You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If he’s a total waaaaaaka and parked in a stupid place where it was predictable it wouldhappen, I’d tell him to ****rightorf 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.
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!Interesting so many focusing on the strict legal liability/negligence view. A bit if a moral vacuum on show by some folk.
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.
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.
https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/child-law/child-accidents-compensation-liability
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.
😁
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!?
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.
The Car is King mentality is the only thing that is making people think otherwise.
No, it really isn't.
The type of property is irrelevant, if it didn't belong to me and I or someone in my care damaged it then I'll do what I can to sort it. What I won't be doing is the mental gymnastics required so I feel justified in telling the owner to poke it.
That does not apply to cars with yellow number plates. If your car has a yellow number plate, you don’t need to prove that you have parking for it.
That's half the story.
The yellow plates only apply to Kei cars.
And to put that into context, the Smart FourTwo (i.e. the Small Smart car) is too big to qualify as it's about a foot too wide.
The type of property is irrelevant, if it didn’t belong to me and I or someone in my care damaged it then I’ll do what I can to sort it. What I won’t be doing is the mental gymnastics required so I feel justified in telling the owner to poke it.
Funny, because I've never seen a car driver go out and fix a pothole. Viral video of Arnie doing it aside. There's usually just some angry person in the local paper blaming the council, other vehicles, cyclists, speedbumps for their existence.
Funny, because I’ve never seen a car driver go out and fix a pothole. Viral video of Arnie doing it aside. There’s usually just some angry person in the local paper blaming the council, other vehicles, cyclists, speedbumps for their existence.
I'm not really sure where to go with that.
At first glance it looks like you're comparing a young child wobbling off their bike and clonking a neighbours car, with the slow degradation of the road surface over several years, and many hundreds of thousands if not millions of vehicles that cause that degradation, of which there is a system in place to maintain and repair the road surface. But you can't honestly be doing that so I'm going to assume that I've missed something.
I don’t think the OP has actually come back
They’re only allowed their phone at playtime and after doing their homework.
Legally, morally, in literally every way imaginable the car owner is in the wrong. The Car is King mentality is the only thing that is making people think otherwise.
This is very true. Some people are extremely entitled when it comes to parking regardless of the effect on others.
The type of property is irrelevant, if it didn’t belong to me and I or someone in my care damaged it then I’ll do what I can to sort it.
What other "property" will you leave wherever you see fit and expect people to fit around it.
The type of property is irrelevant, if it didn’t belong to me and I or someone in my care damaged it then I’ll do what I can to sort it.
I’d posit that is probably not quite true:
let’s imagine you are mountain biking and climb an old wooden gate with your bike. It’s a bit rotten and in doing so you break a spar of the gate. I can believe you would put the broken bits back, perhaps even put something in any gap to avoid livestock escaping but are you saying you would stop your ride to go and hunt for the owner to make arrangements to buy a new gate? Or come back the following day with a plank of wood and some screws to fix it? Similarly if you were climbing a painted iron fence wearing spds and your foot slipped with the cleat leaving a big scratch do you come back with a pot of paint or call the owner offering to pay? I doubt if you were riding in the local park and lost control crashing into a bin leaving a dent you’d be on the phone to the council asking how to fix it.
The home insurance will cover it, unless the kid deliberately damaged the car the kid is negligent
that's not true
Third party insurance covers damage you or anyone insured by your policy (not necessarily a policyholder or named specifically) to a property owned by a third party
only if you're negligent
there is no such thing as first party insurance.
its insurance for things owned by the first party - ie the policy holder. You can insure your car against damage, and should, if you're worried about kids on bikes knocking into it
The home insurance will cover it, unless the kid deliberately damaged the car the kid is negligent and a home insurance policy will have a PL extension for insured family members and pets.
only if there is negligence. Damage does not always equate to negligence. It needs to be foreseeable to a reasonable person. Given that any incident resulting in damage to a vehicle results in risk of injury to the person it may be that the risk was not very foreseeable.
i can imagine situations where someone running on a pavement trips and ends up accidentally damaging an adjacent car. If the surface was good, trainers were properly tied it may well be judged not to be forseable. If the road surface was good last week and degraded now but it’s dark it might not be forseable. thats without asking if the driver contributed to the risk by eg parking in a way that shadowed street lights making it harder to see the hypothetical trip hazard, or by parking on the pavement to leave less space. And if it’s an area commonly used by children, and WAS forseable that harm might come to a vehicle then as the driver knows the area… I’d expect your home insurer might (if the values made it worth arguing) saying that it was contributory negligence by the driver to leave it there.
let’s imagine you are mountain biking and climb an old wooden gate with your bike. It’s a bit rotten and in doing so you break a spar of the gate.
