Rightly or wrongly I've come to expect my car to pick up dings, dents and scratches when I leave it in a public place.
It's why I run cars I really don't care about because I can't be arsed with the hassle of worrying about this.
I have looked but can't find any explanation of how the damage was done in the first place – was the child deliberately damaging the car (if so, then the parent should pay up and little Johnny shouldn't get any pudding) or was it an accident (if so, then I think there is a case for suggesting the third-party should suck it up).
I have looked but can’t find any explanation of how the damage was done in the first place
Keep up - the child was learning to ride a bike in the drive but went past the end of the drive, across the pavement and rode into the car
Should probably be thanking the owner of the car for putting it there and stopping her continuing straight into the road.
Presumably if the child went off their drive and quickly hit a parked car it was at least half on the path? That’s how 99% of cars around here park anyways! Drives me absolutely **** potty 🤣. Hoy bin day into the shitmix and I might as well push the pram down the middle of the main road we live on! Can you tell it’s bin day and I’ve been for a walk today..?
Keep up – the child was learning to ride a bike in the drive but went past the end of the drive, across the pavement and rode into the car
Ahh yes, I have found that now. Given the neighbour 'has a beef' and parks inconsiderably on purpose, then I would probably opt for the approach of paying for the repair but explain it is a one-off and, if they want to avoid their cars being damaged again in the future, they may like to consider parking a bit more thoughtfully as kids are kids and they will be riding bikes/kicking balls/throwing things on a regular basis.
Looks from here like the drives are side by side , they both look to slope down to a flat grass area which we were told by the council has a further concrete strip only to access the houses , we tried to buy ours ,no one can buy them and they are for access only to the houses everyone uses them as an extension to their own driveway
Surely this situation is exactly why car insurance premiums are higher for cars parked on road v those parked on drove or in garage to cover this exact sort of thing; as well as others such as increased risk of theft etc
Looks from here like the drives are side by side , they both look to slope down to a flat grass area which we were told by the council has a further concrete strip only to access the houses , we tried to buy ours ,no one can buy them and they are for access only to the houses everyone uses them as an extension to their own driveway
This has gone way past the point where we need a diagram.
Preferably with a banana for scale.
Cars are expensive and can get damaged. That's one of the reasons you insure them. Car owner needs to contact their insurance with details of what has happened and insurance judges if they pursue the childs parents or not (I suspect not, unless there was something odd going on here).
Some people have odd ideas of morals in here. Do you think there was some sort of deliberate attack against this poor persons car because of the way it was parked?
In light of new information I'll revise my question.
How does a 7-year old learn to ride a bike on a driveway and get so out of control that they ram into a parked car? Where was the car parked, across someone else's drive? Who was supervising, what if we were to cross out "parked car" and write "traffic"?
I’m deliberately quoting selectively here. Assuming we’re talking busy urban/suburban areas, why should we allow public roads to get clogged up by someone effectively using public space as “free storage” for their personal possessions?
If someone doesn’t have enough private garage or drive space, they shouldnt be allowed to own a second vehicle unless they pay for a parking permit.
But they are allowed. They do pay for a parking permit, it's called VED.
Unless you're posing a thought experiment. Should they be allowed? Maybe not. If we argued "you cannot own a car unless you have somewhere to store it" then I'd be stuffed, I have neither a garage nor a drive. I'd have to abandon it at Tesco.
Not if he’s running some sort of low level trading he’s not.
True enough.
Cars are * everywhere. It’s unreasonable to leave kids with no area that they can play in which is what car owners do.
Kids are * everywhere. It’s unreasonable to leave cars with no area that they can park in which is what parents do.
Cars should be treated like any other property. If it’s that valuable to you then you need to take reasonable steps to ensure it is safe. That doesn’t mean abandoning them in areas used by the general public. If you want to keep 6 cars safe then you have to ensure you have enough space to keep them safe.
Kids should be treated like any other property. If it’s that valuable to you then you need to take reasonable steps to ensure it is safe. That doesn’t mean abandoning them in areas used by the general public. If you want to keep 6 kids safe then you have to ensure you have enough space to keep them safe.
I'm being obtuse of course. But modern-day roads are shared spaces. If you want exclusive access for your children then what you want there is a park or a playground. The awkward truth is that without cars, roads wouldn't be built. When I was a kid, if I'd have been found on the other side of the road I'd have got a slap; I remember having conversations shouting to my friend on the other side of the street who equally wasn't allowed to cross unaccompanied.
