At the grocery with my 2-year old

[ettiquit]

OP, near as I can tell, your only question to the board was to ask the best way to alert your son that he needs to look out and not appear to be rude to other shoppers.

I think the "watch out" is fine, but I would definitely always apologize to the shopper.  You could also try just saying your son's name to get his attention, and then there would be no doubt to other shoppers that you're not talking to them.  I really like Toots "stop your feet" game too.  Maybe you can just experiment with a few phrases and see what your son is most responsive to, and make sure to apologize if there are any near collisions. 

I'm trying to remember how old my DS was when I was finally able to get him to help me shop, and I think it was a little older than 2.  So maybe soon you'll have a good distraction for him.

[Moray]

I've never experienced this. If that is the case I will concede that what the OP's son is doing could be irritating. I still am not convinced that a person being short makes them more responsible to watch where they are going than other people. There are always children in the grocery store. It makes no sense to not be just as aware of them as the adults.

A free range toddler does not tend to move in patterns.

A few years ago, I was at an amusement park.  There was a toddler running at me, so I moved right so I'd was out of her path.  The child moved into my path.  So I moved again and again the child moved in the same direction I moved in.  Since I could not predict the child's movements, I just stopped and stepped aside, out of her current path.

Said toddler still ran smack into my legs and wound up on her tush, crying.  She ran into me, I was not moving and did not walk into her.  But *I* was at fault according to the parent and was told to "WATCH OUT".  I WAS watching out, and did what I could to avoid a collision. 

Add a shopping cart and a distracted shopper and the OP's child *could* wind up injured.  Carts (especially full ones) do not stop on a dime.

This situation is completely different. The OP is redirecting her child. Her child won't wind up injured because she is looking out for him.

No, she's calling out "Watch out!" which may or may not be interpreted by the toddler as applying to him, and if he does determine it applies to him, it may be ignored. More to the point, because the toddler is wandering, and shygirl is shopping, she is physically incapable of keeping an eye on him every single second. Like the other shoppers, she has to look at the shelves and her list, and that gives Jr. an opportunity to wander in front of a stopped cart, around a blind corner, or even make a break for it and end up several aisles over.

[LeveeWoman]

Small children absolutely are difficult to see and move unpredictably. I do not want to spend my shopping trip watching out for them. I want to do my shopping. I expect parents to keep their children safe.

Whether or not you want to do it is irrelevent. As per etiquette, you are obligated to do it. There are a great many people in this world. A lot of them are short. You don't get to not watch out for them just because they are slightly harder to see. That's part of being a polite member of society.

As per etiquette, you should not let your child wander into the paths of others. Will it happen occasionally? Absolutely, but per etiquette you need to take steps to prevent your child, who you are solely responsible for, from bumping into others. I pay a great deal of attention to where I'm going in the store, but by virtue of actually, you know, shopping, my eyes are frequently going between my list and the shelves.

Which is exactly what the OP is doing when she tells her son to "watch out".

Posters keep saying that the OP is rude because she is allowing him to walk into other people. She's not. She is preventing him from walking into other people. That's what the entire thread is about. She may not be doing it in the way that other posters think is ideal, but to say that she isn't doing it all is inaccurate and extremely uncharitable.

Of course your eyes are going from the shelf to your list and back again. And as long as that is happening when your cart is stationary, you don't run the risk of hitting anyone.

When I'm moving, I cannot see directly in front of me due to where I place my purse on which I prop the notebook containing my list. Nor can I see if my cart is full if I have a tall object in it. And, while I'm moving, I'm also looking at the goods on the shelves.

It is quite conceivable that a toddler could be in front of me while I'm moving and I wouldn't see him. It is also concievable that a toddler could be in front of me while I'm stopped and about to start moving again. There is no way I can move my purse and clear my cart of the objects it holds every time I start walking again.

It is the parent's job to keep her kid out of harm's way.

If I heard a parent call, "Watch out!" while I'm moving or about to move again, I would think she or he is talking to me because I would not see the child to whom this is addressed, and it would irritate me.

[LeveeWoman]

I've never experienced this. If that is the case I will concede that what the OP's son is doing could be irritating. I still am not convinced that a person being short makes them more responsible to watch where they are going than other people. There are always children in the grocery store. It makes no sense to not be just as aware of them as the adults.

A free range toddler does not tend to move in patterns.

A few years ago, I was at an amusement park.  There was a toddler running at me, so I moved right so I'd was out of her path.  The child moved into my path.  So I moved again and again the child moved in the same direction I moved in.  Since I could not predict the child's movements, I just stopped and stepped aside, out of her current path.

Said toddler still ran smack into my legs and wound up on her tush, crying.  She ran into me, I was not moving and did not walk into her.  But *I* was at fault according to the parent and was told to "WATCH OUT".  I WAS watching out, and did what I could to avoid a collision. 

Add a shopping cart and a distracted shopper and the OP's child *could* wind up injured.  Carts (especially full ones) do not stop on a dime.

This situation is completely different. The OP is redirecting her child. Her child won't wind up injured because she is looking out for him.

