3 year old banned from cycling outside of house ... because she might scratch a car

[Sara_H]

A few years ago I was filtering slowly down the outside of a line of traffic. A woman stepped out from in front of a van looking the other way right in front of me. I stopped but in doing so fell over against a pickup that was stationary headed in the other direction. After we had adjourned to the pavement for a bit of a chat, the driver of the pickup came over to enquire who was going to be paying for the damage to his door, which was rather bent in. I was amazed because I had thought I had just toppled over and come to rest against it, not hit it with any force at all.

Hmmm. The mechanic/body repair man who repaired the car door that my dog damaged rang me before he started and said words to the effect of "I'll happily take £500 off you, but I can't see how your dog has possibly caused this damage."
I coughed up because he'd run into the car, which had a dint in it, but the mechanic seemed to think I was being taken for a ride.

 

[StuartG]

And FWIW, if someone's kid scratched my car with their bike while it was parked out on the road I would not be happy.

Then don't park it on the road ... By doing so you are depriving other people of a public space and effectively creating an exclusion zone for kids, balls et al.

By all means sue people who deliberately or negligently do damage. But that is unlikely to be young kids for whom we all have to make allowances for their exuberances and inexperience. I'm sorry if you were deprived of it when you were a kid but there is no need to repeat it.

 

[hopless500]

Then don't park it on the road ... By doing so you are depriving other people of a public space and effectively creating an exclusion zone for kids, balls et al.

By all means sue people who deliberately or negligently do damage. But that is unlikely to be young kids for whom we all have to make allowances for their exuberances and inexperience. I'm sorry if you were deprived of it when you were a kid but there is no need to repeat it.

wtf are you on about?.... as I said:

And FWIW, if someone's kid scratched my car with their bike while it was parked out on the road I would not be happy. Yes accidents happen, and yes someone ultimately has to cough up for the repairs. And before anyone starts up, I'm on about parking while I'm out and about, not parking on the drive at home....

Did I specify who would possibly damage my car. Did I specify suing anyone? Talk about making assumptions.... and would you like to explain exactly what you think I may have been deprived of as a kid???

 

[MontyVeda]

I once put a head sized dent in a car door (running, tripped, flew a few yards, parked car stopped me). Head sized dent in door, no damage to my head or face, not even a bruise or graze. This was on a terraced street with no option of off-street parking. Was the owner of the car in the wrong for parking on the street? No. Was the street classed as a designated play street with speed humps, one way signs, no right of way except for access and a speed restriction? Yes.

Regarding the OP, maybe they should have a natter with their local council, and the housing association to try to get the street designated as a 'home zone'.

 

[Sara_H]

[quote="MontyVeda, post: 2672681, member: 12393"Was the street classed as a designated play street with speed humps, one way signs, no right of way except for access and a speed restriction? Yes.
.[/quote]

Streets don't have to be designated play streets, they are play streets by very nature of the fact that people live there and should be able to go about their everyday business there. Including playing out, and walking down the street safely and unhampered by cars littering the pavement.

Now, we've gone a bit OT and started arguing about who should pay for damage caused by playing children, but we need to remember that this thread is actually about children being completely BANNED from playing in the street for fear of scratching cars.This is absolutely ridiculous.

At the end of the day, adults make a lifestyle choice to drive a car that impacts negatively on everyone around them in that the rest of us are meant to adjust our behavior in order to accommodate those who choose to drive cars.
Playing isn't a lifestyle choice, its an essential part of growing up, and if I had to make a choice between parking in my street or playing in my street, I'd choose playing.

 

[MontyVeda]

I completely agree with you Sarah. I mentioned the Home Zone initiative as a way of maybe getting your housing association to remove their daft 'no play' legislation. It is after all a cul-de-sac (?) with no through route isn't it?

 

[MarkF]

Now, we've gone a bit OT and started arguing about who should pay for damage caused by playing children, but we need to remember that this thread is actually about children being completely BANNED from playing in the street for fear of scratching cars.This is absolutely ridiculous.

The subsequent posts about children and damages are important to be able to debate the original post correctly, not blindly. Of course at first read, the article does seem ridiculous, but when you have to pay our £100's yourself for damage that a neighbours child caused, it doesn't seem so totally ridiculous. If we all knew that damage to a car (which can be very expensive from small impact) caused by a child could/would be paid by morally correct parents then life would be tickety boo, but that's not what always happens, twice, parents have said to me "Sorry, but accidents happen, I am not paying".

 

[Sara_H]

The subsequent posts about children and damages are important to be able to debate the original post correctly, not blindly. Of course at first read, the article does seem ridiculous, but when you have to pay our £100's yourself for damage that a neighbours child caused, it doesn't seem so totally ridiculous. If we all knew that damage to a car (which can be very expensive from small impact) caused by a child could/would be paid by morally correct parents then life would be tickety boo, but that's not what always happens, twice, parents have said to me "Sorry, but accidents happen, I am not paying".