Did you just call me fat? I'll have you know I'm big boned....☹️
At first glance it looks like you’re comparing a young child wobbling off their bike and clonking a neighbours car, with the slow degradation of the road surface over several years, and many hundreds of thousands if not millions of vehicles that cause that degradation, of which there is a system in place to maintain and repair the road surface. But you can’t honestly be doing that so I’m going to assume that I’ve missed something.
So as long as the item in question is useable, it's ok for a few million others to wobble into it.
And when the millionth football hits it, and it finally breaks, it's the owners responsibility.
Yes I am being facetious to illustrate the point that we as a society hold cars in a weird regard.
I’d say there’s an example particularly relevant to this forum: a bicycle.
I was at the shops a while ago and someone managed to knock my bike over while they were unlocking theirs. It fell into a railing putting a dent in the top tube.
She was very apologetic but she didn't offer to repair or replace the frame and I didn't expect it. Ultimately I'm using my bike in an area frequented by lots of people and accidents happen sometimes.
I'd imagine most people's attitudes would be the same when it came to most types of property. If it's very valuable don't bring it to places where the likelihood of it getting damaged is high.
Cars, for whatever reason, hold a special place in people's hearts and it's up to society to avoid your car and pay up if you so much as sneeze near it.
The yellow plates only apply to Kei cars.
Yes. So, if your car has a yellow number plate, you aren't required to prove that you have somewhere to park it. So, it's not the case that you have to prove you have parking in order to buy a car in Japan, it's only for some cars.
So as long as the item in question is useable, it’s ok for a few million others to wobble into it.
And when the millionth football hits it, and it finally breaks, it’s the owners responsibility.
Yes I am being facetious to illustrate the point that we as a society hold cars in a weird
You were being serious? Wow....
Cougar just because it’s not illegal to park your car in some places on the street doesn’t mean it’s a right.
Does it make it a wrong?
Plenty of people park inconsiderately. Plenty of other people erroneously believe they own the public road space outside their house.
only if you’re negligent
Allowing your child to wobble into the road only for their progress into potentially moving traffic to be arrested by a parked vehicle doesn't sound particularly conscientious. They should be thanking the car owner for placing a barrier which averted risk of significant injury. 😁
The Car is King mentality is the only thing that is making people think otherwise.
This is just nonsense. If instead the kid had demolished a garden fence, would we be making "house is king" arguments?
I get that for some folk a car is just a tool and would shrug off a minor dent, but all other things aside ours is a lease vehicle and I'll be liable for any damage when it goes back so I can't just go "oh well" and ignore it.
@poly and 5lab - the policyholder doesn't need to be negligent the insured person - in this case the child - does.
If you do something by accident it could have been avoided it is negligence. There is a vanishingly small possibility of an action by a human that causes damage directly unintentionally being classed as non negligent.
Possibly if the child had ridden their bike past the car over some soft earth, which caused a land slip which damaged the car there would have been no negligence. But if the kid has hit the car then liability will attach. The fact that there has been an accident is evidence of negligence. You couldn't argue your way out of a car insurance claim by saying, well I honestly thought I'd stop in time so you can't claim against me.
Also again first party insurance is not a thing. What you are talking about there is generally called property insurance in the game.
If you have alternative documents that can tell me I'm wrong I will withdraw my argument, but I have extensive experience of writing insurance policy wordings so I would be surprised.
Does it make it a wrong?
No, but there are some things we have a right to do, some things we may even be entitled to do in return for paying some money. Parking on the public highway is neither of those - it is simply tolerated. Even if you pay the local authority for a residents' parking permit it almost certainly comes with no promise that there will actually be a space for your vehicle.
It is factually wrong to describe the common practice of parking on the street as a right; it is unhelpful to the discussion about damage to a car parked on the street or to the relationship between motorists (of which I am one) and the state provided road infrastructure as a "right". Using that language reinforces the sort of mistaken belief of all too many that VED entitles them to do things.
@poly and 5lab – the policyholder doesn’t need to be negligent the insured person – in this case the child – does.
Well i've not studied the terms of this hypothetical policy, and you may be right. I'd argue, that if anything, that shifts the risk further away from the insurer paying out as the question of negligence is presumably the care that a reasonable child would have taken rather than the precaution a reasonable parent would have taken to supervise their child.
