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

381–390 of 424 posts

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

#381

Post by Mawr »

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)!

Perfect vision without blind spots, unimpeded ability to hear, able to communicate via body language with pedestrians. Yes, biking is superior in city environments and should be encouraged.

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

#382

Post by Tade0 »

Mawr wrote: post #373
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.

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.

I can imagine someone thinking to put traffic lights there so that the tram would have to yield - fortunately that didn't happen.

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

#383

Post by Mawr »

bluecalm wrote: post #359
scott_w wrote: post #240

Earlier 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…

Oh my.

First of, the statistics you point to are terrible. It's not the first time I've seen EU statistics on cycling be utterly incompetent either, it's weird.

Anyhow:

"Although there are no data available at EU level on the trend in cycling kilometres travelled, it is widely recognized that cycling has increased in popularity over the past decade."

There you go, the entire dataset is invalid.

As a curiosity, please point your attention to the graph of the distribution of fatalities over age categories.

> It's just very hard to get data that include all factors but the data we do get is not so good for Netherlands.

The data is easily accessible and robust: [1] [2].

> This is experience worth more than some stereotypes about Netherlands being good for cyclists or whatever.

Relatively to basically everywhere else, the Netherlands is good for cyclists. That's a fact, not a stereotype.

> 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".

If the infrastructure is terrible, the solution is to make it not terrible. Changing laws is a lazy, ineffectual cop-out. It is always more effective to change the infrastructure. Regular people are not going to be cycling amidst vehicles.

---

[1]: https://english.kimnet.nl/publications/publications/2023/11/...

[2]: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2024/03/06/cycling-safety...

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

#384

Post by mmooss »

Mawr wrote: post #375
mmooss wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> you have nothing at stake. You will not be the one dead/injured and the laws are on your side.

Drivers have very much at stake. They could be accused, tried, and possibly convicted of homicide, and even the first two can dramatically change lives. And nobody wants to kill someone, and live with that trauma for the rest of their lives, and always be known as someone who killed.

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

#385

Post by mmooss »

Mawr wrote: post #381
mmooss wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)!

Perfect vision without blind spots, unimpeded ability to hear, able to communicate via body language with pedestrians. Yes, biking is superior in city environments and should be encouraged.

> Perfect vision without blind spots, unimpeded ability to hear, able to communicate via body language with pedestrians

That's all exaggerated, but generally I agree. Also bikes are silent, hard to see, especially among cars or at night ...

There are advantages and disadventages to all technology, and it's not a genuine analysis unless we look at them all.

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

#386

Post by mmooss »

scott_w wrote: post #334
mmooss wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> pedestrians are killed by drivers on the pavement (sidewalk for Americans) every year than are killed by cyclists

There are many more cars, and bike accidents don't tend to kill people.

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

#387

Post by mmooss »

Mawr wrote: post #372
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…

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.

> drivers complaining about cyclists is a joke

The 'victim' perspective - I'm pure and harmless because I'm the injured party - is always in error.

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

#388

Post by mmooss »

bluecalm wrote: post #360
mmooss wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We know where the problems is: cars and drivers.

We don't, and cyclists will get nowhere until they take responsibility and stop acting like victims. Everyone who drives around cyclists sees how badly many of them act - on average, IME, much worse than drivers.

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

#389

Post by Lio »

mmooss wrote: post #323
Lio wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is littered with examples of drivers and their passengers attacking cyclists. There is a whole industry dedicated to selling cameras and warning radar for cyclists because driver attacks are so common in fact. Every serious cyclist I know has a few stories. One of mine includes a passenger leaning out of a car trying to put a plastic bag over my head. Another has a builder stop his van to threaten me with a c…

Youtube and social media have all sorts of things that are badly misrepresented, especially sensationalized paranoid stories. I wouldn't take social media as evidence of anything. I know plenty of cyclists. While some have had accidents with cars, some drivers have driven away rather than face the consequences, I've never heard these stories of naked aggression. I've heard of the occasional argument, but often a self…

There’s a good reason “I’ve heard” is always discounted in court as hearsay.

I know what I know from first hands experience.

I don’t think that anything I could have possibly done could be self-righteous enough to justify the actions of those involved but that’s just my opinion.

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

#390

Post by Mawr »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #92
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

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".

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

I understand how bad the reality is in the US, but public transportation is a solved problem.

Post reply on HN