If you choose to persist with this, I strongly suggest you take on a lawyer, at the very least to get advice on how best to handle the appeal if not to actually represent you in court.

I will get more help this time around. I wanted to win this by myself (because that's the type of person I am) and while the stakes were low I was ok with letting a little pride interfere. Things have obviously taken a turn for the worse now though.

Personally, I'd like to see you beat this one, if only to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, even if I don't necessarily think taking the lane was absolutely necessary in that instance. Whether it was necessary or not is kind of irrelevant, there was nothing actually illegal about what you were doing.

Exactly, opinions aside, I wasn't doing anything [edit] illegal [edit] (Thanks Pete!). Whether or not the cop or the judge feels that I was creating a hazard is irrelevant as it's their opinion. I was not violating anyone's right of way, I was clear and predictable with my intentions, and of course, I was obeying the law. There was no evasive action taken by anybody due to my presence on the roadway, just a simple slowing then reaccelerating like they would have done to pass a motorist going 40mph, albeit without as much braking.

I accept the apologies of those who in this forum and thru PM's
told me how much I didnt know and asked if I would stop posting to this forum in the manner
I had been on this subject.

Your biggest mistake was to trust an inherently corrupt legal system and
then let yourself be urged on by entities who have absolutely not one shred of
knowledge of NEPA/ DE District Justice antics.

Not having a shred of knowledge on a subject, especially legal subjects, is all some of the BF "entities" need to pontificate on it and ask/demand/whine that others like yourself stop posting contrary knowledge or advice.

Don't hold your breath, £em in Pa, while waiting for those apologies from the BF lawyer wannabees.

Well, sorry to keep you all hanging for so long but I finally have an update and it's not the one I had hoped to give. The judges's conclusion after the trial was that [paraphrasing] it is an "utter folly" to believe that a law that states that cyclists should ride as far right as practicable allows me to ride in the center of the travel lane. If my interpretation were correct, we'd have cyclists all over the place taking up a full lane on the roadway because 99.9% of lanes in Delaware are not wide enough to share. I am not only hazardous to myself and others, I am "suicidal" and riding in the center of the lane is a "recipe for disaster".[end paraphrasing]

My one regret during the trial was that I did not attack the officer's opinion (and it is an opinion as nothing actually happened) that I was a "legitimate hazard" on the roadway. I solely spoke about the lane width being too narrow to share which is of course what I was actually cited for. Apparently, emotional response trumps logic at least in the lower Delaware courts. I will be appealing. Oh, and my fine was raised (by $80 and now totals $183 with court costs). Is that even allowed?


:roflmao: oh well, joe. and you're going to appeal? :roflmao: are you going to retain a lawyer? :D

dude; why weren't you further right again? riding in the right turn/ shoulder again? to ride VC like the great armchair safety nanny? learn a little about savvy road position; I.E. if you've got a full width lane to the right of the main travel lanes on a high speed, congested roadway, USE IT! It's still vehicular for a bicycle.

hilarious the extent you push the political platform of your newly aquired skills of traffic cycling.

Is there no organisaiton in the States like UK's CTC? When we had a similar case tried by Judge Morgan (aka Judge Moron) with something of a similar view about causing an obstruction, there was an outcry and the CTC established a legal fund to enable the victim of a judge's ignorance to appeal.

He won - I think the fund raised about £25000.

The sport's governing body, British Cycling, also fights legal cases on members' behalf

So how about it US forumers?

This is, after all, a major blow to cyclists' rights - at least in the OP's state.

Although I disagree with the judge's reasoning, this decision is not a major blow to cyclist's rights, because it has no precedential value. Another Judge in the same state could decide a case with the same set of facts in favor of the cyclist. If the case is appealed, the final decision will have precedential value, good or bad.

so don't appeal without an attorney and some certainty that you've got an airtight case, better to pay the ticket and move on than to appeal on principle and phuck it up for other cyclists if you lose

Oh, and my fine was raised (by $80 and now totals $183 with court costs). Is that even allowed?

I believe that many states will charge you court costs if you lose. I don't think that they can increase the fine.

Good luck on your appeal.

(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway Comments?

I haven't read any more posts on this thread, but I'd say......

Your banged to rights fella. Don't forget to take your chequebook with you. You give other cyclists that drive courteously a bad name. Your lucky it was a Police car behind you, someone else may have nudged you out of the way.

