Greedy medical industry executives stick him with the bill* suit and tie parasites
Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill
371–380 of 424 posts
Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill
#372As 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 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…
The potential consequences of a driver's mistake are ~20x greater than a cyclist's in a city environment. Do cyclists make 20x more mistakes than drivers to make up for that?
So indeed, drivers complaining about cyclists is a joke. In the event of any sort of a collision with a car at all it's the cyclist that loses. Always.
Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
That's a silly false choice, there's no reason to restrict either. Trams (nor ambulances) are not killing cyclists at notable rates.
All that's needed is for city infrastructure designers to take into account the existence and needs of cyclists. An impossible challenge for 99% of them, sadly.
Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not symmetric though. In a car your mistake has a much higher ceiling to the negative consequences. And with great power comes great responsibility. I’ve been honked for waiting for a safe way to pass a cyclist. The car behind me then just zooms past the cyclist after I make a manoeuvre. It’s not like all driver are out there trying to be responsible as much as possible.
Most roads aren’t even meant for cyclists but they feel so entitled as to take up entire lanes sometimes.
The roads are paid for by my taxes so I'll use them fully, thank you very much.
It's rare that riding on the side is viable. Easily 90%+ of drivers do not know when and how to pass a cyclist so I have to play babysitter and manage their behavior by positioning myself appropriately.
Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill
#375Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, the system is very badly designed. Cars and bikes don't mix without carefully designed roads that make the lazy/default decision and the safe decision the same thing, because eventual complacency is human nature. > You could say that jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't dangerous, it's the ground that's dangerous. In that metaphor cars are a force of nature. I've also heard "the laws of physics t…
> When I choose to drive, I have the means to kill someone else and I'm damn well responsible for that risk. I agree, and part of my GP point was, I think almost every driver agrees, even in different words: Drivers are very adverse to hitting humans, whether walking or biking.
You don't want to hit people because you'll feel bad about it? That's good, but you have nothing at stake. You will not be the one dead/injured and the laws are on your side. Drivers have little incentive to care and it shows.
Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fo…
> Now when you have both the data and words of someone who is actually experiencing it every day are you willing to reconsider?
No because the data has a gaping hole: it records cyclist deaths per capita, not cyclist deaths per cyclist.
The UK looks “good” but cyclist uptake is like 1% compared to Dutch uptake which is FAR MORE than 1%. You expect more people to die doing a thing if more people do a thing. Dutch cyclists are also more common than Spanish cyclists, again so you’d expect to see higher numbers.
There’s no breakdown by country and by other party involved in there. Just separate charts, so you can’t say more drivers are running over more cyclists because it’s just not in the data.
Also, I’ve experienced cycling in different European countries and you don’t need 500 hours to see the stark difference between countries that get it and countries that don’t.
> The infrastucture is terrible and dangerous.
This doesn’t surprise me, most countries are shit at it.
> 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".
This is the law in the UK. Read some Twitter threads and you’ll see drivers don’t appreciate it. The only thing keeping us safe is cameras with good police enforcement.
Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill
#377Earlier 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.
Cars isolate their occupants from the environment. Not just physically, but psychologically - drivers are less aware of their surroundings and unable to communicate with other road users using body language.
I think that is the leading cause of road rage and the disregard drivers have towards pedestrians and cyclists.
Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I've ever met a cyclist who's opposed to separated infrastructure for bikes and cars. Every local government project I've ever seen to build this kind of infrastructure runs into issues with drivers who don't think it's necessary or would somehow ruin their lives.
As a former bicycle messenger I'm opposed to it. The trails are filled with baby strollers and inline skaters moving in and out of lanes. typically there is no right of way when crossing roads or entrances to parking lots. Blind corners with overgrown vegetation are par for the course. Riding in traffic is an absolute pleasure when you know how to draft vehicles. The suction created by larger box trucks can actually…
Of course you are opposed, you are not the target audience. Bike infrastructure is there to let your average person bike at 10mph to work/school/the grocery store. It's not supposed to be a racing track.
> Riding in traffic is an absolute pleasure when you know how to draft vehicles. The suction created by larger box trucks can actually pull you along with minimal effort.
Well, I chuckled ;) Just FYI, if you're "drafting" you're probably well within the "if they brake hard, I'm running into them" territory. Proceed at your own risk.
Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill
#379[flagged]
Re: Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I've ever met a cyclist who's opposed to separated infrastructure for bikes and cars. Every local government project I've ever seen to build this kind of infrastructure runs into issues with drivers who don't think it's necessary or would somehow ruin their lives.
Yeah? Except where I live, we have "bike trails" wide enough, and newly paved looking enough that I could drive my car over them, in fact! The lawncare people for my neighborhood absolutely drive their trucks on them, with enough room to let people pass them by! And yet, I still see people on the regular roads, at the worst times: early morning when most people are trying to get to work, or right as the sun is going…
It's very telling that you assume drivers in the early morning are trying to get to work but the cyclists aren't.
It sounds like you live in America in which case I assure you the bike trails you speak of are inadequate to the point that using them is probably less safe than not.
Where are you getting the "expected to go 55" wording from? That's not how laws are written. If you're referring to the speed limit, that's a limit, not a suggestion. Again, telling.
Yes it is the cars that are dangerous, a careless bicycle rider is not capable of harming you in your car in any way.
Cyclists who ride without lights after dark are irresponsible, I'll give you that.