why is this even up for debate?

[flecc]

Do you know where the details of this order are to be seen ?

It would be usefull to know the exceptions the order (a Statutory Instrument?) created.

Not any longer. As so often happens with government online information, it disappears. You can find numerous references to the order online from lots of cycling organisations and individuals, including my own of course.

However, you've seen my full copy of the information which contains the references to each time the advice has been officially confirmed or reissued.

And on this link you can see my post about it long ago on 30th August 2009.

These should be sufficient, it is for almost all members, but you can chose to disbelieve if you wish.

Since cycling law seems to be of special interest to you, you may wish to see my comprehensive post:

Pedelec Law - The Details
.

 

[flecc]

Another plus for cyclists with cameras: Drivers in London are to be fined for entering cycle lanes:

They can ony be fined if the cycle lane is delineated with an unbroken line. Most are only marked with broken lines so are not mandatory.
.

 

[WheezyRider]

But the video showed there was no victim.

The pass was safe and perfectly normal and routine in cities all over this country.

This arbitrary 1.5 metre allowance in all circumstances is wrong. Cyclists often don't even give us six inches, even when they are travelling at speed.
.

No it is not arbitrary, it is the minimum safe distance you can pass a bike. On roads above 30 mph the distance increases to 2 m.

Remember, a cyclist is an extremely vulnerable road user. They could fall off at any instant and be thrown into the road. Cars need to approach with extreme caution and keep their distance when passing. If there isn't space, you can't pass. A vehicle has no right to overtake just because it can go faster.

If a cyclist comes off and lands in the road, their head will be about 1.5 m from where they are riding. Is that what you want to hit with your car? What if they have a child on the back? You want to run the risk killing a child because otherwise it might cost you a few seconds? If towing a trailer, and the rider comes off, it could jack-knife into the road. Do you want to hit that? Run over some kids? Would you force your way past a horse rider on a narrow road using the argument that you have no choice as the road is narrow? Would you risk throwing the rider and having a horse land on your vehicle?

Are roads are crap. Our cycling infrastructure is crap. So car drivers need to slow down to reflect that.

We are in an energy crisis and a climate crisis. We need as many people cycling as possible. This will only be achieved by creating an environment where the majority of people feel it is a safe thing to do. Otherwise, the only people who will cycle will be those with a DGAF attitude and a rhino thick skin. We need a lot more women cycling, we need children and the elderly to be able to cycle with confidence and build independence. This will not happen while drivers have this self entitled attitude, that because they pay some mythical "road tax" (which hasn't existed since 1937) they own the road and no delay in their journey is to be tolerated. Think how much less traffic would be on the roads if the school run was mainly done using cargo bikes? When there is a school holiday you always notice how much more smoothly traffic flows.

As for cyclists using cameras, it's an unfortunate thing to have to do (and a major hassle to set up, ensure batteries are charged and SD cards have space), but if you cycle on the road they are essential. It is not being a "vigilante" or whatever, it is just a case of trying to survive out there, getting the evidence so that at least you will believed. And yes, this often involves running cameras front and back to ensure you have enough evidence. On camera things can often look further away they are in reality, so relying on just one camera is not good enough.

As for cyclists filtering through traffic, there is no set minimum passing distance due to the relative risk. If you are in a two tonne metal box and a 100kg rider/bike combination brushes into you, you will not be harmed. Do the same to a bike with your car and you are likely to kill or seriously injure the rider. Filtering is legal and we are told in the highway code to watch out for cyclists doing this on either side. Using the argument of the motorist, if the bike is the faster mode of transport, you ought to getting out of their way!

 

[flecc]

No it is not arbitrary, it is the minimum safe distance you can pass a bike. On roads above 30 mph the distance increases to 2 m.

Remember, a cyclist is an extremely vulnerable road user. They could fall off at any instant and be thrown into the road. Cars need to approach with extreme caution and keep their distance when passing. If there isn't space, you can't pass. A vehicle has no right to overtake just because it can go faster.

If a cyclist comes off and lands in the road, their head will be about 1.5 m from where they are riding. Is that what you want to hit with your car? What if they have a child on the back? You want to run the risk killing a child because otherwise it might cost you a few seconds? If towing a trailer, and the rider comes off, it could jack-knife into the road. Do you want to hit that? Run over some kids? Would you force your way past a horse rider on a narrow road using the argument that you have no choice as the road is narrow? Would you risk throwing the rider and having a horse land on your vehicle?

