I'm an evil person!

[Veritas]

I was just in the local corner shop buying milk, but the nature of my purchase is irrelevant. What is, is the fact I had a box of chocolates and a hardback copy of Pele's autobiography in my bag.

There were two rampant children in the shop, running hither and yon (gotta love Olde Worlde parlance), getting under my size 6's; you can imagine the effect on my blood pressure.

I was getting ready to put my change back in my purse when one of those said children came careering round the corner, smack into the corner of the bag holding said chocs and book.

Now I don't know if it was the sharp corner of the choc box or the book that did it, but said brat was at just the right height for impact. Three second delay while child contemplated whether or not to cry, money in purse, me out the door to the sweet, sweet music of child crying at mild head injury and sibling telling Mummy about "bumping into that lady". How my heart sang the song of malice.

So that, my friends, is why I sometimes buy hardback, rather than waiting for the paperback edition to be published.

Pour me a glass of iced Evilade.

I thank you. :evil:

[SharonDee]

So that, my friends, is why I sometimes buy hardback, rather than waiting for the paperback edition to be published.Bravo! :appl:

[Beth]

I would have helped the kid and given the mom a piece of my mind.

[Veritas]

Clearly, Pele has the ability to confer wondrous headers on small children even when he's in book-form. :giggle:

[Beth]

Sorry, I just don't find humor or congratulations in a kid getting hurt.- especially a little kid.

[Veritas]

I don't think the kid would have been hurt if the parent had taught it (well, her) how to behave in public. Pushing past grown-ups and causing havoc in public isn't acceptable to me, and I think the child got what it deserved. Shame the mother didn't either. You ignore the rules of polite society, you end up getting hurt through your own actions.

[Beth]

I don't think the kid got what it deserved any more than a naughty child deserves to get whacked in the head by a parent.

[Smilin]

I'd have thrown the book at the mother peaches, but that's just my. I'm a heartless bastard when it comes to children misbehaving in public.

I blame the mother, hence I'd have chunked the book at her.

[Veritas]

I take your point, Smilin, but I'm only on chapter seven, and I'm keen to see what happens.

I bet the mother blames me, without thinking of her own parenting 'skills'.

[Smilin]

or better yet a rude comment to her...

M'AAM PLEASE CONTROL YOUR BRAT OF A CHILD would have sufficed.

But that's just me, I never tolerated my children throwing "tantrums" in public. They knew the result of such behavior when we got alone... :muahaha:

[Veritas]

Tried that 'rude comment' before with someone else, Smilin. A kid pushed past me and I said, "The words you are looking for are 'excuse me'."

The mother called me a bitch and I told her if she disciplined her children, I wouldn't have to.

Discipline, to me, of course, never being physical, mostly just a verbal correction. I don't believe in raising my hands to anyone. (Most of the time :evil: )

[Leesifer]

The kid went running into scarlet, it's not like she swung the bag at the kid's head.
(Or did she?) :susp2:

[Veritas]

No I didn't! I value my books (and chocs) far too highly.

But thanks for the idea. ;)

[Smilin]

Tried that 'rude comment' before with someone else, Smilin. A kid pushed past me and I said, "The words you are looking for are 'excuse me'."

The mother called me a bitch and I told her if she disciplined her children, I wouldn't have to.
:chin:
I'd have immediately responded to her comment with an even ruder comment such as....lady if I wanted any lip from you, I'd get it off my zipper... :lecher:

But I'm just a cold, hearted bastard that way! :whup: :giggle:

Discipline, to me, of course, never being physical, mostly just a verbal correction. I don't believe in raising my hands to anyone. (Most of the time :evil: )

I've seldom had to raise my hand to my children. One time in particular was when my daughter threw a canned coke from the back of my truck and struck a passing car (on a dare from her younger brother) She got a whooping on the spot for that stunt. Just the threat of getting a whooping was enough to deter undesired behavior from them.

Rewards and positive re-inforcement is what works. Negative attention and corporal punishment never works, but there is a place for it in my opinion.

[freemonkey]

Hmmmmm.... I think this is clearly a case of Nature vs. Nurture, with scarletpeaches and her hardcover book playing the role of Nature. Because Nurture (mom) may not have been vigilant enough, the child had a minor accident, and hopefully learned a valuable lesson from it.

Had there been blood or unconsciousness, I like to think that scarletpeaches would have stopped to help.

[Beth]

No, she didn't from what I read. But she came in here to brag about what she had done. Fact is, she hurt a kid and didn't bother to see how badly the kid was hurt. It looks like she didn't even check to see if there was blood.

I'm a mean bitch to kids that I find to be rude. I'll jump all over them if they push into me (well, not the little kids, I'll tell them it is impolite). But if I hurt one of them, even if they caused the accident, I would check on the child.

[Veritas]

I would have wiped down my book first.

[Veritas]

No, she didn't from what I read. But she came in here to brag about what she had done. Fact is, she hurt a kid and didn't bother to see how badly the kid was hurt.

I'm a mean bitch to kids that I find to be rude. I'll jump all over them if they push into me (well, not the little kids, I'll tell them it is impolite). But if I hurt one of them, even if they caused the accident, I would check on the child.

The plain fact is, the kid hurt herself through her own actions. Tending to a basically silly, misbehaving child is something for the mother to do.

Hell, it's not like it was deliberate. Am I expected to care about a child who has no social graces, didn't even stop to say excuse me?

[Beth]

No, she didn't from what I read. But she came in here to brag about what she had done. Fact is, she hurt a kid and didn't bother to see how badly the kid was hurt.

I'm a mean bitch to kids that I find to be rude. I'll jump all over them if they push into me (well, not the little kids, I'll tell them it is impolite). But if I hurt one of them, even if they caused the accident, I would check on the child.

The plain fact is, the kid hurt herself through her own actions. Tending to a basically silly, misbehaving child is something for the mother to do.

Hell, it's not like it was deliberate. Am I expected to care about a child who has no social graces, didn't even stop to say excuse me?Yes, you are.

[Smilin]

:popcorn: :catfight:

[Leesifer]

Three second delay while child contemplated whether or not to cry

This sort of implies that the kid wasn't actually hurt, Beth. Just shocked.

[Veritas]

Yes, you are.

Tough, I don't. And that's an end to it.

[SharonDee]

Seeing how badly the kid is hurt--when he's not bleeding all over or turning blue--is the parent's job. S/he should also deliver a stern, "See? That's why you shouldn't be running around like a wild animal!"

[The Jesus Lawyer]

personally, i think it is kinda funny, but i actually don't think you do. you are here to be absolved. if you thought it was so great, why did you refer to evil in your title? why did you defend yourself at all when unchallenged? you should have title the thread- i gave some little pecker a bit of what he deserved!...something like that.

be proud :)

[Veritas]

The 'evil' was kinda ironic, as I expected a tut-tut reaction from some people. Sort of "Yeah, I'm evil, what of it?" Going against the usual image of a woman being maternally-minded and so on...Absolution? Nah. It was a purely accidental happening, no-one at fault. Just...poetic justice, you could say.

Proud? No, just despairing at lack of discipline with so many youngsters these days. If parents won't discipline their children, chance or nature usually will.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

deleted...too over the top :P

[Veritas]

Bah!

[Plant Woman]

I am sure you all was just perfect children when you were younger, never acting up in public.

Sometimes, just sometimes mom is tired, distracted, or just plain not paying attention. I guess if I was in that place, I would have knelt down to the child and made sure they were ok and waited until mom got there to help the child. I guess I don't have a problem when children are running around, I figure they are just being children, without a care in the world, playing and having fun. A little annoyance never hurt anyone.

A lot of times I don't understand the little tolerance people show towards parents and their children. We were all children once, and many of us have raised children, and there isn't a perfect parent in this world. I bet none have had their children behave perfectly all the time. In fact I would worry about a child that behaved perfectly all the time. A little empathy goes a long way, IMO.

[Beth]

I am sure you all was just perfect children when you were younger, never acting up in public.

Sometimes, just sometimes mom is tired, distracted, or just plain not paying attention. I guess if I was in that place, I would have knelt down to the child and made sure they were ok and waited until mom got there to help the child. I guess I don't have a problem when children are running around, I figure they are just being children, without a care in the world, playing and having fun. A little annoyance never hurt anyone.

A lot of times I don't understand the little tolerance people show towards parents and their children. We were all children once, and many of us have raised children, and there isn't a perfect parent in this world. I bet none have had their children behave perfectly all the time. In fact I would worry about a child that behaved perfectly all the time. A little empathy goes a long way, IMO.Thank you.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

well...i was being tongue-in-cheek in my reply.

seems nobody was teaching that kid the golden rule :P

[Leesifer]

Oh no, I wasn't perfect as a child by any means. And if that had happened to me as a child, my Mum would have told me "it served me right". The child obviously wasn't injured, as I said before, just shocked.

I don't believe in hitting children as punishment but I do believe in discipline.

I have also been on the receiving end of parental abuse when asking parents to try and control their child(ren).

[Veritas]

Oh, I know my attitude to children and their parents can be seen as - shall we say, intolerant? But I make no apology for that. It's all very well to say 'kids are kids, they need to run about' but if you let them do that, and reason they're just children, when do you start disciplining them? Teaching them how to behave in public?

You could say to an older kid, not to do something, and they may well reason, "I've been behaving in such a way since I was born, why change now?"

Of course you can teach kids social graces without restricting their personal growth and personality development, but please, restrict your kids' acting up to your own home and garden. When I go to the shops, I don't want to be confronted with someone else's children's misbehaviour.

No, I was far from perfect as a child, but like Leesifer, I would have got a, "You deserved it," and it would have been left at that. It just gets on my tits sometimes, when I see this lazy, indisciplined attitude of parents round my way increasing year on year. I get the impression from many mothers that children are allowed to behave how they please, and it's other adults who need to watch out. As if the child chooses how to live and the parent falls in line. If you see what I mean.

Sorry. Ranting. I'll stop now.

[Smilin]

I am sure you all was just perfect children when you were younger, never acting up in public.

Perfect, no. But I knew better to act the way that peaches described. I would have suffered the consequences for such behavior.

Sometimes, just sometimes mom is tired, distracted, or just plain not paying attention.
Thus, my initial rude remark to Mom. I consider it equally rude to let your children run wild in public places, but that's just me. :yup:

I guess if I was in that place, I would have knelt down to the child and made sure they were ok and waited until mom got there to help the child.

Seeing as there was no blood or unconciousness occured, I'd have assumed that the child was okay.

I guess I don't have a problem when children are running around, I figure they are just being children, without a care in the world, playing and having fun. A little annoyance never hurt anyone.

Indeed! A little annoyance is good for everyone. That is my role here btw, to be the annoyance! :wave: :giggle:

A lot of times I don't understand the little tolerance people show towards parents and their children. We were all children once, and many of us have raised children, and there isn't a perfect parent in this world. I bet none have had their children behave perfectly all the time. In fact I would worry about a child that behaved perfectly all the time.

I don't understand parents who let their children run wild in public. That is the issue, is it not? :doh:

A little empathy goes a long way, IMO.

Indeed. I don't condone cruelty. I'd just have been a smart ass about the whole matter. :wave:

[Leesifer]

I get the impression from many mothers that children are allowed to behave how they please, and it's other adults who need to watch out. As if the child chooses how to live and the parent falls in line. If you see what I mean.
:yup:
Obviously, I can't speak for how is it is the US or Canada or the rest of Europe but that is definitely the case here more often than not.
When I go to the shops, I don't want to be confronted with someone else's children's misbehaviour.
That too! Sorry, but not everybody in this world loves children.

[Veritas]

Nothing against them, Lees. It's the parents I take agin', sometimes. ;)

[Plant Woman]

I can remember when my daughter was about 3, I was a single working mom, I'd been working all day, I picked up my child at the day care and all I wanted to do was go home and go to bed. It was as if my kid picked up on how I was feeling and when we went to the store to grocery shop, she started acting up, she was crying and screaming and I couldn't get her to stop. This woman came up to me and just reemed me out for being a horrible parent, and what a horrible child I had.

It was a hard time for me, no support from family, her father had taken off. I was working my butt off and my child had one of those days. I only tell this because what I needed was some help, at least a little empathy.

Now when I see this happening or children misbehaving, I don't assume this is a horrible parent raising horrible children. I smile remembering some of those times myself, those days of being overwhelmed. Those times when I wasn't the perfect parent. I just know, that I don't know what is going on in a young mother's life. Hell she may be abused by a spouse, she may be someone like I was, overwhelmed. It is why I say a little empathy goes a long ways.

[Leesifer]

I can understand that, Debbie. But in the context of this thread, scarletpeaches has been made out to be laughing at a badly injured child - which is not the case at all.

And we obviously posted at the same time but this:
Sympathies these days seem to be with the parent, with the usual cry of, "You don't understand how hard it is being a mother." That said, she doesn't understand what sort of day I had had, does she?
is so true.

[Veritas]

SOME mothers would have had the kind of day you described, Plant Woman, but not ALL. The increasing of...well, plain old misbehaviour would attest to that. I realise I'm beginning to come over all 'old fart' with my 'in my day kids knew how to take a lickin' attitude, but good grief...it's just rude to have a bad day and allow someone else to suffer for it.

Perhaps that mother should have thought, "Perhaps that other young woman has had a rough day and doesn't want my kids hassling her?" Empathy works both ways, does it not?

Sympathies these days seem to be with the parent, with the usual cry of, "You don't understand how hard it is being a mother." That said, she doesn't understand what sort of day I had had, does she?

[Smilin]

P-dub, I respect (and admire) the position you were in. Learning is an emotional process. Think about it for a moment. Life's lessons are the one's learned through the hardest of times, the most difficult situations. We only LEARN when it is through emotions.

I'm just saying when your child is acting up, remove them from the public's eye, get down on their leve eye-to-eye and inform them that that isn't acceptable behavior. Not saying anything nor acknowledging the situation is sending mixed messages to the child. Not correcting them is in essence saying "it's okay to behave this way"

Sorry about your situation then, I trust time has improved things? :cheerup:

[Clutch Munny]

As far as how kids behave "these days", it's worth mentioning* that we only see moments of behaviour from other people's children in public, while we remember the general gist of our own behaviour from our youth. Moreover, well-behaved children tend to be invisible; we don't notice them at the time, and we don't recall them for perspective when we see the Yahoos running around.

Overall, then, it is quite easy to overestimate how ungoverned children are nowadays, and how much better children were when we were them.



*Mentioning again, that is. I think I said as much on an earlier "The kids these days!" kinda thread.

[Sock Puppet]

Nothing against them, Lees. It's the parents I take agin', sometimes.
That's not what you said a page ago. You were happy that the child got hurt because she "deserved" it. Which is it? Is it the child's fault, or the parent's?

The age of the children is an important factor that's missing from the story, too. No matter what the age, the parent shouldn't have allowed them to run wild, period; however, the child's culpability depends on it, IMO. Toddlers have no damned sense no matter how good the parent is.

[Veritas]

That 'take agin' post was a joke, Sock. But to answer your question, bad behaviour in the child is usually a result of lack of discipline on the part of the parent. If a child comes to grief through their own actions, in my view, that's chance stepping in and providing the discipline the parent did not. If the mother was keeping an eye on her daughter, she would have stood less chance of being hurt.

[BDS]

I don't think kids should ever be allowed to run, lest they run into someone.

[Plant Woman]

There were two rampant children in the shop, running hither and yon (gotta love Olde Worlde parlance), getting under my size 6's; you can imagine the effect on my blood pressure.

