Raged motorist strikes two cyclists
Paul Berg
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> ...
> 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
Michael Warner
> > Police arrested Eschweiler and charged him with two counts of attempted
> assault.
/Attempted/ assault? Sounds like he succeeded.
fred
> 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.
D_Frum...@ndersnat.ch
> 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 |
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent P
> 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'
Mike Kruger
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
Mike A Schwab
I would raise it to attempted vehicular homicide.
Jim Flom
news:qODxi.266411$wG2....@newsfe17.lga...
And what's up with "attempted" assault? Looks pretty successful from the
article.
Mike
"Jim Flom" <jim.flo...@telus.net> wrote:
That they're still alive is perhaps the mitigating factor.
--
All opinions are welcome, they give me something to laugh at
Bill Shatzer
> 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%.
You get hit by a Lincoln Navigator doing 35 mph, you're in a world of
shit, bike helmet or no bike helmet. Hell, at that speed, you're in a
world of shit even with a motorcycle helmet.
For the more typical low speed accidents and collisions, bike helmets
are useful though no panacea.
Peace and justice,
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
Somebody apparently did something stupid to cause something a lot more
stupid. That was jackass and entirely preventable.
No real sympathy for any kickers.
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
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?
Bill Shatzer
> 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,
Bill Shatzer
> On Aug 18, 11:18 am, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> 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,
Mike Kruger
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
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
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.
Paul Berg
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.
~
Gooserider
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunset...@invailid.com> wrote in message
news:46c6f481$0$16271$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> 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...
Bill Sornson
> 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%.
>
Who ya gonna trust? The New England Journal of Medicine or Frankie K. 'n
Johnny Sunset?!? LOL
> You get hit by a Lincoln Navigator doing 35 mph, you're in a world of
> shit, bike helmet or no bike helmet. Hell, at that speed, you're in a
> world of shit even with a motorcycle helmet.
>
> For the more typical low speed accidents and collisions, bike helmets
> are useful though no panacea.
Moderate statements have no place around here. HTH
Paul Johnson
> 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%.
Which is why some states and provinces, like British Columbia,
consider helmets a mandatory item for all cyclists regardless of age.
Paul Johnson
The driver of the truck, and probably because they were crowding the
cyclist.
> Somebody apparently did something stupid to cause something a lot more
> stupid. That was jackass and entirely preventable.
It's not like cyclists have effective horns to warn drifting drivers.
The motorist was entirely a jackass. I don't see what the problem is.
Stevie
"Paul Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22149-46...@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net...
> ~
>
> 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.
I seriously doubt that a road cyclist kicked his car. Maybe hit with a
hand. What would be the reason? Let's see the scuff.
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> ...
> It's not like cyclists have effective horns to warn drifting drivers....
Some of us do: <http://www.deltacycle.com/product.php?g=1>.
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those who
have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?
Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Paul Berg
Bo Raxo
<sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>
> Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those who
> have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?
>
> Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.
>
And getting rid of mandatory helmet laws will promote more organ
donation. Toss in the Darwinian aspect and you've got: Win-win!
Bo Raxo
Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP
pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote:
> ~
>
> 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.
>
What kind of retarded police does Portland have? A cyclist kicks his
car, he retailiates by speeding up and running over the cyclist, causing
the cyclist to roll onto the hood of the car and smash the window.
How is that "attempted assault"??
He then LEAVES the accident scene (a crime), sideswipes a car (hit and
run), hits a truck (hit and run), sees another cyclist that he
deliberately runs over (attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon
at the very least).
Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP
pjb...@webtv.net (Paul Berg) wrote:
> 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.
WTF??? $141 for speeding??? I remember in 1991, I had a 1977 honda
civic, those little toy cars. Given that my car was really old and so
small, the steering wasnt so greet. I had gotten off a 8 hour job at
the waterfront in a kiosk taking tickets and money (I was like 18),
driving home on the 101 in the slow lane at about 62 in a 55 zone.
People were passing me in both the middle and fast lane. I was pulled
over by a cop, and the first thing he asked me was if I had been
drinking. I said no I just got off a 8 hour shift. He gave me a
speeding ticket for 65 (I was trying to keep it between 60 and 65,
mostly I was going 62, 63, and like I said I was in the slow lane of 3
lanes on the 101 and people were going MUCH FASTER in the faster 2 lanes.
At the most I had 1 ticket before that. My ticket was over $200. The
only reason the cop stopped me was that I was in a old civic that
wobbled and he wanted to check me for dui. He should of just let me go
since I was going with the flow of traffic in the SLOW lane of 3 lanes.
Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP
"Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> 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?
