billaccidental wrote:
i live downtown where the parking is getting harder every day. i moved my car around the corner last friday afternoon to get it out of the way of the street sweeper, and an hour later when i went to move it back i found a weird parking ticket--not the orange-bordered printed kind that the parking authority carts give out, but a handwritten one put there by a cop. the citation was 'motor vehicle nuisance' ordinance 242-7, and there's no way to pay it online or by mail--i have to show up in court. part of my car was in the red zone (the 25' from the intersection where the curb is painted), but there wasn't any other open spot. my car's not falling apart; it doesn't have an alarm. so what kind of nuisance is it? and what alternative do we have, other than parking way far away from the blocks that are getting swept? every day, cars park overnight in all eight of the red zones at this intersection--even in the one next to a fire hydrant. are they all nuisances, too? periodically i get the standard $42 parking ticket (like everyone) and pay it without complaining; i figure it's one of the recurring costs of living here, like a tax, and the tickets are pretty random and sporadic. but what's this nuisance crap?

Snibe wrote:
Good chance that if 50 people in the middle of Grand St. that at least 10 will be run over by some idiot speeding down Grand and not paying attention.

I'd suggest as a start that every intersection on Grand be made into a 4 way stop. A flashing red light at every intersection. If it's 4 lanes at certain intersections (like Jersey), then some lanes should be made into turn only lanes, so that every intersection only ever has one lane going straight. That way, people will be forced stop at every intersection and wouldn't be able to get up to excessively dangerous speeds at any stretch. It would be annoying as hell to drive down, but it could be helpful, and one of the less costly solutions.

wrensdad wrote:
Quote:

Color me confused, but would any of these suggestions prevent what happened?

Certainly no guarantees.

We have a culture problem and poor enforcement of laws only reinforces this issue. Said differently, the driver was almost certainly a long-time repeat offender and believed he could get away with reckless--after all he probably thought it was fun. If he had been caught multiple times in the past due to greater enforcement, he would most likely have driven more reasonably to avoid getting caught again, or have lost his license, or have been off the streets and in jail.

More broadly, greater enforcement would improve the overall safety of the city and while it might not have avoided this one horrible event, the overall safety of the city would improve.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

snowflake20 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Too low? With 25mph you get an average around 30-35mph from drivers right now. I drive the speed limit yet all around me people are speeding and zipping back and forth. If you up the speed limit you will simply up the average mph to about 50-60mph. #OOPS# that! It's time to "calm" the traffic, step up enforcement and give children, old folks and everyone else a chance to walk the streets safely.

Before you start frothing at the mouth, read my god damned post. I said that 25 mph is "pretty low". I never EVER said anything about it being "too low", nor did I say anything about raising the speed limit. Personally, I think 25 mph is perfectly acceptable on Grand Street. The people who are driving recklessly in JC are not the ones who obey the speed limit or traffic signals.

Sorry, it read differently. I'm glad we agree.

Vigilante wrote:
Too low? With 25mph you get an average around 30-35mph from drivers right now. I drive the speed limit yet all around me people are speeding and zipping back and forth. If you up the speed limit you will simply up the average mph to about 50-60mph. #OOPS# that! It's time to "calm" the traffic, step up enforcement and give children, old folks and everyone else a chance to walk the streets safely.

Andy wrote:
The problem is that no one obeys the speed limit, some don't stop at the red lights, and people like Herman Chandler probably wouldn't even pull over for a cop (if there were any doing traffic enforcement). The lane shifting argument doesn't hold any water...if people drove the speed limit, it would be easy and safe to negotiate a calm lane change when necessary. At double the posted limit, people panic when they discover that they're in a left-turn only lane and do stupid and dangerous shit to compensate. It's like the wild farking west.

johanna wrote:
to answer Snowflake20...the lanes on Grand are completely ridicilous - lanes are switching left and right, and there is no parking options on one side making it impossible for those residents just let someone out or...even just move in without risking their lives...basically all cars swishes by almost hitting eachother every day and its just a matter of time until another serious accident happen here. when busses and trucks fly you by, you almost fall over...and walking with little kids and strollers in winter is basically impossible without literally risking your and their life everyday! in europe (and maybe some more sophisticated areas in this country?) there are so many smart street safety protocolls ...they should at least start with proper signs, not the crappy ones people dont pay attention too...and lowering the speed limit along with up to date speed bumps...more traffic cops would help on this street also, or cheaper some speed recording device with video capturing any speeding!! there are also really smart street lights that go red automatically long before the cars can try to make the yellow...in other words many different proven ways to save lives!!


