Time for walking helmets?
 

Should have had knobbly tyres on his feet as well!
QUOTE:

"Eyewitnesses at the scene last night told Hull Live that the man had been seen 'skidding' across the wet road and ended up underneath the vehicle.

Humberside Police was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary where he remains and no arrests have been made.

A Humberside Police spokeswoman said: "A man is receiving treatment in hospital for serious head injuries following a road traffic collision in Hull yesterday evening Wednesday, June 12.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...erious-2973267

Time for walking helmets?
 

On 13/06/2019 12:52, Simon Mason wrote:
Should have had knobbly tyres on his feet as well!
QUOTE:

"Eyewitnesses at the scene last night told Hull Live that the man had been seen 'skidding' across the wet road and ended up underneath the vehicle.

Humberside Police was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary where he remains and no arrests have been made.

A Humberside Police spokeswoman said: "A man is receiving treatment in hospital for serious head injuries following a road traffic collision in Hull yesterday evening Wednesday, June 12.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...erious-2973267

QUOTE:
The delivery driver ... saw the accident as it unfolded.

He told Hull Live last night: “It was a foreign man who was clearly
intoxicated walking along the path to Washington Street. His mate was on
the other side of the road and they started shouting to each other.

“Then he skidded and went straight under the car. It was awful.”
ENDQUOTE


That hardly sounds as though it can have been the fault of the drver of
the vehicle.

But enough of that... what about the cyclist?

What did he or she see?

Time for walking helmets?
 

On 13/06/2019 12:52, Simon Mason wrote:
Should have had knobbly tyres on his feet as well! QUOTE:

"Eyewitnesses at the scene last night told Hull Live that the man had
been seen 'skidding' across the wet road and ended up underneath the
vehicle.

Humberside Police was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary where he remains
and no arrests have been made.

A Humberside Police spokeswoman said: "A man is receiving treatment
in hospital for serious head injuries following a road traffic
collision in Hull yesterday evening Wednesday, June 12.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...erious-2973267

Perhaps more importantly, is the matter of why this trained and tested
driver was so slow to apply the brakes. The pedestrian must have been in
th eroad and visible for quite some time, given the statement of the
witness.

Time for walking helmets?
 

On 13/06/2019 15:43, TMS320 wrote:

On 13/06/2019 12:52, Simon Mason wrote:

Should have had knobbly tyres on his feet as well!

QUOTE:
"Eyewitnesses at the scene last night told Hull Live that the man had
been seen 'skidding' across the wet road and ended up underneath the
vehicle.

Humberside Police was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary where he remains
and no arrests have been made.

A Humberside Police spokeswoman said: "A man is receiving treatment
in hospital for serious head injuries following a road traffic
collision in Hull yesterday evening Wednesday, June 12.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...erious-2973267

Perhaps more importantly, is the matter of why this trained and tested
driver was so slow to apply the brakes. The pedestrian must have been in
th eroad and visible for quite some time, given the statement of the
witness.

Or, as the reported comment (not "statement") has it, the exact opposite:

"...a foreign man who was clearly intoxicated walking along *the* *path*
*to* *Washington* *Street*.".

Of course, it's easier to just ignore the actual evidence and invent
your own (as you did), eh?

Time for walking helmets?
 

On 13/06/2019 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2019 15:43, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2019 12:52, Simon Mason wrote:

Should have had knobbly tyres on his feet as well!

QUOTE:
"Eyewitnesses at the scene last night told Hull Live that the man had
been seen 'skidding' across the wet road and ended up underneath the
vehicle.

Humberside Police was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary where he remains
and no arrests have been made.

A Humberside Police spokeswoman said: "A man is receiving treatment
in hospital for serious head injuries following a road traffic
collision in Hull yesterday evening Wednesday, June 12.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...erious-2973267

Perhaps more importantly, is the matter of why this trained and tested
driver was so slow to apply the brakes. The pedestrian must have been
in th eroad and visible for quite some time, given the statement of
the witness.

Or, as the reported comment (not "statement") has it, the exact opposite:

"...a foreign man who was clearly intoxicated walking along *the* *path*
*to* *Washington* *Street*.".

It seems you didn't read as far as "he looked right and saw nothing
coming and started crossing the road..." ie, he must have crossed halfway.

Of course, it's easier to just ignore the actual evidence and invent
your own (as you did), eh?

There is a difference between evidence and inference. Do you need
reminding of the link to the scouse translator?

