A cab collided with another car at 76th Street and Broadway on Monday morning, and three people were transported away by ambulance, according to Michael Field. Field came upon the scene after the crash, and relayed information from a nearby doorman, who said “the cab rear-ended another vehicle, both heading north on Broadway, and swerved into parked cars on the east side of the street.” An FDNY spokesman had no information on the incident.

Priscilla Greene took the photo below.


NEWS | 59 comments | permalink
    1. dannyboy says:

      The irony, is of course, that after lots of hand-wringing about how dangerous specific intersections are, additional development brings even more density.

      oh yea, what’s life compared to money?

      • UWS-er says:

        Could you explain how development led to this crash? That’d be super.

      • Sherman says:

        Agreed. Only you should be entitled to live here.

        • dannyboy says:

          You, Woody, UW-ser, and Mark deserve each other.

          The reason more development leads to more casualties is because the streets become more crowded and contentious.

          none of you could figure that out? or do you just prefer to argue instead?

          • Juan says:

            Thoughtfully done development also creates more places for people to live, more tax revenue to support schools and social programs for those who are less fortunate, and replenishes buildings that have outlived their useful lives.

            But yeah, as long as you are happily settled in your rent controlled/stabilized apartment and have been living here since back when the UWS was not as nice as it is today, no one else should be allowed to move into the neighborhood, interfere with your quality of life and share in your good cheer and infinite wisdom?

            • dannyboy says:


              Have you fantasized the Comment that you are Replying to?

            • Juan says:

              Yes, dannyboy, the very clear implication from your comment is that development is bad and leads to problems. Several of us drew this conclusion from it, so if that was not your intention, you need to write more clearly. Assuming this was your intention, I (and others) am disproving your point.

            • dannyboy says:

              Juan, you read my Comment as saying that: “no one else should be allowed to move into the neighborhood, interfere with your quality of life and share in your good cheer and infinite wisdom?”?

              …or did you make that up so you had something to argue about?

            • Carlos says:

              dannyboy – the irony of you accusing someone of using hyperbole to “make that up so you had something to argue about” is unbelievable. You dominate all conversations on this web site with your hyperbole, snarkiness, and constant need to have the first and last word. All intelligent conversation gets side-tracked by you. Yet you imply that you are contributing to the betterment of personkind and the UWS in particular. Bless your heart.

            • dannyboy says:

              Carlos, you don’t surprise me by joining the personal attacks in response to my Comment:

              “how dangerous specific intersections are, additional development brings even more density.”

              Justifying it as “intelligent conversation” does surprise me, however.

            • Carlos says:

              I think the best solution to all of this is for us to just ignore you. You can have the pleasure of being the first to reply to all threads and do all of the replies you want and we will carry on with our conversations around you. I think most of those who read this blog have been doing that for a long time and those of us who haven’t will wise up and begin doing so and maintain our sanity. Happy New Year!

            • Margaret says:

              I like dannyboy’s comments. Look, the whole reason we comment here is to share different points of view. There’s no call for a rude “bless your heart” just because you disagree.

              However, I actually disagree with you dannyboy!! The Astor, on Broadway between 75th and 76th where this happened, had the opposite of population growth since it got converted from regular size rentals to larger luxury condos a couple years ago. I think the number of people living in the building dropped by half or so. So I don’t think it’s fair to blame this taxi’s crash on development.

            • Mark says:

              Carlos et al are clearly not choosing to discuss the topic. They are attempting to shout down the conversation.

              Being oppositional is not discussion.

              More like baying.

            • Mark says:

              The above was brought to you by “not the real Mark”.

            • Mark says:

              Yes, Punctuation Mark. Mark without emotions.

              I am named Mark (with emotions).

          • Mark says:

            Actually, we deserve each other because we think logically and can construct sentences in the English language.

            • dannyboy says:


              Your Reply, in its entirety was: “Huh?”

              …how’s that: “think[ing] logically and can construct sentences in the English language.”?

            • Mark says:

              “Huh?” is a complete sentence and a logical response to your post.
              Try again.

            • dannyboy says:

              ““Huh?” is a complete sentence” – Mark

              quite an accomplishment which you believe justifies your making everything personal and well…

              too emotional!

            • Uws says:

              Fewer people live in the UWS now than in 1990. One of the many reasons that the comment is dumb. Facts are hard for some.

          • UWS-er says:

            So if the stores were abandoned, there would be no traffic on the streets? Honestly, look at the pic. Does it look like the businesses contributed? You’ve leaped to an incredibly bizarre and unfounded conclusion.

            • Mark says:

              Yeah, but what’s life compared to money?

            • dannyboy says:

              Now that UWSer and Mark agree, then it’s all settled then!

              you must understand that increased density causes increased contention and resulting collisions. i already explained that to you, but if you really believe that I proposed removing all the stores from Broadway, as you claim I have, then good luck with your “think[ing] logically”.

    2. Eli says:

      That sure doesn’t look like a 25mph collision! The city needs to install automatic speed cameras on every block to curb these reckless, killer motorists!

