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

121–130 of 424 posts

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

#121

Post by Dylan16807 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #120
Dylan16807 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I didn't mean everyone, I meant it was the typical case.

And it's only some cities where it's similarly or more affordable to not have a car. Not nearly as many as it should be.

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

dasil003 wrote: post #41
gruez wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. How is this any different than "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"

Because whether it's people pulling the trigger or the gun itself, both are the direct source of harm. Bicycles are not the source of harm, cars are. The analogous argument one way would be quibbling over whether it's the driver or the car. The analogous argument the other would be saying it's the shooting victims fault for being in a place where they are likely to get shot (bad neighborhood, in a position to surpris…

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by catlikesshrimp »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #81
mmooss wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 symmetric though. In a car your mistake has a much higher ceiling to the negative consequences. And with great power comes great responsibility. I’ve been honked for waiting for a safe way to pass a cyclist. The car behind me then just zooms past the cyclist after I make a manoeuvre. It’s not like all driver are out there trying to be responsible as much as possible.

When I stop to make way to either pedestrian or bicycle or kid (that is more dangerous than a pedestrian) I position my car in such a way that the car after me is as blocked as possible.

That means going more to my left (but not to much as to leave enough space on my right), turning a little (the car takes a little more space) and even turning on the turning signal (not the parking signal)

They get pissed (the cars. Walking Grandmas wave at me to greet me), so I hope I don't get shot at some point.

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

#124

Post by marxisttemp »

taneq wrote: post #114
throw0101d wrote: post #75

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. 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

Not quite an acronym but to complete the trifecta, sometimes nobody was at fault and you just haddalayerdown (because we all know steel and human flesh are much better at slowing a motorcycle down than wimpy old rubber)

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

#125

Post by cbau »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #76
dasil003 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because whether it's people pulling the trigger or the gun itself, both are the direct source of harm. Bicycles are not the source of harm, cars are. The analogous argument one way would be quibbling over whether it's the driver or the car. The analogous argument the other would be saying it's the shooting victims fault for being in a place where they are likely to get shot (bad neighborhood, in a position to surpris…

Also, more pointedly, guns [EDIT: Nope!] and cars are among the top causes of accidental death in America [1]. [1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/deaths-by-demograph...

I don't see guns here or anywhere else on this site. Very interesting data though.

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

#126

Post by Dylan16807 »

pornel wrote: post #115
johnnyanmac wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And trying to pivot a conversation like that often gets... blank looks.

No need for people to find the info unknown or confusing.

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

#127

Post by ggreer »

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.

According to the NTSB, cyclists have 79 deaths per billion miles traveled. For comparison, cars were 11 per billion miles. Around 2/3rds of bicycle fatalities involved a motor vehicle. So even if we solved car-bicycle collisions, the fatality rate per mile would still be much higher than driving.

Bicycles are great, but compared to cars they are dangerous.

1. See page 39 of https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901....

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

#128

Post by JumpCrisscross »

cbau wrote: post #125
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, more pointedly, guns [EDIT: Nope!] and cars are among the top causes of accidental death in America [1]. [1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/deaths-by-demograph...

I don't see guns here or anywhere else on this site. Very interesting data though.

I read “fire…” and made a bad assumption.

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

#129

Post by Dylan16807 »

righthand wrote: post #101
jrflowers wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing more Reddit-like than taking the time to complain about the website without adding anything to the discussion

There’s nothing more HackerNews-like than taking the time to complain about the necessity of certain commentary without adding anything to the discussion.

Sounds good to me! (As long as it's a small fraction of comments.)
Post reply on HN