Child vs car

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 ****.

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.

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?

@prawny

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 ****.

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 😁

. Is there some weird rule where you have to comment non stop on a post created or can I just savour the viewpoints.

Well, sort of yes. It’s classic troll behaviour.

. 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.