      • In 1991, I did at least that much damage to my car in a single-vehicle rendezvous with a telephone pole, and I was going no more than 20 miles per hour. It’s remarkable what a little speed can do. They might have been going faster, and your point about speed on that section of Broadway is valid, of course.

      • EleanorandGeorge says:

        For what it’s worth, if both cars were traveling in the same direction the relevant metric is the difference in speed. So to equate to the telephone poll comment the cab would have had to be traveling 20mph greater than the struck vehicle. It’s not completely clear maybe the hit car was parked, but that’s not my reading of the story. If it was in fact moving northbound the cab driver must have been well over the speed limit.

      • Margaret says:

        My thoughts exactly – this doesn’t look like a collision where the driver was going at a safe speed.

        Crazy that every taxi has a backseat TV and yet we can’t fit them all with dash cams, for safety.

    3. Claude says:

      Thank you for your brilliant insights based on zero facts. Car accidents happen on rural roads in farm country. How do you know that density had anything to do with this? You know what happens when you assume (or is that not taught at Columbia?)

      • dannyboy says:

        that’s right, the probability of a crash must be must lower in the absence of cars and pedestrians.


      • Mark says:

        Apparently what isn’t taught at Columbia (or is it Colombia??) is that there are many potential risk factors that lead to certain events.
        For the more emotionally-driven among us it would seem that there is only one considerable risk (urban development) for car/pedestrian accidents and that this equates to a love of money over human life.

        • dannyboy says:

          “For the more emotionally-driven among us”

          Mark, this Reply, which is your mainstay, is…

          You tell me. Are you devoid emotions? Do you find us all too emotional?


          • Mark says:

            “Do you find us all too emotional”?
            No. That criticism was not directed at “all” of the people here. That seems rather obvious.

            Emotions are great as long as they don’t overtake a person.
            I prefer to rely on reason.
            I also prefer to avoid random capital letters.

            • dannyboy says:

              Proper nouns require capitalization, but you must know that already, claiming that you ‘can construct sentences in the English language.'”

            • Mark says:

              The word “reply” isn’t a proper noun.
              Now, if you had referred to the “Comment field” then a capital C would be justified.
              You also tend to start sentences without capitalizing a letter, which suggests that you don’t really understand when to capitalize and when to not.

              Just curious, did you take a MOOC offered by Columbia and mistake that for a degree?

            • dannyboy says:

              Mark, I will politely respond:

              1. No
              2. No
              3. No

              So now that we cleared up all your obfuscation, what is your Reply to my Comment that more crowds result in more crashes?

              Or do and your buds have more nasty remarks to avoid the discussion?

            • Jay says:

              “The reason more development leads to more casualties is because the streets become more crowded and contentious.”

              As pointed out, there is zero evidence we have more casualties. There is zero evidence that development is related to casualties. It is not a fact that the streets are more crowded. It is an opinion that the streets are more contentious.

              You are the only one ignoring the conversation and not having a discussion. Your thoughts are completely baseless and not factual. Everyone else notices it besides you.

            • Mark says:

              My reply to your comment is that more crowds don’t necessarily lead to more crashes. The risk factors for pedestrian/car incidents are many and include density but also age of drivers, levels of distraction of all parties, alcohol, and other risks. There are also environmental factors (both natural and man-made).
              So to blame one factor while ignoring all others is short-sighted. While no one really cares if a regular person misunderstands complexities, that can be a problem when planners fail to appreciate these issues.

            • dannyboy says:


              The true reality is that my Comments were mostly about street safety, and the Replies snark (“You are the only one ignoring the conversation and not having a discussion.”).

              Your second attack (er, ‘discussion’) is a false attack (“Your thoughts are completely baseless and not factual.”). See this: “For the year, there have been 1,711 crashes in the 20th precinct, down from 1,782 during the same time span in 2015. But those crashes have resulted in 236 injuries, up from 190 in 2015. That’s a 24% increase. Collisions with injuries were also up 12.5% in the 24th precinct.”


              I know that you believe that “Everyone else notices it besides you” makes it so. But it ain’t.

            • dannyboy says:

              “So to blame one factor while ignoring all others is short-sighted.” – Mark

              …so why are you so determined to ignore that the density and resulting contention leads to unsafe streets?

              prefer being angry to solving problems? That’s just too emotional!

            • Mark says:

              dannyboy – I gave you a respectful, reasoned answer to your question.
              Your emotional, nonsensical response highlights your impressive limitations.
              I will take the advice of a previous poster and generally ignore you in the future.

            • Juan says:

              OK, dannyboy, I will take the high road here. Several people have interpreted your comment as saying that you think development caused the problem and further development should be halted, but you have replied that you are being misinterpreted. Since you have identified the problem, what is your proposed solution?

            • Uws says:

              He’s been trolling this website for years with the same non-sequitors and outright falsehoods. People come and go, but this stays the same.

            • dannyboy says:

              Thanks Juan, I appreciate that you want a discussion (also ecstatic that Mark and Carlos will no longer be a part of these discussions).

              I have been studying the TrafficStat reports and also evaluated the Nelson Nygard Study (both provided by the West Side Rag, and invaluable).

