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

351–360 of 424 posts

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

#351

Post by sottol »

ggreer wrote: post #346
sottol wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I still think it's not useful to compare fatalities per billion miles, especially cycling and driving (and especially if that includes highway driving, which is clearly not something you could use a bike for instead).

Iceland had several years with zero or one reported cycling fatalities, I can't find road fatalities quickly but I assume driving is less safe there, especially if I'm allowed to cherry-pick a zero-fatality year (where you'd have 0 fatalities per billion miles cycled).

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

#352

Post by kube-system »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #104
ThunderSizzle wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People drive with a suspended license all the time. How else are getting to your job? Getting groceries? We pretend like driving is only a privilege, but it's more necessary than most rights that OSHA or other agencies have "discovered".

> People drive with a suspended license all the time And if they’re not getting in accidents more frequently than population, that’s fine. I didn’t include this common citation for good reason. > How else are getting to your job? Getting groceries? Calling (or buying) a robotic car. We’re looking decades into the future when manually piloting a car is a privilege. (Or less than a decade in cities with public transit.…

That sounds like a nice future if we can get there... but if we look at recently observed trends in the US, the increased barriers to driving a car in recent history has probably resulted in lower rates of legal compliance, rather than better driving behaviors.

The risk of hit-and-run accidents, uninsured drivers, and unlicensed drivers on the road are increasing.

While public transit could be a great solution, much of the poorest in the US cannot afford to live in places with good public transport because these areas have higher housing costs.

> We tolerate it, extraordinarily, because driving is almost a right in America.

Partially. But even the laws we do have are currently being ignored, because rates of compliance are so low that it isn't even practically feasible to enforce the law. In several US states, more than 20% of drivers are driving around without insurance. The underlying problem here is beyond what can be solved merely with enforcement.

I'm hopeful it eventually happens, but I think we're a very long way from a world where someone in small-town Mississippi can ride around in a robotic car on a McDonalds wage.

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

#353

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

Moru wrote: post #261
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> add a bike lane to an existing road Are you imagining an alternative in which a bike network is added to a city, but not using "existing roads"? Where would these entirely-new roads be placed? Would you knock down the buildings between two car-infrastructure-roads, to pave it for bicycles? I suppose you could remove the car-infrastructure-road entirely and make it just a bike-road / linear park. Or you could put th…

You put a sign at the start of the road. "Bike street". This means cars allowed but at bike speeds. You have different paint on the street too, to make it very different from a normal road. I have seen them popping up here and there and it works very well in the towns I bike in. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/e0qxxz/we_just_g...

As reasonable as that sounds, I think this would fall into the GP's complained-of category of "making that road significantly slower and worse for cars", and does not meet their ask for "a separated infrastructure grid for pedestrians and bicycles".

I remain very curious to hear their vision!

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

#354

Post by shkkmo »

usrusr wrote: post #244
shkkmo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One time when I stopped to let a pedestrian cross at a crosswalk with button activated flashing lights that were flashing.

While stopped, I watched not one, but fifteen freaking cars proceed through the crosswalk without stopping...in a 15 mph speed zone..with a giant box truck stopped in the opposite lane waiting...with flashing lights that clearly indicate tou are required to stop. I was absolutely blown away.

Then there's the seeming 3/4ths of drivers who don't look straight in front of them when they start driving to make a right turn when waiting for a gap in traffic. I've put dents (deliberately) in several of their hoods since I watch for this like a hawk and am ready to yell and smack their hood as soonnas they start moving. I've had them yell at me when it was my fault for not making eye contact, when I literally watched their eyes the entire time I approached and they never once moved them from staring left to see if there were pedestrians.

I don't understand why dangerous driving gets so little enforcement and why the penalies are slaps on the wrist. Let's revoke licenses and confiscate cars.

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

#355

Post by SoftTalker »

bobthepanda wrote: post #171
SoftTalker wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also though, if a slow-moving vehicle is impeding other traffic, they should pull over at the next safe opportunity and allow traffic to pass.

It’s not really safe to pull over for a bicycle in most street configurations in the US because that puts you squarely in the dooring zone of the parked cars.

I'm simply stating what the traffic laws state. A slow-moving vehicle has the obligation to get out of the way when it can, to allow other traffic to pass.

Here's one example:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.427

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

#356

Post by mmooss »

consteval wrote: post #339
mmooss wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Identifying a problem and blame are different things. The first facilitates problem solving, the second interferes with it. Look up blame-free post-mortems of problems in the IT world, for example.

