Child vs car

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.

I’d say take a deep breath first. In my experience, these things can often get resolved without getting the law involved. Maybe try having a calm chat with the car owner to see if you can work something out together. If that doesn’t work, seeking some legal advice might not hurt.

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.

“I don’t think the OP has actually come back”

Mumsnet launched a successful forum raid on STW!

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.

What other “property” will you leave wherever you see fit and expect people to fit around it

I’d say there’s an example particularly relevant to this forum: a bicycle.

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?