More like assault with a deadly weapon at the minimum and attempted
murder and the max. I saw a African American punch a female (all
college aged). I confronted him and told him that was not cool. His
friends came up from behind me and jumped me, besides punching me (just
had a fat lip) they hit me over the head with a beer bottle (didnt even
hurt the next day). I went straight home after ID'ing the perp's, who
the cops told me had been arrested for gang activity. The guy who hit
me over the head with the beer bottle got misdemeanor assault with a
deadly weapon (only did 2 weeks in county, but got a restraining order
and probation for 3 years).
Getting hit over the head with the bottle did less damage then the punch
to the mouth, yet he got "assault with a deadly weapon".
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
Please post some citations showing that a thin web of expanded
polystyrene will significantly reduce serious brain trauma in accidents.
Or to you believe that foam bicycle hats have magical powers that
protect the wearer's head?
Mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists on the road, which
increases the danger to the remaining cyclist from motorists, which has
been shown by reputable studies in jurisdictions that have adopted MHLs.
Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP
"Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
You know what I have no real sympathy for?? When 20 cyclists decide to
ride on a major street and take up the whole lane at say 15 mph when the
speed limit is 35 mph. Selfish motherfuckers!!!!!!!
You guys ride 2 a piece in the bike lane, cars should give you 5 feet!!!
20-40 of you take up the whole car lane, I will have no sympathy when
some psycho loses it and mows you all down!! Cyclists are inconsiderate
assholes!!!!!!!!!!
Lobby Dosser
> 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.
DUMB!!
>
> 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.
DUMBER!!
Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP
Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
>
> It's not like cyclists have effective horns to warn drifting drivers.
> The motorist was entirely a jackass. I don't see what the problem is.
I am not being serious here, just devils advocate, but havent you seen
childrens bikes with horns? They are preety loud!
Lobby Dosser
> 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.
Kris Baker
"Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187479292.0...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
A motorcycle helmet saved my life in 1974. I flew off the back at 70mph
and scraped so far along the road, that my face shield had holes worn
through it. I didn't know it, but I was pregnant at the time.
My husband came off, landed on his head, and also slid as far. He had leg
injuries, I lost a lot of skin and experienced some fun "road rash".
Since that time, I've known four people who got in motorcycle wrecks. ONE
was wearing a helmet, and survived. The other three, did not.
BUT I have the solution for these idiots:
Let's change the laws so that if you are in a motorcycle wreck, are not
wearing a helmet and have head injuries, WE (the public) do not have to pay
for your medical care. If your family wants to keep you alive, then they
can come up with the money to keep your brain-dead ass alive for 30 years.
Or a week.
It was your "right" to make your choice and not wear a helmet. It's our
"right" to not have to pay for your choice. Darwin, indeed.
Kris
Bowing low
Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP
"Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
> You don't act like that in a small town. Why would you do it in
> Portland? It's mighty bad, still grow up.
Fuck yeah they do? They get like 30 bicylists to ride down west 5th
street in chico california taking up the whole lane. When some pyscho
mows them all down I wont be the least symphathetic.
Lobby Dosser
So if the driver had smacked the cyclist with a hand, or maybe an
umbrella, that would be OK?
Lobby Dosser
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On Aug 18, 11:18 am, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> 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%.
>>
>> Which is why some states and provinces, like British Columbia,
>> consider helmets a mandatory item for all cyclists regardless of age.
>
> Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those
> who have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?
>
> Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.
>
More like helping morons live to propogate.
Running cyclists down with a truck is anti-cyclist.
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1187479292.0...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 18, 3:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>> <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those who
>>> have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?
>>>
>>> Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.
>>>
>> And getting rid of mandatory helmet laws will promote more organ
>> donation. Toss in the Darwinian aspect and you've got: Win-win!
>>
>>
>> Bo Raxo
>
> A motorcycle helmet saved my life in 1974. I flew off the back at 70mph
> and scraped so far along the road, that my face shield had holes worn
> through it. I didn't know it, but I was pregnant at the time.
>
> My husband came off, landed on his head, and also slid as far. He had leg
> injuries, I lost a lot of skin and experienced some fun "road rash".
>
> Since that time, I've known four people who got in motorcycle wrecks. ONE
> was wearing a helmet, and survived. The other three, did not.
What the effectiveness of a MOTORCYCLE helmet that has a hard shell
consisting of several layers of fiber-reinforced polymer composite over
a thick, continuous foam liner has to do with a highly ventilated foam
bicycle hat that weighs a fraction of what the motorcycle helmet does is
beyond me.
> BUT I have the solution for these idiots:
PLEASE POST A CITATION OF A REPUTABLE STUDY THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT
BICYCLE (NOT MOTORCYCLE) HELMETS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE PERMANENT HEAD
INJURIES AND DEATHS AMONG BICYCLISTS.
> Let's change the laws so that if you are in a motorcycle wreck, are not
> wearing a helmet and have head injuries, WE (the public) do not have to pay
> for your medical care. If your family wants to keep you alive, then they
> can come up with the money to keep your brain-dead ass alive for 30 years.
