It's news coverage and police 'comments' like this that boil my p*ss

[winjim]

Headlights are not legally required in a built up area.

 

[MontyVeda]

@User76 you keep saying 'in the dark'... don't headlights brighten things up a bit? you know, making them less dark and more visible?

 

[MontyVeda]

I'd say you're putting forward an alternate reality rather than a viewpoint.

 

[Dan B]

Headlights are not legally required in a built up area.

Street lights are

 

[winjim]

Street lights are

Indeed. So it shouldn't have been "dark".

 

[mickle]

It's simply not possible to confuse hitting or running someone over with your car with not hitting or running over someone with your car. And it's also not possible to confuse a body in the road with a speed bump. Unless you're pished.

I'm with the OP. With the only evidence available to them being a dead body how is it possible to conclude that the driver 'may not have seen' the victim. Unless... this is a ploy to make the perp turn themself in..

 

[Mr Celine]

Comiston Road does not have speed bumps. The photo in the BBC report appears to be of the section of the road that has a 40mph speed limit, so headlights would be required, even though it is well lit by street lights.

 

[winjim]

Comiston Road does not have speed bumps. The photo in the BBC report appears to be of the section of the road that has a 40mph speed limit, so headlights would be required, even though it is well lit by street lights.

Headlights are not required on any road with lit street lighting.
Rule 113
You MUST

• ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
• use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified
• use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226).

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 3948095, member: 76"]Putting an alternative viewpoint. Having a different view is not making excuses, it's having a different view.[/QUOTE]
Hmmm. I look forward to your refreshing new take on conning old people out of their life savings.

 

[rich p]

Hmmm. I look forward to your refreshing new take on conning old people out of their life savings.

Leave me out of this.

 

[snorri]

[QUOTE 3948105, member: 76"] the suggestion is that they drove over them.[/QUOTE]
I don't see any such suggestion in the report quoted in the OP.

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 3948293, member: 76"]I always enjoy your relevant insights into something that isn't actually being discussed.[/QUOTE]
You're quite right - let's go back to discussing your utterly ludicrous assertion that one can drive over a human being without noticing.

 

[User482]

You're quite right - let's go back to discussing your utterly ludicrous assertion that one can drive over a human being without noticing.

The sun was low in the sky, m'lud.

 

[TVC]

The sun was low in the sky, m'lud.

Funny, that's what the woman who hit me said.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Tends not to be that sunny at 20:10 in October in Edinburgh tho. Maybe we should keep the undeniable red herrings from sidelining the other speculation

Even if the light was such that differentiating a generally road wide, 6 odd foot long very definite and regular up/down sensation (or 4 odd foot square & one of a simultaneously sited pair) invariably painted pillow of physically anchored and immovable tarmaced road surface from a human being with nothing like any of those dimensions or physical profile. The chances of the human being, if run fully over, not moving in the slightest and not bumping & banging on the bottom of the vehicle are less than the new odds of winning a lotto jackpot, if they'd been struck a glancing blow then any hint of suggestion of possibility of vague similarity to the sensation of driving over a speed bump is null and void.