THIS.

Police Academy recruit training doesn't just involve learning how to use a gun/nightstick/taser/siren; they are expected to learn AT LEAST as much of the law as a citizen is expected to know, and then learn more. Trouble, is just like high school English and math, they don't learn it.

You don't understand human nature at all; less intelligent people believe they know more than they do. There have been studies - and they indicate that the less intelligent or knowledgeable someone is, the more they overestimate their knowledge. In other words, they don't know what they don't know. That sherif "knows" that you can't block traffic...he also knows he'll never be held accountable if he's wrong and he knows that on scene he has near absolute power. If you appeal his "knowledgeable" enforcement you lose a day of work and time from your life. You still lose, and he still gets paid regardless.

The average citizen doesn't understand basic legal terms, basic legal process or the grey area around any law. The average citizen shouldn't be enforcing on site decisions with near absolute power. It's an imperfect system - and we have due process to try and fix it later.

i get frustrated by non-sense like the OP went through too - I'm not telling him not to be annoyed and I'm not arguing the system is perfect. I'm explaining why this is common, and it's because we've given a lot of authority to people in difficult situations who often don't have the intelligence or training to wield that power. We have due process to address it later.

Seattle has several Road 1 cycling safety classes. You really need to take such a class and stop wrongly interpreting cycling laws.

My brother lives in Hollywood. I've always thought that the infrastructure in that area was not very bike friendly. But I never would've thought it would be coming from the cops.

lol @ paulypro, nobody cares what you THINK, only what the law SAYS


weshigh, you made it onto bikinginla

http://bikinginla.wordpress.com/2013...sharrow-means/

Just wanted to give you kudos on the way you handled that interaction. You know your rights, but you talked to the officer in a respectful manner. You gave your peace, and allowed him to give his. As you obviously know, the "heat of the moment" is not a time to decide who is right or wrong (that's what court is for), but simply a time to assess the situation and determine the facts. If only more people conducted themselves like that, society would be much more civilized. This video was a breath of fresh air as opposed to the countless videos I see of vigilante cyclists with a chip on their shoulder trying to provoke an officer wrong and screaming about their "rights". In fact, you had the sense to not unintentionally provoke him by making him aware of your upcomming left turn. Bravo to you.

Holy ****, paulypro post make him appear to be a new cyclist, but he claims to have been cycling for over 20+ years. It is sad enough when cops do not understand cycling law, but when 20+ year cyclist have no clue and side with clueless cops, OH MY!

What would the cop do if I split his lane with my truck?

Edit; Why do people need to share your lane when either they can't go anywhere or they have another empty lane right next to you?

Thank you for the advice, but respectfully, I still disagree. I'm just saying regardless if some lobbyists decided to paint cryptic bike symbols on roadways 11 feet out or not, that I'd feel like a dick holding up traffic if there's space for me to move aside, such as a long break in parked cars, decent shoulder roadspace etc. I find myself on sharrow marked bike routes daily and almost always end up well to the right of them, aside from the times when it's necessary to take up that lateral space. I plan these maneuvers with the flow of overtaking traffic to minimize disruption to traffic flow & also maximize my own safety. Once and if there's enough space, such as no parked cars to door you, there's hey like 10 feet of space to move the heck over & let some cars by, or at least give them the illusion you're trying to be respectful.

I think that concept of 'share' in sharrow goes both ways, which doesn't entitle one to just own the lane indefinitely until the sharrows are gone. From looking at the video the road looks immaculate but the OP says it's poor, so I can understand getting out there and taking the lane in this situation. Plus in his case he was traveling very close to traffic speed & I do agree with his strategy, though I could see why motorists may not.

It's cool.. If you want to roll down the middle of the lane just because there's a sharrow painted on it go for it. I just tend to believe it's asking for road rage or a similar non-incidental talking to from an officer. I feel that the concept of sharrows themselves is a completely foreign concept for non-cyclists (motorists) so I'd be wary of relying on them as an aura of protection, just sayin'.

