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

[i hate hills]

Bloody crazy that they can enforce any sort of ban on playing outside.

 

[glenn forger]

I came across this blog post awhile ago which has an interesting take on parking cars on the street. link

My own views may be a bit biased as a parent of a 3 and 6 year old who regularly ride their bikes out the front of the house (along with several neighbours kids) but I do think that it is part of the risk you take by parking a car in a public space, that there is a posibillity that it will get damaged. Our car is outside in a square that all the neighbours share which is right next to where the children play ball games, ride and play. We have been here 4 years and not had any issue of damage from them playing but if we were I would want to think that I would accept a dent/scratch in the car over stopping children playing.

As has been mentioned earlier it may be nice if the parents offered something to cover at least some of the cost if someone's property is damaged and I would probably do that myself if it was one of my own but I am aware that this would not be the case for everyone but to punish children by taking away the opportunity to play seems a rather extreme reaction.

I've got a really big wooden crate -- it's a little over 4 metres long and just under 2 metres wide -- and it won't fit in my house. I'm the only person who gets any benefit from my having this crate -- indeed, my ownership of the crate is actually bad for you. I didn't really care about the fact I had nowhere to keep the crate when I bought it; I wanted it and so I got it anyway. So now, because it won't fit in my house, I'm just going to leave it in the street. It'll block half of the road, but so what? I need somewhere to keep my crate and that's where it's going.

If you heard me say this, you would quite rightly brand me a selfish bastard who deserves to be beaten soundly with rolled-up copies of the Daily Mail until I learnt a little civic responsibility. But hold fast! What if, instead of a crate, it was a saloon car I was talking about? A car has exactly the same dimensions as my crate, but you'd think absolutely nothing of my saying "I don't have anywhere to store my car and I knew this when I bought it, but I'm just going to leave it in the street where it'll block half the road".

I know the name Ian Walker but I couldn't remember where from. He's the close-pass on helmeted cyclists chap.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

How about keeping the car in the crate? Then it won't get damaged

 

[MontyVeda]

So remind me, what exactly was your contribution to a thread about banning kids from riding their bikes in a cul-de-sac, in case they damaged the cars?

I think he was merely pointing out that any damage to said cars, does cost the owners of those cars money to rectify. I can't be bothered to re-read the thread from page one to find if this is exactly the case or not... can you?

 

[glenn forger]

Are there any legal reasons against having a large estate car outside your house with a living roof on it? Also, a trailer, stocked with tropical plants?

 

[MarkF]

So somebody who can put a Roller rather than a clapped out Astra outside their home can effectively stop neighbourhood play in a public space if kids and their parents cannot afford to pay for any accidental damage? Is that what you are suggesting?

Nowhere did I suggest any such thing, you've made that up. I did though, suggest the opposite, if you had read all my posts.

Why should the owner not carry the excess risk rather than the kid or their parents?

Well, they already do, on their insurance, if they are comprehensively covered. Comprehensive or not though, at the moment the owners do carry the all risk, perhaps that is why the girl cannot cycle in the cul-de-sac? Going back.............it's a loophole, one that could be closed easily by insurers/legislation. Don't want to play fair? Expect owners to be financially penalised for others damage? Then expect more stories like this.

 

[MarkF]

If the road is an adopted road, then the housing association cannot lawfully put in place a 'no play' policy.

That's interesting to know. But to me, that looks like developers private land, or land where the owners own the land (via the developer if tenants) in front of their properties, where the cars are parked. I think they can do what they want.

My land is private, I can, if I so wished, restrict all access, however I choose to let kids cycle on it, a fact skilfully ignored by those who have assumed my attempt to bring the residents perspective to the table, mirrors my own.

I'll guess, why not? Many others have.......... I do not believe that these residents woke up one morning and decided, en masse, to ban a little girl from cycling. One resident will have instigated it, knocked on doors, armed with the knowledge that any damage caused by her cycling would probably have to be met from the owners pockets.

 

[MarkF]

If the road is adopted, then the pavements will be as well. Land between buildings may also be classed as public space. Because land was bought by developers and developed doesn't mean that it remains 'private land' forever more.

If it's adopted. As I said before, to me, that looks like private land. Do we know?

And why should that not be the case? If you park your vehicle in a public place, then you take the risk (and the reality is that it will covered by most insurers, as I know from personal experience). It is really very, very simple.

So simple you haven' t grasped the point. Car owners are taking the risk. However, under most circumstances where damage is caused by an easily identifiable person, the owner can recover the financial penalty incurred, via his/her insurers, albeit with some loss via increased premiums. Not possible with a 3 year old.

 

[Longshot]

Bollocks! The roads are for cycling on - not parks. Park your penis extension on your own land or take the risk. Simples!

<-------- You / The point--------->

 

[Longshot]

What do you think the point is?

This:

[QUOTE 2674144, member: 30090"]And FWIW I've worked in and have experience of this industry, the freeholder/managing agent are open to all sorts of litigation if property was to be damaged. Tenants complain, the managing agents do their job and act. Get over it and go down the local park if you want to cycle.[/quote]

 

[MarkF]

And you can, in most cases, recover costs from the parents of a child who causes damage if you can show the parents were not adequately supervising the child. The law is very clear on that,,

No it is not, I do not think claiming that a parent, letting a 3 year old cycle, is being negligent. It would be waste of time going to court, and a silly thing to do anyway.

This thread has had mileage because some cannot abide another (possible) perspective to exist, they cannot bear the horrible thought that these ghastly car owners might actually have a legitimate concern. Not that I would agree with it.

 

[DRHysted]

What I really ment when I typed that threads like these make me glad I live where I live, is that where I live we all rub along nicely. They have no problems with me cycling, driving or parking. Nor do I them. We don't bang on about how living our lives reasonably infringes upon others, because we try to.
Personally I love cars they give me the freedom to live my life, have holidays, attend cycling events. I also love cycling, the way it makes me feel, even in the pouring rain last night I was grinning like an idiot. What I don't like is the way fellow members of car forum bang on about cyclists, and the way members of cycling forums bang on about cars.
I live in the real world where both exist, and dream of the day they can be brought together.

 

[JoeyB]

Not allowed to chat to a neighbour? Crazy stuff.

 

[Longshot]

Ah - you think that Beano bollocks is of relevance.... that explains a lot.

Nope. You responded to his post with an irrelevant reply. That's all.

Ah right. Not that a child should be free to play then. What a sad, badly prioritized world we inhabit.

I made no comment on the freedom of children to play. I was just commenting on what I thought was an asinine response to a post.

 

[StuartG]

Nowhere did I suggest any such thing, you've made that up. I did though, suggest the opposite, if you had read all my posts.

I have not made it up and I have read all your posts. That is why I was seeking clarification of what you are suggesting rather than telling you what you think. NB the question marks.

That's 'cos you have confused me. Given that is not difficult - are you interested in unconfusing me?

I understood you to say damage (say by a ball) to a pot plant is not comparable to damage to a car because of the difference in the cost to the victim. Have I got that right?
If I have, or otherwise, then:

1) Who should legally and/or morally bear the cost? Is it by the motorist who puts their vehicle at risk by putting in a place where it could be accidentally hit by kids, ball etc?
2) Should this risk be accepted or laid off to an insurance company?
3) Should the owner/insurance company not be allowed make a claim on the kids provided the damage was not done intentionally?
4) Are you opposed to those who wish to prohibit risk or seek damages in 3)?

TIA