Pedestrian Sting Penalty: $440

They video the sting? Cool! Oh Barista, please go to the showing, pleeeez?

$440 is a little steep in my opinion. As a pedestrian without a car, i enjoy being able to have the power of stopping traffic as I walk to the train every morning, but let's get real here.

So the town gets $157 and the State gets $250 "surcharge"?

What is with you Montclair people? Two posts prior I'm reading about a burglarly spree and your "finest" are out stinging people in cross walks? Who's running this show?

People with a clean driving record should consider NOT going with the state's larcenous $440 charge and just accept the points. Call your insurance company before making a decision. I was in a similar situation and mine (Geico) said that they would NOT raise my insurance rates because it was a first offense. So instead of paying $440 I took the points and paid $85. The bottom line here is that paying the $440 DOES NOT determine whether your insurance rates will go up. What the $440 gets you is the STATE not adding two points to your record. But your insurance company is still informed that you pleaded guilty to "unsafe driving." How they handle that is going to depend on their policies and your driving record. So if you have a clean driving record, it's best to ask what difference it would make to your insurance rates if you take the points instead.

You should see traffic court in Bergen county!!! If only husbands knew!!! Women dripping in jewelry and designer labels spending huge amounts of money to get 4 to 6 points removed at a pop. 80 in a 25, ignoring stop signs - I was stunned their wasn't a body count! But then they were allowed to pay mega bucks for no points. It was scary. My guy had the same experience in CT traffic court - rich women getting piles of points removed for money.

So rchanin,

Should we instead post an officer at every unlocked backdoor in town?

The picture needs to be updated...just passed it today and we're now up to 25% drivers yielding to pedestrians!

Hey, here's a brilliant idea: How about drivers yielding to pedestrians and then you won't have to worry about court, points, fines and insurance surcharges?

(1) It would be helpful for the Montclair Police to place those orange cones in the crosswalk to signal a 3-D image to a 2-D crosswalk for those people who are preoccupied while driving, and (2) Drivers really need to yield to pedestrians.

Montclair has to pay for their police department somehow. If you want your taxes to go down and end this ridiculous form of extortion layoff some police officers. I would start at the top because they pull the highest salaries.

Come on Montclair, sick of paying high taxes and stupid fines? Cut services, cut services, cut services.

Mrs. Martta,

I continued to be SHOCKED by your crazy thinking.

How dare you suggest that we do something as old fashioned as "following the law".

C'mon, stop imposing your will on me!

I want to drive and NOT yield.
I want to drive with no seatbelt.
I want to text and drive.
I want talk on my phone and drive.

No laws for me!!

(And I want to keep my doors unlocked!)

Isn't it good enough when they see a 3d pedestrian in the crosswalk?

Do you really need a sign? There are no signs that read, "No driving on the sidewalk!"

Laser,

I really don't think you believe that nonsense.

The problem with yielding to pedestrians in this town is getting rear ended.
I close my eyes every time I stop for someone in a crosswalk.
Same with slowing down for a speed bump.
How many cases have come to court having to do with getting rear ended lately? That's what I'd like to know.

(Rather rear ended, than hitting a pedestrian.)

If you're getting rear-ended, that means that drivers behind you are going too fast in a residential/commercial zone. But I know what you mean: I always check my rearview mirror before slowing down.

Slow down people! Unless you're driving a fire truck or an ambulance, it's just not that important to shave 2 minutes off your trip. My favorites are the people who speed up to pass you and then sit at the red light.

You are not going to see a reduction in taxes unless you cut services. Services cost money and that money is derived from taxes. If Montclair wants to go through the shock therapy, more power to them.

IF you're rear ended, it's totally the other driver's fault. I had someone hit me quite a while ago, and the insurance company didn't even want to know the details. I even got my deductable back.

Remember that next time you're tailgating.

another huge issue is people passing to the right on single lane roads-which is done all over town. A car ahead of me stopped abruptly on Ridgewood ave to let a group of kids cross the street where there was no crosswalk. I stopped behind him but noticed the car behind me veering to the right to pass me and the other car. I had to quickly move my car to block him or he would have plowed into the kids. (which resulted in an angry tooting of the horn and 5 safe kids, who should have gone to the crosswalk, across the street)

I would like a sting operation on that practice as well but I guess its legal since I see the cops do it all the time on grove and other streets.

