http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/oct/22/red-laser-light-bike-lane

I’m sure you’re aware that rule 163 of the highway code states that motor vehicles should “give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

This wording is obviously horribly ambiguous, but fortunately the text is accompanied by an illustration clearly showing a car passing roughly a car’s width away from a cyclist.

However, the cycle lane clearly gives the impression that as long as the motor vehicle does not cross the dashed line, they are OK, despite the fact this allows them to come much closer than rule 163 would suggest is acceptable.

Of course, in practice many drivers ignore rule 163 anyway, and no-one ever enforces it, so you have to wonder what the point is – it makes rather a mockery of the highway code – but if drivers did take notice of the rule, the cycle lane would potentially make cycling more dangerous by making it acceptable for drivers to pass more closely (as your photos show) especially since in fact drivers are officially allowed to both drive and park in the advisory cycle lane if they consider it “unavoidable”, whatever that means.

Obviously there is huge potential for misunderstandings here, and therefore conflict, and that’s why I’d much prefer the following:

Roads of 20mph or slower – don’t bother with on-street cycle lanes.
Faster roads – good quality segregated cycle paths.

I know this may sound naively optimistic of me, but we are all allowed to dream.