I shared the article on Facebook and wonder why parents still buy them. The funny part was that I had parents respond to my Facebook post, saying it was negligence on the parents’ part and that they should have watched over their kids. I read similar comments on this HardwareZone thread.
Yes, I agree it is negligence. But not because parents had not watched over their kids, instead because they had purchased a Crocs (or a similar replica) for their kids knowing there are many of such reported incidents.
One friend on Facebook argued with me, then started going on about distractions and mobile phones. I couldn’t be bothered to explain further. I told him that he had made an informed decision as a parent to buy/keep the Crocs for his kids, and I left it at that.
I almost had my own feet caught in an escalator, and ever since then the pair of Crocs remained in my office as “office shoes”. There are no escalators in my office.
You see, Crocs are usually a little oversized (especially at the toes) and a little loose fitting. Wearing such soft rubber shoes that are tight fitting feels uncomfortable for most. Most of us don’t walk looking down at our feet all the time, and sometimes they wander off. The shoe being a little oversized and loose could have been in places where it shouldn’t have been.
I find the logic completely warped that people can still insist that it is OK to buy these fancy soft rubber shoes as long as they keep watch over their kids. It’s like giving your kid a knife and saying they won’t stab themselves in the eye because you are watching.
Parents can’t be around kids all the time for gods’ sake. As they grow older, 5 years, 6 years, 7 years, etc. they do start to roam around on their own.
IMHO, any parents who buy these soft rubber shoes knowing that they are a hazard are clearly negligent.