A Guide to San Francisco's Bike Symbols

The aura of protection comes from not encouraging drivers to try to squeeze by dangerously close (by riding too far right as if to say "pass me"). Change is constant. People will get used to sharrows if cyclists use them properly.

Seems like there are a few things you're forgetting.
1) Lobbyists aren't often found painting road markings on streets. The SLM symbol was adopted only after considerable study by traffic engineers including experimental placement in a number of trial locations where the effects on safety, traffic flow, and public acceptance could be studied. The required placement out in the traffic lane was found to be the optimum location so unless you've done an equivalent amount of study on your contrary preferred lane position you might want to reconsider.

2) In the OP's video it's quite clear that in fact there was no impediment to other traffic since there was a second lane available and only occasionally did a motor vehicle use it to pass the OP. If there had been a line of traffic forming behind the OP there would have been a steady stream of vehicles passing him in the lane to the left. The video doesn't show what was behind the OP, but I'd expect that the only time anyone would have followed him would have been if they planned to make a right turn - in which case following the cyclist is far preferable to just barely passing him and then cutting him off with a right hook.

3) Sharrows are not just placed randomly on assorted streets but instead there are specific guidelines. When those guidelines are followed sharrows are placed where they function as depicted in the OP's video - on streets where the right-hand lane is too narrow for cyclists to safely be in it alongside motor vehicles that also remain in that lane and where traffic flow and safety will be best if cyclists position themselves at about the sharrow distance from the curb.

This is silly. First, here in the NE anyway, most cops have at least 60 credits. Second, they have to score high enough on the civil service test to get hired in a highly competitive process. These are good paying, stable jobs Are most cops geniuses, of course not, but we are not talking morons either. And before enforcing the law, it is the cops job to keep the peace. Which is why they have to do a lot of quick n dirty arbitration.

The problem with your style of riding is that you are minimizing your own safety.

But feel free to not educate yourself with the Road 1 training or the vast amount of information in BFs. There is a good reason most experienced cyclist disagree with you.

You do realize that Teufel means "devil" in German.

I know quite a few police officers who have graduated form ivy leage schools, and have held very high paying jobs before coming an officer. For an ignorant person to post saying cops are all basically dumb is ludicrous. Just as in any profession there are people who are good at their jobs and people who are bad. While I don't think the officer is stupid from just watching this video, I think police need more training and education in bike laws and regulations. Police can be unpopular with many, but as I've found out and have come to known most are trying to do the right thing.

I'd love to see a 60 credit minimum here - there isn't one. I didn't say they were morons either, I said that most aren't trained legal professionals and their job is, as you put it, to keep the peace and arbitrate difficult situations. The truth is that those difficult situations can have a lot of grey area that most cops don't understand...and they don't have to. That's why we have due process. The brightest people generally aren't going to want to be cops. Could it happen? Sure...but there are ivy league bar tenders out there too. Do you think 60 credits in a criminal justice associate degree is ample to understand the multitude of legal issues they can see? Of course not.

This is not even an anti-cop post - I'm a law and order guy. It's a simple observation on how this process often works and what the flaws are. All systems will have flaws, benefits and costs. It's a difficult job and it's a job most people wouldn't want to do. A person with a finely tuned understanding of the law is not likely to want to do it. The facts in my area are that the police typically come from lower-middle class, blue collar backgrounds and aren't the most educated guys out there. That has been my experience in other areas as well.

FYI - sheriffs in my area are elected and/or patronage jobs, they aren't civil service positions and they aren't police. There can be substantial differences from area to area on how this process works and who does what jobs.

I'd never hug the curb, it merely invites dangerously close passes.

