Probably not relevant to conditions at 10pm on Monday, when it was between 70F and 57F (the range for 6pm Monday to 12am Tuesday.)
> Pavement would almost certainly be warmer than that.
Sure, when it was 92F the pavement would probably be 140+F.
> How's a thermal camera supposed to detect 98F on a background that is proably +/- 5 degrees of that?
At night, the pavement would be much cooler than a human; at the high temperature you report, it would probably be much hotter; there's a place in between where the problem you have would be occur, sure, but it's neither at the high nor, more to the point, in the conditions when the accident occurred.
See comment above. We routinely walk around (and avoid objects) even though the entire field is uniformly bathed in the light of a single light source.
Probably not relevant to conditions at 10pm on Monday, when it was between 70F and 57F (the range for 6pm Monday to 12am Tuesday.)
> Pavement would almost certainly be warmer than that.
Sure, when it was 92F the pavement would probably be 140+F.
> How's a thermal camera supposed to detect 98F on a background that is proably +/- 5 degrees of that?
At night, the pavement would be much cooler than a human; at the high temperature you report, it would probably be much hotter; there's a place in between where the problem you have would be occur, sure, but it's neither at the high nor, more to the point, in the conditions when the accident occurred.