parent and child spaces in sainsbury's car park

[DJKillaQueen]

I do accept that babies and small children in child seats need space to get them in and out but that is the only need for extra space imo. Once they can walk they can get in and out themselves.

[helena handbasket]

I suppose things always look easy from the other side, but I can assure you that toddlers generally can't be trusted to get themselves into their safety seats. Don't think the law would back that one up either. I don't know what I age I would feel confident letting my son buckle himself in properly but at four there's no way he's able to do it himself.

DJKQ it's a bit bizarre the way you know so much about something you clearly have no experience with. Each comment proves that more. I think it's football that's your thing, if memory serves, and honestly I like to think I'm wise enough to not argue about it with you as I have no understanding of it. It's kind of like that.

[pk]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do accept that babies and small children in

> child seats need space to get them in and out but

> that is the only need for extra space imo. Once

> they can walk they can get in and out themselves.

so does a parent with a walking toddler being able to park close to a shop in a slighter larger space really upset you or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it about something which doesn't really impact you but is appreciated by others?

[DJKillaQueen]

What ridiculous comments from the last two posters? So I don't have nieces and nephews...do you think I somehow live in a child free world? Best not to make assumptions about people you know nothing about I think - will always get you into trouble and helena I will comment on anything I like because this is a public forum if that alright with you.

You don't have get out of a car to undo a childs seat belt...I know this from experience...esp in the spacious 4x4s and people carriers that so many local parents seem to favour. I've got kids in and out of limited space more times than you might think and have never suffered great inconvenience having to do so.

[pk]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What ridiculous comments from the last two

> posters?

i only asked a question which you've chosen not to answer (as you chose not to answer the last one i asked in this thread, i think)

[DJKillaQueen]

I don't answer stupid loaded questions pk.

My view is that wider spaces for parents with children near to the entrance are not needed. I already posted that. Babies and small toddlers who can't walk properly yes but the rest no (I think someone posted a suggested cut off at 5 years which seems reasonable). Most Kids older than that can walk just as easily as the rest of us I think you'll find, born out by the fact that those without cars manage to walk their children to and from the shops/ bus stop every day. Happening to have a car and kids shouldn't afford you some kind of special privilege imo.

I'm not playing devil's advocate...it's my view.

[pk]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't answer stupid loaded questions pk.

>

i'm beginning to think of you as being a bit like Huguenot (sp?)

when people don't agree with you or don't understand what you are trying to say (may be because you don't say it very well or say it in haste) you like calling other people and their views 'ridiculous' and 'stupid' but you don't answer their questions (some of mine genuinely are as i don't understand you)and don't accept a fair challenge

edited to say: i think that it's rude, really

[DJKillaQueen]

Hang on....I wasn't rude to anyone before they lowered their tone at me. I have no issue with other views but have a look at the thread and see who gets indignant first. It's not me. Have a look at who is pouring personal ctiricism on others that don't agree with them...again not me. However I have been told I can't possibly know what I'm talking about, that I should stick to football (like my life has no other aspect to it) and how dare I even suggest that children are capable of walking form car to shop?

Why do some people even bother posting on forums if they can't live with other points of view?

[Tarot]

Organisation is what is needed.

Sainsburys disable bays for instance, mostly have cars that are not displaying blue badges,this is illegal.

The ground where the mum and baby bays should have visible lines painted in pink maybe,

Parents should be aware to shop when there isnt manic shopping hours,and preferably having a partner to help.

Its ok not to have children ,its a chosen lifestyle.

[peterstorm1985]

Tarot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The ground where the mum and baby bays should

> have visible lines painted in pink maybe,

Now this is a brilliant idea. Pink with a pretty flower pattern all around the space. That might put off some of those who really shouldn't be there. I can just hear the parents of teenage children being told - by their children - where they can or can't park.

[Loz]

Tarot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The ground where the mum and baby bays should

> have visible lines painted in pink maybe,

Except that they are not 'mum and baby bays', they are 'parent and child' bays. It is the 21st century - Dads take an active role in parenting these days.