Jerseygurl- I did the same- called my insurance and just paid the $85. I have never had a ticket in 20+ years of driving so my insurance shouldnt go up.

The police can really rake in the dough if they also stopped people who continue to talk on their phones or send text messages while the car is in motion.

I even saw a delivery truck driver with a newspaper splayed out on his steering wheel driving up Bloomfield Avenue on Monday morning.

Mono, you are right, it's always the rear-ender's fault - but when you are rear-ended by someone who doesn't have insurance, and hasn't a pot to whiz in, you have to eat the deductible, and subrogation doesn't come up with anything, then your premium goes up anyway and the 'incident' stays on your insurance record for, like, ever. Doesn't matter if the hitter's car is impounded, instead of paying for insurance they will pay to get the car out of impound. Since you can't get blood from a turnip there's no point in suing to recover the deductible. (those rotten hoodlums! it's been 7 years and I'm still mad about it, can you tell!)

Last I knew, tailgating in itself is worth a 2-point ticket for "following too closely". That won't do much to deter the loonies around here though!

It seems like the sting may be having a bizarre reverse effect:

I was crossing Bellevue at the crosswalk from the parking lot to the movie theater, a guy in his late teens / early 20s drove over Valley and sped up to blow past me before I got to the cross walk. I had to jump back about 3 feet to avoid being hit and the a$$hole actually flipped me off as he drove by (still gunning his SUV).

I think I'm going to take a page from the MPD's book and use the movie feature on my digital camera whenever I cross the street (zooming in on the license plates of people who don't yield).

I wonder if I give the compiled videos to the cops at the end of the week, if they would be able to issue summons by mail (if not, there's always YouTube).

I agree with Looney. We have a law on the books that says driving with a handheld cell phone is a $250 first offense, but yet we have people driving dangerously all over and the police don't care. Why not station an officer at any given busy corner? They'd probably pull over every fifth driver and send a message that this actually is a law.

It's so cute: I recently went to Ridgewood, and every corner I approached, a car would stop for me; even if I wasn't crossing.

GNM,

If that ever happends again, get the plate and color of the vehicle, and a good look at the driver if you can, then go to municipal court to sign a summons agains the registered owner of the vehicle. I belive that would compel the owner to come to court and furnish the identity of the driver if the owner were to plead guilty.

I meant, if the owner were to plead not guilty or claim he/she was not driving, I think the court could compel him or her to divulge the name of the person who was allegedly driving the vehicle at the time of the offense.

Police are one of the biggest offenders of driving while talking on a cell phone and driving. I rarely drive, and living in New England for college has trained me to yield to pedestrians. Its not hard to do people. Its called paying attention, and If you are speeding while im crossing the street, I think $440 is a good number to make you think twice next time. The fact that police are used as a "safe, controlled pedestrian" is perfectly fine

There is a solution for police officers that do not follow the law, fire them. We need to save money and reduce taxes. The quickest way to do that is layoffs. We should reduce all civil service positions by 30%. It will be painful but we will make it a quick pain.

$440 to payoff the Government. Wow, I think we are all missing the point here. As I have said before and will be proven next month, these offenses will not stick. While we all know what a crosswalk looks like, the lack of uniformity of the signage accross the state (and county) will aurgue against this violation. Until there is better signage for BOTH pedestrian and driver and it is uniform they have to throw out the violation. Bravo to those that did not back down and rest-assured your penalty will be just time spent(wasted) beating this ticket.

Mikey is feeling exceptionally doleful and Hobbesian today.

But yes, realistic, he does believe "that nonsense." The only things he believes in are in fact always nonsense.

I walk my dog in the north end of town, at the corner of upper mtn and mt hebron there have been a few times when my dog almost ended up as hood ornament...but you'd be amazed how a sneaker into a car door can alter that new car look..and I can't wait for that driver (and you know who you are) to call the police.

Two days last week, at 6:30 a.m. as I was driving down Grove toward the Applegate (and I was doing 35) I have been PASSED, both on the right AND on the left. What gives, people? So anxious to get to Route 3 that you act like a moron?

"I wonder if I give the compiled videos to the cops at the end of the week, if they would be able to issue summons by mail (if not, there's always YouTube)."

