On 14/06/2019 13:23, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/06/2019 10:50, JNugent wrote:
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).

Skidding is irrelevant.

I can see that you wish it were irrelevant. If it were, that would help you.

The initial conditions were set up by running;
after losing control he could not have gained speed. We have a detailed
account from a bystander that happened to be looking; what about the
person that should have been looking?

There is nothing about running in the reported speech of the witness.

The reported speech is (verbatim): "...a foreign man who was clearly
intoxicated *walking* along *the* *path* to Washington Street".

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?

I have not been trained and tested in such a situation - the panacea
used by many moronists to believe they are better than cyclists. This is
urc so don't be surprised when the tables turn.

No tables have turned. The fact is that no-one here knows anything like
enough about the case to be able to accurately determine how it
happened. But you haven't let your palpable ignorance of the facts and
misunderstanding of the evidence (such as it is) stop you, have you?

The initial conditions were due to running perpendicular (the visual
system is highly attuned to that) to the driver's path. As I said,
"skidding" is irrelevant.

I think most people would pickup upon the running.

They might if there were any evidence of it. But there isn't.

They would likely
react but the outcome would be very dependant on skill - some would stop
in time, some would carry on for 50 yards.

You are making it up as you go along.

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).

Ah well, that's some progress. I have moved on from supplying evidence
to supplying meaning - one you don't like.

You invented your own evidence and attached an imaginary meaning to it.
That has already been shown, above.