PJ BLOGGER

Stroller accident highlights danger for pedestrians

In Uncategorized on November 29, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Letter to the Editor

The Ridgewood News

November 28, 2008

Editor:

I was disheartened to read Michael Giardina’s impassive article “Local priest cited in pedestrian mishap” (The Ridgewood News; Nov. 21). The article did not convey the seriousness of the incident and seemed to dismiss what, for many of us, is a great fear when strolling the streets of Ridgewood.

I am a friend and neighbor of the Semenchenko family who were involved in the accident at the intersection of Godwin and Sherman place. My understanding of what happened is very different from what was reported in the paper. It was not a “mishap,” but nearly a major tragedy. I would also like to point out that it is a common practice for a person to “push a stroller out in front of them.” Indeed, if there is another method for using a stroller, I’ve not heard of one.

Our small neighborhood is extremely distraught; neighbors are rallying to support the Semenchenko family and wondering what Village of Ridgewood officials will do to remedy the poorly lit, minimally marked crosswalk to prevent a real catastrophe from occurring in the future. Two years ago, at my request, yellow diamond pedestrian crossing signs were installed, but strangely, only at one crosswalk, not both. Obviously, this is insufficient. With frustrated drivers accelerating quickly as they leave the Whole Foods driveway bottleneck going downhill, and equally exasperated drivers coming in the opposite direction from the Monroe/Ackerman/Godwin tangle, those of us who use that crosswalk regularly with our children must be extremely cautious.

Ridgewood is a lovely place to live and one of the finest features is that it is a pedestrian town. We encourage our children to walk to school because it is healthy and good for the environment. We should also encourage our residents and those from neighboring towns to walk around and enjoy our stores and restaurants with well-orchestrated crosswalks, signals and laws. A reputation for ticketing speeders and those who do not stop for pedestrians in crosswalks would send a clear message to walkers and poor drivers alike

I strongly encourage the village council, the police department and the safety committee to enforce existing speeding and crosswalk laws and to increase safety standards for pedestrians before a major disaster occurs. I also implore Ridgewood residents to do their part by slowing down, driving 25 mph (the speed limit on most major roads and side streets), refraining from using their cell phones when driving and stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalks, as is the state law.

Christa Leonard

Ridgewood

Note from The Fly: S. Elizabeth Searle, the local minister cited by traffic summons in this accident, has publicly announced her intention to contest the charge that she failed to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

CCS.com

Advertisements
  1. your right the ridgewood news is always playing cma for the village and the boe

  2. I hope that Ridgewood courts start “throwing the book” at drivers who disreguard the law about stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk. Those people in charge of a car should always be held accountable for hitting someone not encased in steel.

    If you hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk it is obvious that the driver failed to yield!

  3. Ridgewood would be a much nicer town if pedestrians were looked after better by the law and Ridgewood had a reputation for pedestrian safety.

    Think of the savings Ridgewood would see if only walking and biking were the norm.

    We would no longer be looking at traffic or parking problems due to cars.

  4. Note from The Fly: S. Elizabeth Searle, the local minister cited by traffic summons in this accident, has publicly announced her intention to contest the charge that she failed to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

    I’m trying to look at this from a logical standpoint. Wouldn’t the pedestrian have to have been quite a distance into the crosswalk already in order for the child’s stroller to be hit? Was the driver turning a corner and didn’t see them there? How can she contest the charge when she obviously hit or at nearly hit a pedestrian in the crosswalk?

  5. Unless it could be proven that the stroller broadsided Reverend Searle’s vehicle, I too am confused as to how the Reverend could possibly beat the rap.

    If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

  6. It is outrageous that the minister is going to contest the charge. It is appalling that she even thought about it. She should be so grateful that her carelessness did not result in a deadly accident. Paying a minor traffic fine should have been done with speed and gratitude. She has her priorities all messed up.

  7. I totally agree with 10:40. The book should be thrown at the driver. How DARE she suggest (by contesting the ticket) that she is somehow not guilty?! The poor family, suffering a near tragedy, they must be shaken to the core. And then to think that the perpetrator is more concerned about avoiding points on her license?

  8. My heart goes out to the family and the neighborhood…and to anyone who witnessed what was, by many reports, more than a minor mishap. How very frightening for all concerned. And then to have it compounded by an arrogant driver who tells her church that she is going to fight the ticket! Unthinkable.

