[arlrider]

I understand what contradiction means. CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I CONTRADICTED MYSELF? Because you keep saying I did, but will not cite a single fact to support your cause.

@AFHokie 96616 wrote:

You claim different and I believe you honestly think you did not, but I’d wager you rolled by the officer with a scowl on your face.

And if the sky was yellow it would rain lemonade. Again, your penchant for making up “facts”. No, I made it a point even before I approached the officer’s position to stay neutral in face and focus instead on the pedestrian which was blocking my way.

@AFHokie 96616 wrote:

How was it Dirt was able to go out the next day and have a completely different experience? A different officer, but still initially gruff…no different than yours. However, Dirt displayed niceties and built positive rapport with the officer. That’s how a results oriented person accomplishes a positive result.

Because he went out with the intention of sitting there for 2 hours hanging out with cops whereas I just wanted to get to work.

@AFHokie 96616 wrote:

perhaps you are not the innocent little cherub you seem to think you are and why on earth your action elicited such a response. A response you admit to expecting which I suspect showed on your face as you went by. Yep his response was out of line. NOBODY is debating that, but there are dozens of things you could’ve done differently to effect a positive outcome for yourself, the officer, and every other motorist/cyclist/pedestrian who passed after you. Instead you chose to come to an internet forum and tell everyone how you, an upstanding citizen caught the police acting inept and then he acted like a big meany towards you.

Again, more lies to make your case. Never stated I was innocent – though I was, as exercising one’s first amendment rights including photography is an act of innocence. The fact that I expected a potential negative response to photography in fact supports MY argument that I consciously did NOT show emotion on my face, because I knew that I did not want to provoke such response. I have posted that several times. Never called myself upstanding.

My choice in response was to document the situation and then ask others for their thoughts on it. I did not want to start a discussion at the time. Part of this is that anyone with two brain cells could realize that blocking a busy sidewalk would not be liked by pedestrians and cyclists. But this cop did it anyways. So he made it clear that he did not care about citizens, so why would I try to engage him in discourse?

@AFHokie 96616 wrote:

Rudeness does not equal brutality. To claim so degenerates a very real problem.

Could you please point me to the place where I use or imply “brutality”? Again, you are making things up as you have done all along.

@AFHokie 96616 wrote:

In the future I suggest you fill out this form.

Needless ad hominem. Stupid.

Honestly, if I could start this thread over I wouldn’t even mention the cop’s reaction. That was not the main focus of my post. The main focus was that ACPD was, while reporting to the media that they were helping the situation at this intersection, in fact worsening it and wasting resources.

[arlrider]

And just to add, I’m really sorry for all the snark and sarcasm, but that’s just my personal way of coping with being marginalized, doubted, accused, compared to a murderer, etc.

If I had known that this was going to all come back on me (which I should have figured, since it is the Internet, even in a supposedly like-minded group forum like this one), I would have just left the advocacy to the advocates with their bright-green vests and their feel-good community powows and not stuck my neck out.

LESSON LEARNED.

[arlrider]

@dasgeh 96605 wrote:

What I find troubling about this thread is that it takes one story, for which we really don’t have much context, and equates that story with the greater problem, using hyperbole.

So how many instances for you define a “real” problem? If it helps any, they were doing the same thing (blocking the sidewalk) the day before, and that’s why I took the photo on Tuesday. But I’d love to hear your statistical calculations on how many “incidents” are needed to constitute a “problem”. And where’s the hyperbole?

@dasgeh 96605 wrote:

The car was not completely blocking the sidewalk, and, as arlrider later said, the police didn’t directly threaten him.

Wow, how much more of an apologist can you be? Now it’s Ok because the car wasn’t “completely blocking” the sidewalk? Is it OK if an officer doesn’t “completely shoot” someone? Like they miss the head? And threats now have to be “direct” to count? Can you explain “direct”? Like if he put his hand on his holster as he asked if I had a problem, would that add to the directness? Or is your requirement that it be a declarative statement?