[mockney piers]

Rights vs responsibilities.

Sadly we live in a very selfish country. I struggle to call it a society because that implies social cohesion which comes from people caring about the greater good over and above our own selfish concerns.

This wholly depressing thread only confirms for me that the balance is still very wrong, and also confirms that sturgeon's law is still very much applicable to people.

For the record, I would never dream of parking in a disabled bay or a parent one without a small child in tow. I did however think that the suggestion about making it a free for all after sevenish is a very sensible one.

[mockney piers]

Oh and hear hear Loz.

[ClareC]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rights vs responsibilities.

>

> Sadly we live in a very selfish country. I

> struggle to call it a society because that implies

> social cohesion which comes from people caring

> about the greater good over and above our own

> selfish concerns.

>

> This wholly depressing thread only confirms for me

> that the balance is still very wrong, and also

> confirms that sturgeon's law is still very much

> applicable to people.

>

> For the record, I would never dream of parking in

> a disabled bay or a parent one without a small

> child in tow. I did however think that the

> suggestion about making it a free for all after

> sevenish is a very sensible one.

Totally agree with you MP, like you I have never parked in a disabled space (and wouldn't dream of doing so) or a parent and child one other than when I have had my daughter with me.

This thread really shows a lot of people as either being purposely antagonistic for some strange personal kick or genuinely shockingly self centred. I love going to Sainsbury's child free and being able to park in a normal size space - Even with a 4x4 (dare I admit it) the normal spaces are perfectly large enough to park and be able to get in and out comfortably. I also have no issue with walking further. I am able bodied and healthy and let's face it even if parking in the furthest corner it's only a couple of minutes walk!

My daughter is 14 months and walking (toddling), there is no way on earth she could get herself into the car and into her car seat alone let alone understanding that that was required of her. I am 8 1/2 months preganant at the moment so really appreciate the parent parking on the rare occasion I get a space.

The suggestion above that parents only shop when the other parent is about is amusing, assuming there is another parent at all, the chances are this would only be possible at peak times - hmmmmm

[pk]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Why do some people even bother posting on forums

> if they can't live with other points of view?

says the person who reacts to fair questions or comments by calling them stupid and ridiculous

[Gubodge]

DJ, your issue seems to be with the proximity of the parent and child spaces to the store, not their actual existence, in which case your harking on about pedestrians and bus users making it safely to Sainsburys is not just irrelevant, but actually negates your argument. The bus stop and pedestrian entrance to the car park are placed so it is possible to get from them to the store safe from cars by using the zebra crossings, raised pavement and bollarded off walkway. No such protection is given for people who have driven to the store who have, in effect, to walk in the road to get to the entrance. Not something that most people would usually encourage their small children to do (even those toughies without cars), and particularly when so many of the cars are reversing and anything under 3 foot tall is invisible to them.

[pk]

Gubodge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The bus stop and pedestrian entrance to the car park are placed so

> it is possible to get from them to the store safe

> from cars by using the zebra crossings, raised

> pavement and bollarded off walkway. No such

> protection is given for people who have driven to

> the store who have, in effect, to walk in the road

> to get to the entrance. Not something that most

> people would usually encourage their small

> children to do (even those toughies without cars),

> and particularly when so many of the cars are

> reversing and anything under 3 foot tall is

> invisible to them.

it's valid comment, as someone said earlier (apologies i can't remember who and i might not quite be getting it right) the parent and child spaces are for the benefit of the child not just the parent - to allow the child to get out of the car and into the shop without the minimum of discomfort and danger

people can surely understand that short people and lots of reversing cars increase the likelihood of accidents, as such i think that its right that there are wider spaces closer to the store

i even thought the same before i had my own children when i managed to live my life without feeling victimised for being childless!

[DJKillaQueen]

Oh do grow up pk...point scoring on sarcasm will get you nowhere with me.

Gubodge...it's not just proximity...my view is that they are not needed for anyone apart from the very young (ie. babies and toddlers) and people who genuinely need more space to get out of the car like someone who is pregnant for example. I think it's ridulous to think that children of a certain age (five as suggested by someone else above for example) and above can't get out in and out of a car as easily as most adults, and then walk across a car park.

