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

241–250 of 424 posts

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

#241

Post by sfink »

cj wrote: post #159
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...

Exactly this. Part of the experience of riding a motorcycle is being acutely aware of your surroundings at all times. I rode a motorcycle as my daily commute for years, and then when I switched to a car it felt oddly strange how little I had to pay attention: (Possibly controversial belief: riding a motorcycle makes you a better car driver. Motorcycling has made me pick up habits like always looking over my shoulder…

> (Possibly controversial belief: riding a motorcycle makes you a better car driver. Motorcycling has made me pick up habits like always looking over my shoulder and not solely trusting my mirrors when changing lanes)

I hope that's not controversial, I fully agree with it. Riding a bicycle does pretty much the same thing, even though the evasive maneuvers take a different form. Motorcycles probably train some instincts that are more relevant to driving a car, though, given the speeds involved. Also, motorcycles train people better because they apply more selection pressure: there are plenty of inattentive bicyclists, and most of them are still aboveground. The inattentive motorcyclists, on the other hand, aren't around anymore to drive cars.

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

#242

Post by alsetmusic »

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.

I mean, think of the damage you and your bicycle could do to an ambulance. Absolute menace. /s

Our downtown is renovating the roads and replacing car lanes with physically separated bicycle lanes (from four lanes to two). Smart move with reduced traffic Due to recent wfh culture.

Even as a driver, I appreciate this. I don’t wanna hit anyone any more than they wanna be hit. Unless I can make about $2000 in the process, that is…

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

#243

Post by xeornet »

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 are riding on roads made for cars - you are an afterthought. Whether it’s the cars fault or not - cycling on the road is dangerous.

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

#244

Post by usrusr »

shkkmo wrote: post #96
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 know plenty of drivers who rather risk hitting someone that take a couple of extra seconds to drive safely. It seems to be give or take half of them, depending on the area.

"But even those try not to hit people, and they go around more people than they hit!" - that's how I read GP's post and that's how I think they believe that they are right. They think it's a glass half full/glass half empty situation. When the glass is a rocket fuel tank and you want to go to the moon.

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

#245

Post by Moru »

scott_w wrote: post #230
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…

> Cyclists make mistakes Stats in the UK show that the majority of car/bicycle collisions are due to driver error, not cyclist error. Given the USA standard of driving is much lower, and policing is much less consistent, I’d put good money on that being higher in the USA. > Cars and bikes don't mix Yes but you’re looking at the wrong category of people making the mistake.

Don't hook up on the wrong thing here. Everyone makes mistakes but the cyclists pay with their life. Is it a well designed system when a little mistake costs your life?

The cyclists have a better understanding and overview of the trafic sittuation so from the car drivers view it looks like they take bigger risks.

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

#246

Post by Lio »

mmooss wrote: post #158
paulproteus wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am honestly not so sure. What's the evidence for this claim?

Do you see drivers regularly hitting people? You don't think almost anyone would be horrified if they hit a person? I don't have evidence, but let's not imagine people are the sociopaths they claim to be on the Internet.

YouTube is littered with examples of drivers and their passengers attacking cyclists.

There is a whole industry dedicated to selling cameras and warning radar for cyclists because driver attacks are so common in fact.

Every serious cyclist I know has a few stories. One of mine includes a passenger leaning out of a car trying to put a plastic bag over my head.

Another has a builder stop his van to threaten me with a claw hammer.

These days I have cameras too.

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

#247

Post by fiala__ »

fetzu wrote: post #229
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.

Because you think you don’t pay for your healthcare? As an European, I have probably paid upwards of 150k for healthcare and probably got about 10k worth of it (at what might consider unreasonable prices, mind you). Even in countries with universal healthcare, it’s not free. There is always someone footing the bill. EDIT: a word

The point is, in most of Europe it’s the richer folks that foot the bill for the poorer ones. That’s a system based on solidarity - you contribute to our collective ability to treat our sick and injured, according to your financial means.

EDIT: at least that’s how it’s supposed to work in theory. Of course the richest people don’t foot the bill for anyone but themselves.

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

#248

Post by Xylakant »

viraptor wrote: post #186
tmnvix wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their ability to react That's just not possible to solve in practice. Unless you're moving at an extremely slow pace, there's always the lag of noticing + decision + activation. You can drive 10km/h and if someone walks right in front of you, there may be physically no way for you to prevent a collision. Sure, slower speeds prevent many accidents, but always sharing the…

You’ll be appalled. Germany has a notion of “Allgemeine Betriebsgefahr” which encapsulates the general danger of operating dangerous machinery. For a car/bike accident, the default minimum damages split is at least 20% for the car, even if the driver has complied with all rules. In the Netherlands, it’s even more strict: accidents between cars and anyone below 14 are automatically considered 100% the drivers fault for damages, unless you can prove that the accident was caused deliberately and maliciously by the child. For accidents with > 14 years olds, it’s still at least 50% automatic damages, unless you can prove reckless or deliberate behavior.

This is intended to reflect the inherent danger of driving a heavy machine in a public space.

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

#249

Post by oarfish »

fiala__ wrote: post #247
fetzu wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you think you don’t pay for your healthcare? As an European, I have probably paid upwards of 150k for healthcare and probably got about 10k worth of it (at what might consider unreasonable prices, mind you). Even in countries with universal healthcare, it’s not free. There is always someone footing the bill. EDIT: a word

The point is, in most of Europe it’s the richer folks that foot the bill for the poorer ones. That’s a system based on solidarity - you contribute to our collective ability to treat our sick and injured, according to your financial means. EDIT: at least that’s how it’s supposed to work in theory. Of course the richest people don’t foot the bill for anyone but themselves.

In Germany we have a two-prong system of public and private health insurance, so the richer folks actually remove themselves from the solidarity system, leaving the middle class with good jobs to pay for most of the expenses.

Is it similar in other european countries?

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

#250

Post by tmnvix »

viraptor wrote: post #186
tmnvix wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their ability to react That's just not possible to solve in practice. Unless you're moving at an extremely slow pace, there's always the lag of noticing + decision + activation. You can drive 10km/h and if someone walks right in front of you, there may be physically no way for you to prevent a collision. Sure, slower speeds prevent many accidents, but always sharing the…

> That's just not possible to solve in practice.

It is never a necessity to drive so close to people that 10km/h is too fast to notice someone who may veer into the path of your vehicle without you having the ability to stop. Likewise to drive at a speed at which someone could appear from behind a nearby obstacle leaving you no time to react. It is a convenience that most people assume they are entitled to - largely due to it being codified in law (there are lots of things we do that are like this).

You may consider it to be a necessity, and I would have once too. But I never do this now. I gave up the convenience - something I couldn't have done if it was a necessity.

I understand this is not a choice everyone feels free to make. But it is a choice.

Post reply on HN