If you do something by accident it could have been avoided it is negligence.
No its not. Law students spend many tortuous (pun intended) weeks studying what the law requires to prove negligence and it certainly does not follow that every accident is caused by negligence. It has to be foreseeable such that a reasonable person would have taken steps to avoid it.
There is a vanishingly small possibility of an action by a human that causes damage directly unintentionally being classed as non negligent.
I'd suggest that if I go for a run tonight and trip and knock someone's wing mirror off then unless I didn't bother to tie my shoe laces or I'm running in the dark with no head torch etc. then I (and my insurers) would have a very good chance of defending a negligence claim. Its not clear what steps a reasonable person could take to prevent such a genuine accident, therefore how a reasonable person had met the carelessness required for negligence in common law.
Possibly if the child had ridden their bike past the car
why do we keep coming back to a bike? the OP said child ran into not cycled into the car. The issues are similar but the forseability of a cycle damaging a car is, to me at least, different to a 7 year old kid doing do by accident.
The fact that there has been an accident is evidence of negligence.
Its not unequivocal
You couldn’t argue your way out of a car insurance claim by saying, well I honestly thought I’d stop in time so you can’t claim against me.
Firstly motoring insurance is different, it is required by law and the obligations of the insurer are set by the Road Traffic Act not simply common law. Secondly, it would be argued in that situation that a careful and competent driver (to use the words of the RTA) or a reasonable person (to use the common law) would have known the stopping distance for their vehicle and been able to stop. However, if I stumble off the pavement in front of a moving car it doesn't follow that the car driver is to blame for the injury cause to me when he strikes me, nor necessarily that I am liable for damage to his car. If my stumble was caused by a previously undiagnosed medical condition I am almost certainly not liable. If it was caused be a wobble kerb stone I'm probably not liable either. If the council knew about the wobbly kerb they might have some liability - but if they inspected the road as often as they should and nobody reported a fault then its likely just one of those things which I and the car driver both just have to suck up. Of course just because "I" am not liable doesn't mean that "my" insurer may not choose to settle.
This is just nonsense. If instead the kid had demolished a garden fence, would we be making “house is king” arguments?
Now who is talking nonsense?
Presumably people don't generally install their garden fences in the street? I mean, if you are like this car driver maybe you would since the aim is not to find a convenient place for the fence but instead to try to apply as much inconvenience as possible to the family due to an ongoing dispute.
In addition, in terms of monetary cost, how much damage can a kid really do to a garden fence? I'd argue it's not the same amount as taking a car to a body shop for a repair and respray and an agreement could probably be reached far more easily.
I get that for some folk a car is just a tool and would shrug off a minor dent, but all other things aside ours is a lease vehicle and I’ll be liable for any damage when it goes back so I can’t just go “oh well” and ignore it.
Then can I suggest some comprehensive insurance?
If, instead of my beater bike, this woman had knocked over my £10K road bike and cracked the carbon frame, how do you think it would go if I took her to court demanding damages?
I suspect the court would simply say, 'What the **** were you doing with a £10K road bike at a shopping centre and why weren't you making sure no one bumped into it. If you were that worried why didn't you insure it, you idiot?'
But cars are different, apparently.
I'm not sure I agree... I mean you could apply the same argument to a Rolex watch... Shouldn't be wearing it in public so if someone snatched it off your wrist you shouldn't have been wearing it in the first place.
Just sounds like victim blaming to me.
Liability is liability, whether damages were intentional or accidental
Shouldn’t be wearing it in public so if someone snatched it off your wrist you shouldn’t have been wearing it in the first place.
Yes, theft is generally frowned upon from a moral perspective.
It's also illegal.
Liability is liability, whether damages were intentional or accidental
Indeed - but as poly pointed out very well some accidental occurrences carry no negligence and therefore no liability
Yes, theft is generally frowned upon from a moral perspective
Not unlike damaging someone's property, shrugging your shoulders and telling them to jog on when they pull you up about it then?
Not unlike damaging someone’s property, shrugging your shoulders and telling them to jog on when they pull you up about it then?
Or deliberately parking your cars in such a way to cause maximum inconvenience to a family because of an ongoing dispute?
In case you missed the OP's update:
child was learning to ride her bike on their own drive has lost control and gone off the end , next door neighbour has beef with them and likes to park cars as close as possible etc to be obstructive , even places obstructions behind other peoples cars , like unseen wheely bins etc.