A shopper could come along in a split second before shygirl calls to her son, and knock him down, or in the case of someone with mobility issues, be knocked down by  him. Redirecting is one thing. Physical control over a toddler is another.

[Moray]

Here's something I just don't get: What possible benefit is there to not having your child either strapped in or holding onto your cart or hand?

[rashea]

OP, I'll answer the question you asked first. I think that right or wrong, you should apologize. Because there are a lot of parents for whom that "watch out" would be directed to the other shopper. So a quick apology would go a long way in settling that question for the other person, and making you seem more polite.

On to the questions you didn't ask. I absolutely think that if you can control him to the point where he is never running into people, then what you are doing is okay. If not, then I think you need to find another solution. Because there are people who can't tolerate being run into even a little bit.

You might see if there is a local grocery store that has those mini-carts for children. Or a race-car cart that he might be willing to ride in.

You might also tell him that because he screams while holding your hand, you will need to practice at home or in the park. And when he learns not to scream, you won't have to practice and will be able to do something fun. Frankly, being able to hold a toddler's hand without them screaming seems to valuable a tool to not practice it.

[DottyG]

And, while I'm moving, I'm also looking at the goods on the shelves

I've been trying to think about the way that I shop.  And when I saw this sentence in the post above, it occurred to me that that's what I do.  When I'm shopping, I'm not, specifically, looking straight ahead of me.  I'm looking at the shelves to see where I need to go to get what I'm looking for.  I'm not disregarding what's in front of me and I do see out of the corner of my eyes to see if I'm running into something.  But, no.  I actually am not really always looking straight ahead of me when I shop.  I don't think anyone really does.  Stop and think about what you're doing when you're in the store.  You're probably looking at shelves more often than not, too.

[Moray]

OP, I'll answer the question you asked first. I think that right or wrong, you should apologize. Because there are a lot of parents for whom that "watch out" would be directed to the other shopper. So a quick apology would go a long way in settling that question for the other person, and making you seem more polite.

On to the questions you didn't ask. I absolutely think that if you can control him to the point where he is never running into people, then what you are doing is okay. If not, then I think you need to find another solution. Because there are people who can't tolerate being run into even a little bit.

You might see if there is a local grocery store that has those mini-carts for children. Or a race-car cart that he might be willing to ride in.

You might also tell him that because he screams while holding your hand, you will need to practice at home or in the park. And when he learns not to scream, you won't have to practice and will be able to do something fun. Frankly, being able to hold a toddler's hand without them screaming seems to valuable a tool to not practice it.

Very well stated.

[Sharnita]

"Watch out" works just fine as a response to a potential emergency. As long term behavior management it is problematic.

[Tabby Uprising]

I've never experienced this. If that is the case I will concede that what the OP's son is doing could be irritating. I still am not convinced that a person being short makes them more responsible to watch where they are going than other people. There are always children in the grocery store. It makes no sense to not be just as aware of them as the adults.

A free range toddler does not tend to move in patterns.

A few years ago, I was at an amusement park.  There was a toddler running at me, so I moved right so I'd was out of her path.  The child moved into my path.  So I moved again and again the child moved in the same direction I moved in.  Since I could not predict the child's movements, I just stopped and stepped aside, out of her current path.

Said toddler still ran smack into my legs and wound up on her tush, crying.  She ran into me, I was not moving and did not walk into her.  But *I* was at fault according to the parent and was told to "WATCH OUT".  I WAS watching out, and did what I could to avoid a collision. 

Add a shopping cart and a distracted shopper and the OP's child *could* wind up injured.  Carts (especially full ones) do not stop on a dime.

This situation is completely different. The OP is redirecting her child. Her child won't wind up injured because she is looking out for him.

A shopper could come along in a split second before shygirl calls to her son, and knock him down, or in the case of someone with mobility issues, be knocked down by  him. Redirecting is one thing. Physical control over a toddler is another.

But none of those things have happened with the OP and her son.  They are hypothetical situations.  They certainly could happen, but they could happen with any child and even with adults.  At some point the kids have to come out of the cart and come off the leash.  Everyone just needs to be careful and watch where they are going.  OP is managing this with her DS just fine.  There haven't been any accidents.  When he has the occasional toddler-drift, she gets him back on course. 

[LeveeWoman]

When I'm moving, I cannot see directly in front of me due to where I place my purse on which I prop the notebook containing my list. Nor can I see if my cart is full if I have a tall object in it. And, while I'm moving, I'm also looking at the goods on the shelves.

It is quite conceivable that a toddler could be in front of me while I'm moving and I wouldn't see him. It is also concievable that a toddler could be in front of me while I'm stopped and about to start moving again. There is no way I can move my purse and clear my cart of the objects it holds every time I start walking again.

It is the parent's job to keep her kid out of harm's way.

If I heard a parent call, "Watch out!" while I'm moving or about to move again, I would think she or he is talking to me because I would not see the child to whom this is addressed, and it would irritate me.

In that case I think you are being rude for looking elsewhere while moving your cart. You should be watching where you are going. And I am sorry, but just because something irritates you does not make it rude.

I should come to a stop every time I look at the shelves?

[snowdragon]

I've never experienced this. If that is the case I will concede that what the OP's son is doing could be irritating. I still am not convinced that a person being short makes them more responsible to watch where they are going than other people. There are always children in the grocery store. It makes no sense to not be just as aware of them as the adults.

A free range toddler does not tend to move in patterns.

A few years ago, I was at an amusement park.  There was a toddler running at me, so I moved right so I'd was out of her path.  The child moved into my path.  So I moved again and again the child moved in the same direction I moved in.  Since I could not predict the child's movements, I just stopped and stepped aside, out of her current path.

Said toddler still ran smack into my legs and wound up on her tush, crying.  She ran into me, I was not moving and did not walk into her.  But *I* was at fault according to the parent and was told to "WATCH OUT".  I WAS watching out, and did what I could to avoid a collision. 

Add a shopping cart and a distracted shopper and the OP's child *could* wind up injured.  Carts (especially full ones) do not stop on a dime.

This situation is completely different. The OP is redirecting her child. Her child won't wind up injured because she is looking out for him.

A shopper could come along in a split second before shygirl calls to her son, and knock him down, or in the case of someone with mobility issues, be knocked down by  him. Redirecting is one thing. Physical control over a toddler is another.

But none of those things have happened with the OP and her son.  They are hypothetical situations.  They certainly could happen, but they could happen with any child and even with adults.  At some point the kids have to come out of the cart and come off the leash.  Everyone just needs to be careful and watch where they are going.  OP is managing this with her DS just fine.  There haven't been any accidents.  When he has the occasional toddler-drift, she gets him back on course. 

 And when it does who is responsible for the damage to the other shopper or the store's goods, hypothetically speaking, of course.


 Re - reading that I realize it came of at snarking...I am not meaning to be snarky I truely wonder where the financial responsibility lies but I don't want to make that question about the OP

[Moray]

Here's something I just don't get: What possible benefit is there to not having your child either strapped in or holding onto your cart or hand?

The same kind of benefit that comes with every new milestone, however small: independence. Very few milestones during toddlerhood are black and white. It's not a matter of being in the cart or walking unsupervised. The point that the OP is at is somewhere in between, where her son is allowed to walk, but she still watches where he is going and gives him verbal corrections.

The child still learns independence while holding onto the cart; furthermore, the OP has indicated that her reason for going free range is that the child objects to anything else. I am interested in the OP's response.

[LeveeWoman]

And, while I'm moving, I'm also looking at the goods on the shelves

I've been trying to think about the way that I shop.  And when I saw this sentence in the post above, it occurred to me that that's what I do.  When I'm shopping, I'm not, specifically, looking straight ahead of me.  I'm looking at the shelves to see where I need to go to get what I'm looking for. I'm not disregarding what's in front of me and I do see out of the corner of my eyes to see if I'm running into something.  But, no.  I actually am not really always looking straight ahead of me when I shop.  I don't think anyone really does.  Stop and think about what you're doing when you're in the store.  You're probably looking at shelves more often than not, too.

There is no way I could keep a look out for a toddler in this situation because my view is blocked by my purse and the items in my cart. I'd have to move my body from behind the cart to the side so that I could look in front of it, and my head from eye-level to the floor.

And, while I'm moving my body from the back of the cart, I'd have to make sure there was no one coming up from behind me so that I'd not be hit by their cart.

[Tabby Uprising]

I've never experienced this. If that is the case I will concede that what the OP's son is doing could be irritating. I still am not convinced that a person being short makes them more responsible to watch where they are going than other people. There are always children in the grocery store. It makes no sense to not be just as aware of them as the adults.

A free range toddler does not tend to move in patterns.

A few years ago, I was at an amusement park.  There was a toddler running at me, so I moved right so I'd was out of her path.  The child moved into my path.  So I moved again and again the child moved in the same direction I moved in.  Since I could not predict the child's movements, I just stopped and stepped aside, out of her current path.

Said toddler still ran smack into my legs and wound up on her tush, crying.  She ran into me, I was not moving and did not walk into her.  But *I* was at fault according to the parent and was told to "WATCH OUT".  I WAS watching out, and did what I could to avoid a collision. 

Add a shopping cart and a distracted shopper and the OP's child *could* wind up injured.  Carts (especially full ones) do not stop on a dime.

This situation is completely different. The OP is redirecting her child. Her child won't wind up injured because she is looking out for him.

A shopper could come along in a split second before shygirl calls to her son, and knock him down, or in the case of someone with mobility issues, be knocked down by  him. Redirecting is one thing. Physical control over a toddler is another.

But none of those things have happened with the OP and her son.  They are hypothetical situations.  They certainly could happen, but they could happen with any child and even with adults.  At some point the kids have to come out of the cart and come off the leash.  Everyone just needs to be careful and watch where they are going.  OP is managing this with her DS just fine.  There haven't been any accidents.  When he has the occasional toddler-drift, she gets him back on course. 

 And when it does who is responsible for the damage to the other shopper or the store's goods, hypothetically speaking, of course.

Who is responsible for damage when people bump into each other?  It would probably depend on the specific circumstances of what happened.  And in that case, I'm sure there are appropriate authorities for sorting it all out.