              It would appear that both the NYPD and Nelson Nyborg have drawn inaccurate conclusions in those reports.

              The Nelson Nyborg report was submitted to Manhattan Community Board 7 for approval and subsequent submission to the Department of Transportation. This would be a mistake, that I’d like avoided.

              These Reports evaluate the far west side as arterial roads to the WSH. But these streets are more than that. They serve Senior residences, etc. None of that is considered (although Nelson Nygaard does acknowledge that there is a public library nearby (info they must have gotten from public maps, rather than an onsite inspection (Otherwise, why not note the Senior Residence?).

              To make it short, the report calls for prohibiting turns on to the residential street TO ENSURE HIGHWAY ACCESS IN UNIMPEDED!

              To me this sounds like a replay of Robert Moses v Jane Jacobs. In the ned Jacobs won and the Village was saved. So far, it’s not looking too good for the UWS.

              You and I both know that the West Side Rag is a community news blog, with the potential for helping organized our community for the common good.

              Let’s not let it become a board for snark and dissension.

            • dannyboy says:


              Are you just kidding in all this?

              “dannyboy – I gave you a respectful, reasoned answer to your question.”

              you mean that when you wrote “Just curious, did you take a MOOC offered by Columbia and mistake that for a degree?” you were being “respectful” and “reasoned”?

              I spent 10 years at university. I’m only guessing that you may not have.

              “Your emotional, nonsensical response highlights your impressive limitations.”

              do you mean that your consistent deceit is not emotional? Well then I just prefer truth and feelings.

              “I will take the advice of a previous poster and generally ignore you in the future.”


            • dannyboy says:

              “He’s been trolling this website for years” – Uws

              unlike your non-trolling Comment in this discussion:

              ” Uws says:
              January 4, 2017 at 2:17 pm
              Fewer people live in the UWS now than in 1990. One of the many reasons that the comment is dumb. Facts are hard for some.”

              you need to work on that.

            • BourbonBetty says:

              That makes Perfect SENSE dannyboy!!!!!!!!
              Thank You for bringing in common sense solutions TO REAL WORLD PROBLEMS!!!!

          • Uws says:

            You’re trolling doesn’t even make sense.

            The entire premise of your false discussion is that the UWS is more dense and crowded now than before when the facts are the opposite. We need a better kind of troll on the website. Funny trolls are great, but instead we have you.

            • dannyboy says:

              “The entire premise of your false discussion is that the UWS is more dense and crowded now than before when the facts are the opposite.”


              But you can believe what you want to believe to avoid dealing with the discussion.

            • BourbonBetty says:

              the point that is so obvious in his Replies is that lots of people equals Tension and that means crashes!!!!!

              why is that so hard to Understand????

              Ive been studying these Issues lately and its all true!!!!!

    4. Mark Moore says:

      Aren’t cab drivers great?

      • ScooterStan says:

        Re: “aren’t cab drivers great?”

        As a matter of fact, YES !!

        Could you sit behind the wheel for hours-on-end dealing with:
        1. NYC’s ridiculous traffic;
        2. Overly-zealous NYPD Officers frantic to meet their ‘moving violation’ ticket-writing quota;
        3. rude and/or self-absorbed / self-important passengers treating you like a servant;
        4. declining take-home pay because of Uber, Lyft, Via, etc. drawing away paying passengers; and,
        5. working a night shift and having yet another drunken 20-something vomiting in your cab, which YOU have to clean.

        P.S. I was NEVER a cab-driver, just someone who empathizes with the ‘unimportant people’ (cabbies, doormen, take-out delivery guys, etc.) who make this city work.

        • Sean says:

          And then came UBER!

        • Margaret says:

          Maybe I live in some topsy turvy bizarro world version of the Upper West Side, where right after a taxi smashed up a busy block on Broadway, with extensive front end damage that would have killed a pedestrian, it would probably NOT be the right time and place to extol what saints cab drivers are and how theyre “unfairly” ticketed too much for violations.

          This cab did massive damage to his own vehicle, and somebody could have been seriously hurt. We need more consistent enforcement of speeding and failure to yield from the cops, so we don’t have another year where innocent bystanders keep getting injured or killed.

        • Mark Moore says:

          I do too — the ones who don’t place everyone else’s lives in danger.

    5. Kenneth says:

      Wear your seat-belt when in a cab. Your face hitting the plexiglass is never pretty. At the very least, you will have no front teeth post accident.

    6. Priscilla says:

      Swerved into the parked cars? When I took the pic it looked like the taxi hit the median. All the firemen were clustered at the front of the cab which makes me think a person was hit. And the cab driver is pointing at who knows what.

    7. Miriam says:

      Agree with Kenneth. Always wear your seat belt in a cab. I can’t tell you how often I have to search for ‘clicker’ (what’s it called, anyway?) because it’s buried due to no one using it. I once hit my face against the plexiglass while attempting to find the damn thing. Car cut off the taxi and he braked hard. Luckily, it was my head (big bump but no major damage) that hit as I had my head down.