You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout, I’m telling you why: Montclair PD’s Pedestrian In The Crosswalk federally funded sting operation may be over, but enforcement of crosswalk laws will remain a priority for the Montclair Police Department, says Deputy Chief Perry Mayers.
According to Mayers, patrol officers will continue to monitor and pay close attention to crosswalks, particularly in high traffic areas. Officers assigned to the Traffic Bureau will monitor crosswalks and may be assigned specifically to pedestrian safety details. These officers may be on motorcycles and unmarked police cars.
“The Montclair Police Department has no intention of letting down its guard simply because the grant period has ended,” says Mayers.
Meanwhile, although walking and bicycling in New Jersey is becoming less of a life-threatening risk, the number of Jersey drivers responsible for pedestrian/cyclist fatalities is still nearly double the national average.
Pedestrian Crosswalk Safety Checks To Continue
Comments are closed.
Great! The police will enforce the law.
(And I mean that! The more drivers who get nailed for not yielding to pedestrians, speeding, making “Jersey Lefts,” driving while talking on their cell phones, the better. I would love for Montclair to earn a reputation as the town where you can’t get away with ANYTHING.)
But I have a question: Isn’t that their job?
Can anyone satisfactorily explain to me why carrying this out might require a federal grant? Just what are the expenses involved above and beyond what is normally budgeted to have a police force?
Walter,
“Their job” consists of a large number of items and I’m guessing that until lately, the great car culture of northern NJ has ranked pedestrian safety as a minor item.
I don’t know if it’s that the cops realized the great source of revenue this is or if the new mayor is applying some pressure because of his own bike/pedestrian ties.
In any event, I think it’s a welcome change, hope that they also focus on things like the cell phone users and jay-walkers, and that this may help to change people’s behaviors over the long-run.
It’s a money maker. You have a choice. Don’t drive or don’t drive through Montclair.
Or maybe let pedestrians cross. WHOA!
Had to wait 2 minutes to get across Claremont this morning. My favorite was the guy smoking AND talking on the cellphone as he failed to yield to me.
Someone had this same story last week but I had to see it myself to believe it. I stopped to let someone cross on Broad at a crosswalk where there is one of those “Yield to Pedestrians” signs and I was passed on the right by two cars, with one more slamming on his brakes to avoid hitting the guy.
A couple of weeks ago, I was attempting to cross Watchung from the Valero Station to the sushi restaurant. The sun was setting, creating a lot of glare for the westbound drivers, so I waited.
And I waited.
And I waited some more.
Then, a driver in an SUV, (a Volvo XC-90) stopped at the crosswalk and waved me across.
He was talking on his cell phone.
Nobody’s perfect.
An excellent illustration of the complexity and contradictions of the human nature, Walter.
As for Bricriu’s ordeal, the guy must have been moving awfully slowly if it took him two minutes to pass you.
And to laserdoodle: cheer up, dude!
Montclair should spend a few minutes with their ossifers to make sure they understand the law before they go out and try to enforce it.
Several weeks ago, I nearly got into a fight with a cop who walked out between two parked cars on Bloomfield, just to make sure that I stopped for a “pedestrian”.
I use the quote marks because the person was nowhere near a marked crosswalk – which to my mind made him a jaywalker. The law only protects those folks in the marked crosswalk; everyone else seems fair game. Not that its a game, mind you, but rather it should keep the pedestrians from walking anywhere they want without protection.
So, the cop runs out from between two parked cars, nearly causing me to crash, yelling at me for not being alert to the pedestrian. And I was probably within a hairs breadth of being arrested for being a wiseguy, challenging his knowledge.
Hit the books, donut man.
Montclair should spend a few minutes with their ossifers to make sure they understand the law before they go out and try to enforce it.
Several weeks ago, I nearly got into a fight with a cop who walked out between two parked cars on Bloomfield Ave., just to make sure that I stopped for a “pedestrian” who hadn’t even reached my side of the yellow lines.
I use the quote marks because the person was nowhere near a marked crosswalk – which to my mind made him a jaywalker. The law only protects those folks in the marked crosswalk; everyone else seems fair game. Not that its a game, mind you, but rather it should keep the pedestrians from walking anywhere they want without protection.
So, the cop runs out from between two parked cars, nearly causing me to crash, yelling at me for not being alert to the pedestrian. And I was probably within a hairs breadth of being arrested for being a wiseguy, challenging his knowledge.
Hit the books, donut man.
