Be careful on the pavements...

[Sue]

5 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

OP has said a lot about that. They've been a bit less forthcoming in describing their own behaviour in how they "raised the issue"! Perhaps that might explain the laughing onlookers. Perhaps not.

Why did you feel the need to post that?

Have you actually read the rest of the thread?

[malumbu]

7 hours ago, HeadNun said:

This thread is about the father's ungenerous and snide reaction towards a pedestrian, into which his four-year-old collided. Not about whether said child should have been cycling on the pavement. 

It's a thread about parenting so stop hijacking it, just so you can showcase, yet again, your vast and superior knowledge about roads, bikes, cars, driving, the law, pavements, ebikes, LTNs. PCNs, lanes, lines, speed limits, helmets, lights, dayglow, lycra etc etc etc. 

Just seen this.  Your post was a bit unnecessary.  I was simply responding to the previous post that children should be cycling on the pavement.

But as you say I know shed loads about transport.  Not to the depths that some go down to the minutia.  Some call me the space cowboy.  Some call me the gangster of love.  I think of myself as the people's poet.  You have to laugh at yourself.

Echoing what DKH said, we weren't there, you don't know the parent was making a snide remark,

My favourite Dulwich parent story was a few years ago were friends when we were in the Herne garden a few years ago, who let their children run riot.  Bless.  One decided to turn the hose on spraying some poor drinkers.  Now most of us would be mortified, but the friends welcomed their child's creativity.   

[first mate]

7 hours ago, malumbu said:

Echoing what DKH said, we weren't there, you don't know the parent was making a snide remark,

If we accept what the OP has written, and it does seem credible, the father did not respond to the incident appropriately. His child was out of his line of sight when the OP was hit from behind by the child on a bike. Many of us, having been startled like this, might express some displeasure. Rather than a sincere and concerned apology, it sounds as though the father instead attempted to paint the OP as the problem, even laughing at them. I don't know what kind of message that would send to his child but doubt it is a good one. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

19 minutes ago, first mate said:

If we accept what the OP has written

Exactly. 🎯

[Penguin68]

Do you have any reason, other than malice, to doubt the OP's two posts setting out what happened?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Yes - the fact they go long on how awful the other adult was but seem a bit reluctant to talk about their own behaviour!

If you actually read the OP, their argument with the man wasn't about the kid hitting him, but about OP being told that their "reaction was over the top". Well, OK, then, OP - what was that reaction?

OP then says "As I walked away, I heard him and two other adults talking and laughing about my reaction – yes, laughing." That's an interesting detail. Many possibilities here. Is the world is so chock full of sadists that even casual onlookers cackle at the sight of someone being smacked into by a 4 year old on a bike? Did OP make a bit of a tit of themselves with their reaction? Or something else entirely? We'll never really know because we don't have both sides of the story - in fact, not even a complete one-sided story...

[Froglander]

I know this isn’t the same but I’m using it to illustrate how some people can laugh at very inappropriate things they should not be laughing at.  I was once knocked down by an out of control Rottweiler who barrelled into me from the back when I was walking in a park with my dog. I landed on my back and his owners laughed at me instead of coming to see if I was ok. This dog later went on to bite the hand of the owner of a tiny dog who picked him up to keep him away from the Rottweiler. The owner of the small dog never appeared in the park again as they were worried about being bitten (or the dog) again. 

We (me and other dog walkers but not the owner who was bitten - we encouraged her to report it but she was too petrified) ended up reporting the owner to the police by following him to see where he lived.  This parent sounds like a dickhead.  

[first mate]

2 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Yes - the fact they go long on how awful the other adult was but seem a bit reluctant to talk about their own behaviour!

But they didn't, they said the father behaved inappropriately (not properly supervising his child), gave a half- hearted apology (sorry, but...), laughed at and discussed within the OP's earshot the OP's upset response with his mates. I do not think he said the parent was awful, did he?

It just seems like some are angling around trying to find a way to justify how the parent handled this. It just doesn't feel that complicated- most likely OP was startled, reproached the parent and did not get a real apology, instead being made to feel they were somehow in the wrong. It can happen. 
 
 

Edited 2 hours ago by first mate

[Sue]

2 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Yes - the fact they go long on how awful the other adult was but seem a bit reluctant to talk about their own behaviour!

If you actually read the OP, their argument with the man wasn't about the kid hitting him, but about OP being told that their "reaction was over the top". Well, OK, then, OP - what was that reaction?

OP then says "As I walked away, I heard him and two other adults talking and laughing about my reaction – yes, laughing." That's an interesting detail. Many possibilities here. Is the world is so chock full of sadists that even casual onlookers cackle at the sight of someone being smacked into by a 4 year old on a bike? Did OP make a bit of a tit of themselves with their reaction? Or something else entirely? We'll never really know because we don't have both sides of the story - in fact, not even a complete one-sided story...

Let me get this straight .

The OP  was hit from behind by a small person out of control on a bike whose father was not only not watching him but could not watch him, because he was not in a position to see him.

Are you disputing that "side of the story"?

Why would someone who rarely posts on here come on here to post that?

Then the OP remonstrated with the father. What would you have done in that situation? 

You seem absolutely determined to put the OP in the wrong. 

What exactly is your motive in doing that? Do you always assume that someone is lying when you haven't heard "both sides of the story"?

Do you always disbelieve anything you are told because there are so "many possibilities"?

The father in question is hardly likely to come on here to defend his lack of care of his child, is he? 

And btw there were no "casual onlookers". The people who laughed were apparently the child's father and those with him.

Who did not witness  "someone being smacked into by a 4 year old on a bike" because the child was out of their line of sight.

It seems that you can't even get right something which is posted on a forum and there in writing for all to see.

Let's hope you are never called as a witness in a court case.