Blaming is similar to a victim perspective, IMHO: 'I'm innocent (most important) and injured; the other person is guilty; therefore I can take out my frustration, etc. on them - I can do to them whatever I want.' It often is more about satisfying anger, protection from shame and other consequences, and is a distraction from problem solving. And those blamed, as here on HN, are often the people who are most socially acceptable to blame - whoever is unpopular and vulnerable in the current crowd.

In this case, people driving cars and riding bicycles are in a system that yields problematic results. How can we improve that system? Talking about blame

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

#357

Post by bobthepanda »

SoftTalker wrote: post #355
bobthepanda wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really safe to pull over for a bicycle in most street configurations in the US because that puts you squarely in the dooring zone of the parked cars.

I'm simply stating what the traffic laws state. A slow-moving vehicle has the obligation to get out of the way when it can, to allow other traffic to pass. Here's one example: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.427

right, but in effect that's basically zero percent of the time on a street with parked cars. pulling into the front of a driveway is also not safe. And safe passing in WA is three feet.

From WSDOT:

> Pass at a safe distance. Leaving an extra safety buffer in time and space when passing people gives you more ability to see and react, and it’s also the law. Be aware that a bicyclist needs to be positioned in the lane a safe distance away from opening car doors, grates, and other hazards not visible to a driver. Drivers need to move into the other lane when possible or leave at least three feet while passing (RCW 46.61.110). Darkness and weather conditions may affect a driver’s ability to gauge distance.

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

#358

Post by cafard »

nick3443 wrote: post #77
cafard wrote: post #4

A kid I knew in high school was knocked off his bike by an ambulance. He'd have come out of the incident better if the ambulance hadn't backed up to see what happened, for it backed over his legs. The city settled with him for what sounded like a lot of money in 1971, but not so much ten years later.

How horrible!

It must have been pretty bad. I should say that when I knew him, he walked with no obvious limp.

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

#359

Post by bluecalm »

scott_w wrote: post #240
bluecalm wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. Some of the safest places to cycle have about 0 infrastructure. What matters are driving culture, speed limits (and enforcement of those) as well as lesser numbers of "modern" cars on roads (cause those have bad visibility, a lot of distractions and too much insulation causing people to underestimate their speed.

Given the person cited the Netherlands, a nation widely lauded and know for its excellent infrastructure and low pedestrian/cyclist deaths, I’m going to need you to cite some evidence here. And no, I’m not going to accept statistics showing a small town in the middle of nowhere is safer. It’s self evident that you’ll not get run over in a place where there are no cars to run you over.

I don't know why you think Netherlands is known for ow pedestrian/cycling deaths. Here is some data: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021...

You can say more people cycle in Netherlands but then a lot of people cycle in Spain or Northern Italy as well and those are more populous countries/regions. It's just very hard to get data that include all factors but the data we do get is not so good for Netherlands.

I have cycled in many EU countries and in many areas of those as well. I am 500+ hours on the bike throughout the year and talk to a lot of people who do the same. This is experience worth more than some stereotypes about Netherlands being good for cyclists or whatever. What is good for cyclists are drivers who are careful, don't speed and respect your right to be on the road. This is why Spain doesn't have as many cycling deaths even though tons of people cycle there. It would be even more apparent if you split Spain into regions. Same with Italy (North is good, South not so much).

Poland gets quite a bit of cycling infrastructure now (because that's the only way to get EU funding for roads for cars - what the government really wants). The infrastucture is terrible and dangerous. People die and get hurt because of it every day. It would be much better to just change the law to: "cyclist can be on the road whenever they please and can take the lane when they think it's for their safety".

Now when you have both the data and words of someone who is actually experiencing it every day are you willing to reconsider?

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

#360

Post by bluecalm »

mmooss wrote: post #327
bluecalm wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you speed, use your phone when driving or ignore basic safety rules then you can't really say you don't want to hit someone or injure someone. I mean you can say that but it's as believable as shooting your rifle without looking in general direction of a crowd of people and then saying you really didn't mean to shoot anyone.

I see cyclists using their phones - looking at them - while riding on streets.

Yeah, some do. They are not going to kill anyone though unlike drivers. We know where the problems is: cars and drivers. Focus on that instead of derailing the discussion. There are lives and health of people on the line.
Post reply on HN