yourdogisbored wrote:
I find it funny that both times someone has posted a negative experience with the JCPD, bradleybeachbrawl feels compelled to accuse them of lying. Talk about blowing your cover, officer.

I can only speak for myself, but I am inclined to believe the OP's story because it is consistent with nearly every interaction I have ever had with JCPD. Mind you, I have never been the "perp". On one occassion, I was the victim of a crime, on others I was simply a citizen with a simple question, and once or twice I've had the extreme displeasure of having contact with an office who was standing around earning time and a half...oops, I mean "directing traffic." In every instance except one, the officer(s) were arrogant, entitled, condescending, uninformed, and generally unhelpful.

If the JCPD wishes to change their earned reputation, they need to start by changing their attitude towards the general public and by leading by example.

Quote:

bradleybeachbrawl wrote:
Has anyone been able to verify this story as even remotely true? Can this be a figment of an overactive imagination? Or because it involves the alleged misgivings of a cop it must be true? I mean who would think someone could actually be full of shit when relaying their tale of woe on an anonymous message board.

arcy wrote:
There was no sign there. Just a crosswalk. We need signs like those in Jersey City though.

The Lieutenant just called me. He was very helpful and supportive.

Thanks for all your responses.

arcy wrote:

I was just crossing the street on Manila and 2nd (8:50 something) and a police car was coming down the street (about a block away). So I assumed I have the right of way (I was two feet off the curb). Well, I walked across the street (going east), politely waved to the officer and after I crossed street the young officer stopped the car just gave me a lecture and said that automobiles have the right of way. He was angry. I politely said, "that was not my understanding but you're a police officer so I take your word for it." He continued to argue with me. I kept saying, "yes Officer." He told me that I was "obstructing traffic." He would not let the matter go. He threatened to give me a ticket. I apologized and said I must have misunderstood the law. I apologized and said I intentionally walked across the street since I saw it was a police car. When I told him this, he said I was "testing him." I said that was not my motive. He said something like I could get my legs cut off by cars and I need to give the cars the right of way.
When I told him that when I'm driving a vehicle, I always stop for pedestrians, he told me that I should have never got a license and that I'm blocking traffic. I said I thought the pedestrian had to be off the curb and then we would give them the right of way.
He stopped traffic for 5 minutes while giving me this lecture.
I googled NJ and pedestrian law. The pedestrians do have the right of way. And there is even a $200 penalty for violating the law. http://www.nj.gov/lps/hts/pedestrian.html
The officer was wrong.
This is why we need "stop to pedestrians" signs at crosswalks, raised crosswalks, and enforcement for pedestrian safety.
I immediately contacted my councilperson, Candice Osborne. She got back to me right away. She also said that on Sunday, they drove around the neighborhood re: street safety. They will be presenting their proposals soon.

trambone wrote:
[quote]
People assume a green light for cars means walk. The intersection at the shoprite actually gives a walk signal and has all traffic halted. It causes delays for people trying to leave that parking lot.

arcy wrote:
Police in Woodbury NJ are in a program to aggressively enforce pedestrian Right of Way:
http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/i ... ew_safety_initiative.html
I hope Jersey City will start to educate their police about yielding or stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks and that pedestrians have the right of way.

bradleybeachbrawl wrote:
Has anyone been able to verify this story as even remotely true? Can this be a figment of an overactive imagination? Or because it involves the alleged misgivings of a cop it must be true? I mean who would think someone could actually be full of shit when relaying their tale of woe on an anonymous message board.

leigh13 wrote:
Quote:

SteveWilson29 wrote:
Quote:

trambone wrote:
This also means pedestrians need to follow the Walk signals. They are always ignored at Columbus and Grove and at the entrance of Shoprite.

Most of them are broken.

That's not really the problem, at least at Columbus and Grove. The sequence is confusing to the point that at almost every single light change, the pedestrians cross before they are supposed to. That ends up delaying the cars turning left from Grove onto Columbus eastbound and it exacerbates and already bad situation.