Are roads are crap. Our cycling infrastructure is crap. So car drivers need to slow down to reflect that.

We are in an energy crisis and a climate crisis. We need as many people cycling as possible. This will only be achieved by creating an environment where the majority of people feel it is a safe thing to do. Otherwise, the only people who will cycle will be those with a DGAF attitude and a rhino thick skin. We need a lot more women cycling, we need children and the elderly to be able to cycle with confidence and build independence. This will not happen while drivers have this self entitled attitude, that because they pay some mythical "road tax" (which hasn't existed since 1937) they own the road and no delay in their journey is to be tolerated. Think how much less traffic would be on the roads if the school run was mainly done using cargo bikes? When there is a school holiday you always notice how much more smoothly traffic flows.

As for cyclists using cameras, it's an unfortunate thing to have to do (and a major hassle to set up, ensure batteries are charged and SD cards have space), but if you cycle on the road they are essential. It is not being a "vigilante" or whatever, it is just a case of trying to survive out there, getting the evidence so that at least you will believed. And yes, this often involves running cameras front and back to ensure you have enough evidence. On camera things can often look further away they are in reality, so relying on just one camera is not good enough.

As for cyclists filtering through traffic, there is no set minimum passing distance due to the relative risk. If you are in a two tonne metal box and a 100kg rider/bike combination brushes into you, you will not be harmed. Do the same to a bike with your car and you are likely to kill or seriously injure the rider. Filtering is legal and we are told in the highway code to watch out for cyclists doing this on either side. Using the argument of the motorist, if the bike is the faster mode of transport, you ought to getting out of their way!

A huge, unnecessary rant at me, since after 70 years of cycling, 68 years of driving and 54 years of motorcycling I've never hurt anyone, not even myself,

In other words, I use the roads sensibly and carefully, but still insist the arbitrary 1.5 metres is wrong. Not least because cyclists are causing drivers to breach it when they overtake parked vehicles near to the centre line without regard for the driver approaching at speed from the opposite direction, thus forcing the breach.

In a video of one of these cases in here a woman was seen doing exactly that, causing the driver to be heavily penalised. Because there wasn't enough space on that narrow two lane road, she should have stopped until that driver had passed before passing the parked vehicle.
.

 

[richtea99]

10. Other cyclists that can't steer.

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

A complete intolerance on the part of about 50% of drivers for my very presence! These roads are not safe for cycling as a direct result of widespread bad driver behaviour. But sometimes there is no other route for a short way.

So there I was at the lights, minding my own business, when all of a sudden I hear a lot of loud effing and blinding behind me. The pickup truck occupants shouted "MOVE ON YOU F*CKING C*NT!", as I was doing my best to get out of their way, and shouted "F*CKING C*NT!", as they zoomed past. This wasn't a close pass this time, just a rude one.

That same pickup truck passed me again 8 miles later, but there was no shouting that time. He must have dropped off the cyclist haters.

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

As for cyclists using cameras, it's an unfortunate thing to have to do (and a major hassle to set up, ensure batteries are charged and SD cards have space), but if you cycle on the road they are essential. It is not being a "vigilante" or whatever, it is just a case of trying to survive out there, getting the evidence so that at least you will believed. And yes, this often involves running cameras front and back to ensure you have enough evidence. On camera things can often look further away they are in reality, so relying on just one camera is not good enough.

A word with strong associations. I'll get a second camera. Call me two shooter Bronson.

 

[flecc]

So there I was at the lights, minding my own business, when all of a sudden I hear a lot of loud effing and blinding behind me. The pickup truck occupants shouted "MOVE ON YOU F*CKING C*NT!", as I was doing my best to get out of their way, and shouted "F*CKING C*NT!", as they zoomed past. This wasn't a close pass this time, just a rude one.

That same pickup truck passed me again 8 miles later, but there was no shouting that time. He must have dropped off the cyclist haters.

Maybe members of The Badger Trust.

Some say it's better to be noticed than ignored.
.

 

[WheezyRider]

A huge, unnecessary rant at me, since after 70 years of cycling, 68 years of driving and 54 years of motorcycling I've never hurt anyone, not even myself,

In other words, I use the roads sensibly and carefully, but still insist the arbitrary 1.5 metres is wrong. Not least because cyclists are causing drivers to breach it when they overtake parked vehicles near to the centre line without regard for the driver approaching at speed from the opposite direction, thus forcing the breach.

