In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
And as someone else posted here, the "cash for crash" scamsters would
have gotten away with it, if there was nothing wrong with it.

There's a very big difference from setting out to create such an incident
to a genuine accident.

--
*If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Marland wrote:
In the TV clip referred to it was the driver of the car who stopped in
unexpected manner who was prosecuted for dangerous driving , the Van
driver did manage to stop and his camera footage showed he had done so.

Didn't say you can't be prosecuted for stopping where you shouldn't. And
since the van driver managed to stop, he was rather obviously leaving an
adequate gap.

Thing being a following vehicle may not see what is happening in front of
the first vehicle which might have to stop quickly for a very good reason.

So there can only be one rule - keep to a safe distance. Surely the
multiple pile ups in fog etc tells you so?


Yes , of course that is sensible.
But you said
€œSo if you have to stop for whatever reason and they run into you, it is
their fault and their fault only.€�
I €˜m pointing out that is wrong.
This belief that the following driver is always to blame is long held and
though it is probably true in the majority of rear end collisions it has
never been absolute, what has been difficult has been proving the
circumstances were created by the action of the driver ahead in some cases
deliberately unless there were reliable witnesses and they can be hard to
find at any crash as people tend not to get involved.
The advent of the dash cam can now show otherwise as in the publicised
cases of crash for cash but there have been examples of blame being partly
or fully apportioned to the lead vehicle.

One case from when things such as dash cams were not around was when a
driver braked suddenly for a pheasant and was rear ended.
The driver who braked was held 100% responsible, other case have
apportioned percentages of blame to the lead vehicle so your statement that
€œ it their fault and their fault only €œ applying to the rear driver is
wrong and always has been.
It has just been very difficult to prove otherwise up till now, the dashcam
is changing that and in many cases where the rear ending driver would
previously have carried all the can the lead driver who has caused it may
not get off completely Scott free.

GH

Huge wrote:
On 2018-06-01, Marland wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Possibly the van as he hadn't been using his mirrors to know the idiot
behind was too close and hadn't allowed enough stopping distance.

You cannot control how close a vehicle follows you. So if you have to stop
for whatever reason and they run into you, it is their fault and their
fault only.


Not so, if you suddenly brake or stop in circumstances that a following
driver cannot be expected to anticipate then you take a degree of
responsibility.

To quote your good self, "not so".



Cases say otherwise.

https://www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/i...dden-breaking/

Though Im not sure I would trust a lawyers who cannot spell, the case of
the driver who stopped suddenly for a pheasant and was held liable for the
collision by a car which ran into their back seems to be a well known one.


Gussman versus Gratton-Storey.

GH

On 01/06/2018 15:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jethro_uk wrote:
If you have no reason for stopping, other than "to teach them a lesson"
police have frequently warned you can be prosecuted for dangerous
driving.

Very difficult to prove. You saw something at the edge of the road that
you thought was going to run out - child or dog, etc. Unless some
independant witnesses to the incident.

But why would anyone stop suddenly to 'teach someone a lesson'? is it
really worth getting your car damaged and all the hassle of arranging a
repair even if the driver behind has to pay for it?


I've done it.

Twas back in the late 1980s and my clapped out MK II Escort with 3 days
MOT left on it (that was going to get scrapped for a tenner) made a
right mess of the brand new (two day old) BMW that ran into me.

The lesson of this one is "never get into a road rage situation where
the car you are raging against is worth less than one of your cars mudflaps"



--
Adam

On 31/05/2018 09:16, Bill wrote:

Mine ran off a permanently powered cigar lighter socket, rather than
being fully plumbed in. The supplied 12v to 5v adapter went very
intermittent, so I replaced it with one that shows the 2 voltages and
the current, as I had doubts about the cam internal battery.

I'm very enthusiastic about the 12v adapters with the current display.

What exactly did you buy?

--
Michael Chare

In message , Marland
writes

One case from when things such as dash cams were not around was when a
driver braked suddenly for a pheasant and was rear ended. The driver
who braked was held 100% responsible, other case have apportioned
percentages of blame to the lead vehicle so your statement that €œ it
their fault and their fault only €œ applying to the rear driver is
wrong and always has been. It has just been very difficult to prove
otherwise up till now, the dashcam is changing that and in many cases
where the rear ending driver would previously have carried all the can
the lead driver who has caused it may not get off completely Scott free.