This is what I am having trouble with. These children were not running around trying to be under your size 6's, in fact the only thing I can see that was the problem, was that you didn't like them running around. You let this effect your blood pressure. I can't see what bad they were doing in your OP. As long as they weren't knocking things over or harming anyone. The only harm I can see here is you were annoyed (correct me if I am wrong) because they were not acting as a perfect children should. It doesn't appear they were purposely out to annoy you, nor was the parent.

I perhaps I could be empathetic if I could understand more what harm was done to you? I am really hard pressed to see beyond that these children were doing beyond that they were rambuctious. The only harm that happened to anyone was to the child itself.

[Sock Puppet]

I agree with your last post, peaches, but I don't understand what's so great about the child being hurt. Are you a believer in corporal punishment? Because that's what "chance" provided. Better discipline of the sensible sort might've prevented the injury. The parent fucked up, the child paid the price. Now, if the child had knocked over something that smacked the inattentive parent in the head, that would've been funny, and fitting.

And again, I don't know the age of the child in question. I have a child who's a toddler now, and I am much more realistic now about the amount of "control" one can exercise over them than I used to be.

[Veritas]

I have to go home soon, so I'll make this post quick.

PW, my original post was intended to be humourous and yes, I understand many people don't 'get' my humour, or just plain don't like it.

No, I would never wish harm on another person. No I'm not a mother, so no, I don't *know* what it's like to have to raise kids. That doesn't mean I hate kids, just that I've never felt maternal urges myself.

That said, this seems to have developed into a can o' worms thread which was not my intention. To cut a long story short, I don't like other people's kids running around and pushing in front of me - I mean, a kid, pushing an adult? Completely unacceptable. A simple 'excuse me' would suffice. Hell, anyone pushing anyone is unacceptable.

We don't know what sort of day another person has had, that's true, but as I've said before, empathy should go both ways. Mothers don't have the monopoly on sympathy and they are not, by virtue of having given birth, deserving of being excepted from normal societal rules.

It is possible to have young children who don't run around shops and push other people out of the way - if they are taught right from wrong. There is no age limit on good manners.

Phew. I really must go now. Bye for now, all - but please note, no offence was intended when I started this thread, it was merely humour that was misconstrued.

[ms_ann_thrope]

...the sweet, sweet music of child crying at mild head injury and sibling telling Mummy about "bumping into that lady". How my heart sang the song of malice.I can't help myself, but I am secretly gleeful if out in public and:
1. A kid is assing around in such a way that a certain sort of injury is both foreseeable and reasonably likely;
2. The kid is told (usually more than once) to stop assing around;
3. The kid does not stop assing around; and
4. The kid gets hurt as a result of the assing around *and* in the manner predicted.
:nelson:
Pour me a glass of iced Evilade.:cincin:

[The Jesus Lawyer]

no offence taken...you sure got people talking! :D


michael :)

[Plant Woman]

Sorry about your situation then, I trust time has improved things?

Well it wasn't always a situation, I only told this so that maybe seeing there are some that may be having difficult times and why empathy should be called for. There were times when it was tough for me. I managed through it. But there were times when I was overwhelmed and wasn't the perfect parent, and my child was not a perfect child and sometimes I did not always cope correctly. I believe it is why I can hear a child throwing a temper tantrum or being rambuctious that I can understand that children are not perfect, and I don't see a rambuctious child as an annoyance. I don't let it bother me, AND in my opinion sometimes we need to lighten up about them. Sometimes the problem is just the person's attitude.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

oh and i laughed at your story too, even though it might not have been the kindest thing to do. but hey- when in rome :P


michael :)

[Smilin]

I have to go home soon, so I'll make this post quick.

PW, my original post was intended to be humourous and yes, I understand many people don't 'get' my humour, or just plain don't like it.

You mean that scarletpeaches is a child-beatin' beeatch???? :popcorn: :whup: :wave: :giggle:

[Veritas]

...Sometimes the problem is just the person's attitude.

Or the parent's.

[Leesifer]

I haven't read the last few posts but have been pondering on my "not everybody loves kids" statement. It was off the cuff and I apologise.

[Sock Puppet]

It is possible to have young children who don't run around shops and push other people out of the way - if they are taught right from wrong. There is no age limit on good manners.
There is no age limit on teaching good manners. There is, however, a minimum age at which the lesson takes. Most small children need constant repetition before they will remember their manners all the time, which is why I kept asking how old this child was. My 3-year-old generally knows to say please and thank you, but she certainly isn't always going to remember to watch where the hell she's going. And toddlers are self-centered creatures, no matter what. Empathy, such as caring how the grumpy woman in the store feels about getting trodden on, is pretty much beyond most 3-year-olds.

[Veritas]

Grumpy? Not before I was trod on, no. Bad manners are what brought on the grump.

Anyway, really must dash now. :wave:

[Beth]

Debbie, I understand completely. I was married and at home with the kids, but my husband was rarely ever home, and when he was, he argued with my discipline continually, nullifying most of what I did. Even now, I demand that my kids behave (like not run around or plow into people or bounce balls in stores), but it is a constant fight because the kids either have friends whose parents allow more lattitude to their kids, or my husband acts like I'm just a anal retentive bitch. That rubs off on my kids. And if I were a single parent, I'd be working so hard that I wouldn't even be there to discipline my kids and they likely would not have either parent at all.

My kids are usually well behaved, but when they aren't, they are disciplined, even though the discipline is met with much resistance. But I remember the days when my father-in-law would put me down like I was the lowest scum on the earth because my kids could not sit through a church service or if they acted cranky after being at his home for a very tense several hours. I remember my SIL would make comments on what a shit mom I was and how much better a parent she will be. Her kid is even worse than my kids were. Other people would sometimes make comments to me about how I was raising my kids wrong.

I just know that ever since my son was young, I have never truly felt like I was doing my job, and still feel like a failure and get very depressed over it at times. I know that if I had made certain choices at certain times in my life, things would probably be much different now. I have been to many parenting courses, but never found the niche that truly works. On top of this, my kids are very hyperactive and have been a handful since they were crawling.

I remember all of the times that my daughter would pitch a fit because I would not let her run around free and all of the comments I would get about being mean to my daughter because I would not let her run next to traffic. Considerring the fact that I was not being abusive and that I was keeping her safe and not yeilding to her demands, I found it very difficult to refrain from commenting to them.

[BDS]

When I'm in the store (or practically anywhere else), I enjoy seeing children running around and having a good time. Of course they can overdo it. In general though, a little rambunctiousness on the part of children is worth the (very minor) risk, because I like to see kids having fun and being active.

I also like to see kids who are well mannered, and say, "Excuse me" if they do happen to bump into someone. But I don't think parents should be required to repress all the rambunctiousness out of their children. How much damage is a small child likely to do?

[Sock Puppet]

Grumpy? Not before I was trod on, no. Bad manners are what brought on the grump.

Anyway, really must dash now. :wave:
I'm beginning to think you won't answer my question because this child was extremely young, and you don't want to admit that you were enjoying seeing a tiny child get hurt.

But then I'm in a really shitty mood today, so if I'm just overreaching in assigning bad motives to others, that's why.

[Veritas]

...I was not being abusive and that I was keeping her safe and not yeilding to her demands...

So you'd discipline your child to stop her getting into trouble or harm, then? The very point I have been making.

I'm beginning to think you won't answer my question because this child was extremely young, and you don't want to admit that you were enjoying seeing a tiny child get hurt.

But then I'm in a really shitty mood today, so if I'm just overreaching in assigning bad motives to others, that's why.

Had to sign back in to answer this before I really, really, must go. I didn't realise the child's age was so essential to the thread, but she looked about, I dunno (I'm no expert)...primary school age?

Far from tiny. I sincerely regret starting this thread now and wish it could be deleted. Something that started as a brief complaint about lack of discipline in a child has turned me into some child-hating bitch who takes delight in seeing tiny children get hurt in public.

Good grief. Seeing as I have a life outside the internet, I hope to be able to forget this whole incident once I get outside.

[Plant Woman]

I don't see you that way SP. However, I think you may not understand much about children, I don't think you are an ogre, I just hope you will try to smile someday at a child running around instead of letting it annoy you. And realize that a child bumping into you is really nothing more than a minor annoyance and changing your attitude might make be around children a more pleasant experience. Or you can continue to let them bring your blood pressure up. My point here is that this is more about you than it is about children misbehaving, and that is something you can change, if you want, that is.

[Plant Woman]

I remember all of the times that my daughter would pitch a fit because I would not let her run around free and all of the comments I would get about being mean to my daughter because I would not let her run next to traffic. Considerring the fact that I was not being abusive and that I was keeping her safe and not yeilding to her demands, I found it very difficult to refrain from commenting to them.

Beth, I am hearing you. Being a parent is a difficult job as those of us, who raise them or finished with the job, know. Dang kids, they don't come with a set of instructions and we don't grow the extra arms we really need to keep up with a 2-3 year old. There are always those that think you are a crappy parent. Sheesh, my mother used to get on my about not discipling enough; when she saw me discipling my child, such as giving her quiet time, I was too harsh on her.

Anyway we do what we think is best for our children, teaching, guiding them to become good adults. It's one of the most important jobs in the world and is the most unrespected jobs and often the most criticized. I think those that criticize parents and children should have to spend a week as a parent and let them understand what it is like to walk in those shoes. It might teach them a bit of tolerance, then again it might not.

Keep on keeping on Beth!

[Dingfod]

I have children of my own. They most definitely were not the best behaved in public at times, particularly Roxy when she was under 6. It bothered and embarrassed me at the time. I don't know how many times we left events early or cut our shopping trips short in order to remove them. Despite feeling for the parents in those situations, I still get irritated when I see kids running around out of control. I just grit my teeth because I know admonishing the children will result in an defensive angry parent and saying something to the parent about controlling their children, the same or worse. The annoyance factor is driven primarily by the frustration factor; you know it's wrong but there's nothing you can do about it, not really.

[Leesifer]

I just hope you will try to smile someday at a child running around instead of letting it annoy you. And realize that a child bumping into you is really nothing more than a minor annoyance and changing your attitude might make be around children a more pleasant experience.

Oh dear! Please don't take this as a falling out.

Debbie, I've had plenty of smiles with and at children running about, having fun and being rumbunctious. Hell, I've even joined in myself. I don't take any credit but I have also helped to raise two children myself, through marriage - not my own children but I had a part in their upbringing.

There is a time and a place - shopping, unfortunately, isn't one of them. I know, I know, you can't tell when a child is going to act up but what you can do is at least try and stop them or take them out of the shop before it gets to the stage where they run into somebody else's bag.

[Plant Woman]

I don't take this as a falling out. I hope I am bigger than that! Well at least 4'11". Remember I am bigger than you! :giggles:

[Leesifer]

:shakefist: at that half inch.

[Smilin]

Wow, and look at the following peaches has inspired!

[Sock Puppet]

Had to sign back in to answer this before I really, really, must go. I didn't realise the child's age was so essential to the thread, but she looked about, I dunno (I'm no expert)...primary school age?

Far from tiny. I sincerely regret starting this thread now and wish it could be deleted. Something that started as a brief complaint about lack of discipline in a child has turned me into some child-hating bitch who takes delight in seeing tiny children get hurt in public.
Fair enough. You sounded like you were being deliberately evasive of my questions, which is why I reacted the way I did. I don't think you're a child-hating bitch. I do think you make some unwarranted assumptions about both parents and children. That's all.

Mind you, I'm not dithering around screeching, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" I do like kids, but I think we ought to be thinking of the parents. Sure, nobody should allow their kids to run around like wild gazelles in a shop. But shit happens. As Dingfod mentioned, you can be an entirely attentive parent and still have your kids embarrass the hell out of you by misbehaving at just the wrong time. Parenting is extraordinarily difficult, and strangers always seem to catch both the kid and the parent at the worst fucking time. And we always seem to get stuck between two extremes of ridiculous assumptions: 1) that children can be controlled at all times, and any parent who fails at this at any given time is a crap parent, and 2) that children are precious little angels that couldn't possibly need that "harsh" treatment (i.e., any form of discipline whatsoever) you just gave them.

No worries, peaches. As I said, I'm in a colossally shitty mood today.

[Smilin]

No worries, peaches. As I said, I'm in a colossally shitty mood today.

The heat does have that effect on people. Why I didn't go out for lunch today, else I'd be a shitty bastard myself. :giggle: :wave:

[pescifish]

And realize that a child bumping into you is really nothing more than a minor annoyance and changing your attitude might make be around children a more pleasant experience.Sure, an attitude adjustment makes any experience (torture, for example) more pleasant, but I personally think some experiences shouldn't have to be tolerated.

I have difficulty enough navigating around the close aisles of shops and have a hard enough time keeping from knocking into things myself to have to be all grins and giggles just because some kid is using a public place to expend some energy. For me, it would be more than a minor annoyance. What if that kid had slammed into a person who was handicapped and already unstable on his/her feet? Why the hell should I have to adjust my attitude to be joyful over the exurberance of youth while getting slammed into by some kid?

I should not have to be happy or peaceful when some kid runs into me in a shop. And I'm not going to be happy in any shape, form or fashion if either one of us gets injured in the process of some collision. I'll deal with it and move on, 'cuz yeah shit happens and kids will be kids and all that.

But don't tell me how I should feel about the event, thank you.

[maddog]

When I'm in the store (or practically anywhere else), I enjoy seeing children running around and having a good time. ... Outdoors, yes. In a shop, no. IMO.
#856

[Plant Woman]

Pesci, I'm sorry you took what I said as telling YOU how to feel. It is only a suggestion, and many times we can make things more pleasant for ourselves by changing our own attitudes.

We aren't talking about a child hurting someone that is handicapped, the OP was about a couple of children being rambuctious in a store and the only one that was hurt was the child. I can personally testify that I have never been hurt by a child running into me.

[Leesifer]

And realize that a child bumping into you is really nothing more than a minor annoyance and changing your attitude might make be around children a more pleasant experience.

See, really, this is one of the comments that does get my goat, Debbie.

Why should me changing my attitude when I'm out grocery shopping make being around children more pleasant.

Bar two of us, all my girlfriends have at least 2 children each and I've been told I'm one of their favourite "aunties" because I will play games, etc, when I see them.

[Beth]

I can personally testify that I have never been hurt by a child running into me.I have. I've also been knocked out by a kid throwing a plastic bottle of drink into the bleachers, when the kid was aiming for another kid next to me. I have had the wind knocked out of me by getting slammed into by a kid playing ball in an area where he should not have been playing. I've had little kids ram my ankles in the stores with carts, causing bleeding. Except for the little kids with the carts (because the moms each were apologetic and I truly know that the kids had not meant to hurt me) I've laid into the kids and when the parents confronted me, I've laid into them simply because they were justifying their children's negligent behaviors. I'm very nice and will try to protect anyone's child with my own life, if needed, but I do get pissed off at this type of thing. This said, I don't just talk bad to a parent whose children are acting up.

[BDS]

I agree, Plant Woman. It’s a matter of risk vs. reward, or freedom vs. rules. Children get bored in stores. Parents must take them to stores, or they (and the parents) will starve. So the question is: what are reasonable rules limiting how children should behave, and what should be done if children exceed these limits?

My own tastes tend toward allowing rambunction (I like that word!). I understand, however, that I may be more tolerant than others. So parents should try (and sometimes fail) to make their kids behave within the standards of decency accepted in the community. Occasionally pushing one’s little brother down an empty aisle in a shopping cart at a rapid pace (while the brother makes “vroom, vroom” noises) seems OK to me, but if the aisle is crowded, it’s perfectly fair for a non-related to say, “Whoa! Runaway shopping cart in a crowded aisle! Careful, you two!” Parents who take offense are overstepping THEIR bounds.