So parking a car 3/4 over a pavement so my son* could be barley squeeze past on his bike is ok?
Unless you're in London or Edinburgh, the car was legally parked and your son was riding illegally on the pavement.
It's shit I know, pavement parking is a pain in the arse (something I've learned all too well from having to push around a 2-year old in a buggy) and I wouldn't want my hypothetical 6-year old cycling on the road. But it is what it is and it doesn't excuse intentional criminal damage to prove a point, as tempting as that may be.
Unless you’re in London or Edinburgh, the car was legally parked and your son was riding illegally on the pavement.
It's illegal to drive on the pavement. The idea of pavement parking being legal is a loophole at best. There are also separate laws that address blocking pavements.
As a parent it's infuriating to see what kids have to put up with and how restricted their freedoms have become because of our selfishness. I share the opinion that morals are in the wrong place if we place more emphasis on the value of our vehicles than we do of our children.
But modern-day roads are shared spaces.
No, they are colonised spaces.
They are spaces that used to belong to everyone but thanks to tireless lobbying by car manufacturers pretty much all public space has become space for cars while people are relegated to disjointed strips of tarmac or ditches.
They do pay for a parking permit, it’s called VED.
Car drivers are without a doubt the most subsidised group in society. Or do you think VED somehow covers all the infrastructure needed control and house enough cars for every household to have a car for each driver (plus a spare)? If anyone deserves space on the street it's the non-drivers whose taxes are giving all the freeloading drivers part of their salary so they can enjoy their 'freedom'.
Like I said, attitudes are finally shifting but the Car is King mentally is so firmly ingrained it's going to take a generation or two before we finally start to shape society in the image of people rather than cars.
3 pages in and no one has suggested a whip round among the neighbours and a year's supply of sweets as a reward for annoying the annoying neighbour in a way that they can't really do anything about except stew? Standards are slipping.
Yes, mostly by people who feel that kids’ experiences growing up should be built around ensuring they understand that cars have the indisputable right to all public spaces.
Or people who think that respecting other peoples property and not managing it might be a good thing for society.
I sometimes prop my bike up against a wall when I pop into a shop. Clearly some on here feel it's OK to damage it if they don't like where I leave it.
Principles apply regardless of the method of transport. That's why they are called principles.
Cougar
Unless you’re in London or Edinburgh, the car was legally parked and your son was riding illegally on the pavement.
I think technically it's only legal if the car was teleported there somehow 🙂
Rule 145
You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
In practice though, nobody GAS.
It’s illegal to drive on the pavement. The idea of pavement parking being legal is a loophole at best. There are also separate laws that address blocking pavements.
Loophole or no, it's legal to park on the pavement unless as I said you're in London or Edinburgh which have specific bylaws, or you're driving something bigger than a car.
Causing an obstruction is an offence yes, but that's aimed at things like skips rather than cars.
I wish it wasn't the case, but here we are.
."Hmmm! OP pops in now and then, throws a bone and leaves.
OP has a job and posts at breaktime and lunch
As far as I am aware I dont have a 7 year old , car was parked on land the kids play on , well whenever he hasnt got his 3 other cars parked there being serviced or in some state of being stripped then reassembled
My opinion varies depending on where it is. If its on a patch of public grass / tarmac thats not his, nor a road where parking is allowed, then he should expect that this won't end well for him - choose to place your car in the line of fire, expect it to get damaged. If its parked on a road or driveway in a proper manner, I pay up.
I'm firmly in the 'legally correct != Morally correct'camp here. If my child scraped his bike along the side of a car I'd be mortified, and like to think I'd try to contact the owner to sort out me paying for damage.
Everyone's so hooked up on the car thing. Having something on a public space doesn't automatically mean people have the right to damage it. If there was a narrow pavement with terraced houses fronting on to it, and a small person managed to smash a window wobbling his bars into it, in any think I could just shrug and walk on.
I'm genuinely surprised at some of the attitudes! (But not by the attitudes of some)
Or do you think VED somehow covers all the infrastructure needed control and house enough cars for every household to have a car for each driver (plus a spare)? If anyone deserves space on the street it’s the non-drivers whose taxes are giving all the freeloading drivers part of their salary so they can enjoy their ‘freedom’.
Did you just make a "you don't pay road tax" argument?
