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?
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 😁
. 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 .
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.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.