@dasgeh 96605 wrote:

The problem with elevating _that story_ to its own blog post/letter/whatever is that the hyperbole distracts from the real problem (and discredits those who promulgate it).

Ok, call it “elevation” if it makes you feel better. I searched this forum and didn’t find a relevant thread. So I created one. That’s the cool thing about the Internet – data is pretty much free these days, and the existence of one discussion doesn’t preclude the existence of another (what you are referring to as a “big picture” or whatever).

@dasgeh 96605 wrote:

we need to be talking about having an ACPD policy that says don’t block sidewalks unless absolutely necessary, and a way to gently report officers who break that policy.

And pray tell, oh wise one, how would we ever know that we need to be talking about those policies if no one ever mentioned the behavior precipitating the need for those policies? If no one ever mentioned that sidewalks were being blocked, then how would we know that we need a no-sidewalk-blocking policy? Your post defies logic, it is the cart leading the horse.

@dasgeh 96605 wrote:

We need to talk about real enforcement at the IoD. But instead, we’re talking about whether “do you have a PROBLEM” is really a threat, and whether arlrider’s account is consistent.

So instead, it’s a better use of our time to try to discredit first-hand accounts directly relevant to the topic you discuss? The fact that someone who is a daily rider, minding his own business, was so motivated to come on here and post this behavior must just mean that he has nothing to do and is making this stuff up, right? To distract from the “real” issues that are so very, very, very important to you. Because single instances can’t of course be manifestations of “real” issues, no, those are just down in the weeds and we need to see the big picture.

Got it. Crystal clear.

[arlrider]

@AFHokie 96568 wrote:

The “facts” are what YOU presented. Are you now saying you made them up? With only your side of the story I’m left to decipher what actually occurred. Sorry, but my days of taking a random individual’s word as unbiased are long gone.

In the first you claim you discreetly took the photo, made no statement, made no eye contact and insist you gave the officer no reason to interact with you. In the second you contradict this when you imply you fully expected an interaction with the officer as you passed him. Your statement above confirms you not only anticipated it, you expected it to be less than cordial.

What on earth nonsense are you spouting off? How does what you claim I said at all contradict itself? Any why are you accusing me of lying? My statements are pretty clear to anyone with an elementary level of English reading comprehension. I said that I TRIED to take the photo discretely, but knew that if I was still seen, the officer might not take kindly to it. Why did I take the photo discreetly? Because I know officers don’t like being photographed. Because they try to bully people all the time for exercising their first amendment rights. See article after article and the ACLU. I didn’t want to invite that. So I TRIED to take the photo discreetly. However, even trying to take the photo discreetly it can still be discerned that one is taking a photo; barring use of a bike-mounted camera there is no way to avoid this. So that is what I said – I tried to be discreet, I knew that if he saw me he might not like it (because I was catching him doing something bad), he saw me, he got mad, I passed on my way. What is there for you to not understand?

@AFHokie 96568 wrote:

Something you may want to consider when photographing police. Officers have been targeted for attacks in the past. Considering the manner in which you took the photo, I find it reasonable he wanted to know why you photographed him.

Typical internet forum comment scum and drivel. Take the next step and insinuate that I was behaving similar to a murderer. Very well done. If he wanted to know why I took a photo, he should have asked me that, and maybe I would have told him. Instead he said, “Do you have a PROBLEM?”.

[arlrider]

Dirt – thanks for what you did today. Today’s officer was an entirely different person (literally I mean) from the one I saw yesterday and was behaving in a manner projecting a completely different image of ACPD from the one yesterday.

Today, 8:10 AM – Car backed in, lights fully on, officer standing directly at IOD monitoring traffic, seemingly ready to act if necessary. Protecting and serving.

Yesterday, 8:15 AM – Car parked on sidewalk, impeding 3/4 of pedestrian/bike flow, no lights. Officer standing nowhere near traffic, staring into the distance. Waiting for his shift to be over.

One of these is good community policing. The other is a waste of dollars. Let’s hope we continue to see more of the former.

