this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
763 points (97.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

9822 readers
635 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
763
Ambulance hits cyclist, rushes him to hospital, then sticks him with $1,800 bill (www.oregonlive.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
140 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/93717

Comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What you replied with was something that couldn't really have happened, and nothing in the article even eludes to being a possibility.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It is at least as plausible as the scenario you made up. And the word you want is "alludes"