Why do small shops in little side roads use huge artics to deliver
stock?

A couple of days ago, this huge back side of an enormous lorry suddenly
appeared in front of me from behind a hedge backing across a fairly main
road. I slammed on the brakes. The driver behind me who, because of the
angles would have seen the artic much later, just stopped in time.

The lorry driver had to back for lack of turning space. I don't think
they carry a mate to help, but could be wrong.

It was a One Stop Shop lorry. I assume there is no irony in the name.
--
Bill

In message , Michael Chare
writes
On 31/05/2018 09:16, Bill wrote:

Mine ran off a permanently powered cigar lighter socket, rather than
being fully plumbed in. The supplied 12v to 5v adapter went very
intermittent, so I replaced it with one that shows the 2 voltages and
current, as I had doubts about the cam internal battery.
I'm very enthusiastic about the 12v adapters with the current
display.

What exactly did you buy?

It was a

http://tinyurl.com/y79k9x4z

I have one in each vehicle. The display is above rather than between the
two usb sockets as shown in the picture on the site.
--
Bill

On 01/06/2018 20:43, Bill wrote:
In message , Michael Chare
writes
On 31/05/2018 09:16, Bill wrote:

Mine ran off a permanently powered cigar lighter socket, rather than
being fully plumbed in. The supplied 12v to 5v adapter went very
intermittent, so I replaced it with one that shows the 2 voltages and
current, as I had doubts about the cam internal battery.
Â*I'm very enthusiastic about the 12v adapters with the current display.

What exactly did you buy?

It was a

http://tinyurl.com/y79k9x4z

I have one in each vehicle. The display is above rather than between the
two usb sockets as shown in the picture on the site.

Thank you, rather interesting.


--
Michael Chare

On 31/05/2018 23:46, Steve Walker wrote:
On 31/05/2018 23:06, Andy Burns wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

The car in front can brake for any reason, like getting something in the
eye, sneezing and having his glasses fall off.
Chummy boy behind is guilty of dangerous driving whatever he claims.

So from a UK dashcam programme on last night, car in outside lane of
dual carriageway stops for no apparent reason, white van behind car
manages to stop, lorry behind van doesn't manage to stop, pushes van
into the car injuring chap in the van.

Who was prosecuted, the car, van or lorry driver?

Should be car driver for dangerous driving and lorry driver for driving
too close to be able to stop. The van driver had no choice but to stop
and did so properly.

Depends on the situation.

A car that loses power and fails in the outside lane and the driver
can't get over to the hard shoulder they don't have much option but to
stop. I have encountered that situation a few times. Once in the car
behind the one that stopped dead for no apparent reason (out of fuel).

I once had a car immobiliser decide to spontaneously trigger and lock
the car down completely on a roundabout at rush hour. There is damn all
you can do with no working electrics at all apart from push it to the
edge of the roadside if someone will give you a hand to do it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 13:40:02 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk wrote:

Of course if anyone can provide a cite of a police officer saying
it's OK to do, I'll retract my assertion.

Why would you do that? Police are often a bit hazy on the law - it's
high court judges whose opinion you should value.

On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 14:12:35 +0100
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
If you know an idiot is driving too close you leave a bigger gap in
front so you don't have to an emergency stop even if the one in
front does. Any good driver knows this.

And a good driver also knows he may have to stop suddenly for other
reason than the car in front of him stopping. And there may not be a
car in front anyway.

You also have to drive more slowly because of the arsehole behind.

If you have any sense, you just ignore idiots like that behind you.
And concentrate on what's in front.

No, if there aren't more threatening things occupying your attention you
slow down until the gap he's left is more like a safe stopping distance
- if he keeps getting closer then you keep getting slower, until you can
accelerate away to leave a safe gap. Ignoring people who are likely to
crash into you, just because it's their fault, isn't sensible - what if
they shunt you into the path of an oncoming vehicle? Likewise if you
stop at a tailback on a motorway you should keep checking behind and
plan escape routes because something big and/or fast may be about to run
into the back of you.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
If you know an idiot is driving too close you leave a bigger gap in
front so you don't have to an emergency stop even if the one in front
does. Any good driver knows this.

And a good driver also knows he may have to stop suddenly for other reason
than the car in front of him stopping. And there may not be a car in front
anyway.

You also have to drive more slowly because of the arsehole behind.