Odds are no, since it's a moving violation and they would have to prove who was driving the car... If you've noticed, the tickets given out via the "red light cameras" are not issued to the person driving, but the owner of the vehicle, and they include no points... (Same reason they can't ticket you for speeding on the parkway/turnpike via EZ-Pass).

I vote for quick pain. You know, the kind we endure when we pull a bandage off. The best way is the quick way. Pull it off slowly and you are now in 'slow pain' land - a bad place to be.

Don't ease into the ocean. Just dive in.

Quick Pain is definately the way to go.

You got taxed, face the facts
Now where's the jokes and all the wisecracks?
You made before you got slayed by the slayer
Special Ed, DJ Akshun on the record player
Chillin, still in the back just maxin
Me in the front, to be blunt, I'm taxin

Khan Noonien Singh and matisyahu will be rapping at Brookdale's concert in the park every Wednesday at 8pm. Bring your adidas warm up suits and thick gold chains to compliment their early 80's style of lyrics

I'm sure that means something, to someone....but who?

WASHINGTON (CNN) ? Journalist Robert Novak hit a pedestrian with his car in the nation's capital Wednesday morning, Washington police Lt. Michael Lockerman said.

Novak continued driving, unaware he had hit the man, he told told reporters for WJLA-TV and the Web site Politico as he got out of a police car.

"I didn't know I hit anybody," he said near the scene of the incident at 17th and K streets in northwest Washington. "A bicycle rider stopped me and said I had hit someone."

Novak said he was cited for failure to yield right of way.

probably not the first time this idiot knocked over someone with his car..remember scooter libby, he used crutches to get in and out of court.

Is the sting operation over already? I stopped for a pedestrian last night at the intersection of bloomfield ave and Midland, and was honked at by about four angry drivers behind me for having the nerve to stop! I don't think this sting operation will change anything unless they keep at it.

The Sting is on!!!

I just passed them on Valley Road by the Starbucks.

Looks like they even do it in the rain.

Pretty scarey.

You non-pedestrian yielders are in trouble.

I gotta figure out a way of getting deputized. I'd bring in $60 million in tickets in one day.

I am a safe driver who at 47 has driven in Montclair for 30 years. The only thing more ridiculous than this sting operation is the gullible members of this forum touting how great it is.

I drive through the two intersections covered in previous stories (Bloomfield/Midland and Valley/Cooper) nearly every day. Despite some yellow curbs, in both cases, there are parking spaces and/or bus stops blocking the view of the sidewalk that make it impossible to be going your allowed 25 MPH and be able to come to a gradual stop. Given how heavy traffic flows down both these streets, especially Bloomfield Avenue, expecting someone to drive 5 miles an hour to avoid having to slam on your brakes on the chance that someone may poke their head around a stopped bus or car is foolish and stopping short to be rear ended and blaming the driver behind you seem a very impractical way to go about things.

At 25 MPH you need 85 feet just to come to an abrupt stop. Check out stopping distances here. These intersections don't have anywhere near 85 feet view of the approaching crosswalk's sidewalk on both sides. Just look at Google Maps Street View of both intersections. At Bloomfield/Midland there is a bus stopped in front of the flower shop blocking the view for motorists coming down the hill. At Valley/Cooper there is a car stopped or passing at a yellow curb, blocking the view. (Not that there is enough view on that side of the street even when that space is clear.) Without at least 100 feet clear view of the pedestrian crossing it is unjust to expect motor traffic to stop at the speeds they are allowed to drive. The Bloomfield/Midland intersection is dangerous enough to require a press-to-cross traffic light or give up view-obstructing bus stops and parking spaces and the coinage they bring in.

I stopped for a woman walking her dog at Valley/Cooper the morning before the first sting there and she looked at me like I was crazy. Rushed across the street keeping an eye on me, as if to make sure I wasn't tricking her to cross so I could run her over. Maybe because I had to stop short to allow her to cross. Why? Was I speeding? No, I was not even doing 20. But given the parked car blocking the view of the sidewalk to oncoming motorists, stopping quickly was the only way I could stop. You'd have to be going about 5-10 MPH to stop gradually in that scenario. Indeed, most times the pedestrian is standing there waiting for traffic to clear so they can cross safely. That "real world" method has always worked. It is much easier for a 150 lb pedestrian to stop moving and wait a few seconds than a 3,000-4,000 lb vehicle to stop. It's also less fuel efficient and causes more
pollution having that idling vehicle waiting for someone to walk across the street at their leisure.

