables them to make enquiries to the DVLA as trusted people and get the PII of the registered keeper and possibly the actual driver, where different. So at no time does the witness to the offence hold PII so become a Data Controller.
The Police Service and DVLA are Data Controllers, and CPS, Court too. Again, trusted persons doing the job.
Use of GDPR to justify no further action or reject evidence is an attempt to baffle with bulls##t.
Call it out!
Use of GDPR to justify no
Use of GDPR to justify no further action or reject evidence is an attempt to baffle with bulls##t. Call it out!
I am doing! However, there’s a lot to read there so the summary is that Lancashire and, I think, Sussex forces at least are engaged in full scale misuse of GDPR to cover up everything they can think of. They force you to accept that you were wearing some form of notification on your mode of transport (which would be legs, in this case rejected by Lancashire Constabulary) that you were filming vehicles on the road or parked, or the report is rejected. I have never seen such a notification up here, so virtually all reports to OpSnap Lancs require the reporter to lie, and the police know that- the idea is that they can later ‘catch out’ the reporter for lying and bin the report if they choose to- in practice, it doesn’t really matter because they won’t be doing anything as a result of the reports anyway.
In addition, if you try to find out by FoI request what the police ‘action’ was, in the cases before they ceased to respond in any way to reports and where they formerly declared they were ‘taking action’, they use bogus interpretations of FOIA and GDPR to claim that they can’t even admit that Lancashire Constabulary holds any information about what action Lancashire Constabulary took about the offence. That case is now with the Information Commissioner and will probably end up with the Information Tribunal- if it does, and I win, that will be quite important and should stop these particular abuses of the law by the police
Good luck with the ICO.
Good luck with the ICO. Worse than useless in my dealings as a data protection officer.
You just have to persist with
You just have to persist with ICO- if you don’t give in they eventually have to face the music at the Information Tribunal and then they abandon crap Decision Notices
The comment that “everyone
The comment that “everyone was in their own lane” is unfortunately a common point of view, in my opinion, and explains the fundamental problem with painted cycle lanes.
theres absolutely a
theres absolutely a reluctance I feel for the police to pursue close passes if you are in a cycle lane when it happens, Im not sure where that comes from its certainly not in any laws that driving without due care doesnt apply if youre in a marked “different” lane, but I dont recall anyone posting a video of one that resulted in a nip.
There is a reluctance by
There is a reluctance by Police Scotland to pursue close passes full stop.
The cyclist is not in the
The cyclist is not in the primary position. That’s the problem with lots of painted cycle lanes – they are narrow and they encourage the cyclist to stay close to the Kerb when being more primary is safer.
I seem to recall a ride
I seem to recall a ride involving Mr Vine and some Police officers, where and artic passed them while remaining in its own tight line.
I seem to recall that the driver was reported for prosecution… what happened to that?
Oldfatgit wrote:
I don’t think he ever was actually prosecuted, the officer riding with Vine at the time said that the driver had committed an offence but Waitrose defended him robustly and there was never any report of an NIP being sent.
they werent in a cycle lane
they werent in a cycle lane though were they ? it was just a regular lane on the road, I thought the police followed up on it whether it amounted to a prosecution or not I dont recall them ever stating
Painted non segregated cycle
Painted non segregated cycle lanes are also known as ‘the murder strip’ for a very good reason.
Well, if that’s the police
Well, if that’s the police view, I’m sure they’ll be recommending that cyclists stay outside the cycle lane in order to get the benefit of the 1.5m passing rule, won’t they?
Just another reason to ride
Just another reason to ride in the road and not in the bike lane. You have every right to be in the road, so use it. You are much safer there.
Cllr Scott Arthur got one
Cllr Scott Arthur got one thing right:
Almost anything – possibly including just taking the money and setting fire to it – is preferable to advisory cycle lanes.
Fully separated cycle *paths* are what’s needed. If up to scratch (eg. the Leith Walk slalom is not even quite up to Copenhagen standard, never mind Dutch). Combined with a motor traffic diet and provision of suitable public transport.
Of course it’d be nice if the police enforced the law and even better if “professional drivers” followed the “guidance” in the HC.
