To think this is actually really entitled parenting?

[GlummyMcGlummerson]

Seen this post from several people this morning outraged at the walking couple

www.facebook.com/672995864/posts/10158029908925865/?d=n

Now I am in no way condoning the disgusting language of the man in question. But the dad showed such an entitled attitude. He didn't tell his DD to slow down even when she was on the heels of the couple. She could have hurt them if they'd been elderley or disabled, and you can't tell from behind. He didn't practice social distancing - even if the couple had moved they'd have been way less than 2m apart from them, unless they threw themselves into a bush. And when his DD fell off the bike, rather than comfort her he spent the time arguing with and blaming the couple while she cried on the floor.

I've taken my kids to paths like this during lockdown and have said if someone is walking ahead we have to walk behind them with the bikes until we can pass them safely or the paths get wider. This is while teaching them to cycle, and just because they have momentum it doesn't mean they shouldn't stop - surely that's part of learning to cycle, knowing when to judge the safety of themselves and others?

I suppose i also hate this trend of social media vigilantism whereby people want to share faces of those who've slighted them, usually with a huge amount of bias and very little context. And the general public seem to lap it up! I am hard of hearing and I hate cyclists coming up behind me when I walk as unless they bellow "excuse me" I simply will not hear them. I wouldn't be pleased if a child bashed into me and then I got yelled at by the parent for not having good hearing and eyes in the back of my head.

[Boredbumhead]

It's like bashing into a car in front of you because they don't pull over in time. Dad's fault entirely.

[VerticalHorizon]

unfortunately you do need to be aware of what is behind you as well as what is ahead of you, at all times
Evolution suggests not, hence not having eyes the backs of our heads.

I'm being facetious, but really, the onus is on those behind to take the lead, as they are at a distinct advantage. This father didnt take the lead, he took the mickey, which is quite a different thing.

[SnuggyBuggy]

Maybe deaf people should have to wear giant fake ears or something so arrogant cyclists know they are deaf.

[YinMnBlue]

@lotusbell your understanding of disability equality is about 5 decades out of date. Deaf and disabled people have a right to access public amenities alongside everyone else. Not restrict themselves lest they cause Lycra louts (I have no doubt that that is what the Dad is, with his helmet cam and his passive aggressive ‘excuse me’ which means, apparently, ‘get out of my way’).

And none of us should ever take other people’s ability : disability for granted. Any person might be deaf. Or non-English speaking.

[Lemonyfuckit]

Lotusbell

so yes, unfortunately you do need to be aware of what is behind you as well as what is ahead of you, at all times.

I really don't think you need to be aware of what is behind you at all times. A modicum of awareness of your environment is simply common sense but we don't have eyes in the back of our heads, it is perfectly fine to be moving forwards and not looking behind you / not even aware if someone is behind you because the onus is on the overtaking person to do so safely. It's not like driving a car where yes you should be aware of what is behind you, we don't walk about wearing wing mirrors!

[ElizaCrouch]

How was the dad supposed to know they were hard of hearing?

It doesn't matter if he knew or not. The important thing is that they hadn't acknowledged or responded to his 'request', thus he has to assume they didn't hear and therefore reign his child in. Not allow her to plough into the back of them. Even my 10 year old would have the common sense to understand that. There seems to be something severely lacking with a few people's reasoning skills here.

[AwrightDoreenTakeAFuckinDayOff]

It is useful if you are being aware.

Not at all fucking useful if an entitled tit encourages his child to plough into you regardless.

@Megatron Come fly with me 🎵 🎶 come fly come fly away

I’ve listened to the foo fighters, and think I can fly. Just in case I’m too fat to raise my heft off the ground (my arse makes 2m distancing look a bit nippit) I am now in the process of grafting (actual car) bumpers on to the backs of my legs and a rather natty eye (triple size) for the back of my head.

I have fashioned you a bloody lovely pair of wing mirrors. Attached to a Madonna bra. You’ll look the bollocks.

[lotusbell]

. Even more offensive to suggest that their freedom to walk in safety should be restricted for the benefit of people who can't be bothered to supervise their children properly - nope, never said this either.
If I go walking along a narrow path, I would not expect to be ploughed into by a cyclist but I would certainly expect to have to come in contact with either another walker, a jogger or a cyclist so yes, unfortunately you do need to be aware of what is behind you as well as what is ahead of you, at all times.

[fascinated]

Isn’t this an opportunity for the police to use social media for good and actually explain the law on who has priority in these types of situations and how they should be handled? Because it obviously not that clear to lots of us.

[JudyCoolibar]

If I were hard of hearing and so was my partner, I would more than likely avoid places like that for walking

Oh, don't be ridiculous. You have no idea what you would do if you were deaf, and it's incredibly offensive for you to come on here to pontificate about what people who actually are deaf would or would not do. Even more offensive to suggest that their freedom to walk in safety should be restricted for the benefit of people who can't be bothered to supervise their children properly.