> Or a week.
What do motorcycle wrecks have to do with bicyclists?
> It was your "right" to make your choice and not wear a helmet. It's our
> "right" to not have to pay for your choice. Darwin, indeed.
Again, where are the REPUTABLE studies showing that BICYCLE helmets are
effective? In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists and
the reduction in overall bicycle use lead to a higher rate of motor
vehicle/bicycle collisions.
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels
Lobby Dosser
> In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
> that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists
Say What?!!
Zoot Katz
the GOP <redred...@aol.com> felt safe enough to spew:
\
>
>You guys ride 2 a piece in the bike lane, cars should give you 5 feet!!!
>20-40 of you take up the whole car lane, I will have no sympathy when
>some psycho loses it and mows you all down!! Cyclists are inconsiderate
>assholes!!!!!!!!!!
And caged scud monkeys are filthy, stinking, noisey, petulant brats
intolerant of _anything_ in their way of attaining maximum speed.
You chickenshit thugs just wouldn't dare attack a backhoe with your
widdle cars is all.
Give your stinking car back to the bank.
You're obviously too immature to be trusted with it on the roads.
--
zk
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
Yes, a study was done where the horizontal clearance provided to both
helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists was measured.
The motorists were not available for interview, but it can be speculated
that due to helmet propaganda, helmeted bicyclists are seen as more
responsible and less likely to unpredictably weave into traffic. An
alternate hypothesis would be that helmets are seen as provided
bicyclists with some unreasonably high degree of protection, so the
motorist need not exercise the same degree of care while passing.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
Please provide a citation to a REPUTABLE study that demonstrates that
BICYCLE helmets are effective in reducing severe head injuries.
> Running cyclists down with a truck is anti-cyclist.
Mandatory helmet laws promote the image that riding a bicycle is
dangerous (no so, compared to many other ordinary activities) and
discourage bicycle use. Therefore, these laws are anti-bicyclist.
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
I see that "Lobby Dosser" has uncritically accepted the bicycle helmet
propaganda designed primarily to drive the sales of foam bicycle hats.
Lobby Dosser
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunset...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
>>> that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists
>>
>> Say What?!!
>
> Yes, a study was done where the horizontal clearance provided to both
> helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists was measured.
>
> The motorists were not available for interview, but it can be
> speculated that due to helmet propaganda, helmeted bicyclists are seen
> as more responsible and less likely to unpredictably weave into
> traffic. An alternate hypothesis would be that helmets are seen as
> provided bicyclists with some unreasonably high degree of protection,
> so the motorist need not exercise the same degree of care while
> passing.
>
You wouldn't happen to have a Cite for this study, would you?
Paul Johnson
<redrednat...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <1187474420.274565.261...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Not loud enough to be heard over traffic. compare a kiddie bike horn
to a carhorn and tell me which one is louder. Heck, even a lot of
carhorns are ineffective at the audible warning job.
Paul Johnson
<redrednat...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <1187461584.520581.182...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
>
> > 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.
>
> You know what I have no real sympathy for?? When 20 cyclists decide to
> ride on a major street and take up the whole lane at say 15 mph when the
> speed limit is 35 mph. Selfish motherfuckers!!!!!!!
Bikes are required by law to take the lane if there's no extra room in
the lane to allow for safe passing.
> You guys ride 2 a piece in the bike lane, cars should give you 5 feet!!!
> 20-40 of you take up the whole car lane, I will have no sympathy when
> some psycho loses it and mows you all down!! Cyclists are inconsiderate
> assholes!!!!!!!!!!
You shouldn't have a driver's license. You obviously don't know what
you're doing.
Paul Johnson
> > On Aug 18, 11:18 am, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> 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%.
>
> > Which is why some states and provinces, like British Columbia,
> > consider helmets a mandatory item for all cyclists regardless of age.
>
> Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those who
> have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?
No, because it saves Health Canada a shitload of money in head traumas
every year.
> Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.
Wow. You're an idiot at any speed.
Lobby Dosser
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunset...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>> On Aug 18, 11:18 am, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> 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%.
>>>> Which is why some states and provinces, like British Columbia,
>>>> consider helmets a mandatory item for all cyclists regardless of
>>>> age.
>>> Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those
>>> who have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?
>>>
>>> Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.
>>>
>>
>> More like helping morons live to propogate.
>
> Please provide a citation to a REPUTABLE study that demonstrates that
> BICYCLE helmets are effective in reducing severe head injuries.
How about just head injuries. Say, concussions. Like you'd get hitting
your bare head on pavement. Nobody really knows how many concussions is
too many, but they do have a cumulative effect.
>
>> Running cyclists down with a truck is anti-cyclist.