If you hadn't skimmed and instead read the original post you would know that there is no bike lane where JJ got the ticket.
Al

Noisebeam, maybe if you had read the original post PROPERLY you would know what the Police Officer said:

"The conversation started off with him telling me that I should be riding 'on the bike path" to my right'"

so don't appeal without an attorney and some certainty that you've got an airtight case, better to pay the ticket and move on than to appeal on principle and phuck it up for other cyclists if you lose

Two things are needed for an airtight appeal. One is a lawyer who can clearly demonstrate that the letter and intent of the law allows taking the lane under those conditions, drawing upon case law as needed. The other is a compelling argument regarding the reasonable safety of taking the lane under those conditions in order to overcome emotional bias. Support for this argument can come from numerous publications by state and local governments that support taking the lane, documentation of sharrow installations and "cyclists use full lane", and cycling safety education materials produced by cycling organizations. A lawyer should present these materials when appropriate.

Knowing the technical merits of a case is not adequate to deal effectively with the court system. Get a good lawyer and get this overturned.

Noisebeam, maybe if you had read the original post PROPERLY you would know what the Police Officer said:

"The conversation started off with him telling me that I should be riding 'on the bike path" to my right'"

I believe that refers to a sidewalk type path, not a striped bike lane.

Noisebeam, maybe if you had read the original post PROPERLY you would know what the Police Officer said:

"The conversation started off with him telling me that I should be riding 'on the bike path" to my right'"

I did read the original correctly. The officer said to JJ to ride on the 'bike path' However according to JJ in the OP there was no bike path present, only a RTOL. I trust JJ is correct when he writes that there was no bike lane or bike path present.

Al

I haven't read any more posts on this thread, but I'd say......

Your banged to rights fella. Don't forget to take your chequebook with you. You give other cyclists that drive courteously a bad name. Your lucky it was a Police car behind you, someone else may have nudged you out of the way.

You can take part of a law, clip the end of a sentence and the remaining several paragraphs and make any reasonable assessment about if the law is followed or not.

Al

You give other cyclists that drive courteously a bad name.

So what do

(a) not putting a foot down at a stop sign with no other vehicles in sight;
(b) not wearing a helmet in contravention of no law whatsoever; and
(c) riding on the traveled part of a road with the other vehicles

have in common?

That's right, in all cases one character or another on BF thinks his public reputation is being smeared.

Good times.

Knowing the technical merits of a case is not adequate to deal effectively with the court system. Get a good lawyer and get this overturned.

+1

Two things are needed for an airtight appeal. One is a lawyer who can clearly demonstrate that the letter and intent of the law allows taking the lane under those conditions, drawing upon case law as needed. The other is a compelling argument regarding the reasonable safety of taking the lane under those conditions in order to overcome emotional bias. Support for this argument can come from numerous publications by state and local governments that support taking the lane, documentation of sharrow installations and "cyclists use full lane", and cycling safety education materials produced by cycling organizations. A lawyer should present these materials when appropriate.

Knowing the technical merits of a case is not adequate to deal effectively with the court system. Get a good lawyer and get this overturned.

:beer:

Noisebeam, maybe if you had read the original post PROPERLY you would know what the Police Officer said:

"The conversation started off with him telling me that I should be riding 'on the bike path" to my right'"

Look at the Google maps image of the area where I was pulled over. There was NO bike path anywhere to be found. To my right was a right turn only lane and to the right of that a sidewalk.

He's not the first person to mistake that area for a bike path given that all the other "courteous" cyclists who ride this road go straight from that area illegally. Who's giving who a bad name now?

Two things are needed for an airtight appeal. One is a lawyer who can clearly demonstrate that the letter and intent of the law allows taking the lane under those conditions, drawing upon case law as needed. The other is a compelling argument regarding the reasonable safety of taking the lane under those conditions in order to overcome emotional bias. Support for this argument can come from numerous publications by state and local governments that support taking the lane, documentation of sharrow installations and "cyclists use full lane", and cycling safety education materials produced by cycling organizations. A lawyer should present these materials when appropriate.

Knowing the technical merits of a case is not adequate to deal effectively with the court system. Get a good lawyer and get this overturned.

