Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

oregonlive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 424 posts

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#111

Post by bradleybuda »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #93
lubujackson wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault for trying to jump the queue at a 4 way stop, and it sounds like they were going in a different direction than the turning truck as well. Hard to pin that one on Waymo, though I do feel like Waymo cars tend to drive a bit "city aggressive" at times, like asserting their right of way, sticking close to the car in front, etc.

I don't know what happened in this case, but it's possible that the bicycle stopped at the stop sign before the Waymo did, and then proceeded (behind the truck), entering the intersection before the Waymo. If so, there's nothing wrong with the cyclist's actions. What I mean is: if the bicycle got to the intersection before the Waymo, then it would have had right of way. Of course, it's also possible that the cyclist…

That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time.

At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns.

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#112

Post by bradleybuda »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #92
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet I can see a future where humans are barred from driving Increase the unsupervised driving age to 18 (unless in an area with no robotic transport) and massively increase penalties for driving infractions. As in you lose your license on your second DUI or third at-fault collision, reckless-driving ticket or cell phone violation. (Maybe make a DUI count as two infractions for the second list.)

People drive with a suspended license all the time. How else are getting to your job? Getting groceries? We pretend like driving is only a privilege, but it's more necessary than most rights that OSHA or other agencies have "discovered".

It’s hard to get your license suspended! You have to severely screw up, usually more than once. If you depend on a personal vehicle for your livelihood, you should avoid it!

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#113

Post by jonkho »

mmooss wrote: post #47
nritchie wrote: post #13

As a bicyclist, I'm constantly told how dangerous bicycles are. Usually, I get a blank look when I explain, bicycles are very safe, it is the cars that are the dangerous part of the equation. Now I'll have to add fast billing ambulances to the list of dangers.

You could say that jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't dangerous, it's the ground that's dangerous. Cyclists make mistakes, make bad judgments, take big risks, just like car drivers. They are human too. You could say cyclists have a bigger incentive to avoid problems, but no driver I know wants to hit someone and injure them, and cyclists I know become inured to the risks after riding for years without i…

It’s not the jumping out of the plane that’s dangerous, it’s the landing!

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#114

Post by taneq »

throw0101d wrote: post #75
acomjean wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been urban biking for years. It's no doubt dangerous. I don't think you become complacent like you do when when driving. You are pretty aware that these heavy fast moving vehicles are on the same road as you. Part of my commute was on a path off the roads, it was nice. I always leave plenty of time when riding so im not rushing. even when there are separate lanes it's important to stay alert for cars turning ont…

> I've been urban biking for years. It's no doubt dangerous. I don't think you become complacent like you do when when driving. Also: motorcycling. Generally recommended to always assume you're invisible. There's even an acronym for it: SMIDSY, Sorry mate, I didn't see you . * https://www.brm.co.nz/s-m-i-d-s-y-road-craft/ * https://www.webbikeworld.com/scientific-studies-explain-smid...

SMIDSY is one very good reason for ATGATT

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#115

Post by pornel »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #98
Gigachad wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that cycling doesn’t have to be dangerous, it currently is due to external factors that can be fixed.

Even with cars we have a saying: "graves are filled with people who had the right of way". Physics doesn't care about whose to blame.

It's not about blame. It's about recognizing the need for safe infrastructure: physically separated bike paths, not painted gutters. Physics does care about the difference between crossing a painted line vs hitting a bollard.

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#116

Post by tagh »

mmooss wrote: post #47
nritchie wrote: post #13

As a bicyclist, I'm constantly told how dangerous bicycles are. Usually, I get a blank look when I explain, bicycles are very safe, it is the cars that are the dangerous part of the equation. Now I'll have to add fast billing ambulances to the list of dangers.

You could say that jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't dangerous, it's the ground that's dangerous. Cyclists make mistakes, make bad judgments, take big risks, just like car drivers. They are human too. You could say cyclists have a bigger incentive to avoid problems, but no driver I know wants to hit someone and injure them, and cyclists I know become inured to the risks after riding for years without i…

I agree, the system is very badly designed. Cars and bikes don't mix without carefully designed roads that make the lazy/default decision and the safe decision the same thing, because eventual complacency is human nature.

> You could say that jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't dangerous, it's the ground that's dangerous.

In that metaphor cars are a force of nature. I've also heard "the laws of physics trump the law of man", and "what's more important: being right or being alive". People choose to drive; people choose to cycle; and people choose to walk. When I choose to drive, I have the means to kill someone else and I'm damn well responsible for that risk. After all, the person I hit didn't choose for me to drive.

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#117

Post by Dylan16807 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #104
ThunderSizzle wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People drive with a suspended license all the time. How else are getting to your job? Getting groceries? We pretend like driving is only a privilege, but it's more necessary than most rights that OSHA or other agencies have "discovered".

> People drive with a suspended license all the time And if they’re not getting in accidents more frequently than population, that’s fine. I didn’t include this common citation for good reason. > How else are getting to your job? Getting groceries? Calling (or buying) a robotic car. We’re looking decades into the future when manually piloting a car is a privilege. (Or less than a decade in cities with public transit.…

> Calling (or buying) a robotic car.

If it's cost effective, sure.

Until that's significantly cheaper, people need to drive.

> increasing liability for insurers. Nobody will be banned. It will just become expensive to human pilot.

Why would human driving insurance cost significantly more than it does today?

Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill

#120

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #117
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People drive with a suspended license all the time And if they’re not getting in accidents more frequently than population, that’s fine. I didn’t include this common citation for good reason. > How else are getting to your job? Getting groceries? Calling (or buying) a robotic car. We’re looking decades into the future when manually piloting a car is a privilege. (Or less than a decade in cities with public transit.…

> Calling (or buying) a robotic car. If it's cost effective, sure. Until that's significantly cheaper, people need to drive. > increasing liability for insurers. Nobody will be banned. It will just become expensive to human pilot. Why would human driving insurance cost significantly more than it does today?

> Until that's significantly cheaper, people need to drive

Not in cities, even today. That region is simply broadening.

Public car insurance for poor, risky drivers has zero popular appeal. This will happen gradually then quickly.

Post reply on HN