In a video of one of these cases in here a woman was seen doing exactly that, causing the driver to be heavily penalised. Because there wasn't enough space on that narrow two lane road, she should have stopped until that driver had passed before passing the parked vehicle.
.

Just because you have been lucky doesn't mean it won't happen eventually.

If you see a cyclist taking the primary position when passing parked cars, WAIT. It's quite simple. That's all you have to do. When passing a parked car as a cyclist you need to give at least a door's width. I have been doored more times than I care to remember. So the cyclist has to take primary. This is an indication to any motorist behind - DANGER, please wait.

I'm saddened to see that you consider my post to be a rant at you. Please take it to heart what I have written and change your driving behaviour before you kill or injure someone by forcing your way past when there isn't space to do so safely.

THINK WHERE THE RIDER'S HEAD WILL BE IF THEY FALL OFF IN FRONT OF YOU.

As a courtesy, if a big queue is building behind a cyclist, they could chose to pull over and let cars pass when safe to do so, but if a driver is impatient it makes life difficult for all concerned.

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

As a courtesy, if a big queue is building behind a cyclist, they could chose to pull over and let cars pass when safe to do so, but if a driver is impatient it makes life difficult for all concerned.

I thought about doing that, but there were only two vehicles behind me that time. If I had stopped in place, other cars might have paused waiting for me to move forward. I don't see why I should move my bike to let drivers past in that short of situation, where there they wouldn't have to wait very long for me to get out of the way, even if there is a big queue. Some drivers are just nasty people.

 

[flecc]

Please take it to heart what I have written and change your driving behaviour before you kill or injure someone by forcing your way past when there isn't space to do so safely.

You have a bloody nerve posting that.

I never force my way past and with 70 years of cycling experience have always left plenty of space, being fully aware of the risks.

I illustrated to you how some cyclists force the drivers into dangerous passing situations in breach of this measure, something I've been a victim of, but you chose to ignore that.

That does not mean I am forcing my way past anyone.

If you see a cyclist taking the primary position when passing parked cars, WAIT.

Don't be so utterly ridiculous, the laws apply to all, not just drivers. If I or any other driver is driving perfectly legally at 60 mph on my side of a two lane unrestricted road, a cyclist coming the other way finding a parked car in the way should only pull out to pass that parked car if it leaves the required two metres or so from the car passing in the opposite direction on the other side of the road.

If it doesn't, it is the cyclist who should stop or slow to allow the opposite direction car to go by first.

It is not in any way my responsibility to slam the brakes on with a potentially dangerous emergency stop from speed when a cyclist from the opposite direction suddenly pulls out to pass a parked vehicle, leaving insufficient room to satisfy the guideline passing distance.
.

 

[StuartsProjects]

You can find numerous references to the order online from lots of cycling organisations and individuals, including my own of course.

I can find references to a letter originating from a Government minister, recommending circumstances where fixed penalty notices should not be issued, but absolute zilch references that these recommendations form part of law and legalise cycling on the pavement.

If you do an internet search on 'is it legal to cycle on the pavement' you will find a great many items, from solictors, newspapers, cycling clubs etc all saying it is illegal to cycle on the pavement.

But I cannot find a single reference saying it is legal to cycle on the pavement, which is odd really.

 

[flecc]

I can find references to a letter originating from a Government minister, recommending circumstances where fixed penalty notices should not be issued, but absolute zilch references that these recommendations form part of law and legalise cycling on the pavement.

If you do an internet search on 'is it legal to cycle on the pavement' you will find a great many items, from solictors, newspapers, cycling clubs etc all saying it is illegal to cycle on the pavement.

But I cannot find a single reference saying it is legal to cycle on the pavement, which is odd really.

Not surprising or odd, it isn't legal to cycle on the pavement. However, how a law is applied can be regulated by the relevant authority, in this case the Home Office. As I've patiently explained, a Home Office Minister of the day prescribed that and it has repeatedly since been confirmed that cyclists can use the pavement, subject to suitable behaviour. That is why the police almost univerally don't apply that law, working for the Home Office as they all are, they obey their orders.

There is nothing unusual about this as many examples show.

From November 10th 2003 to 6th April 2015, the vast majority of pedelecs were illegally powered with 250 watt motors when the law specified 200 watt as the maximum. The DfT were well aware of this but ignored it it of expediency. However, when there were attempts by the police to prosecute and we intervened to stop that, on 13th April 2013 the DfT issued an instruction to all police forces not to prosecute for this. That was how things stood for amost two years until they finally got round to amending the pedelec law in 2015. That almost two years freedom from prosecution wasn't even created by a ministerial order, but it worked, which is all that matters.

