|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Time for walking helmets?
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. 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? 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. 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 would likely react but the outcome would be very dependant on skill - some would stop in time, some would carry on for 50 yards. 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. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Time for walking helmets?
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Time for walking helmets?
On 14/06/2019 16:55, JNugent wrote:
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. Ah, he managed to put himself into this "skid" from a low initial velocity. Perhaps you could give us a link to a video of you demonstrating such a trick. 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? You're right that nobody knows accurately. So this makes it forbidden to suggest, from the available information and experience as a road user, that the person *must have been* visible to the driver for some time? 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. See above. Besides, the less running there is, the longer it would take to get halfway across the road. 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. What? I am making up the idea that outcomes are related to driver skill? 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. Don't wet your pants. Whatever is written in a newsgroup will have no effect on the official verdict. We know what it will be; the usual "there was nothing the driver could do". Even for the 50 yarder; the law rarely seems to take competence into account. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Time for walking helmets?
On 14/06/2019 20:09, TMS320 wrote:
Don't wet your pants. Whatever is written in a newsgroup will have no effect on the official verdict. We know what it will be; the usual "there was nothing the driver could do"... ....unless it's a person on a bike... https://road.cc/content/news/262258-...6-months-video The very familiar situation of a ped stepping out without looking, aiming the bike in the space that is about to be vacated but the ped suddenly notices and stops. If he had been convicted of failing to stop, trying to pervert the course of justice or being an (apparently) unpleasant person then fair enough. It wasn't. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pedestrians need more hi-vis and walking helmets | [email protected] | UK | 28 | May 9th 18 09:23 AM |
A clear need for walking helmets | Alycidon | UK | 15 | November 4th 15 02:32 PM |
Walking helmets | Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] | UK | 17 | August 10th 09 12:03 PM |
Walking Helmets Anyone? | iarocu | UK | 0 | May 18th 08 09:11 PM |
Walking Helmets (obviously mildly OT) | Mark T[_2_] | UK | 0 | April 6th 08 04:40 PM |