[arlrider]

@Sunyata 96478 wrote:

Out of curiosity, I wonder if the OP thought about explaining to the officer why his placement on the sidewalk was a bad idea instead of taking a photo to complain about it on a bike forum?

I took the photo because there had been several articles written in the past weeks, as I stated in my original post, discussing the intersection and ACPD’s response to incidents there. ACPD, in those articles, basically made themselves sound like they had everything taken care of, making references to “officers there daily” and “directing traffic”. I wanted to gather a piece of data to document what was actually happening, which was running counter to what ACPD was claiming was happening. I knew that without data my claim would probably be written off as unfounded. I was not looking to engage an officer in debate or school him on etiquette, simply to document the actuality of a much-touted departmental response to an ongoing issue.

[arlrider]

@AFHokie 96463 wrote:

You give two conflicting accounts. In the first, you’re minding your own business and out of nowhere the officer comes at you with hostile intent. In the second, your statement gives the impression that you’re giving either, him, his car, or both the stink eye (which he catches) to which he then asks you what’s the problem.

I see nothing in the quoted posts above that supports this assertion that my accounts are conflicting. I took a picture from a distance and then rode/walked past the constriction in the sidewalk, at which time the officer made the statement which I quoted. I took the photo in a manner which was intended to be discreet (from chest level and glancing) but he obviously saw what I was doing and this was the basis for the comment.

@AFHokie 96463 wrote:

Can you honestly say that you did not give him a look of contempt or disgust as you went by? Based on the tone of your posts, I’m not certain you can honestly say you did not.

Yes, I can say that. Because I knew that taking a photo could provoke a response and I did not want to do anything to further those chances. That’s why I took the photo from a distance and tried not to make a scene. Moreover, as stated upthread, the blockage of the sidewalk caused me to need to slow and dismount following a pedestrian, so I was focused on that.

@AFHokie 96463 wrote:

Based on your thread posts I get the impression that no matter what, every cop starts out in a hole with you for no reason other than the fact they’re a police officer.

And based on your thread posts, I get the impression that you like to insert “facts” that you have made up to support your arguments.

@dasgeh 96471 wrote:

FWIW, I’ve had positive interactions with police when I’ve been polite and respectful of their office.

I have too, but when the officer starts with a loaded statement in an aggressive tone, then I see the odds stacked against me and do not wish to pursue discourse.

[arlrider]

Honestly the main focus of my original post was supposed to be on the sidewalk blocking. The fact that the guy was being a jerk/mean/threatening about it was just the icing on the cake. Hopefully it’s all resolved and everything will be good from now on.

[arlrider]

@DismalScientist 96420 wrote:

IMHO, “scowling”(in the OP’s words) when asking when asking “what are you doing?” And doing nothing when the OP bikes by when not answering does not constitute a threat. Perhaps the OP thought that this was the biggest civil rights scoop ever, but perhaps an answer would be helpful in providing cyclist’s perspective.

He did not ask “what are you doing?”. He asked “Do you have a PROBLEM?” (emphasis his) while stepping forward towards the sidewalk where i was trying to ride. It was not asked while I was taking the photo but later while I was riding by (the photo was taken from far away). When a man with a gun asks me if I have a problem while starting to move towards me, I consider that akin to picking a fight, and yes I find it threatening.

And @jnva, I too was glad to see the new placement today. I hope that’s a result of a policy, not just one officer that was smarter or more motivated than others have been in the past.

[arlrider]

@dasgeh 96360 wrote:

was challanged by you about his parking.

I would just like to make it clear that I made no statement to this officer, nor did I even make eye contact. The photo was taken at a distance where I could have been photographing any number of things. Yet he seemed to know exactly what was up. It’s almost like he knew he was doing something wrong…

@dasgeh 96360 wrote:

I see people sticking up for the work they’ve been doing, and pointing out facts you might not know.

I’m a results-driven person and I haven’t seen any positive results.

[arlrider]

@Terpfan 96358 wrote:

So while I wish they would park rationally, issue tickets, and be a nonstop presence there, I guess part of me figures something is better than the nothingness that existed before. I really hate that little area because it’s a crapshoot if drivers notice you or care to.

