Raged motorist strikes two cyclists



[email protected] (Paul Berg) wrote:

> But, Rohde added, nothing that Ramsdell said could have said warranted
> Eschweiler's violent response.
>
> 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.


The one thing missing in all this: The Driver's Story.
 
Marz <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Aug 21, 4:01 am, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
> 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.


I'm very anti pompous gasbags who "know" more than everyone else.

I did own a helmet once. Wife insisted. It gathered dust. Don't really
like hats of any sort.
>
>
 
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> SMS <[email protected]> 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......................
>
>
>


LOL!!

Are these groups great entertainment, or what?!
 
On Aug 21, 8:17 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:07:58 -0700, [email protected] (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.

>
> And just how would you propose making that happen?


increase the gas tax, afterall, such things have real costs.
 
On Aug 21, 4:44 am, "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> :: "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ::::: 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.
> ::::
> :::: According to investigators, Eschweiler got into an argument with
> :::: 25-year-old bicyclist Ben Ramsdell last Friday in Southeast
> :::: Portland.
> ::::
> :::: They said Ramsdell kicked Eschweiler's SUV. Eschweiler then
> :::: followed Ramsdell around a corner and hit him with the vehicle.
> ::::
> :::: "I get mad at cyclists myself but we can never drive someone over
> :::: with our cars. Hello? It's not acceptable," said Ramsdell's friend,
> :::: Jon Barber.
> ::::
> :::: Barber said Ramsdell was being treated for a broken nose and severe
> :::: scrapes.
> ::::
> :::: Police said Eschweiler was frustrated with Ramsdell for not sharing
> :::: the road.
> ::::
> :::: "The perception on the part of the of the motorist was that the
> :::: bicyclist was not yielding the roadway to him and that leads to the
> :::: motorist striking the bicyclist," said Sgt. Brian Schmautz with
> :::: Portland Police Bureau.
> ::::
> :::: A second bicyclist, Tim Mastne, unintentionally pedaled into the
> :::: path of the collision.
> ::::
> :::: He suffered road rash all over his body.
> :::: Eschweiler was charged with two counts each of second degree
> :::: assault and attempted assault. The charges are Measure 11 felonies.
> :::
> ::: WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone
> ::: over on purpose?!?
> :::
> ::: Sheesh...
> :::
> ::
> :: Quite right! Should be ALLEGED Attempted Assault.
>
> Alleged attempted murder.


What, for kicking somebody's SUV and causing this commotion? That
seems a bit severe.
 
[email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> In article <lksyi.1931$wr3.789@trndny04>,
> Lobby Dosser <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] 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 ****** 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?


Gaseous Pomposity encourages negative feelings.
 
Festivus <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>


He could have used the chin strap as a tourniquet!
 
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:52:11 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>:: In article <[email protected]>, Scott in
>:: SoCal <[email protected]> wrote:
>::
>::: Did Mastne explain why he was riding against traffic?
>::
>:: You're in California, so you don't know the neighborhood we are
>:: talking about.
>::
>:: In the SE Clinton neighborhood, some of the streets are only about 1
>:: 1/2 lanes wide, and even the widest streets just barely fit 2 lanes
>:: in.
>::
>:: The difference between "riding against traffic" and "riding with
>:: traffic" isn't much in that area.
>::
>:: The neighborhood was not designed for SUVs or through traffic or
>:: idiots,
>:: but unfortunately now has to contend with all three.
>::
>:: The photo (you have to click on it to make it bigger) shown here in
>:: fact shows one of the streets in this neighborhood:
>:: http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/tp/1a7357/
>:: This is a two-way street, NOT a one-way street, and the only way
>:: they work
>:: is by cooperation and sharing the road.
>
>This is not a road I'd make a habit of riding.
>

These streets have built-in traffic calming. Many of Vancouver's
streets and avenues are like this. They're basically only three-cars
wide. Cars parked on both sides leaves enough room for fire trucks.
People pull out of each others' way in spaces where there's no parked
cars. It's like trains meeting at a siding.

Precedence is governed by courtesy and situational awareness. Traffic
advances only as far as permits opposing traffic to pull off.

They aren't bad streets for biking. Very few cagers will dive into
the narrow open lane when it's occupied by a bike, well, my bike
anyway.

Some of these streets are just wide enough to allow bikes and cars to
meet and pass head on in the narrows. Sometimes I will dive into that
space (after first assesing its width) paying no attention to the
approaching car but instead watching for signs of occupied parked
vehicles and opening doors.

Drivers often freeze or slow to a crawl though there's as much room
on their right as they're giving me on their side. Taxi's are usually
cool with this and we're both going pretty slow when we meet. You
want to make sure the driver isn't on a cell phone before pulling
this move.

Conversely, if there's traffic close up behind me, I'll pull out to
let them pass, ASAP.

