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.

~

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

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.

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'

On Aug 18, 11:58 am, (Brent P)
wrote:
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'

Mine was the ATV on the bike path. It rolled into a ditch and the
rider drowned. Local CBC station reported no helmet the first report.
An hour later they dropped the helmet. I think they figured out that
even TRT would likely not claim that a helmet would protect you from
drowning. Or realised an ATV is not a bicycle.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

"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.

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

On 2007-08-18, Mike wrote:
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.


Has nothing to do with whether it was assault or not.

"Attempted" would indicate that he never struck thenm for instance,
which is nonsense. This was clearly assault.

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.

It was attempted murder, not assault.

fred wrote:

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.


Nope. They're just letting the public know that they are a couple of
morons.