Accident at Jefferson and Maplewood ave archived

Does no one know the condition of the victim? I passed through moments after it happened, before emergency vehicles were there, and it has been very much on my mind. It didn't look good. And does anyone know the circumstances of how he was hit?

If you have the right-of-way, and I don't, and you "wave me through," and I proceed, and you, for some reason, change your mind and also proceed (out of confusion, or impatience, or just plain stupidity), and there is an accident, I AM LIABLE. I have no proof that you "waved me through." The cop will ticket me, not you. They'll probably ticket me even if you say you "waved me through."

You might have been bopping your head or hands to your car radio. I don't know you. Maybe you are being courteous, maybe you are just stupid and think you don't have the right-of-way. Maybe you are waving to a friend behind me. The right-of-way is not something you can "give" to someone else. The rules are there so I don't have to read your mind. Just do what you're supposed to do, for Pete's sake, and save us all time.

That said: if a cop waves you through, just go.

I agree, if a cop waves you through, go. But it's still a stupid move.

In NJ, if you "wave through" another driver and they get into an accident, you can be held partially liable.

terminator3 said:

cody said:

There is no yield sign on Jefferson at the intersection of Maplewood Ave/Jefferson.

There's a yield on Maplewood Ave at Walton, but that's another story.

There is a big Flashing Yellow Light at the Intersection on Jefferson.... this means YIELD!!! Obviously part of the problem is that people don't know the rules of the road or what lights mean

If it means "Yield" what are we "Yielding" to?

Actually yellow flashing means use caution, if safe proceed. Yield means stop if traffic is coming, otherwise you can go if safe.

lewis9961 said:

Actually yellow flashing means use caution, if safe proceed. Yield means stop if traffic is coming, otherwise you can go if safe.

+1 Not stop...

The lights and signs are open to too many interpretations. Put a traffic light there and be done with it. If they can put one on Glen/Wyoming there's no reason not to put one on Jefferson/Maplewood.

YIELD Sign

COLOR: Red and white, with red letters.

Yield sign MEANING: Slow down as you approach the intersection. Prepare to stop and yield the right-of-way to vehicles and pedestrians in or approaching the intersection. You must come to a full stop at a YIELD sign if traffic conditions require it. When you approach a YIELD sign, check carefully for traffic, and be prepared to STOP.

A flashing yellow light has the same meaning as a yield sign.

who should you yield to... any pedestrians in the crosswalk or cars that may be in the intersection!!

it is obviously apparent lots of people do not know the rules of the road

drummerboy said:

ace789nj said:

My guess is those folks are more apt to cause a crash no matter what is going on.

Exactly! We already know the road is full of jackasses. Why make the roads deliberately more dangerous for them and us?

This is basic stuff. The vast majority of car on car accidents are caused by two things. Stopping when you're not supposed to and crossing in front of someone else. That's pretty much it. In my book, whenever you do one of those things unnecessarily, you are creating a hazard and being a bad driver. Courtesy be damned. Being safe is being courteous.

What about stopping for pedestrians? To a motorist a few cars back that can appear to be "stopping when you're not supposed to." The motorist a few cars back can not see the crosswalk or the pedestrian, and too many here have witnessed these people laying on their horns or swerving around the stopped cars.

What really needs to be done is the written and road tests for drivers licenses need to be improved to address the real life failures we are seeing on the road. Keep these people from getting license until they have a better understanding of how to drive.

Stopping for pedestrians is not "stopping when you're not supposed to".

@terminator3 Where did you come up with this stuff?

From: http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/pdf/Licenses/Driver%20Manual/Appendix.pdf

Flashing Yellow Light
Slow down and proceed with care

And my reference is not some generic Internet thingy...

It's getting a little bleak in here. A couple of people keep asking about the condition of the person who was struck. And an ongoing argument about traffic rules and signage drowns out the concern.

Let's just excavate a cutting through the hill. Fix it once and for all.

terminator3 said:

YIELD Sign

COLOR: Red and white, with red letters.

Yield sign MEANING: Slow down as you approach the intersection. Prepare to stop and yield the right-of-way to vehicles and pedestrians in or approaching the intersection. You must come to a full stop at a YIELD sign if traffic conditions require it. When you approach a YIELD sign, check carefully for traffic, and be prepared to STOP.

A flashing yellow light has the same meaning as a yield sign.

who should you yield to... any pedestrians in the crosswalk or cars that may be in the intersection!!

it is obviously apparent lots of people do not know the rules of the road

This post is self-contradictory. Do you yield to cars IN or APPROACHING the intersection? Clearly the latter cannot be correct as cars approaching the intersection on Maplewood Ave. have a stop sign and have to yield to the cars approaching on Jefferson in all cases (and indeed have a sign that says in effect "Approaching cars do not stop"). The former would also be incorrect, because if you have to yield to a car crossing Jefferson, it means that car did not properly yield right-of-way at the stop sign (absent cases of speeding of course).

With respect to pedestrians, that is always the case at every intersection, no matter the signage.

mrincredible said:

It's getting a little bleak in here. A couple of people keep asking about the condition of the person who was struck. And an ongoing argument about traffic rules and signage drowns out the concern.

I'm sure that if anyone knows and feels that it is appropriate to share, he or she will do so....

mrincredible said:

It's getting a little bleak in here. A couple of people keep asking about the condition of the person who was struck. And an ongoing argument about traffic rules and signage drowns out the concern.

mrincredible said:

It's getting a little bleak in here. A couple of people keep asking about the condition of the person who was struck. And an ongoing argument about traffic rules and signage drowns out the concern.