They aren't ideal streets for commuting by bike or car but they're
more useful to bicycle commuters than they are to the rat-runners in
cages trying to beat the arterial traffic.

Tax payers without cars to park should bring out their couches and
televisions to occupy that space and socialise with their neighbours.
That would calm traffic.
--
zk
 
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:


>> Everyone who eats carrots winds up dead. I say ban 'em!


> What about the other uses?


They'll kill ya faster.

Bill "but with a smile on your..." S.
 
Wayne Pein wrote:
> [email protected] 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.
> >>
> >>Wayne

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

>
> Motorists adjust to other motor vehicles, including those that are going
> slower, very much slower (front loaders,


I've been around heavy equipment all my life and people adjust and
pass but sometimes it's just not safely possible to do so, so you pull
over as far as you can or pull over and let the cars pass or get
a traffic buildup behind you and people take risky moves to pass you.

My views come from not lawful city riding. It's from long distance
riders who on two lane roads ride with multiple riders ride side by
side taking the entire lane forcing drivers to take risks passing
them, where oncoming traffic and or other road hazards are or may be
present. I've seen times where the entire opposite lane was missing
after a gully washer, where you had just passed riders where they
wouldn't move over.

If a driver suddenly had to retreat from passing, the riders may be
right there. I know my heart has
gotten going a few times watching this happen.

The riders could simply move to the right and give the car more
opportunity to safely pass if these
hazardous conditions may exist. Otherwise there is relatively no
problem in passing in the other lane.

I feel strongly about this because where I had lived, the riders come
through and conflicts erupt and people do get killed. If seen close
calls and conflicts.

Both should give a little cause that's the only way both can co-exist.
I understand the county, town, whatever was going to try to require
single file riding because of problems.

That's not fair but in a place where people have to drive 60 miles and
back for a simple errand and 60 miles and back another direction for
another errand and drive 60 miles to work through twisty roads and
narrow mountain roads, they need the riders to let them more safely
pass otherwise you get to points where 10,15, ect, ect miles where you
just plain cannot safely pass and they just ****** a half-hour out of
much valuable time, only to have the same scenario the way back.
 
Lobby Dosser wrote:

> [email protected] (Paul Berg) wrote:


>>But, Rohde added, nothing that Ramsdell said could have said warranted
>>Eschweiler's violent response.


>>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.


> The one thing missing in all this: The Driver's Story.


You ain't gonna hear it anytime soon. Iffen his lawyer is at all
compentent, his instructions are something along the lines of, "from
here on in, you keep your mouth shut and talk only to ME!"

Peace and justice,
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Roger Zoul"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> :: The photo (you have to click on it to make it bigger) shown here in
> :: fact shows one of the streets in this neighborhood:
> :: http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/tp/1a7357/
> :: This is a two-way street, NOT a one-way street, and the only way
> :: they work
> :: is by cooperation and sharing the road.
>
> This is not a road I'd make a habit of riding.



The hell of it is that particular street sees maybe 5 to 10 vehicles an
hour, because it isn't any sort of major throughfare. As long as there
isn't some idiot trying to blast through there as a short cut, it's very
conducive to bike riding, or even standing in the middle of the street
talking to your neighbor (as you see in the background of the photo).

Unfortunately, when fast modern idiots meet laid back old Portland
neighborhoods, there is a very good chance of someone getting killed.

--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
 
In article <[email protected]>, "Roger Zoul"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> :: WHAT THE HELL IS "ATTEMPTED ASSAULT" when you hit and/or run someone
> :: over on purpose?!?
> ::
> :: Sheesh...
>
> It's attempted murder...



Not in Oregon. We don't have a vehicular homicide law.
But with the number of idiots we seem to have on our streets in recent
years, we should.

--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> For some it may not be feasible to follow every traffic
> law. I don't know, I just never have.
>


Gee, I hope you don't wear a helmet.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

> Yes but sometimes they keep the whole lane at times when it puts
> themselves and other motorists at risk when the drivers try to pass
> them. Occasionally people really do need to loosen their helmets a
> little and understand that they sometimes need to yield a few feet to
> the drivers so they can pass them safely.


If I am taking the lane it is because the pass cannot be made safely, the
pavement is poor, and/or I am going as fast as traffic in front of me
and/or to my left.

> I find myself to be a mobile pedestrian. I ride both sidewalks and
> streets, will cut through this or that.
> I generally don't stop for stop signs and traffic signals. Sometimes I
> do have to assimilate and be part of the traffic and not a pedestrian,
> usually at busy 4-way stops.


Dangerous and illegal style of riding.

> I've rode side by side with bicycle cops going through traffic signals
> and the like. For some it may not be feasible to follow every traffic
> law. I don't know, I just never have.


And they say that cops driving/riding illegally is just fine... I stop
then I repass the cop after the light turns green.