See the excellent presentation on the Harsimus Cove Association web site:

http://www.harsimuscove.org/news/hars ... tions-for-traffic-calming

This bit explains the problem perfectly:

Quote:

Quick wins: Reconfigure the lighting sequence so that northbound motorists get the green light first. The pedestrian walk signal is tied to the northbound light. Since the southbound motorists get the green light first, pedestrians are subconsciously prompted to walk since they see traffic moving in their direction. For those that aren't acting sub-consciously, they may rationally conclude that the cycle missed them. The fact that the intersection has a pedestrian request button further communicates this if they haven't pressed the button themselves.

bradleybeachbrawl wrote:
Has anyone been able to verify this story as even remotely true? Can this be a figment of an overactive imagination? Or because it involves the alleged misgivings of a cop it must be true? I mean who would think someone could actually be full of shit when relaying their tale of woe on an anonymous message board.

SteveWilson29 wrote:
Quote:

trambone wrote:
This also means pedestrians need to follow the Walk signals. They are always ignored at Columbus and Grove and at the entrance of Shoprite.

Most of them are broken.

Quick wins: Reconfigure the lighting sequence so that northbound motorists get the green light first. The pedestrian walk signal is tied to the northbound light. Since the southbound motorists get the green light first, pedestrians are subconsciously prompted to walk since they see traffic moving in their direction. For those that aren't acting sub-consciously, they may rationally conclude that the cycle missed them. The fact that the intersection has a pedestrian request button further communicates this if they haven't pressed the button themselves.

trambone wrote:
This also means pedestrians need to follow the Walk signals. They are always ignored at Columbus and Grove and at the entrance of Shoprite.

arcy wrote:

When I told him that when I'm driving a vehicle, I always stop for pedestrians, he told me that I should have never got a license and that I'm blocking traffic.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Yes, it does. The law as written on the official website delineates the difference. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just quoting the site.

- Marked crosswalk = intersection with a painted crosswalk and sign (driver MUST stop)
- Unmarked crosswalk = intersection with a painted crosswalk and no sign (driver must yield)
- Unmarked, unpainted crosswalk = plain old intersection. Pedestrian must yield.

It's pretty clearly written on the website, so....

Quote:

arcy wrote:
It was a marked crosswalk. The crosswalk was painted and therefore marked. The sign has nothing to do with whether the crosswalk is marked.

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Yes, it does. The law as written on the official website delineates the difference. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just quoting the site.

- Marked crosswalk = intersection with a painted crosswalk and sign (driver MUST stop)
- Unmarked crosswalk = intersection with a painted crosswalk and no sign (driver must yield)
- Unmarked, unpainted crosswalk = plain old intersection. Pedestrian must yield.

It's pretty clearly written on the website, so....

Quote:

arcy wrote:
It was a marked crosswalk. The crosswalk was painted and therefore marked. The sign has nothing to do with whether the crosswalk is marked.

I am not sure it is as clear as you say. If it is an intersection, marked or not, the pedestrian has the right of way provided that they allow the driver enough time.

"Pedestrians:
Always cross at corners, within marked crosswalks where available.

If crossing in other locations, yield the right of way to vehicles. Failure to obey the law carries a $54 fine (court costs additional; C.39:4-32, 33) "

The "other locations" means anywhere other than an intersection with corners.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Yes, it does. The law as written on the official website delineates the difference. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just quoting the site.

- Marked crosswalk = intersection with a painted crosswalk and sign (driver MUST stop)
- Unmarked crosswalk = intersection with a painted crosswalk and no sign (driver must yield)
- Unmarked, unpainted crosswalk = plain old intersection. Pedestrian must yield.

It's pretty clearly written on the website, so....

Quote:

arcy wrote:
It was a marked crosswalk. The crosswalk was painted and therefore marked. The sign has nothing to do with whether the crosswalk is marked.

trambone wrote:
This also means pedestrians need to follow the Walk signals. They are always ignored at Columbus and Grove and at the entrance of Shoprite.

arcy wrote:
aaah thanks for the clarification.
Nevertheless, in the specific situation this morning he would have yielded to me since I was 2 feet off the crosswalk. I was able to get across the street. He was over a block away. I crossed the street and then he stopped and scolded me.
Regarding his badge number, I gave the lieutenant the name of the officer.
I always stop for pedestrians though when I'm driving. I guess he was right about me blocking traffic.

sepecat wrote:
I wont be surprised if it's the same cop I wrote about on here two weeks back.

arcy wrote:
It was a marked crosswalk. The crosswalk was painted and therefore marked. The sign has nothing to do with whether the crosswalk is marked.