[Beth]

And realize that a child bumping into you is really nothing more than a minor annoyance and changing your attitude might make be around children a more pleasant experience.

See, really, this is one of the comments that does get my goat, Debbie.

Why should me changing my attitude when I'm out grocery shopping make being around children more pleasant.

Bar two of us, all my girlfriends have at least 2 children each and I've been told I'm one of their favourite "aunties" because I will play games, etc, when I see them.
I got the feeling that she was talking about the seemingly callous attitude about a child getting hurt from running into you and feeling a sense of malicious satifaction for it.

[Stormlight]

Sure, an attitude adjustment makes any experience (torture, for example) more pleasant, but I personally think some experiences shouldn't have to be tolerated.

I have difficulty enough navigating around the close aisles of shops and have a hard enough time keeping from knocking into things myself to have to be all grins and giggles just because some kid is using a public place to expend some energy. For me, it would be more than a minor annoyance. What if that kid had slammed into a person who was handicapped and already unstable on his/her feet? Why the hell should I have to adjust my attitude to be joyful over the exurberance of youth while getting slammed into by some kid?

I should not have to be happy or peaceful when some kid runs into me in a shop. And I'm not going to be happy in any shape, form or fashion if either one of us gets injured in the process of some collision. I'll deal with it and move on, 'cuz yeah shit happens and kids will be kids and all that.

But don't tell me how I should feel about the event, thank you.

Hear, hear. It's the whole "the world is my babysitter" attitude that's getting old really fast.

And don't get me wrong: I have no problem with children being loud and running around. But a shop isn't a place for that. And (even worse) a restaurant isn't one either.

[Plant Woman]

I'm not sure why this gets your goat?

Let me see if I can put this in another perspective.

Someone makes a mistake while driving, I could get all upset that this person did something wrong, or I can smile to myself and realize the person made a mistake, heaven knows I make mistakes myself and move on.

I feel that in some situations this is something I do for myself that makes my life more pleasant, and that perhaps it helps me keep perspective that not everything or everyone is perfect. We all have our bad days. As I explained in my other posts that we don't always know whats going on with the parent. None of us are perfect, hell I have made so many mistakes in my life and others have shown me a lot of grace instead of being critical. Those people have helped me immensely.

Changing my attitude helps me in my life.

I am having a hard time understanding why this is offensive to some? If I am sounding preachy, or critical of you, I apologize, that is not my intent, although maybe it is coming across that way?

[Leesifer]

Perhaps, a small analogy story may help. Don't know if it will but, I'll try anyway.

A few years ago, my sister-in-law got herself a spaniel puppy. He was and still is the most custest, loving dog. However, the first time she brought him round here, he dug up my rosemary plant, which I had just planted the year before.

We had various family members round that day and didn't they all say "isn't that just the funniest thing, the puppy digging up the plants". Well, actually, no! It wasnt

I shouted at him, and got shouted down by everybody because it was a cute widdle puppy. I find, fairly often, that parents are the same with their children.

I know it's only a little thing but these same little things can annoy people who choose not to be parents. Why should we have to put up with a small child "letting off steam" when we're doing our weekly shop. We do have to shop too!

[Leesifer]

I got the feeling that she was talking about the seemingly callous attitude about a child getting hurt from running into you and feeling a sense of malicious satifaction for it.

Beth, if you read the OP as I read it, these kids were charging about the shop with no supervision at all. Obviously getting on scarletpeaches nerves and, quite probably anyone else who was in the shop. However, she didn't say or do anything about it. She didn't shout at them or threaten them. One of the children ran into her bag while she was paying.

[Beth]

Yes, and then after knowing that the kid got hurt, she simply walked out without checking the to see if the child was hurt. But while she did this, her "heart sang the song of malice." To me, that seems pretty callous. So, I got the impression that Debbie might have been just as shocked at that attitude as I was. Not just the attitude, but the bragging about it.

I know that SP has replied since, but I reacted to her initial posts and I felt that Debbie probably had, as well.

[Leesifer]

Perhaps it's the British sense of humour then, Beth. Not for one minute did I think that scarlet would walk out on an injured child.

Take it into perspective, the child was running amok in the store, accidentally ran into sp's bag, then took a few seconds to decide whether to cry or not. Which, lets face it, we've all seen children do!

It's not like she was saying hah! this kid was charging about and luckily I had a concrete block in my bag so she/he ran into that and knocked themselves out.

[BDS]

I thought it was obvious that the kid wasn't badly hurt, too. The kid hurt himself slightly-- like he probably does ten times a day.

[Beth]

Right, but as a parent, I know that sometimes these seemingly not so serious injuries can be serious. Especially hits to the head. When my daughter broke her leg as a toddler, she did not start crying immediately, she was in too shock from the pain that it took seconds before she started wailing. Even then, she was up and trying to walk, while crying. I guess I just think too much as a mother, or something because I could never just assume that a child is ok without checking to make sure everything is fine for myself.

[freemonkey]

Perhaps it's the British sense of humour then, Beth. Not for one minute did I think that scarlet would walk out on an injured child.

Take it into perspective, the child was running amok in the store, accidentally ran into sp's bag, then took a few seconds to decide whether to cry or not. Which, lets face it, we've all seen children do!
And many times, its more because they are shocked rather than hurt.

I understand that parents can have moments when they are overwhelmed. Last time I was on a plane, a young mom with a 1-2 year old was seated next to me. The whole flight that kid kicked and wailed. The mom felt awful about it and was mortified, especially because of the looks she got from other passengers. But the poor kid was uncomfortable and didn't understand why. Its not like they could leave. Luckily some people helped to amuse and quiet him down.

But, shops, restaurant, movie theatres, etc. are no places for children to be running amok. The child that ran into scarletpeaches was lucky she didn't run into the corner edge of a display unit or something. Or slip and crack open her skull.

The owners of those places are responsible if someone gets hurt, aren't they? I always wonder where they are when this stuff goes on.

[Leesifer]

And many times, its more because they are shocked rather than hurt.

I totally agree, freemonkey. I think I'd even said that above.

[pescifish]

We aren't talking about a child hurting someone that is handicapped,If the kid had no sense of his/her physical presence in relationship to others, in what universe do you imagine that the kid is going to be more careful around a handicapped person?!
I can personally testify that I have never been hurt by a child running into me.How fortunate for you, then.

[Beth]

So you'd discipline your child to stop her getting into trouble or harm, then? The very point I have been making.Yes, I do. I understand this, but as Lees pointed out, I must not have gotten your humor. I never said that parents should not discipline their children, but I do agree people are too harsh on parents and children, at times.

I have always tried to keep the kids in line, not only for their own protection, but also for the protection of the elderly men and women and other smaller kids. Sometimes I still have to point out to my children that they must be more careful when walking around older people and little babies because they can get hurt so easily, especially an older person who breaks a bone. But then, I also stand where I am if I spill any water or drink in a store while shopping, either send my kids for a stockboy or to get paper towels. This because my mother taught me when I was young that people could get serious injuries from spills on slick floors.

[godfry n. glad]

Primary school? Here, that would be ages 5-11. Children that age should be shop-broken. They may be suffered to be a bit loud, but attentive to whatever en loco parentis there may be, and respond quickly and thoroughly to directives. :whip: Ages 3-5 is what I generally see in terms of shopping disasters, it's the ankle biters. Not the yard apes.

I'm of strong inclination that small children and cellphones should be expected to be quiet and behaved in certain situations. Those situations are those where the child/cellphone might annoy others. If there is an inability to control by the responsible, then they and the source of irritation should be removed, preferrably at the initiation of the responsible. Barring removal there will usually result either intercession by the unrelated and/or natural consequences. The latter is what scarletpeaches partook within her tale.

I can strongly sympathize with Dingfod's position. Being childfree and confrontational, I'm not adverse to imposing myself in these circumstances. It never results with an agreeable outcome. Unless, of course, when there are no responsible parental units present, like when I intervened with the two young teens and their laser pointer at the movies. :whup:

[pescifish]

Changing my attitude helps me in my life.

I am having a hard time understanding why this is offensive to some? If I am sounding preachy, or critical of you, I apologize, that is not my intent, although maybe it is coming across that way?Sure, changing ones attitude is always a good thing, Plant Woman. It's how plenty of people manage to live through horrible life situations that cannot be corrected.

My tolerance for kids' behavior is quite fine, thank you very much, in those many many situations where things are set up for them to run amok. Even in public amusement parks and family oriented entertainment events, I'm quite tolerant. When I'm already uncomfortable maneuvering and shopping in the close quarters of some stores, I don't think I should have to be the one adjusting my attitude to kowtow to youth's exurberance.

I may empathize and understand the hardships of parenting and imagine that parent has had a rough day. But that does not and should not invalidate perfectly normal feelings in a situation I should not have to accept that sort of risk.

[Plant Woman]

I think I am feeling some flames being directed towards me so I am bowing out.

[BDS]

I'm of strong inclination that small children and cellphones should be expected to be quiet and behaved in certain situations. Those situations are those where the child/cellphone might annoy others. If there is an inability to control by the responsible, then they and the source of irritation should be removed. Barring removal there will usually result either intercession by the unrelated and/or natural consequences. The latter is what scarletpeaches partook within her tale.

That’s ridiculous. Why should you be the one to determine when small children (or even cell phones) are annoying? According to what you write here, if you want to lie on the grass in a park and read quietly, small children should not be allowed to play loudly in the park. What bunk! Children have rights, just like you do.

If you were reading in a park you’d better not try to “remove the source of irritation”, if it were my kid.

Of course “culture”, which determines “proper behavior” does properly suggest where and when loud or rowdy play is appropriate. But cultural rules, in general, take into account costs and benefits. Kids should be quiet in the theater , for example.

The notion that kids have some responsibility not to annoy YOU, however, is selfish and silly. If you don’t like them annoying you, go somewhere else.

[Beth]

Well, Debbie, I did appreciate your opinion. Thanks for giving another view.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm of strong inclination that small children and cellphones should be expected to be quiet and behaved in certain situations. Those situations are those where the child/cellphone might annoy others. If there is an inability to control by the responsible, then they and the source of irritation should be removed. Barring removal there will usually result either intercession by the unrelated and/or natural consequences. The latter is what scarletpeaches partook within her tale.

That’s ridiculous. Why should you be the one to determine when small children (or even cell phones) are annoying? According to what you write here, if you want to lie on the grass in a park and read quietly, small children should not be allowed to play loudly in the park. What bunk! Children have rights, just like you do.

If you were reading in a park you’d better not try to “remove the source of irritation”, if it were my kid.

Of course “culture”, which determines “proper behavior” does properly suggest where and when loud or rowdy play is appropriate. But cultural rules, in general, take into account costs and benefits. Kids should be quiet in the theater , for example.

The notion that kids have some responsibility not to annoy YOU, however, is selfish and silly. If you don’t like them annoying you, go somewhere else.


Library. Museum. Hospital. Theater. Classroom.

Children should be running and playing in parks built for that purpose. Which most are. The sound of children having fun in the correct context is great. But where such outbursts of noise and activity are inappropriate, as in the places I've listed above, then they should know to be behaved, or removed (and, in each of the circumstances, I have personally seen parents impose upon everyone else with their unwillingness to control their child, nor remove them). Your example of the theater is exactly my point.

I think that we should all expect a limitation of behavior appropriate for outdoors when indoors in places such as shopping malls and grocery stores, too. Kicking a ball around the aisles of the local market is not acceptable. Whining, however, is expected.

I think you can discern all this, too, BDS, and your response has been "over the top."

[BDS]

Library. Museum. Hospital. Theater. Classroom.

Children should be running and playing in parks built for that purpose. Which most are. The sound of children having fun in the correct context is great. But where such outbursts of noise and activity are inappropriate, as in the places I've listed above, then they should know to be behaved, or removed (and, in each of the circumstances, I have personally seen parents impose upon everyone else with their unwillingness to control their child, nor remove them). Your example of the theater is exactly my point.


I figured that's what you meant, Godfry. However, it wasn't what you wrote.

[godfry n. glad]

Library. Museum. Hospital. Theater. Classroom.

Children should be running and playing in parks built for that purpose. Which most are. The sound of children having fun in the correct context is great. But where such outbursts of noise and activity are inappropriate, as in the places I've listed above, then they should know to be behaved, or removed (and, in each of the circumstances, I have personally seen parents impose upon everyone else with their unwillingness to control their child, nor remove them). Your example of the theater is exactly my point.


I figured that's what you meant, Godfry. However, it wasn't what you wrote.

What part of "in certain situations" do you not understand?

[BDS]

I'm of strong inclination that small children and cellphones should be expected to be quiet and behaved in certain situations. Those situations are those where the child/cellphone might annoy others....

You defined the "certain situations" in your next sentence, with which I took issue. The "certain situations" are NOT "where they might annoy others" (they might annoy others who are trying to read next to a playground, for example). Instead, they are, "Where social and cultural rules have determined that others have a right to be free of the annoyance caused by noisy and rowdy children."

The misunderstanding is that you meant, "Those situations are those where the child might annoy others AND WHERE SOCIETY HAS CREATED CULTURAL RULES SUGGESTING THAT THIS ANNOYANCE IS INAPPROPRIATE." I took you to mean that the "certain situations" were "any situations in which the child might annoy others..."

[godfry n. glad]

Okay.

The problem is, those 'cultural rules' are not too clear to too many people.

Does not a person violating a 'culture rule' deserve a verbal reminder, or reprimand? Is not our disapproprium appropriate? Is not continued violation of the 'cultural rule' without intervention reason to make our disapproprium known?

[BDS]

Earlier in the thread, I said it would be appropriate to warn kids who were vrooming down the aisles of a store in a shopping cart. I think it's a matter of attitude.

It's one thing to say, "Whoa, kid! Watch out! You're going to ram someone!"

It's another to say, "It is not acceptable for you to push shopping carts down the aisle like that! You should know better!"

In the former, you seem like you are giving a reasonable warning; in the latter you seem to be setting yourself up as an arbiter of cultural rules (which, as you suggest, are complicated and often unclear).

[godfry n. glad]

That depends upon whether there is a parent there. No parent is more likely to elicit the former and an admotion to pay attention. The latter is more likely when the parent is present and not taking responsibility. As to why a child a would be careening around grocery store aisles unattended, with a cart, I have no idea. Yet I have seen it and intervened.

Sometimes the only adult present is the cultural arbiter.

[Plant Woman]

If the kid had no sense of his/her physical presence in relationship to others, in what universe do you imagine that the kid is going to be more careful around a handicapped person?!

I changed my mind about bowing out, after thinking about this for a little while.

Pesci, you brought in a straw man or the very least changed the goal posts. The child in question was being rambuctious in a store, the only one that was hurt, was the child. AFAIK SP is not handicapped, and she did not get hurt. The only problem I could see from what she wrote is that she was annoyed. I am of the school that we are responsible for our emotions and a person can be annoyed or they can try something different. Suggesting an alternative to SP is not telling you how you should feel.

What bothers me about this thread is that a couple of children being a bit rambuctious in a store and they are labeled as bad or the parents are bad. We have a lot more understanding of people who are mentally challenged then we have for children who haven't developed enough yet to act like an adult. And yes, sometimes parents are distracted or overwhelmed. It doesn't mean they all are bad when their children have bad moments in a store. It doesn't mean they are irresponsible. A child running down an aisle in a store is not the end of the world. We can't all be perfect, all the time.

