CVS incident yesterday

7/17/2008:

I heard a brief incident over the Live Hoboken Police and Fire scanner yesterday, but didn’t make much of it….

hoboken-street-fight-man-cane-cvs.jpg

“Reports of a street fight near CVS at Newark and Washington… man with cane… involving a City Crosstown Bus… Driver claims the man hit the bus with his cane…” etc…

Then I heard that the man driving the Hoboken Crosstown bus was “10-25’d” (i.e., arrested) and they had to call a “supervisor” because the bus was filled with passengers… but I had to leave the house… whoops!

Later last night, I get this email from a Hoboken411 reader:

“I don’t know what happened, but did anyone write in about the incident by newark street CVS? A Mile Square tow truck was there, and there seemed to be a dispute. A guy grabbed a shovel from the truck, and someone held him back. I heard screaming coming from the corner of Washington and Newark, by the realtor across from CVS. A cop was on Newark and Hudson, and a woman let them know it was going on. Never figured out what happened though. This was around 5:10pm”

My take on the situation (from what I surmise): Somehow there was a “pedestrian/vehicle” incident involving the city run (and tax-payer funded) Crosstown bus… A man hit the bus, and the driver got out and confronted the angry pedestrian… chaos ensued and this lovely city worker gets locked up.

If this is actually the case (like I have time to get “police reports” these days)… wouldn’t you think that’s nuts? Would you care if a pedestrian hit a vehicle you were paid to drive? And it wasn’t yours?

Anywho.. it’s late (Wednesday night as I write this) and I could be very well wrong.. those are the breaks, right?

Fun making the graphic though!

Leave a Reply

43 Comments on "CVS incident yesterday"


BB
Member
BB
8 years 2 months ago

Who the hell lets a toddler out of their sight, near enough to a road where they can dart into traffic? Parents were at fault in that case, especially if your acquaintance was following the speed limit.

oh well okay
Member
oh well okay
8 years 2 months ago

[quote comment=”93904″][quote comment=”93763″]a kid i knew growing up was driving down the street. there were cars lining the street illegally parked (you cannot park on the streets in my town). a toddler bolted from between the two cars into the road. it was determined the guy was driving the speed limit, but he couldn’t stop in time. he was sued, and he lost.[/quote]

The term “sued” leads me to believe that this was civil case not a criminal one.[/quote]

you are right, but although the standard may be lower, there still needs to be some negligence proven on the part of the driver. my position is that obeying the speed limit and all applicable traffic laws is nearly a complete defense to a claim of negligence (unless you had bad brakes or something)

dont-cha-know
Member
dont-cha-know
8 years 2 months ago
[quote comment=”93919″][quote comment=”93912″]You continue to demonstrate an interesting talent for being rational, yet unreasonable, at the same time.[/quote] You are aware that unreasonable means not rational, irrational, no? Only because I take the position to consider a broad accounting of the complete scenario. I seriously believe that oboth (some) drivers and (some) pedestrians are reckless and absolutely go out of their way to either run over, not care, or knowingly walk in front of a moving vehicle. To narrate merely one side of the story doesn’t solve the problem. Most people have a vested reason for free expression, which causes them to tilt the scales, using a vast array of selective presentation, logical fallacies, and emotional persuasion to win for their cause. But when a cause is legitimate, these moves do more damage than benefit. To move forward, a full account is necessary to avoid twisting and ankle in an argumentative pot hole that a person doesn’t see while running into the street against an oncoming car whose driver is in la-a land of the tobacco pipe. Personal responsibility once again saves the day. [quote comment=”93766″]Pedestrians must: -Take care not to suddenly move into the path of a closely approaching vehicle that does not have sufficient time to yield to a pedestrian (39:4-36) state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/pedsafety/responsibility.shtm[/quote] [quote comment=”93766″]Drivers must: -Yield to pedestrians who have started to cross at an intersection or crosswalk on a “walk” signal or a green light, if there is no walk signal (39:4-32)[/quote][/quote] As I would hope you… Read more »
MidnightRacer
Member
8 years 2 months ago

[quote comment=”93912″]You continue to demonstrate an interesting talent for being rational, yet unreasonable, at the same time.[/quote]

You are aware that unreasonable means not rational, irrational, no?

Only because I take the position to consider a broad accounting of the complete scenario. I seriously believe that both (some) drivers and (some) pedestrians are reckless and absolutely go out of their way to either run over, not care, or knowingly walk in front of a moving vehicle.

To narrate merely one side of the story doesn’t solve the problem.

Most people have a vested reason for free expression, which causes them to tilt the scales, using a vast array of selective presentation, logical fallacies, and emotional persuasion to win for their cause. But when a cause is legitimate, these moves do more damage than benefit. To move forward, a full account is necessary to avoid twisting and ankle in an argumentative pot hole that a person doesn’t see while running into the street against an oncoming car whose driver is in la-a land of the tobacco pipe.

Personal responsibility once again saves the day.

[quote comment=”93766″]Pedestrians must:

-Take care not to suddenly move into the path of a closely approaching vehicle that does not have sufficient time to yield to a pedestrian (39:4-36)
state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/pedsafety/responsibility.shtm[/quote]

[quote comment=”93766″]Drivers must:

-Yield to pedestrians who have started to cross at an intersection or crosswalk on a “walk” signal or a green light, if there is no walk signal (39:4-32)[/quote]

dont-cha-know
Member
dont-cha-know
8 years 2 months ago
[quote comment=”93856″][quote comment=”93828″]it’s the opinion of most that the drivers are more at fault even if they are “just as careless” because they are being careless with 1 or 2 tons, while most of us only weight between 125-250lbs. and it’s tough to retaliate once hit by a car, so we find it better to strike pre-emptively, just like GWB does.[/quote] It’s the opinion of most? Where do you guys get his idea that I repeatedly read? Unless you’re omniscient, you don’t know. At best, you can only say that it’s an opinion that some hold, others hold the opposite opinion that both (some) drivers and (some) pedestrians are reckless and possess feelings of entitlement. It’s not like the 2 are separate subspecies of H. sapiens. And to on one hand say that you have to be more careful with a 2 ton vehicle, rather than 125-250 lbs body, well, obviously you have to be careful. But you also can stop on a dime as a 125-250 lbs person instead of walking out in front of a moving vehicle (which has the green light, already turning before you got there) who’s stopping distance is multiples of a human’s. Instead of assuming so much and preference for assumption when lacking statistics, we don’t know how many people have the opinion this way or that way, nor does it matter – since that’s not going to support any position to argue (merit of the argument does). So then we have to rely… Read more »
wpDiscuz