In order to drive on, or park on, a public highway you need tax and insurance. That's your "right," it doesn't matter where the money goes or comes from, some classes of vehicle have a VED of £0.
The reason we build and maintain roads today is because of cars and other motor vehicles. If cars vanished overnight then those spaces would cease to exist. Some may argue that this is a good thing, of course. If they pedestrianised and turfed our street so I had to park 50 yards away, I'd welcome it. Plenty wouldn't, the "I'm only going to be a couple of minutes" brigade in the disabled bay outside my house or on the double yellows round the corner would combust.
😁
I said "be," not "have been."
I'm well aware of why roads were originally conceived, it's written into the deeds of my house that I have a legal right of access to drive my horse down the back street. But we're not constructing interstellar bypasses today for Roman chariots.
I’m genuinely surprised at some of the attitudes!
Years ago, when my twin girls were still in a double pushchair, I was struggling to get by a car parked on a pavement, I tried to navigate past it, caught the pushchair frame on some shrubbery and it snagged, I pushed harder and it sprung off and crashed into the car, leaving a nasty scratch. I still believe it serves them right – I didn't do it deliberately, but if they hadn't parked their car so inconsiderately, it wouldn't have happened.
Having something on a public space doesn’t automatically mean people have the right to damage it.
Don't think anyone is saying anyone has the right to damage anything. Having the right to do something suggests there was intention
However, if you are intentionally parking your car in such a way to maximize the likelihood of this happening as the OP says, is it really fair to whine about it when it happens?
The awkward truth is that without cars, roads wouldn’t be built.
You might want to look up the history of why roads were built.
Brief notes:
Dirt tracks
Romans
Nothing much new in roadbuilding technology for 1900 years
Cyclists demand something is done to improve the mix of cobbled and unsealed surfaces that constitute roads.
Cars appear.
And if we're talking specific roads that were built after the invention of cars. Then the one through our estate is a classic of the genre. Built to allow a bus route through to give easy transport into Reading, including a bus gate. Now colonized by bad parking so there's no bus and the council eventually gave up and removed the gate so it now gets through traffic too.
You might want to look up the history of why roads were built.
Cross-post I assume.
"were"
You don't get many horse-drawn carriages down the M1.
The awkward truth is that without cars, roads wouldn’t be built.
hmm, do more cars cause more roads? or more roads cause more cars?? When will this end!?
hmm, do more cars cause more roads? or more roads cause more cars?? When will this end!?
A rising population causes more cars which cause more roads.
Where it will all end, I refer you to China.
Did you just make a “you don’t pay road tax” argument?
In order to drive on, or park on, a public highway you need tax and insurance. That’s your “right,” it doesn’t matter where the money goes or comes from, some classes of vehicle have a VED of £0.
You're the one that said paying VED gives people the right to park in the street.
I said that all the taxes that are paid by car drivers doesn't cover the cost of the infrastructure needed to store them and for them to travel around (in the 1% of their lives they actually travel around or whatever the percentage is).
That's a deal that society has been prepared to make so far, mostly because fossil fuels have been such a useful source of cheap energy for much of the last century. I don't think it's going to be that way forever and the signs are that attitudes are shifting.
When I park on the pavement outside on my house I always make sure I leave no room for anyone to squeeze by (if I didn't then other cars would hit it as it is a narrow road) In my defence the pavement is a mystery as it is a 20 metre stretch of pavement in a 800 metre road where there is no other pavement.
It wouldn't however stop my car getting hit by a 7 year old on a bike.
You’re the one that said paying VED gives people the right to park in the street.
"Pay" was a sloppy choice of words. "Have" would have been better perhaps. You can pay for VED even if that payment is zero. That (plus insurance) gives you the right to park on the street.
I said that all the taxes that are paid by car drivers doesn’t cover the cost of the infrastructure
That may be true, I have no idea. ALL the taxes seems like something of a stretch though. I pay income tax, council tax, VAT, VED, fuel duty... Have you run the numbers?
It feels perverse to me that on the one hand we're arguing that the infrastructure should be available to everyone - this whole segue started around kids playing in streets, and hell this is a cycling forum - and then by turns arguing that car drivers aren't paying enough to cover its upkeep. We can't have it both ways.
hmm, do more cars cause more roads? or more roads cause more cars?? When will this end!?
More roads = more car / miles driven - well known.
gives you the right to park on the street.