How was the dad supposed to know they were hard of hearing?

Much more to the point, how could he know that they weren't? On any basis they weren't reacting, so whether he thought they could hear or not he obviously should have stopped his child.

[JudyCoolibar]

If the concern is lack of social distancing, then don’t chose to walk your dog along a 1.5 mile path, narrow at times, and absolutely designated for the use of cyclists and horse riders, as well as for those walking, if you don’t intend to remain alter for other users requiring to pass by. Again, this is not the path for you

By the same token, don't take your child who is not fully in control of her bicycle on a narrow path unless you are prepared to stop her from crashing into people.

Pedestrians are perfectly entitled to walk on country lanes and other roads which have no pavement however they have a duty to take reasonable care for their own safety

Which does not include looking behind them all the time in case some idiot wants to let his child ride into them. If anything, that would be the epitome of failing to take reasonable care.

[diddl]

"The couple walking ahead had a responsibility to allow the child and her father past, given that the path is multi use."

Why?

Does multi use mean that cyclists have priority?

[JudyCoolibar]

The path is a multi use path for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. All 3 going at different speeds. It is all users’ responsibility to understand that the path is multi use and to remain alert for others users on the path, and remain vigilant to allow cyclists and horse riders past. The path is wide enough to allow walkers to walk in single file to facilitate this.

But none of that applies with social distancing, which must take priority.

The couple walking ahead had a responsibility to allow the child and her father past, given that the path is multi use.

Which they could do in compliance with social distancing rules by stepping aside when it was safe to do so - in practice that only involved walking a short distance ahead. Common sense and indeed legal guidance says that is the only applicable option in this particular scenario.

The father and child made their presence known.

How do you know the walkers were aware of it?

[JudyCoolibar]

they could've shouted back "just hold on til we get to a wider bit!'

Or they could have assumed that a responsible adult looking after his child properly could work that one out all by himself.

[JudyCoolibar]

who in the world kicks a child's bike?

Maybe someone who's shocked and in pain because said bike has just been ridden into him and the person responsible thinks it appropriate to blame everyone else? And someone who needs to move it out of the way, which is what that kick looks like.

[ElizaCrouch]

then maybe they're not walking in the best place for them given that the path has been recognised as multiuse

The only people that shouldn't be using a multi use path are those who are unable to stop themselves smashing in to other people. People with disabilities should not have to stop using public paths because some ignorant twat thinks it's ok to encourage their child to cycle into them.

[JudyCoolibar]

For people who were asking where they could go, why couldn't they walk single file and then the child would have been able to get past?

Because she still couldn't get past leaving 2m clearance.

but they could have stopped to help her when she fell over and was crying

Why, when (a) they would have been shocked and in pain themselves, and (b) her father was there to look after her? I've had a child's bike run into my legs, it was bloody painful.

and if they were in any way extra vulnerable... and didn't want to help her up they shouldn't have been out.

Utter nonsense. By what rule should someone who, for instance, has a weak heart, cancer, brittle bones, spinal problems, asthma etc etc stay indoors just in case some idiot may want to send his child to barge into them? Should we lock all these oh-so-inconvenient disabled people away in your world?

[SquashedSpring]

It doesn't matter if your dc is ringing a bell, saying excuse me or singing land of hope and glory while approching someone, you just don't stand by or in this case encourage them to plough into the back of somone, and if, despite your best efforts they do, you apologise!

[JudyCoolibar]

if you watch the full video the guy does turn around, twice, so he is fully aware of the little girl approaching.

I can't say I've seen that on the video, but even if it's true, so what? Surely the natural assumption is that her father would keep her back, given that she couldn't conceivably pass them whilst leaving a 2m gap. The mere fact that they might have seen her makes zero difference whatsoever.

[JudyCoolibar]

The kid did say excuse me, as did he and she rang her bell in enough time before she hit them, they should have at least acknowledged their presence instead of just carrying on

@EastMidsMumOf1, how do you know they heard? Surely the onus is on the people behind to acknowledge the presence of the people in front and not barge into them?

[India999]

When I saw it I thought the exact same thing!!

There's a deadly fucking virus and were supposed to be social distancing and they're just letting their kid ride around and into people. Tell your child to stop and wait. It's not rocket science.

[MissEliza]

I actually got into an argument with a woman for a similar reason just after lockdown. I was walking with my dd on the pavement and the woman's dd cycled between the two of us, brushing past us and almost causing dd to lose her balance and step into the road. I said 'seriously!' to my dd and continued on our walk. The woman passed us again and had ago for me. She said I shouldn't expect her dd to keep her distance as she was only 10 . She was getting quite hysterical. At the precise moment two police officers appeared. I walked away while they explained the concept of social distancing to her.

[SquashedSpring]

lotusbell I can't believe that you've just said that the hearing impaired should not use narrow paths so that entitled aresholes are free to do whatever they want on them.

Does this apply to other disabled peple? Wheelchair users, the visually impaired. How about those with arthritis? The elderly?