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.