Having said that...for some people it is also possible to have a second adult with them that can drop them off at the entrance and then go and park the car. Even single parents have friends that can help in that way.

And before we had parent and toddler parking were hoards of children killed or injured by reversing cars in car parks? No...because part of driving is being absolutely aware of what's around you....hence the low speed limit in car parks and never reversing at a speed out of first gear. If as a driver you can't do that...then you shouldn't be driving. Similarly parents have a responsibility for the safety of their children. Any argument that it somehow has solved a safety issue is not born out by any fact whasoever.

[pk]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> And before we had parent and toddler parking were

> hoards of children killed or injured by reversing

> cars in car parks? No...because part of driving

> is being absolutely aware of what's around

> you....hence the low speed limit in car parks and

> never reversing at a speed out of first gear. If

> as a driver you can't do that...then you shouldn't

> be driving. Similarly parents have a

> responsibility for the safety of their children.

> Any argument that it somehow has solved a safety

> issue is not born out by any fact whasoever.

you'd better tell the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that - they seem to think that reversing has particular dangers for children as "The driver has a limited view when reversing and, of course, small children may not be visible in the rearview and wing mirrors"

and tell the European Child Safety Alliance that their facts (based on proper research and stuff) aren't relevant given your absence of 'facts' when they say that "Toddlers sustain the highest number of pedestrian injuries, primarily due to their small size and limited traffic experience. More than half of all toddler pedestrian injuries occur when a vehicle is backing up"

i'll ask again - why do you care so much that someone gets to park somewhere when they're carrying children that you can't if you're not?

[mockney piers]

But you really can't see small ones when manoeuvering a car. I'm desperately paranoid when driving near my nursery in the mornings and won't manoeuver above a snail's crawl. In a busy car park it's hard enough to avoid people with trollies charging down the car park!!

I certainly wouldn't want to bet my child's life on other people living up to the responsibilities expected of them; not having read 5 pages of people bleating about 'i want i want'.

Cue, 'but it's my RIGHT to reverse as fast as I want' ... etc ... ad nauseum.

[DJKillaQueen]

There's no doubt that little people can not be easily seen but you take extra care. Parents should be doing the job of making sure their children cross safely. Why would a toddler be behind a reversing car unsupervised in the first place?

I don't have an issue with special parking for anyone as long as the need is justofied. I just don't think that having children is a special need that's all. Disability yes, but children no. Far more parents cope without special parking at the entrances of supermarkets than those that think it's some kind of necessity that will drastically impinge on their ability to shop with the kids safely.

[DJKillaQueen]

How many toddlers under four years of age were accidently injured around cars in the UK last year? 101......of which 21% were examined but did not require treatment, 54% were treated on the spot with no follow-up treatment required. Around 1 in 10 cases were referred to the patient?s GP. So hardly an epidemic of serious injury is it.

Edited to add that a third of those cases were to toddlers inside the car.....

[mockney piers]

"Why would a toddler be behind a reversing car unsupervised in the first place"

Ask that of the chap who ran over John Gotti's kid.

Actually that probably won't be possible.

So we get it, you don't like it; btw no parents see it as a neccessity, it is however a service offered by sainsbury's gratefully received by those of us with small children. We have enough hassles to contend with. In the spirit of consideration of others that you inspire in all of us I'll simply say gleefully add that it does exist and I suggest you get over it.

I might add a naa naa naa naaaa naa whilst I'm at it.

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL...I understand it's a service and am ambivalent. My indignation was merely at those that think it should be a provided and then enforced service and the justifications they then presented.....

Na na na na na...right back at ya ;)

[Beej]

I can't even believe this conversation has lasted this long, but while we're still on the subject it is my personal belief that people shopping with children should be forced to do their shopping outside of

Zone 2, and perhaps, in fact yes, can we ban prams in ED coffee shops outside of the hours of 9-11am? I'm joking of course.....well kinda