Child vs car

Ah it's good we've got too the nub of it.
Basically, it's fine to damage someone's else's stuff in a public place if you don't like what they've done
And
Two wrongs do make a right.

Excellent.

on their own drive has lost control and gone off the end

So the were across the OPs driveway?

Ultimately the responsibility for this lies with the owner of the cars in this situation.

Not that they shouldn't park on the road, but perhaps before they try and make a claim from a 7 yr old, they should consider whether their neighbours think favourably of them.

If my 7Yr old bumped my neighbours car (who we get on with swimmingly), i would happily help address and fix the problem, in a friendly neighbourly manner.

But if my neighbour was someone i had a long standing and ongoing dispute with, who already goes out of their way to cause inconvenience, and for some bizarre reason owns 6 cars, with no attempt to acknowledge that their "hobby" causes inconvenience to everyone else, its quite likely they would be all out of luck and would have to go through the "official channels", (good luck suing a 7 yr. old). I feel that would be their own fault. It costs nothing to be nice.

Or deliberately parking your cars in such a way to cause maximum inconvenience to a family because of an ongoing dispute?

In case you missed the OP’s update:

No, didn't miss it and I'm well aware people can be be awkward and bloody minded for the sake of it, I spent 20+ years living in an end terrace with no front garden let alone parking space, and had to run the gauntlet parking down various side streets.

If the cars are parked illegally then you contact the council or the police, if they're parked legally then all you can do is suck it up, it doesn't give you the right to damage others property, accidentally or otherwise.

I really can't believe this is still being discussed 5 pages in, this is basic stuff we should all have been taught by our parents/guardians around the time we stopped crapping in our own pants, it also seems to be those lacking in morals that are continuing to invent imaginary scenarios, legal liabilities and whatever other horseshit they think absolves them, rather than taking a step back and having a think about it.

Submarined - contributory negligence?   A well know and often used concept in this sort of issue hence parking next to a cricket ground and getting a ball thru the windscreen is not actionable.  Or my case of hitting an illegally parked car - no liability

To me this one is not totally clear either way - depends on some fine details which we do not have

Basically, it’s fine to damage someone’s else’s stuff in a public place if you don’t like what they’ve done
And
Two wrongs do make a right.

I think you missed the part where the OP explained it was accidental.

Not the car owner deliberately parking the car in such a way as to maximise the chances of an accident happening.  The 7 year old losing control of their bike was the accidental part.

So you see, not really the equivalence you're trying to draw.

I really can’t believe this is still being discussed 5 pages in,

I can.  Like I said, car culture is so deeply ingrained and entitlement of car owners is so vast that I can see why you are thinking the way you do.  I just think you're wrong.

I still haven't seen anyone saying I was mad not to sue the women at the shopping centre who damaged my bike because I am clearly entitled to compensation.

Maybe because the idea is kind of ridiculous as soon as you try to apply it to something other than a car.

Yes. So, if your car has a yellow number plate, you aren’t required to prove that you have somewhere to park it. So, it’s not the case that you have to prove you have parking in order to buy a car in Japan, it’s only for some cars.

Yes, and no.

Firstly: you neglected the bit where the yellow plates can only be issued to Kei cars.

It's like saying you can drive a car without a car driving license.

It's true, but only if the car fits the B1 category and you have a A motorcycle license.

And there are no longer any B1 compliant vehicles being sold in the UK (AFAIK) since the Twizy was discontinued.

To put the yellow plated kei cars in context, the original Mini is the last UK car that would fit in the qualifying dimensions, except when it was launched it's engine was 3x the permitted size (360cc).  If you ever see a kei car on British roads they're hilariously small. The Honda S660 looks like someone accidently took the blueprints for an S2000 and printed them on A5.

Secondly:

You're technically wrong anyway. You do need to prove you have a parking space for a Kei car if you live in a large city.  The exemption is that you don't need a certificate to prove it in rural areas.

You were being serious? Wow….

Just to point out we hold cars in a weird regard.

If you live in a national park you can have a bright red Ferrari, but not a solar panel on your roof as it spoils the rural aesthetic.

If you live in a conservation area you can have a Lime Green Lamborghini parked in the road but not a bike rack by your front door as it's out of character with the area.

You kill someone through negligence at work it's manslaughter and often comes with a hefty sentence.

If your work is driving then it's a slap on the wrist.

I can.  Like I said, car culture is so deeply ingrained and entitlement of car owners is so vast that I can see why you are thinking the way you do.  I just think you’re wrong.

I still haven’t seen anyone saying I was mad not to sue the women at the shopping centre who damaged my bike because I am clearly entitled to compensation.

Maybe because the idea is kind of ridiculous as soon as you try to apply it to something other than a car.