As for me as a parent, yes there were times my child was not perfect, and times when I was not on top of keeping her a perfect little angel. That does not mean I let her run wild on purpose, it also doesn't mean I expected the world to babysit her. I can have empathy for parents when the children act as children do, because I know how tough a job it is to be a good parent, I wasn't perfect so I don't expect them to be perfect either.

Children are our future, yours and mine whether we have a child or not. Unfortunately in our culture, children are not tolerated too well. You can't even breastfeed a baby in public without upsetting the sensibilities of some, even though a baby depends on the breast for nourishment. We are all human beings here, we share a lot of common areas and it seems to me that getting all upset because a child has a bad moment in a store is for me something not worth getting all worked up about.

There was no harm done to SP, or to the store, no more than an annoyance. That is what I am addressing, please keep this in mind when reading my posts.

[BDS]

Sometimes the only present is the cultural arbiter.

I'll go along with that, if the grown-up is quite sure he's correct, and it's not a gray area. It would be appropriate (for example) for a stange grown-up to lecture kids who were throwing rocks at cars.

The speed at which it is appropriate for a kid to locomote through a grocery store is not quite so clear.

p.s. This is strange. The site edits the synonym for "grown-up" in both my respnse, and Godfry's quote.

[beyelzu]

I am sure you all was just perfect children when you were younger, never acting up in public.

Sometimes, just sometimes mom is tired, distracted, or just plain not paying attention. I guess if I was in that place, I would have knelt down to the child and made sure they were ok and waited until mom got there to help the child. I guess I don't have a problem when children are running around, I figure they are just being children, without a care in the world, playing and having fun. A little annoyance never hurt anyone.

A lot of times I don't understand the little tolerance people show towards parents and their children. We were all children once, and many of us have raised children, and there isn't a perfect parent in this world. I bet none have had their children behave perfectly all the time. In fact I would worry about a child that behaved perfectly all the time. A little empathy goes a long way, IMO.

having worked with the public a good bit, i can say that i absolutely despise misbehaving children. they steall, they break shit, they are rude and push past people in line.

its not cute and care free, disorderly children typically seem to be that way because of shitty parenting.

i dont expect them to be perfect, i expect them to slowly learn how to be civilized and thus i strongly disapprove of them when they are not.

[pescifish]

You can't toss out something like Children are our future, yours and mine whether we have a child or not. Unfortunately in our culture, children are not tolerated too well. and then complain that I've moved the goalposts! Plant Woman, you're the one who introduced the handicapped person, not I. I don't think it was out of line for me to point out that it easily could have been and the collision could have been more dire.

You can continue to say this particular situation was A-Ok and the best solution is an attitude adjustment, but I believe kids running around in a store without regard to his/her surroundings is one of those situations where boundaries are appropriate. In order for our children (our futures) to grow up into any kind of decent society.

There were consequences and hopefully that kid learned something. Why is it necessary for scarletpeaches (or any of us) to adjust her attitude when the natural consequence occurred as a result of inappropriate behavior on the part of a school-aged child?

[Plant Woman]

Pesci, I don't believe I said anything about a handicapped person, I just reread my posts throughout this thread to see if I did and I can't find it. Perhaps you can point it out to me. However, I was responding to what you wrote here:

What if that kid had slammed into a person who was handicapped and already unstable on his/her feet? Why the hell should I have to adjust my attitude to be joyful over the exurberance of youth while getting slammed into by some kid?

If I did, please point me to it, so I can see what I said, because I am not remembering it and I can't find the post in question.

You can continue to say this particular situation was A-Ok and the best solution is an attitude adjustment, but I believe kids running around in a store without regard to his/her surroundings is one of those situations where boundaries are appropriate. In order for our children (our futures) to grow up into any kind of decent society.

I don't believe I ever said it was a-ok in any of my posts. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but my whole premise is based on people talking about how horrible children and parents are when they act up in public. I am trying to convey here, and obviously either I am not clear enough or people are reading more into what I am trying to say is that just because a child is being rambuctious might be for other reasons. I do not believe that parenting is going downhill because some children act like children.

There were consequences and hopefully that kid learned something. Why is it necessary for scarletpeaches (or any of us) to adjust her attitude when the natural consequence occurred as a result of inappropriate behavior on the part of a school-aged child?

The problem here is that I am not saying it is necessary to adjust her attitude, but it could be an alternative to being uptight. If she would rather be annoyed, there is nothing to stop her. I am trying to point out that there are other ways to handle it, and I look at that situation a lot differently, because no harm was really done to SP, that I can see, other than she was annoyed and came here to talk about it.

Please explain how my remark was moving the goalposts on you, since I have said some things about intolerance towards children. I am not sure how that could be moving the goalposts, but perhaps I am missing something here?. At that point I was speaking to everyone, not you alone.

[pescifish]

Pesci, I don't believe I said anything about a handicapped person, ....You are correct, I'm sorry. I misremembered and should have gone back to confirm as you did.

I brought it up when you mentioned that you felt the situation was a minor annoyance. Again, since the kid was not aware of his/her surroundings, I still feel that introducing that possibility into the discussion is not out of line. Someone else mentioned that the child could have easily run into a hard structure and truly been injured. I don't think that is moving the goalposts either in terms of the discussion. But I am sorry if that knocked us off track in our discussions and I'm embarrassed and sorry I didn't double check my statement about when it was introduced.

The rest I'm taking to PM, if PW is willing. Suffice it to say that I don't really think we are in any fundamental disagreement regarding children or parenting or the future.

[Annie]

If the kid had no sense of his/her physical presence in relationship to others, in what universe do you imagine that the kid is going to be more careful around a handicapped person?!


I changed my mind about bowing out, after thinking about this for a little while.

Pesci, you brought in a straw man or the very least changed the goal posts. The child in question was being rambuctious in a store, the only one that was hurt, was the child. AFAIK SP is not handicapped, and she did not get hurt. The only problem I could see from what she wrote is that she was annoyed. I am of the school that we are responsible for our emotions and a person can be annoyed or they can try something different. Suggesting an alternative to SP is not telling you how you should feel.

What bothers me about this thread is that a couple of children being a bit rambuctious in a store and they are labeled as bad or the parents are bad. We have a lot more understanding of people who are mentally challenged then we have for children who haven't developed enough yet to act like an adult. And yes, sometimes parents are distracted or overwhelmed. It doesn't mean they all are bad when their children have bad moments in a store. It doesn't mean they are irresponsible. A child running down an aisle in a store is not the end of the world. We can't all be perfect, all the time.

As for me as a parent, yes there were times my child was not perfect, and times when I was not on top of keeping her a perfect little angel. That does not mean I let her run wild on purpose, it also doesn't mean I expected the world to babysit her. I can have empathy for parents when the children act as children do, because I know how tough a job it is to be a good parent, I wasn't perfect so I don't expect them to be perfect either.

Children are our future, yours and mine whether we have a child or not. Unfortunately in our culture, children are not tolerated too well. You can't even breastfeed a baby in public without upsetting the sensibilities of some, even though a baby depends on the breast for nourishment. We are all human beings here, we share a lot of common areas and it seems to me that getting all upset because a child has a bad moment in a store is for me something not worth getting all worked up about.

There was no harm done to SP, or to the store, no more than an annoyance. That is what I am addressing, please keep this in mind when reading my posts.

all Well said !, Plantlady :cool:

Annie

[Angakuk]

Yes, Peaches, (may I call you Peaches?) you are an evil person. You are a horrible excuse for a human being. You should go home and whack yourself in the head with a book. I hope you now feel suitably affirmed.

Had there been blood or unconsciousness, I like to think that scarletpeaches would have stopped to help.
How could she do that if she was bloody and unconscious? Oh, you meant the kid, didn't you? Never mind.

Library. Museum. Hospital. Theater. Classroom.
You left out Church.

There is a time and a place - shopping, unfortunately, isn't one of them. I know, I know, you can't tell when a child is going to act up but what you can do is at least try and stop them or take them out of the shop before it gets to the stage where they run into somebody else's bag.
I distinctly recall an incident from my childhood. The rule when in the store was that I was not to handle the items on the shelves. If I couldn't keep my hands off them I was to put my hands in my pockets. Well, I didn't and I picked up something I shouldn't have, probably not for the first time that trip. Did my mother holler at me? No. Did she spank me? No. What she did was leave the shopping cart parked in the middle of the aisle, grab me by the arm, march me out to the car and take me home. If I couldn't behave in the store, then I wouldn't be in the store. End of story. How did she get her shopping done? I have no idea.

I tell the story, first because it must have impressed me. I still remember it quite clearly these many years later. Second, because I think it illustrates something that many parents are unwilling to do in order to teach their children a lesson. Namely, inconvenience themselves. It often seems to me that many parents are willing to tolerate all sorts of disobedience and misbehavior rather than have to sacrifice an iota of their own agenda. "I am going to eat this meal, in this restaurant, no matter how badly my child is behaving." "I am going to see this movie through to the end, no matter how many people my child is annoying." When we become parents we accept responsibility for our children and we accept the fact that having that responsibility places some limitations on our personal freedom. At least we ought to accept those things. It often seems to me that too many parents want to have children but don't want to accept all the difficulties and inconveniences that having children necessarily entails. I don't know that my mother's way of handling the situation was the best. I do know that she never had to do that again. I got the point.

I am not going to judge the mother of those children in Peaches' OP, but I am going to say that if she had taken them out of the store when they first began misbehaving, none of it would have happened. It may have inconvenienced her, but not nearly so much as would have a trip to the emergency room. It's fortunate for her, and the child, that it did not come that, as far as we know.

Now, on to more important matters. Peaches, were the chocolates OK?

Angakuk

[Annie]

I was just in the local corner shop buying milk, but the nature of my purchase is irrelevant. What is, is the fact I had a box of chocolates and a hardback copy of Pele's autobiography in my bag.

Pele, who? - may I ask please (wonderin' if it's the Pele I'm vaguely aquainted with)

There were two rampant children in the shop, running hither and yon (gotta love Olde Worlde parlance), getting under my size 6's; you can imagine the effect on my blood pressure.

re "the effect on my BP":

The 2 kids were what age? - and unless they carried weapons, sending you neurologically into automatic "Fight, or Flight", you can't blame kids for how you chose to respond. And you were "at-choice" here, yes?

more later, Bed-time

Annie

[Stormlight]

I was just in the local corner shop buying milk, but the nature of my purchase is irrelevant. What is, is the fact I had a box of chocolates and a hardback copy of Pele's autobiography in my bag.

Pele, who? - may I ask please (wonderin' if it's the Pele I'm vaguely aquainted with)

Pele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pele)

[freemonkey]

Holy moley, all this for a story about how a kid was stopped short by a little instant karma. :trainrek:

[Smilin]

A story meant to be taken with humor at that>

[viscousmemories]

Interesting thread.

Plant Woman, some of your comments about how we interpret and respond to other's behavior makes me think of the fundamental attribution error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error) in attribution theory.

Also, why are people calling you P-dub?

[Beth]

What bothers me about this thread is that a couple of children being a bit rambuctious in a store and they are labeled as bad or the parents are bad. We have a lot more understanding of people who are mentally challenged then we have for children who haven't developed enough yet to act like an adult. And yes, sometimes parents are distracted or overwhelmed. It doesn't mean they all are bad when their children have bad moments in a store. It doesn't mean they are irresponsible. A child running down an aisle in a store is not the end of the world. We can't all be perfect, all the time.

As for me as a parent, yes there were times my child was not perfect, and times when I was not on top of keeping her a perfect little angel. That does not mean I let her run wild on purpose, it also doesn't mean I expected the world to babysit her. I can have empathy for parents when the children act as children do, because I know how tough a job it is to be a good parent, I wasn't perfect so I don't expect them to be perfect either. Also, some children have behavioral problems in spite of the parenting skills of a parent.
I do not believe that parenting is going downhill because some children act like children.
I agree. One also has to remember that the culture is changing. What was once unacceptable for children to do when we were raised is not always the case now.

As a child, I talked back to my mother once when I was five (looking back now, I think I was closer to three or four, judging by the apartment we lived in at the time). I told her to hurry up because she told me that she was going to be a while getting dressed to go to Woolco. I was spanked by a wet hand and I was not able to sit without pain for several days. I was very well behaved after that. (I also have never talked back to her, to this day. We don't have a very close communication and we keep a lot of things from each other.) I never once got to speak to my mom in defense when she was levying a punishment for something that I did not do.

Someone I know would judge me harshly because I allowed more freedom to my kids. They were allowed to express how they felt to me, mainly because I knew how it felt to be silenced. That someone's child was harshly dealt with, hit often if that child acted out of line. The harsh teatment was just within what was legal, at least when I was there so there was nothing I could do, although I almost did call HRS once. If my son was over and the other kid acted jealous at all, the kid would get hit. If that little boy made noise, he would get hit. If he showed any defiance, that kid would get hit.

Now, I'm not saying that all very well behaved kids get hit all of the time, but many of the very well behaved children that I know are good because they have been hit into submission. Maybe it seems like kids are worse today because parents are trying to go a different route to the hittings that they got when they were kids.

Even though my kids make me want to pull my hair out at times, my kids are so much more self-assured and confident than I was at that time. If someone tried to hurt them, they have the sense of self to fight back and not tolerate it, rather than just cower like I did. My kids are strong, with strong goals, so in spite of having to put up with them acting like kids, they know what they must do to have a good adult life, but they just need mommy there to keep them in line so that they do not push the lines so hard that they are hurt in the process.

Anyway, I had mentioned laying into a few kids at ball parks because I was injured by them playing where they were not supposed to play. My son is now good friends with these kids. It is kinda strange to have kids that you've chewed out camping out in your yard and it is strange to be on a friendly basis with parents that you've had a yelling match with.

[godfry n. glad]

Library. Museum. Hospital. Theater. Classroom.
You left out Church.

Angakuk

If you say so, Rev. I don't go in them places much any more. And, I assumed your god would have the final word on that, anyway. Or, does it have a hard time dealing with them, too?

[Sock Puppet]

It is kinda strange to have kids that you've chewed out camping out in your yard and it is strange to be on a friendly basis with parents that you've had a yelling match with.
Not unlike the odd ways we board denizens find to interact online. :wink:

[Adam]

And, I assumed your god would have the final word on that, anyway. Or, does it have a hard time dealing with them, too?

Why do you think Bibles are so thick? Each one is like two Pele autobios stitched together. :tmevil:

[Adam]

Unfortunately in our culture, children are not tolerated too well.

I think this statement might reveal the heart of the disagremeents I see here. There's a perception gap, I think, between those who have kids and those who don't. While I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that, PW, based on your own experience, I can tell you that I just as sincerely believe the opposite, based on my own experience. I won't go into the details, because I don't want to turn this into a 'children are good! no, children are bad!' thread any more than it already is. I don't necessarily think one of us is right and the other is wrong, just that we naturally have different perceptions

[Sock Puppet]

There's a perception gap, I think, between those who have kids and those who don't.
:hellyes:

[BDS]

You left out Church.



Church is a vital battleground. Most people agree that children who might be loud and rowdy should not attend sermons and services. The battle is over weddings.

Should children attend weddings, where they might cry, or fuss, or disturb the "bride's day"? Personally, I vote for kids attending weddings. They are likely to do something wacky and inappropriate, which will add to the fun.

One more thing: I don't think it's any more appropriate for a strange to lecture children who are misbehaving than for him to lecture s. We don’t want to be busy bodies, after all, and kids should have quite a bit of freedom to run around, as should s. But sometimes both children and s are so annoying, or are so dangerous, that it’s appropriate to rebuke them.


