Quote:

Sounds like a stupid motorcycle driver. The car driver appears to have done nothing wrong.

Drive 75 mph on a motorcycle down a city street, this is what can happen to you. The passenger may be seriously hurt, but what was she thinking riding with this reckless idiot?

Story from the JJ says according to eye witnesses the motorcycle was flying by.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... art_2box_hudson_index.ssf

I was crossing Marin the other morning on the way to the PATH train. As the light at 8th Street turned red a bus along with a car blew through going at least 55mph.

Quote:

You're right, in a sense. I worry about that too. I worry about a great many things.

But ... [takes a deep breath and winds up for a more general rant that's not directed at you personally]

... people are already dying horrible, violent, preventable deaths on our streets. We MUST take some risks, because the consequences of delay and overthinking aren't risks, they're continued carnage -- guaranteed.

Some of these "we shouldn't _____ until _____" ordering concerns get in the way of change, and meanwhile, people die and suffer a host of other ills, because we're too timid. It's human nature: we'd rather let current conditions go on killing people (and causing many other problems) anonymously, and call it a tragedy, than put our names on "risky bets" that at least have a potential to save them.

I hear: We shouldn't have bike share until we have a network of separated bike lanes throughout the city, because it will be dangerous. They said that in NYC a few years ago when Citi Bike started. The crank pundits assured us it was CRAZY to put people on borrowed bikes in aggressive, chaotic NYC traffic, half of them without helmets. They told us there would be dead tourists stacked in the streets like cordwood, and blood running down the gutters. Yet two years and tens of millions of Citi Bike trips later -- a huge number of them on Manhattan streets without protected bike lanes -- not one person has been killed on, or killed by, a Citi Bike. Not one. And NYC is a big step closer to becoming a true biking city.

I hear: We shouldn't encourage people to bike in the streets of JC at all, because it's too dangerous. First educate all the drivers! First change all the laws! First this, first that. Not until, not before. Meanwhile, people bike on the sidewalk, which can be just as dangerous. And we who bike in the streets are fewer in number, which is more dangerous for us, as many studies show.

The most dangerous thing we can do is be too afraid to take bold steps to change a dangerous situation.

When calculating a "risky bet," you MUST factor in the risks of not taking that step. Our inaction and delay in the face of ongoing carnage is the riskiest bet of all.

There are already great laboratories testing out all the radical changes I support, namely a bunch of other cities, big and small, around the world. Many of them implemented those various changes in different orders, in different proportions, faster or slower, in different colors of paint, some over 40 years, some very recently, some flat, some with hills, etc., etc.

ALL of them had plenty of obnoxious, aggressive drivers when they started, because that's what car domination encourages.

And ALL of them, as far as I know, quickly became safer and better places to get around and live in.

So let's DO THAT STUFF, all of it, in whatever order we can swing it, however and whenever and wherever we can. A lot of it. Yesterday. That's a risk we can't risk not taking.

[end rant]

Quote:

A great concept, but a very risky bet given the general douchiness of the average NJ driver. Just the other day, this guy slowly ran a red light at Grove and York while I had the green heading north on Grove.

And it's not the first time. One time I was at a HBLR light in Hoboken ahead of Paterson Plank. And this driver passed me, paused at the tracks, and proceeded to run the pair of red lights.

It's like NJ drivers shed their IQ by 50-75% every time they get behind the wheel.

Quote:

So how would propose people get from S of Columbus home? 3 rights? Yeah, that will calm them down.

BTW, since we talked about carving streets up to separate peds and bikes and cars, I should also point out that there's another physical design, also popular in Holland, where there are NO divisions, not even curbs, and all road users just blend in -- slowly and carefully. These "shared streets" are designed to prevent high speeds by anyone.

Chicago is about to get its first one:

Chicago shared street

bodipooh, possibly I misunderstood you on some other thread.

As for pedestrians, they (well, we, since we are all pedestrians at some point) can be stupid, though in my book our laws and streets and everything else should avoid punishing them with death.

In Holland the law places pretty much total responsibility on the larger, heavier, faster traveler in any collision, so far fewer pedestrians die, even the most stupidest.

I think we should do that here. I realize that sounds annoying and perhaps somehow unjust. But we used to basically do that here, even in the early days of the automobile. In places where it applies today, it just becomes part of a much better fabric of transportation, where it's much easier to get around without a car, so most people do, and there are actually very few raised voices and shaken fists going on. The whole thing ends up being much LESS frustrating, as well as much less dangerous.

It sucks for the people living N of Columbus and drive but the city really should make left turns off Columbus illegal. It will hopefully reduce NY bound traffic from leaving 78 as well as eliminate accidents from people turning left and people stuck in left lane try to get out.

In addition what is that cluster at Grove & Columbus, you have 2 lanes that turns into a left turn bus lane, the middle and the right lane is a taxi stand. It's pretty unclear for out of towners on what to do.

