Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

Tom Keats wrote:
In article l5syi.1927$wr3.204@trndny04,
Lobby Dosser writes:

Ya know, it's assholes like you and Tommy that give cycling a Bad
Name.

No, it's assholes like you who want to give
cycling a bad name.

He was right about Frank. (Tommy's just annoying but not the arrogant
pompous gasbag that is Frankie K.)

You oughta be ashamed of yourself for being less than a Man.
Or even some kind of half-ways decent human being.

Wow. Just because he's pro-lid? (I don't follow these threads any more;
too ****ing boring.)

Lobby Dosser wrote:
wrote:

On Aug 20, 4:54 pm, Corky K wrote:

All barbs aside, I think we both agree that helmets have their place
in biking. I certainly don't wear one all of the time. My two most
serious crash and burns were without helmet, road riding, though I
didn't land on my head nor was my head in any way injured both times
(I did break a wrist in one and ended up with road rash in the
other). For every story about how a helmet saved a person, there is
probably one such as you proposed where a helmet had been
detrimental. When I am taking a sport ride on lesser traveled roads,
I don't usually wear one. When I am mountain biking down fire trails
in unknown places where I am never sure what will be coming up next,
I do. Enough said. There doesn't need to be a law to tell me this.

I agree helmets have a place in biking - but I think that place is
infinitesmal. It's certainly far, far smaller than what the helmet
promoters claim.

I would wear a helmet if I were in a crit race. I would wear a
helmet if I were doing athletic, push-the-limit mountain biking. I
might sometimes wear a helmet if I were riding in very icy winter
conditions. But the American (and Australian and New Zealand) push
for helmets for every ride is flagrantly silly.

My wife and I recently took a long vacation in Europe. We took our
bikes. We saw more people of all types using bikes of all types than
we have ever seen in any American city (including ones that are
famous for being "bike friendly"). Excepting obvious American bike
tourists, we saw very few helmets. In fact, outside of one or two
big cities, we saw almost no helmets at all.

Somehow, the people who use bicycles the most think of it as a normal
activity. No funny hat necessary. OTOH, we Americans think _we_
know more about cycling, despite the fact that, as a nation, we do
very little. And we think that since cycling is unusual, it is
terribly dangerous.

It's a bit ludicrous.

It certainly is. You've just handed out another ANECDOTE.

Frank thinks he can only fall on ice, and for THAT he'd wear a helmet?!?
LOL Ice helps you slide rather than "stick"; AND it proves he thinks lids
are effective after all. (Why else would he wear one? If it helps with
head-ice impacts, then it sure as hell will help with head-road impacts.)

Bill "yet another smoking gun" S.

Paul Berg wrote:
~

News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007

Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.

Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
bicyclist during a case of road rage.

According to investigators, Eschweiler got into an argument with
25-year-old bicyclist Ben Ramsdell last Friday in Southeast Portland.

They said Ramsdell kicked Eschweiler's SUV. Eschweiler then followed
Ramsdell around a corner and hit him with the vehicle.

"I get mad at cyclists myself but we can never drive someone over with
our cars. Hello? It's not acceptable," said Ramsdell's friend, Jon
Barber.

Barber said Ramsdell was being treated for a broken nose and severe
scrapes.

Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
the road.

"The perception on the part of the of the motorist was that the
bicyclist was not yielding the roadway to him and that leads to the
motorist striking the bicyclist," said Sgt. Brian Schmautz with
Portland Police Bureau.

A second bicyclist, Tim Mastne, unintentionally pedaled into the path
of the collision.

He suffered road rash all over his body.
Eschweiler was charged with two counts each of second degree assault
and attempted assault. The charges are Measure 11 felonies.

WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone over on
purpose?!?

Sheesh...

wrote:


You seem to have missed the simple fact that a helmet is bigger than a
head!

There _must_ be many instances where a helmet is hit, even mangled,
when a bare head would have been missed. Consider: If you walked
around for one day wearing a 36" diameter styrofoam helmet, you could
probably point to a dozen serious dents by the end of the day.

That would be a sombero, not a helmet!

Just think, you could claim that helmet saved your life a dozen times!

The guy who thought the truck "ran over" his helmet was delusional.
Not surprising, of course. He'd been through a scary incident, and a
person's s judgment goes to hell when that happens.

Whatever. The helmet was -smashed- and his head was not.

Peace and justice,

Bill Sornson wrote:

Wait till Frank starts equating his voluminous (biased and faulty) helmet
"studies" to CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT! LOL

I'm just amazed that there are still people that haven't filtered him
out completely. I'm sure the faulty "driving helmet" argument won't be
far behind!

In article N_tyi.2755$nB3.1213@trndny02,

No, it's assholes like you who want to give
cycling a bad name.

I wasn't talking about You.

Weaseelism.

And they sure do give it a bad name. They're the Block the Road types.

Bicycles blocking the roads!!?

Yeah, right. Those fat-assed bikes, with the
volume of a PT Cruiser or Ford Excursion or
1-ton cube van. Kinda like canoes blocking
trans-oceanic freighters from coming into the
port. Those goddamn'd huge canoes, blocking stuff
and interrupting traffic ...


Havta walk around 'em at intersections when
they block the sidewalk and prevent pedestrians
from getting from A to B.

