Sainsburys - disabled parking (Lounged)

[grabot]

India, which on the whole relies more on family run shops, of course, has no road traffic accidents!

[the-e-dealer]

A week? A year ? In England? Australia the World?

[PROSouthwark]

Indeed grabot and an excellent case study for local, independent shops. So many unemployed people on my estate have no chance of a decent quality of life because Lord of the Manor Sainsburys was born lucky.

[lenk]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> Cylists bloody hate em - "huge Killer" - how many

> is huge? 4 40 5000 lets have some real statistics.

> Since most cyclists break the rule and ride on

> pavements and through red lights up one way

> streets the wrong way its suprising there arent

> more accidents they are as bad as children!.

> (TIC!)

'Most' cyclists break the rule? Or just ones you've seen?

A huge majority of 'rider down' postings on cycle forums like www.londonfgss.com are due to artics / people undercutting lorries.

No stats, though I'm sure they're out there.

[*Bob*]

Soup is very dangerous

[the-e-dealer]

Especially in Supermarket Car parks!

[Loz]

Tapir,

I read a quote the other day that seems to describe your posts: "The plural of anecdote is not data"...

Anyway, I don't have a problem with P&C areas, but having them at the front is unnecessary and putting them at the back would mean that non-parents wouldn't use them.

[pk]

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Soup is very dangerous

so it would seem, and it would seem appropriate that steps were taken to assess and minimise the danger, no? or should they not bother trying to avoid future accidents?

same true for aeroplanes?

and car parks?

what i really don't get is what your and e.g. lenk's problem is - is it really that bad that you can't park right next to the shop?

[*Bob*]

I don't have a problem with it as such.

I can just see lots of reasons - genuine practical and safety reasons- why it would be better somewhere else.

[Mick Mac]

This is a very long thread. That chap who parked his car in the disabled bay has a lot to answer for.

I always think there are too many disabled bays and very few disabled people. I'm all in favour of disabled bays but when you make too many of them, which lie empty, they are bound to be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people.

[Muley]

Look...

I'm a parent. And a cyclist. And I eat soup and fly in aeroplanes. I've even designed the odd car park.

Now who the bloody hell is supposed to be arguing about what?

Sod it, let's all go for a cold one...

[PROSouthwark]

Flying is equally immoral. As a parent, you have no excuse. We ought to start facing up to the hard facts and say what must be said instead of being polite.

[DaveR]

"and say what must be said instead of being polite."

Alright then - f&ck off and don't come back.

[Muley]

PROSouthwark, have you met 'thebeard'? I have a feeling you two would get on together...

[cdonline]

What with many parents letting themselves go after having children, I can see that the wider berths are a godsend.

[pk]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> "and say what must be said instead of being

> polite."

>

> Alright then - f&ck off and don't come back.

i don't really know whether it's deserved as i ain't followed PROS, but that's very funny

[DaveR]

In truth it's probably a bit harsh because PROS is actually kind of loveable in an entirely bonkers way. I would have put a smiley/winky face icon at the end but I didn't because I hate them with a passion that burns.

[taper]

What this thread needs is Tony LS to add a racial dimension and then we'll have a perfect storm of a thread.

Perhaps ProSouthwark is Tony gone to Sussex University in the 60s.

[Domitianus]

pk Wrote:

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

> Domitianus Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I can assure you, DaveR, that my parents didn't

> > expect the world to be turned on its head to

> > accomodate that choice. I think they had

> > sufficient grasp on reality to appreciate that,

> > kids or not, they would prolly have to use the

> > same parking spaces as anyone else and, you

> know

> > what, they raised three sons without any of us

> > getting trapped in cars whose doors they

> couldn't

> > open fully or having us turned into strawberry

> jam

> > after having to walk the length of urselves

> > through a car-park. By God, we were sometimes

> > even allowed to cross busy roads by ourselves.

>

> what point are you actually making here?

>

> is the world on it's head? and because you can't

> park in the place closest to the supermarket? what

> other unreasonable adjustments has society made

> when trying to be considerate to other that have

> turned it on it's head? (and when it was on it's

> feet were those without children rightly the

> priority?)

>

> was the world a better place when you were a

> child?

What point am I makijng? What point are you making? I don't understand a word of this post.