>
> Mandatory helmet laws promote the image that riding a bicycle is
> dangerous (no so, compared to many other ordinary activities) and
> discourage bicycle use. Therefore, these laws are anti-bicyclist.
>
How about seatbelts? How many people stopped driving when they became
mandatory? Airbags? Padded dash? Collapsable steering column?
Lobby Dosser
A good friend had his life saved by one of the foam hats. As long as you
pay your own medical care for head injuries, I don't really care what You
do.
Kris Baker
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunset...@innvalid.com> wrote in message
news:46c77f3c$0$23226$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> Kris Baker wrote:
>
> Again, where are the REPUTABLE studies showing that BICYCLE helmets are
> effective? In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
> that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists and
> the reduction in overall bicycle use lead to a higher rate of motor
> vehicle/bicycle collisions.
MY own head is all the study I need.
Kris Baker
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunset...@innvalid.com> wrote in message
news:46c78940$0$18419$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunset...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in that MHLs
>>> cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists
>>
>> Say What?!!
>
> Yes, a study was done where the horizontal clearance provided to both
> helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists was measured.
>
> The motorists were not available for interview, but it can be speculated
> that due to helmet propaganda, helmeted bicyclists are seen as more
> responsible and less likely to unpredictably weave into traffic. An
> alternate hypothesis would be that helmets are seen as provided bicyclists
> with some unreasonably high degree of protection, so the motorist need not
> exercise the same degree of care while passing.
OK. Then just run into the drivers wearing seatbelts.
It'll protect you, too. Same logic.
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
The study was done by Dr. Ian Walker of Bath University and recorded the
clearance provided by 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and
Bristol. The study found that motorists passed helmet wearing cyclists
an average of 8.5-cm closer than non-helmeted cyclists.
<http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html>
Citation: Walker, I. (2007). Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective
data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and
apparent gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 417-425.
Kris Baker
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunset...@innvalid.com> wrote in message
news:46c79530$0$16301$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>> You wouldn't happen to have a Cite for this study, would you?
>
> The study was done by Dr. Ian Walker of Bath University and recorded the
> clearance provided by 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.
> The study found that motorists passed helmet wearing cyclists an average
> of 8.5-cm closer than non-helmeted cyclists.
And to do it accurately, you'd have to run alongside with a tape
measure. I smell Monty Python here.
Lobby Dosser
Quite full of holes. NTM that "passing more closely" appears to be 3.33
inches closer than 4.4 FEET!
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> wrote in messagenews:46c6f481$0$16271$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
> > 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?
>
PEDAL FASTER, maybe we can get away!
Lobby Dosser
He had a laser thingie. But the 8.5cm closer is closer than a normal
distance of 1.3 METERS.
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
> 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?
>
>
>
> Who ya gonna trust? The New England Journal of Medicine or Frankie K. 'n
> Johnny Sunset?!? LOL
>
> > You get hit by a Lincoln Navigator doing 35 mph, you're in a world of
> > shit, bike helmet or no bike helmet. Hell, at that speed, you're in a
> > world of shit even with a motorcycle helmet.
>
> > For the more typical low speed accidents and collisions, bike helmets
> > are useful though no panacea.
>
> Moderate statements have no place around here. HTH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Might as well add phony political shit about Bush needs oil to shut up
young Canadians who can vote here even if they illegally immigrate and
they are lesbian-hating child molesters who have the only Super 8
footage of California Jam in existance and are persecuted by DeSerT
BoB or aus.internet.kOOks--huzzah!
Have we all been served?
Curt
> Mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists on the road, which
> increases the danger to the remaining cyclist from motorists, which has
> been shown by reputable studies in jurisdictions that have adopted MHLs.
HUH??
Curt
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
> "Paul Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>
> news:22149-46...@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > ~
>
> > 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.
>
> hand. What would be the reason? Let's see the scuff.
Go on! Did Nevaeh really have fun riding the Sybian on the Howard
Stern show and some mother beat her child on the Wal-Mart cameras, or
did you only decry the SPAM?
Google is my friend...
Curt
"Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP" <redred...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:redrednation-
> What kind of retarded police does Portland have? A cyclist kicks his
> car, he retailiates by speeding up and running over the cyclist, causing
> the cyclist to roll onto the hood of the car and smash the window.
>
> How is that "attempted assault"??
>
> He then LEAVES the accident scene (a crime), sideswipes a car (hit and
> run), hits a truck (hit and run), sees another cyclist that he
> deliberately runs over (attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon
> at the very least).
Apparently, they're the kind of retarded police that arrest bad guys and
stick them in jail.
Yay police.
Curt
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
> ~
>
> Lesson to Learn:
>
> If you're on a bicycle, don't kick a car driven by a person as equally
> crazy as yourself.