I've also mentioned the example of the Highway Act 1835. That is still in force and it bans any form of motorised vehicle from the roads. Not working too well is it! The reason for this anomaly is that it's helpful to leave it in place while totally ignoring it for the motor vehicles we want to have on the roads. It's a handy and convenient way of keeping out those we don't want, like Mini-Motos and Segways.

Then there's the Covid penalty examples. One moment not maintaining social distancing was such a serious crime that it merited a £10,000 fine and even the Prime Minister has just been fined for a historic offence. But then late last year the government decided we'd just have to live with Covid and dropped all enforcement, without cancelling the two Covid laws. So don't be surprised of they start enforcing again if Covid starts to bite hard again.

Other examples:

Until very recently every taxi driver by law had to carry a bale of hay (for their horse), a left over from hackney carriage days.

For most of my life it was illegal for women to wear any makeup.

You see it often doesn't really matter what the law says. It only matters what laws are enforced.

Definitively, all cycling on the pavement is illegal.

Effectively, responsible cycling on the pavement is legal.
.

 

[WheezyRider]

You have a bloody nerve posting that.

I never force my way past and with 70 years of cycling experience have always left plenty of space, being fully aware of the risks.

I illustrated to you how some cyclists force the drivers into dangerous passing situations in breach of this measure, something I've been a victim of, but you chose to ignore that.

That does not mean I am forcing my way past anyone.



Don't be so utterly ridiculous, the laws apply to all, not just drivers. If I or any other driver is driving perfectly legally at 60 mph on my side of a two lane unrestricted road, a cyclist coming the other way finding a parked car in the way should only pull out to pass that parked car if it leaves the required two metres or so from the car passing in the opposite direction on the other side of the road.

If it doesn't, it is the cyclist who should stop or slow to allow the opposite direction car to go by first.

It is not in any way my responsibility to slam the brakes on with a potentially dangerous emergency stop from speed when a cyclist from the opposite direction suddenly pulls out to pass a parked vehicle, leaving insufficient room to satisfy the guideline passing distance.
.

Flecc, nothing in what I've written is meant as a personal attack on you. I am trying to get across to people in general how vulnerable cyclists are and how serious close passing is, even if an accident does not occur as a result of a close pass. I have never met you, I have never sat in a car with you. All I can base any judgement on is what you post on this forum. From what you have posted in this thread and others recently has given me the impression that you do not feel that a minimum of 1.5 m separation when overtaking is necessary or even possible. In addition, you have made other comments about roadcraft etc that are in my opinion not appropriate. This concerns me as you are a senior and highly valued member of this forum and others of a poor mindset who read it may use your posts to justify the continuation of their poor behaviour and attitudes towards people on bikes.

You have done so much to promote cycling and been a major advocate of e-bikes in this country and are an important contributor to this forum. This makes it all the more perplexing that you make comments about cycling safety that seriously undermine the good work that you have done.

With respect to encountering a parked car on the opposite lane of a country road, the first instinct should be: slow down. This is regardless of whether there is a cyclist approaching or not. You cannot see behind the car, what if a toddler runs out from behind the car? If you carry on at 60, could you stop in time? If the person behind is tailgating and couldn't stop, all the more reason to drive more slowly.

As for the cyclist passing the said parked car, yes, they should wait. However, people do stupid things, they may have poor eyesight, they may be distracted, they could be taking risks as they are late, they may not really know what the rules are, they could just be tired and can't bare to stop and restart again and think they can risk it. Then as they pass the car, they might hit a pot hole, or they could get doored, throwing them into your path. They get hit at 60 mph and are wiped out. Not the driver's fault? Or, should we take care of ourselves and the people around us? We are all each other's responsibility on the road and do all we can to minimise risks.

I am glad for the grace people showed me when I did stupid things when young which allowed me to grow up to learn wisdom.

 

[flecc]

you have made other comments about roadcraft etc that are in my opinion not appropriate.

I told you my riding and driving history, 70 years cycling, 68 years driving and 54 years motorcycling, all without hurting anyone else or myself.

In response you lectured saying my luck will run out one day.

If you think a riding and driving record like that is only down to luck, you aren't in a position to teach anyone anything about roadcraft.