Good point.

Especially since the topic of that intersection may well be one of the oldest topics discussed on MOL (I think I first signed up in 1999 in order to comment on a thread about it).

mrincredible said:

It's getting a little bleak in here. A couple of people keep asking about the condition of the person who was struck. And an ongoing argument about traffic rules and signage drowns out the concern.

I keep coming here to see if this has been answered.

drummerboy said:

Stopping for pedestrians is not "stopping when you're not supposed to".

For the person behind the car stopping it looks the same.

My point is that "stopping when you're not suppose to stop" is a poor excuse. It might cause traffic issues, but it doesn't cause accidents. Those are caused by in attentive drivers who can't fathom that someone might stop for a pedestrian, or an animal in the road, or some other road condition up ahead that isn't visible to the drivers behind.

As an example, recently I was at a T intersection. The road with the right if way had a sharp blind turn where traffic was coming from. I was at the stop sign and started to go but then saw a car whip around the corner so I stopped. I was then rear ended by the woman behind me who ASSumed that I had gunned it like she would have and figured that if she gunned it (she hit me HARD) she too could beat the car whipping around the corner. She blamed me for "stopping when I wasn't supposed to." The cop made it clear that it was HER responsibility to make sure the road was clear before going. Also, had her plan worked as she had intended she would have been cutting off the guy coming around the corner, also not safe.

Putting in a regular traffic light would also make it a lot easier for pedestrians to cross there. It's an intersection that many, many people cross on foot in order to get to/from the Village, the train station, Memorial Park, Jefferson School, the high school, the middle school, and the South Mountain Y. The worst part is trying to cross Jefferson on foot when there are cars waiting on Maplewood Avenue to turn onto Jefferson. Those drivers are sometimes impatient from waiting for the cross-traffic, so they don't always look around again thoroughly to see if everything is clear before making their turn. It's hard to catch those drivers' eyes to make sure they know you are trying to cross. I have almost been hit a couple of times in broad daylight when I thought the driver saw me but I guess s/he didn't. Because of the pedestrian safety issue I often drive through that intersection rather than walk even when I would much prefer to walk. I feel for the person who was hit and hope he is OK.

This is like something out of Gogol -- Russian bureaucracy run amok. There was a death at that intersection decades ago, and it still hasn't been fixed? I frequently cross Jefferson at Walton on foot, and because I know I'm taking my life in my hands, I proceed carefully. Knock on wood I don't become another statistic. My vote would be for a stop light on Jefferson with signage providing an additional caution about the visibility situation, and keeping the stop signs on either side of Walton, and a four way stop light on Maplewood Ave. Given today's technology, it should be possible to install pavement sensors that would help regulate traffic. I sincerely hope that the person who was injured is able to recover and will not be coping with a chronic condition. I find it strange and ironic that in the last month and a half that we've had one pedestrian fatality on Valley St., a pedestrian injury on S.O. Ave., and this latest pedestrian injury of indeterminate severity, New Jersey has launched a safe streets campaign: "In an effort to increase pedestrian safety throughout New Jersey, the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) is launching the Street Smart campaign. The program, conducted in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration, the New Jersey Department of Transportation and the New Jersey Division of Highway Safety, will encourage both drivers and pedestrians to “check your vital signs”." http://njbikeped.org/street-smart-new-jerseys-pedestrian-safety-campaign/

There is a legal term called "inherently dangerous".
A Plaintiff's attorney for a victim who is injured or killed at this intersection will make good use of the history of accidents, injuries and non effective responses to get a huge judgment against Maplewood for his or her client. Its only a matter of time.

stateguy said:

There is a legal term called "inherently dangerous".
A Plaintiff's attorney for a victim who is injured or killed at this intersection will make good use of the history of accidents, injuries and non effective responses to get a huge judgment against Maplewood for his or her client. Its only a matter of time.

What is inherently dangerous about this intersection other than the fact that people speed and drive while distracted?

algebra2 said:

stateguy said:

There is a legal term called "inherently dangerous".
A Plaintiff's attorney for a victim who is injured or killed at this intersection will make good use of the history of accidents, injuries and non effective responses to get a huge judgment against Maplewood for his or her client. Its only a matter of time.

@vicdeluca @geraldryan

is this true????

Based on my now-hazy recollection of Torts class and the principles of sovergn immunity, probably not.

Here's another view of inherently dangerous intersections.......


http://www.injurylawyer.com/blog/inherently-dangerous-intersections/

Another argument for targeted zero tolerance traffic law enforcement. Drivers will comply with the law when they know there is high probability of being ticketed.

stateguy said:

Here's another view of inherently dangerous intersections.......


http://www.injurylawyer.com/blog/inherently-dangerous-intersections/

That blog says nothing about a municipality's potential tort liability re: traffic intersections.

If the fine city of San Francisco can figure out how to put stop signs and traffic lights on far, far steeper hills than we have on Jefferson, I think we can figure out how to do so before someone (else) gets killed there.

muppet said:

If the fine city of San Francisco can figure out how to put stop signs and traffic lights on far, far steeper hills than we have on Jefferson, I think we can figure out how to do so before someone (else) gets killed there.

How much does it snow in San Francisco in a typical year?

Again, the problem is not the intersection. It is the way we drive. Too many people will consider any modification to their driving style that doesn't involve slowing down, obeying yield signs and turning off their smart phones.