If you have any sense, you just ignore idiots like that behind you. And
concentrate on what's in front.

With a very aggressive tail gaters, it makes more sense to pull
over and let them past. That way they cant run into the back
of your car if you do need to stop suddenly.
--
*If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Bill" wrote in message
...
In message , Marland
writes

One case from when things such as dash cams were not around was when a
driver braked suddenly for a pheasant and was rear ended. The driver who
braked was held 100% responsible, other case have apportioned percentages
of blame to the lead vehicle so your statement that €œ it their fault and
their fault only €œ applying to the rear driver is wrong and always has
been. It has just been very difficult to prove otherwise up till now, the
dashcam is changing that and in many cases where the rear ending driver
would previously have carried all the can the lead driver who has caused
it may not get off completely Scott free.

Why do small shops in little side roads use huge artics to deliver stock?

Because thats all their supplier uses truck wise.

A couple of days ago, this huge back side of an enormous lorry suddenly
appeared in front of me from behind a hedge backing across a fairly main
road. I slammed on the brakes. The driver behind me who, because of the
angles would have seen the artic much later, just stopped in time.

The lorry driver had to back for lack of turning space. I don't think they
carry a mate to help, but could be wrong.

You're not, they arent going to pay for two wages.

It was a One Stop Shop lorry. I assume there is no irony in the name.

In article ,
Sam wrote:
If you have any sense, you just ignore idiots like that behind you. And
concentrate on what's in front.

With a very aggressive tail gaters, it makes more sense to pull
over and let them past. That way they cant run into the back
of your car if you do need to stop suddenly.

Round here many streets are now 20 mph, and lots of speed bumps. You soon
get used to those white van ******s who try to get you to go faster by
driving too close behind. Oddly, they seem incapable of actually
overtaking, even when there is plenty room.

--
*Black holes are where God divided by zero *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
If you have any sense, you just ignore idiots like that behind you.

Jesus, that's dumb.

Even more dumb in heavy traffic concentrating on what's behind you .
rather than in front.

--
*I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 01/06/18 20:36, Bill wrote:
In message , Marland
writes

One case from when things such as dash cams were not around was when a
driver braked suddenly for a pheasant and was rear ended. The driver
who braked was held 100% responsible, other case have apportioned
percentages of blame to the lead vehicle so your statement that €œ it
their fault and their fault only €œ applying to the rear driver is
wrong and always has been. It has just been very difficult to prove
otherwise up till now, the dashcam is changing that and in many cases
where the rear ending driver would previously have carried all the can
the lead driver who has caused it may not get off completely Scott free.

Why do small shops in little side roads use huge artics to deliver stock?

A couple of days ago, this huge back side of an enormous lorry suddenly
appeared in front of me from behind a hedge backing across a fairly main
road. I slammed on the brakes. The driver behind me who, because of the
angles would have seen the artic much later, just stopped in time.

The lorry driver had to back for lack of turning space. I don't think
they carry a mate to help, but could be wrong.

It was a One Stop Shop lorry. I assume there is no irony in the name.

One Stop are buggers for delivering stock to small shops with over sized
lorries.

Tim Watts

The lorry driver had to back for lack of turning space. I don't think
they carry a mate to help, but could be wrong.

It was a One Stop Shop lorry. I assume there is no irony in the name.

One Stop are buggers for delivering stock to small shops with over sized
lorries.

Unless they are over 2.55 metres in width they wont be over sized , just a
big nuisance.

They will no be no situation exactly the same but many towns like the small
one near here have streets so narrow that a vehicle delivering will stop
passage of two way traffic with anything wider than a bicycle so it
doesnt make much difference if it is a tail lift lorry or a van.
What is the lesser evil , a lorry blocking a road for 15-20 minutes while
they wheel cages on and off or a succession of white vans to deliver the
same amount of stuff, each one by the time they park ,alert the shop
staff, unload, get the paperwork signed will each take about the same
15mins.
Say three vans thats the road partially blocked for a total of 45 mins
instead of 20 .

GH

On 02/06/18 11:33, Marland wrote:
Tim Watts

The lorry driver had to back for lack of turning space. I don't think
they carry a mate to help, but could be wrong.

It was a One Stop Shop lorry. I assume there is no irony in the name.

One Stop are buggers for delivering stock to small shops with over sized
lorries.