    Then there is the matter reported last week on the blog that the driver is somehow mixed up in misrepresenting where she lives, where her car is registered, where she is licensed to drive.

    All I can say is ….wow.

  9. Anonymous said…
    Ridgewood would be a much nicer town if pedestrians were looked after better by the law and Ridgewood had a reputation for pedestrian safety.

    Ridgewood would be much safer if the speed limits were more strictly enforced as well.

    With the kinds of traffic patterns here in town, I would imagine that one would have to be moving a little too quickly NOT to be able to stop for a pedestrian in the crosswalk.

  10. Okay, let’s think this through. The car struck the stroller being pushed by the pedestrian. This much is fact. If the driver claims to have been driving at the speed limit (25 mph), then the pedestrian must have made the unimaginable mistake of lurching out onto the crosswalk without warning. I highly doubt this scenario. I also doubt that the driver was speeding, as the pedestrian would have probably held back. The only logical scenario I can picture is straight-forward inattention on the driver’s part, having absolutely no idea that someone was on the crosswalk as she just drove on through. Crosswalks are there for a reason. This is by far, the most common problem with driver/crosswalk abuse. If pedestrians are expected to wait for a break in the traffic before crossing, then what purpose do crosswalks serve? We may as well just cross anywhere.

  11. If pedestrians are expected to wait for a break in the traffic before crossing, then what purpose do crosswalks serve? We may as well just cross anywhere.

    And how long is a pedestrian expected to wait for a break in the traffic?

    The way people drive around here (and I’m not just referring to Ridgewood, but New Jersey in general) if one were to wait for a break in the traffic, they might end up being too old to cross the street!

  12. 6:44 is absolutely right, IMO. The driver was inattentive. Maybe she was on her cell phone. Maybe she was sipping coffee. Maybe she was talking to someone in the car. Maybe she was distracted by something on the radio. Maybe she was talking to God. When you are driving a car you must be attentive at all times. If the unthinkable happens, the very least you can do is admit your responsibility and be SORRY – not be dancing around about how you are going to contest the charge against you. What is there to contest? She was driving the car, she hit the stroller, the stroller was in a crosswalk. The victim is not guilty. The driver is. And the driver is claiming that the charge is invalid. She is some piece of work. Anyone else would be apoplectic with relief that nothing worse happened. Sign me up for that church – I want her as my spiritual leader. Right.

  13. i was stuck at a DUI check point for about 30 minutes that night i had not been drinking just driving back from a friends house ,the police were very professional but it was very slow going ,and it looked like a lot of mn power was being tied up perhaps police time would be better spent focusing on careless driving instead

  14. was the right revrend on her cell phone

  15. She is not a right reverend. She is a wrong reverend.

  16. Maybe she was on a cell phone to an insurance agent to find out where she should pretend she lives in order to get the best rates.

  17. Anonymous said…
    was the right revrend on her cell phone

    Well, yeah, there is that too. Unless someone witnessed her using her phone just prior to the accident I’m sure we’ll never know.

  18. Maybe the rev should have been stopped at the DUI check.

  19. If the family wants to they could subpoena her cell phone records and learn whether any calls had been made or received in the minutes leading up to the accident. She could deny it, and maybe no one saw it, but if she were on the phone (and I am not saying she was) the records would show it. That would be another summons to add to her list – failure to lead, failure to be licensed in the state where you live. No matter what, she was distracted by something when she slammed into the stroller.

  20. The letter writer wrote: “I would also like to point out that it is a common practice for a person to “push a stroller out in front of them.” Indeed, if there is another method for using a stroller, I’ve not heard of one.”

    This is an excellent point. (In fact the whole letter is excellent.) Mrs. Semenchenko was in no way acting carelessly when she was pushing her stroller into a designated CROSSWALK. No one should ever imply in any way that she was at fault. The driver is responsible. And the driver should take responsibility,

  21. I am curious. Why did we not have this sort of outpouring when Village Manager Ten Hoeve, apparently a bit fatigued from his activities of the night before, ran through a stop sign and rammed into a kid on a bike? What is giving legs to this story about the minister?

  22. “What is giving legs to this story about the minister?”

    1) The initial press report referred to her as “of NY.” She’s lived in NJ since 8/2006, but has failed to obtain a NJ driver’s license, or to register her automobile in NJ. Many questions remain unanswered about the legality of her actions, and why she never bothered to officially change her place of residence. How could you forget to do that for over 2 years? There was no such issue related to Mr. Ten Hoeve’s accident.