My other annoyance about this issue is the holier-than-thou attitude of the pedestrians in this forum who are always almost hit by a reckless driver. The vast majority of the time I deal with an unsafe situation with pedestrians it's because they are jaywalking. You really want to make money and promote traffic safety? Start fining jaywalkers $440!

Yes, drivers should yield to pedestrians in an ideal world where crosswalks are clearly visible -- to the sidewalk -- for the driver. Pedestrians should also not jaywalk but carry their lazy asses to the intersection to cross. Instead of bricks, install some press-to-cross-lights where needed and allow pedestrians to watch a row of disgruntled drivers line up to watch them waddle across because they couldn't wait 30 seconds for the light down the street to change.

Pedestrians in parking lots are the worst. They walk around with little or no regard for one of the most chaotic traffic environments you can find.

I'm super extra careful when backing out of a space, because invariably someone will appear out of nowhere right behind my vehicle. I literally triple and quadruple check my rear and side view mirrors and also turn my head around to get a direct visual on my surroundings.

I'm glad I carry an umbrella policy of 1MM. It's pretty cheap 250$/annum and definately worth the cost considering the lame-brainedness of many of today's careless citizens.

Here's my experience. First day of the Valley/Cooper sting operation: Driving south on Valley at 7:15 am from Bellevue Ave, I was going my normal 20-25mph. I had a limo on my butt. I ignored him and just cruised along on my way to work. As I pass the firehouse, there is an SUV parked in front of Talbots, blocking my view of the crosswalk. Keeping my eye on the guy on my butt, I see a mans head appear over the top of the SUV and had to slam on my brakes. In turn, my limo guy slams on his to prevent himself from rear-ending me. I stop in time for this person to cross the street and glance over to my right, just past the bank, to see a half dozen of Montclair's finest laughing their asses off. If I hadn't stopped, I would have been ticketed. I had to make a split decision whether or not to stop for the pedestrian or get rear-ended and possibly pushed into the man in the crosswalk, running him over with my car. That is my biggest fear, stopping for someone to cross and being pushed into the crosswalk or stopping and having the limo guy swerve around me to pass and running the guy over. I can see both events happening.
I asked a cop if they were giving out jaywalking tickets and he said they were not being funded for that by the state and that they were just told to ticket the drivers.
Seems to me the sting should involve both.

I guess if it weren't fear of getting a fine you would have hit the pedestrian? A far better option than being rear ended? Driving can be dangerous and if the limo guy hadn't been tailgaiting it wouldn't have been an issue. You can't control what other idiots on the road do, but pedestrians have the right of way.

montclairgirl,

Did you proceed to where the cops were "laughing it up" and point out that there was an SUV parked (from your description illegally) at the edge of the crosswalk, obstructing the view and that car should be ticketed / towed... If not by them, then by the regular traffic authority cops.

doyouhaveanygreypoupon,

You might want to go to your local hospital and get that stick surgically removed from your butt.

I drive down Bloomfield Ave every single day and have never once had a problem seeing pedestrians waiting to cross at Midland Ave. Coming down the hill, there is a painted off stretch of the street that is at least two or three car lengths on the right and the width of... well... Midland Ave on the left.

If you don't see people waiting there, it is because you are not looking.

Also, speaking as one of those "holier-than-thou pedestrians... who are always almost hit by a reckless driver": Drive down Bellevue (sp?), across Valley, and towards the movie theater and try... just try to tell me that there is anything wider than a sapling blocking your view of that cross walk.

Do the same thing on Claremont, Walnut, or Grove (North of Grove Pharmacy).

All are incredibly dangerous roads to try and cross at the many non-lighted cross walks because of speeders, people on cell phones, and otherwise not paying attention to anything that isn't being propelled by an engine.

I don't know how much of an effect this program is going to have in the long run. But, if I were to be ticketed in this sting, then it would change my driving habits (and theoretically the habits of anyone driving behind me at any given time).

Dearest jerseygurl, where in my post did I say I DO NOT stop for pedestrian's and only do so out of fear of a fine??? I always stop... safely!! for me and for the person in the crosswalk,oh "Miss High and Mighty". When crossing the street, anywhere, always doubt the driver who stops. He may have only stopped because he dropped his cell phone and with out looking up, floors it!
That situation scared the hell out of me. That was the reason for my post. The cops got a good laugh out of it because it was really a close call for the undercover in the crosswalk.
GNM: The parking spot where the SUV was parked is a legal, metered spot but it does block the vision of the crosswalk. Why they allow that to be a legal parking spot so close to the crosswalk is something I will call the traffic division about today.

