Dude - those qualifications date to 2012...the rules were different before that (and changed partially because of Philly's long, undistinguished history of endemic police corruption). Most DO have military backgrounds. There were also programs to increase minority numbers that eased standards for officers. I live here...I work with them. I also am well aware of the special programs that exist specifically to get folks minimum requirements that wouldn't meet the standards of most schools. It is also irrelevant...the bottom line is that we can fight over semantics, numbers of credits...etc...but the reality is that the things they encounter on a daily basis are complicated and diverse...there really aren't many (or any) people bright enough, or educated enough in such a variety of factors, to make across the board knowledgeable enforcement a realistic goal. It is unrealistic to expect the police to be subject matter experts on all of the laws they enforce.

There are also always vague laws like disturbing the peace, or causing a disturbance that can be used where the person gets sited because the officer finds a behavior annoying. Sure - you can fight it with due process, but by the time you're at that point, you've already lost. I was actually arrested in college for "theft of leased property." That sounds pretty ominous, no? What really happened is that I didn't pay late fees on some video tapes and the owner of the shop had a relationship with the local DA...they used that charge to intimidate college kids into paying late fees. Of course it's non-sense, and of course it would never stick - but I actually was arrested for this and had to get it expunged. Was it all dropped? Of course...but I still had to waste several days and a tank of gas fighting it. We even debated suing the town...but the difficulty in surmounting the assumption of good faith in a case like this is challenging to say the least.

If you ant to fight over semantics - we can:

• Option 1: EDUCATION
  Sixty (60) college credits with an overall grade point average of at least 2.0 at an accredited college or university. 2.0 and 60 hours is hardly a rigorous requirement.

• Option 2: EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
  Education equivalent to completion of standard high school AND two years of full time, active military service with an honorable discharge. Many have this combination.

• Option 3: EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE/CERTIFICATION
  One year of full time employment as a commonwealth or state certfied Law Enforcement Officer which has been within the three year period prior to the closing date of applications. Please refer to the current announcement for specific dates. CERTIFICATION: Possession of a Commonwealth or State Law Enforcement Officers' Certification (this position is now open to candidates from any other state in the nation) Translation - you can become an officer without any college experience, or even a high school diploma, if you were employed and certified by others without those requirements. Admittedly, this is not how the majority apply.

• Option 4: EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
  Education equivalent to completion of standard high school AND successful completion of the Philadelphia Police Explorers Cadet Program, which shall have included a minimum of two years service with the Philadelphia Police Explorers Cadet Program, including 672 hours training offered by the Philadelphia Police Department and an additional 298 hours of community service or external training. This is likely the most common option...and requires no college course work.

Great post.
I take the lane because I have the right to be there, It is safer.
Other cyclists I see meekly hugging the side of the road in an apologetic manner get bullied by cars with close side swipes and cars getting right on their @$$.

I do not impede the flow of traffic, follow ALL traffic rules and I ride the speed of traffic or I take another route, a lot of common sense applies here.
I am not going to comment on the cops in LA, I lived there for 30yrs......(don't want to turn this in to a cop bashing thread).

While I agree that blocking traffic and aggravating them is generally counterproductive, the sharrows are there to allow cyclists to take the lane to stay safe. If cyclist yields to the motorists all the time, even at the detriment of their own safety, the sharrows are simply going to disappear, and the motorists would feel free to buzz by cyclists even when they should not.

They're painted on to indicate that motorists should expect cyclists on the road, and they should consider that there will be eventualities where they'll have to take the road. If the motorists are really that annoyed by cyclists taking the lane when necessary, maybe they should find alternate routes that cyclists do not use.

Watching the OP's video, that was one dumb**** LEO, especially in wanting the make the cyclist ride to the far right and weave in and out of traffic amongst parked cars. It's all about maintaining traffic flow, and the LEO's threat about citing the cyclist for holding up traffic when there was an adjacent lane available was more of a uninformed/power trip decision. The LEO needs to park the motorcycle and do some patrol time on a bicycle.

I agree with the cop...you shouldn't take up the entire lane and make it difficult or dangerous for others to pass.

Guy this is probably the least common option. I am in this world. I am facepalming and SMH at the same time. Explorers are the most common route into the PD? I guarantee you very few officers were Explorers before getting on the job. And something that requires 1000 hours of commitment is not exactly a cakewalk

Did you not notice the adjacent lane? Parked cars on one side, and a motorist trying to squeeze by on the other makes for an even more dangerous situation for the cyclist than a motorist would ever experience. The LEO is truly misinformed.

Noticed the bike rider riding way out in the lane most of the time. Not appropriate in that situation, but really, who gives a rat's youknowwhat?

If you want to have a discussion about the principle of what I said, I am happy to have it. I am not going to debate the academic credentials of a police department you aren't familiar with any more.

Edit - I just spoke with a friend of mine across the hall - who worked as PPD and who has a brother in the PPD. His estimate was that fewer than 30% of the force have 60 credits and around 10% have 4 year degrees - only higher level officers. The rules you site, which were changed in 2012, came after the living in town requirements were done away with as an effort to improve the overall force. Prior to the rule changing around police living in town, it was thought that too few people would be interested in joining the PPD who had minimal education requirements and who lived here...it was only when they permitted outside residency that it was thought the rule could change.

