@ItsGoingTibiaK Yes, the law is clear. But - and I'm sure you know this but are choosing to omit it, as you have clearly done your research - how that law is policed and enforced, as for all other laws, is decided by the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs' Council.
As you say yourself - the law is clear. Why do you think it's OK for cyclists to break that law just because, in practice, they can generally get away with it?
I see car drivers using their phones at the wheel every day. In practice, that law is not effectively policed and enforced - do you think that makes it OK?
Ditto for people walking down the road smoking weed. Just because police ignore law-breaking in practice, doesn't equate to it being OK.
And can you please point out where Cycling UK have said the Highway Code is "only advisory" (your quotation marks, my bold)? I've searched extensively and the closest I can find is on www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike where they say:
Sure. Here's a long quote:
Where a HC rule is expressed as something you 'must' or 'must not' do, the rule reflects a legal requirement imposed by legislation, breach of which is a criminal offence.
Where a HC rule is expressed in advisory terms, using words such as 'should / should not', or 'do / do not', the rule doesn't reflect any legal requirement. A failure to comply with such a rule can however be used as evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings. For example, a driver's failure to comply with advisory overtaking rule 163 when overtaking a cyclist too close is relevant to whether they have or have not committed a careless driving offence. Similarly, in civil compensation claims, non-adherence to HC rules is often raised when liability (who is to blame, and who should pay) is determined.
So, ignoring for a moment HC advisory 'should' and 'should not' rules, what are the absolute must do legal requirements?
You're right that they don't use the exact phrase 'only advisory'.
However, it's crystal clear from the context here that they are repeatedly using the term 'advisory' to mean 'something that you can ignore/something that doesn't really matter'.
They even say, verbatim, "ignoring for a moment HC advisory 'should' and 'should not' rules".
In fact, they're not 'ignoring it for a moment' - that whole page (and I found several similar ones on various cycling websites) is about "what can you get away with, legally".
I'm familiar with this sort of argument from drugs websites and advisory resources - how can you, in practice, push the boundaries of the law?
The key difference here is that, unlike drug users, Cycling UK are openly and actively encouraging people to break a code (the Highway Code) which - even if it's not enforceable as absolute law - exists to protect the safety and physical wellbeing of OTHER people.
If I were supporting their view here, I would question why their primary concern is what you can get away with legally - as shown in their repeated use of the term 'advisory', set up in opposition to 'legally obligated' - rather than respecting that the 'should/should not' advice - regardless of its legal status - is there to ensure people's safety.
"The optics aren't great", as they say.