Jean Chambers
The city has begun to make changes at the intersection of 95th street and West End Avenue, where Upper West Sider Jean Chambers was hit and killed by an SUV driver last week.
The city has banned left turns for drivers heading East on 95th from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. on weekdays. The city had already been considering this to protect students at PS 75 on 95th between West End and Riverside. The driver who hit Chambers was traveling East on 95th at the time, and attempting to turn North onto West End. DNAinfo says that DOT is considering other changes:
“In response to the latest crash, the DOT is considering allowing pedestrians more time to cross the street by giving all vehicles a red light at the intersection. The DOT would also like to add another speed bump to an existing one on West End Avenue in front of the school, and is studying whether it is feasible, Mosquera said.”
As for whether the driver will be charged, police said that no charges have been filed and they have completed the investigation of the crash. The final decision on whether to press charges is up to the DA Cyrus Vance’s office. The DA’s office declined to comment. That appears to mean that charges won’t be filed, although Vance’s silence (which appears to be a repeating pattern in these cases) makes it hard to get a definitive answer.
Chambers had the light when she crossed, and the light was apparently green for the driver, who was traveling East on 95th. Surveillance video of the crash obtained by Fox (and posted below) appears to show the driver making a very sharp left turn onto West End when he hits Chambers — so sharp that he’s essentially crossing over the Southbound lanes to get to the Northbound lanes. It would be hard for a pedestrian to anticipate a driver cutting into the Southbound lanes, rather than proceeding to the middle of the intersection before making the turn. And the driver clearly hit Chambers with massive force — enough to drag her nearly half a block before stopping, according to witnesses.
Why this sort of action does not result in charges is impossible to discern without more information or a comment from the DA.
There have now been four fatal crashes this year within a two block radius.
A vigil for Chambers will take place on the Northwest corner of 95th and West End on Thursday at 7:30 p.m. Councilwoman Helen Rosenthal said she will share plans at the vigil to improve the intersection.
The speed bump makes some sense on this block. But willful ignorance of the law, especially when it results in death (as it did here) or injury deserves aggressive prosecution.
I live in the neighborhood and am both a pedestrian and a driver. Bottom line: When you’re making a left turn and there are ANY pedestrians crossing, you wait. Period. I don’t understand why the driver wasn’t charged. As a driver, I constantly see other drivers try and beat the light so speed up, etc. Yes, there are plenty of pedestrians who jaywalk and cross against the light which is wrong, but as a driver, it’s the law to yield to them.
I completely agree. Drivers are insanely trying to beat the lights all the time. I, too, am a driver and a pedestrian. This incident should be prosecuted.
You think they know that!
So little curtesy in general.. Why would they wait for someone to cross the road on green. Might over right wins.. Awful.
Upon viewing the video, this is a clear case of vehicular manslaughter. The DA cannot be silent!!
You are absolutely right.
My husband watched it and said, “Basically, he picked her off.” She never had a chance.
I am all for traffic calming measures, but I also think some aggressive prosecutions would be very effective.
I agree. Watched that tape several times. He cut that left so short he was in the opposing lane. This murderer should not walk! JUSTICE!
Totally agree. That video is hard evidence. The driver cut the corner. The victim was barely off of the corner. She was not at fault at all. No way she could have expected that.
Totally unfortunate.
The DA needs to press charges against the driver. This was an accident that DEFINITELY could have been avoided if the driver respected the true rules of the road.
What more evidence is needed than this video? It’s horrifying. The driver is obviously driving recklessly and illegally.
I knew her for many years at Equinox, can’t believe this.
I can’t believe it either. Such a lovely and gentle woman.
I think it’s massively f’d up if this guy gets to skate on some technicality while the Chambers family lives have been upended because of this. If the DA doesn’t bring charges, I’d be curious to understand why they feel this is not a case of vehicular manslaughter given that the accident happened in the southbound lane where his vehicle shouldn’t have been while making the left turn.
Very good reporting, Avi. I personalLY would like to see some sort of bio or mini-obit in WSR for Ms. Chambers, as she was a longtime neighbor.
There is no question that the driver turned into the SOUTHBOUND lane, as if he was turning onto a one way street.
There were many comments about the responsibility of the pedestrian to “look both ways”. Since this accident, every time I cross West End in that direction, as Ms. Chambers did, I carry out an “experiment” where I see if I could have noticed the SUV coming. You cannot. You can “look both ways” AT FIRST but then you can’t keep spinning your head around from side to side, and even behind, as you cross the intersection. You look to the side that traffic is coming from. Even if you occasionally look the other way — the guy basically came from BEHIND.
You’re right, that driver was in the southbound lane. Reckless driving and involuntary manslaughter are the appropriate charges here. 7-10 years in prison. Wake up NY State and DA Vance!
I agree with all of these comments. This kind of left “swerve” is very, very common these days, particularly on West End Avenue. I wouldn’t refer to it as a “hard” left — to the contrary, a hard left would be (as someone pointed out) a *proper* left, pulling into the middle of the intersection and then, when the intersection is clear, turning 90 degrees directly into the northbound lane.
This driver didn’t really “turn” left, so much as “swerve” softly to the left. And death was the result.
Had this driver followed that well-taught practice (rule?) requiring a turn to be made from the middle of the intersection, he or she would have seen the pedestrian approaching from the left and been able to wait. However, by doing this sloppy left “swerve” across the southbound lane, starting almost from the corner itself, the driver did not see the pedestrian and so just ran her over.
I wish the Police would start enforcing laws requiring proper left turns, requiring turn signals (so pedestrians can know what the driver is going to do *before* the driver goes into the turn, by which point it’s often too late), prohibiting driving while yacking on a cell phone, and all the other supposedly “small” rules that are all there for safety.
We can’t just wish drivers would suddenly start driving safely and carefully. We can, however, require them to follow well established rules for *how* to drive. If they followed those rules — if those rules were enforced — this kind of outlandish behavior, and its tragic outcomes, would be drastically reduced.
I hope this video puts to rest all of the insane talk of Chambers being “on her phone.” This woman had NO chance.
There’s no question, after that video, that the driver was at fault. But to dismiss as “insane” concerns that the pedestrian was paying attention to her cell phone rather than to traffic is just wrong.
Would it have made a difference if she had been paying attention and perhaps been able to stop, or even jump back, before being run over?
We’ll never know. Maybe not. But maybe. Human reflexes are pretty good — when you give them a chance.
Was the cell-phone chat so important that it was worth abandoning the possibility, however small, that she might have saved her own life if she had been paying attention?
Ask her family.
It’s not “insane” to urge people to pay attention when crossing an active street. If paying attention gives you even an iota of added protection, especially from the maniacs on the roads these days, isn’t it worth it to make the chat wait?
What’s more important — the cell phone chat or your life?
If you’re stumped on that one, just ask your family.
I have to agree, Cato. The cell phone does NOT make the accident Ms. Chamber’s fault. It doesn’t make the driver less culpable. Nor does it make it one jot less of a tragedy. But the lack of a cell phone just might have enabled her to save her own life. And if pointing that out makes us all a little more aware of our need to be careful out there, it’s not “insane” to point it out.
A few years ago, I nearly got hit by a speeding car making a bat-out-of-hell left turn in midtown, near Carnegie Hall. I wasn’t on a phone, but I was looking at my friend, chatting, as we stepped into the crosswalk. I didn’t see the car. Luckily, my friend did, and yanked me back just in the nick of time. The car actually knocked my handbag out of my hand — that’s how close it was. Everyone around was gasping.
Thank heaven my friend was paying more attention than I was. I can tell you that ever since then, I DO pay attention when I walk. My friend might not be there next time, and I might have to rely on my own reflexes.
If I’d been hit, it would have been the driver’s fault — my friend and I had the walk sign and the right of way. My conversation shouldn’t have been a factor. I wasn’t doing anything wrong. But I don’t think that would have been much comfort if I’d been hit.
This is a horrible, senseless tragedy. But it just might help to prevent a future tragedy if we all keep in mind that in a busy city, there will always be careless drivers, and the more attention we’re paying, the better.
This could have been any of us who live in or frequent the neighborhood. Why rely on the “courtesy” of people operating 2,000-pound vehicles? Ban turns when peds are legally crossing, period. Then build infrastructure at intersections that forces drivers to slow down and pay attention, not just speed bumps. And prosecute killer drivers. Four dead on the Upper West Side in six months and zero (0) criminal prosecutions.
Ken, your knowledge of vehicle weights is tragically (and unfortunately) way out of date. The only place you’ll find a 2000 lb car any more is at the race track. The average family sedan (let’s take a BMW 5 series for example), weighs 4000 lbs. These big stinking SUVs weigh nearly 6000 lbs!
So unbelievably ridiculous that this is even a question, whether to charge the driver.
I still can’t believe that in the same week that Cy Vance decided 9-year-old Cooper Stock’s death – in a crosswalk, hand in hand with his dad, practically at his front door – would not be prosecuted as a crime, he sent a woman to jail for elbowing a cop.
It is against the law to turn, while pedestrians are crossing. One is supposed to wait for the intersection to be clear, before preceding. The police can hand out tickets in such situations. Not too long ago I took a refresher course as offered by my insurance company in order to lower my rates. And no, I never had a moving violation in over 35 years. Never.
The video clip is so fast, blurry and truncated you can’t determine a damn thing so charges are not appropriate. The article makes the odd statement that both people had the light. It’s trivial to avoid being hit by an SUV by just looking around you. The area is a known high risk one, as is any area full of so much highway traffic. When I view the video I see a pedestrian speed walking right into the crosswalk as a large SUV is also entering the crosswalk *clearly* visible on a well lit day. It’s coming right at her and she hasn’t even looked before crossing, completely relying on evidently having the light, which seems speculation since how would you know from the video? It’s also obvious that the driver could have also avoided the accident however, but if he has the light then likely she did not in fact have it too and so he is not at fault. Since pedestrians are in such danger, the biggest fault is with someone on their phone not looking around before entering a crosswalk. The SUV cut a corner, it didn’t storm through at a hundred miles an hour, recklessly. Just before she crosses a car passes right in front of her, something that would alert a normally aware person that fast traffic into the intersection was ongoing. That car moving in front if the SUV also helped the SUV consider being the caboose following the train of traffic seem normal. Criminalizing such mistakes won’t make people safer but will just further fill up jails with one time offenders whose families are suddenly torn apart by it.
With respect, please see my comment above. The driver’s fault was not so much making a left turn as it was *how* the driver made the left turn. If he or she had followed the law and moved straight into the intersection before turning 90 degrees left, the driver would have seen the pedestrian and her life would likely have been spared.
Instead, the driver (literally) cut the corner by starting the turn much too early, cutting immediately through the western-most part of the cross-walk — where the pedestrian was, appropriately, walking.
As “blurry and truncated” as you may find the video, the path of the car is as clear as day. And “trivial” to avoid being hit by an SUV? Not when the SUV suddenly is someplace it simply is not supposed to be: in the beginning of the crosswalk, rather than driving straight and *then* going across its middle.
First time or tenth time, this driver was clearly in the wrong, and Ms Chambers lost her life because of it. Your defense of the driver is just wrong on many, many facts.
I totally agree with Cato. No excuse for bad driving and no excuse for the driver of that SUV that killed this woman. But, none of us can say with 100% certainty that the driver be charged with criminality. It was a tragic accident. No intent. As for releasing the name of the driver, that is never done and for good reason. If no charges are brought forth then the person should remain anonymous for their protection. I know this sounds hard to accept but we must assume the driver did not intend to hit and kill this poor woman. Tragic all around.
I get your point, that probably the driver did not intend to kill Jean Chambers. But, he did. An accident is like, he was sloppy at breakfast and got a dollop of jam on his dress shirt. Oops. Barreling through a crosswalk, striking and killing a pedestrian: I hate it that we shrug this off as an “accident.”
And (sorry, talking to myself here!), it actually is against the law.
Here’s how they both had the light: Both the driver and pedestrian were heading East, meaning they both had green lights. But the driver had the obligation to wait for the pedestrian to cross before turning North. Nonetheless, he turned right into her. Got it?
Or are you just trolling?
That poster is a troll. Either that or they’re the maniac who was at the wheel.
One time offender?
First of all, we don’t know that’s true of this driver: NYPD is protecting his anonymity. Second of all, how many pedestrians should one be able to kill before it’s punishable? Seriously, do you have a number in mind?
How torn apart do you think Jean Chambers’ family and circle of friends is right now?
Let’s say this driver took a sharp left turn in a densely populated neighborhood, ran over a cop, dragged him half a block before stopping, and then the cop died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. I think we’d see some charges for the same death, pretty quick.
You raise an interesting point. Why haven’t the police released the name of the driver? I know the driver hasn’t been charged with a crime but the driver has caused the death of a person and I think it is important to know who the driver is. Is the driver’s identity being shielded for some reason. The driver should certainly be ticketed for a driving infraction so the name should be released.
Y’know, while I’d love to squish all of our neighborhood’s worst unintended consequences on to 95th Street, it’s probably not a great idea.
There is no question that detouring left-turn cars at that intersection 24/7 would negatively impact all of the streets around that part of the neighborhood. They should just put pylons on the double yellow from 95th to 96th, insist that the 24th actually have a presence below 96th Street and be done with it.
By the way, Vance HAS prosecuted reckless homicidal drivers before. But apparently they have to flee the scene before he gets interested!
https://www.newyorkparalegalblog.com/2011/01/jessica-altruz-has-been-indected-for.html
At the very least, the DA should make a public statement as to why no charges were made against this driver who turned into the wrong lane of traffic. If Jean Chambers weren’t in the crosswalk, but a downtown vehicle been hit by this sharp turn, you can rely on it that some wrong-doing would have been charged. The public is owed an explanation. Vance’s silence is unacceptable.