"The parking spot where the SUV was parked is a legal, metered spot but it does block the vision of the crosswalk."

Okay....I just have to say it one more time. SUVs are and always have been dangers on the road. Not only are they gas guzzlers and bad for the environment, but they block views from virtually any corner they park on. We all have choices we can make about how we live our lives and whether we want to do the least amount of harm to our environment...and our neighbors. (Remember the story a few weeks ago about the guy who ran over his neighbor while backing his SUV out of the driveway...had he been driving a smaller car, there may have been fewer injuries) I've lived in Montclair for over 30 years, and the increase in SUVs and the overall speeding and reckless driving of many who pass through Montclair, has created such a quality of life issue that I feel like I'm literally being driven out of town. I think the situation has just sort of crept up on people. So people, pay attention to what it's like to live in your own town....when you're driving and can't see because too many SUVs are blocking your view wherever you go, and when your neighbors are scared to cross the street, it's time to do something about it. Slow down...and keep Montclair a great town to live in.

You might want to go to your local hospital and get that stick surgically removed from your butt.

Generically Named Mike, your charm is only exceeded by your grace.

I drive down Bloomfield Ave every single day and have never once had a problem seeing pedestrians waiting to cross at Midland Ave. Coming down the hill, there is a painted off stretch of the street that is at least two or three car lengths on the right and the width of... well... Midland Ave on the left.

I just drove down there this morning about 6AM and there was a PSE&G truck parked right in front of the restaurant, right in front of your precious yellow curb, blocking the view of the crosswalk. Did you bother to look at Google Maps Street View? There is an entire bus parked there. How lucky it is for you that you have never had your view obstructed. Maybe you are not looking! Of course, you are not looking. The yellow curb on "the left" isn't even a car length long for those coming the other way. There is a parking space right in front of Moore Paints, which is on that corner.

If you don't see people waiting there, it is because you are not looking.

I didn't say I never see people. Your statement is based on a false premise as is your conclusion. How could I have stopped for the woman and her dog if I didn't see them? I submit, Generically Brained, that if you have never had your view obstructed by illegally or legally parked traffic, you are not looking.

Drive down Bellevue (sp?), across Valley, and towards the movie theater and try... just try to tell me that there is anything wider than a sapling blocking your view of that cross walk. Do the same thing on Claremont, Walnut, or Grove (North of Grove Pharmacy).

Another false premise. I didn't mention those intersections, did I? And you really not sure of the spelling of the street you're talking about? Of course you aren't. You can't even think clearly. This sting is a scam. They are clearly picking the crosswalks that are the most unfair to the driver so they can write some tickets and justify the money they were granted.

Montclairgirl, I'm not surprised the cops were laughing. Probably looking forward to their "happy ending" at a local massage parlor sting later in the day.

You're absolutely right, nomoresuvs. These gas-guzzling SUVs are so big and they sure do block our views. Montclair used to be a great town to live in before all these outsiders started moving in with their view-blocking SUV's. If only we could move the hands of time back to a simpler era, before the SUV. I simply don't understand why cars today have to be so big.

Those were big "boats" complainerpuss, no doubt. The difference in height, however, means the pedestrian doesn't need to be 6'6" to be seen stepping off the curb. There was also a lot less traffic.
I think that a lot of people need to retrained in crossing the road if your going to suddenly introduce "CA" pedestrian enforcement in NJ (and in CA the pedestrian will defiantly also get a ticket if they step off the curb in the wrong place or at the wrong time).
I grew up in Montclair and am quite used to waiting in the road for a good time to cross or seeing others doing this in a safe way (meaning no car coning in either direction). Unless everybody gets on the same page it is at best a tax revenue generating waste of time and at worst montclairgirl's nightmare.

Thank you Pokey. You're absolutely right. It's the height--not the girth--of the car that causes the obstruction. Obviously complainerpuss is sorry he now has to pay so much to put gas into his own SUV that he feels compelled to justify them by a specious argument. All "outsiders" are welcome in Montclair...just leave your SUVs where you came from.