Is THAT what it looks like? Haven't been that way in almost a year.
You and your fucking queer OCD and WebTV anyway! Thanks for the SPAM,
I only had bread.
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
<redrednat...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <%YExi.49932$YL5.30...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> 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.
>
>
> > Succeeded all too well. Shouldn't "battery" be in there somewhere, too?
>
> More like assault with a deadly weapon at the minimum and attempted
> murder and the max. I saw a African American punch a female (all
> college aged). I confronted him and told him that was not cool. His
> friends came up from behind me and jumped me, besides punching me (just
> had a fat lip) they hit me over the head with a beer bottle (didnt even
> hurt the next day). I went straight home after ID'ing the perp's, who
> the cops told me had been arrested for gang activity. The guy who hit
> me over the head with the beer bottle got misdemeanor assault with a
> deadly weapon (only did 2 weeks in county, but got a restraining order
> and probation for 3 years).
>
> Getting hit over the head with the bottle did less damage then the punch
> to the mouth, yet he got "assault with a deadly weapon".
And you were stupid enough to get jumped knowing they were around.
The sympathy bleeds from every one of my pores.
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
>
> >>>> In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
> >>>> that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists
> >>> Say What?!!
> >> Yes, a study was done where the horizontal clearance provided to both
> >> helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists was measured.
>
> >> The motorists were not available for interview, but it can be
> >> speculated that due to helmet propaganda, helmeted bicyclists are seen
> >> as more responsible and less likely to unpredictably weave into
> >> traffic. An alternate hypothesis would be that helmets are seen as
> >> provided bicyclists with some unreasonably high degree of protection,
> >> so the motorist need not exercise the same degree of care while
> >> passing.
>
> > You wouldn't happen to have a Cite for this study, would you?
>
> The study was done by Dr. Ian Walker of Bath University and recorded the
> clearance provided by 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and
> Bristol. The study found that motorists passed helmet wearing cyclists
> an average of 8.5-cm closer than non-helmeted cyclists.
> <http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html>
>
> Citation: Walker, I. (2007). Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective
> data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and
> apparent gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 417-425.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
They drive on the wrong side of the road and wonder why bicyclists are
miffed.
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote in messagenews:46c79530$0$16301$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
> > Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> >> You wouldn't happen to have a Cite for this study, would you?
>
> > The study was done by Dr. Ian Walker of Bath University and recorded the
> > clearance provided by 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.
> > The study found that motorists passed helmet wearing cyclists an average
> > of 8.5-cm closer than non-helmeted cyclists.
>
> And to do it accurately, you'd have to run alongside with a tape
> measure. I smell Monty Python here.
You bleeding pigs! You stabbed me!
Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S
wrote:
> "Kris Baker" <kris.ba...@prodigyyy.net> wrote:
>
> > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:46c79530$0$16301$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> >> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
> >>> You wouldn't happen to have a Cite for this study, would you?
>
> >> The study was done by Dr. Ian Walker of Bath University and recorded
> >> the clearance provided by 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and
> >> Bristol. The study found that motorists passed helmet wearing
> >> cyclists an average of 8.5-cm closer than non-helmeted cyclists.
>
> > And to do it accurately, you'd have to run alongside with a tape
> > measure. I smell Monty Python here.
>
> He had a laser thingie. But the 8.5cm closer is closer than a normal
> distance of 1.3 METERS.
He'd be okay once he closed his fly.
J. Clarke
> In rec.bicycles.misc "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunset...@invailid.com> wrote:
<snip>
> 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.
This was a _bicycle_ helmet? If so, what brand and model because I
want one of those.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bill Sornson
Here we go...
Bill Sornson
"KLANERS"??? LOL
Zoot Katz
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>This was a _bicycle_ helmet? If so, what brand and model because I
>want one of those.
Yeah. Supposedly a magic foam beanie from Lotto. The SHL* model.
*Shit-House Luck, as my granny would say.
--
zk
Rich Clark
"Curt" <c...@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:13cf9d9...@corp.supernews.com...
Let me parse it for you:
>> Mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists on the road,
Because more people perceive cycling to be dangerous (it must be, because it
requires a helmet), while others are just not willing to wear a helmet for
what they consider to be an occasional recreational activity. The stats that
demonstrate a reduction in overall numbers of cyclists in the wake of MHL's
are widely available.
>>which increases the danger to the remaining cyclist from motorists,
Because the more cyclists there are, the more a normal part of the traffic
pattern they become, and drivers accommodate them more automatically.
Bill Shatzer
> fred <fr...@fred.com> 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.