I don't feel the need to hog the road - although I've got as much right to be there as anyone else, the other road users have as much right to use the road as I do so taking up more space than is necessary antagonises people without offering any benefit to anyone. That said if I don't believe a vehicle behind can pass me safely I'll position myself so it's clear they can't pass at all. If you keep right over and someone thinks they can just squeeze past you there's no breathing space if they get it wrong, or if they're alongside you with only inches to spare and you spot a big pothole in front of you or some such. If the lane is wide enough that I can keep a sensible distance from the edge and still give cars space to pass me I'll do that; where the lane is narrow I'll ride down the middle of it. However many of the cars pass safely it only takes one to ruin your day, and since we're the ones who aren't encased in a big metal box we're the ones who pay the price even if it was the other guy who misjudged it.

For me my highest priority is staying safe. Staying legal comes second.

http://www.phillypolice.com/careers/requirements/

Obviously, most people are gonna meet the 60 credit threshold. even in Filthadelphia. And Law enforcement is a blue collar job, but you might be surprised how many of us in the lower classes are pretty smart. And even educated. I graduated with honors, and my job is even less glamorous than the 5-0.

Actually I'd wager most don't...and I have some insight into the matter. My grandfather was an off the boat tailor with a third grade education...who was also a brilliant, insightful guy...the comment was not meant to indicate a bright, educated person can't come from those classes...it was indicating that they're often from the same neighborhoods as the people they are typically regulating. The truth is that the high schools in those areas are less likely to produce ivy league lawyers and the culture is different from a middle class suburb. My father is brighter than me, but we're very different because he grew up in a tougher urban environment and I was raised as a suburban kid.

My job isn't glamorous either. I am not insulting the police here, though you seem bound and determined to take it that way...I am saying that it's unrealistic to expect the police to understand every law, or to understand legal principle that subject matter experts disagree over. Mistakes are to be expected. We've signed over a lot of authority to the police in our social compact and that has costs. I can tell you from first hand experience that most people know far less about the legal system, our laws and how things work than they think they do. The same is true of the police I know and encounter professionally...and I encounter a lot of them.

Filthadelphia, geeeee...never heard that one before. How clever :rolleyes:

I had never heard of a sharrow before so I looked it up on wikipedia. We have one street with those markings as shown in the photos but they are not in the middle of the lane but at the side. I had interpreted them to mean a bike lane on the side of the road. Do the markings have to be in the middle of the lane to designate it a sharrow?

It sounds like the sharrows are there to give bicyclist the same rights on the road as cars. Maybe they're there more to inform the cars that a bicycle could be in the lane than for us. If there is a slower moving car on the road, you don't expect him to move to the shoulder to allow the other cars to pass. It's the other cars responsibility to pass safely. Same for us. Even without the sharrows I would take the lane to keep me safe. Which is our right as vehicle operaters. Don't you take the lane at times to make your ride safer for you? If so, sharrows are there to impower your right to do that.

many cops don't know the law. one cop in my town didn't know that law about assault. he thought physical contact was required but in fact contact escalates the incident to "battery". you can be assaulted without physical contact if you are in fear. yes it's only verbal but it is a crime. someone can also become violent and not touch you, as-in punching a wall, kicking a chair, etc. one cop in the police office didn't know that but another did. go figure. my Dad once said 75% of people are only barely adequate at their jobs.

BTW I was very impressed with your correctness on the road and seemed not to break any rules. also that you and the cop were both polite to each other. interesting that he was behind another motorcyclist and given that special situation if you were a few inches over to the right you and the motorcycles could have shared the lane more easily. very cool tweet by the PD though, huh?

impeding traffic? YOU ARE TRAFFIC!

Dude, re read those qualifications. Military service and education are the only two that are gonna matter, and just by the numbers education is gonna out number military. And yes, we give LEOs an ungodly amount of power. Also, police academies are 760 hours give or take. Which is in the neighborhood of how much time you would spend in class for 2 years of college. So between the 60 credits prerequisite, and the 760 hours of instruction, you are looking at something close to a 4 year degree.