Soldato
How would the train driver of a high speed passenger train sneak up on 3 men?
If the three men were wearing significant ear protection and the driver did not sound the horn in a timely manner? One example for you.
How would the train driver of a high speed passenger train sneak up on 3 men?
If the three men were wearing significant ear protection and the driver did not sound the horn in a timely manner? One example for you.
How would the train driver of a high speed passenger train sneak up on 3 men?
Presumably the driver would get out of the train first, perhaps jump out of a hedge?
It wouldn't make a difference. That's why you have a spotter.
The quote is, literally: “may not have heard the train”. Yes, the article goes on about the persons wearing ear defenders, but the headline is poorly written (and therefore amusing) because quite obviously, either (a) they didn’t hear the train that they were hit by it, or (b) they heard it and were hit anyway because they couldn’t do anything about it. Either way, the headline it utterly, utterly redundant / meaningless in isolation.A direct qoute implying that not hearing the train was the main cause of the accident, as opposed to the workers being incapacitated, or negligent, or the train driver acting inappropriately for instance. Do people really need the subtext spelling out for them? Learn to read between the lines.
The quote is, literally: “may not have heard the train”. Yes, the article goes on about the persons wearing ear defenders, but the headline is poorly written (and therefore amusing) because quite obviously, either (a) they didn’t hear the train that they were hit by it, or (b) they heard it and were hit anyway because they couldn’t do anything about it. Either way, the headline it utterly, utterly redundant / meaningless in isolation.
”Railworkers may not have heard train due to ear defenders” - that’ll do.They were reporting on a police statement, the bulk of which was the fact that the main cause of the accident was not hearing the train, as opposed to for instance being trapped or negligent. What should they have led with?
I somewhat get the argument around the use of the word may but this is pretty standard practice for ongoing investigations.
If her sentiment was particularly stupid or obvious, people wouldn't moan constantly about deaths on the road or rail networks causing delays.It's...mind blowing tbh! You're right in that that may well be an even worse statement.
”Railworkers may not have heard train due to ear defenders” - that’ll do.
I think we had better all go to be bed tbh, surely better things for us to be ‘debating’. The headline made me ‘lol’, ‘twas allSeems a bit pedantic to me, the headline is designed to draw you in, the extra info about the ear defenders was in the main article. Each to their own I guess.
I should probably have quoted dis86 in my original post, I'm not arguing that the headline isn't amusing, it's just not moronic, personal preference aside it does the job perfectly well.
I think we had better all go to be bed tbh, surely better things for us to be ‘debating’. The headline made me ‘lol’, ‘twas all
”Railworkers may not have heard train due to ear defenders” - that’ll do.
In which case, the "lookout" is going to be totally "destroyed" by what happened on his watch.Because they were probably packing sleepers with power tools, a touch lookout is required when doing so probably the other guy who was the lookout.
Upon hearing the train she was on killed 2 men and injured another.
Killing 2 men is a bit of an experience really, also wasn't aware trains turning over was a likely outcome!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48854010
Can we throw this Auriel under a train please and maybe spare a railway worker?