There was one of the guys on teevee this evening. He sure as hell had
head injuries.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> Again, where are the REPUTABLE studies showing that BICYCLE helmets are
> effective? In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
> that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists and
> the reduction in overall bicycle use lead to a higher rate of motor
> vehicle/bicycle collisions.
http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html
http://tinyurl.com/yqk6xl
http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6922/173
Peace and justice,
Bill Sornson
You expect those to hold up against Frankie, Johnny and The Flogger?!? LOL
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman 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?
>
>
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
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> 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%.
>>
>
> Who ya gonna trust? The New England Journal of Medicine or Frankie K. 'n
What about Dorothy Robinson?
<http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Thompson,_Rivara_and_Thompson_(1989)>
Zoot Katz
<sunset...@invailid.com> wrote:
>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.
>
It's true!
One of the few times since 1976 that I've not ridden with a magic
hat, I broke my leg.
Wearing a mandated beanie would have reduced the tongue-clucking from
hospital staff is all.
Actually I was in danger of sustaining a concussion. I fell down
directly on my ass after standing up on a broken tibia/fibula.
Luckily I landed on the back wheel of the bike instead of pavement.
The brain can be jarred and concuss by a shock to the spine.
--
zk
Lobby Dosser
> 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.
>
Shoot, if one believes that helmets cause drivers to drive closer to
cyclists, one can believe that helmets are responsible for damn near
anything including fluctuations in the stock market and global warming.
Bill Shatzer
> 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%.
> Thompson, Rivara, Thompson has been discredited for a long time,
You've certainly not done so.
> unless
> one believes that bicycle h*lm*ts reduce 85% of NON-HEAD injuries also.
Heh!
"Over one year we conducted a case-control study in which the case
patients were 235 persons with HEAD INJURIES received while bicycling,
who sought emergency care at one of five hospitals." (emphasis added)
They were studying -only- head injuries and I can't find that their
study considered other types of injuries at all.
Sheesh!
Peace and justice
Bob
>
> 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.
>
This last seems to imply that the three were arguing when the police
arrived. That would explain the "attempted" part since the pertinent
Oregon statute reads:
163.185 Assault in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of
assault in the first degree if the person:
(a) Intentionally causes serious physical injury to another by means
of a deadly or dangerous weapon.
Helmet or not, I think we can all agree that Injuries that lead to or
fail to end arguments aren't "serious". ;-)
Regards,
Bob Hunt
Bo Raxo
<sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
> Bo Raxo wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 3:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>
> >> Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those who
> >> have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?
>
> >> Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.
>
> > And getting rid of mandatory helmet laws will promote more organ
> > donation. Toss in the Darwinian aspect and you've got: Win-win!
>
> Please post some citations showing that a thin web of expanded
> polystyrene will significantly reduce serious brain trauma in accidents.
>
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/04/bike_helmet.html
"Anneliese Spinks, a research fellow in the Griffith University School
of Medicine in Queensland, Australia, said most studies have found
that helmet laws reduce injuries, but that not all studies have been
considered statistically reliable."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/886041.html
"According to Beterem and the road safety organization Or Yarok,
hospitalization due to cycling accidents in New York, New Jersey,
Canada, Seatle and California were down by dozens of percentage points
- especially among children - after helmet laws were passed. "
http://www.helmets.org/rodgers1.htm
"While recent studies show substantial safety benefits from helmet
use, they also reveal that only a small proportion of riders actually
use helmets. "
I could come up with a dozen more, but you get the idea.
> Or to you believe that foam bicycle hats have magical powers that
> protect the wearer's head?
>
I believe that nothing will protect you from all head injuries, but a
hard shell that absorbs some impact will reduce head injuries. It's
rather obvious.
> Mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists on the road, which
> increases the danger to the remaining cyclist from motorists, which has
> been shown by reputable studies in jurisdictions that have adopted MHLs.
>
Reducing the number of cyclists on the road increases the danger to
the remaining ones?
Oh please, post the study that shows that.
Bo Raxo
Zoot Katz
Ignorance and bliss
"The granddaddy of all helmet studies, referenced above, was produced
in 1989 by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson. Their report, with its
puzzling conclusion that helmets are more effective against brain
injury than cuts and bruises, launched the laws in Australia and New
Zealand which started the whole compulsion bandwagon rolling. Later
re-analysis of the raw data showed some anomalies: although they
claimed that they had controlled for differences between their "case"
group of mainly solo urban poor road cyclists and their "control"
group of predominantly white middle-class families riding on off-road
trails, Dorothy Robinson, a statistician from Australia, showed from
their data that you could equally show that helmets had prevented 75%
of broken legs. The authors have since published revised, lower
estimates, but the 85% and 88% figures you see quoted everywhere are
from the original 1989 study. Anyone using those figures should know
better!"
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>> propaganda designed primarily to drive the sales of foam bicycle hats.
>>
>
> A good friend had his life saved by one of the foam hats. As long as you
> pay your own medical care for head injuries, I don't really care what You
> do.
