Advocacy & Safety - Former Comcast general counsel Wang killed in bicycle accident

This happened last week, I was expecting someone to link to the article here in A&S.


http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2008/06/09/daily49.html

"Stanley L. Wang, the former general counsel of Comcast Corp., was killed Thursday afternoon while bicycling in his hometown of Moorestown, N.J., according to the Moorestown Police Department.

Wang, 67, was bicycling east on East Main Street at 12:20 p.m. He started to pass a parked pickup truck when the driver of the truck opened his door. Wang hit the door and was knocked from his bike into the street, where he was struck by an eastbound car that was also passing the truck. He was pronounced dead at Kennedy Memorial Hospital in Cherry Hill, N.J., at 1:08 p.m.

Moorestown Police Sergeant Randolph S. Pugh said he didn't anticipate any charges being filed in relationship to the accident.

"We are really shocked by this sudden death," said D'Arcy F. Rudnay, Comcast's senior vice president of corporate communications."


More Links to Other Articles:

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/19887644.html

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/112-06142008-1549114.html

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6570399.html

Moorestown Police Sergeant Randolph S. Pugh said he didn't anticipate any charges being filed in relationship to the accident.

:mad:

So if you kill someone with your door, it's ok?

Sounds like negligence, like a dart out case. Not criminal.

So if you kill someone with your door, it's ok?

If you kill a cyclist with any part of a car... it seems to be OK... weren't you aware of that?

Use a gun, go to jail, use a car... oh "terrible remorse," but you walk free.

If you kill a cyclist with any part of a car... it seems to be OK... weren't you aware of that?

Use a gun, go to jail, use a car... oh "terrible remorse," but you walk free.

YES! Now how to get my enemies to start riding bikes.....

Sounds like negligence, like a dart out case. Not criminal.
Negligence can be a crime.
And in many places so is opening a vehicle door into traffic.

So if you kill someone with your door, it's ok?
As long as you weren't drunk, high, or didn't leave the scene of the incident, all you get where I live is a $242 ticket. Cyclists around here call them $242 hunting licenses. :mad:

that's just f*cked. opening a door into traffic without checking the traffic first should be a violation in all 50 states, and I'm guessing NJ has a statute that addresses the legality of the motorist's action. but from the police quote it doesn't sound like the motorist will even get a basic ticket. more bias against cyclists by law enforcement and the justice system.


:mad:

someone should find out where this person lives.


Then we can post that information publicly... and have a field day in ways you can only imagine.


- Thanks.

someone should find out where this person lives.


Then we can post that information publicly... and have a field day in ways you can only imagine.


- Thanks.

We're all upset by the death, but for heaven's sake, please grow up.

For the 87th time, mere negligence is not criminal, even when someone dies. It might result in a huge civil verdict, but it is not criminal.

Humans do negligent things. Sometimes they miss stop signs or stop lights, sometimes they don't look closely enough when they change lanes, sometimes they don't stop in time and hit the back of another car. Some victims of negligence are more vulnerable than others. It is purely serendipitous when negligence results in a death. 99% of the time when a driver misses a stop sign, nothing happens. In a small percentage, an accident happens, and most of those are minor. In a very small percentage, someone is hurt, and in an extremely small percentage, someone dies. Making negligence a crime does not deter it. Crimes are intentional acts.

I can't say this enough and it's really hard to do because it goes against all instincts but if you're in a situation where you're aware of your surroundings and know that there's a chance of being thrown into opposing traffic, at the first sign of being doored, go into the car. A) you'll do more damage to their car, b) it's their fault anyway, and c) you'll live to tell about it.

I'm not saying it's always possible, just something to keep in mind.

I can't say this enough and it's really hard to do because it goes against all instincts but if you're in a situation where you're aware of your surroundings and know that there's a chance of being thrown into opposing traffic, at the first sign of being doored, go into the car. A) you'll do more damage to their car, b) it's their fault anyway, and c) you'll live to tell about it. ...