I think some of your opinions on road use are completely blinkered, to the degree that your posts have been the best arguments I've seen for cyclists being banned from the roads for their own safety. They are already banned from motorways, perhaps that approach should be extended to include all dual carriageways, maybe all A roads too?

You seem to think the whole road system is for bicycles and all other traffic should be regulated down to them at all times and in all circumstances. That is unreasonable and impractical. There are just over 41 million full driving licences active in this country and over 9 million provisional licences, mostly in very regular use. How many cycle so regularly? The great majority don't even have a bike, so a sense of proportion is necessary on how the roads are shared.

Note that last word. That is my walking, riding and driving attitude. We shouldn't be fighting for road space, battling with traffic, bullying with the threat of videos of each other.

We should be sharing what is available and it is that attitude that has kept me and all others near me on the roads safe.
.

 

[WheezyRider]

I told you my riding and driving history, 70 years cycling, 68 years driving and 54 years motorcycling, all without hurting anyone else or myself.

In response you lectured saying my luck will run out one day.

If you think a riding and driving record like that is only down to luck, you aren't in a position to teach anyone anything about roadcraft.

I think some of your opinions on road use are completely blinkered, to the degree that your posts have been the best arguments I've seen for cyclists being banned from the roads for their own safety. They are already banned from motorways, perhaps that approach should be extended to include all dual carriageways, maybe all A roads too?

You seem to think the whole road system is for bicycles and all other traffic should be regulated down to them at all times and in all circumstances. That is unreasonable and impractical. There are just over 41 million full driving licences active in this country and over 9 million provisional licences, mostly in very regular use. How many cycle so regularly? The great majority don't even have a bike, so a sense of proportion is necessary on how the roads are shared.

Note that last word. That is my walking, riding and driving attitude. We shouldn't be fighting for road space, battling with traffic, bullying with the threat of videos of each other.

We should be sharing what is available and it is that attitude that has kept me and all others near me on the roads safe.
.

Oh Flecc. I've got my head in my hands reading your last post. It summarises everything of where your thinking is misguided. This picture perhaps will help:



In terms of luck, it doesn't matter how careful you are, how much skill or experience you have, if you drive for long enough, one day the inevitable will happen. And, it could occur completely from someone else's negligence - but nonetheless, you will be caught up in it and its consequences. I also have many decades of driving experience and have never killed or harmed anyone and I have as much no claims bonus as it's possible to get. I have driven a huge variety of vehicles from mopeds to lorries and in many different counties in all sorts of conditions. I also own several cars and use them regularly. However, I still feel I have more to learn and I am under no illusion that nothing can happen to me because of my skill and experience. One day my luck will run out. It is always important to have that sense of humility on the road.

5 people die every day on our roads in the UK and many more are seriously injured with "life changing" injuries. I have seen this happen to good friends of mine. Hence the hierarchy of responsibility, so that those who are at most risk are protected and deaths and injuries can be reduced. Unfortunately, we have a system in this country that has completely prioritised cars over other means of transport. This is unsustainable for so many reasons and we need to start changing our road system (in particular in cities) to promote active travel, for the environment, our health and well being and our economy. People on bicycles do not own the road, they are part of the hierarchy, but because of their vulnerability, they are close to the top. This vulnerability needs to be respected by those lower in the hierarchy, otherwise deaths and serious injuries will occur far more frequently.

I wish people would share the road. I really do. Unfortunately, there are too many out there who see car use as a fundamental entitlement and are not prepared to tolerate anything that will impede their journey, even if it is for just a few seconds. There are many people out there who think that they own the road because they pay VED on their car and see cyclists as freeloaders. Some will even use their vehicle as a weapon to intimidate or threaten cyclists.

I hate having to video every trip. I hate not being able to relax and enjoy my journey. I hate having to keep the batteries charged in my cameras and ensuring there is memory space on my SD cards. I hate having to review incidents on my PC when I get home. I hate having to go to the police to report incidents. I only report serious incidents, but unless I do, that driver will go on to eventually kill or seriously injure someone. None of this is fun. It is stressful and time consuming. It should not be like this, but unfortunately it is. Things are changing, but attitudes are changing not nearly quickly enough.

Hence I humbly ask to to reconsider the evidence and think again.

 

[Chainmale]

Unfortunately from a drivers point of view we cannot know how an individual cyclist might behave on the road, there are many cyclists who have may never had any exposure to the highway code and "rules of the road" and simply do not have any idea how to interact with other road users. At the opposite end of the spectrum there is a minority of "lycra road warriors" with a sense of entitlement that they should dominate all other traffic. When in charge of a motor vehicle we just have to learn to tolerate this.