Quote:

What sort of safety measures should JC do? I am sort of at a loss, because it's not like there isn't a red light at every intersection on Grand Street, the speed limit is 25 mph...Even still the guy was driving something like 70 mph and was high. How do you prevent something like that from happening?

The whole thing is just awful.

johanna wrote:
i have created a facebook page called JERSEY CITY STREET SAFETY - lets grow this page fast - and join together to demand that this city take responsibility for these outrageously low safety standards and improve this before more people are killed! Im hoping we can put together a petition, and even a demonstration...and hope you will join!?

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jersey- ... y/235528706524533?sk=wall

ianmac47 wrote:
This thread is describing going to a mall food court and getting upset about the quality of the food.

"I'm so moderately upset that Olive Garden is mediocre!"

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

Manhattan and Brooklyn are not JC or Hoboken. I would say the majority of dtjc residents have cars and drive to the grocery store. I know that I wouldn't frequent a grocery store for major food shopping here unless it had parking.

Tons do not. Like myself. Like 6 of the 8 tenants in my building. You do not speak for everyone. I frequent shoprite because it's 3 blocks away, but would go out of my way to do occasional shopping at TJs due to price point and a different array of foods available.

Quote:

We also dont have cabs we can hail outside a grocery store.

There are often livery cabs outside of shoprite, and last I noticed, they had a list of local cab companies you could call posted at the exit.

tommyc_37 wrote:
Quote:

snowflake20 wrote:
Any TJs or Whole Foods would want a parking lot. Where in Downtown would they be able to open a store that has a dedicated parking lot?

I do like the idea of one opening up in Bayonne. I'd travel there for a TJs or WF.

The ones in Manhattan and Brooklyn do not have parking lots.

JerseyCityNj wrote:
Quote:

snowflake20 wrote:
Quote:

Jasper_Conrad wrote:
You seriously think a nerf gun warrants a suspension?

No wonder this country is on it's knees.

Yes, bc it is a weapon like item that isn't allowed on school property. I don't make the rules but I am aware that bringing stuff like this onto school grounds will probably get your child in trouble. Any parent that would let their kid bring something like that to school is an idiot. It is disruptive at best and with the way things are right now, I'd expect someone in the school admin to react to it.

"Weapon like" and a weapon are two totally different things. A nurf gun can simply be taken away and parent teacher conference can be set up to discuss it. I am guessing you think the 9 year old suspended for "sexual harassment" for calling a teacher cute in North Carolina was the right thing for the school to do also? How about the 10 year old kid suspended for 10 days for a PAPER gun in Michigan? Schools are getting out of hand with all of these rules. I have seen kids suspended for bringing a dull pizza cutter to a pizza party, butter knife to cut cake, and a roll of quarters they were going to cash in after school because a teacher said they could be used like brass knuckles. Just because someone made a rule doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned and blindly followed.

Jasper_Conrad wrote:
You seriously think a nerf gun warrants a suspension?

No wonder this country is on it's knees.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

JCbiscuit wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
...I said that "zero tolerance" means that (1) you are motivated not by what's best for the kids, - but what's best for you.

don't know why I'm even bothering, but...care to explain this? how is zero tolerance for weapons in schools not best for the kids? (except, of course, for the boneheads who ignore the policy and get busted.)

Well, first of all, let's not lie. It is not "zero tolerance for weapons". It is "zero tolerance" period - for weapons, for anything that resembles weapons, for anything that hints at anything that may or may not be weapons.

Now, onto your question. Let's review, shall we? Three boys come to school with toys. They do not pose any threat to anyone. Now, how do you think - what is in best interest of those harmless students - to be suspended or to not be suspended?

Frankly, I am puzzled - you look at this story, - and you ask THAT question? Do you really not see it? What possible interest of any child was protected by suspending those boys?

ianmac47 wrote:
Bumper mats are like a carte blanche invitation for other drivers to park without worrying about knocking into your car. If its between cutting close to the car behind you without a bumper and the car in front of you with a bumper, guess who is getting the hit?

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

snowflake20 wrote:
Yikes! They do realize how family oriented this area is? Sorry but I'm not bringing my kids to some place where the women are dressed like scottish tarts. I thought they were opening another melting pot in that location...I guess not.

While an uncomfortable relationship with the human body is common for Americans, the position that our children will be negatively affected if they see a half a boob is still a load of crap. What has decades of that attitude gotten us? At best, a desperate fascination with cheap titillation.

The restaurant employs a pathetically cheap concept so we can reject it for simply being cheap, not for its potential to appall Quakers who will never step foot inside.