Roadwork has closed a lane on Monmouth between Columbus and Newark - causing a mess back at Columbus. Perhaps the on-duty cop should be standing at the junction and not the roadwork.

Quote:

I can't think of any thread where I have opposed traffic calming solutions. On the contrary, I think we SHOULD find ways to improve traffic around town. I am a multi-modal transportation user (pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist, car driver and train rider) and I am as frustrated as anyone else about the current state of affairs. What I have often criticized in the past are knee jerk reactions (such as the massive deployment of STOP signs that were put in place without a professional assessment as to their need/effectiveness, which was put in evidence when the councilwoman even admitted to mistakenly having had a STOP put on the wrong corner based on a misread of a petition by a local citizen) and the lack of civility/cooperation of some people in playing their "part" (such as cavalier pedestrians that run across busy intersections against established rules).

bodipooh, I think you have elsewhere doubted the wisdom of physical traffic calming, but that intersection and your frustration over police and camera enforcement illustrate why it should at least be tried.

Columbus is a suburban racetrack colliding with dense city traffic where it meets side streets. It should be narrowed, road-dieted, carved up, bulbed out, islanded, made more pedestrian- and bike-friendly, any number of things that are on duty 24/7 and have a very direct and nearly unavoidable effect on driver behavior. That's the direction all traffic engineering is taking lately, and amen to that.

If you have a dissenting opinion to that, I respect that, but frankly if you want to rely on law enforcement and cameras instead of road redesign, I wish you would tell me why, say, NACTO and half of northern Europe are wrong about how to cut traffic deaths by 75%.

bodhipooh wrote:
Please tell me you see the irony in wanting to address aggressive behavior by engaging and/or threatening more aggressive behavior.


Really? I just witnessed a horrific accident and you're going to call me out on feeling frustrated at the time? It's not every day that I roll up on a situation of this kind, excuse me if I didn't choose my words/feelings correctly as I tried to process the entire thing--clearly I wasn't going to punch anyone, I was too busy calling 911. Geez.

Quote:

You say this like there's another option, they ARE through streets. There's some stupidly designed traffic patterns here and there around town, but mostly what we have are aggressive, inconsiderate and ignorant drivers, both commuter and JC native.

Maybe I should give a TED talk about how there's a Platonic Ideal of traffic, how if everyone stops when they're supposed to and goes when they're supposed to there's a much smoother flow than the grinding of intimidation and high blood pressure.

Have you ever had a complete toll to tunnel merge where not a single driver is a douchebag who won't let anyone between him and the car in front? Where it just flows in a spirit of cooperation? Rare, but it happens.

Quote:

Please tell me you see the irony in wanting to address aggressive behavior by engaging and/or threatening more aggressive behavior.

The intersections of Columbus and Monmouth, and Columbus and Coles, are incredibly dangerous for the reasons already mentioned (people rushing to get on the Turnpike) but also because people often use Monmouth and Coles as North/South "through streets". I have seen many drivers run the red light on Monmouth/Columbus (as well as the red light at Coles/Columbus) because they rather risk it that wait an extra minute. I am not sure what can be done about this, but adding STOP signs (as already done) is not going to solve the problem: if anything, I think the STOP signs make things worse, as the more aggressive drivers get even more irritated by the constant stop/start and some decide to roll through STOP signs out of frustration.

I am certain we can all look forward to the mobile sign that urges motorists to slow down, which will most certainly get deployed with the speed radar and display phalanx. Those get deployed on Grand every time someone gets mowed down. Because nothing says "we are on it" like reacting to a tragedy.

Tell me that Columbus wouldn't be a prime spot for a speeding Cam? Oh, wait, the traffic scofflaw militia has killed the traffic cam programs.

@eighthst, so glad to hear that. what a scary sight. the worst part: as we pulled over to call 911 and there were obviously two seriously injured people laying in the road, the cars behind us were honking for everyone to get out of the way so they could continue their journey to the turnpike ramp. i wanted to punch someone.

Good news, if any, is that both of the motorcycle passengers were moving when they transported them to the hospital. Scary sight nonetheless. Maybe an accident like this is what it takes for JCPD to pay attention to traffic on Columbus.

Yes, Monmouth, my brain is so scrambled right now. Agreed on Coumbus, it's a dangerous speed zone, no one cares about anything except getting to the Turnpike. They'll mow anyone over.

This happened at Columbus and Monmouth. Horribly dangerous intersection, and the problem is only amplified by cars (and motorcycles) driving extremely fast on Columbus.

I was driving up Columbus towards Coles when I saw 2 people laying lifeless in the street. There was a motorcycle on it's side a bit aways from them and some cars were stopped as well. Neither person was moving, I called 911. Please keep them in your thoughts :(