|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
~
News report from KGW TV (Portland, Oregon) - August 17, 2007 Portland police arrested a driver Friday afternoon after a bizarre chase in which two cyclists were hit by a car in Southeast Portland. It all started around 12:30 PM on 1000 block of Southeast Clinton Street. Police said 46-year-old John Eschweiler was driving along when he reported a cyclist kicked his car. Officers said Eschweiler sped up and hit the cyclist, who rolled onto the hood of the car, smashing the windshield. The car continued on about 75 feet, sideswiping a car and hitting a truck before turning a corner where another cyclist heading towards the car was then hit, investigators said. Police arrested Eschweiler and charged him with two counts of attempted assault. The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet. ~ |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
Paul Berg wrote:
... The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet. Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat provides little more than bump and scrape protection? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia BEER IS FOOD -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:00:28 -0700, Paul Berg wrote:
Police arrested Eschweiler and charged him with two counts of attempted assault. /Attempted/ assault? Sounds like he succeeded. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
Paul Berg wrote: ... The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet. Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat provides little more than bump and scrape protection? And, perhaps more to the point, why don't they mention what the injuries were? If the cyclists suffered head injuries, the helmet thingy might be relevant. If they suffered broken limbs and no head injuries, the helmet thingy would be shown to be irrelevant. By not mentioning the type of injuries, they imply that they were head injuries and that helmets might have made a difference. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
In rec.bicycles.misc "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" wrote:
Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat provides little more than bump and scrape protection? First of all, if you're going to start a HELMET thread, kindly have the cojones to put the word in the message so that those who wish to avoid it can filter it. Second, it's an ingrained habit with news people, who have the same God-given right to run around with their brains on autopilot as any cager or any cyclist. They always report whether auto accident injuries and fatalities were wearing seat belts, too. I think if a cyclist ever dies of dehydration some hot day, they'll probably report whether he/she was wearing a helmet. Third, tell your bit about bump and scrape protection to the guy in Minnesota or Wisconsin who got his helmeted head run over by a right-hooking delivery truck, and walked away with cuts and bruises. Bill, deleting most of the cross-posting ------------------------------------------------------------------ | If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, | | just so long as I'm the dictator. | | --George W. Bush (CNN, 12/18/2000 | ------------------------------------------------------------------ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
In article , fred wrote:
And, perhaps more to the point, why don't they mention what the injuries were? If the cyclists suffered head injuries, the helmet thingy might be relevant. If they suffered broken limbs and no head injuries, the helmet thingy would be shown to be irrelevant. By not mentioning the type of injuries, they imply that they were head injuries and that helmets might have made a difference. I've seen stories like that.... 'the bicycle rider was run over by a truck and his chest was crushed. He was not wearing a helmet' |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
Michael Warner wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:00:28 -0700, Paul Berg wrote: Police arrested Eschweiler and charged him with two counts of attempted assault. /Attempted/ assault? Sounds like he succeeded. Succeeded all too well. Shouldn't "battery" be in there somewhere, too? -- Mike Kruger In Puritan New England, Christmas wasn't even a legal holiday until 1856 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
On Aug 18, 11:18 am, "Mike Kruger" wrote:
Michael Warner wrote: On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:00:28 -0700, Paul Berg wrote: Police arrested Eschweiler and charged him with two counts of attempted assault. /Attempted/ assault? Sounds like he succeeded. Succeeded all too well. Shouldn't "battery" be in there somewhere, too? -- Mike Kruger In Puritan New England, Christmas wasn't even a legal holiday until 1856 I would raise it to attempted vehicular homicide. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
"fred" wrote in message
... Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: Paul Berg wrote: ... The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet. Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat provides little more than bump and scrape protection? And, perhaps more to the point, why don't they mention what the injuries were? If the cyclists suffered head injuries, the helmet thingy might be relevant. If they suffered broken limbs and no head injuries, the helmet thingy would be shown to be irrelevant. By not mentioning the type of injuries, they imply that they were head injuries and that helmets might have made a difference. And what's up with "attempted" assault? Looks pretty successful from the article. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
In article 5sGxi.112683$xk5.38816@edtnps82,
"Jim Flom" wrote: "fred" wrote in message ... Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: Paul Berg wrote: ... The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet. Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat provides little more than bump and scrape protection? And, perhaps more to the point, why don't they mention what the injuries were? If the cyclists suffered head injuries, the helmet thingy might be relevant. If they suffered broken limbs and no head injuries, the helmet thingy would be shown to be irrelevant. By not mentioning the type of injuries, they imply that they were head injuries and that helmets might have made a difference. And what's up with "attempted" assault? Looks pretty successful from the article. That they're still alive is perhaps the mitigating factor. -- All opinions are welcome, they give me something to laugh at |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LEMOND STRIKES AGAIN | datakoll | Techniques | 44 | August 30th 07 01:48 PM |
LEMOND STRIKES AGAIN! | datakoll | Racing | 0 | August 17th 07 01:24 PM |
Cyclists save motorist? | [email protected] | UK | 15 | October 20th 06 05:43 PM |
N+1 strikes again | Duracell Bunny | Australia | 13 | September 25th 06 05:44 AM |
Road-raged | kingsley | Australia | 30 | October 14th 03 12:55 PM |