Unless they are over 2.55 metres in width they wont be over sized , just a
big nuisance.

They will no be no situation exactly the same but many towns like the small
one near here have streets so narrow that a vehicle delivering will stop
passage of two way traffic with anything wider than a bicycle so it
doesnt make much difference if it is a tail lift lorry or a van.
What is the lesser evil , a lorry blocking a road for 15-20 minutes while
they wheel cages on and off or a succession of white vans to deliver the
same amount of stuff, each one by the time they park ,alert the shop
staff, unload, get the paperwork signed will each take about the same
15mins.
Say three vans thats the road partially blocked for a total of 45 mins
instead of 20 .

As far as my observations go, OneStop already have 3 different massive
lorries (not artics, but usually 7.5t): milk; bread and everything else.

Surely it's not beyond the wit of a chain like that to have distribution
depots and make up 1 lorry of a day's deliveries? And then pick artics,
7.5t and lutons for the final leg allowing for the ease of accessibility
of the sites?

In message , Tim Watts
writes
As far as my observations go, OneStop already have 3 different massive
lorries (not artics, but usually 7.5t): milk; bread and everything else.

Surely it's not beyond the wit of a chain like that to have
distribution depots and make up 1 lorry of a day's deliveries? And then
pick artics, 7.5t and lutons for the final leg allowing for the ease of
accessibility of the sites?

+1

although here they are often artics.

To be fair, for this particular shop, the artics usually back down to
the shop if the road is clear. Maybe this was a new driver on this
particular day.
--
Bill

In article ,
Marland wrote:
They will no be no situation exactly the same but many towns like the small
one near here have streets so narrow that a vehicle delivering will stop
passage of two way traffic with anything wider than a bicycle so it
doesn‘t make much difference if it is a tail lift lorry or a van.
What is the lesser evil , a lorry blocking a road for 15-20 minutes while
they wheel cages on and off or a succession of white vans to deliver the
same amount of stuff, each one by the time they park ,alert the shop
staff, unload, get the paperwork signed will each take about the same
15mins.
Say three vans that‘s the road partially blocked for a total of 45 mins
instead of 20 .

Round these narrow London residential streets it's supermarket delivery
vans which are the pain. Near always double parked blocking the road. I
suppose this is progress. Wonder what all those people do with the time
they've saved on shopping themselves?

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Marland
wrote:
They will no be no situation exactly the same but many towns like the
small one near here have streets so narrow that a vehicle delivering
will stop passage of two way traffic with anything wider than a
bicycle so it doesn‘t make much difference if it is a tail lift lorry
or a van. What is the lesser evil , a lorry blocking a road for 15-20
minutes while they wheel cages on and off or a succession of white vans
to deliver the same amount of stuff, each one by the time they park
,alert the shop staff, unload, get the paperwork signed will each take
about the same 15mins. Say three vans that‘s the road partially blocked
for a total of 45 mins instead of 20 .

Round these narrow London residential streets it's supermarket delivery
vans which are the pain. Near always double parked blocking the road. I
suppose this is progress. Wonder what all those people do with the time
they've saved on shopping themselves?

they are working - to pay for the stuf that is delivered. But, deliveries
of groceries is not new - my mother had a weekly grocerly delivery and, as
required, food from the butchers and fishmonger.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
charles wrote:
Round these narrow London residential streets it's supermarket delivery
vans which are the pain. Near always double parked blocking the road. I
suppose this is progress. Wonder what all those people do with the time
they've saved on shopping themselves?

they are working - to pay for the stuf that is delivered.

If they are out working, how come they have stuff delivered during the day?

But, deliveries of groceries is not new - my mother had a weekly
grocerly delivery and, as required, food from the butchers and
fishmonger.

Yup. But generally a grocery delivery was a boy on a bike. And there were
travelling shops for all to use.

--
*Proofread carefully to see if you any words out or mispeld something *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 02/06/18 16:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Round these narrow London residential streets it's supermarket delivery
vans which are the pain. Near always double parked blocking the road. I
suppose this is progress. Wonder what all those people do with the time
they've saved on shopping themselves?

they are working - to pay for the stuf that is delivered.

If they are out working, how come they have stuff delivered during the day?

But, deliveries of groceries is not new - my mother had a weekly
grocerly delivery and, as required, food from the butchers and
fishmonger.

