Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To wonder why consideration and common sense seem to take a back seat nowadays

52 replies

Vintagejive · 16/06/2015 12:01

"there's no law against it"

"I'm perfectly within my rights"

"I'm not breaking any rules"

I'm so fed up of seeing and hearing those excuses being trotted out to justify annoying or inconsiderate behaviour. Laws and rules often decide the 'minimum' standard of behaviour required in different situations, but AIBU to think that individuals should be capable of assessing the situation they're in and working out whether they're being rude, thoughtless, infringing on someone else or whatever without always having to have a regulation to dictate how they behave?

OP posts:
DoJo · 16/06/2015 12:50

I suppose it depends whose version of 'annoying and inconsiderate' prevails. Things that might drive you up the wall probably wouldn't bother me and vice versa - the law is there to distinguish between behaviours that are universally not allowed and those which are just a matter of preference IMO.

LashesandLipstick · 16/06/2015 12:56

Agree with DoJo. Rudeness is often subjective

Pipbin · 16/06/2015 13:02

I agree op.
There are a lot of things that there are no laws preventing but are downright irresponsible to do.

For example there was a child knocked over by a cyclist who was riding at speed on the pavement. His excuse was that he didn't know it was against the law. He shouldn't have to know. It should be obvious that it was a bad idea.

LashesandLipstick · 16/06/2015 13:07

Pipbin I've seen that and it was just an accident...he should have stopped but the child ran out without looking and her parents weren't watching.

I feel sorry for cyclists, the roads aren't safe for them and there aren't enough cycle lanes. What are they supposed to do?

sliceofsoup · 16/06/2015 13:08

YANBU.

There is a shocking sense of entitlement about these days. Things like parking, behaviour in shops (supermarkets are the worst) and general fuckwittery on the roads.

So many people exist in their own little bubble and give no consideration to how their behaviour may affect others.

A lot of it could be subjective, but its the general air of entitlement that really gets to me.

sliceofsoup · 16/06/2015 13:10

I feel sorry for cyclists, the roads aren't safe for them and there aren't enough cycle lanes. What are they supposed to do?

The law is very clear though, cycling on footpaths is illegal unless there are dedicated cycle lanes marked. So if they feel the road isn't safe and there is no cycle lane they must dismount until such a time as the road is safe again.

LashesandLipstick · 16/06/2015 13:12

Soup, just because it's the law doesn't mean it's sensible surely? Cycling is a healthy, fun activity, yet it seems everyone is against anyone actually doing it

lilivonshtupp · 16/06/2015 13:12

Lashesandlipstick - the child ran across a pavement! That is somewhere you shouldn't have to 'look out' for things coming at high speed. It's not like crossing a road. And the cyclist didn't even stop to see if she was ok. In my mind, that all wasn't an 'accident' but illegal bad behaviour on the part of the cyclist.

I do think that there is a huge amount of low-level fuckwittery going on nowadays - my particular bugbear is anything mobile phone related. Stop bloody texting every 4 minutes when you're with me - the world won't end because you left typing 'LOL' or similar.

What I do find interesting is reading MN and finding out I have been doing some of this low-level rudeness quite by accident...

lilivonshtupp · 16/06/2015 13:14

Lipstick - walking is a fun, healthy activity too. That is why I don't like having cyclists coming at me and my children at high speeds on pavements. If more people want to cycle, there should be more campaigning for cycle paths or safer road routes. Invading the last place where pedestrians feel partially safe seems unfair (and illegal).

I speak as an avid cyclist.

LashesandLipstick · 16/06/2015 13:15

Shtupp walking out without looking means there's a chance you'll bump into someone or something. The cyclist not stopping is bad, however the actual crash was just an accident...kids have accidents. I was a clumsy kid and had loads of sprains, cuts and injuries from running into people and objects...my parents never went to the press making a big deal of it...

Greydog · 16/06/2015 13:15

It's the loud music at all hours, shouting in the streets at night, driving like a maniac, litter. All these come under the lack of thought and consideration for others. There was a thread a little while back about people playing with a football in a wild flower park despite notices asking them not too. And dogs - well that had to come up! Children that are allowed to climb all over things - I could go on! Best stop now!

LashesandLipstick · 16/06/2015 13:16

Shtupp usually though cyclists can avoid pedestrians and even if a collision occurs it's not exactly going to cause serious injury...