Better still, never ride in the door zone. Being dead right, like Mr. Wang, is not much better than being dead wrong. An integral part of using a public street is protecting oneself as well as possible from the stupidity and negligence of others.

I can only offer my sincere condolences to Mr. Wang's family.

For the 87th time, mere negligence is not criminal, even when someone dies. It might result in a huge civil verdict, but it is not criminal.

Humans do negligent things. Sometimes they miss stop signs or stop lights, sometimes they don't look closely enough when they change lanes, sometimes they don't stop in time and hit the back of another car. Some victims of negligence are more vulnerable than others. It is purely serendipitous when negligence results in a death. 99% of the time when a driver misses a stop sign, nothing happens. In a small percentage, an accident happens, and most of those are minor. In a very small percentage, someone is hurt, and in an extremely small percentage, someone dies. Making negligence a crime does not deter it. Crimes are intentional acts.I think your deterrence analysis may be inaccurate, though. For example, in the Netherlands, motorists are presumed negligent in any collision involving a cyclist. Without evidence, I don't think one could say that presuming the motorist to be negligent has no deterrent effect (and one could also say that without evidence, one could not say that presuming the motorist to be negligent does have a deterrent effect.). At best, where the driver's negligence is treated more seriously, we'd have to say "let's look at the data to see if the statute has had a deterrent effect."


EDIT: I'll also have to take issue with the negligence/intent analysis. Many states have vehicular homicide laws that treat deaths resulting from criminal negligence and/or gross negligence as crimes, and neither criminal negligence nor gross negligence involve intent. The dividing line seems to be something more than simple negligence-- not intent.

Better still, never ride in the door zone. Being dead right, like Mr. Wang, is not much better than being dead wrong. An integral part of using a public street is protecting oneself as well as possible from the stupidity and negligence of others.

I can only offer my sincere condolences to Mr. Wang's family.

Yeah, that's the best choice, but if you have to... aim for the door, or better yet, the fat squishy driver.

Performance Bicycle needs to start selling thermite grenades.

I can't say this enough and it's really hard to do because it goes against all instincts but if you're in a situation where you're aware of your surroundings and know that there's a chance of being thrown into opposing traffic, at the first sign of being doored, go into the car. A) you'll do more damage to their car, b) it's their fault anyway, and c) you'll live to tell about it.

I'm not saying it's always possible, just something to keep in mind.I'd think the negligent driver would make a softer cushion for impact, though. And it would make for some instant karma, too.

EDIT: I'll also have to take issue with the negligence/intent analysis. Many states have vehicular homicide laws that treat deaths resulting from criminal negligence and/or gross negligence as crimes, and neither criminal negligence nor gross negligence involve intent. The dividing line seems to be something more than simple negligence-- not intent.

Killing someone while driving recklessly constitutes vehicular homicide in Florida. Killing someone through negligence is not a crime. The line between recklessness and negligence is difficult to draw, but it's one that courts do all the time. Recklessness requires a reckless disregard for human life. Dooring a cyclist is almost always going to be viewed as negligence, regardless of how seriously injured the cyclist.

Killing someone while driving recklessly constitutes vehicular homicide in Florida. Killing someone through negligence is not a crime. The line between recklessness and negligence is difficult to draw, but it's one that courts do all the time. Recklessness requires a reckless disregard for human life. Dooring a cyclist is almost always going to be viewed as negligence, regardless of how seriously injured the cyclist.I understand that. I was just taking issue with the notion that "intent" is required to prosecute for vehicular homicide.

I'd even suggest that it may be possible for the Legislature to define specific violations of the vehicle code that result in death as "recklessness."

For example, the Legislature has the authority to specify that any violation of the Rules of the Road constitutes negligence (either prima facie or per se) if the violation results in a collision. And the Legislature has apparently defined specific violations of the Vehicle Code to constitute either criminal or gross negligence if the violation results in injury or death. One example would be DUII resulting in injury or death.

