Raged motorist strikes two cyclists

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

-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/pr...meteffect.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 Shatzer wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
> -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/pr...meteffect.html
> http://tinyurl.com/yqk6xl
> http://www.helmets.org/henderso.htm
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6922/173

You expect those to hold up against Frankie, Johnny and The Flogger?!? LOL

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:26:38 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> 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

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > 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.
>

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.

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman 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,

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

On Aug 18, 3:12 pm, (Paul Berg) wrote:
> ~
> 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.
>

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

On Aug 18, 4:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> wrote:
> Bo Raxo wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 3:42 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > > 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/news0...ke_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

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:19:23 -0700, Bill Shatzer
> wrote:

>Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman 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,
>
>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

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!"

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Helmets
--
zk

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.

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Bill Sornson wrote:
> 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...

Yep, anecdotal "evidence" with no control.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com