The Car is King mentality is the only thing that is making people think otherwise.
No, it really isn't.
The type of property is irrelevant, if it didn't belong to me and I or someone in my care damaged it then I'll do what I can to sort it. What I won't be doing is the mental gymnastics required so I feel justified in telling the owner to poke it.
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.
That's half the story.
The yellow plates only apply to Kei cars.
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.
The type of property is irrelevant, if it didn’t belong to me and I or someone in my care damaged it then I’ll do what I can to sort it. What I won’t be doing is the mental gymnastics required so I feel justified in telling the owner to poke it.
Funny, because I've never seen a car driver go out and fix a pothole. Viral video of Arnie doing it aside. There's usually just some angry person in the local paper blaming the council, other vehicles, cyclists, speedbumps for their existence.
Funny, because I’ve never seen a car driver go out and fix a pothole. Viral video of Arnie doing it aside. There’s usually just some angry person in the local paper blaming the council, other vehicles, cyclists, speedbumps for their existence.
I'm not really sure where to go with that.
At first glance it looks like you're comparing a young child wobbling off their bike and clonking a neighbours car, with the slow degradation of the road surface over several years, and many hundreds of thousands if not millions of vehicles that cause that degradation, of which there is a system in place to maintain and repair the road surface. But you can't honestly be doing that so I'm going to assume that I've missed something.
I don’t think the OP has actually come back
They’re only allowed their phone at playtime and after doing their homework.
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.
This is very true. Some people are extremely entitled when it comes to parking regardless of the effect on others.
The type of property is irrelevant, if it didn’t belong to me and I or someone in my care damaged it then I’ll do what I can to sort it.
What other "property" will you leave wherever you see fit and expect people to fit around it.
The type of property is irrelevant, if it didn’t belong to me and I or someone in my care damaged it then I’ll do what I can to sort it.
I’d posit that is probably not quite true:
let’s imagine you are mountain biking and climb an old wooden gate with your bike. It’s a bit rotten and in doing so you break a spar of the gate. I can believe you would put the broken bits back, perhaps even put something in any gap to avoid livestock escaping but are you saying you would stop your ride to go and hunt for the owner to make arrangements to buy a new gate? Or come back the following day with a plank of wood and some screws to fix it? Similarly if you were climbing a painted iron fence wearing spds and your foot slipped with the cleat leaving a big scratch do you come back with a pot of paint or call the owner offering to pay? I doubt if you were riding in the local park and lost control crashing into a bin leaving a dent you’d be on the phone to the council asking how to fix it.
The home insurance will cover it, unless the kid deliberately damaged the car the kid is negligent
that's not true
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
only if you're negligent
there is no such thing as first party insurance.
its insurance for things owned by the first party - ie the policy holder. You can insure your car against damage, and should, if you're worried about kids on bikes knocking into it
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.
only if there is negligence. Damage does not always equate to negligence. It needs to be foreseeable to a reasonable person. Given that any incident resulting in damage to a vehicle results in risk of injury to the person it may be that the risk was not very foreseeable.
i can imagine situations where someone running on a pavement trips and ends up accidentally damaging an adjacent car. If the surface was good, trainers were properly tied it may well be judged not to be forseable. If the road surface was good last week and degraded now but it’s dark it might not be forseable. thats without asking if the driver contributed to the risk by eg parking in a way that shadowed street lights making it harder to see the hypothetical trip hazard, or by parking on the pavement to leave less space. And if it’s an area commonly used by children, and WAS forseable that harm might come to a vehicle then as the driver knows the area… I’d expect your home insurer might (if the values made it worth arguing) saying that it was contributory negligence by the driver to leave it there.
let’s imagine you are mountain biking and climb an old wooden gate with your bike. It’s a bit rotten and in doing so you break a spar of the gate.
Did you just call me fat? I'll have you know I'm big boned....☹️
At first glance it looks like you’re comparing a young child wobbling off their bike and clonking a neighbours car, with the slow degradation of the road surface over several years, and many hundreds of thousands if not millions of vehicles that cause that degradation, of which there is a system in place to maintain and repair the road surface. But you can’t honestly be doing that so I’m going to assume that I’ve missed something.
So as long as the item in question is useable, it's ok for a few million others to wobble into it.
And when the millionth football hits it, and it finally breaks, it's the owners responsibility.
Yes I am being facetious to illustrate the point that we as a society hold cars in a weird regard.
I’d say there’s an example particularly relevant to this forum: a bicycle.
I was at the shops a while ago and someone managed to knock my bike over while they were unlocking theirs. It fell into a railing putting a dent in the top tube.
She was very apologetic but she didn't offer to repair or replace the frame and I didn't expect it. Ultimately I'm using my bike in an area frequented by lots of people and accidents happen sometimes.
I'd imagine most people's attitudes would be the same when it came to most types of property. If it's very valuable don't bring it to places where the likelihood of it getting damaged is high.
Cars, for whatever reason, hold a special place in people's hearts and it's up to society to avoid your car and pay up if you so much as sneeze near it.
The yellow plates only apply to Kei cars.
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.
So as long as the item in question is useable, it’s ok for a few million others to wobble into it.
And when the millionth football hits it, and it finally breaks, it’s the owners responsibility.
Yes I am being facetious to illustrate the point that we as a society hold cars in a weird
You were being serious? Wow....
Cougar just because it’s not illegal to park your car in some places on the street doesn’t mean it’s a right.
Does it make it a wrong?
Plenty of people park inconsiderately. Plenty of other people erroneously believe they own the public road space outside their house.
only if you’re negligent
Allowing your child to wobble into the road only for their progress into potentially moving traffic to be arrested by a parked vehicle doesn't sound particularly conscientious. They should be thanking the car owner for placing a barrier which averted risk of significant injury. 😁
The Car is King mentality is the only thing that is making people think otherwise.
