help me, i've a bee in my bonnet

[Si]

Seems to be that this exchange is just becoming an exercise in forcing polarized views, and is rapidly losing its link with the real world (tm).

Surely everyone that is in a public place has a duty of care to those around them, no matter what their mode of movement - you don't let a child go cycling off down the pavement without first making sure that they appreciate the dangers or can be rapidly stopped*, and you don't drive a car across the pavement without first making sure that it is totally safe to do so. Everyone makes mistakes, whether we like it or not, so you can't rely on the other party to be perfect every time - you have to tailor your behaviour (and that of your kids) to be ready for other people's mistakes: better to be alive and inconvenienced than dead and right isn't it?


* note: this is not a comment upon Hubbers (I'm sure that he has a very sensible attitude to taking kids out on bikes), but to the general impression of polarization that seems to manifesting.

[hubgearfreak]

you have to tailor your behaviour (and that of your kids) to be ready for other people's mistakes: better to be alive and inconvenienced than dead and right isn't it?

you're right, but kids are unpredictable.
so, in this situation, there's two options to prevent the worst from happening.

1. to keep all children under 12 on reigns and within 2 feet of a responsible adult.
2. to have installed some traffic calming measures

personally, i believe option 2 is the more sensilbe appraoch, and am campaigning for the vets to act.
i've started this thread to see if anyone with experience might be able to point me in the right direction to relevant documents, and thankfully some are

however, if others think that might is right, they're entitled to their views and also i suppose to add them to this thread. if, as a moderator, you think that they're not helping (they're not) then delete their comments or PM them.
however - to accuse those with a feeling that footpaths ought to be a safe place for small children to cycle of polarizing views is nonsense

[Si]

however - to accuse those with a feeling that footpaths ought to be a safe place for small children to cycle of polarizing views is nonsense

It's a good thing that no one has done that then.

I'm sure that most, if not all, of the posters on this thread would agree that everyone has to take some care when using a foot path by whatever means - either care that they do not harm others or care that others do not harm them and theirs. The problem is that in this exchange posts often come across as only accepting that responsibility solely lies with everyone else (when I'm sure that in reality the writers of these posts did not mean them to be read that way, and that we all accept that everyone must do their bit). This is what I mean by the thread having polarised views in it: people appear to be saying that it has to be one way or the other.

Let's face it, if faced with a pavement full of infirm people on zimmer framed, you'd not go barreling across it in your Humvee expecting them all to jump out of your way, nor would you tell your child to ride down the pavement as fast as they can without looking where they are going. Sure the car can do more damage, but that doesn't mean that the child shouldn't also take care.

Can we not agree that everyone has a responsibility to use the pavement considerately rather than forcing the argument to extremes of having to have it one way or the other, and then get back to how it's best to tackle blind or partially blind entrances onto pavements and, I believe, was the issue in the OP?

[hubgearfreak]

you'd not go barreling across it in your Humvee expecting them all to jump out of your way

i wouldn't, but that's almost exactly the problem. the difference being that they expect the path to be clear. it isn't