The laws say pedestrians have the right of way. Reality tells us it is not always so black and white when it comes to cars versus humans on the streets. Some will tell you pedestrians bear as much responsibility as motorists when it comes to preventing the potentially tragic collision of metal and flesh. Drivers will, too, like the woman at a recent area crime watch meeting in Worcester who accused some pedestrians of purposely crossing the streets at a snail's pace.
Thousands of students returned to colleges and universities this fall, and for the women among them they did so facing this very real and disturbing reality: their chances of being raped or sexually assaulted just rose exponentially.
The city is crafting a sweeping set of changes to its tobacco ordinance that could make it much harder to smoke in Worcester - and could deliver a crippling blow to the businesses selling tobacco for a living. Among the proposed changes that will be part of a report expected to be delivered to city councilors at their next meeting, Tuesday, Sept. 16, is a ban on smoking in all city-owned parks, beaches and playgrounds. Additionally, the revised ordinance would ban smoking in any covered public transportation waiting area, such as a covered bus stop; prohibit the use of e-cigarettes wherever smoking is prohibited; ban the sale of flavored tobacco products; and ban non-residential roll-your-own-cigarette machines.
Many questions that have been raised – such as housing – regarding lesbian, gay and bisexual students have been answered, while the same questions affecting transgender students still linger.
In a jaw-droppingly shocking response that may confirm the Worcester Police Department picks and chooses which media outlets to whom it releases legally-requred public information, police personnel taking part in an online Facebook forum Wednesday, Sept. 3 admitted they only deliver public information in a timely manner to specific media outlets. Police personnel actually placed different media outlets in different categories as far as level of importance to respond. It would appear to be a violation of public records laws, which place no such restrictions on how and when information must be distributed.