I won't go into the details, because I don't want to turn this into a 'children are good! no, children are bad!' thread any more than it already is.



I’ve always thought that people who say, “I like children!” or “I dislike children!” are bigots, just as they would be if they said the same about black people. Children are people, and should be treated as such (as I suggested above).

[Crumb]

Also, why are people calling you P-dub?
:innocent:

[BDS]

The same thing happened again! When I posted, the words "a-d-u-l-t" and "h-a't'e" were edited out of my posts. Does anyone know why?

[Beth]

Adult, hate.

(test post)

[Beth]

Hmmm..works for me. BDS, do you have some sort of censoring control active in youtr account? Maybe the system thinks that "adult" and "hate" are dirty words. I had wondered what "s" was.

[Crumb]

When you write adults and hate it erases them? That's bizarre...

/test

[Dingfod]

Fuck public, what about in private when a 6 year old nephew strikes his napping uncle, who is recovering from a broken ankle, right in the testicles with the uncle's own much-needed cane, which causes said uncle to awaken with a scream and a subsequent tirade of expletives, who is then the subject of beratement by parents and grandparents of said nephew for reacting angrily? It hurt like a motherfucker and nothing happened to the brat for doing it. That brat is now a talented baseball pitcher in high school and thinks nothing of throwing pool toys at his 90 mph fastball speed, striking relatives unexpectedly in the chest or even head, he's 16 and still can't control himself.

BDS, kids that won't behave don't belong at weddings either, no matter how entertaining a few of you warped adults might find them. I would have no more hesitated to remove my misbehaving children from wedding any more than from a shop. I also find what you would say in a light-hearted manner to a kid racing a cart down an aisle to be nothing more than condoning the activity when they deserve reprimand instead.

[SharonDee]

There's a perception gap, I think, between those who have kids and those who don't. Just gotta be different: I had kids--one I raised, two I briefly step-parented--and I find myself falling on the side of the child-free contingent. The little snot in SP's story got what his behavior dictated; schadenfreude was the understandable response to seeing it.

Now how did a humorous story turn into a "think of the children!" vs. "kids are of the devil" fest? Because kids are our future and our society has gone from putting the little tykes to work in the coal mines to today's Cult of the Child (TM George Carlin).

[viscousmemories]

I believe the children are the future...
:leadsing:

[SharonDee]

Gah! I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry ... DON'T SING ANYMORE!
:lalala:

[godfry n. glad]

There's a perception gap, I think, between those who have kids and those who don't. Just gotta be different: I had kids--one I raised, two I briefly step-parented--and I find myself falling on the side of the child-free contingent. The little snot in SP's story got what his behavior dictated; schadenfreude was the understandable response to seeing it.

Now how did a humorous story turn into a "think of the children!" vs. "kids are of the devil" fest? Because kids are our future and our society has gone from putting the little tykes to work in the coal mines to today's Cult of the Child (TM George Carlin).

Yeah. According to my public finance professor, children in American society have been transformed during the 20th century from free agricultural laborers to household pets.

[lisarea]

There's a perception gap, I think, between those who have kids and those who don't.
:hellyes:

I'm all late to this, but I have a kid and I'm leaning toward the other side. Leaning toward, not all the way over.

I figure that once a kid is big enough to be running around unrestrained, they should have learned when and where it's appropriate to be running around. If they're really that tiny, they should be under their parents' physical control in a public place. If they're running into people standing in line, what's to keep them from running out into traffic? If you've taught them not to run around on the streets, you can teach them not to run around in stores. And you should. It's dangerous, to themselves and to others.

I raised my kid on my own, too, and much of it really is an inconvenience issue. Yes, it was an inconvenience, but it was my inconvenience. I worked to teach my kid to behave properly in public settings. I turned around and brought him straight home once or twice--and it didn't happen often after that.

But there were a few times that I just plain couldn't--maybe I needed to get to the bank before it closed, or I'd already pumped the gas and had to pay, something like that. And if he acted up and annoyed other people, I figured it was my fault. He's my kid. People were going to think I was at fault for my kid causing a disturbance. Some of them might generalize their judgements too far and make stupid, ill-informed assumptions about my parenting skills, but their basic assessment that I'm not properly controlling my child in this case is correct.

OTOH, there were times that people would have ridiculous kneejerk reactions to things, too. A whole lot of people stick their noses way too far into parents' business.

Once, we were waiting in line at a convenience store or gas station or something, and I was holding my kid, so I'm guessing he was maybe two. He pointed at a lollipop and asked if he could have it. I said no. So he pointed to a different flavor of lollipop and asked if he could have that one, then. He wasn't fussing. He was asking politely, maybe with the tiniest tinge of whine, but if so, not even much of that. He really thought that maybe my objection was to the flavor of lollipop he'd asked for. I laughed and said no, he couldn't have a lollipop today. And I hear this kind of harumph noise behind us, and there's some dumbfuck in line behind us giving us the filthiest, angriest look I'd seen in a while. Now, maybe he took exception to something else about us--I used to get just endless shit from assholes who thought I was a teenaged welfare mom and stuff like that--but regardless, it was clearly a kneejerk reaction to something that wasn't any of his business. I was holding my son. He wasn't screaming or flailing around. We hadn't done anything to inconvenience the guy. We weren't holding up the line. We didn't smell bad. We were having a private conversation at normal private conversation levels, and this guy decided to interject some phlegmy, inarticulate objection and a hairy eyeball. He was two feet from us, glaring directly at us with his jaw set, like he was going to haul off and punch one or both of us. And here I've got my kid with me, so I can't even say the fuck word to the guy. He really needed the fuck word said to him.

When my kid was little, and even sometimes more recently, I'd get unsolicited, unwarranted 'advice' from people a LOT. I'm too permissive, I'm too strict. I shouldn't let him talk back to me, I shouldn't control him so much. Someone once threatened to call social services on me because I didn't take my kid to see some new Disney movie. I've been accused of raising him to be a pariah because we didn't have a TV until he was seven. (Anyone who knows my kid would laugh and laugh at that.) I've been accused of letting him 'sass' me because I'd explain rules and negotiate compromises with him sometimes.

As parents, I think we do kind of have to accept legitimate criticism gracefully. If my kid plowed into someone in a store, that person would have a right to take offense and judge me, because we were out of line. But if you're eavesdropping on us, or critiquing my parenting skills, unless they're actually abusive or genuinely disruptive (not just some hypothetical future potential for disruption), you're the one who is out of line.

[BDS]

If my kid plowed into someone in a store, that person would have a right to take offense and judge me, because we were out of line.

I don't quite understand the horrible awfulness of a kid running in a store.

At worst, it's mildly inappropriate. In the SP case, nothing bad happened, except to the kid who was running, and that wasn't very bad.

"Taking offense" or "judging" a parent because a kid was running in a store seems like the inappropriate behavior here, unless the offense taken is so mild as to be practically non-existant.

[Beth]

I've had adults plow into my kids because the adults weren't looking where they were going. I've knocked over a little girl before, it was my fault, but the mom scolded the girl. That was wrong and I apologiized to the girl and told the mother that it had been my fault. So I think the plowing can happen both ways.

[lisarea]

I don't quite understand the horrible awfulness of a kid running in a store.

The kid wasn't looking where she was going. I don't remember saying anything about horrible awfulness, but the kid was out of control enough that she ran into something else and knocked herself over. She could easily have knocked over another person--a little kid, an old person, or just someone who wasn't sufficiently braced for the impact--or run into a sharp edge or a shelf full of cans and seriously hurt herself or someone else.


At worst, it's mildly inappropriate. In the SP case, nothing bad happened, except to the kid who was running, and that wasn't very bad.

If she'd dodged traffic running across a street, would that be mildly inappropriate at worst, as long as nobody was injured? Or would it just mean she got lucky this time?

[Beth]

Look, the kid should not have been running in the store. I don't think that it is safe, but there are situations where the parent might not be able to control the behavior. I don't agree with BDS about allowing running in the store, I just don't think that it necessarily makes a child a little brat or snot and I also don't think it necessarily makes the parent a bad parent.

[Sock Puppet]

I suppose I shouldn't have nodded so vigorously. It's obviously not just a simple divide between the parents and the childless, although I do believe that figures prominently in the discussion. Hell, some of the worst busybodies (not calling anyone here a busybody, just riffing off lisarea's post) are those who have raised their own kids, especially if a number of years have elapsed since their kids were at a "challenging" age. I actually had one parent of grown kids say that our very moderate amount of cosleeping was "the WORST thing you can do." Really? Worse that whipping them with a cat'o'nine tails? Worse than locking them up with rabid dogs? Worse than neglect, or malnourishment? I wanted to smack that smug fucker in the chops. (No, I have no interest in debating cosleeping.)

To clarify again: No, the kid in the OP shouldn't have been running in the fucking store. Yes, the parent should've been reining them in. No, nobody's a horrible fucking person for whatever attitude they have toward kids running in stores. All I wanted was 1) to clarify how old the freaking kid was, 2) to point out that there's AT LEAST a gray area as to whether the kid "deserved" what happened, 3) to express my frustration at the general attitude I get that kids can and should be controlled to ten decimal points of exactness at all times, and 4) to point out that disciplining kids is not an on/off situation.

[lisarea]

Maybe it's not so much a parent/non-parent thing as it is the scenario you're assuming.

There is a huge and only sometimes discernable difference between an overwhelmed parent who has temporarily lost control of their kids, and parents who just don't care--like the ones who walk into a store or restaurant and calmly go about their business while their kids run wild. I worked in a restaurant for a while, and there were families who always did this. Their kids would just tear ass around the place, running in and out of the kitchen and under the waiters' feet, and if you hadn't seen them come in together, you probably wouldn't have been able to guess who the parents even were.

You can't always tell the difference as a casual observer, and yes, it is rude to assume the worst without very good evidence. But even if it is some isolated incident and the parent is just having a bad day, the parent is still responsible for the inconvenience their child is causing others, within reason.

[Sock Puppet]

I agree with that, no question. I despise it when parents allow waitstaff or theater ushers to do their babysitting for them. It pisses me off, however, when some people look at the worst examples of parental idiocy around them and bemoan the state of parenting "these days."

[BDS]

If she'd dodged traffic running across a street, would that be mildly inappropriate at worst, as long as nobody was injured? Or would it just mean she got lucky this time?

"Dodging traffic in the street, where you can get killed or cause others to have an accident." -- Highly inappropriate and dangerous. Any adult present should put a stop to it immediately, by whatever means necessary.

“Running in the store, where the worst thing that is likely to happen is you knock over a can of peaches, or bump into someone.” – Mildly inappropriate, depending on how crowded the store is. The appropriate response from a reasonable adult is, “Hey! Watch where you’re going!”

I’m just not buying into the, “He might run into a handicapped person.” Sure he might. And if you drive to the store, you might run over a handicapped person. But the odds of a 6-year-old hurting anyone by running in a store are very, very slight.

p.s. Good one, Sock Puppet.

[Julie]

There's a perception gap, I think, between those who have kids and those who don't. Just gotta be different: I had kids--one I raised, two I briefly step-parented--and I find myself falling on the side of the child-free contingent. The little snot in SP's story got what his behavior dictated; schadenfreude was the understandable response to seeing it.

Now how did a humorous story turn into a "think of the children!" vs. "kids are of the devil" fest? Because kids are our future and our society has gone from putting the little tykes to work in the coal mines to today's Cult of the Child (TM George Carlin).

I read this this morning but couldn't reply cause I had a sleeping kid on my lap.

add me to the list of people that think the kid got what it deserved. Running around inside of a store is WRONG no matter what age your child is. If your child is so young that they don't understand that then they should be in the cart. If they are old enought to understand this but do it they should be removed from the store. There is a time and a place for everything. Parks and playgrounds are for running in...

I have and will continue to remove my children from stores if they act that way in public. I don;t care if its cause Im tired or they are tired, there is no excuse for a child acting like that in public. Walking away from a full shopping cart sucks...mostly for the poor person that gets left putting it away.

Add in that I am a handycapped person, if someones kid ran into me in the store I'd more than likly be on the floor crying in pain. I see this from all sorts of angles :) And it still comes down to Stores are not parks and it was wrong of the child to be running in a store. Period end of story.

Do I feel bad the kid hit its head on a book? Not really, it might hurt a bit but its not life threatining. Do I think its funny? Well no not really a kid getting hurt isnt funny.

[BDS]

add me to the list of people that think the kid got what it deserved. Running around inside of a store is WRONG no matter what age your child is. If your child is so young that they don't understand that then they should be in the cart. If they are old enought to understand this but do it they should be removed from the store. There is a time and a place for everything. Parks and playgrounds are for running in...
.

But who are you to determine that only "Parks and playgrounds are for running in..." Couldn't our obese kids do with a little more running? Maybe the store should be off limits, but what about other public places, that don't happen to be parks and playgrounds.

I was riding my bicycle yesterday. I turned right onto a four lane, one way street, and bolted across the four lanes, because I wanted to make a left hand turn on the next street. A car saw me (he was 100 yards behind me, and the speed limit is 20) and sped up directly at me, leaning on his horn. Since there was a red light at the next corner, I went up to his window and asked him what his fucking problem was.

"This street is for cars, not for bikes," he said.

"Suppose you step out of your SUV, so we can discuss this more rationally, you fucking asshole who we'll see how tough your whimpy ass is then," I politely commented.

And so our encounter ended. It's completely legal for me to ride on this street (as, probably, it's legal for kids to run in stores, or on sidewalks, or anywhere else, for that matter). In the case of the store, the majority opinion is undoubtedly that kids shouldn't run. It may be a rule of the store owner, too. In the case of the street I was riding on, opinion is probably divided. I'll bet that at least a large minority sides with the driver (there are major wars in Eugene between bicyclists, and drivers who think bicyclists shouldn't be on the streets).

So how do we decide?

[godfry n. glad]

I was riding my bicycle yesterday. I turned right onto a four lane, one way street, and bolted across the four lanes, because I wanted to make a left hand turn on the next street. A car saw me (he was 100 yards behind me, and the speed limit is 20) and sped up directly at me, leaning on his horn. Since there was a red light at the next corner, I went up to his window and asked him what his fucking problem was.

"This street is for cars, not for bikes," he said.

"Suppose you step out of your SUV, so we can discuss this more rationally, you fucking asshole who we'll see how tough your whimpy ass is then," I politely commented.

Well...Given your description, I'd say you were both in violation of the law, as it pertains to bicycle usage in my state. (That's the same state you're in, BDS.)

First, in my state, a bicycle is considered a "vehicle". A bicycle and it's rider has vehicular rights to use the street as a vehicle. They must signal turns and lane changes, observe all traffic instructions which apply to vehicles, including traffic stops, turns, and lane usage...plus, the law states that if they are using a street, the should be as far to the right as practicable, so as to allow automotive traffic to pass them without too much trouble.

Here, bicycles are allowed to use the sidewalk, provided that when they meet up with pedestrians using the same walkway, they slow to pedestrian pace and warn those who cannot see you with a required warning device (a bell or horn).

From what you've written, it sounds like you crossed four lanes without signalling. If you signalled your lane change, then I would have no criticism. However, I have seen enough dumbshit manuevers by bicyclists to blow off any self-righteous posturing by any of their number (I've even seen bicyclists ride in the oncoming lane, veer across multiple lanes illegally, blow stop signs and stop lights, and endanger themselves and others unnecessarily). Just as the automotive driver does not "own the road", neither do bicyclists.

[BDS]

I would have signalled, if there was anyone close by. So I probably was in violation. So what? Is the SUV driver going to chase down every speeder, and try to run him off the road, too?