>> As a pedestrian, I detest sidewalk riders.

>
> Riders here generally have respect for pedestrians.


********.

> Around where I'm from police ride sidewalks and stress that they
> encourage sidewalk riding if people don't feel comfortable riding the
> streets but they also stress that if you annoy pedestrians that you
> could get a ticket.


Cops are about the poorest source of information on bicycling there is.
Most of the ones I've encountered have their own made up ideas of what
the law is.

> That's what it's about, peoples riding should never annoy or
> inconvenience others to any markable level.


I am not going to ride sidewalks, jump curbs, and otherwise endanger
myself because some asshats driving cars don't understand nor follow the
vehicle code. Just because they are upset that they can't kiss up to the
rear bumper of the car in front of me or are too lazy to change lanes or
the other typical needs of driving in traffic are not reasons I should
have to ride in the dangerous manner you perscribe. (Look at the bicycle
crash types manual, you'll find ride-outs are the best way to get hit by
a car)

> I live in a very hustle and bustle part of town and riding the streets
> and stopping for stop signs and traffic lights isn't really possible.
> You 'have' to ride sidewalks most of the time, it's just that simple..


No, it's your lack of skill. I've ridden through chicago's Loop and other
areas of staggering traffic volumes without difficulty and done so to the
letter of the vehicle code.
 
On Aug 21, 11:31 pm, Lobby Dosser <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Driving lids is pretty simple: since more people get head injuries in
> > cars (shocking!), then drivers should wear helmets, too. (Racers do,
> > of course.)

>
>
> Are these groups great entertainment, or what?!


Sure!

Actually, they serve several purposes. Some people actually use them
to (surprise!) learn things. Others use them to make wisecracks.
Apparently, they work for both kinds of people.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] (Brent P) said in
rec.autos.driving:

>> I find myself to be a mobile pedestrian. I ride both sidewalks and
>> streets, will cut through this or that.
>> I generally don't stop for stop signs and traffic signals. Sometimes I
>> do have to assimilate and be part of the traffic and not a pedestrian,
>> usually at busy 4-way stops.

>
>Dangerous and illegal style of riding.


And precisely why so many motorists hate pedalcyclists.
--
"It's little sh*ts like you that take my time away from my fiancee and
loved ones. F*CK YOU."
- Carl Rogers, 12/30/2006
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
 
On Aug 20, 6:33 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> lein aka Boomer the Cat aka WHO? wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 4:03 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> lein wrote:
> >>> On Aug 19, 6:34 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 19, 6:28 pm, "Curt" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> Bicycle helmets scrub off some of the acceleration your brain undergoes when
> >>>>> your head hits something. That's all anyone ever claimed.
> >>>> Baloney. Helmet promoters claim that helmets are wonderfully
> >>>> effective ("85%!!!"). They claim that bike helmets save lots of
> >>>> lives, and are very protective against debilitating brain injury.
> >>>> They claim that unhelmeted cyclists are a great source of organs
> >>>> harvested for transplants. They forced bike racers to wear helmets,
> >>>> then they claim that since bike racers wear helmets, that ordinary
> >>>> riders should.
> >>>> And they claim that bicycling is so terribly dangerous that nobody
> >>>> should ever ride a bicycle anywhere without a helmet.
> >>>> All their claims, especially the last, are dishonest and false.
> >>> Too bad they don't pass a law requiring all bicycle riders to wear
> >>> motorcycle helmets.
> >> A cyclist riding hard in summer in a full face helmet would likely
> >> suffer heat stroke, possibly fatal.

>
> > Don't wear a full face, get one of those WWI German helmets with the
> > spike on top.

>
> Like this:
> <http://www.buymotorcyclehelmets.com/assets/images/products/flatblacks...>?
>



that works
 
[email protected] wrote:


> I've been around heavy equipment all my life and people adjust and
> pass but sometimes it's just not safely possible to do so, so you pull
> over as far as you can or pull over and let the cars pass or get
> a traffic buildup behind you and people take risky moves to pass you.
>
> My views come from not lawful city riding. It's from long distance
> riders who on two lane roads ride with multiple riders ride side by
> side taking the entire lane forcing drivers to take risks passing
> them, where oncoming traffic and or other road hazards are or may be
> present. I've seen times where the entire opposite lane was missing
> after a gully washer, where you had just passed riders where they
> wouldn't move over.


People like to equate groups of bicyclists with a single heavy equipment
operator. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Getting a recreational pack of
bicyclists to pull over so you can pass is just not going to happen.

Wayne
 
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:17:52 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:07:58 -0700, [email protected] (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.
>>

>And just how would you propose making that happen?


His mother, wife or girlfriend could take away his car keys.

But if he Cannot control his impulses, then the only outcome is to
accept that he Will do something stupid, sooner or later, and deal
with the consequences.
 

Similar threads