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

191–200 of 424 posts

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

#191

Post by djtango »

acomjean wrote: post #68
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…

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 think it depends if I'm coming home from the gym late at night I might be less aware than when I'm my usual self. Especially if the roads are quiet. I've had two near calls in London - once an uber driver swung in front of me out of nowhere to pick up a passenger and it was wet so my bike couldn't stop in time and I went into the back of them. The other a car was parked in the cycle lane and they opened their door just as I was passing.

I am now even more aware and paranoid when cycling but my real solution has to optimise my routes for reduced stress rather than speed or distance - I'll happily take a longer route if I know it's much more chill

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

#192

Post by Retric »

seer wrote: post #182
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 think the problem is that in a lot of places in the west bicycles are forced to mix with motor vehicles, and away from pedestrians. This always seemed like a weird trade off to me - “you are inconveniencing some pedestrians, so go in this other lane where you can die” I grew up in Eastern Europe, where technically the laws are similar, but no policeman is going to stop you for riding on the sidewalk. So you natural…

Mixing pedestrians with bikes runs into its own set of issues, at high enough density bikes simply can’t be ridden.

Really there’s no one solution that works at every scale. Bikes on sidewalks are also far less safe in deaths per mile than it seems.

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

#193

Post by wmf »

nkrisc wrote: post #69
deepsun wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically judge rejects the huge sums, and he gets more reasonable amount, if even fair. E.g. judge might award him only proven costs with receipts, and reject all the pain-and-suffering.

I’d say large sums are warranted here to avoid a perverse incentive where ambulances hit people and then take them to the hospital for profit. I’m only half serious.

If an ambulance hits someone it's likely that the ambulance's insurance will have to pay their ER bill which will be higher than the ambulance bill. It's a net loss.

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

#194

Post by milch »

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…

> no driver I know wants to hit someone and injure them

You must not be riding your bike a lot then. Most recently I had a guy follow me around and threaten to get his gun if I didn't get off the road

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

#196

Post by giancarlostoro »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #173
giancarlostoro wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah? Except where I live, we have "bike trails" wide enough, and newly paved looking enough that I could drive my car over them, in fact! The lawncare people for my neighborhood absolutely drive their trucks on them, with enough room to let people pass them by! And yet, I still see people on the regular roads, at the worst times: early morning when most people are trying to get to work, or right as the sun is going…

To preface, I don't know anything about your specific area, but bike infrastructure is like car infra in that there are multiple classes of infrastructure for different purposes. What are commonly called bike trails tend to be off-road paths that go on meandering paths through nice parts of the city like parks and vineyards. That's not what my post is talking about. People going to work typically take the most direct…

> As for the hill thing, cyclists are not obligated to have rear facing lights in any state I'm aware of

In Florida, my state, they absolutely must:

- A bicycle operated between sunset and sunrise must be equipped with a lamp on the from exhibiting a white light visible from 500 feet to the front and both a red reflector and a lamp on the rear exhibiting a red light visible from 600 feet to the rear.

- A bicyclist who is not traveling at the same speed as other traffic must ride in the designated bike lane or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

See here:

https://www.flhsmv.gov/safety-center/driving-safety/bicycle-...

Edit also:

At least 24 states require bike lights during certain times of day or in limited visibility conditions, including: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Maine.

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

#198

Post by bluecalm »

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…

When you speed, use your phone when driving or ignore basic safety rules then you can't really say you don't want to hit someone or injure someone.

I mean you can say that but it's as believable as shooting your rifle without looking in general direction of a crowd of people and then saying you really didn't mean to shoot anyone.

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

#199

Post by imgabe »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #55
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.

Self driving cars are amazing in SF. I cycle there I feel much safer when there’s a self driving car behind me. Waymos, zooxes and cruises never accelerate hard to suddenly cut a turn in front of me rather than waiting behind me to turn across the cycle lane. They never get angry when there is no cycle lane and I’m forced to take up a full lane for a stretch. They have cold machine patience and attitude and to get aw…

Why is it always about banning things? Just make the self-driving experience good and most people will choose it voluntarily. No need to ban things. Almost everyone would rather take a nap or read a book than sit in traffic or stare at the highway.

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

#200

Post by pdonis »

olliej wrote: post #51
pdonis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the at fault driver and/or their insurance would be responsible for paying their medical costs. The person who was hit doesn't pay their medical bills and then ask the insurance company for reimbursement. They file a claim with the insurance company to pay their medical bills directly. AFAIK all US states require bodily injury coverage to work that way.

This is not quite true - if your insurance policy does not cover the full amount you can be on the hook. Of course if you don’t have insurance you’re kind of screwed, or your insurance doesn’t cover the full recovery costs you have to pay the medical bills and get stuck with them if the responsible party is under insured and lacks assets. Accident created expenses seem like one of those things where if someone else i…

> if your insurance policy does not cover the full amount you can be on the hook.

If "your" means the person who got hit, it's not their insurance that's on the hook, it's the insurance of the person who hit them.

Yes, that person's insurance will have a limit, after which your own insurance coverage for uninsured or under-insured drivers would kick in. And if that also hits a limit, then you would have to sue the party that hit you for damages to get back anything you had to pay over the limit.

> you have to pay the medical bills and get stuck with them if the responsible party is under insured and lacks assets.

In this situation also, yes, once you were over the limit of your own uninsured or under-insured driver coverage, you would have to go to court to get the burden put on the responsible party, so that if that party were judgment proof, it would be the medical provider's problem, not yours.

> if someone else is responsible for the costs you should be able to simply transfer all subsequent costs to them

You can do this, but yes, it does take a lawsuit once you're over whatever limits insurance will cover, as above.

Post reply on HN