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

231–240 of 424 posts

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

#231

Post by scott_w »

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...

Except if you’re wearing black: then drivers and pedestrians will scream at you to tell you how invisible you are.

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

#232

Post by mihaaly »

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…

Cycling is analogous with skydiving without parachute?! Why not suicide?

Poor choice of synonym.

But true, the system is very badly 'designed' in lots of places. Mostly where they just wanted to pretend having a system, but not really putting the efforts into (e.g. UK and its 'making bicycle infrastructure by lines painted on pavement' attitude)

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

#233

Post by mihaaly »

fy20 wrote: post #169

As a European, the fact that you have to pay for emergency transport in an ambulance is enough internet for today.

And they are proud of their low tax system, because high taxes kill businesses.

Better people than businesses, right?! : /

(Trump will bring the paradise with even lower corporate taxes for the common people voted for him)

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

#234

Post by scott_w »

mmooss wrote: post #143
tagh wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> When I choose to drive, I have the means to kill someone else and I'm damn well responsible for that risk. I agree, and part of my GP point was, I think almost every driver agrees, even in different words: Drivers are very adverse to hitting humans, whether walking or biking.

It only takes one to end your life and all you have to do is read Facebook or Twitter comments to see how many harbour a deep fantasy to murder cyclists. Phil Gaimon has done videos describing his experiences, too. If you’d like to experience the difference in person, ride a bike in the U.K. with and without cameras. You’ll see how a marked difference in the space drivers give you. Pick a region with decent enforcement like London or the north east.

I don’t have the inclination to look but I’d put good money on statistics showing a negative correlation between enforcement of driving offences against cyclists and cyclist deaths or injuries.

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

#235

Post by Tade0 »

epistasis wrote: post #188
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…

That's a pretty weak example; gravity is a physical force of nature and inescapable. Cars are a political choice that we made but don't have to make. But that the comparison seems apt is pretty endemic of how cars are treated: an absolute must, as if they were a force of nature. Never mind that a huge chunk of our population can not drive, and are therefore excluded from society by cars. Car dependency is a very excl…

> Cars are a political choice that we made but don't have to make.

Ambulances aren't though. Same with delivery vehicles. Public transport is, but typically one associated with less cars.

All of these are both dangerous to cyclists and essential in a functioning city.

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

#236

Post by scott_w »

palmfacehn wrote: post #183
AlotOfReading wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I've ever met a cyclist who's opposed to separated infrastructure for bikes and cars. Every local government project I've ever seen to build this kind of infrastructure runs into issues with drivers who don't think it's necessary or would somehow ruin their lives.

As a former bicycle messenger I'm opposed to it. The trails are filled with baby strollers and inline skaters moving in and out of lanes. typically there is no right of way when crossing roads or entrances to parking lots. Blind corners with overgrown vegetation are par for the course. Riding in traffic is an absolute pleasure when you know how to draft vehicles. The suction created by larger box trucks can actually…

I think you need to cycle in a country with good infrastructure and laws that protect cyclists. Most countries’ “cycling infrastructure” is a pathetic joke.

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

#237

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

the_sleaze_ wrote: post #176
marxisttemp wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Cue an extremely vivid memory of a rainy drenched Washington DC street awash with glare and sparkle from the street lights. Car in front of me lit the brakes, and I grab the front handbrake on my little 250 to.... nothing. No result. "uh" escaped my mouth as I grabbed a somewhat panicked handful of brake and slammed on the rear again to.. absolutely nothing except a lighter rear wheel. Finally had to just lean into a…

That sounds dignified. I had a 911 a few years ago and it aquaplaned on the motorway at ~160-180kmh, spun 180º, and sent me into the central barrier.

I learned my last words were "AAAAAAAAAAAGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"

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

#238

Post by te_chris »

lubujackson wrote: post #79
jordanb wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A waymo hit a cyclist in San Francisco a few months ago, by failing to anticipate that there may be traffic behind a turning truck and accelerating into it. https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065063/waymo-driverless-...

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.

4 way stops are such insane traffic flow devices. Love the comedy, Larry David vibes but c’mon America.

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

#239

Post by te_chris »

tmnvix wrote: post #184
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.

> Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault I disagree. Legislation does not abrogate drivers of all moral responsibility. Quite frankly, if a child jumps out from behind a parked car and you hit them despite following the law to the letter, you share some of the blame. I would argue that in all cases where a driver hits someone, they share some blame, because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their abilit…

In the UK the highway code was changed recently and pedestrians then cyclists have highest priority in all circumstances.

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

#240

Post by scott_w »

bluecalm wrote: post #228
armada651 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cars and bikes don't mix except when cars are going bicycle speed. Which is why infrastructure in cities should not mix cyclists and cars. That is the real reason why cycling is safer in the Netherlands with separate bicycle paths and bicycle traffic signal.

I don't agree. Some of the safest places to cycle have about 0 infrastructure. What matters are driving culture, speed limits (and enforcement of those) as well as lesser numbers of "modern" cars on roads (cause those have bad visibility, a lot of distractions and too much insulation causing people to underestimate their speed.

Given the person cited the Netherlands, a nation widely lauded and know for its excellent infrastructure and low pedestrian/cyclist deaths, I’m going to need you to cite some evidence here.

And no, I’m not going to accept statistics showing a small town in the middle of nowhere is safer. It’s self evident that you’ll not get run over in a place where there are no cars to run you over.

Post reply on HN