Yup. But generally a grocery delivery was a boy on a bike. And there were
travelling shops for all to use.


And the mother was in most of the day do the delivery boy could more or
less come as was convenient to the business.

One of the reasons, in my view, why society is suffering in many ways is
the need for 2 people to work to afford housing. It doesn't matter so
much if it's the mum or dad who stays at home, but shunting kids between
school and nursery, having big shops delivered rather than walking up
the road for an hour and buying 1-2 day's things on foot, not having
time to spend with kids providing out of school education - all are
having a net bad effect.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 02/06/18 11:33, Marland wrote:
Tim Watts

The lorry driver had to back for lack of turning space. I don't think
they carry a mate to help, but could be wrong.

It was a One Stop Shop lorry. I assume there is no irony in the name.

One Stop are buggers for delivering stock to small shops with over sized
lorries.

Unless they are over 2.55 metres in width they wont be over sized , just
a
big nuisance.

They will no be no situation exactly the same but many towns like the
small
one near here have streets so narrow that a vehicle delivering will stop
passage of two way traffic with anything wider than a bicycle so it
doesnt make much difference if it is a tail lift lorry or a van.
What is the lesser evil , a lorry blocking a road for 15-20 minutes while
they wheel cages on and off or a succession of white vans to deliver the
same amount of stuff, each one by the time they park ,alert the shop
staff, unload, get the paperwork signed will each take about the same
15mins.
Say three vans thats the road partially blocked for a total of 45 mins
instead of 20 .

As far as my observations go, OneStop already have 3 different massive
lorries (not artics, but usually 7.5t): milk; bread and everything else.

Surely it's not beyond the wit of a chain like that to have distribution
depots and make up 1 lorry of a day's deliveries? And then pick artics,
7.5t and lutons for the final leg allowing for the ease of accessibility
of the sites?

But they dont just do one retail outlet per run, they do
a number of them, particularly with the artics/semis.

On 02/06/18 18:14, Tim Watts wrote:

One of the reasons, in my view, why society is suffering in many ways is
the need for 2 people to work to afford housing. It doesn't matter so
much if it's the mum or dad who stays at home, but shunting kids between
school and nursery, having big shops delivered rather than walking up
the road for an hour and buying 1-2 day's things on foot, not having
time to spend with kids providing out of school education - all are
having a net bad effect.


Chicken and Egg. If a couple working was not now the norm housing would
be priced based on the ability to pay of one main income.

--
djc

(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
charles wrote:
Round these narrow London residential streets it's supermarket delivery
vans which are the pain. Near always double parked blocking the road. I
suppose this is progress. Wonder what all those people do with the time
they've saved on shopping themselves?

Quite a few of them get it delivered so they don’t have to cart
the kids around to the supermarket because there is no one
that can look after them at home while the shopping gets done.

they are working - to pay for the stuf that is delivered.

If they are out working, how come they have stuff delivered during the
day?

Because its easier with little pre school kids. And quite a few work
from home now too.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 02/06/18 16:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
Round these narrow London residential streets it's supermarket delivery
vans which are the pain. Near always double parked blocking the road. I
suppose this is progress. Wonder what all those people do with the time
they've saved on shopping themselves?

they are working - to pay for the stuf that is delivered.

If they are out working, how come they have stuff delivered during the
day?

But, deliveries of groceries is not new - my mother had a weekly
grocerly delivery and, as required, food from the butchers and
fishmonger.

Yup. But generally a grocery delivery was a boy on a bike. And there were
travelling shops for all to use.


And the mother was in most of the day do the delivery boy could more or
less come as was convenient to the business.

One of the reasons, in my view, why society is suffering in many ways is
the need for 2 people to work to afford housing. It doesn't matter so much
if it's the mum or dad who stays at home, but shunting kids between school
and nursery, having big shops delivered rather than walking up the road
for an hour and buying 1-2 day's things on foot, not having time to spend
with kids providing out of school education - all are having a net bad
effect.

On the other hand there were bad effects with bored housewives with
nothing useful to do except get drunk etc for something to do too.

On 2 Jun 2018 09:28:14 GMT, Huge wrote:

No, if there aren't more threatening things occupying your
attention
you slow down until the gap he's left is more like a safe stopping

distance

Precisely.

- if he keeps getting closer then you keep getting slower,

Yep. Quite often after a minute or three they'll give up trying to
push and drop back a bit anyway.

