Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill
Ambulance hits Oregon cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill, lawsuit says
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/93717
You're viewing a single thread.
Look at the picture in the article and read the story. The biker was trying to ride past the ambulance near the curb as the ambulance was turning.
The biker felt entitled to do whatever he wanted instead of waiting his turn and got himself ran over.
It's called a right-hook. Cars pass bicycles, then turn right immediately in front of them, causing the cyclist to hit the car. Quite a few cyclists have been killed this way.
Car brain drivers then blame the cyclist.
To be fair, almost no drivers are taught to look in their right hand mirror for cyclists or pedestrians when turning right. Their focus is usually on the oncoming traffic lane. We need to address things like this and train drivers better rather than expect drivers to clue in themselves.
Yep. And even though I'm also a cyclist, I've almost made the same mistake while driving.
It's really an issue of the traffic design. For example, we tend to slap bike lanes just to the right of traffic lanes and hope it all works out fine. And it is fine...until intersections where cars might be turning...
What? At least in Germany, this is literally the most important thing in tought in driver's education to always look into the mirrors and over the shoulder to check for traffic (pedestrians cyclists, ...) before setting the flashers and turning right (or left).
For the most part in north america, drivers are only really taught to look for other cars. The only exception is cross walks and even then people nearly run over old ladies as they cross. Even in front of the police they probably won't even give you a warning if you nearly hit a pedestrian in an intersection. I've seen drivers honk at children crossing at a deignated crosswalk in a school zone.
Kinda sad something like that requires explicit training. I live in a city with a lot of cyclists. I don’t even have a car, just occasionally borrow my friend’s during the few times I actually need one. And even I check the mirrors for cyclists before turning. No one had to tell me to, it just makes logical sense if you give the slightest damn about the safety of anyone else on the road besides yourself.
People would gladly run over pedestrians if it was legal. Cars do something to our brains that make us more selfish
You mean the part of the article where it says the ambulance "turned into him"?
You're making assumptions based on vague wording in the article and your preconceived notions of cyclist behavior. You don't actually know what happened.
I'm making facts based on the picture.
You're asserting your view based on an ambiguity. The picture and story could easily depict the ambulance overtaking and turning into the cyclist. You seem dead set on making this the cyclist's fault when that assertion is just not supported by the facts given in the article.
Most of the people in here are dead set on assuming it's not the biker. So what are the odds that the ambulance was just passing the biker and cutting him off at the turn? I'd call it less than 50/50.
But move past that and keep going. If the biker was just cut off right before getting to the intersection, then that also means the biker didn't stop at the intersection.
That means that at best the biker was partially at fault.
That means that at best the biker was partially at fault.
I disagree. I think a likely scenario is that the cyclist was riding close to the right curb, and was being passed by the ambulance that then makes a sudden right turn, turning into the cyclist, as the article states. How would that be any fault of the cyclist?
You've driven me to this, you monster...
Here's the intersection:
No stop sign. The cyclist did not have to stop. Why do you think it's more likely that the cyclist was attempting to overtake the ambulance rather than the ambulance overtaking the cyclist?
It's very unlikely that the ambulance would drive by and turn right in front of the bicyclist (which would still show that the bicyclist didn't stop at the intersection) and the article didn't state that at all.
The article doesn't state much, but you're willing to make a lot of assertions about the situation anyway. In your last comment you said there was no way the cyclist wasn't at least partially at fault. I replied with a possible scenario where the cyclist was not at fault. The bicycle doesn't have to stop at the intersection if there's no stop sign. I don't see one in the pictures in the article. If the ambulance didn't see or otherwise ignored the cyclist, a right hand turn directly into the cyclist is a very real possibility. That happens far too often.
All I'm saying is that there is not enough information in the article to ascertain what actually happened, and yet you're very eager to blame the cyclist. You have a clear bias, and your conclusion, while possible, is not the only one that can be drawn from the limited information in the article.
What you replied with was something that couldn't really have happened, and nothing in the article even eludes to being a possibility.
It is at least as plausible as the scenario you made up. And the word you want is "alludes"
In the road isn't a problem if you stay in the lane where you belong. The cyclist tried passing on the shoulder cause he didn't want to obey the laws.