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

341–350 of 424 posts

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

#341

Post by yurishimo »

oarfish wrote: post #249
fiala__ wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In neighboring Nederland, all healthcare is privately insured and administered but the costs are capped by the government with small increases for inflation every year. Having insurance is also mandatory so nobody is left out. If you can’t afford it, the welfare system also picks up your monthly premium.

For people who use more resources, there is an annual deductible of around €500 per person that resets with the new year. After you pay the deductible, the rest of your care and medication is free.

Personally, now living here 2 years, I think it’s a good system that compromises in many of the right areas. My biggest complaint is that your GP is the gatekeeper to all other care, so if you are certain you need to see a specialist, you’ll need to convince your GP first. That all fine and dandy when we’re talking about an ENT doctor for example, but hella annoying when you need to get a referral for a therapist that is covered by insurance. The Dutch drug prices are also ridiculous (allergy meds and other specialized OTC drugs are insanely expensive) but luckily I can order them online from Germany for much more reasonable tariffs! ;)

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

#342

Post by trogdor »

0_____0 wrote: post #320
Tade0 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Survivability is much greater though. Funnily enough it happens approximately 100 times every year in my city of 650k, but fatalities are rare (I'm not aware of any). Pedestrians are less fortunate, as a few die annually being hit/run over by a tram. But I would rather restrict cycling than trams, as the latter perform a valuable service.

I helped build and operate a medium sized art car at Burning Man. We had a guy on a bike ride directly into the rear of our extremely well lit, loud, and (relative to the bike) large art car. We were parked. He got up and rode away with no explanation.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that drugs were involved.

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

#343

Post by kube-system »

Gigachad wrote: post #30
kube-system wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blank look is probably because cars are ubiquitous, so the distinction is irrelevant to the risk profile the speaker is referring to.

The point is that cycling doesn’t have to be dangerous, it currently is due to external factors that can be fixed.

> factors that can be fixed

In the US? Not a chance. The political momentum in the US overwhelmingly does not want to fix this to the degree where cars and bikes wouldn't cross paths. Nor have I seen any proposals to do so. Even the most progressive bike infrastructure in the US still often intersects with vehicle traffic at grade.

There's only one place in the US where you can reasonably ride a bicycle for transportation and (usually) not share the road with cars, and it's a tiny island with population ~500 that banned cars in the late 19th century. And even there, emergency vehicles, like the one in the OP, still share the road with bikes.

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

#344

Post by kube-system »

pornel wrote: post #115
johnnyanmac wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with cars we have a saying: "graves are filled with people who had the right of way". Physics doesn't care about whose to blame.

It's not about blame. It's about recognizing the need for safe infrastructure: physically separated bike paths, not painted gutters. Physics does care about the difference between crossing a painted line vs hitting a bollard.

Dedicated bike lanes almost always share the same risks as the incident in the OP: the intersections are still shared. And sometimes driver behavior is even worse when dedicated bike lanes exist at intersections, because drivers turning right forget they are sharing the intersection with bikes proceeding straight-through from a lane on their right.

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

#345

Post by Gud »

ygra wrote: post #266
Gud wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bicycles and pedestrians should absolutely not be mixed! What needs to happen are dedicated bicycle lanes and reduced car traffic.

They can be mixed off traffic is rather low and the path is wide enough (basically plan for the encounter of a pram in one direction with a cyclist with trailer in the other direction). But that typically doesn't work for sidewalks in many cases because they're either too narrow or have too much foot or bike traffic. E-bikes and cargo bikes are also a lot heavier than other bicycles and are getting more common. Due t…

This generally works were the traffic is low, in sub urbs and on specific paths(not sidewalks in metropolitan areas). combined pedestrian walk and bicycle paths are possible, in sub urbs and in more rural areas, though even there they should generally be split and only used for overtaking:

https://www.osteraker.se/images/18.5bb0400617c11d33b551007/1...

In bigger cities where the foot traffic is high, it's absolutely not possible, in my opinion.

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

#346

Post by ggreer »

sottol wrote: post #226
ggreer wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, on the margins cycling is more dangerous in the USA . OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if the physical exercise would reduce mortality enough to still be a net positive on the margins - biking to the bakery vs driving - but haven't verified that. Interesting tidbit from the report is that almost 50% of fatalities are in towns 100k. I would have guessed metro areas are more dangerous.

There is no country in which cycling is safer than driving. Even in the Netherlands, the fatality rate is 13 deaths per billion miles. For comparison, the Netherlands has 3 deaths per billion miles by car.

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

#347

Post by kube-system »

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?

> must follow the same road laws as cars.

This actually isn't true in some parts of the US. Cyclists sometimes do have different laws that apply to them while using the road. For instance, in some places, cyclists may legally yield at stop signs. They do not have to stop at them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

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

#349

Post by kube-system »

_xiaz wrote: post #316
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…

Except with bicycles you very well can find a plane to jump out with no ground to be seen. Your analogy is car brained and bad. I live in germany and have an extremely safe bike commute. I would not commute by bike in the US tho

US cities, infrastructure, and political attitudes are irreparably predisposed to support the dominance of the automobile. The problem here is simply not fixable on any scale larger than a neighborhood-level during any of our lifetimes.

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

#350

Post by kube-system »

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…

> 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.

There is a legal doctrine in the US called the 'last clear chance'. Even if the other person was breaking the law, you still have the responsibility to avoid an accident if you can.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_clear_chance

Post reply on HN