Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

On Aug 21, 2:49 am, Corky K wrote:
Suddenly, , blurted out the following:

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.

Yes, the few helmets we saw were almost entirely on "sport" riders.
That is, people who got out their special "fast" bike, put on their
special tight shorts, their special pretty jersey, their special
shoes, their special gloves, their special sunglasses, and pretended
to ride fast. They had helmets.

The other place I saw them was in Vienna. I'd estimate roughly 25% of
the urban cyclists had helmets.

But in other large cities and dozens of small villages, they simply
were not seen.

Look at pictures online of, say, Amsterdam cyclists.




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

wrote:
Wayne Pein wrote:

You got crowded BECAUSE you rode too far right. If you ride far right,
you are encourgaging them to squeeze by. Use more of the lane and that
problem is greatly reduced. Riding further into the lane makes you more
visible, and forces motorists to adjust to you.

I believe that making motorists adjust 'to your riding habits' means
you are doing it wrong.

As a driver, I see nothing wrong with treating a cyclist who is
following the rules of the road like another car. I also see nothing
wrong with giving them the whole lane when I pass them. I expect the
same when I'm riding.

I do see something wrong with riders who don't follow the rules of the
road. As a pedestrian, I detest sidewalk riders. As a driver, I hate
having to deal with cyclists who seemingly pop out of nowhere because
they couldn't be troubled to follow the rules of the road.

On Aug 21, 4:01 am, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

And not really pro. Been cycling for 55+ years and have yet to wear one.



You don't wear one, yet you seem to be very pro-lid.

I'm not anti-lid, but I am very anti-mhl.

In article lksyi.1931$wr3.789@trndny04,
Lobby Dosser wrote:
wrote:

Why, thanks for your gracious permission! Now, can my son have your
permission to make the same decision for his kid, my grandchild? See,
he lives in a state where parents are not allowed that choice. And it
doesn't matter if the parent (or grandparent) knows far more about
this issue than the legislatures that passed the silly law.

Not any more. You've probably ****ed off so many people, Helmets will be
Federal Law in this decade.

Do you have a point or are you just throwing your own feces?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:07:58 -0700, (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.

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

Heh! Really poor Impulse Control. Guys like that ought not to be
driving at all.

In article , Paul Berg wrote:
Karl Rohde, public affairs director at the nonprofit Bicycle
Transportation Alliance, said although he wasn't aware of the exact
circumstances that led to the crash, his organization advises against
bicyclists confronting motorists. Instead, bicyclists should report
dangerous drivers, and their license plates, to police, he said.

I'd have to say for most things, like garden variety brush passing,
calling the cops is just plain useless and not needed. Using the police
IMO causes more long term harm. Instead of society being able to function
and social correction to work it is authority that comes in with it's own
motivations. I've found that cops are just as likely to blame the
bicyclist for just using the road. That if a bicyclist didn't want to be
brush passed he should get off the road.

"The hope is that you can take the high road and not get into a
confrontation," Rohde said. "Because in confrontations between cars and
bikes, the cars win."

The cars win if the bicyclist doesn't know how to handle it. Letting a
driver know they nearly hit you gets two basic forms of response. Apology
and '**** you'. When you get an apology it's fine... live and let live
they will be more alert or understand that they need to give more space in
the future (hopefully). When you get '**** you' he probably passed close
on purpose and this means not getting in front of this driver again.
There is little they can do when in front and what they can do can be
avoided.

The avoid 'confrontation' or 'just let them do it' concept only causes
these arseholes to continue and increase their poor behaviors. It applies
as much to driver-bicyclist as driver-driver.

A grand jury is scheduled to review Eschweiler's case this week. If
jurors agree that there's adequate evidence against him, he will
formally be charged next week.

Guess this driver didn't follow the magic words instructions.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,

I'm willing to bet that the hair you carried on your noggin as a 20
year old was or would have been a far more effective insulator with a
foam cap on top than without one.

I wore a "foam cap" then too. Never noticed the difference.


Really, I think that's an argument for the sake of argumentation. Sure,
the effect is non-zero, but I'll wager $100 that no one can come up with
a single documented case of heat exhaustion caused by a ventilated helmet.

The effect is more than non-zero; it's dramatic and obvious.

Maybe to you. I only have the my own experience for comparison, but as
long as I'm moving 15mph or so I can't tell the difference at all
(except that I don't get a sunburn). And when I ride in weather below
35 degrees, I still have to wear a nylon head sock and ear coverings -
the helmet doesn't keep nearly enough heat in to keep the ride from
getting downright painful.

Marz wrote:
On Aug 21, 4:01 am, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

And not really pro. Been cycling for 55+ years and have yet to wear
one.



You don't wear one, yet you seem to be very pro-lid.

Actually, he seems more anti-AHZ. (And who can blame him? LOL )

I'm not anti-lid, but I am very anti-mhl.

I'm pro-lid, but anti-MHL (as are most, I suspect).

What I don't get is the /pathetic emotionalism/ of the AHZs -- especially
ironic since they purport to have such a detached, scientific basis for
their opinions (which is all they are, after all -- opinions).

Rather sad, really.

Bill "weeping not" S.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
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!

Cancer? Driving Helmets? Que?

Too lazy (unskilled) to Google the cancer one. Wish I'd kept it.
Basically, he equated the two issues in importance and complexity. Put
himself (dedicated life to plastic hats LOL ) on same level as cancer
researchers and docs. It was truly priceless.

Driving lids is pretty simple: since more people get head injuries in cars
(shocking!), then drivers should wear helmets, too. (Racers do, of course.)

WHATEVER......................

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Festivus wrote:
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

So you extrapolate an accident with a hard-shell MOTORCYCLE helmet to
a BICYCLE foam hat that has 1/8 the mass and covers a significantly
smaller area of the head? And you expect the foam bicycle hat to
provide similar protection? Sheesh!

m*v^2
-----
2

You do the math. Does it need to supply similar protection? For the
vast majority of accidents, it does not.

And for the vast majority of bicycle accidents, there will be no serious
head injury, lidded or lidless.


The most serious bicycle injury I've personally known of was a teenager
who smashed a side mirror extension with his arm and sliced open an
artery.

The helmet didn't help him at all. Ergo, helmets are useless.