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

61–70 of 424 posts

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

#61

Post by JumpCrisscross »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #55
nritchie wrote: post #13

As 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.

Self driving cars are amazing in SF. I cycle there I feel much safer when there’s a self driving car behind me. Waymos, zooxes and cruises never accelerate hard to suddenly cut a turn in front of me rather than waiting behind me to turn across the cycle lane. They never get angry when there is no cycle lane and I’m forced to take up a full lane for a stretch. They have cold machine patience and attitude and to get aw…

> 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.)

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

#62

Post by lmm »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43
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.

> if the ambulance hadn't backed up to see what happened, for it backed over his legs Was the driver drunk? Whose first instinct after possibly running over something is to back up?

> Whose first instinct after possibly running over something is to back up?

It's pretty common. You're manoeuvring your vehicle, you hear a noise, you think you bumped a post or something and instinctively try to "undo" what you just did.

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

#63

Post by AnotherGoodName »

jordanb wrote: post #59
AnotherGoodName wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self driving cars are amazing in SF. I cycle there I feel much safer when there’s a self driving car behind me. Waymos, zooxes and cruises never accelerate hard to suddenly cut a turn in front of me rather than waiting behind me to turn across the cycle lane. They never get angry when there is no cycle lane and I’m forced to take up a full lane for a stretch. They have cold machine patience and attitude and to get aw…

A waymo hit a cyclist in San Francisco a few months ago, by failing to anticipate that there may be traffic behind a turning truck and accelerating into it. https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065063/waymo-driverless-...

The statistics are still in their favour even at this early stage when the bugs are yet to be fully figured out though. There’s good reason today to feel safer around self driving cars even with the above example.

As self driving becomes more and more commonplace and even safer we’ll likely be focusing more on the 40k human caused fatalities.

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

#64

Post by treyfitty »

alpaca128 wrote: post #42
treyfitty wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are more dangerous than bicycles because they’re larger and faster, yes. But when you compare cars vs. bicycles on the same road, together, bicyclists are in more danger. I can only surmise the people that tell you “bicycles are dangerous,” are just looking out for your well being and meant “you’re putting yourself in danger.” Unfortunately, roads were designed for cars first. Even more unfortunate, people are n…

> 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?

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

#66

Post by AlotOfReading »

mmooss wrote: post #47
nritchie wrote: post #13

As 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…

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.

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

#67

Post by southernplaces7 »

gruez wrote: post #33
jordanb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. Cycling isn't dangerous, being on the street with cars is dangerous. Being on the street on a bike is dangerous, walking down a street is dangerous. Heck being in a compact car on today's streets with oversized/overweight vehicles is dangerous. It's important to be precise about the source of the danger because it correctly identifies the problem. There's a big pus…

>It's not pedantry when it's the root of the problem. How is this any different than "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"

Because it's true in both cases. The root of the problem is something else and the thing being blamed flippantly can be much less of a worry if the root problem is addressed. People dismiss the guns don't kill people argument because it fits a simplistic ideological talking point, but it's just a basic fact that whether guns are accessible or not, the people accessing them will be the cause of fatalities if there's something wrong with their conduct and context.

With bikes, in a different context, something similar applies: What causes fatalities isn't bikes themselves but how the roads, rules, other people/vehicles and social conduct around bike use use and sharing of roads are.

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

#68

Post by acomjean »

mmooss wrote: post #47
nritchie wrote: post #13

As 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…

I've been urban biking for years. It's no doubt dangerous. I don't think you become complacent like you do when when driving. You are pretty aware that these heavy fast moving vehicles are on the same road as you. Part of my commute was on a path off the roads, it was nice. I always leave plenty of time when riding so im not rushing.

even when there are separate lanes it's important to stay alert for cars turning onto side streets etc. (As a driver those right turns across a bike lane can be tricky, especially since really fast scooters are using those lanes too)

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

#69

Post by nkrisc »

deepsun wrote: post #29
D-Coder wrote: post #14

"An Oregon cyclist who was struck by an ambulance that made a right turn into him — fracturing his nose and leaving him with scrapes and other injuries across his body — has filed a $997,000 lawsuit against the ambulance provider after it scooped him up, drove him to the hospital and then billed him for the service, according to the suit." $47K for current medical costs, $50K for expected future medical costs, and $9…

Typically judge rejects the huge sums, and he gets more reasonable amount, if even fair. E.g. judge might award him only proven costs with receipts, and reject all the pain-and-suffering.

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.

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

#70

Post by treyfitty »

bwestergard wrote: post #24
treyfitty wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are more dangerous than bicycles because they’re larger and faster, yes. But when you compare cars vs. bicycles on the same road, together, bicyclists are in more danger. I can only surmise the people that tell you “bicycles are dangerous,” are just looking out for your well being and meant “you’re putting yourself in danger.” Unfortunately, roads were designed for cars first. Even more unfortunate, people are n…

In the U.S., roads were paved for cyclists first. There was a political fight over whether and how to regulate cars to prevent them from crowding out other road users. See "Fighting Traffic". https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Tech...

I meant to reference modern roads. Lane markings, signage, and setbacks are clearly spaced, designed, and optimized for traveling in a car. Those 45mph signs and the intentional spacing of lane markers were not designed because of bicyclists.
Post reply on HN