    2) The Reverend has indicated, in public, her intention to contest the charge that she failed to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk (despite the investigating police officer’s contention that her car hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk). When Mr. Ten Hoeve had his head on collision in Hawthorne, he was charged with careless driving and did not contest the charge.

    3) On Mother’s Day of this year, a Paramus man was struck and killed in Ridgewood by a motorist who failed to yield as the victim crossed North Maple Avenue while in a crosswalk.

  23. 10:18pm. I think what makes this particular incident stand out is that the driver struck a mother pushing a baby stroller.

  24. 10:18 PM,

    Mr. Ten Hoeve hit a child on a bike, and broke his leg? He ran a stop sign? When id this happen? Did this happen in Ridgewood? Was it reported in the Ridgewood News?

    Never heard of it. I guess the blog didn’t know about it, huh?

  25. No one should get away with this sort of infraction – not the Village Manager, not a priest, not anyone. Did Ten Hoeve get a ticket and pay his fine (at the least?) or did he contest the charge?

  26. JTH didn’t contest the ticket – he knew he was wrong.

  27. She was driving the car, she hit the stroller, the stroller was in a crosswalk. The victim is not guilty. The driver is. And the driver is claiming that the charge is invalid. She is some piece of work. Anyone else would be apoplectic with relief that nothing worse happened. Sign me up for that church – I want her as my spiritual leader. Right.

    An earlier poster commented that, being a Minister should have made the driver more careful. I disagreed, but do feel that being a Minister should make her more inclined to take responsibility for a near disaster that was clearly her fault. What kind of message is this sending to her congregation? Not to mention the volumes it speaks her personally. Just my humble opinion, of course.

  28. I can’t even imagine the shock of your child in a stroller being struck by a car in a crosswalk or any other place. NJ’s pedestrian laws are very weak and difficult to enforce. The pedestrian must wait for a clearing in the traffic lane before starting to cross the lane of traffic. Only then are motorists required to yield. If you suffer an injury insurance companies will be quick to offer a settlement because civil standards are far different. However, in traffic court the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Years ago I signed a complaint against a motorist who did not yeild to my wife and I in a crosswalk. The policeman who helped me with the complaint told me it would be very hard to gain a conviction in court because of the way the law is written. As a new attorney only a handfull of years out of law school I was dismissive of the young officer’s view. The driver contested the ticket and was found not guilty. An older police sergeant in court commented to me that he truly belived that our elected public officials in Trenton often write laws that are impossible to enforce. Since local towns cannot change the motor vehicle code or write local ordinances to get around them, we need to bring this matter to Trenton. This is clearly a statewide issue!

  29. 729 it was all over this blog please take time to do a search before you make a fool out of your self

  30. Everyone at Christ Church is talking about Rev. Searle, before church, during church, and during the past two weeks via e-mail and phone conversations. People cannot get over the audacity of her shirking any responsibility for hitting the stroller, even though it was an accident. They are also all abuzz about her claiming to live in NY “most of the time” and considering NY to be her “primary residence” and her “home” when she is supposed to be available to her parishioners in Ridgewood. The church is financially strapped for various reasons, and is holding a mortgage on a $700,000+ home in Ridgewood for a rector who does not even claim it as her home……this is quite an affront to her parishioners.

  31. Now everyone who is complaining on this blog, how many of you ACTUALLY yield to pedestrians on a daily basis and/or obey the speed limit? It is easy to complain about everyone else’s actions, but then in real life are you the ones honking at people yielding to pedestrians?

  32. 6:15 – Do YOU yield to pedestrians? If you accidentally struck one, would you contest the charges or face the music?

  33. Anonymous said…
    Now everyone who is complaining on this blog, how many of you ACTUALLY yield to pedestrians on a daily basis and/or obey the speed limit? It is easy to complain about everyone else’s actions, but then in real life are you the ones honking at people yielding to pedestrians?

    While I can speak for everyone here, given we are not in the same position as the Reverend, I would venture to guess that most are yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk. If not, there would obviously be a lot more pedestrian accidents in Ridgewood.

    I ALWAYS yield to pedestrians and try to adhere to the speed limits, give or take a mile or two.

  34. I got an idea. I used to do this when I was a kid. Look both ways before crossing. If it isn’t safe, don’t cross. Crosswalk or not I think I would make my safety more important than forcing a car to jam on his brakes because I am crossing in a crosswalk

  35. How dare you imply (8:09) that the mother was not looking both ways! It very likely was clear when she started into the crosswalk. Then along came the revved-up Reverend.

