Raged motorist strikes two cyclists



P

Paul Berg

Guest
~

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
 
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.
 
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 rec.bicycles.misc "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> 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 |
------------------------------------------------------------------
 
In article <[email protected]>, 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'
 
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
 
On Aug 18, 11:18 am, "Mike Kruger" <[email protected]> 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.
 
"fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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
 
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?



They seem effective in reducing serious head injuries by up to 85%.

http://tinyurl.com/yqk6xl

You get hit by a Lincoln Navigator doing 35 mph, you're in a world of
****, bike helmet or no bike helmet. Hell, at that speed, you're in a
world of **** even with a motorcycle helmet.

For the more typical low speed accidents and collisions, bike helmets
are useful though no panacea.


Peace and justice,
 
Who the hell was stupid and kicked his truck and WHY?

Somebody apparently did something stupid to cause something a lot more
stupid. That was jackass and entirely preventable.

No real sympathy for any kickers.
 
Bill Shatzer 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?

>
>
> They seem effective in reducing serious head injuries by up to 85%.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yqk6xl


Thompson, Rivara, Thompson has been discredited for a long time, unless
one believes that bicycle h*lm*ts reduce 85% of NON-HEAD injuries also.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Aug 18, 12:26 pm, "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Who the hell was stupid and kicked his truck and WHY?
>
> Somebody apparently did something stupid to cause something a lot more
> stupid. That was jackass and entirely preventable.
>
> No real sympathy for any kickers.


What is more, if you have enough time and room to kick a truck, you
need to back off and learn to flow with traffic better or pay
attention at corners. Damaging property like that might be criminal
mischief at the least.

Bicyclists not only don't mess with a 3000 lb motor vehicle, they have
the common sense not to be trolled by Paul Berg and the spam binary
images that must fill about screen worth of your monitors and are
probably cut by most providers by now.

SO...how many accomplicises does the rogue WebTV user have?
 
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?


"Battery" doesn't appear in the Oregon criminal code. There's just
"assault" in various degrees.

"Assault and battery" is a civil tort but not a criminal offense under
the criminal code.

Peace and justice,
 
Mike A Schwab wrote:

> On Aug 18, 11:18 am, "Mike Kruger" <[email protected]> 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.


The initial charges filed by the police are just to take the guy into
custody and hold him 'til his initial court hearing.

By the time it gets to that point, the file will be reviewed by a
district attorney and a complaint stating the "real" charges will be filed.

Peace and justice,
 
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S wrote:
> Who the hell was stupid and kicked his truck and WHY?
>
> Somebody apparently did something stupid to cause something a lot more
> stupid. That was jackass and entirely preventable.
>
> No real sympathy for any kickers.


Scale, Bjorn, scale.

"My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time -
To let the punishment fit the crime -
The punishment fit the crime"
- Gilbert and Sullivan
 
On Aug 18, 1:20 pm, "Mike Kruger" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S wrote:
>
> > Who the hell was stupid and kicked his truck and WHY?

>
> > Somebody apparently did something stupid to cause something a lot more
> > stupid. That was jackass and entirely preventable.

>
> > No real sympathy for any kickers.

>
> Scale, Bjorn, scale.
>
> "My object all sublime
> I shall achieve in time -
> To let the punishment fit the crime -
> The punishment fit the crime"
> - Gilbert and Sullivan


Were they heavy too?

Newton's Street Law

For every meaningless one-sided psychotic act of violence there is
something caused by some dumb mofo that could've behaved better and
SURPRIZE!

See also correlates--Darwin's Law

Also A dolt education--the Dolt with seniority teaches the lesson.

You don't act like that in a small town. Why would you do it in
Portland? It's mighty bad, still grow up.

Paul is a pretty good troll. Fergie and I have pondered adopting him
so we could eat our young but we opted for another scoop and chocolate
sauce.
 
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - August 18, 2007

Portland police say a 47-year-old driver appears to have intentionally
used his car to bowl over two bicyclists who were riding along Southeast
Clinton Street on Friday afternoon.

The cyclists -- Ben Ramsdell, 25, and Timothy Mastne, 41 -- were brought
by ambulance from the 1000 block of Clinton Street to OHSU Hospital with
non-life-threatening injuries.

Police spokesman Sgt. Brian Schmautz said he didn't know what injuries
they suffered.

Schmautz said the driver, Johnny Jerry Eschweiler, was charged with two
counts of attempted first-degree assault and booked into jail Friday
evening.

"Apparently the bicyclists were hit by the car and knocked off,"
Schmautz said. "He (Eschweiler) dragged the bikes about 100 feet before
he came to a stop."

Southeast precinct officers responded to the scene at 12:41 p.m.
Schmautz said it appears the three were arguing, but he wasn't sure if
the dispute started before or after Eschweiler struck the cyclists.

Multnomah County court records show Eschweiler has two traffic tickets,
for failing to obey a traffic-control device in 2000 and speeding in
2005. He paid fines and fees of $135 and $141, respectively.

~
 
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?



Oh damn, here we go...
 

Similar threads