UnwittyUserHandle,

I say the clearing on the left side of Bloomfield Ave (when coming down the hill into town) is as wide as Midland Ave because... wait for it... it is Midland Ave. Ta-dah, magic!

I submit, Generically Brained, that if you have never had your view obstructed by illegally or legally parked traffic, you are not looking.

Clearly, I must not be paying attention. That is why I can drive down Bloomfield Ave & Walnut Street on a nearly daily basis and manage to stop for pedestrians every time.

As for your "witty" retorts; sticks & stones and all that.

Maybe because I had to stop short to allow her to cross.

If a car was blocking your entire view and she wasn't already in the crosswalk; then you don't have to stop. It's a simple as that.

The law is very clear in this regard: ...no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. Nothing contained herein shall relieve a pedestrian from using due care for his safety.

When crossing where there are cars blocking the view of oncoming traffic, I always step up to the edge of said car and stick my head out, facing the oncoming traffic and usually wait for the closest 3 or so cars to pass. After that, any additional cars should have had more than enough warning of my intent to cross and gradually slowed to a stop.

Every video I have seen of this police "sting" have either followed that format or been done in areas (such as the crossing of Bloomfield at Midland) where there is adequate clear space. Montclairgirl's account is the first I've heard to the contrary and would probably be thrown out of court using the officer's own video of the situation as evidence (assuming the officer just walked out into the crosswalk and did not wait an appropriate amount of time for traffic to stop before leaving his "place of safety").

If not yielding to pedestrians is such a big problem, who do they have to entrap motorists with undercover cops crossing the street? Why not wait for it to actually happen to a civilian pedestrian? Oh, right, because it's a money grab scam.

Or maybe it's because the police can't be everywhere at all times and because NJ pedestrians are so used to motorists not seeing them unless they themselves are in a car, that they'd rather give up a legal right-of-way than risk their lives against a two-ton machine on the off chance that a cop might be there right then to pull over the offending motorist.

They did something like this in Oregon and saw cross-walk yielding percentages skyrocket.

Here in NJ, it seems to only be generating more court-cases and complaining on message boards... maybe it really all just boils down to a West Coast / East Coast mentality difference.

Generically Unwitty in Every Regard,

I say the clearing on the left side of Bloomfield Ave (when coming down the hill into town) is as wide as Midland Ave because... wait for it... it is Midland Ave. Ta-dah, magic!

And as I clearly pointed out, I was talking about the other side of the street coming in the other direction where Midland Avenue is on the other side of the crosswalk and cars are allowed to park nearly up to the corner. Ta-Da!

When crossing where there are cars blocking the view of oncoming traffic, I always step up to the edge of said car and stick my head out, facing the oncoming traffic and usually wait for the closest 3 or so cars to pass. After that, any additional cars should have had more than enough warning of my intent to cross and gradually slowed to a stop.

It never occurred to you that the closest 3 or so cars are blocking the view of the additional cars behind them?

And to think, you are allowed to drive and vote.

Or maybe it's because the police can't be everywhere at all times

They don't have to be everywhere at all times. They'd only have to do what they are doing now: camping out at an intersection with their refreshment stand and catching real infractions instead of creating them.

This sting is only slightly less ridiculous than New Jersey Transit's attempt to get people to stop illegally walking across the tracks when the gates are down.

Whatever happened to people being able to look both ways before the cross the streets or the tracks.

-g-

> Whatever happened to people being able to look both ways before the cross the streets or the tracks.

... with the gates down? I know it's difficult helping stupid people but there are limits. At the very least we should be able to prevent the need to clean up manged bodies off the tracks... pathetic.

"If not yielding to pedestrians is such a big problem, who do they have to entrap motorists with undercover cops crossing the street? Why not wait for it to actually happen to a civilian pedestrian?"

Because everybody knows pedestrians cross in the middle of the street and pay no attention to crosswalks!

This whole "sting" is such a joke... Everybody knows what it's really about: money. If it were about the safety/goodness they would ticket the illegally parked cars blocking your view... they would pick crosswalks that aren't on the "top ten worst crosswalks" list... maybe they would have some kind of information campaign about how, "crosswalks are there for a reason, cross in them, not the street!"... Maybe they would even take the safe stopping distances at the speed limit on the streets in question and mark them down on the road so the pedestrians can see them! "See that line? if the car is past it they aren't stopping for you!"

