Accident at Jefferson and Maplewood ave archived

tjohn said:

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.

Good point. Although SF has the fog issue in some of its hillier parts, maybe Pittsburgh would be a better example since it has both steep hills and lots of snow. At the same time, I certainly don't disagree with you that many drivers could stand to modify their driving style. Until then....

Good point. Pittsburgh has some real hills.

gaijin said:

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

I've said this before!

wcervi said:

Wow....any news on the pedestrian that was struck?

bump.

Doesn't seem to be anything on this in local media. Hopefully that is a sign the injuries were not serious. I don't know.

as it relates to that intersection, having driven through it innumerable times, although it is somewhat challenging, it's only as treacherous as the driver makes it, usually by speeding and/or failing to adhere to proper driving protocol.

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.

Go and drive the road. From Ridgewood Road down. The problem is not a steep hill, rather one that dips and crests causing loss of down hill vision. Make that last crest and have a car stopped for any reason is a rear end about to happen.

Go drive it.

He's right. I'm sure that when they decided on the signage there they took this into consideration. These people aren't complete dummies. The obvious solution would be to have at least a four way stop, so you have to ask yourself why it's not.

jgberkeley said:

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.

Go and drive the road. From Ridgewood Road down. The problem is not a steep hill, rather one that dips and crests causing loss of down hill vision. Make that last crest and have a car stopped for any reason is a rear end about to happen.

Go drive it.

I live nearby and drive it and/or walk it almost daily. The reason I mentioned SF (where I lived for a few years so it jumped to mind) is that there are stop signs at the top of some of the steepest hills you can imagine with ZERO visibility over the crest, then a stop sign again a very short block later on a steep downhill. My point being that I don't think our particular intersection is such a unique situation that we can't somehow figure out a way to make it safer for drivers and pedestrians alike. We have debated this many times on MOL. Meanwhile, another person has been injured here.

IMHO put a traffic light at the intersection and one more at the crest of the hill. Timed the same, when the intersection is red the crest light is red too. Drivers would be stopped at the crest and not, legally, able to rear end drivers stopped at the intersection. What do you think

What about regrading the road so the crest of the hill is lower, thus making it possible to put a traffic light or speed bumps?

terminator3 said:

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.

Well, apparently you are one of those people because Flashing Yellow doesn't mean YIELD. It means CAUTION. And, AFAIK, whenever you see one of those flashing yellow lights at an intersection, the cross traffic has a flashing red light which means STOP.

Now, of course that does not mean "blast through the intersection". It is a warning that it is a potentially dangerous intersection, but it does not mean that you are required to yield to cross traffic. Of course, if the cross traffic screws up and doesn't stop, then you should be going slow enough (i.e. exercising CAUTION) to stop and avoid the accident. But that is not the same as YIELD. If there is a YIELD sign, it means that cross traffic has right-of-way and you must stop for them (YIELD right-of-way to them) if present. This is different from a STOP sign, where you are required to stop no matter what. (Even if there is no traffic anywhere around.)

And, by the way, "Right of way" is always something that you YIELD, never something that you TAKE. (At least, that's what I was taught at some point and we would all be much safer if everyone adopted that attitude.)

This is a weird thread - this intersection isnt dangerous at all. If you actually stop at the stop signs, you can see traffic coming from both directions well in advance.

Based on what has been written on this thread thus far by drivers who pass through this intersection regularly: If you are stopped at a stop sign, you are on Maplewood Avenue which has relatively good line of sight at that intersection. The problem is if you are going down hill on Jefferson. Then the grading of the road makes it difficult to see what is happening at the intersection in front of you.

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.

I'm thinking a plaintiff's attorney would be better off going after whoever ignored what is pretty clearly marked signage. The problem is the drivers.

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.

I think the Twp. has a good case. Based on the history, in the past 5 years or so, the Twp. overhauled the intersection after doing the research. The Flasing Red lights went up with additional Stop signs and road paintings. In addition Flashing Yellow lights and signs went up on the down hill crest of Jefferson.

The Twp. has done its Reasonable best, the rest is up to the drivers to see, understand and following the rules of the signage.