That's the point (and we live in the same state, Godfry.). The question is: when is it acceptable to correct other people's behavior, and what kinds of corrections are appropriate? The SUV driver tried to intimidate me, and then I tried to intimidate him. I say that it's none of his business whether I signal or not, as long as I don't cut him off. Or if it is his business, the most he should do is say, "You really should signal." However, it is MY business when somebody tries to intimidate me.

[godfry n. glad]

If he was close enough to see you and chide you, you should have signalled.

I agree that he was entirely out of line, but he also has the right to express his erroneous opinion of your driving skills. I think you were both also in violation of the state 'road rage' laws. Either one of the provocations could have gotten either or both of you cited.

But then, from your view, if no police officer sees you violate the law, then no law was violated, right? Tell that to the family that lost their daughter to the dumbshit hit-and-run driver last weekend.

[Julie]

But who are you to determine that only "Parks and playgrounds are for running in..." Couldn't our obese kids do with a little more running? Maybe the store should be off limits, but what about other public places, that don't happen to be parks and playgrounds.



So how do we decide?

Well sure there are other places its ok for kids to run around. But No, stores are NOT a place for children to run around in. It's a store...There should be no questions that stores are not places for kids to run around in. I don;t care if its a grocery store a glass store or a clothing store. Unless the kid is checking out the fit on her new running shoes running in stores is always in the wrong.

How do we decide? Don't know how you decide but in my culture its not of for kids to run in stores.


Oh and not all of todays kids are obese. Many of them are involved in many different sports, and when they arn't playing sports they are at the PARK running around like the mad little monkeys that they are.

[BDS]

Geez, Godfry! Who cares about the damned law?

You act as if all that matters is whether a law was violated. But the kid running in the store didn't violate any law. Dos that mean nobody may chide him?

That's the point of the story. The hit-and-run driver shouldn't stop when he hits someone because doing otherwise is against the law. He should stop because it's the only decent, compassionate and humane thing to do.

p.s. The driver was at least 100 yards behind me, and had to speed up well beyond the speed limit to come anywhere near me. In addition, while the law says that you must turn into the right hand lane, when you are turning left again in one block, and there is no traffic coming, logic suggests that you make a wider turn, all the way across the street, and most cars wouldn't have had time to signal lane changes, either.

[godfry n. glad]

I do.

The "damned law" was passed because too many failed to observe those decent, humane and compassionate behaviors.

Your correct behavior would have been to turn right into the nearest lane, and then signal your left-hand lane changes across all four lanes until your turn at the next intersection.

I fail to see why bicyclists seem to think that the decent, humane, compassionate, considerate and safe rules of the road do not apply to them. They do, and they should adhere to them, or hear about it from drivers and pedestrians who witness them doing dumbshit things. Ideally, bicyclists should have identifying plates so that those so witnessing poor bicyclist road behavior can report them to the police....just like we do with errant motorists.

[BDS]

OK, Godfry. You stick to your rules. I'll stick to using common sense.

The notion that bicyclists should signal turns when it is safer not to do so (because nobody is around, and it's safer to have two hands on your handlebars) is ludicrous. That you want to ride around playing cop, and report those whom you see violating the sacred law is merely sad. Are you going to report everyone who isn’t wearing a seat belt, too? How about those evil jaywalkers, who cross in the middle of the block when no traffic is around? Citizens’ arrest for those fuckers?

By the way, in this case it was far safer not to use hand signals, because although there was no traffic coming, it's a busy street, so you want to zip across to the other side to prepare for your left hand turn BEFORE traffic arrives. As bike riders know, you can accelerate and maneuver more quickly with both hands on the handlebars.

[godfry n. glad]

That does it...

The next time those numbnuts from Critical Mass stop traffic in the oncoming lanes (illegally), I'll just open my door and take out four or five dumbshits pounding on my car.

You are expressing what I perceive to be the righteousness of bicyclists. They have no reason to be righteous or even claim "common sense", because as a percentage of users, bicyclists have the highest numbers of scofflaws and dumbshits without lack of any sense, much less common sense. The only reason more bicyclists haven't been run down in the streets is that motorists are more attuned to them than they used to be. Good luck with the assholes maneuvering their cars through traffic with their minds at neutral, too, because they are on the cellphone. That's NOT illegal here and should be, precisely because too fucking many motorists do not do the sensible, safe thing and hang up and drive.

The laws have been designed to protect everyone who shares the road. If you choose to ignore them, then prepare to either be cited or hit because of your stupidity....masquerading as "common sense".

[BDS]

Actually, Godfry, I’ve never cared much about ANY law. Yet, strangely, I’ve never been arrested and I haven’t even had a traffic ticket in 25 years. Why? Because common sense works pretty well. I don’t steal, or murder people, because I don’t want to do so. I don’t check my speedometer all the time, but, apparently, I drive at safe speeds.

What I’m not prepared to do (but what Godfry wants me to do) is to get hit by a car while riding my bicycle because I AM obeying the law, when I could have been safer by ignoring it. When bicycling, this happens regularly. Suppose, for example, you are on a two lane road in the country, and want to turn left. You can see there are cars coming behind you, but there are no cars coming toward you. If you are sensible, you signal your left hand turn, pull into the opposite lane, and use it for 50 yards before turning left, so that the cars behind you don’t have to slow down or stop. Your other options are to “take the lane” (and at best force traffic behind you to slow way down), or pull off the road to the right and wait for the traffic to pass (which slows YOU down, and might be dangerous if there's no shoulder).

What’s wrong with my option? It’s safe. It’s convenient for all. But (doubtless) it’s against the law.

p.s. I’ve never ridden with Critical Mass, and I think they’re a bunch of weirdoes, but I also know (from experience) that drivers are OFTEN hostile toward bicyclists, whether they are doing anything illegal or not. At least in the case of bicyclists being hostile to drivers there’s a reasonable excuse – cars can kill a bicyclist a lot more easily than a bicycle can kill a driver.

Also, forcing bicycles to follow the letter of the law is a bit like forcing pedestrians to follow the letter of the law. It’s not reasonable to expect a pedestrian to walk two blocks to cross at a crosswalk, when he can safely jaywalk across the street. Only a lunatic or a power walker would even consider walking the extra two blocks.

[BDS]

By the way, my disagreement with Godfry illustrates the difficulty of "laying down the law" to strange children. Even two (semi)reasonable adults can't agree on how we should ride bicycles, whether we should admonish those who don't ride acceptably, and what forms of admonishment are reasonable.

The kid in the store (as I said earlier) wasn't doing anything illegal.

[godfry n. glad]

By the way, my disagreement with Godfry illustrates the difficulty of "laying down the law" to strange children. Even two (semi)reasonable adults can't agree on how we should ride bicycles, whether we should admonish those who don't ride acceptably, and what forms of admonishment are reasonable.

The kid in the store (as I said earlier) wasn't doing anything illegal.

Nor was he, nor the parent, engaging any common sense. He suffered natural consequences (karma) and didn't get permanently hurt. He was lucky.

[BDS]

Nor was he, nor the parent, engaging any common sense. He suffered natural consequences (karma) and didn't get permanently hurt. He was lucky.

Oh, come on, Godfry! "Lucky"? If he'd been "lucky" scarlettpeaches would have bought a paperback!

Odds agains getting permanently injured from running in a store: 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000.

You don't need much "luck" to bring home that parlay.

[godfry n. glad]

Actually, Godfry, I’ve never cared much about ANY law. Yet, strangely, I’ve never been arrested and I haven’t even had a traffic ticket in 25 years. Why? Because common sense works pretty well. I don’t steal, or murder people, because I don’t want to do so. I don’t check my speedometer all the time, but, apparently, I drive at safe speeds.

What I’m not prepared to do (but what Godfry wants me to do) is to get hit by a car while riding my bicycle because I AM obeying the law, when I could have been safer by ignoring it. When bicycling, this happens regularly. Suppose, for example, you are on a two lane road in the country, and want to turn left. You can see there are cars coming behind you, but there are no cars coming toward you. If you are sensible, you signal your left hand turn, pull into the opposite lane, and use it for 50 yards before turning left, so that the cars behind you don’t have to slow down or stop. Your other options are to “take the lane” (and at best force traffic behind you to slow way down), or pull off the road to the right and wait for the traffic to pass (which slows YOU down, and might be dangerous if there's no shoulder).

Excuse me, but why does the bicyclist not proceed to the intersection while maintaining the position of the far right side of the road until 50 feet from the intersection, signal left into the lane, then signal left at the intersection and turn? All legal and just as safe as riding in the oncoming lane.

What’s wrong with my option? It’s safe. It’s convenient for all. But (doubtless) it’s against the law.

It is NOT safe. At 50 yards from the intersection, you have no idea as to whether an unseen car is approaching the intersection which the bicyclists intends to turn left into. That car reaches the intersection before you, stops and turns into the lane, and WHAM! hits the illegal bicyclist head on. Guess what? The poor driver who did everything right becomes an instant pariah because he/she "hit a bicyclist", but the bicyclist was clearly cutting corners because it was "common sense". This kind of shit needs to end. Bicyclists need to obey the laws, just as pedestrians and motorists do...they are NOT exempt. I regularly see bicyclists blow a stop signal at the end of my street, where it crosses one of the most heavily travelled city arterials in the metro area. One block to the south of that intersection is the crest of a hill, beyond which the traffic on the major arterial cannot be seen, and traffic moves at 35 mph+ (Cripes, the city even installed a warning light three blocks before the intersection on the arterial to allow some warning to motorists travelling at 35 mph to stop....AND, the crossing street, my street, is a designated bicycle path and there are bicycle boxes in front of the stop line.....Why do these idiots need to exercise their "common sense" and ride against a light into a distinctly dangerous risk?)

p.s. I’ve never ridden with Critical Mass, and I think they’re a bunch of weirdoes, but I also know (from experience) that drivers are OFTEN hostile toward bicyclists, whether they are doing anything illegal or not. At least in the case of bicyclists being hostile to drivers there’s a reasonable excuse – cars can kill a bicyclist a lot more easily than a bicycle can kill a driver.

If some dipshit bicycle rider in a mass of cyclists enters the oncoming lane of traffic while there are motorists there, specifically with the intent of blocking traffic, they are going to get a deserved earful, if not a faceful of door. There is no reasonable excuse for that cyclist behavior, just as there is no excuse for bicyclists waiting for traffic signals....just like cars.

Also, forcing bicycles to follow the letter of the law is a bit like forcing pedestrians to follow the letter of the law. It’s not reasonable to expect a pedestrian to walk two blocks to cross at a crosswalk, when he can safely jaywalk across the street. Only a lunatic or a power walker would even consider walking the extra two blocks.

Yeah, then watch the pedestrian dumshits dodge through busy traffic a mere 50' from a pedestrian-controlled crosswalk with syncronized traffic signals...That deserves a citation, for sure. Just as a bicyclist doing the same thing would.

Then again, auto drivers do not always follow the letter of the law, either. (Indeed, the most violated law in the US is the speed limit.) Wouldn't you think that their doing so would pose a greater risk to both bicyclists and pedestrians?

[quiet bear]

I just read this whole thread without stopping. I'm exhausted. I'm going to get some coffee.

[Angakuk]

By the way, my disagreement with Godfry illustrates the difficulty of "laying down the law" to strange children. Even two (semi)reasonable adults can't agree on how we should ride bicycles, whether we should admonish those who don't ride acceptably, and what forms of admonishment are reasonable.

The kid in the store (as I said earlier) wasn't doing anything illegal.
May I take it that we are all in agreement that children should not ride their bicycles in the store?

[freemonkey]

Odds agains getting permanently injured from running in a store: 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000.

You don't need much "luck" to bring home that parlay.
You're just makin' shit up now, aren't you? :wink:

[BDS]

Excuse me, but why does the bicyclist not proceed to the intersection while maintaining the position of the far right side of the road until 50 feet from the intersection, signal left into the lane, then signal left at the intersection and turn? All legal and just as safe as riding in the oncoming lane.

Because it’s not safe. Cars don’t always se the bicycle, when you “take the lane” after signaling. If they did, it would be safe. In addition, my method is actually MORE convenient for the cars, because they don’t have to slow down, so it’s more considerate.

And the reason I mentioned that the roads were in the country is to counter the anticipated objections about it not being safe. It is SOMETIMES safer than your approach – and even if it isn’t, I get the impression that if we hypothetically asserted that the illegal approach is safer, you would STILL advocate the legal approach (for some strange reason that I don’t understand).

Pedestrians “dodging through traffic” are one thing – pedestrians safely crossing an empty street rather than walking a block to a cross walk are another. Also, since bicycles can legally be treated as either a pedestrian or a vehicle, they should be given more latitude than cars. (They should also be given latitude because they are far, far less dangerous to others than cars are.)

[BDS]

Odds agains getting permanently injured from running in a store: 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000.

You don't need much "luck" to bring home that parlay.
You're just makin' shit up now, aren't you? :wink:

Yep.

[godfry n. glad]

Nor was he, nor the parent, engaging any common sense. He suffered natural consequences (karma) and didn't get permanently hurt. He was lucky.

Oh, come on, Godfry! "Lucky"? If he'd been "lucky" scarlettpeaches would have bought a paperback!

Odds agains getting permanently injured from running in a store: 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000.

You don't need much "luck" to bring home that parlay.

Depending upon the store, he could have run into a shelf with portable televisions, knocked it over and imploded the tube, throwing glass shards throughout that portion of the store, including himself. Of course, were in it the carpet section, the risks would be lower, but it's wise to teach children to be uniform in their behavior while not on their own property...so that they act in the same civilized manner when greater risks are present.

[BDS]

May I take it that we are all in agreement that children should not ride their bicycles in the store?

Wrong. I (briefly) held a job where I came home from work at 4:00 a.m. There was a new, completely empty Safeway on my route home that was open all night. I used to ride right through the automatic doors, and cruise around the store, buying groceries. The store was empty, I rode slowly and safely, and I spent my money. The store personell seemed to think it was sort of cool. (I was an adult, however, not a child.)

[freemonkey]

Now I'm curious to know if there's any real statistics on this. I would think, though, that a store's policy would be that children must not run around the place. What's to prevent a parent from sueing the store if their child is injured, regardless of how the child was behaving when it happened?

[Beth]

I don't know, freemonkey. I know my daughter got hurt once in the store because her brother pushed her. She got cut on a rack in Albertson's. I asked a stock boy if he could please get me a band aid (it was on her head). I had to fill out a report and they acted like they were liable. I told them if my kid was hurt, then it was my fault and I certainly would not hold the store liable. I guess that maybe parents do sue for accidents like these, though.

[maddog]

Also, forcing bicycles to follow the letter of the law is a bit like forcing pedestrians to follow the letter of the law. It’s not reasonable to expect a pedestrian to walk two blocks to cross at a crosswalk, when he can safely jaywalk across the street. Only a lunatic or a power walker would even consider walking the extra two blocks.I am not a power walker. So I must be a lunatic, then.
#857

[Dingfod]

Also, forcing bicycles to follow the letter of the law is a bit like forcing pedestrians to follow the letter of the law. It’s not reasonable to expect a pedestrian to walk two blocks to cross at a crosswalk, when he can safely jaywalk across the street. Only a lunatic or a power walker would even consider walking the extra two blocks.I am not a power walker. So I must be a lunatic, then.
#857Only a lunatic would not want to get run over.

[Angakuk]

Wrong. I (briefly) held a job where I came home from work at 4:00 a.m. There was a new, completely empty Safeway on my route home that was open all night. I used to ride right through the automatic doors, and cruise around the store, buying groceries. The store was empty, I rode slowly and safely, and I spent my money. The store personell seemed to think it was sort of cool. (I was an adult, however, not a child.)
How do you buy groceries in a completely empty store? Likewise, if there are employees present how can it be completely empty?

[Beth]

I'll jaywalk if the traffic is slow, it is a bitch to walk up to the corner in heels whilst I am downtown. Other than that, if I am trying to cross a highway, I'll walk an extra mile out of my way to avoid getting splatted. Only had to do that once, though (car broke down on the side of the road). My area streets are not very pedestrian friendly in many places and cross walks are kinda rare, so most often, we don't have the safe luxury of a cross walk.

[BDS]

How do you buy groceries in a completely empty store? Likewise, if there are employees present how can it be completely empty?

Change to "practically empty", or "empty of customers". Sorry.

My point is: no reasonable person could possibly believe that he should always obey the law. Godfry (for example, based on my inferences from his posts) smokes pot, or at least sees other people smoking. Is he going to turn them in, as he threatens to turn in bike riders who ignore stop signs? Would he have turned in Anne Frank, as the law required him to?

If not, wherein lies the distinction? It is reasonable to stop people from endangering YOU, and it might be reasonable to stop people from endangering other people, but what if they aren't endangering anyone? What of the jaywalker, crossing an empty street? Isn't a private citizen who reports the jaywalker to the police (or even rebukes him) a busybody?

If maddog wants to walk two blocks to avoid jaywalking, fine. I apologize for suggesting that he is a lunatic for doing so, and I was a busybody for saying it. Let's just call the behavior "eccentric". But if I want to jaywalk (when there's no traffic), he should leave me alone, too, unless he's a cop (and probably even then).

As far as the kid in the store, if a kid runs into YOU (or almost runs into you), it's reasonable to say, "Hey! Watch it." But kids sometimes run when they're not supposed to, and very little harm generally comes from it, and on the list of behaviors that are deplorable, running in a store ranks among the most trivial.

[BDS]

One more biking question for Godfry:

I bike to work most days. There’s an intersection with a traffic light and with two traffic lanes going in each direction, and a left turn lane. Both roads have bike lanes in the far right. The left turn arrow comes on before the light that allows one to go straight turns green.

I turn left at this intersection. Instead of turning into the left hand lane on the street onto which I am turning, I turn all the way across to the bike lane. This allows traffic to pass me safely (there are generally cars lined up at the arrow), and allows me to turn right (as I want to do 50 yards later).

It would (I argue) be asinine to turn into the left lane, then indicate a right turn and switch to the right lane, then indicate another right turn and switch to the bike lane, then turn right. My common sense approach (which is probably illegal, although I have no idea and don’t care) is far superior, in terms of my safety, and in terms of the safety and convenience of those driving cars.

In addition, the left turn arrow is triggered by the weight of a car. So sometimes I go into the left turn lane, and the arrow is never triggered. What should I do then? Sit in the middle of the street eternally? (I don't. I wait until it is safe, and, generally, zip across on the cross walk to the sidewalk on the other side, which is probably illegal, too.)

[Beth]

Gee, I need to brush up on my Brit humor...the mean side of it. Because if I hadn't been such a literal person, I could have just haha'ed and this thread might not have spiraled into a bike convo.

[Smilin]

:biker2:

I'm totally lost by this thread too Beth.

[maddog]

My point is: no reasonable person could possibly believe that he should always obey the law. Godfry (for example, based on my inferences from his posts) smokes pot, or at least sees other people smoking. Is he going to turn them in, as he threatens to turn in bike riders who ignore stop signs? Would he have turned in Anne Frank, as the law required him to? :godwin: You lose, BDS.


If not, wherein lies the distinction? It is reasonable to stop people from endangering YOU, and it might be reasonable to stop people from endangering other people, but what if they aren't endangering anyone? What of the jaywalker, crossing an empty street? Isn't a private citizen who reports the jaywalker to the police (or even rebukes him) a busybody?Some behaviors are legislated b/c the representative lawmaking body has determined that those behaviors DO endanger people, even when you think they may not.

If maddog wants to walk two blocks to avoid jaywalking, fine. I apologize for suggesting that he is a lunatic for doing so .... Thank you. (and it's "she"). Let's just call the behavior "eccentric".Hey! :glare:
As far as the kid in the store, if a kid runs into YOU (or almost runs into you), it's reasonable to say, "Hey! Watch it." Yes, and it's reasonable to say so even if they don't almost run into you. But kids sometimes run when they're not supposed to,granted -- that's in part why it's reasonable to remind them and very little harm generally comes from it,maybe, but why take (or impose on others) unnecessary risks? that's not reasonable either. and on the list of behaviors that are deplorable, running in a store ranks among the most trivial.(Assuming that "deplorable" is not an emotionally loaded word) I disagree. Nobody should be running (or riding a bicycle) in a store. Sure, you can think of an extreme example, like a medical emergency and somebody runs for the phone or the first aid kit, but that's got to be very, very rare. It's dangerous for other patrons, it's dangerous for the kid, it's dangerous for the store owner. Slip and fall claims are a huge economic cost on the shopkeeping industry. Running in stores is not trivial.

#859

[maddog]

One more biking question ... :

I bike to work most days. There’s an intersection with a traffic light and with two traffic lanes going in each direction, and a left turn lane. Both roads have bike lanes in the far right. The left turn arrow comes on before the light that allows one to go straight turns green.

I turn left at this intersection. Instead of turning into the left hand lane on the street onto which I am turning, I turn all the way across to the bike lane. This allows traffic to pass me safely (there are generally cars lined up at the arrow), and allows me to turn right (as I want to do 50 yards later).

It would (I argue) be asinine to turn into the left lane, then indicate a right turn and switch to the right lane, then indicate another right turn and switch to the bike lane, then turn right.
My common sense approach ... is far superior, in terms of my safety, and in terms of the safety and convenience of those driving cars. There may be a statute which permits, or even encourages, a bicycle driver to, when turning left from the center lane, turn directly to the right shoulder.
My common sense approach (which is probably illegal, although I have no idea and don’t care) ... This attitude bothers me. It's what gets bicycle drivers the reputation as scofflaws. That in turn helps create part of the danger to cyclists. And those roads out there are damn scary for cyclists.

In addition, the left turn arrow is triggered by the weight of a car. So sometimes I go into the left turn lane, and the arrow is never triggered. What should I do then? Sit in the middle of the street eternally? (I don't. I wait until it is safe, and, generally, zip across on the cross walk to the sidewalk on the other side, which is probably illegal, too.)
MY "common sense approach" to an intersection like you describe, when I am driving my bike, is to remain in the right-hand bicycle lane, to cross with through traffic on the main green signal (not the left arrow) and to wait at the opposite corner for the red light in the 90-degree direction to turn green. IOW, I make a "left" turn the same way a pedestrian would, by crossing on the right side, with the signal, in each leg of the turn. And, (naturally :) ) I think MY "common sense approach" is "superior" in terms of my safety, and the safety and convenience of those driving cars. It has the added advantage of not being stuck in the middle of the roadway when there is no car to trigger the signal, as I can, if necessary, push the pedestrian crossing button. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

#860

[BDS]

Some behaviors are legislated b/c the representative lawmaking body has determined that those behaviors DO endanger people, even when you think they may not.
]

Of course. But we must all use our own judgment, and recognize that some laws are stupid, and others are evil (which is the point of the Anne Frank wisecrack). Decent people should avoid evil behaviors, even when they are mandated by law, and decent people should avoid stupid behaviors, even when they are mandated by law.

The law doesn’t trump moral decency, and it doesn’t trump common sense. Quite the contrary.

As far as your method of making a left turn, it’s safe, and convenient for the drivers, but it’s not convenient for ME. It would take forever. I have to get to work on time, so I can post at FF. If all bicyclists followed your procedure, it would be a strong disincentive to commute by bicycle, global warming would accelerate, and hundreds of millions of innocent children would drown.

[maddog]

Some behaviors are legislated b/c the representative lawmaking body has determined that those behaviors DO endanger people, even when you think they may not.


Of course. But we must all use our own judgment, and recognize that some laws are stupid, and others are evil (which is the point of the Anne Frank wisecrack). Decent people should avoid evil behaviors, even when they are mandated by law, and decent people should avoid stupid behaviors, even when they are mandated by law. You haven't shown that you are avoiding stupid behaviors in your bicycling choices, for example. In fact, it looks like you are doing stupid behaviors and thinking it's "common sense."

As far as your method of making a left turn, it’s safe, and convenient for the drivers, but it’s not convenient for ME. It would take forever. I have to get to work on time, so I can post at FF. If all bicyclists followed your procedure, it would be a strong disincentive to commute by bicycle, global warming would accelerate, and hundreds of millions of innocent children would drown.So that means you'll start doing it my way, then? :D
#861

[godfry n. glad]

As far as your method of making a left turn, it’s safe, and convenient for the drivers, but it’s not convenient for ME. It would take forever. I have to get to work on time, so I can post at FF. If all bicyclists followed your procedure, it would be a strong disincentive to commute by bicycle, global warming would accelerate, and hundreds of millions of innocent children would drown.

And here we get to the meat of the issue. If it's not convenient for BDS, it's not "common sense".

The method outlined by maddog is, by far, the safest, and it is the one I would use. If being safe is a strong disincentive for you to commute by bicycle, then get the hell off the bicycle and take the bus. Or walk.

If you can't do a timely commute to work in a safe manner, then you need to alot more time for your commute.

[BDS]

[
And here we get to the meat of the issue. If it's not convenient for BDS, it's not "common sense".

The method outlined by maddog is, by far, the safest, and it is the one I would use. If being safe is a strong disincentive for you to commute by bicycle, then get the hell off the bicycle and take the bus. Or walk.

If you can't do a timely commute to work in a safe manner, then you need to alot more time for your commute.

What crap! It’s legal for me to “take the lane” and block traffic – and I’d choose that method over maddog’s, because I’m in a hurry to get to work. However, because I am a nice guy, who is concerned with avoiding inconvenience and delay for drivers, I use the common sense approach of turning directly into the bicycle lane. It’s safe, it’s efficient (and it may or may not be legal).

My choice is not between using the super slow approach that maddog suggests or the approach I currently use. I simply won’t do that. Why should I? The choice is between using the ultra-legal approach or the one I currently use.

And, yes, convenience and speed is common-sensical. Why wouldn’t it be? It would be safer if nobody drove to work in cars – or if all cars drove at 15 miles per hour. Are you suggesting that, too?

Do you ever ride a bike anywhere, Godfry? If not, how do you know what method you would use? And I CAN commute to work in a safe (and practically legal) manner. I do it every day. In fact, my method is SAFER (for both me an others) than the strictly legal method I would employ if I were some sort of anal-retentive type who worried constantly about the law. That was my point.

[godfry n. glad]

[
And here we get to the meat of the issue. If it's not convenient for BDS, it's not "common sense".

The method outlined by maddog is, by far, the safest, and it is the one I would use. If being safe is a strong disincentive for you to commute by bicycle, then get the hell off the bicycle and take the bus. Or walk.

If you can't do a timely commute to work in a safe manner, then you need to alot more time for your commute.

What crap! It’s legal for me to “take the lane” and block traffic – and I’d choose that method over maddog’s, because I’m in a hurry to get to work. However, because I am a nice guy, who is concerned with avoiding inconvenience and delay for drivers, I use the common sense approach of turning directly into the bicycle lane. It’s safe, it’s efficient (and it may or may not be legal).

My choice is not between using the super slow approach that maddog suggests or the approach I currently use. I simply won’t do that. Why should I? The choice is between using the ultra-legal approach or the one I currently use.

And, yes, convenience and speed is common-sensical. Why wouldn’t it be? It would be safer if nobody drove to work in cars – or if all cars drove at 15 miles per hour. Are you suggesting that, too?

Do you ever ride a bike anywhere, Godfry? If not, how do you know what method you would use? And I CAN commute to work in a safe (and practically legal) manner. I do it every day. In fact, my method is SAFER (for both me an others) than the strictly legal method I would employ if I were some sort of anal-retentive type who worried constantly about the law. That was my point.

Oh... I love this. If anyone disagrees with you, then they must know nothing about it. Yes, I have a bicycle and I use it on occasion. In fact, I have four bicycles; three Treks and a Fuji. One of the reasons I really dislike riders with your attitude is that you fuck it up for those who do follow the rules of the road and ride safely. You and yours' complete unconcern for anything other than your own convenience and speed has convinced me that you are an accident on its way to happen. I certainly hope that you don't drive a motor vehicle, because your attitude applied to that would certainly be more deadly to others than your bicycle. In a car, you'd be a public menace.

Now all we need to do is find a way to tax bicyclists to pay for all the public accomodations they are provided. I still think registration and licensing is the best bet.

[BDS]

Again, Godfry, your post is utter bunk. One of the reasons I dislike “Law and Order” fanatics like you is they fail to think for themselves. It is obvious from your latest post that you fail to do so. Far from “fucking it up for those who do follow the rules of the road and ride safely”, my left turn tactics show car drivers that I am considerate of them, and want to let them drive more quickly than I ride. Far from thinking only of my own convenience and speed, I am thinking of the convenience and speed of others.

I do drive a “motor vehicle” (I call it a “car”, actually). I’ve never been in an accident, and haven’t received a moving violation in 20 years.

[ms_ann_thrope]

:chillpill: :chillpill:

Can't we go back to talking about the sweet, sweet sound a misbehaving child's forehead makes when it thwacks into a countertop?

Please?

[Smilin]

:giggle2:

Indeed! We've strayed off topic quite a bit I believe.

[BDS]

It's all the same topic. Some people object to kids who run in stores (because there's some unwritten law against doing so); others object to bicyclists who don't follow the exact letter of the law.

The thread is about the extent to which it is reasonable to think other people deserve to suffer if they don't behave as we think they should (the OP), the extent to which we (as individuals or as a society) have a right to dictate how others should behave, and the extent to which private citizens should butt into business that is only tangentially their own.

Personally, I promote a laissez faire approach. Live and let live. But that does not seem to be the consensus opinion, here at Freethought Forum. Many "Freethinkers" believe, evidently, in the iron rule of law and custom.

[maddog]

What crap! It’s legal for me to “take the lane” and block traffic – and I’d choose that method over maddog’s, because I’m in a hurry to get to work. Right. Because you're in a hurry. :no2:

Seriously, are you serious? You'd choose blocking lanes of cars with your bike, to a 2-leg crossing with traffic? Because you're in a hurry? (Though I recognize, of course, that your whole "global warming" schtick was a joke. :wink: With this one, I can't tell.)

However, because I am a nice guy, who is concerned with avoiding inconvenience and delay for drivers,*[see my comment below] I use the common sense approach of turning directly into the bicycle lane. It’s safe, it’s efficient (and it may or may not be legal).It very well may be legal. Perhaps you could look it up and be sure.

My choice is not between using the super slow approach that maddog suggests or the approach I currently use. I simply won’t do that. Why should I? The choice is between using the ultra-legal approach or the one I currently use.What's "super slow" about it? (Look how you've "loaded" that remark.) It isn't really slow at all. All you have to do is go with the green light(s). It would take, at most, a couple more minutes to do it more safely. More safely for you and for everyone else on the road. "I simply won't do that. Why should I?" Are you really wanting to say that your life and the lives of others aren't worth a couple of minutes? Lots of people on the road really scare me. By the way they drive their various vehicles, they seem to think their business is MUCH more important than anyone else's, or anyone's life (including their own).

I also think, BDS, you might be falling into a bit of a trap. Michael Josephson, who runs the Josephson Institute of Ethics, has radio commentaries on ethical issues. One of the things he points out is There's a certain seductive force to necessity claims, but neither real nor perceived necessity gives anyone a moral free pass. Personal needs and wants just don't trump moral principles. Remember, character is doing the right thing even when it costs more than you want to pay. link here (http://www.charactercounts.org/knxwk450.htm#3) It's so easy to justify what I "want" as what I "need," when it really isn't so at all. Josephson often quotes Nietzsche(sp?): Necessity is not an established fact, but an interpretation. Maybe you were only joking, but it seems a couple of minutes is more than you are willing to pay.
And, yes, convenience and speed is common-sensical. Why wouldn’t it be? Methinks he doth protest too much. It would be safer if nobody drove to work in cars – or if all cars drove at 15 miles per hour. Are you suggesting that, too? Your hyperbole is showing. Neither of these over-the-top suggestions you are making are required by law; iow, if you disregard them, you are not breaking the law. You as a cyclist, however, have already said you don't care if you are violating the law or not.

... And I CAN commute to work in a safe (and practically legal)except for those laws you say you don't even care about manner. I do it every day. In fact, my method is SAFER (for both me an[d] others) than the strictly legal method I would employ if I were some sort of anal-retentive type who worried constantly about the law. That was my point.Now you're calling me names again. And, although some choices you make may be safer than some other choices you might make (you having dismissed my choice out of hand), I still don't think (and I don't think you've said or shown) that your "method" is safer than mine.

*I also don't think your method is more considerate of others (incl. car-drivers) than mine. My left-turn method places me consistently on the right-hand side of the roadway, where cars expect bicycles to be. To get to the center/left-turn lane, you (generic you) usu. have to cross traffic lanes to get there. Car-drivers don't often expect bicycle-drivers, esp. lone bicycle-drivers, to be in the center left-turn pocket, or to go across traffic lanes to reach the left-turn lane. A bicyclist in the left-turn pocket also can obstruct motorized traffic more than my strategy, e.g., if any motor vehicle is making a left turn at the same time and place as you. Any such driver has to be especially careful to watch out for your, normally unexpected, presence. And if you are in a traffic lane, even a turn-lane, ahead of motor vehicles, you will impede their progress.

You will do as you wish, of course, BDS, and I'm not issuing tickets. :miranda: But I still prefer my strategy in terms of overall safety and courtesy for everyone, and it's 100% legal to boot. :cool:

#862

[Crumb]

But that does not seem to be the consensus opinion, here at Freethought Forum.
I don't think you can make that judgement at all based on this thread.

[BDS]

For the record, I was actually calling Godfry names, maddog, not you.

I don't see why I should have to ride my bicycle slowly, though, when I can ride it quickly, safely, and without inconveniencing cars. Surely we want to encourage people to ride bikes to work, don't we? Besides, all car drivers increase traffic and inconvenience other cars, just like bike riders do. Should they take out-of-the way, slow routes to work to avoid inconveniencing others?

I fully admit that my method is not more courteous or legal or safe than yours. Yours is great, if you want to take the time, which I don't.

[BDS]

But that does not seem to be the consensus opinion, here at Freethought Forum.
I don't think you can make that judgement at all based on this thread.

Probably true. I'll agree with that.

[ms_ann_thrope]

It's all the same topic. Some people object to kids who run in stores (because there's some unwritten law against doing so); others object to bicyclists who don't follow the exact letter of the law.OK fine, you win, it's the same topic. Even though you distinguish between the two in your own post above (unwritten social rules vs. established laws). :rolleyes:

Now that you mention it, I probably would get a certain degree of satisfaction if I witnessed some scofflaw bicyclist do some illegal things and then totally bite it in traffic as a direct result of those actions.
:nelson:

[BDS]

Now that you mention it, I probably would get a certain degree of satisfaction if I witnessed some scofflaw bicyclist do some illegal things and then totally bite it in traffic as a direct result of those actions.
:nelson:

I thought you would. You seem the type.

[Dingfod]

Gawd, you're evil, scarletpeaches, for having spawned this thread.

[godfry n. glad]

Now that you mention it, I probably would get a certain degree of satisfaction if I witnessed some scofflaw bicyclist do some illegal things and then totally bite it in traffic as a direct result of those actions.
:nelson:

I thought you would. You seem the type.

While you, on the other hand, would rant and rave about the perfidy of the drivers and pedestrians who "caused" the cyclist to bite it and demand even more privileges for bicyclists who are microcephalics, irrespective of what really happened. It matters not to you that any particular bicyclist acts in a manner unsafe for themselves and others, but if they are hurt, maimed or killed in a cyclist/auto confrontation, you condemn the drivers and/or pedestrians. I've seen this immature attitude far too much in too many cyclists. You and your friends in Critical Mass can continue to be mortality/morbidity statistics if you want, but I still think you'd get a whole lot more respect, and consequent acknowledgment and attendant safety, by observing the rules of the road when you share it with other modes of transportation.

Recent events here in Puddle City have made it clear that too many arrogant bicyclists have had their effect upon the rest of the public. "Ignorant arrogant ingrates" seems to be the prevailing opinion about all too many overzealous bicyclists.

[ms_ann_thrope]

I thought you would. You seem the type.Oooh, burn! :sarclap:

You're certainly not writing anything here that makes me feel any sort of goodwill towards bicyclists who choose to disobey the law for their convenience. In fact, your posts have moved me from being merely annoyed by them to actual wishful thinking that they experience immediate, negative consequences of their asshattery. Congratulations.

[maddog]

For the record, I was actually calling Godfry names, maddog, not you.Well, based on this kind of comment: "I thought you would. You seem the type." I'm still not sure whether I'm not within the sweep of the epithets you used. It's hard for me to tell when you're joking and when you're not. I also probably qualify under your definition as a law and order fanatic who can't think for myself. And, in any case, I don't necessarily regard it as OK to call names, even if they are not (at the moment) aimed at me.

I don't see why I should have to ride my bicycle slowly, though, when I can ride it quickly, safely, and without inconveniencing cars. Surely we want to encourage people to ride bikes to work, don't we? Besides, all car drivers increase traffic and inconvenience other cars, just like bike riders do. Should they take out-of-the way, slow routes to work to avoid inconveniencing others?

I fully admit that my method is not more courteous or legal or safe than yours. Yours is great, if you want to take the time, which I don't.

Yeah, we want to encourage more cyclists, I think. Personally, I would lobby a lot for more dedicated bicycle paths so there is less competition on the roadway between bicycles and cars. the cyclists almost always lose. badly.

You approve my method as legal, courteous and safe. All it costs is a small amount of time. You simply don't want to take the time. Right, as long as you see that that's really what you are doing: the time factor is controlling for you. And for that you are willing to risk legality, courtesy and safety. (N.B., your method may be perfectly legal, assuming you are complying with other rules such as signalling turns and lane changes and so on.) And the way I see it, since cyclists DO almost always lose badly in any bike/car confrontation, it seems to me that you are effectively willing to risk your life for a little inconvenience of time. That risk is not worth it to me.

Just curious: if there were a cop at your intersection every morning, directing you to cross via my method, would you really stop commuting by bike altogether, just for that amount of inconvenience? I think this is another instance of "I want to" becoming transformed, by hyperbole, into "I need to," and therefore a justification of what you are doing.

The supposed hypothetical of "all cars cause traffic and inconvenience, therefore should they all take slow roads?" is simply not an apt comparison. Bicycles and cars are different from one another, and I think you know that. Bicycles normally are not in the same driving/traffic lane as cars. There are reasons for that. So the two situations are not analogous.

As to "I don't see why I have to ride slowly, when I can ride quickly, safely and without inconveniencing cars," I'm not convinced that what you are doing is as safe for you or the cars, or as convenient for the cars, as you think it is. This is exactly the same rationale that a lot of bicycle drivers seem to use w/r/t stop signs and red lights, too: "I don't see why I should have to" actually stop, "[if] I can ride quickly, safely and without inconveniencing cars" by simply proceeding through the traffic control. Not one cyclist in ten will actually stop at a stop sign.* (*this is an anecdotal statement, not a genuine statistic)
#863

[BDS]

Godfry n Glad is a liar, a bearer of false witness, and is incapable of forming a rational opinion of his own. That conclusion is inescapable, based on any rational reading of his posts. Let’s look at what Godfry says:

1) In response to my question: “Do you ever ride a bike anywhere, Godfry? If not, how do you know what method you would use? “


Oh... I love this. If anyone disagrees with you, then they must know nothing about it. .

Talk about a non sequitur! I ask a question, and Godfry accuses me of drawing an inference!

Godfry continues:

While you, on the other hand, would rant and rave about the perfidy of the drivers and pedestrians who "caused" the cyclist to bite it and demand even more privileges for bicyclists who are microcephalics, irrespective of what really happened. It matters not to you that any particular bicyclist acts in a manner unsafe for themselves and others, but if they are hurt, maimed or killed in a cyclist/auto confrontation, you condemn the drivers and/or pedestrians. I've seen this immature attitude far too much in too many cyclists. .

Oh. I would? How do you know? Where did I “condemn the drivers and pedestrians” for anything, other than yelling at me and trying to intimidate me? But, of course, facts mean nothing to Godfry. He prefers to just make them up. It’s so much easier for his feeble brain to dispute with an imaginary person than with an actual one.


Recent events here in Puddle City have made it clear that too many arrogant bicyclists have had their effect upon the rest of the public. "Ignorant arrogant ingrates" seems to be the prevailing opinion about all too many overzealous bicyclists.


And recent posts here at Freethought Forum have made it clear that you are a liar, a bearer of false witness, and an idiot. However, whatever the “prevailing opinion” happens to be, you seem likely to jump on the bandwagon. You are certainly incapable of forming a rational opinion of your own.

[BDS]

I thought you would. You seem the type.Oooh, burn! :sarclap:

You're certainly not writing anything here that makes me feel any sort of goodwill towards bicyclists who choose to disobey the law for their convenience. In fact, your posts have moved me from being merely annoyed by them to actual wishful thinking that they experience immediate, negative consequences of their asshattery. Congratulations.


Go back to your knitting, Madame Defarge.

[freemonkey]

Now that you mention it, I probably would get a certain degree of satisfaction if I witnessed some scofflaw bicyclist do some illegal things and then totally bite it in traffic as a direct result of those actions.
:nelson:
My husband once hit a bicyclist who illegally darted into traffic. Fortunately, the guy was not hurt, but the experience was unpleasant for both of them.

[freemonkey]

It's all the same topic. Some people object to kids who run in stores (because there's some unwritten law against doing so); others object to bicyclists who don't follow the exact letter of the law.

If your kid was running around Target, fell or ran into something and cracked his/her skull open, would you sue them, or even think about it once the trauma was over with?

If you were hit by a car because of something illegal you did, would you attempt to collect on that driver's insurance?

[ChuckF]

Ensign Steve and I were talking about the breeders and she reminded me of this thread, and I went looking for it and found it, then I read it, and it is so much win that I had to bump it. I encourage all of you to re-read it.

I will be doing a traditional bump, wherein I offer a one-line reply to a long-absent OP.
I was just in the local corner shop buying milk, but the nature of my purchase is irrelevant. What is, is the fact I had a box of chocolates and a hardback copy of Pele's autobiography in my bag.

There were two rampant children in the shop, running hither and yon (gotta love Olde Worlde parlance), getting under my size 6's; you can imagine the effect on my blood pressure.

I was getting ready to put my change back in my purse when one of those said children came careering round the corner, smack into the corner of the bag holding said chocs and book.

Now I don't know if it was the sharp corner of the choc box or the book that did it, but said brat was at just the right height for impact. Three second delay while child contemplated whether or not to cry, money in purse, me out the door to the sweet, sweet music of child crying at mild head injury and sibling telling Mummy about "bumping into that lady". How my heart sang the song of malice.

So that, my friends, is why I sometimes buy hardback, rather than waiting for the paperback edition to be published.

Pour me a glass of iced Evilade.

I thank you. :evil:
I found this thread on googling and I am apalled I think you are very immorral because the Children are the future of America.

I have reported your post to the moderators.

[BrotherMan]

Needs more Random capitalization Of Certain words.

[Ensign Steve]

Okay, now I'm going to act like I didn't notice the time dilation before the bump, and I'm going to reply to a three-year old post on this same page as though it's new news.

It's all the same topic. Some people object to kids who run in stores (because there's some unwritten law against doing so); others object to bicyclists who don't follow the exact letter of the law.

If your kid was running around Target, fell or ran into something and cracked his/her skull open, would you sue them, or even think about it once the trauma was over with?

If you were hit by a car because of something illegal you did, would you attempt to collect on that driver's insurance?

Shit, I got nothing. I'm cracking under the pressure. Quick, look over there!

:hotmoves:

[SharonDee]

Evil thread bumpers! :shakecane:

[maddog]

Evil bread thumpers! :shakecane:

#2380

[Lauri D]

Yay for resurrection :) I have very strong-held views on the appropriate time and place for children, which will no doubt leave me vilified and provide entertainment for days to come. Or not, depending on people's interest.

To get back to the OP: If you can't control them in a public setting, leave them at home (not by themselves of course, no telling what mayhem could result).

ok here goes it's gonna hurt I know it

Having a child does not make you a saint. Having a child does not make you special. Millions of people all over the world do it all the time.

Your kid is not gods' gift; your kid is not beyond reproach.

I am not without empathy for single mothers; my sister is one with two kids the younger being autistic. And somehow she managed to raise them both - with help from family and friends obviously - to be relatively polite kids in public (there will always be the occasional fuss). If R. caused a scene he would be politely removed from the premises ASAP with apologies to whomever may have been bugged.

There are times and places for everything. At a park, or similar space, I don't give a crap if kids are running around all crazy like. That's their space. An eating establishment? That's a whole other story (unless we're talking about Chuck E. Cheese.)

Don't even get me started on kids on airplanes. Let the hate rain down from parents who want to be able to fly with their kids, but I have had so many heinous experiences with kids on planes that I must restrain myself from ranting now. NOTE: I am not talking about infants. They can't help it and their ears hurt and that always makes me feel sad, because it sucks to be in pain and not know why. I'm talking about toddlers who can SPEAK and refuse to listen to their parent's suggestion that they keep it down so that other passengers can have some peace and quiet. If a kid is able to scream at mighty decibels "NO I DON'T WANT TO SIT DOWN!!! I WANT NEMO!!!" that kid and his/her parents should be summarily thrown off. the. freaking. plane.

[Stormlight]

Something else I'm getting tired of in this country is all this stupid talk I have to listen to about children. That's all you hear about anymore, children: "Help the children, save the children, protect the children."

You know what I say? Fuck the children! They're getting entirely too much attention. And I know what some of you are thinking: "Jesus, he's not going to attack children, is he?" Yes he is! He's going to attack children. And remember, this is Mr. Conductor talking; I know what I'm talking about.

And I also know that all you boring single dads and working moms, who think you're such fucking heroes, aren't gonna like this, but somebody's gotta tell you for your own good: your children are overrated and overvalued, and you've turned them into little cult objects. You have a child fetish, and it's not healthy. And don't give me all that weak shit "Well, I love my children." Fuck you! Everybody loves their children; it doesn't make you special. John Wayne Gacy loved his children. Yes, he did. That's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is this constant, mindless yammering in the media, this neurotic fixation that suggests that somehow everything --everything-- has to revolve around the lives of children. It's completely out of balance.

..