Accident at Central and Lenox Avenues Sends Two to Hospital
A two-car accident occurred just before 11 a.m. Saturday morning.
Photos
The Westfield Volunteer Rescue Squad transported two people to the hospital following a two-car accident that occurred at the intersection of Central and Lenox Avenues just before 11 a.m. Saturday.
One vehicle struck a one-way street sign. Two ambulances were on the scene and volunteer EMS technicians treated a woman who was in the vehicle that hit the sign as well as a woman who was travelling in the other car.
Westfield Police Department Officer Scuozo said there was nothing unusual about the accident, "just the usual two-car fender bender."
As it is St. Patrick's Day, the WPD reminded residents to designate a driver if they will be drinking today. Increased DWI checkpoints will be set up around town, according to WPD Captain David Wayman.
In This article
-
Westfield Volunteer Rescue Squad
335 Watterson St, Westfield, NJ -
Westfield Police Department
425 E Broad St, Westfield, NJ -
Southide W
10:22 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012
Another accident on Central Ave? Another reason why that darn HAWK light should be moved to the corner of Central Ave and Clover. The driver was probably CONFUSED by the flashing red light and thought the other car was someone else's driveway. Maybe the driver "panicked" and had to SWERVE when confused by the other car's flashing brake lights. Mayor, you are IGNORING this, too?
Samsmom
12:07 pm on Sunday, March 18, 2012
LOL! Good one... NR9, it's called sarcasm...
common sence
5:39 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
OK so here's the real deal:
Mayor Skibitsky is ignoring nothing because there is nothing to ignore. traffic collisions happen every day. the hawk light was a county project go complain to them.the area that it is in is not even remotely distracting or complicated. central and Lenox is 1.5 miles from the hawk light. normal traffic lights (north and central) are not distracting or complicated either. Lenox is not a driveway everyone knows that. brake lights on cars don't flash. they are not distracting.
THIS ACCIDENT WAS NOT CAUSED BY THE HAWK LIGHT. END OF DISCUSSION.
if you can not understand this you should check your self into a psychiatric facility. may I suggest Raritan Bay Medical Center in Perth Amboy.
common sence
5:40 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
also since you failed to notice that the title of this article is "Accident at Central and Lenox Avenues Sends Two to Hospital" and just defaulted to: "central ave? must have been at the hawk light" displays your lack of COMMON SENSE
NR9
10:36 pm on Saturday, March 17, 2012
@South Westfielder. This one was at Lenox. Far from Clover/Cambridge. Far from anyone's driveway. It wasn't one of the hot spots ignored by the mayor.
Southide W
11:13 am on Sunday, March 18, 2012
@NR9 - define "far". The one way street could have easily been confused by the driver as being a driveway. The red brake lights could have easily distracted the driver and startled him/her. The traffic light just ahead of the driver on North and Central could have confused the driver. The very anticipation of the HAWK light just a few blocks down the road could have caused stress. No, this IS the Mayor's fault and due to his stubborness on his part. I agree with you now NR9 that he is IGNORING safety in town. Drunk driving or careless driving has NOTHING to do with any accident that occurs on Central. YOU convinced me.
Sally McBride
1:33 pm on Friday, March 30, 2012
I am 25 miles away and the light is bothering me in the middle of the day!!!!
Southide W
8:52 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
@Common sence, samsmom got it correct - I was being sarcastic. I was responding to complaints from people like NR9 who blame every accident on the HAWK light. Calm down. I read the article and know exactly where this accident occurred.
NR9
9:56 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
South Westfielder wrote: “people like NR9… blame every accident on the HAWK light.”
Response:
Not true, South Westfielder. Not “every accident”… just the 16 (SIXTEEN!) that took place between Cambridge and Clover on Central AFTER the traffic safety expert’s recommendation to have a STANDARD LIGHT installed at CLOVER were IGNORED BY THE MAYOR who, instead, installed a CONFUSING LIGHT at a CONFUSING LOCATION about 120 feet south of the recommended location at someone’s driveway. Since July 1, 2010 (approximate start date of equipment installation/line painting), there have been 16 (SIXTEEN!) accidents at this location. Those have taken place on the following dates:
2010: Jul 9, Jul 22, Aug 22, Aug 24, Sep 26, Oct 25
2011: Jan 7, Apr 25, Sep 12, Sep 21, Oct 27, Dec 14
2012: Jan 25, Feb 9, Mar 14, Apr 12.
Sixteen accidents from July 1, 2010 to April 12, 2012 is A RATE OF ABOUT 9 (NINE!) ACCIDENTS PER YEAR. In the previous 8 ½ years (Jan 1, 2002 to Jun 30, 2010), that location had accidents at A RATE OF ABOUT 1 (ONLY ONE!) ACCIDENT PER YEAR. Seems pretty compelling to me. Do you have any “compelling” data to suggest that installation of the HAWK light at Cambridge has made that portion of roadway safer? If so, please provide. Thanks.