Lacking is MPD enforcement presence, handing out tickets on a daily basis so that drivers become aware that the Twp. means business; in the name of safety.

IMHO. Da, George

The person hit spent two days in ICU. She is home and is going to be ok but suffered some pretty bad injuries.

for what it's worth, I agree with this:

"The Twp. has done its Reasonable best, the rest is up to the drivers to see, understand and following the rules of the signage.

Lacking is MPD enforcement presence, handing out tickets on a daily basis so that drivers become aware that the Twp. means business; in the name of safety. "

Thank you @kindofbird for an update on the injured party! We all hope for her continued recovery.

jameskpolk November 30 at 1:27AM
This is a weird thread - this intersection isnt dangerous at all. If you actually stop at the stop signs, you can see traffic coming from both directions well in advance.

Seriously. Stop, and look.

tom said:

Common sense needs to prevail here.

) I think it is now proven that there is no sense that we all have in common on this topic.

I've driven through that intersection from all directions many times. I have no trouble seeing into the intersection whatsoever, from any of the four directions.

Does anyone know if the intersection does, in fact, have a higher accident rate than others? Many have asserted it, but I'd like to know if it's merely urban legend.

Tom_Reingold said:

tom said:

Common sense needs to prevail here.

Does anyone know if the intersection does, in fact, have a higher accident rate than others? Many have asserted it, but I'd like to know if it's merely urban legend.

Been wondering this myself. There are plenty of intersections that am pretty sure have more accidents than this one.

What if Jefferson were one-way in the direction of Ridgewood? You could then add a stoplight at the notorious intersection, and speed bumps as you get near the school.

There should also be a blinking yellow light where Walton and Woodland meet Jefferson. That, too, is a very dangerous intersection for pedestrians (including a lot of children).

Jefferson just cannot be one-way. The traffic patterns resulting from that would be terrible, whichever way it faced. If you could not turn onto Jefferson from Ridgewood, traffic would either go to Durand through the Village, to Baker, to Walton or to 3rd... all of which are heavily trafficked.

Last night I was driving up Jefferson to turn left on Maplewood Ave. I realized I have a natural hesitation at that intersection; not because I don't have the right of way, but because I don't really trust that others will yield to my right of way!

TarheelsInNj said:

Jefferson just cannot be one-way. The traffic patterns resulting from that would be terrible, whichever way it faced. If you could not turn onto Jefferson from Ridgewood, traffic would either go to Durand through the Village, to Baker, to Walton or to 3rd... all of which are heavily trafficked.

Last night I was driving up Jefferson to turn left on Maplewood Ave. I realized I have a natural hesitation at that intersection; not because I don't have the right of way, but because I don't really trust that others will yield to my right of way!

Well, you know one person from this thread wouldn't as they believe you at the flashing yellow light is supposed to yield to those at the flashing red.

Silly person.

In the car, the only time it is dangerous is a) when a driver doesn't know what they're doing (for example, stopping at the yellow); or b) when a driver does something illegal, like someone going south on Maplewood Avenue making a "Jersey Left" to go down the hill on Jefferson ahead of another car stopped on Maplewood going north who should have the right of way. Unfortunately, those are rather common scenarios.

I would ask anyone who doesn't believe it's that dangerous to cross on foot to do it a few times a day - perhaps with a stroller or kids in tow, or when it's dark out as though you're walking to/from the train - and get back to me. Sometimes it's fine but far too often it's hair-raising.

I don't think anyone has said it isn't dangerous to cross there at all. Best avoided at all costs, really.

I was once driving up Jefferson when some numbskull didn't seem to recognize the sign stating that cross traffic does not stop, and pulled out right in front of me. He is lucky that I was slowing down to turn left, or I would have been going too fast to avoid him or stop.

Is it possible it was the pedestrian who was not paying attention? Do we even know if it was simply driver error?

"Cross traffic does not stop" isn't a commonly-encountered signage; maybe that's confusing to some people not familar with the area. I'd hope that the oversized "STOP" sign would get the idea across. Maybe they need it to light it up for them to notice it! I don't know.

"Is it possible it was the pedestrian who was not paying attention? Do we even know if it was simply driver error?"

Yes, I know this for a fact.