Nope - allows you to park on the street. It is not a right and can be revoked hence double yellow lines
Yet again I am reminded how in Japan you have to prove exclusive use of a registered parking space in order to keep each car.
It feels perverse to me that on the one hand we’re arguing that the infrastructure should be available to everyone and then by turns arguing that car drivers aren’t paying enough to cover its upkeep. We can’t have it both ways.
The problem is that we’ve all been in arguments here and elsewhere with the I Pay Road Tax brigade. Fine, let’s accept that roads are paid for from general taxation for the benefit of all (which they are) but then let’s also have a proportional share for cycling infra (which is about 2% of journeys; 2% of the roads budget on AT would be an enormous, game changing uplift).
I wonder if some people’s opinions and ideals about transport methods are clouding their judgement here. “I don’t like cars so I’ll take side with anyone who’s causing bother to cars and car owners”.
Cars are always going to be a special case.
We have no other possession that we expect to leave in public spaces and that space effectively becomes part of our property.
Kids have a right to explore and play. It’s part of how we grow into functioning adults. Sometimes that’s going to lead to shit getting damaged.
Cars ownership (or rather, the lobbying of the car industry) has been the single biggest damaging thing to our communities in the last 100 years.
So yeah, kids being kids should be prioritised over supporting the thinking that led to our car dominated society. There’s a certain expectation that kids should learn to stay away from private property. Therefore if a kid breaks a window then that kid has broken the social agreement by taking too many risks near someone else’s property.
Cars are **** everywhere. It’s unreasonable to leave kids with no area that they can play in which is what car owners do.
If you don’t want your car damaged, don’t leave it in the kids’ spaces.
Those are indeed opinions and ideals about cars. They are however different to societal norms about cars. Of course you can argue and work for change. But I don't think behaving as if your ideals were reality is acceptable.
Exactly. We live in a car culture and changing g culture is very difficult, especially when cars are so handy. A lot of people have cars, a lot of people spend a lot of money on cars. Thinking that people should be happy/accepting to have their expensive possessions randomly ridden into/damaged by others is a bit ridiculous.
Amazing how little regard some posters on this forum have for other people’s property.
For me, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a car, or anything else. If my child or I, damage someone else’s property whether intentionally or through carelessness, I’ll make it good. Not because I have liability, or any legal reasons, but because it’s the right thing to do.
Yet again I am reminded how in Japan you have to prove exclusive use of a registered parking space in order to keep each car.
That does not apply to cars with yellow number plates. If your car has a yellow number plate, you don't need to prove that you have parking for it.
Cougar just because it’s not illegal to park your car in some places on the street doesn’t mean it’s a right.
If my child or I, damage someone else’s property whether intentionally or through carelessness, I’ll make it good.
I don’t think the OP has actually come back and explained how it happened has he? Because it IS possible for you to accidentally damage someone’s property despite being careful and taking all reasonable precautions for forseable risks. You might feel some obligation to fix it even then, but it’s kind of act of god type territory then and is the risk of owning and leaving your capital purchasing lying around.
But I don’t think behaving as if your ideals were reality is acceptable.
If we are leaving ideals out of it then all that is left is the legal side of things.
In that case, the owner has to prove that the parents were negligent. In this case I don't see any negligence.
The owner knew there were kids living and playing in the house. He parked his car as close as possible to the entrance to inconvenience the family.
I guess he could argue that he had to park the car so close because there was no space to park anywhere else. Why was there no space? Because he has too many cars to park all of them away from areas you might expect kids to be playing.
Legally, morally, in literally every way imaginable the car owner is in the wrong. The Car is King mentality is the only thing that is making people think otherwise.
The home insurance will cover it, unless the kid deliberately damaged the car the kid is negligent and a home insurance policy will have a PL extension for insured family members and pets.
Whether it's worth claiming on your home insurance is another story, depends on the circumstances (I'm writing this from the POV of someone who has read page 1) and the cost of the damage vs potential increases in your insurance premium and if there is an excess for 3rd party property damage.
Third party insurance covers damage you or anyone insured by your policy (not necessarily a policyholder or named specifically) to a property owned by a third party (i.e anyone who isn't covered by your insurance) there is no such thing as first party insurance. Unless that is an archaic term for insuring your own stuff, but I've been an insurance underwriter for over 20 years and I've never heard that in a work setting.