    While I will grant that some people might step into a crosswalk without looking, a mother with a baby is going to be very cautious. It was not her fault that after she began to cross a car came along and did not bother to stop or even slow down until it slammed into the stroller.

    DON’T BLAME THE VICTIM.

  36. 6:15 PM,

    I can’t count the number of times that I have crossed Ridgewood Ave or Godwin and remained in the middle of the crossing so that cars would have to STOP and let pedestrians cross.

  37. It is obviously not safe to cross if she came in contact with a car! I am not being funny I am being obvious.

  38. 9:38 – Try the car came in contact with her stroller. You may not be trying to be funny but you definitely succeeded at being an idiot.

  39. Anonymous said…
    How dare you imply (8:09) that the mother was not looking both ways! It very likely was clear when she started into the crosswalk. Then along came the revved-up Reverend.

    While I will grant that some people might step into a crosswalk without looking, a mother with a baby is going to be very cautious. It was not her fault that after she began to cross a car came along and did not bother to stop or even slow down until it slammed into the stroller.

    DON’T BLAME THE VICTIM.

    I agree. We’re not talking about a dark night in which an individual in dark clothing stepped out from between two parked cars. This is a mother walking her child in a stroller in the crosswalk. Not as easy to overlook, in my opinion.

    Now to be fair, no one is perfect and even the most careful driver can have a mishap. But, the fact is, the Reverend did hit the child’s stroller. It’s not a question of “almost”. Now either she wasn’t paying attention or was driving at a rate of speed that made it impossible for her to stop in time. Whatever the case, I believe that she would glean a lot more respect and sympathy for “human error”, if she were to simply take responsibility for her actions.

  40. Cars are weapons in the wrong hands. The police would freak out if I was waving a gun around town. But wrecklessly driving 2 to 3 tons of steel at 45 -55 mph in a 25 mph zone while talking on the phone is no problem. Can’t figure that one out. The police do not enforce the speed limit. And the judge lets them off on a lesser charge if they fight it. Go to traffic court in Ridgewood one week and you will be shocked at the amount of people fighting tickets.

    My suv weights 6000 pounds – 3 tons.

  41. I don’t think he/she is being an idiot at all. Let’s face it…you all said that it was a dark area where the crosswalk really can’t be seen. Well, maybe mom should have walked up the sidewalk a little further where there is more light. Remember..safety first…and that goes for the driver and the pedestrian. Maybe people in the crosswalk should pick up the pace a little also. It’s not a Sunday stroll…it’s a busy street your trying to get across!!!!

  42. The reason that our streets are so unsafe is due to two people – Chris Rutishauser, Director/ Village Engineer ,Jovan Mehandzic, Asst. Engineer .

    The village has a traffic safety committe, who have come up with grant money, fantastic ideas, and plans to make our town safer and chris does not listen to any of them. Three years ago I asked chris to put in the speed tables that Glen rock have – they are rubber and moveable to see if the traffic could be slowed down. He said no – glen rocks speed humps are illegal. Well Glen rock still has their speed humps and it has made a big difference so now chris has this fantastic idea to put them on broad street.It seems that it takes chris between 3 and 16 years to accomplish anything.

    Chris is unable to do his job, and then to make matters worse he also took on the job of overseeing the utilities.Maybe he has too much on his plate and he is not a multitasker, I don’t know. I do not mean to hurt his feelings in any way, but his lack of action is a hugh problem.

    Chris Rutishauser creates such a tremendous bottle neck that nothing ever gets done. He is a frustrating person to deal with, he does not like any ideas if they are not his own. This is about the quality of life and safety of our citizens, not about chris’s ego. I would strongly encourage the council to figure out how to unclog this bottle neck that chris has created and find someone who cares about the safety of our citizens.

  43. I think if the Rev. was reckless, or driving as fast as you guys want to believe that the baby would have been hurt. Since the baby wasn’t the Rev obviously was not driving fast. I am just saying when it comes to being in the crosswalk I teach my kids cross when it is safe, not cross, make the car stop while you are in the road, and then continue on yelling at the car for driving too fast. I think if she waited for the street to be safe, and not walk into the street to make the car stop there wouldn’t have been an accident. As my mom always said to me take responsability for you actions, don’t blame someone else. A crosswalk is not a stoplight

  44. Anonymous said…
    I don’t think he/she is being an idiot at all. Let’s face it…you all said that it was a dark area where the crosswalk really can’t be seen. Well, maybe mom should have walked up the sidewalk a little further where there is more light. Remember..safety first…and that goes for the driver and the pedestrian. Maybe people in the crosswalk should pick up the pace a little also. It’s not a Sunday stroll…it’s a busy street your trying to get across!!!!