Perhaps I was a bit naive in believing that I would only have to defend myself against the charges actually brought against and not the irrational fears of both the police and judge about what could happen as a result of me behaving as I was. I've learned my lesson.

joe- why not just ride on the shoulder? your vc 'leader' states riding on shoulders is vehicular, dude.

and you are going to waste money getting a lawyer to appeal this? funny stuff.

sometimes the halls of justice aren't just. suck it up, pay the ticket, and learn how to ride without a political agenda coloring your road position.

You'll get savvy vehicular bicycling figured out someday. riding on the shoulder IS a bonifide vehicular cycling position, bro.

I ride in a similar situation to JJ with multiple RTOLs in quick succession with painted gore area in between them. I always ride in centerish position of rightmost thru lane.

I note in doing so that right turning vehicles (which are common) are not slowed by me as they pass me on my right in the RTOLs and drivers entering from the right look at me in thru lane and do not assume I am turning right as they may if I was in RTOL.

It is far from political to choose to ride thru in a thru lane over a single or series of RTOLs. It is the legal and safer option, which slows a different set of drivers (thru) vs. the RTing drivers.

I wonder if that officer instead had been making a RT and JJ was in the RTOL going thru if they may have pulled him over in that case as well, especially if a longer RTOL and officer was 'stuck' behind him for several seconds.

Al

joe- why not just ride on the shoulder? your vc 'leader' states riding on shoulders is vehicular, dude.

What part of his answer to why he didn't ride anwhere else do you not understand, Beck? And if you can't understand that simple English, why should he bother answering again?

Here is an example I just uploaded that I had on hand showing driving in the thru lane instead of the RTOL. It is not same the situation like JJs or the one I described above (multiple RTOLs interspersed with gore or shoulder areas) This is a long RTOL lane with mulitple RT opportunities up until the primary arterial intersection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_zHIqkgJk

Which lane should I have been traveling in?

Traffic is light which makes it less of a good example, but note how the school bus passes me using the RTOL.

Al

Knowing the technical merits of a case is not adequate to deal effectively with the court system. Get a good lawyer and get this overturned.


As already proven....law has absolutely nothing to do with rulings in this
area. District Justices arent even real judges. They take a 3 day cram
course and get a cert. Most the people who post to this forum know way
more about traffic law than an average DE. PA or NJ traffic court 'judge'.
If it gets to court and the cop shows, you lost..... period.

hey, head-

riding on the shoulders of high speed roads IS vehicular.

What shoulder?

Here is an example I just uploaded that I had on hand showing driving in the thru lane instead of the RTOL. It is not same the situation like JJs or the one I described above (multiple RTOLs interspersed with gore or shoulder areas) This is a long RTOL lane with mulitple RT opportunities up until the primary arterial intersection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_zHIqkgJk

Which lane should I have been traveling in?

Traffic is light which makes it less of a good example, but note how the school bus passes me using the RTOL.

Al
Oh, no! Not that bike again! :D

Seriously, looks good to me. Perfect. A+. 5 out of 5.

joe- why not just ride on the shoulder? your vc 'leader' states riding on shoulders is vehicular, dude.

Hasn't this question been answered?

As already proven....law has absolutely nothing to do with rulings in this
area. District Justices arent even real judges. They take a 3 day cram
course and get a cert. Most the people who post to this forum know way
more about traffic law than an average DE. PA or NJ traffic court 'judge'.
If it gets to court and the cop shows, you lost..... period.

Proven? Hardly. But I understand the inclination to be pessimistic.

However, with some determination, I expect a fair shake in the end.

Proven? Hardly. But I understand the inclination to be pessimistic.

However, with some determination, I expect a fair shake in the end.

JJ lost . Pretty solid proof, I would say.
Im only repeating what I posted 2 months ago on this at the risk of being
redundant. I have lived 44 of my 48 years on and off in the areas that this
happened. I have never known one person, not one, who beat a ticket in DE
or PA when the cop showed. 100% lose rate. The traffic court system in this
area is for revenue generation only. It has nothing to do with 'fair' or 'law'.
The last one I fought in '97 in Dauphin Co. was insane. Im 99% sure the 'judge'
was inebriated. The cop had absolutely no recollection of me, my car or the
ticket so he just made stuff up to answer my questions.
To think you will ever get a 'fair shake' in these conditions is just setting yourself
up for a lot of anger.

This one:

If it had been long enough for me to spend more than a few seconds in it, I probably would have used it. At it's current uninterupted length, it's not worth the effort assuming one is not using the right turn lanes to go straight.

stubborn, ain't ya? All you had to do was to pull over long enough for the cop to pass you and this thread would not exist.

:)

Few seconds? Really? Should we back up a few blocks then?

Why weren't you riding on this shoulder then? Not "worth the effort"? Is it really that hard to shift over to let faster traffic pass you?

Where did I say that I never used the shoulder anywhere on this road? I happen to use that section quite often and the one before it too to allow faster traffic to pass if there is traffic in both lanes. That section you pointed to is not worth my effort to use though.

stubborn, ain't ya? All you had to do was to pull over long enough for the cop to pass you and this thread would not exist.

:)

The cop was at the back of a pack in the right lane (with an equal length pack in the left lane) and was the first of those vehicles in the right lane to change lanes and pass me. If I had moved over before the pack reached me and waited until they had passed, my speed would have carried me completely through the right turn lane into the intersection. I opted instead to stay in the lane and let them go around me instead.

Perhaps you should consider that if you had exerted the effort to use that bit of shoulder (first pic), the line of cars (including your cop buddy) would have passed you easily and been on their merry way and you wouldn't be in your current predicament.

Food for thought...

I could just drive a car to work too :)

it is an "utter folly" to believe that a law that states that cyclists should ride as far right as practicable allows me to ride in the center of the travel lane. If my interpretation were correct, we'd have cyclists all over the place taking up a full lane on the roadway because 99.9% of lanes in Delaware are not wide enough to share. I am not only hazardous to myself and others, I am "suicidal" and riding in the center of the lane is a "recipe for disaster"


And suddenly this is the best "VC" thread ever. :roflmao:

And suddenly this is the best "VC" thread ever. :roflmao:
Figures. SJ agrees with the non-cycling judge who has no clue about traffic cycling safety, and assumes riding in a narrow lane is "suicidal". With bike advocates like you, it's pretty depressing.

The funny/sad part is that folks like HH are at least partly responsible for Joejack looking like a fool in court. Of course, it's still Joejack's fault for allowing himself to be conned. It's easy to delude yourself in a tiny little community like this, surrounded by people who believe in the same delusion. Funny how those people are usually nowhere to be found when fantasy goes crashing into reality, though.

Perhaps I was a bit naive in believing that I would only have to defend myself against the charges actually brought against and not the irrational fears of both the police and judge about what could happen as a result of me behaving as I was. I've learned my lesson.

You were trying to fight "the notion" the core of beliefs in the US that cyclists should get out of the way of motorists, no matter what.

So much for using "logic" to face what is really an emotional issue for most motorists... and your "jurist" was probably just as biased against you... as the judge was no doubt a driver too.

So what do

(a) not putting a foot down at a stop sign with no other vehicles in sight;
(b) not wearing a helmet in contravention of no law whatsoever; and
(c) riding on the traveled part of a road with the other vehicles

have in common?

That's right, in all cases one character or another on BF thinks his public reputation is being smeared.

Good times.

you forgot (d) riding in the centre of the road.

I'm a motorist and a cyclist. In England we used to have a test for Cyclists. It was called the Cycling Proficiency Test. The course was run by an Officer from the local Police Station and lasted about 4 months duration on a once weekly basis, culminating in the test which was both practical and theoretical. I passed and I got a badge and a certificate, but more importantly I learned how to cycle more safely and with due consideration for other road users.

One of the major things of importance they taught was to cycle as near to the kerb as practically possible and to NEVER ride 2-abreast. As a motor car driver it drives me wild trying to overtake cyclists riding 4-5 feet away from the kerb, with many chatting away 2-abreast

Unfortunately, more than 99.99% of cyclists have never had any formal training (probably). Imagine what the roads would be like if they let car drivers out loose on the roads without any formal training.

JoeJack I suspect, was playing silly buggers, riding along in the centre of the road with cars stacking up for hundreds of yards behind him with a cheesy grin on his face saying to himself "up-yours".

Well, he got his come-uppance and he got to use his chequebook.

PS. I own 3 cycles and cycle over 100 miles a week.