 

[flecc]

I also have many decades of driving experience and have never killed or harmed anyone and I have as much no claims bonus as it's possible to get. I have driven a huge variety of vehicles from mopeds to lorries and in many different counties in all sorts of conditions. I also own several cars and use them regularly. However, I still feel I have more to learn and I am under no illusion that nothing can happen to me because of my skill and experience. One day my luck will run out. It is always important to have that sense of humility on the road.

I don't have to reconsider anything since we are the same people. Our experience is closely matched in every respect, including NCB, except that I now only have the one car, though at one time for a few years I was able to use any out of a fleet of 140 of them! My whole attitude is one of humility on the road, placing myself second to pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and public transport like buses and taxis. I even give way to those others who unfortunately have to use the roads for a living, knowing the pressures and stresses that they are under.

But I reject the notion that luck plays a big part. Everyone involved in any accident has played a part in it and can therefore have influence on the outcome, or whether there actually was an accident. Even when something isn't apparently my fault, my actions will have played a part in the cause. For decades I've regarded myself as a permanent learner driver, acknowledging that there's always more to learn, so it's best to be cautious anywhere where something can happen that I might not have experienced before.

Wherever possible I've ridden bikes as I ride a motorcycle, way out in the road in the centre line that cars use. There I can be clearly seen and I get more warning of another's silly action. Pavements, the nearside lane, and parked vehicles are the biggest danger areas, so I avoid them like the plague. When stuck in a nearside lane, I ride as if I know that someone is definitely going to step out, and someone else is definitely going to throw open a car door in my face, so I'm ready for it to happen. Over many years I would never ride without a rear view mirror. And most importantly I've cycled at the sensible speeds that most of the world cycle at, not the barmy modern British way of emulating road racing cyclists. If only our cyclists would revert to how we all used to cycle at circa 10 mph prior to some 60 years ago, almost all their cycle accidents would magically disappear.

So as I remarked earlier, we are very much the same person, except in two respects. The credit given to luck and our sense of proportion about road usage priorities and responsibilities.
.

 

[matthewslack]

Unfortunately from a drivers point of view we cannot know how an individual cyclist might behave on the road, there are many cyclists who have may never had any exposure to the highway code and "rules of the road" and simply do not have any idea how to interact with other road users. At the opposite end of the spectrum there is a minority of "lycra road warriors" with a sense of entitlement that they should dominate all other traffic. When in charge of a motor vehicle we just have to learn to tolerate this.

In the moment, yes, a vehicle driver does have to tolerate whatever behaviour comes their way, and if that behaviour prevents a safe pass, then the driver must wait.

But cyclists have Highway Code responsibilities too: paragraphs 168 and 169 read as though written for drivers being overtaken, but as far as I am aware apply equally to cyclists.

Where cyclists are not playing their part in sharing the road, then reporting them is the answer.

 

[WheezyRider]

In the moment, yes, a vehicle driver does have to tolerate whatever behaviour comes their way, and if that behaviour prevents a safe pass, then the driver must wait.

But cyclists have Highway Code responsibilities too: paragraphs 168 and 169 read as though written for drivers being overtaken, but as far as I am aware apply equally to cyclists.

Where cyclists are not playing their part in sharing the road, then reporting them is the answer.

The problem with the Highway code is that often the rules are quite vague and too easy to interpret from whichever viewpoint.

For rule 168, as a cyclist you should ride primary when a road narrows to prevent dangerous overtaking, but the car driver behind may see this as breaking 168, by blocking them from over taking.

For rule 169, what does it mean by "slow moving"? 10 mph, 20 mph, 30 mph, 69 mph (on the motorway)? Then the driver behind will think, I'm faster, why are they not moving out of my way as per rule 169? How big is a long queue? 3 cars, 5 cars, 20, 100? When is it safe to pull over? The next layby? When the road gets wider? In cities it is quite often the case that on some stretches a car may be faster, but then on other stretches cars end up much slower. Should the cars then move over to let the bike pass? I rarely see this. Another factor is that someone propelling themselves on a bike will tire themselves out if they have to keep stopping and starting to let people pass and it makes the journey impractical. Just because one vehicle is slower than another does not mean the faster vehicle has more right to be on the road than the slower one.