Sally McBride
10:25 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
on your blog, on a report posted April 12th about this same accident, you say "Since July 9, 2010 there have been 13 accidents in the northbound lane of Central Ave. between Cambridge Rd. and Clover St".
Please let me know when the number you are quoting will increase for the same date range. Of course the other number was just a typo and you will now update it to the more convenient/correct number
Everyone should question any number posted by nr9
Southide W
6:47 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
@NR9 - Your facts are off and even if the accident occurred near the light, it doesn't mean that the light caused it. Your analysis of statistics is so flawed and so biased, your "data" is useless in trying to draw conclusions about the light and it's cause of the accidents. The light did not cause them - stupidity, crelessness, speeding, traveling too close, passing on the right and jamming on brakes to make left turns caused them. I would be willing to bet that if the light were moved and/or made a standard light, we'd see accidents there, too. But we can't prove that yet.
NR9
10:15 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
@Samsmom. Yes, I realized at the time that South Westfielder was attempting to use sarcasm. Interestingly though, despite numerous comments from South Westfielder over the past one year plus, none of those comments have had any solid data/facts to support his/her position disagreeing with what the town/county traffic safety experts recommended in their reports. Nothing - no solid support at all. Just attacks on those who have provided data/facts. This suggests that he/she has no solid data/facts on the topic. And thus the use of sarcasm and/or character attacks. Where's the beef South Westfielder? If you have strong data to support your position, please provide it.
Southide W
6:49 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Character attacks, NR? Really? Grow up, thicken your skin and accept that you are a hypocritical. Your attacks on those who disagree with you and on the mayor are well documented.
NR9
10:23 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
Furthermore, Union County said they are willing, for FREE (no cost to Westfield taxpayers), to remove the current HAWK equipment from Cambridge and install the originally recommended standard traffic light at Clover.
NR9
11:13 am on Friday, April 20, 2012
@Sally McBride.
Although you may think I have a blog, I do not. I believe you are referring the TFOTM website that covers a wide variety of issues related to Westfield. That site is run by Greg Kasko. It’s a very informative website for people who live in Westfield. You can link to it here: http://www.07090.blogspot.com/
I think you bring up an excellent question. I actually had the exact same question for Mr. Kasko and I asked it of him on March 28, 2012. You can read my question and his reply:
http://www.07090.blogspot.com/2012/03/video-mayor-is-not-traffic-safety.html#comment-form
While on that article, you may find some of the other reader comments pretty interesting as well.
Furthermore, even though 16 is the complete number, even if it was 13, that would still be VERY compelling. That would suggest 7 accidents per year whereas the previous 8 ½ year period had just 1 accident per year at that location. But the number really is 16 so the average really has INCREASED TO NINE ACCIDENTS PER YEAR from the previous rate of ONE ACCIDENT PER YEAR before the HAWK was installed.
As much as you don’t seem to want to believe it, these were very real accidents. You can obtain these very real accident reports from the very real police station- Westfield Police Dept. at 425 E. Broad Street - and/or find corresponding news articles in the Westfield Leader/Patch from when those accidents took place.
Southide W
6:50 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The fact of the matter is nothing more than a propaganda piece for a disgruntled, disgraced former cop and his buddies. The site looks like a cheesy porno-site.
Sally McBride
12:50 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
So it seems that there are a lot more police reports overall and not just on central. Wonder how you will spin/deny this
NR9
1:28 pm on Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Sally McBride wrote: "So it seems that there are a lot more police reports overall and not just on central.”
Response: Huh? Yes, there are a lot of police reports/accidents... not just on Central. Plenty of accidents take place, all over Westfield, all the time.
But, we're talking about this particular location. Since July 1, 2010, there have been 16 (SIXTEEN!) accidents at this particular location. Those accidents took place on the following dates:
2010: Jul 9, Jul 22, Aug 22, Aug 24, Sep 26, Oct 25
2011: Jan 7, Apr 25, Sep 12, Sep 21, Oct 27, Dec 14
2012: Jan 25, Feb 9, Mar 14, Apr 12.
Are you saying that you don't think the 16 accidents took place? You think the police officers, tow truck drivers, ambulance drivers etc. who responded to those accidents were just showing up to hang out and talk about news, sports, weather and exchange recipes? You think the Westfield Leader and Patch reporters who reported on those accidents were making those accidents up?
I really don't understand your point. Or, as “NJD” responded to you yesterday on a different article… “Are you, as usual, just spouting negative comments with no thought process or insight involved?”