oleorun@real.lemmy.fanM to Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'@real.lemmy.fanEnglish · 21 hours ago
oleorun@real.lemmy.fanM to Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'@real.lemmy.fanEnglish · 21 hours ago
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21761382
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/93717
It depends entirely who was at fault. If the bicyclist was at fault then the ambulance shouldn’t pay (which was one of the options I listed for why the ambulance’s insurance might not be paying), but if the ambulance was at fault then their insurance must pay. The article doesn’t state who was at fault from the police reports, so maybe fault was not determined there.
I would assume that if both vehicles were going approximately the same speed at the time of the accident, no more than 10 mph, that’s probably the steady speed for the bike but the speed the ambulance slowed down to for the turn. That would imply that moments earlier the ambulance was going faster and had likely just passed the cyclist moments earlier. Perhaps the driver was oblivious to the cyclist as they focused on where they were about to turn. It could be the cyclist’s fault, that he had sped up to pass a slowing ambulance on the right, but it seems more likely to me that the ambulance had just passed or pulled even with the cyclist and made a turn without considering the cyclist’s path.
Perhaps the bicyclist shouldn’t have tried passing the ambulance on the shoulder at an intersection, which is all illegal.