... until you can accelerate away to leave a safe gap.

Which won't last long as the tail gater will just catch you back up.


Likewise if you stop at a tailback on a motorway you should keep
checking behind and plan escape routes because something big
and/or
fast may be about to run into the back of you.

All very sensible.

And if there isn't an escape route and something looks to be coming
in a bit fast, ease forward closer to the vehicle in front and keep
the brakes off to reduce the double whammy if they hit you. One from
them hitting you, one from you hitting the one in front. Assuming
they are likely to hit you fairly hard. There comes a point where
putting the brakes on to stop a "gentle tap" nudging you into the one
in front could be a good idea.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 07:20:22 +1000, Sam wrote:

Quite a few of them get it delivered so they don t have to cart the kids
around to the supermarket because there is no one that can look after
them at home while the shopping gets done.

Eh? I used to take ours shopping. What's the problem? Mind you I'd be
delivering a running commentary about what we wanted, asking them if
they could see it or where would we find it. ie. made it interesting
by. shock horror, actually talking to them. Yes both of them threw a
tantrum at least once but as the response was laughter and "Come
along I'm going this way" and walked off they didn't do a repeat
performance.

By three there is also a bit of invisible elastic between you and
them, if they get a bit stroppy and don't want to move, just tell
them the direction you are going an go. Once you get about 15 yds
away or about to disappear around a corner, the elastic will reach
it's limit and a little hand will find yours. Note that if I did
disappear from their view I'd stop wait a few seconds then return,
they would either be just about to arrive at the corner or be looking
worried where I'd left them, call their name, they come a runnin'.

Both examples of not rewarding (from the childs point of view) what
you consider to be unacceptable beahvior.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 07:20:22 +1000, Sam wrote:

Quite a few of them get it delivered so they don t have to cart the kids
around to the supermarket because there is no one that can look after
them at home while the shopping gets done.

Eh? I used to take ours shopping. What's the problem?

Depends on the kids. One lot I saw on Saturday had a hell of a
problem keeping the kids in line.

Another I saw a while ago had one little kid quite literally unload
stuff off the display onto the floor in front of him. The shop assistant
just grinned and said "not to worry, mine does that too" and put the
stuff back.

Another actually climbed into the racks at Aldi walked on the stuff.

Another was tearing around the supermarket at a hell of a rate.

Another obvious had been caught short and stood in
the middle of the automatically opening doors and
****ed on the ground there, just passed the checkouts.

Mind you I'd be
delivering a running commentary about what we wanted, asking them if
they could see it or where would we find it. ie. made it interesting
by. shock horror, actually talking to them. Yes both of them threw a
tantrum at least once but as the response was laughter and "Come
along I'm going this way" and walked off they didn't do a repeat
performance.

Sure, but it is understandable that some now choose to
order online and have it delivered with the worst of the brats.

By three there is also a bit of invisible elastic between you and
them, if they get a bit stroppy and don't want to move, just tell
them the direction you are going an go. Once you get about 15 yds
away or about to disappear around a corner, the elastic will reach
it's limit and a little hand will find yours.

That isnt what happened with one about that age. He was tearing
around the supermarket and proceeded to go right out of the exit
with his mum in pursuit. Some kids are completely fearless. That's
why some still have long leads for the kids.

We have one at a train station on reality TV footage that leaned right
over the edge of the platform right in front of the incoming train.

Note that if I did
disappear from their view I'd stop wait a few seconds then return,
they would either be just about to arrive at the corner or be looking
worried where I'd left them, call their name, they come a runnin'.

Both examples of not rewarding (from the childs point of view) what
you consider to be unacceptable beahvior.

Sure, but it isnt surprising that some choose the easier route of getting it
delivered.

On 03/06/2018 21:30, Dave Liquorice wrote:

And if there isn't an escape route and something looks to be coming
in a bit fast, ease forward closer to the vehicle in front and keep
the brakes off to reduce the double whammy if they hit you. One from
them hitting you, one from you hitting the one in front. Assuming
they are likely to hit you fairly hard. There comes a point where
putting the brakes on to stop a "gentle tap" nudging you into the one
in front could be a good idea.

With the brakes off are you not likely to be injured more seriously when
you are shot forward with much greater acceleration, then end up with a
much harder stop when you hit the vehicle in front?

--
F