Did your good friend's identical twin have an identical accident, except
for not wearing a foam hat and die as the result? If not, how can you
state that your friend would have died without his foam hat?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
Yep, anecdotal "evidence" with no control.
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> On Aug 18, 4:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>> Bo Raxo wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 3:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>> <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those who
>>>> have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?
>>>> Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.
>>> And getting rid of mandatory helmet laws will promote more organ
>>> donation. Toss in the Darwinian aspect and you've got: Win-win!
>> Please post some citations showing that a thin web of expanded
>> polystyrene will significantly reduce serious brain trauma in accidents.
>>
>
> http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/04/bike_helmet.html
> "Anneliese Spinks, a research fellow in the Griffith University School
> of Medicine in Queensland, Australia, said most studies have found
> that helmet laws reduce injuries, but that not all studies have been
> considered statistically reliable."
Most helmet studies have been designed to find this result, regardless
of reality.
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/886041.html
> "According to Beterem and the road safety organization Or Yarok,
> hospitalization due to cycling accidents in New York, New Jersey,
> Canada, Seatle and California were down by dozens of percentage points
> - especially among children - after helmet laws were passed. "
As was overall cycling activity, no doubt.
> http://www.helmets.org/rodgers1.htm
> "While recent studies show substantial safety benefits from helmet
> use, they also reveal that only a small proportion of riders actually
> use helmets. "
>
> I could come up with a dozen more, but you get the idea.
Time and time again, these studies have been shown to have a flawed
experimental design. Why have we not seen any positive effect in places
like Australia with the introduction of MHLs?
>> Or to you believe that foam bicycle hats have magical powers that
>> protect the wearer's head?
>>
>
> I believe that nothing will protect you from all head injuries, but a
> hard shell that absorbs some impact will reduce head injuries. It's
> rather obvious.
Butbutbut, bicycle foam hats sold in the last couple of decades do NOT
have hard shells.
Try this: put a motorcycle helmet on a table and strike it hard with
your hand. Now try it again with a contemporary bicycle foam hat.
>> Mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists on the road, which
>> increases the danger to the remaining cyclist from motorists, which has
>> been shown by reputable studies in jurisdictions that have adopted MHLs.
>>
>
> Reducing the number of cyclists on the road increases the danger to
> the remaining ones?
>
> Oh please, post the study that shows that.
Why has mandatory helmet use in Australia not been of benefit?
Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP
"Bjorn Berg f/Fergie Berg and All the Ships at S"
<thisjukebo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Who is asking for sympathy? Be a fucking man and do what one SHOULD do.
Dont be a fucking pussy. Even if they broke some bones, bones heal, as
long as I dont die, even then I am a christian and believe in heaven
(this nick mocks someone in AGC and AT-C)
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunset...@innvalid.com> wrote in message
> news:46c78940$0$18419$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>>>> cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists
>> Yes, a study was done where the horizontal clearance provided to both
>> helmeted and non-helmeted bicyclists was measured.
>>
>> The motorists were not available for interview, but it can be speculated
>> that due to helmet propaganda, helmeted bicyclists are seen as more
>> responsible and less likely to unpredictably weave into traffic. An
>> alternate hypothesis would be that helmets are seen as provided bicyclists
>> with some unreasonably high degree of protection, so the motorist need not
>> exercise the same degree of care while passing.
>
> It'll protect you, too. Same logic.
It is a lot easier to quickly tell if a bicyclist is wearing a helmet
than if a driver is belted. If there is any type of reflection on or
tinting of the windows it may be impossible. Duh!
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
>> Kris Baker wrote:
>>
>> Again, where are the REPUTABLE studies showing that BICYCLE helmets are
>> that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists and
>> vehicle/bicycle collisions.
>
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!
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
Since when is Thompson, Rivara, Thompson considered a reputable study?
Dorothy Robinson debunked Thompson, Rivara, Thompson years ago. Do you
believe that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of injuries to parts of the
body other than the head?
And all the other links cite Thompson, Rivara, Thompson.
Brent P
> Please post some citations showing that a thin web of expanded
> polystyrene will significantly reduce serious brain trauma in accidents.
Once I read that the helmet test was a 6 foot fall, I realized it was
pointless to wear one since I am over 6' tall. The logic being that it
would be inconsistant to wear one when bicycling but not wear one in
practically every other activity I did. The helmet protected me from
falling, somewhat. The danger I face bicycling is from multi-thousand
pound motorvehicles. I face the danger of falling climbing the front
stairs.
Brent P
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunset...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>
>> In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite may be true, in
>> that MHLs cause motor vehicle operators to pass closer to bicyclists
>
Some motorists want MHLs because they feel if they hit a bicyclist it won't
hurt them as much. If they feel the bicyclist is better protected
they will compensate for it for it by passing closer. Far too many
drivers are too lazy to move over and an MHL helps the thinking that
excuses that laziness.