    1:05 PM

    Does the fact that Mom chose to cross at the crosswalk rather than elsewhere indicate that she was being safe? And quite frankly, had she picked up the pace, the stroller might have been more in direct contact with the vehicle, which might have dealt a tragic blow to the child.

  45. Anonymous said…
    I think if the Rev. was reckless, or driving as fast as you guys want to believe that the baby would have been hurt. Since the baby wasn’t the Rev obviously was not driving fast. I am just saying when it comes to being in the crosswalk I teach my kids cross when it is safe, not cross, make the car stop while you are in the road, and then continue on yelling at the car for driving too fast. I think if she waited for the street to be safe, and not walk into the street to make the car stop there wouldn’t have been an accident. As my mom always said to me take responsability for you actions, don’t blame someone else. A crosswalk is not a stoplight

    1:57 PM

    The Mom may have crossed expecting that the driver was far enough away to cross safely. Since a car can be driven much faster than a pedestrian can walk, the possibility exists that the Mom may have proceeded when she felt that it was safe to do so, only to find that the driver, who apparently did realize she was there, was literally upon her.

    Thankfully, the baby may not have been hurt because the stroller was not far enough into the intersection to sustain a direct hit.

    Stopping and waiting for a pedestrian to cross is what “yielding” is actually.

  46. The mother is absolutely not to blame. She was in a designated crosswalk. The driver is to blame, even if the collision was unintentional (and we are assuming it was unintentional). I think it is reprehensible that the Rev. is not taking responsibility and paying her fine. She is setting a terrible example for others……accept no responsibility even when you are clearly in the wrong. Imagine what her sermons must be like. I shudder to think.

  47. Much heat, little light. Nobody here claims to be a witness to know what really happened. We all want safe streets. We all see reckless driving. We also see careless pedestrians, even with strollers. Let the traffic court figure this out. The reverend has a right not to plead guilty. Its the prosecutor who must prove guilt.

  48. This is the third article on The Blog about this incident and many postings have been from witnesses. PROVE GUILT? She hit the stoller. In a crosswalk. Case closed.

    Hmmmmm…it sounds like the Rev. herself penned 11:48.

  49. I agree with 8:15. Anyone who heard Ms. Searle’s long explanation in church the other day would know that she doth protest too much…….

  50. Totally AGREE with 1:11’s comments re Engineering Department. It is a prime example of wasted taxpayer dollars!!! Has anyone ever had a positive experience with them of any substance? The scary thing is that they are responsible not only for the safety of our streets, but of our buildings and properties as well.

    We should enact some sort of recall mechanism where taxpayers can get rid of these folks as the Village Council is utterly unable to handle them.

  51. That is funny cause the paper said there were no witnesses. If you are a witness I think you should call the police and say you want to testify. I still believe it was OBVIOUSLY not safe for the mother to cross if she got hit by a car. As I have been crossing streets for many many years, in crosswalks and not. I have never been hit by a car. I don’t expect the car to stop. I expect to not get hit by a car and cross when it is safe.

  52. STOP BLAMING THE VICTIM. The mother and stroller were in the crosswalk. They had the right to be there. The driver is supposed to YIELD. No one is accusing the driver of attempted murder, simply FAILURE TO YIELD. How can she possibly dispute this simple charge????? Pay her fine, and be grateful that she was going slowly enough not to kill someone,.

  53. Coincidently, this morning while driving in town, I encountered a gentleman crossing the street wheeling a stroller. He was not in the crosswalk (where one would expect to find a pedestrian), but instead was about 20 feet or less, in front of my car as I turned the corner. I didn’t notice him until I made the turn. It made me realize how difficult it would be NOT to notice someone wheeling a stroller, but also, that one had to be either very distracted or traveling at a rate of speed that was unsafe for a busy, well traveled area in order to actually hit them.

  54. 11:22 – There were two witnesses to the crime. The mother of the child who was struck by the car and the driver who claims she was driving downhill below the 25 mph speed limit. The mother has no motive to lie about the crime while the driver does. Does anyone believe that the driver was obeying the 25 mph limit? If she was, she should have had her eyes on the road rather than her dashboard.