Time for walking helmets?
 

On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 3:43:06 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2019 12:52, Simon Mason wrote:
Should have had knobbly tyres on his feet as well! QUOTE:

"Eyewitnesses at the scene last night told Hull Live that the man had
been seen 'skidding' across the wet road and ended up underneath the
vehicle.

Humberside Police was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary where he remains
and no arrests have been made.

A Humberside Police spokeswoman said: "A man is receiving treatment
in hospital for serious head injuries following a road traffic
collision in Hull yesterday evening Wednesday, June 12.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...erious-2973267

Perhaps more importantly, is the matter of why this trained and tested
driver was so slow to apply the brakes. The pedestrian must have been in
th eroad and visible for quite some time, given the statement of the
witness.

Agreed - if he was already half way across the road he would have been visible for some time.

Time for walking helmets?
 

On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 3:12:43 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2019 12:52, Simon Mason wrote:
Should have had knobbly tyres on his feet as well!
QUOTE:

"Eyewitnesses at the scene last night told Hull Live that the man had been seen 'skidding' across the wet road and ended up underneath the vehicle..

Humberside Police was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary where he remains and no arrests have been made.

A Humberside Police spokeswoman said: "A man is receiving treatment in hospital for serious head injuries following a road traffic collision in Hull yesterday evening Wednesday, June 12.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...erious-2973267

QUOTE:
The delivery driver ... saw the accident as it unfolded.

He told Hull Live last night: “It was a foreign man who was clearly
intoxicated walking along the path to Washington Street. His mate was on
the other side of the road and they started shouting to each other.

“Then he skidded and went straight under the car. It was awful.”
ENDQUOTE


That hardly sounds as though it can have been the fault of the drver of
the vehicle.

But enough of that... what about the cyclist?

What did he or she see?

Not the point.
Had it been a cyclist the reporter would point out he was not wearing a helmet.
Why?

Pedestrian helmets will not save lives any more than cycle helmets do, but the sort injuries from low energy impacts pedestrians suffer could be mitigated by walking helmets.

Time for walking helmets?
 

On 13/06/2019 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2019 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2019 15:43, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2019 12:52, Simon Mason wrote:

Should have had knobbly tyres on his feet as well!

QUOTE:
"Eyewitnesses at the scene last night told Hull Live that the man had
been seen 'skidding' across the wet road and ended up underneath the
vehicle.

Humberside Police was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary where he remains
and no arrests have been made.

A Humberside Police spokeswoman said: "A man is receiving treatment
in hospital for serious head injuries following a road traffic
collision in Hull yesterday evening Wednesday, June 12.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...erious-2973267

Perhaps more importantly, is the matter of why this trained and
tested driver was so slow to apply the brakes. The pedestrian must
have been in th eroad and visible for quite some time, given the
statement of the witness.

Or, as the reported comment (not "statement") has it, the exact opposite:

"...a foreign man who was clearly intoxicated walking along *the*
*path* *to* *Washington* *Street*.".

It seems you didn't read as far as "he looked right and saw nothing
coming and started crossing the road..." ie, he must have crossed halfway.

That's not quite how the reported comments have it, is it?

The words we "...the man had been seen 'skidding' across the wet road
and ended up underneath the vehicle...".

But you know better than the witness (who may, of course, have been
misquoted).

Does "walking along the path to Washington Street" and "skidded across
the road" really suggest slow progress taking "quite some time", or
rather, isn't that just wishful thinking on your part?

Of course, it's easier to just ignore the actual evidence and invent
your own (as you did), eh?

There is a difference between evidence and inference. Do you need
reminding of the link to the scouse translator?

The witness's reported comment is the only evidence you have. Remember,
the witness places the injured man on a pthaway leading to the road, not
on the road itself until the last moment.

Your imaginary "quite some time" doesn't sort with what the witness said
and doesn't even count as inference.

Time for walking helmets?
 

On 14/06/2019 00:31, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2019 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2019 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2019 15:43, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2019 12:52, Simon Mason wrote:

Should have had knobbly tyres on his feet as well!

QUOTE:
"Eyewitnesses at the scene last night told Hull Live that the man had
been seen 'skidding' across the wet road and ended up underneath the
vehicle.

Humberside Police was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary where he remains
and no arrests have been made.