Your POVs block each other as well as everybody else,
and you know it.

Bikes blocking the road!!??? snort/sniggle/guffaw

Man, you're such a total idjit.
In some ways, you're even amusing & funny.

Bikes blocking the roads. pffffttttt!

Please try to grow a brain.

Or at least, in the meantime, please don't try
to act like you have one.

Go pop some more microwave popcorn, 'n see
whatever's on TV.

Maybe Disorderly Conduct is on.

I love you, and I don't know why.

Actually, skip growing the brain.
We don't need brains, since pocket
calculators were invented.

Grow a heart instead.

That's what this world so desperately needs.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Suddenly, , blurted out the following:

On Aug 20, 4:54 pm, Corky K wrote:

All barbs aside, I think we both agree that helmets have their place in biking.
I certainly don't wear one all of the time. My two most serious crash and burns
were without helmet, road riding, though I didn't land on my head nor was my
head in any way injured both times (I did break a wrist in one and ended up with
road rash in the other). For every story about how a helmet saved a person,
there is probably one such as you proposed where a helmet had been detrimental.
When I am taking a sport ride on lesser traveled roads, I don't usually wear
one. When I am mountain biking down fire trails in unknown places where I am
never sure what will be coming up next, I do. Enough said. There doesn't need to
be a law to tell me this.

I agree helmets have a place in biking - but I think that place is
infinitesmal. It's certainly far, far smaller than what the helmet
promoters claim.

I would wear a helmet if I were in a crit race. I would wear a helmet
if I were doing athletic, push-the-limit mountain biking. I might
sometimes wear a helmet if I were riding in very icy winter
conditions. But the American (and Australian and New Zealand) push
for helmets for every ride is flagrantly silly.

My wife and I recently took a long vacation in Europe. We took our
bikes. We saw more people of all types using bikes of all types than
we have ever seen in any American city (including ones that are famous
for being "bike friendly"). Excepting obvious American bike tourists,
we saw very few helmets. In fact, outside of one or two big cities,
we saw almost no helmets at all.

I lived for many years in Europe. What you saw was not typical. Many, many
people wear helmets there. Not on trips to the store or church or such, but all
of the sport riders wear them, mountain bikers too. Kids are required to wear
them. Your observation is like a statistical study with an N of 1.

Somehow, the people who use bicycles the most think of it as a normal
activity. No funny hat necessary. OTOH, we Americans think _we_ know
more about cycling, despite the fact that, as a nation, we do very
little. And we think that since cycling is unusual, it is terribly
dangerous.

It's a bit ludicrous.

- Frank Krygowski

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

SMS wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

Wait till Frank starts equating his voluminous (biased and faulty)
helmet "studies" to CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT! LOL

I'm just amazed that there are still people that haven't filtered him
out completely. I'm sure the faulty "driving helmet" argument won't be
far behind!

I did plonk him. It's quite lovely...until the next newbs come along and
dare express reasonable opinions.

Bill "poor *******s" S.

"Bill Sornson" wrote:

Paul Berg wrote:
~

News report from KGW-TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 20, 2007

Johnny Eschweiler stood quietly during his first court appearance.

Police say the 46-year-old intentionally rammed his SUV into a
bicyclist during a case of road rage.

According to investigators, Eschweiler got into an argument with
25-year-old bicyclist Ben Ramsdell last Friday in Southeast Portland.

They said Ramsdell kicked Eschweiler's SUV. Eschweiler then followed
Ramsdell around a corner and hit him with the vehicle.

"I get mad at cyclists myself but we can never drive someone over
with our cars. Hello? It's not acceptable," said Ramsdell's friend,
Jon Barber.

Barber said Ramsdell was being treated for a broken nose and severe
scrapes.

Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
the road.

"The perception on the part of the of the motorist was that the
bicyclist was not yielding the roadway to him and that leads to the
motorist striking the bicyclist," said Sgt. Brian Schmautz with
Portland Police Bureau.

A second bicyclist, Tim Mastne, unintentionally pedaled into the path
of the collision.

He suffered road rash all over his body.
Eschweiler was charged with two counts each of second degree assault
and attempted assault. The charges are Measure 11 felonies.

WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone
over on purpose?!?

Sheesh...


Quite right! Should be ALLEGED Attempted Assault.

(Tom Keats) wrote:

In article N_tyi.2755$nB3.1213@trndny02,

No, it's assholes like you who want to give
cycling a bad name.

I wasn't talking about You.

Weaseelism.

And they sure do give it a bad name. They're the Block the Road
types.

Bicycles blocking the roads!!?

Yeah, right. Those fat-assed bikes, with the
volume of a PT Cruiser or Ford Excursion or
1-ton cube van. Kinda like canoes blocking
trans-oceanic freighters from coming into the
port. Those goddamn'd huge canoes, blocking stuff
and interrupting traffic ...


Havta walk around 'em at intersections when
they block the sidewalk and prevent pedestrians
from getting from A to B.

Your POVs block each other as well as everybody else,
and you know it.

Bikes blocking the road!!??? snort/sniggle/guffaw

Man, you're such a total idjit.
In some ways, you're even amusing & funny.

Bikes blocking the roads. pffffttttt!

See Portland during In Your Face Bikes Week.


Please try to grow a brain.

But here we mow 'em down. Two in the past week!