  55. So are you saying the car didn’t have the right to be in the road?? Help me with this one…what is the road for, cars or pedestrians?? Obviously the victim was careless and irresponsible. Face it, if she had looked East, she obviously would have seen a car coming. If she looked west, the only way this could have happened is if the vehicle was already past doremus ave. If that was the case, then in my eyes, it wasn’t safe to cross the street. If the car hadn’t made it areound the bend yet prior to Doremus ave, then she had plenty of time to cross the street without being hit. So yes..I am going to blame the mother!

  56. RE – 1:23 –

    Wow, you must be the revrend’s attorney. Oh, that’s right, the reverend herself is a lapsed attorney.

    Your arguments are so skewed that they are laughable. Of course the car had a right to be in the road. Of course the mother and her child had a right to be in the crosswalk. But the LAW states that a pedestrian has the right of way, and a car must yield to pedestrians. Searle is asked to pay a minimal fine for a moving violation. How DARE you characterize the mother as “careless and irresponsible.” Are you actually a human being with any feelings????

    Searle’s issues go way beyond this small accident. She has falsely reprseneted where she lives and is therefore trying to get out of the ticket or risk problems with her insurance company. Moreover now her parishioners are all upset with her for supposedly not living in a Ridgewood home that they pay for. I hope the family SUES her for pain, suffering, and anything else they can think of.

  57. If a driver is watching the road the driver should be able to see a pedestrian and a stroller.

  58. How many times have you almost missed someone int he crosswalk on a dark night. And I think there is a statued that says pedestrians can’t just walk out into the road if it isn’t safe. They have to give the cars ample time and space to SAFELY STOP.

  59. Anonymous said…
    How many times have you almost missed someone int he crosswalk on a dark night. And I think there is a statued that says pedestrians can’t just walk out into the road if it isn’t safe. They have to give the cars ample time and space to SAFELY STOP.

    3:47 PM

    I agree, to a point. You can’t really prevent an accident caused by someone from darting out into traffic. But, the Mom was crossing her child at the cross walk. Now, call me crazy (and I’m sure some of you do), but isn’t it just common sense to slow down when one approaches a cross walk, since that’s where one is most likely to find a pedestrian crossing?

  60. To 4:10 PM –

    AMEN to that. It is common sense when approaching a cross walk to slow down….especially in the area where the accident occurred since there are stores as well as houses all around, and therefore a high possibility of pedestrians.

    Give it up, preacher-lady, you made a mistake now quit whining and just be grateful that the child was not seriously injured.

  61. 1:11, What do you think Engineering could have done to prevent this accident? Sounds like you have unrealistic expectations about what government can do for you. Unfortunately, no government issued sign, striping or speed hump will idiot-proof the world.

    I think a speed hump would be a bad, bad idea at that location. It would make congestion on Godwin much worse. Let’s not ignore that Godwin is a County Road and State law doesn’t allow speed humps to be installed on streets with high traffic volumes.

    There are many other reasons why speed humps are bad, but I don’t want to write a novel. Do your own research. Information is available on the Internet.

    The reason a speed hump is being installed on South Broad is because some members of the Village caved and decided to say the heck with law. If anyone inquires, we’ll call it a “temporary traffic control device”.

    Coincidentally, the State laws regarding speed humps are about to change and they may be allowed on streets such as South Broad. But the Village Council didn’t know this at the time of their decision. They got lucky.

    Unfortunately, this decision is a slippery slope. Many more residents will request speed humps, naively thinking they will cure their neighborhood speeding problem.

    Speed humps have become ubiquitous in some towns and have created a backlash. Glen Rock had to rip one out on Glen by the Post Office.

    By the way, I am not Chris or Jovan, just a Ridgewood resident trying to use common sense.

  62. Anonymous said…
    To 4:10 PM –

    AMEN to that. It is common sense when approaching a cross walk to slow down….especially in the area where the accident occurred since there are stores as well as houses all around, and therefore a high possibility of pedestrians.

    Give it up, preacher-lady, you made a mistake now quit whining and just be grateful that the child was not seriously injured.

    6:58 PM

    AMEN to that!I find it incredulous that the blame is being directed to the parent. As a parent myself, I find myself being hypervigilant while walking around downtown with my children for the simple reason that many don’t slow down at cross walks.

