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

291–300 of 424 posts

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

#291

Post by lillecarl »

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…

You don't get a Swedish license if you don't turn your head when switching lanes. It's weird that the country of driving has so low requirements and quality of driving

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

#292

Post by amanaplanacanal »

xeornet wrote: post #243
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.

We probably should fix the roads. Blame the engineers who made it this way.

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

#293

Post by amanaplanacanal »

treyfitty wrote: post #70
bwestergard wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the U.S., roads were paved for cyclists first. There was a political fight over whether and how to regulate cars to prevent them from crowding out other road users. See "Fighting Traffic". https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Tech...

I meant to reference modern roads. Lane markings, signage, and setbacks are clearly spaced, designed, and optimized for traveling in a car. Those 45mph signs and the intentional spacing of lane markers were not designed because of bicyclists.

Bad road design. We can do better.

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

#294

Post by [deleted] »

sottol wrote: post #138
ggreer wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

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…

[deleted]

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

#295

Post by rcxdude »

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.

For a more fair comparison you should discount highway miles from the car stats. That's the safest form of driving there is, and accounts for a very large fraction of miles, but doesn't represent the kind of journey you would be cycling, anyway. Comparing just car journeys you could make with a bike would be a better comparison.

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

#296

Post by alpaca128 »

treyfitty wrote: post #64
alpaca128 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you think bicyclists have the de facto right of way and everyone should adjust to your presence They think that because that's how the law works, yes. Also many roads aren't designed for cars either, at least not in terms of safety or efficiency.

What law? Bicyclists do not automatically have the right of way. They are users of the road and must follow the same road laws as cars. You say many roads… if you go by miles, you think major interstates weren’t designed for cars? How about rural roads… who do you think those long stretches of roads are designed for if not cars?

When a vehicle would have to cross other paths (bike lanes etc), the priority is: pedestrian > cyclist > car. A bike lane crossing the road always has priority over cars unless signs say otherwise. At least that's how it works in Europe.

> who do you think those long stretches of roads are designed for if not cars?

The roads are usually intended for cars, yes. But they often aren't designed for safe, efficient travel with cars. Or anyone else, really. It's possible to design roads to be safe for everyone, but they often are the opposite. Just like planners still think that adding more lanes makes travel by car faster, when in reality it's long been known that it actually has the opposite effect.

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

#297

Post by exe34 »

Tade0 wrote: post #275
exe34 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

over here in the civilised world, we have bicycle lanes.

You ignore the existence of intersections. Last year in my neighborhood we had a cyclist die from making a sharp left turn straight into a tram. It was a track x cycle lane intersection and between the tracks and cycle lane parallel to it from which he turned there's a strip of pavement, so unless you really cut that turn, the tram should be in your field of vision. Also there's a yield sign for cyclists, but obvious…

trams are pretty damn loud as well, but I guess people can be very distracted. to be fair though, getting hit by a tram in a car instead of on a bike probably wouldn't be any more fun.

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

#298

Post by exe34 »

instig007 wrote: post #273
exe34 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

over here in the civilised world, we have bicycle lanes.

and the cyclists still don't respect pedestrians and abuse their privilege and oftentimes cut them off on pavements and zebra crossings when they feel like it.

I've seen plenty of pedestrians just begging to get run over - no spatial awareness, just randomly dancing across the shared path or straying into the bike lane.

I'm paranoid though and just assume hostile intentions. I slow down to walking speed or even just stop until I'm certain they're clued in.

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

#299

Post by exe34 »

danielbarla wrote: post #289
instig007 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and the cyclists still don't respect pedestrians and abuse their privilege and oftentimes cut them off on pavements and zebra crossings when they feel like it.

For several years now I have commuted almost exclusively by biking and walking to & from work, and I can say that both the pedestrian and biker populations have a small but very noticeable number of idiots in them who just don't seem to care. On one long bridge here, pedestrians and bikes have dedicated roads, on the opposites sides. I regularly see bikers use the sidewalk side, and the same with pedestrians on the b…

I've been told to get off the pavement by a pedestrian while on a shared path with an actual sign up right in front of us both - I pointed at it and laughed at him.

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

#300

Post by preisschild »

instig007 wrote: post #273
exe34 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

over here in the civilised world, we have bicycle lanes.

and the cyclists still don't respect pedestrians and abuse their privilege and oftentimes cut them off on pavements and zebra crossings when they feel like it.

This happens when there is no bike lane. Cyclists take the pavement because the street is unsafe.
Post reply on HN