This site is a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech. We believe this site increases the availability of information, encourages healthy debate, and makes possible new connections between people.
While reporting on topics, we will ask the questions some newspapers don't. We will print the questions that some newspapers won't.
All sources of information are confidential.


Email The Fact of The Matter at:

tfotmwestfield@gmail.com


Thursday, December 27, 2012

Former Councilman Witnesses Dangers of HAWK Pedestrian Light at Central & Cambridge

You be the judge.
     Former Westfield Councilman Mark Ciarrocca, a proponent of the HAWK pedestrian light located at the cul-de-sac'd intersection of Central Ave.  & Cambridge Rd. witnessed first hand this evening the dangers of a light located mid-block being unfamiliar to passing motorists.  A witness, to Ciarrocca and another adult activating the pedestrian light, states that after one vehicle clearly blew through the red light, a second vehicle came to a screeching halt. 
Judge Ciarrocca
     Ciarrocca once proclaimed that he would not be willing to place the HAWK light at any location if the safety of pedestrians where jeopardized even 1%.  When confronted with facts from the HAWK inventor that mid-block HAWK crossings are 3 % less safe when located mid-block rather than an intersection, Ciarrocca retreated from Mayor Skibitsky's claim that "the HAWK is in the safest location" despite the town's consulting engineer Gordon Meth's recommendation to place the light at the corner of Central & Clover St.
     So TFoTM has gotta ask the Honorable Judge Ciarrocca, now a sitting Union County Superior Court Judge................Will you be attending a town council meeting to tell us what a great location this light is in after your eyewitness account tonight?  Doubtful.
    

37 comments:

  1. Vulture light sounds more appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually "Loser Light" sounds more appropriate, naming it after the LOSERS who put it there. That would be the tag team of Skibitsky and Ciarrocca.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I’m glad YOU are neither a judge nor lawyer. Your blurb proclaims a “fact” numerous times based on anonymous 2nd hand information! Who is this witness who states he witnessed Ciarrocca eye witnessing a near accident? Why don’t you get Ciarrocca’s account of this event before stating speculated claims as actual events & criticizing the Judge with vague accusations?

    Poor reporting, Kasko.

    I too am against this light & no fan of Ciarrocca, but hard facts are needed in this case against the light, not hearsay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where does the "blurb" proclaim Ciarrocca eye witnessed a near accident? The story does not include any such claim. No need for Ciarrocca's eye witness account when one was provided by an eyewitness to the event.

      Delete
    2. Uh oh, is Bruce drinking again? Back from Maryland and stirring it up in Garwood. Bruce, go crawl up the azz crack of a freeloader.

      Delete
    3. Your “story” quote, “Former Westfield Councilman Mark Ciarrocca, a proponent of the HAWK pedestrian light located at the cul-de-sac'd intersection of Central Ave. & Cambridge Rd. witnessed first hand this evening the dangers of a light located mid-block being unfamiliar to passing motorists.”
      What other “danger” did he witness first hand that day if not the near accident??
      Your empty denial sounds desperate, and your reporting is gossipy and reads like wanna-be lawyer double-talk.
      You STILL need first hand info from reliable identified sources. It seems you just can’t wait to criticize ANY Westfield gov authority, present or past.
      Stick to the facts & be positive for a change. There are also GOOD things being done.

      Delete
    4. You ask "what other danger did he witness first hand that day if not the near accident??" A witness reports that after Ciarrocca and another adult activated the HAWK pedestrian light, a car "blew" through the activated red HAWK light and another car came to a screeching halt. Unless Judge Ciarrocca was oblivious to his surroundings and didn't see the vehicle "blow" through the red light as our witness did, or was deaf to the screeching tires of the vehicle that abruptly stopped, then he witnessed first hand the dangers of the mid-block HAWK pedestrian light. Once again, there was no accident.

      Here is a positive.........The local newspaper charges a fee for it's content. The content here is free.

      Delete
    5. This website is a good thing being done.

      Delete
    6. Once again, I said NEAR ACCIDENT, not ACCIDENT, dummy! You are flailing with over-trying to explain your hearsay reporting with double-talk again, Kasko.

