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.

~

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

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.

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.

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 |
------------------------------------------------------------------

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'

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

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.

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.

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