Child vs car

If he’s a total waaaaaaka and parked in a stupid place where it was predictable it wouldhappen,  I’d tell him to feckrightorf and that he needs to try suing the 7 year old. He won’t get far with that.

+1

Eye opener this thread, if my kid damages someone else’s property then I’m  sorting it, not checking his insurance and mot ffs!

Some questionable morals in here tonight….

On the one had yes.

On the other hand if he’s been effectively running a car dealership from the kids play area for years then he should pay them a fair amount in “rent” for the loss of amenity over the years. Legally obviously that could probably neve happen but morally it’d be reason enough to tell him to go swivel on it.

Similar situation when mine were toddlers on bikes. cars on the pavement were fair game for scrapy metal bits on the handle bars. even before that….if there was a car blocking the pavement I took that as a challenge to get the pram through the gap

cars on the pavement were fair game

Whilst I don’t think I would go out of my way to ensure I scrapped a car in that situation (that still breaks rule 1 in my book), I’d not go to any great lengths to prevent damage happening either.

Interesting so many focusing on the strict legal liability/negligence view.  A bit if a moral vacuum on show by some folk.

equally I find it interesting that some folk are focusing on the moral/civic duty element regarding damage to the car – whilst totally ignoring car owner’s moral imperative to be a decent neighbour rather than a selfish git who inconveniences everyone else in the cul-de-sac and thinks only of himself. 🤔 Oh I forgot, car is king and trumps all 😂 No wonder society is going down the shitter!

then he should pay them a fair amount in “rent” for the loss of amenity over the years.

In thel hundreds to thousands of pounds a year per car – thats the rental value of that land per car

equally I find it interesting that some folk are focusing on the moral/civic duty element regarding damage to the car – whilst totally ignoring car owner’s moral imperative to be a decent neighbour rather than a selfish git who inconveniences everyone else in the cul-de-sac

Indeed.

If you want to play, ‘Who is the bigger ****?’ then in the red corner you’ve got a guy with six cars who parks them in common areas (and deliberately parks them in such a way that the neighbour is inconvenienced).

In the blue corner you’ve got the parents of a 7 year old who was learning to ride their bike in their driveway.

Yeah, morally (and probably legally as well) Mr Six-Cars can swivel.

If I remember the start of To Kill a Mockingbird correctly, Atticus Finch’s first clients were the last people to be hanged in the county. They murdered someone and Atticus failed to persuade them that “The son-of-a-bitch had it coming” was not a sensible defense strategy. Same thing goes with damaging people’s cars. If the car is legally parked, stating that “The son-of-a-bitch had it coming” is not going to make your case any stronger.

In the blue corner you’ve got the parents of a 7 year old who was learning to ride their bike in their driveway.

If the car was parked on the property of the kid’s parents without permission, then that’s on the car’s owner. If it was legally parked on the street out front and the kid zoomed down the driveway and out into the street and hit it, the parents would be well advised to pay up and not advertise to the authorities that they weren’t supervising their kid and put him in danger of being hit by a passing car.

Hmmm! OP pops in now and then, throws a bone and leaves.

I’m filing this under.

If the car is legally parked, stating that “The son-of-a-bitch had it coming” is not going to make your case any stronger.

If you park the car in a public area then to a certain extent you do have it coming.

It’s a change of mindset that is needed.  ‘Car is King’ and ‘My Home (and by extension My Car) is My Castle’ are views that were formed in the last century and desperately need changing if we are going to build healthy communities.

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.

A 7 year old learning to ride their bike is a common every day activity.  Sometimes they are going to cause minor damage to property.  There was no negligence by the parents (unless you are saying that modern parents don’t do enough helicopter parenting and someone should have literally been running around after them ready to grab hold at any second) so there is no liability.

Accidents caused by Children: Has your Child caused an Accident?

Liability of parents and carers
In England and Wales, parents or carers are not automatically liable for the personal injury, loss or damage that the child has caused. However, if a parent was negligent in, for instance, allowing the child’s actions that caused harm or injury, or for failing to prevent the incident – the parent could be held liable.

So if the child was accompanied by a responsible adult at the time of the incident, it may be possible to take legal action against the adult. However, it will have to be shown that the adult acted negligently.

Even if the child was not with a responsible adult, it may be possible to take legal action against an adult for failing to oversee the child at the time of the accident. This, of course, depends on whether the adult owed a duty of care towards others at the time.

Maybe, in addition to mandatory 3rd party insurance for children, we should be keeping them on a leash at all times until they reach 16.

A pity that not every housing estate in the last 50 years since mine was built hadn’t been designed as well. Still enough parking both on street and shared carpark 59 years on. Footpaths largely separated from roads. So every day   I see kids from P1  on bikes and scooters going along the paths to school.

As for cars taking up valuable road space. The roads were built and paid for by the householders (via the builder) and have not needed resurfacing in half a century.  Most street are not through roads so there is no traffic being obstructed. Cars are great but need the right infrastructure.

As for the new roads just fill up mantra. Go and look at Edinburgh Road in Glasgow. 6 lanes. Nice grass central reservation. Very light traffic. Because a new motorway built 50 years ago took the traffic away. Countless other examples. All the towns bypassed by the new A9 in the 1970s for example.

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.

The awkward truth is that without cars, roads wouldn’t be built.

What did the Romans ever do for us?

😁

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!?