Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

On Aug 18, 5:13 pm, (Paul Berg) wrote:
> ~
>
> 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 ****ing queer OCD and WebTV anyway! Thanks for the SPAM,
I only had bread.

On Aug 18, 5:40 pm, Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP
> wrote:
> In article > ,
> "Mike Kruger" > wrote:
>
> > Michael Warner wrote:
> > > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:00:28 -0700, Paul Berg wrote:
>
> > >>> Police arrested Eschweiler and charged him with two counts of
> > >>> attempted assault.
>
> > > /Attempted/ assault? Sounds like he succeeded.
>
> > Succeeded all too well. Shouldn't "battery" be in there somewhere, too?
>
> 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.

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" > wrote in message
news:46c777e3$0$16387

> 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

On Aug 18, 7:47 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> wrote:
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > wrote:
>
> >> Lobby Dosser wrote:
> >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > 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?
>
> 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.

On Aug 18, 7:54 pm, "Kris Baker" > wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" > wrote in s.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!

On Aug 18, 7:59 pm, Lobby Dosser >
wrote:
> "Kris Baker" > wrote:
>
> > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" > wrote in
> > s.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.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > wrote:
>
>> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>> fred > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Paul Berg wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
>>>>>> Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
>>>>>> life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.
>>>>> Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
>>>>> provides little more than bump and scrape protection?
>>>>>
>>>> And, perhaps more to the point, why don't they mention what the
>>>> injuries were? If the cyclists suffered head injuries, the helmet
>>>> thingy might be relevant. If they suffered broken limbs and no
>>>> head injuries, the helmet thingy would be shown to be irrelevant.
>>>> By not mentioning the type of injuries, they imply that they were
>>>> head injuries and that helmets might have made a difference.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. They're just letting the public know that they are a couple of
>>> morons.
>>
>> I see that "Lobby Dosser" has uncritically accepted the bicycle
>> helmet 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.

Here we go...

Klu Klux Klaners for the GOP wrote:

"KLANERS"??? LOL

"Curt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" > wrote in message
> news:46c777e3$0$16387
>
>> 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??

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.

>>which has been shown by reputable studies in jurisdictions that have
>>adopted MHLs.

Lobby Dosser wrote:
> fred > wrote:

>>Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

>>>Paul Berg wrote:

>>>>The cyclists, 25-year-old Ben Ramsdell and 41-year-old Timothy
>>>>Mastne, were taken to OHSU. Their injuries were not
>>>>life-threatening. Neither cyclist was wearing a helmet.

>>>Why is h*lm*t non-use always reported, when a foam bicycle hat
>>>provides little more than bump and scrape protection?

>>And, perhaps more to the point, why don't they mention what the
>>injuries were? If the cyclists suffered head injuries, the helmet
>>thingy might be relevant. If they suffered broken limbs and no head
>>injuries, the helmet thingy would be shown to be irrelevant. By not
>>mentioning the type of injuries, they imply that they were head
>>injuries and that helmets might have made a difference.

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

There was one of the guys on teevee this evening. He sure as hell had
head injuries.

Peace and justice,