Here is an example I just uploaded that I had on hand showing driving in the thru lane instead of the RTOL. It is not same the situation like JJs or the one I described above (multiple RTOLs interspersed with gore or shoulder areas) This is a long RTOL lane with mulitple RT opportunities up until the primary arterial intersection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_zHIqkgJk

Which lane should I have been traveling in?

Traffic is light which makes it less of a good example, but note how the school bus passes me using the RTOL.

Al

You have a DeathWish riding in the centre of the lane like that.

Provided you are going straight ahead and not turning, you should be riding as close the right hand broken lines as possible in the furthest lane to the right possible, so long as it's not a right turn filter lane.

It's not Rocket Science.

One of the major things of importance they taught was to cycle as near to the kerb as practically possible and to NEVER ride 2-abreast. As a motor car driver it drives me wild trying to overtake cyclists riding 4-5 feet away from the kerb, with many chatting away 2-abreast



Poor man, find something else to get worked-up over. If not, feign insouciance when the velo-anarchists ride 1.5metres from the kerb. Better yet, drive a little less; think of your blood pressure...

Incidentally, the HC states that cyclists should not ride more than two abreast...

Oh, and check out the recent Daniel Cadden case re: road positioning http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/71/article14.html

Apologies for this trans-Atlantic derailment.

I passed and I got a badge and a certificate!!

One of the major things of importance they taught was to cycle as near to the kerb as practically possible


Surreal. The man has a badge because he rides as close as POSSIBLE to the kerb.


Unfortunately, 99.99% of cyclists have never had any formal training.

Would you like to provide a reference for that very precise statistic?

Imagine what the roads would be like if they let car drivers out loose on the roads without any formal training.

I don't need to imagine anything. Drivers need to pass a written and practical test ONCE to get a license for life. No formal training is required here.

JoeJack I suspect, was playing silly buggers, riding along in the centre of the road

The air photos showed there is a median strip in the centre of the road.



PS. I own 3 cycles and cycle over 100 miles a week.

PS. Nobody cares

You have a DeathWish riding in the centre of the lane like that.
Thank you for your concern. I can assure you that my health and safety are a number one priority for me.


Provided you are going straight ahead and not turning, you should be riding as close the right hand broken lines as possible in the furthest lane to the right possible, so long as it's not a right turn filter lane.

Are you suggesting I should have been riding closer to the passing school bus and encouraging rear approaching vehicles to squeeze me between them and the passing bus?

Al

Poor man, find something else to get worked-up over. If not, feign insouciance when the velo-anarchists ride 1.5metres from the kerb. Better yet, drive a little less; think of your blood pressure...

Incidentally, the HC states that cyclists should not ride more than two abreast...

Oh, and check out the recent Daniel Cadden case re: road positioning http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/71/article14.html

Apologies for this trans-Atlantic derailment.

Little person, I'm not worked up in the slightest and there's no need to apologise for me when it's not necessary. As for the Daniel Caddon case, it's just 1 judges opinion, that's all. Another day, another judge, another opinion. Finally, there's nothing wrong with my blood pressure because like I said, I cycle more than 100 miles per week. How about you?

Thank you for your concern. I can assure you that my health and safety are a number one priority for me.


Are you suggesting I should have been riding closer to the passing school bus and encouraging rear approaching vehicles to squeeze me between them and the passing bus?

Al

Yes, because the bus will drive to the far top the right of the lane as possible too. If you're so worried about being squeezed from both sides then ride in the RH lane, damn it.

Yes, because the bus will drive to the far top the right of the lane as possible too. If you're so worried about being squeezed from both sides then ride in the RH lane, damn it.

That bus is not very far right in the RTOL lane. Also when it turns it's rear can swing out. Another consideration is if I am far right, on or very near the lane line, when the light turns green, then I will be further squeezed in an even narrower lane on the opposite side of the intersection.

No I am not particularly worried about getting squeezed on both sides, no real concerns with close passing, but it is very avoidable and I prefer to avoid as when in such a situation ones options for getting out if and when the situation deteriorates are much more limited.

I'd say you haven't learned much in that 100mi/wk you ride. Goes to show experience is not necessarily gained thru quantity, but perhaps instead quality and thought during practice.

Al

Little person, I'm not worked up in the slightest and there's no need to apologise for me when it's not necessary. As for the Daniel Caddon case, it's just 1 judges opinion, that's all. Another day, another judge, another opinion. Finally, there's nothing wrong with my blood pressure because like I said, I cycle more than 100 miles per week. How about you?

You claimed it drove you wild when trying to overtake cyclists 4-5 feet from the kerb. Now you postulate that you're not worked-up in the slightest...A wonderful and almost imperceptible volte-face!

I'm glad that when you get driven to distraction by those errant cyclists, your physiology is such that your blood pressure doesn't rise in the circumstances (I wouldn't like to see you when you're angry though, I bet you're a bit of a Dr. Robert Bruce Banner type).

I was not apologising for you, but for our dialogue - our little parish's concerns are tangential to this thread.

As regards the courts, it's always a legal lottery. You seemed to intimate that the only rightful and sensible place for a cyclist was the in gutter.

My mileage? It depends, between 100 - 250 miles a week. But so what, it could be 2 miles a week...

That bus is not very far right in the RTOL lane. Also when it turns it's rear can swing out.

But if the driver can drive the thing properly then it won't swing out of his own lane. If he does he's driving without due care and attention, just like you were cycling in the middle of your lane.

say you haven't learned much in that 100mi/wk you ride. Goes to show experience is not necessarily gained thru quantity, but perhaps instead quality and thought during practice.

I'd say you're like a pig in $hit, blissfully ignorant of your predicament. Cycling in the centre of the lane you will eventually get your come-uppance and I hope you have your health insurance paid up. Me, well I'm pretty happy to cycle as near to the kerb as possible without my head up my ar$e in full knowledge that I'm in safe territory and that I won't be pi$$ing off all the motorists behind me.

I'm a motorist and a cyclist. In England we used to have a test for Cyclists. It was called the Cycling Proficiency Test. The course was run by an Officer from the local Police Station and lasted about 4 months duration on a once weekly basis, culminating in the test which was both practical and theoretical. I passed and I got a badge and a certificate, but more importantly I learned how to cycle more safely and with due consideration for other road users.

One of the major things of importance they taught was to cycle as near to the kerb as practically possible and to NEVER ride 2-abreast. As a motor car driver it drives me wild trying to overtake cyclists riding 4-5 feet away from the kerb, with many chatting away 2-abreast
PS. I own 3 cycles and cycle over 100 miles a week.[/QUOTE]

For the benefit of US forumers, the CP course was aimed at year 5 primary schoolchildren, i.e 10 year olds. In most areas, it was done on a marked out road layout on the school playground (schoolyard to you ex-colonials). It gave children an introduction to road safety, but was never expected to make 10yr olds generally safe to ride on the road on their own except where traffic was very low and speeds slow.

It has no relevance to adults riding in difficult traffic circumstances on road layouts which cause confusion as to the difference between RTOL lanes, cycle lanes or shoulders in the mind of unobservant police officers and judges who don't take the full list of local state traffic laws into a/c when arriving at a decision.

The advice of the police officers that the best place to ride was next to the kerb is regarded as wrong in the latest national version of the CP course (now known as Bikeability) and is regarded, by anyone with any real qualifications on road safety and cycling, as outdated and hazardous.

So your happiness 1Easyriders may, one day, be rudely interrupted. Should you wish to disagree, please read John Franklin's Cyclecraft before doing so

As to cyclists riding two abreast, this is perfectly acceptable in UK law as long as they don't cause an obstruction to following traffic. Obstruction is not regarded as something causing a brief delay to other vehicles. It is also regarded as a safety measure where road conditions are too narrow or with limited visibility for safe overtaking, e.g. many of the minor roads in the Yorkshire Dales where I've ridden on club runs.

Of course, we often experienced the ire of motorists who might be "held up" for a short while, since some seemed to regard overtaking single-file riders on a narrow, winding road with blind bends as their god-given right.

And no, I don't regard selfish group riding, often by chainngangs, as acceptable cycling behaviour.

And yes, I have on occasion had to slow down and wait until it was safe to drive past riders, single or double file. It doesn't annoy me as the safety of other road users, especially more vulnerable ones, takes precedence over my car journey time, even when I think the riders are in the wrong.

Just in case my post doesn't quite make sense, it's because the first two paragraphs are the quote from 1Easyrider's earlier post. My comments follwo those two paras.

Strange things seemed to happen as I was trying Post Quick Reply