[pk]

Domitianus Wrote:

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

> pk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Domitianus Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I can assure you, DaveR, that my parents

> didn't

> > > expect the world to be turned on its head to

> > > accomodate that choice. I think they had

> > > sufficient grasp on reality to appreciate

> that,

> > > kids or not, they would prolly have to use

> the

> > > same parking spaces as anyone else and, you

> > know

> > > what, they raised three sons without any of

> us

> > > getting trapped in cars whose doors they

> > couldn't

> > > open fully or having us turned into

> strawberry

> > jam

> > > after having to walk the length of urselves

> > > through a car-park. By God, we were

> sometimes

> > > even allowed to cross busy roads by

> ourselves.

> >

> > what point are you actually making here?

> >

> > is the world on it's head? and because you

> can't

> > park in the place closest to the supermarket?

> what

> > other unreasonable adjustments has society made

> > when trying to be considerate to other that

> have

> > turned it on it's head? (and when it was on

> it's

> > feet were those without children rightly the

> > priority?)

> >

> > was the world a better place when you were a

> > child?

>

>

> What point am I makijng? What point are you

> making? I don't understand a word of this post.

i wasn't making a point, merely trying to understand if you were - hence the question 'what point are you making?' a question that you now say that you don't understand, so i guess i'll give up and assume that you don't know what, if any, point you were making

the world on it's head bit is in relation to the bit in now in bold above where you imply that the world is now on it's head and that this somehow relates to parent and child parking spaces

it's not hard you know

[Keef]

Anyone who shops at the big supermarkets cares nothing for our children, our planet and our collective future.

And all the smaller businesses of the world are there just to help people.

A worker stuggling in a world skewed toward the land owners riding her bike to work

Did you know her? I am assuming you did, otherwise how the hell would you know if she was struggling against anything? She might have owned 5 houses!

You are the sort of person who actually turns people against what you believe in, even if they are good causes. Kind of like the mentalist animal rights campaigners who want to kill people.

[Domitianus]

pk Wrote:

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

> Domitianus Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > pk Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Domitianus Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > I can assure you, DaveR, that my parents

> > didn't

> > > > expect the world to be turned on its head

> to

> > > > accomodate that choice. I think they had

> > > > sufficient grasp on reality to appreciate

> > that,

> > > > kids or not, they would prolly have to use

> > the

> > > > same parking spaces as anyone else and, you

> > > know

> > > > what, they raised three sons without any of

> > us

> > > > getting trapped in cars whose doors they

> > > couldn't

> > > > open fully or having us turned into

> > strawberry

> > > jam

> > > > after having to walk the length of urselves

> > > > through a car-park. By God, we were

> > sometimes

> > > > even allowed to cross busy roads by

> > ourselves.

> > >

> > > what point are you actually making here?

> > >

> > > is the world on it's head? and because you

> > can't

> > > park in the place closest to the supermarket?

> > what

> > > other unreasonable adjustments has society

> made

> > > when trying to be considerate to other that

> > have

> > > turned it on it's head? (and when it was on

> > it's

> > > feet were those without children rightly the

> > > priority?)

> > >

> > > was the world a better place when you were a

> > > child?

> >

> >

> > What point am I makijng? What point are you

> > making? I don't understand a word of this

> post.

>

> i wasn't making a point, merely trying to

> understand if you were - hence the question 'what

> point are you making?' a question that you now say

> that you don't understand, so i guess i'll give up

> and assume that you don't know what, if any, point

> you were making

>

> the world on it's head bit is in relation to the

> bit in now in bold above where you imply that the

> world is now on it's head and that this somehow

> relates to parent and child parking spaces

>

> it's not hard you know

A little more skill in constructing your sentences would not be amiss and would make your point clearer. MY point is that if people chose to make the decision to have children then they can hardly expect preferential treatment in every circumstance, as seems to be happening in a great many situations in society. The one in question is that people are being given preferential parking opportunities simply because they have children in tow. Inevitably this will disadvantage those who do NOT have children. The reasons that have been put forward to justify such preferential parking, eg. safety concerns; seem quite spurious. If people chose to make decisions about their life, such as having children, then they should have the nouse to understand that from time to time this decision will have consequences that are a little inconvenient (they might have to carry their children certain distances, they might occasionally struggle to get them in and out of the car, they might not be able to sit in local pubs til 8pm with their new-born etc etc). I mean if I bought a flipping DOG I would realise that it might cramp my style a little! And if I took it to a car-park and took it out of a car I would expect to be required to control it and put it on a lead so as not to get knocked down. I would NOT expect special parking spaces for people with dogs! There seems, however, on some parts, to be an expectation that having children with one confers some instant priviledged status and that lesser mortals (those without said sprogs) should scurry into the gutter/cross the road/avert their eyes/bow three times/put up with restricted parking opportunities/patiently endure the atrocious behavior of rowdy four year olds etc etc, in order to smooth the regal passage of those with progeny. Guess what? I aint gonna do it.

