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

331–340 of 424 posts

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

#331

Post by mmooss »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #61
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…

> yet I can see a future where humans are barred from driving Increase the unsupervised driving age to 18 (unless in an area with no robotic transport) and massively increase penalties for driving infractions. As in you lose your license on your second DUI or third at-fault collision, reckless-driving ticket or cell phone violation. (Maybe make a DUI count as two infractions for the second list.)

While that makes sense and I think is 'fair' - car accidents are too dangerous to be something you overlook - it's also too devestating to some people:

They will lose their jobs, and then housing, etc. People need their cars to feed their kids, do all sorts of things. And of course, they will drive illegally if they have to - wouldn't you?

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

#332

Post by SauciestGNU »

seer wrote: post #182
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 think the problem is that in a lot of places in the west bicycles are forced to mix with motor vehicles, and away from pedestrians. This always seemed like a weird trade off to me - “you are inconveniencing some pedestrians, so go in this other lane where you can die” I grew up in Eastern Europe, where technically the laws are similar, but no policeman is going to stop you for riding on the sidewalk. So you natural…

I'm very much an "old school" commuter cyclist, I started way before this current movement towards vision zero and separated bike infrastructure, to provide context. Bicycling is my main transport and has been for 15 years now.

I practice "vehicular cycling" and love being in the road. I also choose routes where I can maintain at least 75% of the speed limit, so lots of 30mph roads.

It's definitely sketchier than the new style infrastructure that's popping up, but it's also way faster. I use a radar and mirror for safety and I keep the speed delta between traffic and myself at a minimum. Only serious injury I've had was getting creamed by an incoming drunk driver at speed.

Best world would be keeping pedestrians, cyclists, and cars all separated for maximum convenience. But failing that, I'd much rather be in a painted bike lane than on a sidewalk.

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

#333

Post by mmooss »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #292
xeornet wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why blame anyone? A general rule: If you want someone to blame, look in the mirror.

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

#334

Post by scott_w »

mmooss wrote: post #325
scott_w wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It seems irrational and transparently self-righteous for cyclists to claim to be victims or somehow superior. Why would Homo sapiens on bicycles be any less prone to error or negligence or aggression than those in automobiles? Often, the same person does both (at different times)!

Because the statistics show that more pedestrians are killed by drivers on the pavement (sidewalk for Americans) every year than are killed by cyclists. Studies show that cyclists break the law at a lower rate than drivers, too.

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

#335

Post by consteval »

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.

I have a long commute, I see drivers almost kill someone multiple times a day, every day. Most of the time there's no accident.

To be clear, I'm not talking about mistakes. There's 10x more of those. I'm referring to just people taking dangerous actions with no regard for the safety of anyone.

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

#336

Post by rahimnathwani »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #278
rahimnathwani wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time. No, 'taking turns' is not codified in the law or mentioned in the DMV handbook. If the Waymo stopped at the intersection after the bicycle stopped at the intersection, or if the Waymo's path was blocked and it was thus not entering the intersection, the bicycle would not be required to yield. At a conten…

> No, 'taking turns' is not codified in the law or mentioned in the DMV handbook. Even if it's not explicitly written, it's a natural consequence that once two opposite cars go, the perpendicular cars were there before the replacements, so they get to go first, and it falls into taking turns. > Consider the sequence of events in this hypothetical scenario They meant when vehicles are waiting for each other the entire…

In my scenario, both the Waymo and the bicycle are simultaneously stopped at their respective stop lines. That counts as 'contended'.

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

#337

Post by consteval »

mmooss wrote: post #325
scott_w wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It seems irrational and transparently self-righteous for cyclists to claim to be victims or somehow superior. Why would Homo sapiens on bicycles be any less prone to error or negligence or aggression than those in automobiles? Often, the same person does both (at different times)!

> Why would Homo sapiens on bicycles be any less prone to error or negligence or aggression than those in automobiles?

For a few very obvious reasons:

1. Cars have significantly less visibility. Often cars run into other cars at speed without having ever even seen them. Now imagine bicycles.

2. Cars are much faster, so mistakes are amplified. Often with cars you're forced to commit to bad decisions because you're simply too fast to abort.

3. Cars are much more powerful, which may bring aggression in people. This is opinion but from my life this is plainly true with everything. The more perceived power something gives a person, the more prone to aggression that person is.

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

#338

Post by rahimnathwani »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #281
rahimnathwani wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the Waymo could not see the bicycle then them cyclist could not see the Waymo. If the cyclist cannot see the Waymo, then either: A) There is no Waymo, and the cyclist need not yield, or B) There is a Waymo, but its path is blocked by turning lorry, and the cyclist need not yield. So either way the bicycle has priority, no?

B sounds wrong to me. That would mean if you had enough lorries blocking the next one's sight they could all go through at once. I don't think you're supposed to start moving again until you can see whether a waiting vehicle would intersect your path.

  B sounds wrong to me.
But can you explain your objection in terms of the actual law?

This whole sub thread started because someone claimed the bike must have broken the law. I'm trying to explain why that's not necessarily the case. Most people 'stating the law' are making things up that aren't written in the law.

I am honestly curious to know what I may have misunderstood, but based on the actual law not based on what seems to make sense if we were to design ideal laws.

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

#339

Post by consteval »

mmooss wrote: post #333
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why blame anyone? A general rule: If you want someone to blame, look in the mirror.

Because if you want to solve a problem you first have to identify it. That's step 1, before anything else. There's no virtue in being ignorant, especially not purposefully so.

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

#340

Post by consteval »

Boltgolt wrote: post #263
CrimsonRain wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, it is healthy people making "sacrifices" to not eat shit and do exercise are footing biils for couch potatoes who eat shit all day.

Ah, so exactly like health insurance?

Right, what these people don't understand is the US already has a socialized medical care system, it's just shit. Insurance also turns a profit, and they also have the highest incentive to not pay for care AND make healthcare provider's jobs as difficult as possible.

It's a socialized system but with inefficiency baked in and guaranteed. That's why the US pays significantly more for healthcare while also having worse quality care.

Post reply on HN