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

411–420 of 424 posts

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

#411

Post by saagarjha »

kmoser wrote: post #217
nl wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no driver I know wants to hit someone and injure them As a cyclist I don't think this is completely true. I've been in cars with drivers who do dangerously close passes on cyclists and the common excuse is "oh I just want to scare them" or similar. So while I guess it's technically true that even these drivers don't technically want to hit the cyclist the distinction is somewhat moot.

There is something about bicyclists, and especially skaters, that leads to active hostility from drivers. On at least two occasions, I've had cars purposely try to hit me when I was skating. I know it was on purpose because in one case the driver said "you're not a vehicle" as he came within inches of hitting me, and in another case the driver, completely unprovoked, began cursing loudly and tried to run me off the r…

The "you're not a vehicle" stuff is pretty amusing considering that bikes are, actually, legally classified as vehicles in the US and you can get ticketed while riding one. (I have also been yelled at for the same reason.)

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

#412

Post by exe34 »

instig007 wrote: post #400
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would still bet way more pedestrians are killed or injured by car drivers than bicyclists.

It's a weird context for the bet. What's your point on cyclists not respecting pedestrians even though when they've got more bike lanes? I bet their attitude hasn't changed with the grown number of dedicated lanes. Are you arguing that as long as pedestrians are not being killed at the same rate, being disrespectful to them and causing danger by another kind of a higher risk vehicle is fine?

somehow they manage to handle it just fine in Amsterdam and the Netherlands in general. maybe Americans are just very rude and entitled?

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

#413

Post by exe34 »

instig007 wrote: post #399
exe34 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been told to get off the pavement by a pedestrian while on a shared path with an actual sign up right in front of us both - I pointed at it and laughed at him.

Cyclists use a higher risk vehicle, pedestrians have a natural right to higher priority on shared use paths and in crossings, by the virtue of using the most harmless means of moving in space. That means giving way to pedestrians when they need it, keeping a safe distance, and not causing dangerous situations for them. If you think otherwise, by that same token you'll have to convince all the cyclists around you that…

you made up a story in your head and then ran with it.

I did not do anything to put said pedestrian cunt at risk. the shared path was wide enough for 5 people, and I passed far enough away from them that I was in no danger of hitting them. I also passed them at barely over walking speed, because I always slow down when passing potentially inattentive creatures.

he, like you, assumed too much and make a fool of himself.

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

#414

Post by mindslight »

palmfacehn wrote: post #183
AlotOfReading wrote: post #66

Earlier 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…

Damn! I never messengered, just commuted for a few years in a city. I've always had this kind of eye-roll reaction to the ever-growing number of bike lanes, especially poorly done ones now that they've reached the 'burbs, even though there was only a handful when I was seriously riding. I never fully reflected on why, apart from the obvious just-wide-enough-to-get-doored and having to do explicit lane changes to deal with double parking and other shit in the way. You put it really well! I mean, if you don't hear an ambulance approaching from behind and think "this is my ticket for getting through this traffic quickly and safely", are you even riding?

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

#415

Post by account42 »

wmf wrote: post #193
nkrisc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d say large sums are warranted here to avoid a perverse incentive where ambulances hit people and then take them to the hospital for profit. I’m only half serious.

If an ambulance hits someone it's likely that the ambulance's insurance will have to pay their ER bill which will be higher than the ambulance bill. It's a net loss.

They should pay both the ER bill and the ambulance bill, as well as additional damage (which yes should include a reasonable amount for the suffering incurred). If it was a private driver I'd be more lenient but companies can damn well make sure their drivers only work when they can do so safely so should take on the FULL costs they incurred.

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

#416

Post by account42 »

vv_ wrote: post #284
fy20 wrote: post #169

As a European, the fact that you have to pay for emergency transport in an ambulance is enough internet for today.

In Lithuania, a mandatory health insurance tax of 6.98% is deducted from your monthly salary. For example, if you earn €5,000 per month (chosen as it is close to the average salary in the United States), this amounts to €349 per month or €4,188 per year. Despite this tax, you often have to pay for many services unless you can afford to wait months in line. Consequently, many companies provide their employees with add…

> Just because these fees are not immediately visible doesn't mean they don't exist. Get off your high horse.

You're the one pretending to be above the poster you are responding to while arguing a strawman. No one is claiming that healthcare costs are not being paid for.

There are three major factors you conveniently ignore:

- You only look at average earners. It's not surprising that the average earner ends up paying about the same. What socialized healthcare is to make staying alive affordable for those less well off. Averages across the population don't tell you the whole story.

- Insurance that covers all associated costs like ambulances minimizes the unexpected costs that can very well trhow people's lives into shambles. Yes you still end up paying for those on average but average lifetime healthcare contributions don't tell you the whole story.

- Being charged for ambulance trips forces people to decide between an unexpected cost and a potentially required life saving service. At first this may sound like a good way to reduce unneccessary ambulance use but most people are horrible at triaging the severity of their own health issues.

So please, get off your high earner horse.

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

#417

Post by account42 »

osrec wrote: post #203
wpollock wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Daylights scared out of you? Try our new pill, Daylights Restoration OTC! Guaranteed to work or no money back . Offer void in areas with active consumer fraud laws.

The TV adverts really caught me off guard during my first trip to the US as an adult. The disclaimers right at the end make you wonder how the ad could ever be effective - I mean, how could anyone respond positively to an ED ad that ends with "may cause death"!?

People buy cigarettes with pictures of what they do to you on the packaging in the EU as well.

I expect it's a combination of gambling (surely I won't be the one affected by these possible outcomes) combined with an instant gratification mindset (feeling good now trumps possible long term consequences).

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

#418

Post by account42 »

onionisafruit wrote: post #136
rightbyte wrote: post #118

In stories like this... I assume the patient was billed due to some automatic bureaucracy?

Their lawyer probably would have insisted they bill it like any other run. Not doing so could be construed as admitting fault.

Which is why we need to have laws that you pay double or more damages if you try such tricks.

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

#419

Post by ThunderSizzle »

occz wrote: post #307
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".

This is a problem you solve not by sacrificing the lives of others, but instead by designing built environments not dependent on driving cars.

Well, that's nice and all for the future, but it doesn't buy someone groceries today.

That problem isn't a hard concept. You have to work with the framework that currently exists.

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

#420

Post by enriquto »

instig007 wrote: post #398
preisschild wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens when there is no bike lane. Cyclists take the pavement because the street is unsafe.

Cyclists shouldn't take the pavements whatever the reason, they operate a higher risk vehicles, and spreading those risks on pedestrians who didn't chose to pick a higher risk for the purpose of moving around is exactly the disrespectul attitude I mentioned in my original comment.

> they operate a higher risk vehicles

Are you serious? How can you say that? Cars are, by themselves, much higher risk than bikes. If bikes are dangerous at all is because of cars. The main--heck, I'd say the only--spreaders of dangerosity are cars. In a car-free city, none of the main causes of premature death would be traffic-related.

Post reply on HN