Originally Posted by
jefnvk
I'll point your words right back at you: "Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?"
If you don't want to ride your bike on a road, or don't want your kids to be out on a path, that is your decision. By all means, ride how YOU like. Dictating those terms to anyone else, or whatever you are trying to do by calling them selfish, stupid, and what not while saying you aren't telling them they CAN'T do something, is where you are wrong.
If it is legal, I am not going to say someone shouldn't do it, because others want to act illegally. I'm going to put that blame right where it belongs: on the person making the situation unsafe. I'm not going to say kids should stay off MUPs because some Strav******* may be blowing through traffic.
Thing about this world? We have codified laws, because everyone has a different sense of right and wrong and common sense. Arguing YOUR definition of them is the correct definition is ridiculous. We codify what is right and wrong, so we don't have these arguments.
I'm not dictating anything to anyone. I'm simply offering a judgement on their decision to allow a non-proficient 5 year old to ride on this particular path at that time of day: it was a bad one.
In the real world, "blame" is far less important than not getting hurt or killed.
If this kid lost control and veered into the path of a speeding cyclist, it doesn't matter that it wasn't his fault, he still loses.
If this kid lost control and gets clotheslined by an extend-a-leash, it doesn't matter whose fault it was, he still loses.
If this kid loses control and hits a pedestrian walking by, it probably is his fault, but he still loses.
Furthermore, this kids parents (or more accurately grandparents) deserve blame for letting this kid ride in an area when he didn't have sufficient skill to do so safely. In this case, he wasn't hit by a racing rider. He lost control all on his own.
Trying to base you judgement entirely on what we have codified laws for is more than a little silly. Laws don't cover every situation. Your argument is akin to saying "I shouldn't have to look both ways before crossing the street when I have a walk signal". You're right, you shouldn't have to, but it would be really, really stupid not to and if you were to get hit, people would call you an idiot even though you aren't legally at fault.
Here's hoping you never have kids. I'd hate to see what happens when you let them ride on a busy street simply because its legal to do so.