Originally Posted by JohnBrooking

I'm still not convinced it's nonsense. Granted, the "back of the bus" comparison may be a bit much in terms of relative important of the issue, but I think it's the same concept, even if obviously of much less larger societal relevance.

My gripe is not at all with the content of the law, but the cultural psychological effect of its existence. It's fine to have a law that says if you are going slower than everyone else, you should allow them to pass you if it is safe to. No problem there. But the general slow-moving vehicle law already says that! So having a bicycle-only version of it is redundant, especially if you believe that all the exceptions are common sense anyway.

So why have a redundant law that applies only to cyclists? You'd think there'd have to be a reason, and I suspect that most people would answer from ignorance that the reason is that bikes are less important road users. I think the existence of the law, not necessarily its content, implies this to many non-cyclists. Why else not make do with the slow-moving vehicle law? Are bikes different from other slow-moving vehicles? Yes, operationally, but should not be in terms of traffic law.

I think one reason that the law implies this to many people is because, as wheel noted, most folks just know that the law exists but know nothing of its content. So it's a natural conclusion to interpret it to mean "bikes have to stay out of the way of cars". Whereas if the Ride to the Right law didn't exist, the slow-moving vehicle law would be the only applicable one, and some alleged "difference" between bikes and cars would not muddy up the issue.