This whole thing is about nothing but money...

Personally, I think it would be interesting to try and fight this in court, but I'd rather not have to...

brendon,

Those are some great ideas (assuming of course that we could somehow convice the majority of people to actually do the speed limit).

I'm putting a list together of changes to suggest at the next town council meeting and had not previously thought of the stopping distance line.

Generically named Mike:

Just so you know, Midland ave is only 50' wide (according to the satelite photo)... You need to be able to see somebody in the crosswalk from double that distance... Also remember that since there are two lanes of oncoming traffic, you are much more likely to have your view blocked by something (including a slow moving bus) for an extended period of time...

I'm all for stopping for pedestrians (in cross walks), and since they started this "sting" I've been paying a lot more attention. I've noticed that in a lot of these intersections I can't see a god damned thing, either because of the illegally parked cars, the SUV in the parking spot that shouldn't be there, the bus, etc. The only way I can be sure I'm not going to get stung is by looking for the lunch table of police sitting on the sidewalk.... I'm pretty sure that if I got a ticket in most of those situations, assuming I had access to the video of it, and had my camera with me to take some nice shots from several different angles showing the inability to see a damned thing I could beat it... but i would rather not have to...

I was talking about the other side of the street coming in the other direction

Sorry, I thought you were talking about coming down the hill into town (as you were in your first post and my initial reply).

It never occurred to you that the closest 3 or so cars are blocking the view of the additional cars behind them?

Then they are probably tailgating and/or speeding. You can't defend someone's breaking of one law by saying "clearly they don't see you because they're breaking another law."

That just means they should be writ up for breaking two laws, not excused from breaking the first.

And to think, you are allowed to drive and vote.

Yes, imagine that: Someone who actually drives the speed-limit, doesn't tailgate, and pays attention to all of his surroundings is allowed to drive. Amazing... You don't happen to be the old biddy driving an Oldsmobile who drove into my lane (subsequently forcing me into the thankfully empty parking spaces) heading West on Bloomfield this morning, do you?

(not that I see what that has anything to do with voting... other than the obvious stupidity of you pointing out that someone who patently obeys the law should not be allowed to vote)

"Obviously complainerpuss is sorry he now has to pay so much to put gas into his own SUV that he feels compelled to justify them by a specious argument."

Actually, nomoresuvs, I don't own an SUV, nor have I ever. But as far as my "specious" argument goes about cars being just as big in the good old days before SUV's, the '54 Crown Victoria I linked to is 64 inches tall. My neighbor's late model BMW X3 SUV is 66 inches tall. Considering how much shorter the average person was back in the 50's I don't think my argument is specious at all.

The only way I can be sure I'm not going to get stung is by looking for the lunch table of police sitting on the sidewalk.

LMAO, brendan!

Generic,

It never occurred to you that the closest 3 or so cars are blocking the view of the additional cars behind them?

Then they are probably tailgating and/or speeding. You can't defend someone's breaking of one law by saying "clearly they don't see you because they're breaking another law."

Oh, please. Cars that far back don't have to be tailgating to not be able to see you. As for your other remarks, this has nothing to do with you being a law & order fanboy. The sting is a scam. It's nothing to get self-righteous about.

Let's remember that minivans are about the same height as most SUVs, and nobody is complaining about them (yet).

I agree that there are a lot of SUVs in Montclair (too many). But those who drive them don't have a monopoly on dangerous and obnoxious driving.

I am very good about stopping for pedestrians--from spending much time in New England, but I've also been especially vigilant since the sting started. Even so, there are plenty of times that I am driving the posted speed down Walnut or Grove, and can only see a person stepping into the crosswalk when it's way too late to stop, regardless of any tailgater behind me. Any car parked along the curb can obscure your vision.

Since the sting started, I almost feel that I am paying more attention to the curbs and crosswalks, trying to spy cops-as-pedestrians, than to the moving traffic on the street. Law of unintended consequences, I guess.

I don't know anyone who bought a minivan who didn't need it for the extra space and conversely I've never known anyone with an SUV who ever goes off-road with it. It's a bulky vehicle for the insecure that blocks views and at night shoots elevated headlights through car windows, both front and back, blinding the car driver. Obviously, commercial trucks do the same thing but there are far fewer of them so they don't really cause a problem. SUV's have a higher center of gravity and are easier to tip over. I've seen three SUV accidents and in each case the vehicle has been on its side or upside down. Last I heard they were still classified as trucks and not passenger vehicles so they don't have to meet as high safety ratings. That people feel safer in them is an illusion.