It’s actually that last part right there that makes me more unhappy with the fact that ACPD has a presence there but isn’t doing anything. Cops attract attention. Attracted attention = driver distraction. Odds that drivers are looking at the cops rather than cyclists/peds? High. Their presence could make things worse.

[arlrider]

@dasgeh 96349 wrote:

The question is how best to achieve our ends.

By holding public servants accountable to those who pay their salaries?

@dasgeh 96349 wrote:

Having a bad day? Being lazy and rude for the 5 minutes you were there?

Glad you think it’s OK for a cop to be off his game for short periods. Hopefully he’s not handling his firearm or vehicle during those 5 minutes.

@dasgeh 96349 wrote:

It seems there’s more to your story, and I’d love to hear it. But what you’ve posted isn’t a lot, and there are multiple interpretations, some of them reasonable, some of them not, none of them completely egregious.

Nothing more to my story. Just a lack of ACPD involvement at that intersection, some misleading statements to ARLnow about them being present when they weren’t, and a follow up consisting of blocking the sidewalk on a daily basis while standing around doing nothing.

@dasgeh 96349 wrote:

As far as what they’re enforcing, according to data we got last night, almost 500 citations were issued at Lynn/Lee last year. I believe it’s been significantly fewer this year, but I’m not sure. Pointing out the trend over a year might be more effective than pointing to one incident on one morning.

Cool. That’s 1.5 citations per day. When I passed through on a single light cycle, there were THREE cars in the box at ONE TIME. So assume 30 second light cycle, 2 hour rush hour, all citations for red light running and crosswalk blocking…you’re asserting that ACPD is catching less than 1% of offenders. Great work!

Look, the short response is this – apologists get marginalized and smoothed over with easy words. People who stand up and demand accountability bring about change.

@Terpfan 96353 wrote:

Out of curiosity, does he have the jurisdictional authority to ticket at that cross ramp? I was under the impression from others here that it’s still under NPS/PP.

No idea! Was just responding to a though by another poster that perhaps the officer was checking traffic flow at that off ramp. Needless to say the boundaries are a bit blurred there – I think you’d need a couple attorneys and a GIS expert to figure out the answer to that question!

[arlrider]

Understood. You can see from the pic I posted that the rider passing by the police car is requiring the entire usable width of the open sidewalk. Therefore this is reducing a two-way thoroughfare to one-way usability, with no signage or provision for bi-directional travel or overtaking. I don’t consider this safe.

[arlrider]

@dasgeh 96326 wrote:

There is definitely more enforcement at Lynn/Lee than there had been earlier this year. The question is, in my mind, what’s the best strategy to get ACPD to change. I worry that calling them out now, especially in instances like this where we don’t have the whole story, may make them do less.

Sorry, what exactly is being “enforced”? Every single morning, every single light cycle, NB Lynn traffic runs red and blocks the box. I’m supposed to get warm fuzzies because they have a guy 50 yards downstream staring at traffic, blocking the sidewalk with his vehicle, and threatening me? Well bless his heart, I can pay my tax bill knowing it’s going to a good cause.

I’m not really concerned about “calling them out” and I don’t need to give them a trophy for “trying”. They are employees of the taxpayer; they report to us.

And yes, I agree that “resources are constrained”, that’s why it irks me to see them being wasted.

@Subby 96333 wrote:

I thought maybe he was monitoring traffic coming up the ramp and yielding to folks in the crosswalk there. I said good morning to him, he nodded back, I carried on. There was plenty of room there on the sidewalk for folks to get through.

Not the case; traffic was blocking the crosswalk on the GW parkway ramp and this officer wasn’t lifting a finger. And what do you mean by “plenty of room”? There was not enough width for a cyclist to overtake a pedestrian safely. I had to dismount for this reason. I don’t consider that “plenty of room”.

[arlrider]

@rcannon100 96318 wrote:

Done.

Nicely written – thanks!

[Author]

Posts