[/quote] Almost anything –
[/quote] Almost anything – possibly including just taking the money and setting fire to it – is preferable to advisory cycle lanes. [/quote]
You’re right, it is better to set fire to the money.
Advisory cycle lanes INCREASE the risk of injury (by 34% – so 1 in 4 accidents on a road with an advisory cycle lane wouldn’t happen if the lane wasn’t there).
https://findingspress.org/article/18226-cycling-injury-risk-in-london-impacts-of-road-characteristics-and-infrastructure?utm_source=pocket_saves
in London, which that study
in London, which that study only focussed on, where the levels of infra and traffic combine in ways that are not common to the rest of the country or cycle lanes outside of the capital.
so I dont believe its right to quote that study as a guide to anything but the subset of London data it was looking at.
Awavey wrote:
I thought similar results had been found in studies elsewhere, painted lines generally increase risk to cyclists, even though they make them feel safer.
If you can find such a study
If you can find such a study I’d be interested to read it.
This one seems to find a
This one seems to find a similar thing in Brussels: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457513002686 (pre-pub full text here).
Whilst I agree it’s sensible to apply caution when extrapolating from any one study, I also think it’s informative to consider the evidence that is available, even if it’s not perfect. The study did cover all of Greater London, the vast majority of which I would say is not especially different with regards to traffic or infrastructure than most other urban or suburban environments.
IanGlasgow wrote:
Magic paint lanes are useful for filtering past slow/stationary traffic though.
I’d guess that the most dangerous parts of the lanes are where they cross side roads or junctions or more likely they don’t cross and just evaporate. That sets up a mismatch of expectations as the cyclists believe (correctly) that they have priority to continue straight and some drivers believe (incorrectly) that as the lane has vanished, they can turn across/into cyclists.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’d say that advisory lanes serve two purposes:
I’d say that the Leith Walk
I’d say that the Leith Walk crazy paving does not reach *Scottish* standards, which assessment I admit I have made without reading all 300 pages of the doc.
Let’s turn ALL ROADS into one
Let’s turn ALL ROADS into one giant cycle lane – that’ll be best for the UK.
Broken_Chain wrote:
How are you defining “best for the UK”?
Are you not aware of the
Are you not aware of the Nigel/Martin/Socrati standard? Essentially equivalent to the leafy lanes of Essex and quiet cul-de-sacs. A state where Cambridge graduates, those in the financial sector etc. can progress unimpeded at suitable speeds in motor vehicles appropriate to their status. Where parking is unrestricted to allow you to get where you have to suitably dressed (something something “ladies”).
Of course cycling is permitted but since it’s always recreational (or just for oiks, yobs and those entitled children) those involved will obviously politely get out of the way of their motorised superiors the moment they appear. And dismount in the presence of pedestrians to avoid causing them to fear for their lives.
I think it’s located somewhere in the 1950s – 1970s.
All roads except motorways
All roads except motorways are already one giant cycle lane.
Clearly both the Bus driver
Clearly both the Bus driver and the Scottish police are ignorant of rules 162 and 163 of the highway code. The Scottish police particularly so, as they are making up the law in their response. Surely there must be a mechanism of making a complaint about the policeman’s (decision maker) conduct in this instance.
I remember making a complaint about someone who intentionally swerved into me and a chap behind willing to make a statement. The attending policeman stated that I needed CCTV/video evidence. I calmly told him would he like me to make a complaint against the drivers conduct or his own. By the end of the day after investigation by himself, he found a CCTV camera that had recorded the whole event. Stike 1 for big brother!
This is is yet more evidence
This is is yet more evidence that painted cycle lanes are, and are designed to be, considerably worse for cyclists than no cycle lanes at all. The only benefit accrues to close passing drivers who are provided with a permanent excuse to pass as close as they like. I now view the installation of these narrow painted lanes as an overt hostile act directed at cyclists.
They were better than nothing
They were better than nothing back when drivers could legally pass a cyclist with the same distance as a parked vehicle, ie, as long as you didn’t hit, all good..
No they weren’t. They gave
No they weren’t. They gave drivers an excuse to bully riders who dared get out of the gutter. Taking a safe road position when some numpty has painted a stripe on the side of the road is seen as obstructing the traffic and antagonises drivers. Take the same position without the gutter stripe and nobody minds.
wtjs wrote:
I think the usual painted lane would be fine if there was then another painted buffer zone of the same or greater width between the lane and the motor vehicles.
brooksby wrote:
The magic paint would be fine if the drivers used due care and consideration of other road users.
hawkinspeter wrote:
If drivers used due care we would’t need any special infrastructure at all. That is why the police response here and elesewhere is so disappointing. Imagine how much money we could save if they punished inconsiderate driving properly.
Bungle_52 wrote:
And if they were limited to below 20mph wherever there were cyclists. And there weren’t more than a couple of hundred motorists using the space every hour. And they didn’t overtake…
I agree there’s some low-hanging fruit in terms of some basic feedback (enforcement) for drivers, and we can definitely improve training / testing (e.g. more than once per lifetime). I don’t think that will change how most people feel on many roads, nor make a huge difference to actual safety (which is already statistically good). It certainly won’t lead to many more taking up cycling for transport. Sadly two very different transport modes are just not compatible with each other when there are many of either.
Blackbelt barrister has done
Blackbelt barrister has done a video on this now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-jiI37sueU and through CycleGaz has an example of a close pass whilst a rider is in a cycle lane that was prosecuted.
what I also found interesting was the very last legal trivia point he raises that if Police Scotlands view is they wont enforce the highway code with these cases, then the local authority might end up with a legal liability through malfeasance, ie they did something, painted some lines on a road, but did it badly, not enough space, that it creates a danger to people using it.
and I wonder if the legal beagles at Cycling UK have ever considered pursuing a case against a local authority on that point before ?
The ‘change of heart’
The ‘change of heart’ (obviously a misnomer, because it doesn’t indicate anything of the sort- the original decision remains as what they actually believe) is welcome but I hope EdCyclehome will tell us what actually happens. The police maintain a whole battery of non-action actions, which may differ between Scotland and England. I don’t know if the ‘Fiscal’ is used as a dodge by the police like the CPS is used in England: “dropping the case was nothing to do with us, it was the CPS, squire”. Lancashire Constabulary uses a trick where they claim to be taking action but won’t tell you which of the profferred options they will adopt- and one of the options is ‘no action at all’. People may be sick of me writing this, but it’s important. LC has in the past emailed me to say that if I want to know what action they took, I should make a FoI request. I have not done that until now because I was saving it for a test case (I knew they were going to find a way to refuse!), and the last post here shows LS’s response – a really stupid way of refusing to tell me anything.
Painted line bike lanes
Painted line bike lanes predate close pass laws; technically close pass laws relate to passing in the same lane; drivers would certainly have a legal defence driving within their lane while passing a cyclist using a bike lane.
grOg wrote:
If true, that only serves to emphasise the point that cyclists should never, under any circumstances, use an on-road, painted cycle lane (except, perhaps, to filter to the ASZ box at the front of a queue of traffic).
If the law is going to choose a narrow view of “overtaking” a vulnerable road user that means if you are not in the same lane you are not overtaking and so can pass as close as you like to the VRU with impunity then either the law needs to change and be more specific, or councils need to be encouraged to get rid of the lanes as a matter of urgency.
As far as the lanes predating close pass laws, that isn’t really relevant … I can’t get away with hacking, just because computers existed before the Computer Misuse Act did.
All that said, I was under the impression that the UK didn’t have a specific close pass law, and drivers were generally prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, which would allow for the courts to find a driver guilty of a close pass even if the vehicles were in separate lanes.
Don’t forget that gr0g is in
Don’t forget that gr0g is in Australia, and that country has some odd laws…
There are no such things as
There are no such things as close pass laws,mores the pity, drivers in cases like this are prosecuted under careless and inconsiderate driving laws which have probably been around since the highway code came into being 90 years ago.
There is no condition that the driver and vehicle have to be in the “same lane” for it to count, the test is simply the driving falls below the standard of a careful and competent driver.
Yeah this isn’t a close pass.
Yeah this isn’t a close pass. I also ride in Edinburgh everyday. This is tame.