"the '54 Crown Victoria I linked to is 64 inches tall"

The "crossovers" and mid sized suv's are probably comparable. The full-sized "trucks" (that's what they really are) with tinted windows (how many 54's had tint?) are impossible both parked and on the road to see around unless your driving one too. (and then a young 5'2" tall women gets out of an otherwise empty Tahoe flipping you the bird for honking when the drivers door is flung open into oncoming traffic)
We defiantly need more of 'em.

Pork Roll, Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. This spring it happened that I stopped for a class of Edgemont students and teachers who had been waiting (very visibly) to cross Valley Rd. while dozens of cars whizzed by. They began to cross, and then a guy in a pickup truck came up behind me, zoomed around me, and then, thank god, slammed on his brakes - mere feet from at least a dozen second-graders.

I recorded his license plate number, make, model and color of the car, and went to the court. They informed me that they could not accept that information, and that if I wanted to make a complaint at all, I would have to personally go to the DMV and PAY A FEE, give them the information, and the DMV would give me the name and address associated with that license plate number.

I actually called the DMV and was, as I suspected, transferred to several different people, all of whom said they had no freakin' clue what the court was talking about because there was NO WAY they could give out that information to a civilian.

So unfortunately, citizens cannot even report extremely dangerous and illegal actions that they see being committed.

I watched this sting in action a couple of weeks ago at Watchung Plaza and got this biggest kick of watching these violators get caught! Many got a double wammy because they were on their cell phones! And yes, there was another cop informing the uuniformed officers just past N. Fullerton who the violators were!

It was great as I witnessed people throwing theior arms in the air, crying like babies, begging and maing fools of themselves...well, tough shit because you deserved it! Hahahahahaha. I hear they will be doing this on the weekends too! I think I'll buy some popcorn! Care to join me!!!!

I watched this sting in action a couple of weeks ago at Watchung Plaza and got this biggest kick of watching these violators get caught! Many got a double wammy because they were on their cell phones! And yes, there was another cop informing the uuniformed officers just past N. Fullerton who the violators were!

It was great as I witnessed people throwing theior arms in the air, crying like babies, begging and making fools of themselves...well, tough shit because you deserved it! Hahahahahaha. I hear they will be doing this on the weekends too! I think I'll buy some popcorn! Care to join me!!!!

I watched this sting in action a couple of weeks ago at Watchung Plaza and got this biggest kick of watching these violators get caught! Many got a double wammy because they were on their cell phones! And yes, there was another cop informing the uuniformed officers just past N. Fullerton who the violators were!

It was great as I witnessed people throwing theior arms in the air, crying like babies, begging and making fools of themselves...well, tough shit because you deserved it! Hahahahahaha. I hear they will be doing this on the weekends too! I think I'll buy some popcorn! Care to join me!!!!

Today I stopped for pedestrians on Valley Rd (by Soho Pizza) and received dirty looks from the pedestrians for stopping!! Good, next time you will just wait another 5 minutes while people ignore you, jerks.

Anyway, hearing about this a few weeks ago has helped me to keep a better eye out for those looking to cross the street. I'm sure all those people getting pulled over believe they are innocent, but Laura Loonie has it right, and it sounds hilarious!!!

After passing through Valley/Cooper this evening, and continuing down Valley, I saw a woman jaywalking with her baby stroller about 20 feet from a painted crosswalk. Got to love those innocent pedestrians and their children! (Won't someone please think of the children!!)

Later on tonight I got to stop for a couple, already off the curb, crossing North at Bloomfield/Midland. When they saw me slowing down they continued further out into the first lane. Unfortunately a car was coming behind me in that lane and it had to stop short as it didn't see the pedestrians until they crossed into his lane because of the parked cars on the right.

The pedestrians were startled and they wouldn't have been had they just waited for the traffic to lighten and crossed at their own discretion, but spurred on by my stopping (by the letter of the law), they walked out into an oncoming car that couldn't see them.

And this sting was supposed to make things safer?

Man, this sting and the fear of a Let's Make A Deal : $440 or 2 points fine is a stupid, stupid, stupid way of going about this.