And it seems that the previous generations managed to successfully raise robust, healthy and resourceful children without expecting everyone else to play second class citizen in order for them to do so. If you are taking your children shopping/into a car park/out on the street - HOLD THEIR B****Y HANDS! It is called PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, unpopular as that term might be. In the words of a certain boxer (name I can't remember) who was questioned on whether in his private life he was setting a good example as a role model - "It ain't my job to raise your children."

[Domitianus]

taper Wrote:

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

> I'm sure you could. But that wouldn't be at all

> relevant would it.

>

> What these incidents show is that car parks are

> dangerous. And intuitively you know that to be

> right don't you. Lots of nooks and crannies for

> children to suddenly appear out of, cars

> performing complex manouevres, stressed parents

> struggling with wayward trollies and children.

>

> But not as dangerous as sword swallowing, I'll

> give you that.

Complex manouevres???? Like what? Hand-brake turns? Double de-clutching? Or are we talking normal stuff like driving forward, reversing, turning left and right................all at very low speed? Furthermore, since car-parks are also traversed by pedestrians any responsible driver in a car park will be particularly alert for them. If you find anything that you are required to do in a car-park "complex" you should hand in your driving licence and take the bus.

[woofmarkthedog]

Domitianus Wrote:

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

>

> I mean

> if I bought a flipping DOG I would realise that it

> might cramp my style a little! And if I took it

> to a car-park and took it out of a car I would

> expect to be required to control it and put it on

> a lead so as not to get knocked down. I would NOT

> expect special parking spaces for people with

> dogs! There seems, however, on some parts, to be

> an expectation that having children with one

> confers some instant priviledged status and that

> lesser mortals (those without said sprogs) should

> scurry into the gutter/cross the road/avert their

> eyes/bow three times/put up with restricted

> parking opportunities/patiently endure the

> atrocious behavior of rowdy four year olds etc

> etc, in order to smooth the regal passage of those

> with progeny. Guess what? I aint gonna do it.

>

> And it seems that the previous generations managed

> to successfully raise robust, healthy and

> resourceful children without expecting everyone

> else to play second class citizen in order for

> them to do so. If you are taking your children

> shopping/into a car park/out on the street - HOLD

> THEIR B****Y HANDS! It is called PARENTAL

> RESPONSIBILITY, unpopular as that term might be.

> In the words of a certain boxer (name I can't

> remember) who was questioned on whether in his

> private life he was setting a good example as a

> role model - "It ain't my job to raise your

> children."

_______________________________________________________________________________

Domitianus

You have really missed the obvious. It's quite simple Ok, I have 2 young boys so when I go to shop I buy for 4 people each & every time, week in week out , plus Christmas presents ,birthdays & their friends Birthdays & clothes for our boys and our friends boys, plus all the parties & picnics ohh the list and occasions just grow.

So quite rightly the big supermarkets just love us & our friends & our friends friends, in fact we are GOLD star customers, top of the pecking order , they cant do enough for us and quite bloody rightly so.

We do & will spend more money than those who choose not to have kids. If you can't see the sound business decision a company makes by offering US the premium parking & preferential conditions then look a little harder, beyond your frothy coffee & salad for one. Those bays are wider so we can open all the doors to our massive people carriers & get all our purchases in, Lord have you not figured that one out yet,in purchase land you are out classed and out maneuvered, & out in the cold.

BRRrr shut the door after you.

FCOL

W**F

[pk]

Domitianus Wrote:

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

>

> A little more skill in constructing your sentences

> would not be amiss and would make your point

> clearer.

i'll try to be more considerate to the hard of understanding in the future

i used to not be a parent myself and never felt any of the anger/bitterness/victimisation that you seem to, i certainly didn't feel hard done by that i couldn't park in the special parking places (i seldom do even now that i can).

why is this?

i guess that i'm just more tolerant, less uptight and would rather just get on with things than moan (on and on) about how i was suffering so that others could do what people have always done and always will do

but out of interest, do you really think that having a dog and having a child are comparable?