      Delete
    7. Once again, there was no accident. There was no "near" accident. The facts were provided by an eyewitness. Hope that answers any further questions you may have.

      Delete
    8. You Know Who Don't Know MeFriday, January 04, 2013

      Looks like someone is not happy with this sites exposure. an eyewitness is not hearsay. I think You Know Who knows how to spin a comment to divert from the real issue here and thaty is that the town made a huge mistake locating the light where it is presently located. Accident, near accident, or no accident, clearly a witness to the former councilman crossing this dangerous crosswalk saw what they saw and passed on the info to this site. If I witness an accident and the police take my name, it's not hearsay. likewise, if I were the one to witness the councilman at the light and hearing tire screeching along with a car going through the red light, thats not hearsay.

      Delete
    9. To put this “hearsay” issue to rest, please identify the eyewitness to the Ciarrocca incident.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    10. Sources of information to this website will not be revealed. Doing so, could force TFoTM to have to reveal sources of information regarding confidential police information obtained for which this site received a subpoena for in the past, from the Union County Prosecutor's Office, and successfully fought and had withdrawn. What is deemed hearsay by a reader is an opinion. The information obtained from a source/witness is not.
      TFoTM will continue to protect the identities of numerous sources of information and they will only be revealed by the source of the information if that person so desires.

      TFoTM suggests you contact Mr. Ciarrocca if you want his side of a story.

      Delete
    11. To You Know Who. Your messages show how infuriated you are by the truth. They also show how educated you are using the language you used. I am wondering if Ciarrocca told his best friend, Andy, that he and his female companion were almost hit by the second car as the first one flew in front of them. I am also wondering if they would allow their children to cross Central when the adults encounter frequently such a situation. They don’t care of other’s children or of anybody else but their ego. These things happen ten times a day in the safest location of the mid-block crosswalk. One day a tragedy will happen if this thing will not be corrected.

      Delete
  4. with all these accidents happening I would wonder what body shop Skibitsky and Ciarrocca have a piece of..?????

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let's call it the light that careless distracted drivers ignore while they are drunk, passing on the right, on their cell phones, or tailgating conveniently blame for accidents they cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure your not confusing the location of the HAWK light on Central Ave with the location of North & Tuttle? There is no light at North & Tuttle........yet, but the contributing circumstances you have described best fit the location identified as a "hot spot" by the Mayor and council over 7 years ago.

      Delete
    2. Can a red light camera be installed at the HAWK light on Central Ave? If drivers don't stop they are ticketed by mail. It makes money for other towns. Why not Westfield?

      Delete
    3. You ask "Why not Westfield?" The topic of red light cameras was brought before the town council as a source of revenue. (No responses to date). Secondly, the fact of the matter is that if a red light camera were to be installed at the HAWK light, Mayor Skibitsky's claim that the light is in the safest location would be exposed as a farce. The last thing the Mayor wants is actual proof through documentation and video that he is wrong. For now, he can refute anyone's claim that it's unsafe. The "data" and other statistics including accident reports and eyewitness accounts that TFoTM has obtained have not been "compelling" enough for local politicians to reconsider the fact that they could have possibly made a mistake locating the light mid-block. Mayor Skibitsky was able to present false data to the public and County officials (which TFoTM has proven to be the case through OPRA requests and analysis) to cover his tracks on the HAWK issue. He is not going to turn back now and admit a mistake.

      Delete
    4. Let's call it the light that careless distracted drivers ignore while they are drunk, passing on the right, on their cell phones, or tailgating conveniently blame for accidents they cause."

      Based on this statement there would seem to be a need for more law enforcement at the location. However, doing more with less, a Skibitsky rally cheer, has spread public safety personnel so thin that the reallocation of manpower should be considered. Take sworn law enforcement officers away from secretarial duties and reassign them to public safety needs.

      Delete
    5. Or get the cops that are sitting on side streets and Vicki's Diner away from their coffee, food and naps.

      Delete
  6. Listen you Skibitsky cheerleader, not one of the NINE ACCIDENTS was caused by a drunk driver or cell phone user. All of the accidents reports are available to the public. No one can dispute tailgating because Central Ave is so congested with approx. 24,000 cars per day that tailgating is inevitable, that is why (genius) the light must be located at an INTERSECTION where motorists are wired to stop. Read the Penoni Report for the experts analysis determining that the light belongs at the intersection 80 feet away. Anyone who believes that light is in the best location is being intellectually DISHONEST!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they weren't distracted, there would be no accidents. How stupid is it that you make the ignorant statement that "tailgating is inevitable". Tailgaiting is not acceptable anywhere. If they are tailgating, then drivers are breaking the law and are driving in a negligent fashion. I drive that road to and from work every day - every day. Blame the light when you don;t want to accept responsibility or to shift blame off drivers and on to something else.

      Delete
  7. How many car lengths are necessary between cars to not be considered tailgating?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 39:4-89. Tailgating, Following; space between trucks The driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to the speed of the preceding vehicle and the traffic upon, and condition of, the highway.
      The driver of a motor truck when traveling upon a highway, outside of a business or residence district, shall not follow another motor truck within one hundred feet, but this shall not be construed to prevent one motor truck overtaking and passing another.

      Delete
  8. In other words during heavy vehicle volume times on Central and when cars are heading north and then make a left onto Clover every single car behind them is tailgating until they quickly veer right to go around the left turning car. Of coarse these cars must drive over the LARGE WHITE LINES which I imagine is also a traffic violation. My, my, so many troubling motor vehicle dilemmas surrounding the mayor's safest location for a pedestrian crosswalk. Watch out for the 6ft. backyard fence for the house on the corner of Cambridge faux culdesac and Central. The last suv that must have been tailgating almost took a dip in their backyard pool after crashing through the fence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This reply is just stupid. If they are travelling less than two car lengths behind the person (or two seconds behind), then they are tailgating. Passing on the right and going over the white lines is not legal, either. I assure you that, even if the traffic light were moved to Clover, cars would still be tailgaiting and passing on the right. The answer is drivers ed and adhering to the law.

      Delete
    2. If the HAWK light were moved to the intersection of Central & Clover, where the town's traffic safety consulting engineer recommended a light should be located, a left turn only lane similar to Central & Clifton and Central & Grove St could be designed. The number of vehicles involved in accidents slowing down or stopped to make left turns onto Clover St was identified by Gordom Meth as an issue in his July 2005 report to the Mayor and town council. One would have ask why the town paid for a consulting engineer's recommendations only to ignore them when the project broke ground.

      Delete
  9. Why has this debate been going on and on for over two years?! Where do we as adults teach our children to cross a street? In the middle of a road or at an intersection? The mayor made a mistake plain and simple. Someone should ask him this question. If he's honest he'd say he taught his children the same thing everyone teaches their children. Cross at the corner. If he taught his kids to cross streets in the middle of the block he's lucky their alive today. I wonder where he'll teach his grandchildren to cross a street since he has now changed an absolute into a lie of his own making, you know, his less points of conflict theory. What a crock and what a liar. But what a politician.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I vote for a Fact Of The Matter pole. Where do you teach children to safely cross a street. In the middle of a block or at an intersection.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey Genius - it's "poll", not "pole".

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just mak'in sure you're pay'in attention!

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is not a surprise. Anyone that has used the Hawk light with any regularity will have many similiar stories.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Certainly Ciarrocca is aware of this site and this posting. If the story isn't true about his near death experience (which happens with alarming frequency to anyone who uses that ridiculous light) why doesn't he just post a response in his defense. Huh?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Maybe he has. Maybe he's "You Know Who".

    ReplyDelete
  16. The reason why no on ecan take the claims about the dangers of this light seriously is because of the hyperbole and exaggeration that goes on by its ignorante deterrants.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If you're referring to Mrs. Enculescu, the resident whose driveway is the intersection with the Hawk light, apparently you are not aware of the fact that she has a doctorate degree in the chemical sciences. I suppose you have a degree in traffic safety!

    ReplyDelete