To be fair I can too 😀

As I've said earlier, for me the property type is irrelevant, if me or mine have damaged something then I'll sort it, it's how I was brought up, it's how I'd expect to be treated by others and it's the right thing to do.

That was your own choice not to ask her to fix it, there isn't a right or wrong in that situation, if you'd asked her to fix it you'd be right, or if, as you did, chose to ignore it then you're also right. You're the property owner, making the choice about your property. Her telling you to go **** yourself however would not be right.

You’re the property owner, making the choice about your property. Her telling you to go **** yourself however would not be right.

I agree in principle by but there are limits.

If, instead of my beater bike, it had been a £10K road bike and the frame had been written off, would I have been right to ask her for a replacement frame?

I would say no.  At that point I've taken something that is very valuable to a busy space and not taken care to ensure my property is safe and secure.  Someone has been going about their day and accidently destroyed it.  Perhaps there was an element of negligence.  Or maybe I shouldn't have unlocked my bike and then wandered off to take a phone call.

In that case, I think a fair response would be to point out they were acting in a perfectly normal way and my own negligence with such a valuable piece of equipment was such that no, she was not going to buy me a new frame and pay to have the parts switched over.  Go **** yourself might be an extreme response but probably not unreasonable if I was being a dick about the whole thing.

Cars have a special place in society where the normal expectations of duty of care of the owner, whether through only parking in safe places or having comprehensive insurance, doesn't seem to apply.

I think we should start treating cars like any other property.

The exemption is that you don’t need a certificate to prove it in rural areas.

Exactly. It's not the case that a certificate to prove parking is a universal requirement in Japan. It depends on where you live and the type of vehicle you own.

child was learning to ride her bike on their own drive has lost control and gone off the end

Ah Bruce - thanks I had indeed missed that.

Does sound like that would be forseable, although I'd suggest that liability is for the "instructor" not the "pupil".  But of course these things are about facts and circumstances.  A 10m driveway with a noticeable downward slope and the car directly in "line of sight" its going to be hard to defend.  If your driveway is 50m long with an upwards gradient, the car wasn't directly in line of sight (so runs away and swerves), and the "trainee" has become very experienced so parent is not needing to be close by for the learning then it becomes much more of a freak occurrence.

Presumably such a collision carried with it the risk of rolling into live traffic.

Presumably such a collision carried with it the risk of rolling into live traffic.

You might find that this has been raised multiple times earlier in the thread. FFS, what were the parents doing if the kid rode the bike out of the driveway and hit a car parked in the street?

It is factually wrong to describe the common practice of parking on the street as a right; it is unhelpful to the discussion about damage to a car parked on the street or to the relationship between motorists (of which I am one) and the state provided road infrastructure as a “right”. Using that language reinforces the sort of mistaken belief of all too many that VED entitles them to do things.

I take your point but it's just semantics, the net result is the same. You are permitted to park a vehicle on a public road so long as certain conditions are met. To wit, it's taxed, insured, it's parked in the direction of traffic flow at night, and there are no other parking restrictions in place such as residents-only bays. It's not something we all collectively just happen to turn a blind eye to.

why do we keep coming back to a bike? the OP said child ran into not cycled into the car. The issues are similar but the forseability of a cycle damaging a car is, to me at least, different to a 7 year old kid doing do by accident.

I see this has been answered now but yes. The OP said in a follow-up post that the kid was learning to ride on their driveway. Quite how she managed to interface with someone else's car is as yet unclear beyond some vague comments about inconsiderate parking and the OP seems to have disappeared.

The Mumsnet forum assault squadron are pissing themselves laughing at the pedanticness of the squabbling on here 5 pages in and counting.

The OP hasn't been back, the virtual 6 cars never existed and the child was inside playing Minecraft / Fortnight thanks to DailyMail peado child snatching headlines.

They are exacting revenge for their Penis Beaker episode.

Now who is talking nonsense?

The point you spectacularly missed is that it's still property. Whining about "the car is king" seeks to diminish the fact that you've just damaged someone else's property.

Then can I suggest some comprehensive insurance?
...
But cars are different, apparently.

Cars are different, they have to be insured. I have to have fully comp insurance even, it's a condition of the lease. And I'd quite like the premium not to double because some twit thought it perfectly acceptable behaviour to dent it and then walk off.  Without a third party to claim against, it's classed as an own-fault accident.

I still haven’t seen anyone saying I was mad not to sue the women at the shopping centre who damaged my bike because I am clearly entitled to compensation.

Maybe because the idea is kind of ridiculous as soon as you try to apply it to something other than a car.

If I was fortunate enough to be riding a £10k bike, I'd have it insured also. But yes, you should be compensated.  How much would depend on the individual circumstances I suppose, though I'm struggling to comprehend how "falling over" would cause ten grand's worth of damage.  That sounds like it should be a warranty claim or a CRA issue.

I think we should start treating cars like any other property.

So do I. You're the one trying to do otherwise.

The Mumsnet forum assault squadron are pissing themselves laughing at the pedanticness of the squabbling on here 5 pages in and counting.

They missed a trick, should've posted it on Pistonheads.

Exactly. It’s not the case that a certificate to prove parking is a universal requirement in Japan. It depends on where you live and the type of vehicle you own.

OK, I'll concede you're right. 22%* of the population don't need a certificate proving they have a parking space as long as they drive something the size of a Citroen Ami.

*maybe higher as I can't figure out how to google the proportion of the population in the affected areas, just the rural/urban split.

As I’ve said earlier, for me the property type is irrelevant, if me or mine have damaged something then I’ll sort it, it’s how I was brought up, it’s how I’d expect to be treated by others and it’s the right thing to do.

This. I'm a bit concerned that anyone would think anything other than this answer is correct, but then I look out from behind my rose tinted specs and realise this is why society is absolutely ****ed.

I think we should start treating cars like any other property.

Agree. If i left my guitar outside my house and someones kid smashed into it i would hope the parents would remedy any damage. This really isn't hard.

~So what about the parking too close to a cricket ground scenario or the one I was involved in?    would you pay up there when clearly there was no liability?

~So what about the parking too close to a cricket ground scenario or the one I was involved in?

Back in my day, cricket and golf club insurance covered damage like that, regardless of liability. May have changed since.

Even a safari park had cover if animals damaged cars driving through - suspect there was a "monkey enclosure" exclusion though.

would you pay up there when clearly there was no liability?

As an individual, of course I'd pay if I felt me or my family "ought" to. I certainly wouldn't be worming out of it by looking for excuses. It's called taking responsibility and doing the right thing.

How about this one:  Blind person walking down the street, walks into an illegally parked car and damages it - should they pay?  Or a wheelchair user.  Car parked partially over the dropped kerb.  they try to use the dropped kerb scratching the car in the process.  Should  they pay?

Or I am crossing a golf course on my bike - legal here.  I do not see a golfer and his drive hits my phone mounted on the handlebars - should the golfer pay?

Fair enough more cash

"

The OP hasn’t been back, the virtual 6 cars never existed and the child was inside playing Minecraft / Fortnight thanks to DailyMail peado child snatching headlines.

They are exacting revenge for their Penis Beaker episode."

I have been back but not for long enough to post , I started work at 6am due to a few deadlines. Is there some weird rule where you have to comment non stop on a post created or can I just savour the viewpoints.

In the first two examples, I'd offer to  pay. If you're blind you have tools to help you get about,  if I misjudged it, I'd offer to pay. And if my wheelchair or mobility scooter hit a parked object that is entirely down to me misjudging it - clearly a legal liability.

Crossing a golf course - less certain. For a golf ball to hit a phone screen is a much smaller risk,  and I might be inclined to suggest that crossing a golf course involves taking on that risk. Unless someone deliberately smacked a golf ball at me from 40 yards away, I might just accept I was unlucky to get my phone damaged

Indeed on the golf course one - same as the wheelchair user scratching a car and the blind person denting it.  All 3 instances the person who took the damage to their property had accepted the risk.  the two car ones they had illegally blocked access - blind person one less clear but parking over dropped kerbs is illegal as is parking too close to junctions.  So the wheelchair user would not be liable.

I have actually seen blind folk take a fall on badly / illegally placed stuff on pavements

So you do accept the principle that their can be contributory negligence?

"or can I just savour the viewpoints"

Just post enough to keep everyone biting and continuing to go round in circles. I reckon this can get to at least 10 pages.

But in the scenario of the OP.. There's no suggestion the car was parked illegally . Just that he doesn't like the owner of the car and his kid smacked a bike into it.

In this scenario then he should do the morraly correct thing and pay for the damage.

And take his kids to an open space next time until they can ride in a competent manner.

Is there some weird rule where you have to comment non stop on a post created or can I just savour the viewpoints.

No, but it’s a bit weird that your second thread on an MTB website forum is a moral/legal dilemma nothing really to do with MTB, (as mentioned, why not pistonheads?) that was always gonna create heated debate.

What was your last login?

@prawny

Also again first party insurance is not a thing. What you are talking about there is generally called property insurance in the game.

https://www.google.com/search?q=first+party+insurance+risk

In "the game", property insurance is generally first party risk.

If you do something by accident it could have been avoided it is negligence. There is a vanishingly small possibility of an action by a human that causes damage directly unintentionally being classed as non negligent.

it's a bit more complicated than that.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tort+negligence+definition

I have no idea what kind of policy wordings you have extensive experience of writing, but I'm baffled as to what they'd be, given these 2 comments about 1st and 3rd party insurance risks that you'd know were wrong after a minute on google.

This. I’m a bit concerned that anyone would think anything other than this answer is correct, but then I look out from behind my rose tinted specs and realise this is why society is absolutely ****.

Your society is ****ed.

The society I am currently living in (Norway) is doing fine with it's radical ideas like 'let kids be kids' (in terms of being able to go out and play, you'll have to go somewhere else if you don't want your kids getting sex education from a very young age) and 'if you aren't bothered enough about your stuff to look after it properly then I'm not going to do it for you'.

The more time I spend on here the more I realise I'm really going to struggle if I ever come back to the UK.

If this is a common attitude today

If i left my guitar outside my house and someones kid smashed into it i would hope the parents would remedy any damage. This really isn’t hard.

then I think you can keep the place to yourselves.

I have been back but not for long enough to post , I started work at 6am due to a few deadlines. Is there some weird rule where you have to comment non stop on a post created or can I just savour the viewpoints.

I should imagine you're wondering what on earth you've started 😁

. Is there some weird rule where you have to comment non stop on a post created or can I just savour the viewpoints.

Well, sort of yes. It’s classic troll behaviour.

. Just that he doesn’t like the owner of the car and his kid smacked a bike into it.

Is it his kid? I thought he was just a neighbour.

If this is a common attitude today

You're basically victim blaming. Does that sex education tell girls to wear long skirts so they don't get attacked?

It's sensible to take precautions sure. But that doesn't justify theft, damage or worse.

There's a limit to the "victim blaming" defence/attack. Leave a guitar propped by the door while you nip back in to grab the capo? That's one thing, (a few things - depends where you live)

Knowingly leave a 30 grand Stradivarius in the gutter in an unlit road on a rainy night? Is it victim blaming to say it getting wet and run over is maybe a little bit the leaver's fault?

Honestly don't know which direction [edit: BruceWee  Blackflag (sorry Bruce!)] was aiming at when he is posted that!

You’re basically victim blaming. Does that sex education tell girls to wear long skirts so they don’t get attacked?

Holy Strawman, Batman!

I think what is clear is that we are talking about accidental damage.  Specifically, children accidentally damaging things.

If you want to turn that around and imply I'm an apologist for rapists then I think I'll leave you lot to talk about how 'It wasn't like this back in my day' and 'No wonder the country is going to the dogs'.

Have fun.

"Well, sort of yes. It’s classic troll behaviour."

Is it? Im a bit lost,Is classic troll behaviour holding down a job and not having the internet as my first choice to fill spare time? , I can kind of see why its easier lurking and reading than bothering to post in forii these days.

"I should imagine you’re wondering what on earth you’ve started 😁"

INDEED Seems to be one or two weird responses , no idea what an assault squad is , though. I have heard of pistonheads though, not sure what eyebrows that would raise ?

Its gone a bit Jeremy Vine.

CougarFull Member
. Just that he doesn’t like the owner of the car and his kid smacked a bike into it.
Is it his kid?

NO not my kid was just posting for interest as I also happen to ride a bike , I purposely didnt really share my own views on the situation as I didnt want anyone to think I had it in for either party. Its not really my problem. Would perhaps made a good channel 4 documentary on public opinion

Imagine if this thread topic occurred in Italy.....

Every other  just about every car here, new or old, has multiple dents.

It's just a car. A lump of metal.

Get over it.

Imagine if this thread topic occurred in Italy…..

The home of Ferrari, Lamborghini and Alfa Romeo......🤔

Nope I'm pretty sure they don't give a shit about cars either.

I purposely didnt really share my own views on the situation as I didnt want anyone to think I had it in for either party.

And now we’ve had six pages of broadly 50/50 debate. What’s your view in this story?

If you want to turn that around and imply I’m an apologist for rapists

I wasn't implying anything of the sort. I was (perhaps rashly, in hindsight) using an emotive analogy from a subject you introduced into the discussion in the hope that it might spark you into considering a little deeper as to whether "if he doesn't want his car damaging, he shouldn't have parked there" might be bogus rather than hiding behind "kids will be kids." Kids will be kids, you're absolutely right, and left unchecked some can be right bastards. There was one round here a few years back with a penchant for arson, amongst other things she burned down a paint factory. The cheeky little scamp.

It is sensible to try and stay safe of course, it's the whole "having right of way vs being under the wheels of a van" argument. But that doesn't make people deserving of loss or harm if they fail in this regard.

I think what is clear is that we are talking about accidental damage. Specifically, children accidentally damaging things.

No-one is expecting a 7-year old to pay for a repair out of their pocket money for the next decade, but parents are responsible both morally and legally for their children.  Where were they whilst this kid was learning to ride a bike next to a road?

I purposely didnt really share my own views on the situation as I didnt want anyone to think I had it in for either party.

To be fair, your opinion was pretty well signposted from the outset.

It’s just a car. A lump of metal.

... perhaps costing thirty grand.  Bangernomics might be king in continental Europe - my very limited experience would bear this out - but here in the UK it's probably the second most expensive purchase someone will make after their house.  Would you argue that someone's home is "just a pile of bricks" if someone else sprayed a giant cock & balls on it?

More and more cars are being parked on the pavement, some leaving barely enough room to squeeze past on the pavement, in places they leave no room at all, forcing pedestrians to walk out into the road to get past. Now, if an adult, or a child, should damage a car parked in that fashion, whose responsibility is that? Bearing in mind that there is talk of making it illegal to park in such a way as to block the pavement to pedestrians, which I thought was the case, so perhaps it’s now actually enforcement is the case.
Not quite the same, but this sort of thing should result in the car being confiscated until suitable reparations are made. 😖

Would you argue that someone’s home is “just a pile of bricks” if someone else sprayed a giant cock & balls on it?

You really are hell bent on on beating this strawman to death, aren't you?

By the way, thanks for acknowledging (kind of) that saying I'm in favour of rapists maybe wasn't the most constructive contribution.

Once again, for those at the back, let's clarify what we are talking about here.

You should be able to take any piece of property you own, leave it unattended in the street, and no one should intentionally damage it/ steal it/ rape it/ etc.

However, if you leave your Gibson Les Paul in the street and someone accidentally trips over it and damages it?  Yeah, sorry, the world does not exist to keep a constant eye out for your property.  We try (and generally succeed) to not damage things but you ultimately have the responsibility for making sure your property isn't in danger from people going about their lives.

Where were they whilst this kid was learning to ride a bike next to a road?

I'm not sure if it's because everyone on here is a riding god and can't imagine things like target fixation, deathgrip, and freezing up when things start going out of control, but it is absolutely not within the capabilities of parents to grab a child who has suddenly found themselves not fully in control of their bikes.

I've had a first hand view to what happens when a child suddenly finds themselves in such a situation.

I was on my bike on a shared use path going under an underpass.  A mother with a pram had stopped for a chat on the corner so I had to go around them.  As I went round the corner I saw there was a girl (maybe 12 or 13) coming down the hill towards me.  She wasn't going excessively fast but I could tell she still got a shock to see me appear where she was planning on riding.  I moved over so her path was clear.  She continued staring at me and her bike started to follow mine.  I stopped as I could see her eyes getting wider.  Her eyes were wide open by this point and she continued to head straight for me and didn't seem to be applying her brakes.

She went into me and taco'ed my front wheel.  No one was hurt so she apologised and I banged my wheel more or less back into shape so I could get home where I then had to order and build a new rim.  I didn't drag her back to her house so I could demand compensation from her parents.  That would have probably quite rightly led to me getting arrested.

Target fixation, panic, deathgrip, etc.  A small miscalculation can lead to an avalanche of mistakes that leads to a crash.  This applies to adults as well but adults are less likely to find themselves in that initial miscalculation stage.

So yeah, all the wails of, 'Where were the parents?' are kind of ridiculous.  Unless you expect people to run around poised to snatch their kids off their bikes at the first sign of trouble then you just have to accept they are going to crash sometimes.  And, ironically, if there are objects that Must Not Ba Crashed Into around then the kids are actually more likely to crash into them because that is where their attention is.

Which is why it's really stupid to park your car as close as possible to where kids play unless your objective is to increase the likelihood of a crash so you can then go and harass the parents about it.

I had actually forgotten just how much people in the UK hate kids and love their property.

By the way, before anyone starts saying, 'Well, I guess I don't have to watch out for cyclists when I'm going about my day driving to work,' let's not start on another strawman argument where we equate damage to property with death/injury to people.  Because no matter how much some people consider their property to be more important than people, it's just not the case.

More and more cars are being parked on the pavement, some leaving barely enough room to squeeze past on the pavement, in places they leave no room at all, forcing pedestrians to walk out into the road to get past. Now, if an adult, or a child, should damage a car parked in that fashion, whose responsibility is that?

How is that relevant to this particular case? As far as I can tell, in this case, the car was legally parked and an unsupervised kid rode his bike down his driveway and hit the car parked out at the curb. If that's the case, the kid's parent is responsible because they didn't supervise their kid.

Cars that are parked illegally or in a manner that makes it impossible for pedestrians or other traffic to pass are a completely different matter, but not relevant to this instance.

It's also irrelevant whether or not the car's owner is a great guy or a ****. If his car was legally parked, then responsibility rests on the parents of the kid that hit the car.

The definition of negligence is

the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do

I think I'd argue that if a kid is learning to ride their bike (rather than knowing how to ride a bike), a reasonable/prudent parent would be supervising and ensure they're not riding towards an object that can be damaged (ie : do it in a park). Once a kid can ride safely and demonstrated the ability to brake/steer etc, letting them out on their own is not negligent

I think I’d argue that if a kid is learning to ride their bike (rather than knowing how to ride a bike), a reasonable/prudent parent would be supervising and ensure they’re not riding towards an object that can be damaged (ie : do it in a park). Once a kid can ride safely and demonstrated the ability to brake/steer etc, letting them out on their own is not negligent

This sums up the entire moral imbalance discussed in this thread. We think people have more right to park vehicles outside of their homes than kids do to independently learn how to ride their bikes.

There's something badly wrong with that.

This whole thread reminds me of a hill near our house (in Norway).

Whenever it snows the parking spaces at the bottom of this hill are closed and no parking signs go up.  The reason is that kids use this hill for sledging and in the right conditions they can blast right through the flat section at the bottom and into the road if the catch netting doesn't stop them.

The parking spaces are not removed to protect the cars.  It's so that the kids don't hurt themselves slamming into them.  The thought that the kids (or their parents) would somehow be responsible for damaging cars parked in such a stupid place is laughable.  You can see it's a sledging hill.  Why on Earth would you park there?

You might ask, but what if a kid gets hit when they slide into the middle of the road.  Again, you can see it's a sledging hill.  Why were you not paying special attention to the small people with questionable control and judgment and driving in such a way you can't stop in time?

The UK has really peculiar attitudes when it comes to property and children.  It seems like kids are taught to constantly be on the look out for anything that they can damage and made to feel like anything that gets damaged in their vicinity is their fault.  Certainly when I was growing up my Mum's most common reply to me saying, 'It was an accident!' was, 'There's no such thing as an accident, it's always someone's fault!' (when she said someone she meant me).

Personally, I think it really stunts people's emotional growth.  They grow into adults and the only behvaiour they have seen from adults in their lives is blaming everyone else for anything that gets damaged or broken.

In other countries kids grow up seeing adults demonstrating that if you are worried about your property then it's your responsibility you don't put it in places people (especially kids) are likely to damage it accidently.  And if it's super valuable and difficult to fully protect it, insure it.

Agree. If i left my guitar outside my house and someones kid smashed into it i would hope the parents would remedy any damage. This really isn’t hard.

What if you left the same guitar outside someone else's house?  Are they responsible for it, or are you?

We think people have more right to park vehicles outside of their homes than kids do to independently learn how to ride their bikes.

I don't think that's the case - the snowey hill solution is a good one - where there's a use of the area that's better than cars, do so. But keeping all roads clear of parked cars (parking being something a lot of people need to do every day of their working lives) so that someone can learn to ride a bike (something that takes most people less than 1 day of their life) would be an extremely poor use of the resources (patch of road) available. The Norwegians aren't keeping the road free of cars all year round just in case there's a snowstorm

Cars that are parked illegally or in a manner that makes it impossible for pedestrians or other traffic to pass are a completely different matter, but not relevant to this instance.

We are not actually sure if this factor is irrelevant but basically I agree.  ~thats the crux on which this hinges

5lab - has the car driver been negligent then by parking his car in such a place as it might be hit by kids?  I think it likely ( but as above we do not have enough info) that at best the car was parked inconsiderately

I would also say that using large amounts of public land for car parking is a very poor use of that public land

You really are hell bent on on beating this strawman to death, aren’t you?

And you're really good at ignoring everyone else's questions whilst sealioning your own.

it is absolutely not within the capabilities of parents to grab a child who has suddenly found themselves not fully in control of their bikes.

Perhaps doing it next to a road wasn't the smartest move, then. Or maybe ask the car owner to move the car to give the kid more space first? Though of course, then she may potentially have ridden straight into live traffic. A cul-de-sac should be relatively quiet but I've seen plenty of people trying to set the land speed record down them before now, those youths on ratty trials bikes with no plates are a particular menace round here.

But keeping all roads clear of parked cars (parking being something a lot of people need to do every day of their working lives) so that someone can learn to ride a bike (something that takes most people less than 1 day of their life) would be an extremely poor use of the resources (patch of road) available.

I'd agree with you - except that most people don't learn to ride a bike in "1 day" and certainly not to the extent necessary to ensure control / stopping is understood.  However if we actually want to encourage active travel then making it harder to park cars on the street and making it easier to learn to ride would actually be good things.

There is a steep "path" near me that connects a NCN (sustrans route) to the road network.  At the bottom of said path is a parking area.  No sensible resident would park their car there as they'll have seen people come off the NCN and fly down that route (both people who know it and should know better but enjoy it) and people who are just following an app and have been caught unawares that this is no a gentle slope with a run out area at the bottom.  If it was at a trail centre making the sharp turn to avoid any parked car at the bottom would make it a red!  The only time I've actually seen a car get struck was an elderly neighbour on an icy day who slipped and dropped her wheeled shopper.  I didn't study the vehicle for damage I was more interested in helping the neighbour.

Back when I was a teenager, a guy I knew was driving to work in the morning and a kid on a bike launched out of a driveway right in front of him. He couldn't stop in time and hit the kid, who luckily wasn't killed but was badly injured. The driver was not charged for the very obvious reason that he wasn't speeding and nobody could have stopped in time. It wasn't a cul de sac, but it wasn't a major road either, just a normal suburban road. This kind of accident is pretty common, young kids need constant supervision to prevent stuff like that happening, they just don't understand the risks. In this case, the parent was clearly not supervising their kid properly and put the kid at serious risk.

Or the kid had been told hundreds of times before by the parents " don't ride out into the road , there are often cars coming who cat see you and it's really dangerous"

Kids love testing limits , and think they are invincible, know best and don't like being told what to do, and don't consider the consequences.

Screech . Bang . Silence .

As far as I can tell, in this case, the car was legally parked and an unsupervised kid rode his bike down his driveway and hit the car parked out at the curb.

OP has stated the car was parked on a concrete strip which is only to be used as access to properties (not for parking), surrounded by grass, in between the driveways & the road,

Ah, I'd missed that.  Honestly, a photo or a google street view link would really help.

so no – not legally parked

This I'm less sure of.  The council has the ability to prohibit parking, but as far as I'm aware they actually have to actively do it (and ideally, enforce it), it doesn't just happen automatically.  I think.

And you’re really good at ignoring everyone else’s questions whilst sealioning your own.

You mean questions like, 'What if a kid goes round with a baseball bat smashing up guitars?' and 'So I guess you must be in favour of rapists then?'

Yes, I ignore those questions.

Back when I was a teenager, a guy I knew was driving to work in the morning and a kid on a bike launched out of a driveway right in front of him. He couldn’t stop in time and hit the kid, who luckily wasn’t killed but was badly injured. The driver was not charged for the very obvious reason that he wasn’t speeding and nobody could have stopped in time.

In Norway that would result in the driver having his license confiscated immediately.  If, after an investigation, it was found there genuinely was no way he could have been aware the child was there then he would get it back.

Being under the speed limit and saying, 'He came out of nowhere' would not be enough.  He would have to be able to prove it was impossible for him to have been aware the kid was there and travelling at a speed was appropriate for the conditions (note I didn't say at or below the speed limit).

Kids love testing limits , and think they are invincible, know best and don’t like being told what to do, and don’t consider the consequences.

Yes, it's almost like trying to apply adult cognition and judgement to children doesn't work.

And to put that into context, the Smart FourTwo (i.e. the Small Smart car) is too big to qualify as it’s about a foot too wide.

They did a version with narrower panels specifically for that market 🙂

Unfortunately those Fake French Defenders are now made in the Smart factory so small smarts are no more 🙁

The driver was not charged for the very obvious reason that he wasn’t speeding and nobody could have stopped in time.

Are we talking a main road, or a residential estate? On the latter I personally drive with the expectation that kids will fly out of their driveways and I will be able to stop when they do.

It's a bit different if it's a main road but it's worrying generally what many deem as acceptable driving around place kids can be found playing.

Not sure that the legality of parking makes a difference ,isn’t it  still a hit and run offence if you hit a parked car with yours and drive off ?

OP has stated the car was parked on a concrete strip which is only to be used as access to properties (not for parking), surrounded by grass, in between the driveways & the road, so no – not legally parked, and certainly not an unreasonable place for kids to be playing by the sound of it.

This is what the OP said at the start of the thread. It would have been much more useful to have included a picture or map of exactly where everything was. Parking outside someone's house is not usually illegal. Whatever the case, if the kid rode a bike down the driveway out into the street, the last thing the parent would want is to get the courts involved and then have to explain under oath why the 7 year old child wasn't being supervised.

7 year old child has run into a car on our culdesac, much ado about nothing realy minor dent but car owner is well known for being a complete and utter idiot and parking his 6 cars outside his and the neighbouring housis parents are saying child isnt liable for damage , he says it needs settling, what does STW say, should it go before judge judy or a proper legal team.

OP has stated

Just enough for both sides of the fence to get their knickers in a twist.

‘So I guess you must be in favour of rapists then?’

That's the third time you've asserted that now despite me explicitly telling you it's not what I meant. Give over.

Being under the speed limit and saying, ‘He came out of nowhere’ would not be enough. He would have to be able to prove it was impossible for him to have been aware the kid was there and travelling at a speed was appropriate for the conditions (note I didn’t say at or below the speed limit).

We've had this discussion before and I agree with you here. If a kid "comes out of nowhere" and you can't stop in time, you were either driving too fast for the conditions or not paying sufficient attention. Nothing comes out of nowhere unless they're in a TARDIS.

There's a compromise to be had of course.  You can't drive everywhere at walking pace just in case.  I blogged about risk management recently, essentially you're choosing a speed you think is an Acceptable risk against the likelihood of things running out in front of you with little warning.  If something happens, you got it wrong.

Not sure that the legality of parking makes a difference

This is what I was, ahem, driving at earlier. They've parked unlawfully but surely that shouldn't matter? The car hanging over the junction that CZ posted earlier is parked dangerously which is far more relevant than a parking infraction to my mind.

There is a difference in the eyes of the law between beating up a burglar, and doing so if they're running at you with a kitchen knife. But the burglar is acting illegally so why isn't it fine in both cases? He should have been more careful whose house he was in.

That’s the third time you’ve asserted that now despite me explicitly telling you it’s not what I meant. Give over.

Yes, you did.  But you immediately followed it up with

There was one round here a few years back with a penchant for arson, amongst other things she burned down a paint factory. The cheeky little scamp.

so I didn't really think you'd taken on board just how ridiculous this line of attack really is.

Just to reiterate (again).  Accidental damage is accidental.  Deliberate damage is deliberate.   Constantly trying to introduce deliberate damage into the discussion is not helpful.

Most of the world accepts that accidents are going to happen around kids.  Lack of coordination, awareness, judgment, etc.  It's just an accepted fact.

The difference in the UK is that instead of accepting this fact it's felt the best way forward is to simply assume children will behave like small adults.  And if they fail to behave like small adults then it is clearly the fault of the parents for not being literally right on top of them at all times ready to intervene the moment an accident might occur.

I strongly believe that children learn by observing the actions of adults rather than having adults telling them how they should act.  Kids grow up seeing adults not being responsible for their own possessions and those of others and instead simply blaming people who don't necessarily have the capacity to avoid the very valuable objects adults choose to place near the areas they play in.

No wonder people grow up with such a warped sense of entitlement. Once they graduate from being kids and into the adult phase they are finally allowed to blame others for everything and they take full advantage.

The driver was not charged for the very obvious reason that he wasn’t speeding and nobody could have stopped in time.

interesting case here - the driver was under the speed limit, on a green light, and still is being considered as driving too fast, and 60% responsible for the accident, whereas the kid (who stepped out on a red (for them) light) is 40% responsible.

https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/23636349.judge-rules-doctor-driving-too-fast-despite-30mph-limit/

interesting case here

Comments are 100% what I would expect.

Not sure that the legality of parking makes a difference ,isn’t it  still a hit and run offence if you hit a parked car with yours and drive off ?

Interestingly it is NOT a hit and run offence (under s170 of the road traffic act) if you hit a car with your bike and cycle off!  Bizarrely if the vehicle driver then failed to report that to the police within 24hrs they would have committed an offence!  its almost like they thought the rules for cars and bikes didn't need to be identical when drafting the road traffic act!

The council has the ability to prohibit parking, but as far as I’m aware they actually have to actively do it (and ideally, enforce it), it doesn’t just happen automatically.  I think.

Oh its a real mess.  There are some places/circumstanced where it would be expressly illegal without any specific order being imposed.  Some areas only become designated parking areas if they are actively labelled/recorded as such by the roads authority.

Does your view change if the car was there before the child started practicing on her driveway OR if the car arrived afterwards and it would have been apparent to the driver that either she was not being supervised or was not being so actively supervised that a parents could stop a run away child?

interesting case here – the driver was under the speed limit, on a green light, and still is being considered as driving too fast

and 60% responsible for the accident, whereas the kid (who stepped out on a red (for them) light) is 40% responsible.

If you look at the average commuter bike that has been taken on trains and parked outside on the street multiple times it is usually covers in dings and scratches.  Yet the commuter cyclist just accepts that and gets on with it… surely it’s the same when you store a car on the street? Sh1t happens if you leave stuff unattended in a public place.