  63. The village is not responsible. The mother is not responsible. The driver is responsible. The law says so.

  64. Tracy you are talking about common sense. Ridgewood lacks that. So don’t expect someone to stop, cross when there are no cars in the area. Don’t take chances, take precautions.

  65. Don’t paint all of Ridgewood with a broad brush – many people are very cautious. Look at the driver in this case, not even a Ridgewood resident.

  66. 12:44 — keeping the Village safe is precisely what our government should be doing and it is not unrealistic for the taxpayers to expect the Village workers to do their jobs. 1:11’s comments were right on the mark. We don’t need more whining about why the Village employees can’t do what they are paid to do. And, if Engineering Department and other departments can’t do their job, then why the hell don’t we just close city hall?

  67. Tracy:

    With all due respect, please stop. You’re giving me a headache. I think all who read this blog know exactly where you stand.

  68. 11:51 – If you are getting a headache why do you keep reading the blog?

  69. Anonymous said…
    Tracy you are talking about common sense. Ridgewood lacks that. So don’t expect someone to stop, cross when there are no cars in the area. Don’t take chances, take precautions.

    9:14 AM

    Thanks, very good advice.

  70. Annoyance said…
    Tracy:

    With all due respect, please stop. You’re giving me a headache. I think all who read this blog know exactly where you stand.

    11:51 AM

    “With all due respect?” Are you suggesting that you have an grasp of what that phrase actually means?

    You obviously don’t find the topic being discussed nearly as interesting as you do being rude to the posters.

    If trying to follow along is giving you a headache, I suggest you finding a more simpler topic or another venue to vent your frustrations.

  71. 11:01–

    Village employees doing their jobs may make conditions safer, but that will NOT prevent careless accidents. The root cause of this accident appears to be driver and/or pedestrian inattentiveness.

  72. RE: You obviously don’t find the topic being discussed nearly as interesting as you do being rude to the posters.

    “With all due respect?” Are you suggesting that you have an grasp of what that phrase actually means?

    RUDE.

    If trying to follow along is giving you a headache, I suggest you finding a more simpler topic or another venue to vent your frustrations.

    RUDE.

    IRONY

    Do you have any grasp of what that word actually means?

  73. IRONY

    Do you have any grasp of what that word actually means?

    See, here’s where your comprehension and social skills seem to be lacking.

    I find that being respectful of others and their opinions is the key to an enjoyable experience when posting on message boards. I will however, respond to posts in the same manner to which I am addressed. If you are rude and disrespectful, you can expect me to respond in kind. I hope I’ve made myself understood.

    Now, you’re beginning to remind me of a child who resorts to negative behavior in order to get attention.

    If that is indeed the case, are your parents aware that your using their computer to try to annoy people on a community message board?

  74. Re”I will however, respond to posts in the same manner to which I am addressed. If you are rude and disrespectful, you can expect me to respond in kind. I hope I’ve made myself understood.”

    Oh, OK, so you are not only rude, you are a hypocrite. Now I understand.

    HYPOCRITE

    Do you have any grasp of what that word actually means

    Re: “Now, you’re beginning to remind me of a child who resorts to negative behavior in order to get attention.”

    You mean negative childish behavior like: “responding to posts in a rude and disrespectful manner when you perceive that you were addressed in that manner.”?

    BTW, you’ve always reminded me of a pitiful old woman, grasping for meaning and purpose in the twilight of her life.

    Also, what happened to your witches creed?
    Aren’t you afraid that all of your negative rude behavior will come back at you thrice-fold?
    Or is that all just a load of BS?

  75. BTW, you’ve always reminded me of a pitiful old woman, grasping for meaning and purpose in the twilight of her life.

    No you obviously don’t understand. Once again, your opinion of me or my religion is irrelvant. What I do find disturbing however, is that you’re putting “you’ve always” and “reminded me” in the same sentence. You don’t know me and therefore, I shouldn’t ALWAYS remind YOU of anything. I also find your need to repeatedly disrupt this discussion by redirecting it back to me and my beliefs equally disturbing.

    Again, I have no idea what your issues are, but I’d be lying if I said I gave a royal rat’s ass either. You need to find another outlet for them, with all “due respect”.

  76. I don’t care what they say about you Glinda… you ARE entertaining!

  77. Anonymous said…
    I don’t care what they say about you Glinda… you ARE entertaining!

    9:40 PM

    Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: