mountainave 530 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 She posted the following note on her Facebook page shortly thereafter. Hi everyone! I'm just fine after that little scare during the 6pm show. Obviously that guy was just trying to get himself on TV. For those who don't know, I was standing on the side of a street in Smithtown and a guy decided to drive very close to me and lay on his horn. I jumped off camera and came back on to finish what I had to say. I just want everyone to know that we were NOT in the middle of the road. I have been reporting in snow storms for almost a decade and I NEVER put my life at risk for any live shot. This is clearly a case of a guy who wanted to startle me and see his truck on TV. Unfortunately he accomplished that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieboy247 42 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 She posted the following note on her Facebook page shortly thereafter. The driver outta be arrested for that. What a f***bag! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo Siffredi 4 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 It is a good thing everyone came out okay and safe. That being said, there are a few contradictions here. Kristin Thorne was standing ON THE ROAD. Roads are intended for motor vehicles, not pedestrians. And certainly not for reporters to stand around doing live shots when weather conditions present POOR VISIBILITY for motorists. The viewer sees only about 45 seconds of the reporter on camera. But the entire shot, inclusive of set-up and the time the taped package runs, is a lot longer. This means if a reporter is in place on a public roadway during this entire time, their risk of getting injured is significantly greater. I watched this clip five times before commenting. It is a shame the clip doesn't run a little longer in order to see the entire streetscape, inclusive of street width. But based on what content is available, the large truck did not swerve towards her, and it's driver appeared to operating in-lane and as close to the road's snow-plowed curb as possible. She posted, "Obviously that guy was just trying to get himself on TV", and later, "This is clearly a case of a guy who wanted to startle me and see his truck on TV. Unfortunately he accomplished that." Why would the driver want to startle her? How would that driver know the exact moment when the camera was rolling AND the station was broadcasting the report? Even if the driver was watching on that app EWN keeps promoting, the timing between a stations' broadcast signal and stream is usually not synchronised. This would make timing the event extremely difficult. This was a large black passenger pick-up truck with no company name or other writing. What purpose would this driver have to see his ordinary truck on TV? He wouldn't even be home to watch it! The driver outta be arrested for that. What a f***bag! Arrested for what? Driving on a road? Driving on a road upon which an EWN reporter was standing? Is there some law against that now? I know to many viewers, these anchors and reporters are like family. But please use common sense when assessing a situation. Sometimes anchors and reporters - even those on a station that consistently outranks their competitors in most dayparts - can screw up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningNews 1291 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think YOU should use common sense. Did you take the time to read her FaceBook post linked above? You're living in a fantasy world if you don't think that there are idiots out there who would do something stupid like this for whatever reason. The only reason people bother reporters who are doing their job in public is to advertise company trucks? No that's delusional. They didn't have know whether or not she was on LIVE, they saw a reporter and a camera and took a chance. Take the example of the kid with Jim Cantore the other day. People do asinine things when they see a reporter with a camera out in public. For whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieboy247 42 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I just thought at first that maybe the driver was going to intentionally run her over, perhaps I wasn't paying much attention to the story. I'll definitely keep the common sense in mind next time I comment on situations like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo Siffredi 4 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I think YOU should use common sense. Did you take the time to read her FaceBook post linked above? You're living in a fantasy world if you don't think that there are idiots out there who would do something stupid like this for whatever reason. The only reason people bother reporters who are doing their job in public is to advertise company trucks? No that's delusional. They didn't have know whether or not she was on LIVE, they saw a reporter and a camera and took a chance. Take the example of the kid with Jim Cantore the other day. People do asinine things when they see a reporter with a camera out in public. For whatever reason. Obviously I read her FaceBook post linked above. As anyone can read, I quoted it twice Her post was HER own defensive opinion of what went down. I pointed out that there are some discrepencies in the "facts" she posted, as depicted by the very video showing the occurrence. It's true that some people do silly and stupid things when they see a camera and reporter. One needs only to watch live post-NYE Ball Drop coverage from Times Square, NYC. to see good examples. But would anyone go as far as to risk committing reckless manslaughter??? With the potential for a camera to be rolling to capture the crime??? With all due respect, that is what is being alleged here. In the Jim Cantore situation, Mr. Cantore was doing his job, not standing in any person or vehicles way, and a young man screamed as he ran up to him. Cantore, not knowing the young man's intentions but likely feeling threatened, was forced to defend his person. A completely legitimate reaction on Mr. Cantore's part. However, in the Kristin Thorne situation, she was standing on a snow-plowed road that was being re-covered by still falling snow. The video depicts the road to not be extremely wide, and the plowed snow at the roads' edges narrows the passable area. This particular Smithtown, NY. street was lit, but not intensely. Motorists who frequently deal with these conditions here in the northeast often do not have the clearest of view as brine, salt, and fresh snow accumulates upon and impacts the opacity of the windshield. How often do we hear meteorologists warn against poor visibility in these conditions? It is quite possible the motorist did not see her until he or she was very close, and he or she could have honked the horn to complain that Ms. Thorne was in the way of ongoing traffic. If Thorne was standing anywhere on the road, SHE WAS IN THE WAY. The only time it is justifiable for a reporter to stand in the street is if police have the street closed for whatever reason, or it is a private road upon which there will be no traffic which could injure the reporter. Standing on a dimly-lit partially snow-covered street is not a good idea for anybody, reporter or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYNewser_676 26 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Kristin was not standing in the road, she was standing on the curb. And although roads are designed for motor vehicles, pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way. Kristin WAS NOT IN THE WAY, as she has the right of way against any vehicle traveling on the road. For example, even if you cross at an intersection against the light, the pedestrian STILL has the right of way. So you are wrong there- she has the full right to be where she was, even though she wasn't in the road. And if you did some more research on this specific situation, the crazed driver of the vehicle continued to drive around the neighborhood blasting the horn. And it's quite simple to make a quick judgment that this can happen: "oh, there's a news camera right there, I'll be an idiot and get really close to the reporter." It was clearly not an accident, as Kristin was so far to the LEFT side of the road that the driver could not have possibly been driving on that side on a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYNewser_676 26 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 And the driver theoretically could be arrested for reckless driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYNewser_676 26 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 And the driver theoretically could be arrested for reckless driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 727 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Kristin was not standing in the road, she was standing on the curb. And although roads are designed for motor vehicles, pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way. Kristin WAS NOT IN THE WAY, as she has the right of way against any vehicle traveling on the road. For example, even if you cross at an intersection against the light, the pedestrian STILL has the right of way. So you are wrong there- she has the full right to be where she was, even though she wasn't in the road. And if you did some more research on this specific situation, the crazed driver of the vehicle continued to drive around the neighborhood blasting the horn. And it's quite simple to make a quick judgment that this can happen: "oh, there's a news camera right there, I'll be an idiot and get really close to the reporter." It was clearly not an accident, as Kristin was so far to the LEFT side of the road that the driver could not have possibly been driving on that side on a regular basis. I must say watching the video, it does look like she was standing in the road. Not saying she was, but the video makes it appear that way. I think the "pedestrians always have the right of way" is a huge misconception. I've seen people ticketed for not obeying traffic signals (walk/don't walk) or jaywalking. Generally, they have the right of way if they are obeying the laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYNewser_676 26 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I can speak for New Jersey- whenever a pedestrian is in the street- no matter where they are, what the signal says, the pedestrian can be there and the traffic has to accommodate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 727 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I can speak for New Jersey- whenever a pedestrian is in the street- no matter where they are, what the signal says, the pedestrian can be there and the traffic has to accommodate. Do you have a source to cite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindNYNews 143 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 No matter what you say, you can not justify what the guy did. Whether she was on the street or not. The guy clearly did it with malicious intent and it was just wrong. You can say she shouldn't be on the street (if she was, she claims she wasn't) but he shouldn't have done what he did in good weather or bad weather. "It doesn't matter who was in the wrong first, its always the Driver's fault." And while the law might not say that exactly, its sure leans that way. He shouldn't have been driving that quickly in the snow if he can't handle it. Like I said, no matter what you say, you can not justify what the guy did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 727 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 No matter what you say, you can not justify what the guy did. Whether she was on the street or not. The guy clearly did it with malicious intent and it was just wrong. You can say she shouldn't be on the street (if she was, she claims she wasn't) but he shouldn't have done what he did in good weather or bad weather. "It doesn't matter who was in the wrong first, its always the Driver's fault." And while the law might not say that exactly, its sure leans that way. He shouldn't have been driving that quickly in the snow if he can't handle it. Like I said, no matter what you say, you can not justify what the guy did. Not justifying what the driver did (why are we assuming it's a he?). I made an observation from the video that it appeared she could have been in the street. Nonetheless, whether she was or not, the driver should have been more careful and driving slower. How can you derive it was with malicious intent? How do you know the driver didn't see her until the last minute and that's why he honked? We just don't know. And a simple google search of "does the pedestrian always have the right of way" will show you that they do not. That is another myth that most people believe to be true. http://www.salisbury.edu/smokefree/docs/crosswalk_safety.htm http://www.sgtinjuryattorneys.com/fact-or-fiction-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way/ http://phoenix.gov/fire/safety/onthemove/traffic/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainave 530 Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 I think it's fair to say they were both, to a certain degree, at fault. She probably shouldn't have been where she was (she says to Liz that the driver probably wasn't happy that she was in the street), and if it wasn't a stunt for him to get on TV, the driver probably should have driven with greater caution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYNewser_676 26 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Do you have a source to cite? A- do you have a source to cite? B- I do- the police in my area do seminars occasionally -- also, Kristin did state that the driver continued to drive around the area recklessly and laying on his horn following this incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYNewser_676 26 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 NJ State Law: "The driver of a vehicle must stop and stay stopped for a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk, but shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within an unmarked crosswalk" ---- 'unmarked crosswalk' AKA every other part of the road Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 727 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 A- do you have a source to cite? B- I do- the police in my area do seminars occasionally A-yes, see above. Try looking before you respond. B-right. I was referring to a link, not hearsay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 727 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 NJ State Law: "The driver of a vehicle must stop and stay stopped for a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk, but shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within an unmarked crosswalk" ---- 'unmarked crosswalk' AKA every other part of the road How convenient that you only cited part of this law! There's more to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5269 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I really don't see this argument going anywhere, so here it is, plain and simple... We only have her side of the story to go on. In the video, she says (possibly in the heat of the moment) that she's in the street, but then denied it later. Now, I'm not saying she's lying or making things up, but it's easy enough to take her side without the driver's account. It's essentially common law in this country that pedestrians have the right of way. However, common sense also needs to be used by said pedestrians. Just because she's reporting and a pedestrian does not give her the right to stand in the street if she wants to. Frankly, any reporter who thinks that they have that right is an idiot, and frankly does not deserve much sympathy if something goes wrong. If a reporter MUST do their report in the street, then it is their duty to not block traffic. If they're in a bad spot, and a driver feels uncomfortable, the driver should not feel bad for honking the horn. This is the same thinking that goes through our heads when another driver gets too close to our vehicle. We, as drivers can't predict what the other person will do, so a tap (or whack) on the horn is acceptable. I do think the driver in this case may have overreacted some, but it was not to get on TV or to cause Ms. Thorne harm. I'm guessing he was showing his disgust through his horn, instead of rolling down his window and yelling at her. He should not be arrested, hunted down, hanged and burned, and anyone thinking that (with reference to #3) is also an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYNewser_676 26 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 N\\\ I really don't see this argument going anywhere, so here it is, plain and simple... We only have her side of the story to go on. In the video, she says (possibly in the heat of the moment) that she's in the street, but then denied it later. Now, I'm not saying she's lying or making things up, but it's easy enough to take her side without the driver's account. It's essentially common law in this country that pedestrians have the right of way. However, common sense also needs to be used by said pedestrians. Just because she's reporting and a pedestrian does not give her the right to stand in the street if she wants to. Frankly, any reporter who thinks that they have that right is an idiot, and frankly does not deserve much sympathy if something goes wrong. If a reporter MUST do their report in the street, then it is their duty to not block traffic. If they're in a bad spot, and a driver feels uncomfortable, the driver should not feel bad for honking the horn. This is the same thinking that goes through our heads when another driver gets too close to our vehicle. We, as drivers can't predict what the other person will do, so a tap (or whack) on the horn is acceptable. I do think the driver in this case may have overreacted some, but it was not to get on TV or to cause Ms. Thorne harm. I'm guessing he was showing his disgust through his horn, instead of rolling down his window and yelling at her. He should not be arrested, hunted down, hanged and burned, and anyone thinking that (with reference to #3) is also an idiot. Now THAT is a great post. Well-done. I agree with every word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giacomo Siffredi 4 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Interesting discussion so far. But it is necessary to interject some facts into it: I can speak for New Jersey- whenever a pedestrian is in the street- no matter where they are, what the signal says, the pedestrian can be there and the traffic has to accommodate. Not justifying what the driver did (why are we assuming it's a he?). I made an observation from the video that it appeared she could have been in the street. Nonetheless, whether she was or not, the driver should have been more careful and driving slower. How can you derive it was with malicious intent? How do you know the driver didn't see her until the last minute and that's why he honked? We just don't know. And a simple google search of "does the pedestrian always have the right of way" will show you that they do not. That is another myth that most people believe to be true. http://www.salisbury.edu/smokefree/docs/crosswalk_safety.htm http://www.sgtinjuryattorneys.com/fact-or-fiction-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way/ http://phoenix.gov/fire/safety/onthemove/traffic/ Good points, TVNewsLover. Ms. Thorne immediately identified the driver as male. Since the driver did not speak, how did and why would she reach that possibly prejudicial conclusion? NJ State Law: "The driver of a vehicle must stop and stay stopped for a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk, but shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within an unmarked crosswalk" ---- 'unmarked crosswalk' AKA every other part of the road How convenient that you only cited part of this law! There's more to it. Here is a link to the New Jersey law governing this issue. I am also copying the relevant portion here, and highlighting the portion NewserNYC inadvertenly omitted. http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/39-motor-vehicles-and-traffic-regulation/4-36.html 39:4-36. Driver to yield to pedestrians, exceptions; violations, penalties. 39:4-36. a. The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except at crosswalks when the movement of traffic is being regulated by police officers or traffic control signals, or where otherwise regulated by municipal, county, or State regulation, and except where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided: (1) The driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway within a marked crosswalk, when the pedestrian is upon, or within one lane of, the half of the roadway, upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. As used in this paragraph, "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes conveying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway. (2) No pedestrian shall leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield or stop. (3) Whenever any vehicle is stopped to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle. (4) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (5) Nothing contained herein shall relieve a driver from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway. Nothing contained herein shall relieve a pedestrian from using due care for his safety. Keep in mind, however, that since this incident occurred in Smithtown, NY., the only relevant law is New York state law. Also, these laws govern moving pedestrians whose intent is to traverse a roadway, not stationary persons conducting business upon a roadway. TVNewsLover, mountainave, and 24994J are objectively viewing the incident. It is understandable why Ms. Thorne would offer a version of the incident more favorable to her position. There are many issues involved, inclusive of liability. The important thing is that reporters not act reckless nor place themselves unnecessarily in dangerous situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsLover 727 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 N\\\ Now THAT is a great post. Well-done. I agree with every word. Agreed, the points were well written. Lol. By "THAT", are you implying that my post wasn't? I was essentially making some of the same points, and your points are pretty much the opposite of what points "THAT" post makes. I am not implying that I know it all, but rather trying to look at this objectively. But whatever, no offense taken (and am sure you don't care either!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anchorman 93 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 You are all right. Can we please stop beating a dead horse and let this thread die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24994J 5269 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 [...] let this thread die? ...Like the reporter would've had she been hit by the driver? I'M KIDDING! Don't worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.