I don’t know that the law in NJ actually distinguishes between crosswalks or not. As far as I know, automobiles always have to yield to pedestrians.
Of course, if someone darts in front of your car and you hit them, you will not be charged with any crime. That’s why I never exceed the speed limit on residential roads. I want to give myself plenty of time to stop should someone walk in front of me unexpectedly.
This happened in front of the GR post office this weekend. A woman left her car and without looking walked directly in front of my vehicle. I hit the brakes pretty hard and held back the cat carrier with my right hand – I was on my way to Dr. Camerons – and waved her across. She gave me a ‘you didn’t need to stop look’ but if I didn’t I probably would have hit her.
Fletch Lives: Wrong.
39:4-35. Pedestrian’s right to complete crossing
No operator of a vehicle shall fail to give the right-of-way to a pedestrian at a crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked, where the pedestrian having started to cross with the proper signal finds himself still within the intersection when the signal changes.
39:4-34. Pedestrians to cross within crosswalk or at right angles; facing traffic; sidewalks
Where traffic is not controlled and directed either by a police officer or a traffic control signal, pedestrians shall cross the roadway within a crosswalk or, in the absence of a crosswalk, and where not otherwise prohibited, at right angles to the roadway. It shall be unlawful for a pedestrian to cross any highway having roadways separated by a medial barrier, except where provision is made for pedestrian crossing. On all highways where there are no sidewalks or paths provided for pedestrian use, pedestrians shall, when practicable, walk only on the extreme left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing approaching traffic.
39:4-36:
[N]o 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.
baristanet please re-do the headline it should read as follows:
“Pedestrian Crosswalk Safety Checks To Continue, along with bank robberies and muggings”
With the summer crime spree in full gear again, is it any wonder why montclair does not make it to the top places to live in that crummy NJ magazine (forget the name)?
A drivers’ ed text I recently read quoted the law ubuwalker31 quoted above, and went on to add that according to NJ state law, a crosswalk is defined as anywhere there is an intersection – basically between any two streetcorners – whether or not there is a painted crosswalk.
No, if only we could get the police to stop for pedestrians, that’d be a step.
Uh huh. Yup. A priority to enforce. Just like the no cell phone while driving enforcement. And the speeding & reckless driving enforcement.
People just wait out the “enforcement” period and go back to the same old same old.
Nothing changes.
You should be happy the police show any interest at all. Here in lovely Millburn, the Department has declined to enforce pedestrian laws, despite entreaties from the Chamber of Commerce and the construction of a slew of expensive, faux-brick crosswalks. Like an idiot, I try to stop for pedestrians when I can, especially in front of the high school — where I’ve been passed on the shoulder by (you guessed it) a police cruiser which nearly hit the kid I stopped for. Driver or pedestrian, it’s a losing proposition when the town won’t step up.
Ubu – thanks for the edification.
My walker elected not to use a “designated” crosswalk, leaving from the corner of Seymour Street to cross Bloomfield Ave at the Womens Health Clinic at a 90-degree angle or thereabouts (39:4-34). There are no traffic signals in place.
Sensing imminent danger, Officer Jellyroll (contrary to 39:4-36) darted out from between two parked cars to “impede” my driving in the right Westbound lane, causing me to choose between hitting him, the car approaching in my left lane, or slamming on the brakes. I chose the latter.
Lastly, the walker hadn’t reached the yellow stripes, and I would have been past him before he crossed all of the eastbound lanes and reached the westbound side.
I perceived no danger, other than that emanating from my spousal co-pilot as she attempted to restrain my vocal disapproval of the officers action. As a parting gesture, I did call out to the walker and recommend that next time he use the crosswalks located 60 yards away in either direction.
And if the law reads as stated above, why do all the Yield to Pedestrian signs clearly show a pair of legs walking between two lines? Well? Answer me that one. Its not like this was a country lane without available crosswalks.
Harumph and indignation.
Where I’m from, there’s a lot more dodging than walking, so I feel like my pedestrian experiences have made me more equipped to survive a lot of the crossings in this town.
Once a week, at least, I’m almost hit by a car either by people on their cellphones turning on to Bloomfield Ave off Midland (where there’s no light) or by red-light runners when I’m crossing Bloomfield Avenue from Elm to Grove.
Walter…..I didn’t get as lucky as you did at the Valero / sushi restaurant crossing…..as I was attempting to cross a car did not yield or slow down and neither did the cop car behind him!!!! And the car did not get pulled over. Oh well…..guess you gotta be a decoy….quack quack!