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

201–210 of 424 posts

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

#201

Post by pdonis »

aeronaut80 wrote: post #177
olliej wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a non-American, accident created expenses seem like one of those things where the state should cover the personal injury costs which helps to make healthcare cost at least half the price, leads to better outcomes, and avoids people being bankrupted simply because of their health.

> accident created expenses seem like one of those things where the state should cover the personal injury costs

As far as an individual who gets injured by someone else is concerned, "the state" is just another form of insurance. I'm not sure the state is any more reliable as an insurance provider than private companies; indeed, it might often be less so since it is subject to political pressures that private insurance providers are not.

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

#202

Post by [deleted] »

ggreer wrote: post #190
sottol wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can 1:1 compare those stats. Most people just wouldn't have the time to travel as far by bike as they do by car, even if they wanted to. They'd take some other form of transit for long drives. Car drivers do 13500 miles/year on average, even at a very sporty 20mi/h per (average!) a cyclist would have to ride full 29 days/year non-stop to match that. Thus, a better measure would be accidents/hour of…

That logic also applies to flying versus driving, but few make the same objection when someone points out that flying is safer than driving. And at the margins, cycling does substitute for driving, just as driving sometimes substitutes for flying. The different modes of transportation do have various advantages and disadvantages, but the fact remains that cycling is significantly more dangerous.

[deleted]

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

#203

Post by osrec »

wpollock wrote: post #85
osrec wrote: post #78

The American healthcare system scares the living daylights out of me.

Daylights scared out of you? Try our new pill, Daylights Restoration OTC! Guaranteed to work or no money back . Offer void in areas with active consumer fraud laws.

The TV adverts really caught me off guard during my first trip to the US as an adult. The disclaimers right at the end make you wonder how the ad could ever be effective - I mean, how could anyone respond positively to an ED ad that ends with "may cause death"!?

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

#204

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

imgabe wrote: post #199
AnotherGoodName wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In this case, it's because being hit by an irresponsible driver is something you don't choose voluntarily.

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

#205

Post by Brian_K_White »

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…

"My fist isn't dangerous. Failing to move your face out of the way of my fist is dangerous."

Nice, dude.

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

#206

Post by imgabe »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #204
imgabe wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In this case, it's because being hit by an irresponsible driver is something you don't choose voluntarily.

There are many bad things that can happen to you that you don't choose voluntarily.

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

#207

Post by faer12321 »

nextworddev wrote: post #145
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most roads aren’t even meant for cyclists but they feel so entitled as to take up entire lanes sometimes.

Can you point to which law made cycling on the road illegal ?

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

#208

Post by faer12321 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #162
mmooss wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's not enough room for a car to pass safely (e.g., a wide shoulder, a bike lane, etc.), cyclists are encouraged to ride in the middle of the lane. If the cyclist rides on the side, cars try to squeeze past and eventually the worst will happen. Remember, 99% safety is almost certain death for a regular cyclist.

Also though, if a slow-moving vehicle is impeding other traffic, they should pull over at the next safe opportunity and allow traffic to pass.

The reason is that most of the time inside lane is occupied by parking cars, which either outright block the bike or you get into door zone.

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

#209

Post by nl »

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

As a cyclist I don't think this is completely true. I've been in cars with drivers who do dangerously close passes on cyclists and the common excuse is "oh I just want to scare them" or similar.

So while I guess it's technically true that even these drivers don't technically want to hit the cyclist the distinction is somewhat moot.

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

#210

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

imgabe wrote: post #206
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, it's because being hit by an irresponsible driver is something you don't choose voluntarily.

There are many bad things that can happen to you that you don't choose voluntarily.

Sure, but look; if this were a discussion about people making irresponsible decisions that result in themselves getting killed, I can sympathize with the philosophy that we can simply encourage people to voluntarily avoid those things by making other choices preferable. But when people make irresponsible decisions that result in third parties being killed, this is when we make laws and ban things. This is why, for example, there is a ban on intoxicated driving. Not because of the risk of harm to the drunk driver, but because of the risk to everybody else, who want to stop volunteering to share roads with drunk drivers.
Post reply on HN