As per my buddy, they are, in fact, having a difficult job recruiting with that rule and are considering adding other options. The majority still don't have 60 hours. There are also existing programs to work around some of the requirements.

That is what you call being "predicable", and I seems you don't practice much of it or don't understand it, especially when there an adjacent lane available for a motorist to make a safe pass.

Right, the sharrow does not give anyone any rights. The bicyclist already has the same rights, the sharrow is just indicating to cars that the bicycle has those rights.

Those arrows in the road are to indicate that bke riders are supposed to ride in the direction of traffic, not against the flow.

More familiar than you, kid.

I think I see exactly what you are, and no matter what kind of lip service you pay to your working class roots of three generations ago, it isn't very pretty.

It's not that we disagree, you're just flat out wrong. Even the same sheriff's office tweeted that sharrows mean cyclists are allowed to use the full lane.

Actually, the LA Sheriff disagrees with you on this. The sharrow means the entire lane can be used. Sharing doesn't imply I get 95% and you get 5%. It means we both take turns using 100%, or we both use 50%.

Good day sir. Feel free to be personally offended and angry if it makes you feel better :)

http://wildfiretoday.com/2010/05/12/...-are-doubtful/

It helps to explain why people who don't know anything about another area's police department's culture, history or historic hiring processes might still have opinions they mistakenly believe to be valid, including siting websites that don't support their argument.

With the two lanes for traffic there, I don't think it was too bad to do what you were doing.

Locally, NJ law obligates you to stay as far right as possible, only moving left due to hazards and to avoid a parked vehicle, you have to yield to other vehicles first before pulling left into the lane. So I'm used to proceeding that way.

With a single traffic lane, even if the law allows "taking the lane", weighing the high probability of an Escalade pilot road raging, I wouldn't. Locally, people will simply hit you and keep going. I think my odds are better giving them some room to pass without fueling up road rage by impeding the flow of traffic.

Two people in one year in my office were just plain hit and run as if they were a branch in the road. The drivers didn't even so much as slow down. In one of the cases the driver did stop, but only to curse the guy out before taking off again.

The police don't follow through even if you have a plate number...there's no will to charge people with without witness complaints. Though maybe a Go-Pro cam would be useful.

I got stopped by LA Sheriffs, ostensibly, for riding on the sidewalk. He slammed on his brakes and jumped out of the car like he was apprehending a bank robber. He got a better look at my expensive bike and decided I wasn't homeless and backpedaled out of the situation. As he left he said, "transients usually ride bicycles".

According to the LA Dept. of Trans. it is not illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk in Agoura Hills. He didn't know the law. I complained to the volunteer patrol and I never saw that sucker again.

Sharrows or no, that officer was completely wrong telling you to ride in the door zone.

VC 21656 clearly states what the laws are.....in this case,2 lane highway,means 2 lanes in each direction...3 lanes means 3 lanes in each direction.....there are no 3 lane highways,2 in 1 direction and 1 in the other.... Unless your in the mountains and it's a passing lane.....that doesn't count.

In L.A. there are surface streets that have 4 lanes in each direction,not counting right and left turn lanes.

If that was a true bike lane,as in,bicycles do what you want in the lane,the white line on the left would be solid....ride down Venice Blvd from the beach to downtown....THAT'S a real bike lane.

Arrows or no arrows,VC 21656 still applies.

So,depending on how many cars were behind you at the time the cop saw you,will determine if the cop was correct or not.

The arrows tell cars that there will be bicycles in the lane,sort of like the triangles you see on tractors or a horse drawn wagon.....beware of slow traffic,in this case,bicycles.

Been riding my little bicycle all around L.A. for 50 years,I've had every kind of conversation you can have with the cops,good and bad.....a few times.I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times I've been stopped for impeding traffic,seems like a couple times in every city....mostly on trash day.

I've had cops stop me,many times,for impeding traffic,again mostly on trash day....and they were the only one behind me....I ask them if their blinker and steering wheel is broken...:)

It's mostly on trash day because that's when I take the lane the most,so some car doesn't ram me into them.There isn't room for me,them and a trashcan.

Unless there are additional city/county codes for road markings. This is the same in every state. Which is why the state speed limit can be 70mph, but city streets are 30, 40, and 25.

Laws get more specific to the locales, as you move down the hierarchy of governments.

I've never been stopped by the cops for impeding traffic, because I don't impede traffic. So simple.

+1

relieved I'm not the only one that believes in some common courtesy

It's your life. If you want to risk your well-being to be courteous to a bunch of entitled road users who won't think twice about jeopardizing your safety in order to save ten seconds go ahead.

In Oregon I not only have a legal right to a full sharrowed lane but a full legal right to the entire lane if I am moving at "the normal speed of traffic". On 95% of my commute you will find me in the vehicle lane on the left side.

I have absolutely no problem with "holding motorists back" when I am exercising my legal right of way at normal traffic speeds.


I always ride like I am at the top of the food chain.

Completely irrelevant. Google "shared roadway marking MUTCD".

:thumb: