I thought it was quite a mixed bag.

Video #1 3:37 They suggest that the a "cyclist travelling above the speed limit AND failing to observer a vehicles turn signals" would be at fault. Obviously travelling above the speed limit is a problem, but are they suggesting that bicyclists in bike lanes need to yield to cars turning across them? If not then they shouldn't conflate the issues.

Video #1 6:43 Suggests that Critical Mass is explicitly aimed at traffic disruption and are not "good humored fun seekers". It also explicitly states that goal of an officer should be to minimize the disruption caused to other modes of traffic by groups of bicycles.

Video #2. A much clearer more useful video than #1 Excellent overall. I liked the emphasis about how good police presence is appreciated by cyclists. And it presented the need to treat a bicycle as a vehicle very clearly including the filling out of accident reports. The quotes from serving members who are also cyclists about mutual courtesy and respect and "Remember when you see a bicyclist out there on the street it could be someone YOU know" were good at setting a calm tone.

Video #3 Pretty good overall. Bit hammy in the acting department and a bit slow-moving but good messages about bicycles belonging in traffic and the importance in taking bicycle-automobile collisions seriously.

1:30 Dooring. Good stuff. Shows the illegality of creating a dooring hazard but also reminds the cyclist not to be cycling in the doorzone.


Overall the Portland video suggested that the cops there have issues and the video is passive-aggressive against the "victim cyclists". The Chicago one made me feel more like it was a level playing field and the cops are professional. The SF one was quirky and a bit long-winded but very positive overall. In real life I've only experienced SF out of the three cities, but the videos would make me want to avoid Portland.