The question, then, is whether the legislature could specify that certain violations of the Rules of the Road will constitute either criminal or gross negligence if the violation results in injury or death (examples of the types of violations that might be specified might include violations of the speed limit by a specified amount, failure to yield the right of way, and yes, even opening a door onto a bicycle lane. There are likely other violations that would be candidates for inclusion in the list of specified violations.). While I'm not certain that it can be done, I don't see why it couldn't be done. What do you think?

Causing a death by negligent action with a vehicle can be a felony in Texas, IF the system works as it should. Interestingly, it was a misdemeanor for years, but was then upgraded. Usually, a grand jury decides whether the incident merits indictment. I am not aware of any local fatal dooring incidents, however, so I can't say whether such an event would actually result in a criminal charge.

A legislature can define a crime anyway it wants, but it is generally bad policy to make negligent acts criminal, or at least making a negligent act a felony. In Florida, the legislature has tried making negligent child abuse a felony, and it is very difficult to convict because juries frequently get a "there but for the grace of God go I" attitude. I think it would work the same way with negligent auto accidents, even those that result in a death.

Negligence is best handled as a civil wrong. This points up another matter. If you are badly injured by a negligent driver, you can make a claim on his auto insurance. Many bad drivers have little if any liability coverage. Your own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage will compensate you if you are hurt on your bike by an underinsured negligent driver. Too many people try to save money on their auto insurance by dropping their UM coverage. That is a big mistake, especially for a cyclist. Get as much UM coverage as you can.

Another thought: Negligent operation of a vehicle resulting in minor injury should be punishable by a license suspension of at least one year; negligent operation of a vehicle resulting in serious injury should be punishable by a license suspension of at least 5 years.

And negligent operation of a vehicle resulting in death? A lifetime revocation.

A legislature can define a crime anyway it wants, but it is generally bad policy to make negligent acts criminal, or at least making a negligent act a felony. In Florida, the legislature has tried making negligent child abuse a felony, and it is very difficult to convict because juries frequently get a "there but for the grace of God go I" attitude. I think it would work the same way with negligent auto accidents, even those that result in a death.You are almost certainly right.

But...

That's how people used to think about DUI, too. And that's how the Legislatures and the courts treated DUI. They don't have that attitude any more. It is now a very serious criminal offense, and juries take it very seriously. MADD did the necessary work to get the Legislatures and the courts--and indeed, public opinion-- to take DUI seriously. There's no reason that vehicular homicide couldn't be taken as seriously, if we're willing to do the necessary work to get it taken seriously. And in that vein, I don't think criminalizing certain negligent acts resulting in death makes for bad public policy. In fact, I'd argue that it's good public policy, because it encourages motorists to take more seriously their responsibilities, and would (potentially) reduce traffic deaths.


Negligence is best handled as a civil wrong. This points up another matter. If you are badly injured by a negligent driver, you can make a claim on his auto insurance. Many bad drivers have little if any liability coverage. Your own uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage will compensate you if you are hurt on your bike by an underinsured negligent driver.The minimum in some states is very low-- $12,500 for Ohio. And some drivers don't carry insurance. Perhaps not surprisingly, those drivers seem to have a lot of collisions. A judgment of $12,500-- or nothing when the driver is uninsured-- for a negligent death is not justice, and therefore, is certainly not the best method for handling a death resulting from the negligent operation of a vehicle. Some acts are so negligent-- talking on the cellie instead of keeping a proper lookout, for example, or excess speed, or failure to yield-- that justice demands more than a shrug of the shoulders and an "I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do."


Too many people try to save money on their auto insurance by dropping their UM coverage. That is a big mistake, especially for a cyclist. Get as much UM coverage as you can.Excellent advice.

If the general motoring population was properly educated regarding the prevention / consequences of dooring (right-hooking, etc., etc.) a cyclist, it c/would no longer be considered negligence when it occurred. Still more bias against cyclists in the system.

:mad:

Negligent operation of a vehicle resulting in
minor injury, should be punishable by a license suspension of at least one year
serious injury, should be punishable by a license suspension of at least 5 years
death, should be punishable by a lifetime revocation
:thumb::thumb: I completely agree, but only if it is someone other than the driver that is injured.