On 08/05/2018 20:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/05/18 14:05, JNugent wrote:
On 08/05/2018 08:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/05/18 15:55, JNugent wrote:
On 06/05/2018 23:28, TMS320 wrote:

I expect the pavement was blocked by a load of abandoned vehicles
as in the picture which forced her to walk in the road.

Cowling Brow, Chorley? There is a footway on either side of the
road. But you prefer - for understandable reasons - to believe that
an elderly and vulnerable lady pedestrian was walking down the
middle of the carriageway.

What is a strong *possibility* has already been written. Please try
to read posts in their entirety before reply.

You didn't wrote it as a mere possibility.

How does "I expect" not express a possibity?

You wrote that the cyclist's victim was to blame because she'd been
out on the carriageway,

The general idea is to read and try to comprehend what has been written,
not to regurtitate something that you wish had been written.

just as if no cyclist ever hurtled along the footway, as a confident
account of what you expected to have happened. You adnmitted of no
other possibility than the cyclist being blameless.
What on earth are you wittering on about?

Sensible people are well aware that the liklihood of the cyclist being
blameless and the elderly victim blameworthy (which is what you
believe) to be very low indeed.

That paragraph is essentially correct.

I know it is. You didn't need to tell me that.

However, sensible people are also
well aware that drivers frequently abandon their vehicles in a way that
blocks the pavement.

I don't know about "frequently" (that just sounds like more of your
sociopathic hyperbole), but even so, so what?

There isn't the slightest evidence to suggest that the elderly victim of
the cyclist was walking in the middle of the road or that she had any
reason to do so.

But everyone knows that cyclists (well, many of them, and that probably
means most) regard themselves as entitled to hurtle along footways.