This is just nonsense. If instead the kid had demolished a garden fence, would we be making "house is king" arguments?
I get that for some folk a car is just a tool and would shrug off a minor dent, but all other things aside ours is a lease vehicle and I'll be liable for any damage when it goes back so I can't just go "oh well" and ignore it.
@poly and 5lab - the policyholder doesn't need to be negligent the insured person - in this case the child - does.
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.
Possibly if the child had ridden their bike past the car over some soft earth, which caused a land slip which damaged the car there would have been no negligence. But if the kid has hit the car then liability will attach. The fact that there has been an accident is evidence of negligence. You couldn't argue your way out of a car insurance claim by saying, well I honestly thought I'd stop in time so you can't claim against me.
Also again first party insurance is not a thing. What you are talking about there is generally called property insurance in the game.
If you have alternative documents that can tell me I'm wrong I will withdraw my argument, but I have extensive experience of writing insurance policy wordings so I would be surprised.
Does it make it a wrong?
No, but there are some things we have a right to do, some things we may even be entitled to do in return for paying some money. Parking on the public highway is neither of those - it is simply tolerated. Even if you pay the local authority for a residents' parking permit it almost certainly comes with no promise that there will actually be a space for your vehicle.
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.
@poly and 5lab – the policyholder doesn’t need to be negligent the insured person – in this case the child – does.
Well i've not studied the terms of this hypothetical policy, and you may be right. I'd argue, that if anything, that shifts the risk further away from the insurer paying out as the question of negligence is presumably the care that a reasonable child would have taken rather than the precaution a reasonable parent would have taken to supervise their child.
If you do something by accident it could have been avoided it is negligence.
No its not. Law students spend many tortuous (pun intended) weeks studying what the law requires to prove negligence and it certainly does not follow that every accident is caused by negligence. It has to be foreseeable such that a reasonable person would have taken steps to avoid it.
There is a vanishingly small possibility of an action by a human that causes damage directly unintentionally being classed as non negligent.
I'd suggest that if I go for a run tonight and trip and knock someone's wing mirror off then unless I didn't bother to tie my shoe laces or I'm running in the dark with no head torch etc. then I (and my insurers) would have a very good chance of defending a negligence claim. Its not clear what steps a reasonable person could take to prevent such a genuine accident, therefore how a reasonable person had met the carelessness required for negligence in common law.
Possibly if the child had ridden their bike past the car
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.
The fact that there has been an accident is evidence of negligence.
Its not unequivocal
You couldn’t argue your way out of a car insurance claim by saying, well I honestly thought I’d stop in time so you can’t claim against me.
Firstly motoring insurance is different, it is required by law and the obligations of the insurer are set by the Road Traffic Act not simply common law. Secondly, it would be argued in that situation that a careful and competent driver (to use the words of the RTA) or a reasonable person (to use the common law) would have known the stopping distance for their vehicle and been able to stop. However, if I stumble off the pavement in front of a moving car it doesn't follow that the car driver is to blame for the injury cause to me when he strikes me, nor necessarily that I am liable for damage to his car. If my stumble was caused by a previously undiagnosed medical condition I am almost certainly not liable. If it was caused be a wobble kerb stone I'm probably not liable either. If the council knew about the wobbly kerb they might have some liability - but if they inspected the road as often as they should and nobody reported a fault then its likely just one of those things which I and the car driver both just have to suck up. Of course just because "I" am not liable doesn't mean that "my" insurer may not choose to settle.
This is just nonsense. If instead the kid had demolished a garden fence, would we be making “house is king” arguments?
Now who is talking nonsense?
Presumably people don't generally install their garden fences in the street? I mean, if you are like this car driver maybe you would since the aim is not to find a convenient place for the fence but instead to try to apply as much inconvenience as possible to the family due to an ongoing dispute.
In addition, in terms of monetary cost, how much damage can a kid really do to a garden fence? I'd argue it's not the same amount as taking a car to a body shop for a repair and respray and an agreement could probably be reached far more easily.
I get that for some folk a car is just a tool and would shrug off a minor dent, but all other things aside ours is a lease vehicle and I’ll be liable for any damage when it goes back so I can’t just go “oh well” and ignore it.
Then can I suggest some comprehensive insurance?
If, instead of my beater bike, this woman had knocked over my £10K road bike and cracked the carbon frame, how do you think it would go if I took her to court demanding damages?
I suspect the court would simply say, 'What the **** were you doing with a £10K road bike at a shopping centre and why weren't you making sure no one bumped into it. If you were that worried why didn't you insure it, you idiot?'
But cars are different, apparently.
I'm not sure I agree... I mean you could apply the same argument to a Rolex watch... Shouldn't be wearing it in public so if someone snatched it off your wrist you shouldn't have been wearing it in the first place.
Just sounds like victim blaming to me.
Liability is liability, whether damages were intentional or accidental
Shouldn’t be wearing it in public so if someone snatched it off your wrist you shouldn’t have been wearing it in the first place.
Yes, theft is generally frowned upon from a moral perspective.
It's also illegal.
Liability is liability, whether damages were intentional or accidental
Indeed - but as poly pointed out very well some accidental occurrences carry no negligence and therefore no liability
Yes, theft is generally frowned upon from a moral perspective
Not unlike damaging someone's property, shrugging your shoulders and telling them to jog on when they pull you up about it then?
Not unlike damaging someone’s property, shrugging your shoulders and telling them to jog on when they pull you up about it then?
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:
child was learning to ride her bike on their own drive has lost control and gone off the end , next door neighbour has beef with them and likes to park cars as close as possible etc to be obstructive , even places obstructions behind other peoples cars , like unseen wheely bins etc.
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.