I agree there should be more cycle paths

lilivonshtupp · 16/06/2015 13:18

Again, Lashes, this was a pavement. It wasn't made for very fast moving objects barrelling along. It's illegal. You seem quite resistant to that fact.

Bumping into things as a child is very different from having a 15 stone man going 20mph on a bike dragging you under his wheels. Hmm

SoupDragon · 16/06/2015 13:19

Pipbin I've seen that and it was just an accident...he should have stopped but the child ran out without looking and her parents weren't watching.

That child ran out onto a pedestrian space and was hit by a speeding cyclist who had no right to be there and clearly wasn't paying attention. I have no sympathy for the cyclist whatsoever. Is it "just an accident" when one party is doing something illegal, at speed and without paying attention...?

SoupDragon · 16/06/2015 13:20

even if a collision occurs it's not exactly going to cause serious injury...

I would have thought there is great scope for broken bones, serious cuts and also head injuries from hitting the pavements.

LashesandLipstick · 16/06/2015 13:20

I accept its illegal, I happen to think that something being legal or not isn't always a determiner of whether or not it's sensible.

I fell out a loft hatch once. Cut my skin by colliding with the ladder on the fall. Had that happened today with someone else's parents there'd be suing, health and safety outrage, press coverage and all sorts judging by what some do today!

What happened to admitting something was an accident and moving on

lilivonshtupp · 16/06/2015 13:22

"admitting something was an accident"? So the parents should have just shrugged their shoulders because their young child was walking in a place that should have been safe? That is really odd way of looking at it.

I agree that health and safety has gone a little overboard - but not in this case.

LashesandLipstick · 16/06/2015 13:22

I didn't expect to get into a whole debate about the cyclist thing...just think that accidents happen and people need to stop wrapping their kids in bubble wrap.

LashesandLipstick · 16/06/2015 13:23

Shtupp I can understand being upset about it but their reaction is so over the top

SoupDragon · 16/06/2015 13:23

How is being stupid enough to fall out of a loft hatch the same as being knocked over and dragged along a pavement by a cyclist who had no legal right to be there

One is stupid and running a risk of injuring yourself.
One is stupid and running a risk of injuring someone else and is also illegal.

sliceofsoup · 16/06/2015 13:24

If the cyclist really felt the need to do so on the pavement, did he need to be going so fast?

As a car driver we are taught to watch for hazards, and to reduce our speed if there is a chance a child may run out between parked cars etc. It should be no different for cyclists. That particular cyclist was going far too fast for the pavement, and the "accident" was caused entirely by him.

It is sickening that anyone would even suggest that young child or the parents were at fault. The mum walked to the car and the child went to follow. She was then hit by a cyclist who shouldn't have been there and didn't stop. It was absolutely disgusting behaviour by the cyclist.

HarrietVane99 · 16/06/2015 13:24

I was walking yesterday somewhere there is a cycle path and still had cyclists coming at me on the footpath. If cyclists feel they must ride on the footpath, they shouldn't go faster than walking pace and especially not approach at speed from behind. I shouldn't have to be continually looking behind me to see if it's safe to move from one side of the pavement to the other.

SoupDragon · 16/06/2015 13:25

I didn't expect to get into a whole debate about the cyclist thing...just think that accidents happen and people need to stop wrapping their kids in bubble wrap.

Running over a child on the pavement is not just an accident. It has fuck all to do with wrapping a child in bubble wrap. What a strange thing to say!

Icimoi · 16/06/2015 13:25

Lashes, if you fell out of an insecure loft hatch at someone else's house, the likelihood of press coverage and health and safety outrage is close to zero. However, if it was due to their negligence it would be completely reasonable to claim damages, which would be covered by their insurance. That sort of accident can cause, as a minimum, considerable pain, and it may cause broken bones and even paralysis. It may well mean that the victim is off work for some time or even have to give up work. Why should the victim suffer all the consequences whilst the insurers for the person who was actually responsible pay nothing?

OnlyLovers · 16/06/2015 13:27

Lashes, you're clearly not listening so I guess I'm wasting my time, but:

The cyclist should NEVER have been there.

A person should be able to walk on a pavement (and even run on it) without having to look out for someone going at faster than walking/running speed.

Falling out of a loft hatch is not at all comparable to injuries sustained from a person riding illegally and irresponsibly on a pavement.

If you don't agree that riding a form of transport, fast, on a pedestrian pavement is not sensible then you're either stupid or stupidly stubborn.