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

31–40 of 424 posts

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

#31

Post by jordanb »

itsumoiru wrote: post #16
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 think most people equate "bicycles are dangerous" with "cycling is dangerous", which seems perfectly reasonable to me. What matters is whether you'll get hurt using a bicycle, not the pedantry of whether the bicycle itself is the problem.

It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem.

Cycling isn't dangerous, being on the street with cars is dangerous. Being on the street on a bike is dangerous, walking down a street is dangerous. Heck being in a compact car on today's streets with oversized/overweight vehicles is dangerous.

It's important to be precise about the source of the danger because it correctly identifies the problem.

There's a big push right now to ban people from buying and registering Kei cars with the argument being that they're too dangerous on american roads. If that argument holds, firstly, then it flows logically that they can nanny state people off of their bikes and motorcycles as well using the same argument. Secondly, Kei cars are not dangerous, getting hit in a kei car by an oversized SUV or "light" truck is.

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

#33

Post by gruez »

jordanb wrote: post #31
itsumoiru wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people equate "bicycles are dangerous" with "cycling is dangerous", which seems perfectly reasonable to me. What matters is whether you'll get hurt using a bicycle, not the pedantry of whether the bicycle itself is the problem.

It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. Cycling isn't dangerous, being on the street with cars is dangerous. Being on the street on a bike is dangerous, walking down a street is dangerous. Heck being in a compact car on today's streets with oversized/overweight vehicles is dangerous. It's important to be precise about the source of the danger because it correctly identifies the problem. There's a big pus…

>It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem.

How is this any different than "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"

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

#34

Post by rakoo »

itsumoiru wrote: post #16
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 think most people equate "bicycles are dangerous" with "cycling is dangerous", which seems perfectly reasonable to me. What matters is whether you'll get hurt using a bicycle, not the pedantry of whether the bicycle itself is the problem.

Cycling is not dangerous because of nature, it's dangerous because of cars. It's not the same as "skydiving is dangerous" where the nature itself goes against you.

What matters is what we want to do as a society: leave the cars where they are as some kind of unmovable force of destiny, or actually manage them to not make them dangerous.

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

#35

Post by kube-system »

bwestergard wrote: post #24
treyfitty wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are more dangerous than bicycles because they’re larger and faster, yes. But when you compare cars vs. bicycles on the same road, together, bicyclists are in more danger. I can only surmise the people that tell you “bicycles are dangerous,” are just looking out for your well being and meant “you’re putting yourself in danger.” Unfortunately, roads were designed for cars first. Even more unfortunate, people are n…

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...

And more broadly, paved roads were invented between 2600 and 2200 BC.

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

#37

Post by joeblubaugh »

gruez wrote: post #33
jordanb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. Cycling isn't dangerous, being on the street with cars is dangerous. Being on the street on a bike is dangerous, walking down a street is dangerous. Heck being in a compact car on today's streets with oversized/overweight vehicles is dangerous. It's important to be precise about the source of the danger because it correctly identifies the problem. There's a big pus…

>It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. How is this any different than "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"

In this analogy, the bicycle is not the gun. The F-250 extended cab is.

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

#38

Post by olliej »

I can see exactly how this happened: the ambulance drivers picked up the cyclist and drove to the hospital, which requires them to do a whole bunch of paperwork to ensure correct hospital billing, correct accounting for drugs etc.

I would assume at that point computers took over and led to the billing. In an ideal world you’d say “well obviously the target shouldn’t have been billed by the ambulance”, but I’m guessing their infrastructure does not have a built in mechanism for “we are the cause of this trip being needed”.

After that the rest of the lawsuit is likely just the only mechanism to get correctly compensated (the insurance company pays the hospital - if the victim had insurance - then goes to the ambulance co to get them to pay, which is via a “lawsuit”, probably with no intent to go to court, just that’s the mechanism of action. The ambulance company also probably has insurance, but often such insurance is contingent on being sued, because of course).

The large amount is not actually very large: ignoring all the immediate bills I’m sure lawsuit payouts have tax obligations, depending on severity of injuries recovery can be a very long time if ever, with increased costs through out life, and then you are always starting high with the expectation of a counter offer for settlement.

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

#40

Post by twiceaday »

gruez wrote: post #33
jordanb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. Cycling isn't dangerous, being on the street with cars is dangerous. Being on the street on a bike is dangerous, walking down a street is dangerous. Heck being in a compact car on today's streets with oversized/overweight vehicles is dangerous. It's important to be precise about the source of the danger because it correctly identifies the problem. There's a big pus…

>It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. How is this any different than "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"

You having a gun is not dangerous because of other people. You having a bicycle is dangerous because of other people.
Post reply on HN