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
Maybe J. Taylor and "Just this Guy" will pop in. ;)
• UltraMan •
"Paul Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22149-46...@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net...
~
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.
~
Bo Raxo
On the contrary, we have:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00020531.htm
"Concurrent with the increase in helmet use, declines have occurred in
both the number of compensation claims filed with the Transport
Accident Commission (TAC), the sole motor-vehicle insurer in Victoria,
for severe bicycle injuries (fatal or resulting in hospitalization)
(Figure 2) and the number of cyclists with injuries who were admitted
to public hospitals (Figure 3). Based on comparison of claims
submitted to the TAC during 1989-1990 and 1990-1991, the number of
cyclists killed or hospitalized with head injuries decreased by 51%,
and the number with similarly severe injuries other than to the head
decreased by 24%; for public hospital admissions (Figure 3), these
numbers decreased 37% and 21%, respectively. "
In fairness, it would be neccesary to also know what (if any) decline
in bicycle usage occurred in the same period.
But I do cite above injury reductions in three U.S. states, a U.S.
city, and Canada.
> >> Or to you believe that foam bicycle hats have magical powers that
> >> protect the wearer's head?
>
> > I believe that nothing will protect you from all head injuries, but a
> > hard shell that absorbs some impact will reduce head injuries. It's
> > rather obvious.
>
> Butbutbut, bicycle foam hats sold in the last couple of decades do NOT
> have hard shells.
Funny, all of the ones I see have a hard plastic shell.
>
> Try this: put a motorcycle helmet on a table and strike it hard with
> your hand. Now try it again with a contemporary bicycle foam hat.
>
There are three motorcycle helmets in my house, but no bicycle
helmets, so I'll have to take your word for it.
> >> Mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of cyclists on the road, which
> >> increases the danger to the remaining cyclist from motorists, which has
> >> been shown by reputable studies in jurisdictions that have adopted MHLs.
>
> > Reducing the number of cyclists on the road increases the danger to
> > the remaining ones?
>
> > Oh please, post the study that shows that.
>
> Why has mandatory helmet use in Australia not been of benefit?
>
I've shown it has. You on the other hand have not shown that reducing
the number of cyclists on the road makes the conditions less safe for
the remaining riders. You keep asking for studies, I keep supplying
them, but you can't back up your assertions with *any* cite.
Bo Raxo
Brent P
> Lesson to Learn:
>
> If you're on a bicycle, don't kick a car driven by a person as equally
> crazy as yourself.
The kicking story is most likely BS. any sound kick to car would cause a
lateral force that could likely result in the bicyclist falling.
However, if a driver is close enough to a bicyclist that his vehicle can
be touched, he's passing too close.
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunset...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunset...@innvalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 18, 11:18 am, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman 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.
>>>>>>> provides little more than bump and scrape protection?
>>>>>> 85%.
>>>>> consider helmets a mandatory item for all cyclists regardless of
>>>>> age.
>>>> who have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?
>>>>
>>>> Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.
>>>>
>> Please provide a citation to a REPUTABLE study that demonstrates that
>> BICYCLE helmets are effective in reducing severe head injuries.
>
> How about just head injuries. Say, concussions. Like you'd get hitting
> your bare head on pavement. Nobody really knows how many concussions is
> too many, but they do have a cumulative effect.
If concussions are that bad, should they then not be considered "serious
head injuries"?
>>> Running cyclists down with a truck is anti-cyclist.
>> Mandatory helmet laws promote the image that riding a bicycle is
>> dangerous (no so, compared to many other ordinary activities) and
>> discourage bicycle use. Therefore, these laws are anti-bicyclist.
>>
>
> How about seatbelts? How many people stopped driving when they became
> mandatory? Airbags? Padded dash? Collapsable steering column?
The last two do not affect the operation of the vehicle at all, nor do
airbags unless activated. Not at all comparable to wearing a foam hat.
As for seat belts, the average person (at least in the US and Canada)
can not conceive of not using a personal motor vehicle. The same is not
true of the bicycle.
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> On Aug 18, 3:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 11:18 am, Bill Shatzer <bshatze...@comcast.net> 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%.
>>> Which is why some states and provinces, like British Columbia,
>>> consider helmets a mandatory item for all cyclists regardless of age.
>> Because they have been fooled by faulty studies and conned by those who
>> have a financial interest in selling Foam Bicycle Hats?
>
> every year.
Citation?
>> Promoting mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) is ANTI-CYCLIST.
>
> Wow. You're an idiot at any speed.
>
No, the idiots are those who accept "conventional wisdom" without
critical thinking or understanding of fundamental concepts. [Yawn]