A Humberside Police spokeswoman said: "A man is receiving treatment
in hospital for serious head injuries following a road traffic
collision in Hull yesterday evening Wednesday, June 12.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...erious-2973267

Perhaps more importantly, is the matter of why this trained and
tested driver was so slow to apply the brakes. The pedestrian must
have been in th eroad and visible for quite some time, given the
statement of the witness.

Or, as the reported comment (not "statement") has it, the exact
opposite:

"...a foreign man who was clearly intoxicated walking along *the*
*path* *to* *Washington* *Street*.".

It seems you didn't read as far as "he looked right and saw nothing
coming and started crossing the road..." ie, he must have crossed
halfway.

That's not quite how the reported comments have it, is it?

The words we "...the man had been seen 'skidding' across the wet road
and ended up underneath the vehicle...".

But you know better than the witness (who may, of course, have been
misquoted).

Does "walking along the path to Washington Street" and "skidded across
the road" really suggest slow progress taking "quite some time", or
rather, isn't that just wishful thinking on your part?

Of course, it's easier to just ignore the actual evidence and invent
your own (as you did), eh?

There is a difference between evidence and inference. Do you need
reminding of the link to the scouse translator?

The witness's reported comment is the only evidence you have. Remember,
the witness places the injured man on a pthaway leading to the road, not
on the road itself until the last moment.

Bright blow me down wi' a feather.
(http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp)

Your imaginary "quite some time" doesn't sort with what the witness said
and doesn't even count as inference.

Try reading my original sentence again and try to find the phrase "must
have been". Then replace the phrase with the word 'was' and see if it
changes the meaning of the sentence. Ask your mummy if you can't work it
out.

Oh, and how long is "quite some time"? If you want 10 minutes, I agree
it probably wouldn't qualify.

Time for walking helmets?
 

On 14/06/2019 09:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2019 00:31, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2019 17:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2019 17:08, JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2019 15:43, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/06/2019 12:52, Simon Mason wrote:

Should have had knobbly tyres on his feet as well!

QUOTE:
"Eyewitnesses at the scene last night told Hull Live that the man had
been seen 'skidding' across the wet road and ended up underneath the
vehicle.

Humberside Police was taken to Hull Royal Infirmary where he remains
and no arrests have been made.

A Humberside Police spokeswoman said: "A man is receiving treatment
in hospital for serious head injuries following a road traffic
collision in Hull yesterday evening Wednesday, June 12.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...erious-2973267

Perhaps more importantly, is the matter of why this trained and
tested driver was so slow to apply the brakes. The pedestrian must
have been in th eroad and visible for quite some time, given the
statement of the witness.

Or, as the reported comment (not "statement") has it, the exact
opposite:

"...a foreign man who was clearly intoxicated walking along *the*
*path* *to* *Washington* *Street*.".

It seems you didn't read as far as "he looked right and saw nothing
coming and started crossing the road..." ie, he must have crossed
halfway.

That's not quite how the reported comments have it, is it?

The words we "...the man had been seen 'skidding' across the wet
road and ended up underneath the vehicle...".

But you know better than the witness (who may, of course, have been
misquoted).

Does "walking along the path to Washington Street" and "skidded across
the road" really suggest slow progress taking "quite some time", or
rather, isn't that just wishful thinking on your part?

Of course, it's easier to just ignore the actual evidence and invent
your own (as you did), eh?

There is a difference between evidence and inference. Do you need
reminding of the link to the scouse translator?

The witness's reported comment is the only evidence you have.
Remember, the witness places the injured man on a pthaway leading to
the road, not on the road itself until the last moment.

Bright blow me down wi' a feather.
(http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp)

Your imaginary "quite some time" doesn't sort with what the witness
said and doesn't even count as inference.

Try reading my original sentence again and try to find the phrase "must
have been". Then replace the phrase with the word 'was' and see if it
changes the meaning of the sentence. Ask your mummy if you can't work it
out.

The witness places the injured man on a pathway leading to the road, not
on the road itself until the last moment.

Oh, and how long is "quite some time"? If you want 10 minutes, I agree
it probably wouldn't qualify.

"Skidding across" a road doesn't sound slow. It cannot have been more
than a second or so (ask yourself whether even you could "skid" slowly).
Do *you* always stop when you see a pedestrian emerge from an alleyway
across the road onto the opposite footway, just in case he suddenly
skids across the road under your wheels?

But as we know, it's easier to just ignore the only possible meaning of
such evidence as is available and invent your own (as you did).