But, the problem is - should a child's right to play be curtailed for the convenience of parking in the street? I don't think it should. In the situation outlined in the OP there has been a stark choice made - children have been banned from playing in order to allow car parking. I think that's arse over tit, if the two activities can't live happily together, then it is the cars that should be banned, not the children.

 

[Frood42]

Wouldn't want to live there.
Cars should be banned to an estate car park.
Cars can cause a lot more damage to a 3yr old, than a 3yr old can to a car.

 

[MarkF]

But, the problem is - should a child's right to play be curtailed for the convenience of parking in the street? I don't think it should. In the situation outlined in the OP there has been a stark choice made - children have been banned from playing in order to allow car parking. I think that's arse over tit, if the two activities can't live happily together, then it is the cars that should be banned, not the children.

I'd probably side with young children's enjoyment and health, it's more important.

But, you still seem to be a bit evasive on the possible future consequences of the 3 year old damaging a neighbours car, in this instance. Have they banned the kid from cycling simply to be niggardly buggers, or, do they have a genuine financial concern? If it's the latter, then IMO and experience, it's a genuine one. If it's the former, then they are gits.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

The subsequent posts about children and damages are important to be able to debate the original post correctly, not blindly. Of course at first read, the article does seem ridiculous, but when you have to pay our £100's yourself for damage that a neighbours child caused, it doesn't seem so totally ridiculous. If we all knew that damage to a car (which can be very expensive from small impact) caused by a child could/would be paid by morally correct parents then life would be tickety boo, but that's not what always happens, twice, parents have said to me "Sorry, but accidents happen, I am not paying".

How can we have a debate when it always boils down to "You own a car. All drivers think bla, bla bla. You expect too much. You're too precious about it. You don't have a right to 'public' space"?

Anyhoo, here's my two penneth.
I was house hunting last year and looked at a new build estate. Only the REALLY BIG houses had off road parking (for the panzers), the rest was a free for all. Cars were parked nose to tail everywhere. It looked like every inch of both sides of the road were parked on, with narrow houses on postage stamp areas of land, packed in as a tight as possible. I asked the onsite rep why it looked like a scrapyard. She told me it was weekend visitors. She was lying.

 

[Sara_H]

I'd probably side with young children's enjoyment and health, it's more important.

But, you still seem to be a bit evasive on the possible future consequences of the 3 year old damaging a neighbours car, in this instance. Have they banned the kid from cycling simply to be niggardly buggers, or, do they have a genuine financial concern? If it's the latter, then IMO and experience, it's a genuine one. If it's the former, then they are gits.

Well, its a bit like the cyclist haters frothing at the mouth about cyclists not having insurance isn't it? Your view is a bit skewed by your two negative experiences. I've never encountered damage to a car caused by children playing. But I see every day children (and adults) having to adjust where they walk and play in order to accommodate the needs of those who choose to drive and park in public places.
As someone mentioned up-thread, such damage would be recoverable through household insurance policies or small claims courts. My view is (but I've never owned a super fancy car, just average family cars) is that cars get dings in them. Usually they're mysterious and you take it on the chin. The mysterious dings seem to usually happen in car parks, and are caused by other car owners who then drive off. Maybe cars should be banned from car parks..... Oh, wait a minute

 

[swansonj]

How can we have a debate when it always boils down to "You own a car. All drivers think bla, bla bla. You expect too much. You're too precious about it. You don't have a right to 'public' space"?

The issue isn't whether car drivers have a right to public space. The issue is whether they have the right to expropriate that public space away from other members of the public.

 

[StuartG]

wtf are you on about?.... as I said:
....
Did I specify who would possibly damage my car. Did I specify suing anyone? Talk about making assumptions.... and would you like to explain exactly what you think I may have been deprived of as a kid???

Yes you did.
"Someone's kid" was your exact phrase. Please calm down and don't over react. And you would probably be the best person to tell us what you were deprived of - IF you were deprived. By gum I hope you are not as tetchy on a bike or behind the wheel.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

That is not worth tuppence because you haven't told us what you think about it.

Oh yes, I thought it was marvelous.

... no actually. As a cyclist and car owner I thought it was disgusting.

The issue isn't whether car drivers have a right to public space. The issue is whether they have the right to expropriate that public space away from other members of the public.

So the question is:
Does the public have a right to use public space? Is it just cars that should have no right? How about milk floats, small dogs, bicycles chained to lamp posts/fences on pavements, the removal van outside my house tomorrow, etc? What's acceptable and what isn't?
Who gets to make the choice?