What happened to decency?

[MarkF]

Altho' I use a transit sized van, I have noticed that it is actually the width of an ordinary car and narrower than most 4x4 monstrosities. It is just longer and higher. Even so like most van users I do not park near the entrance to shops where parking density is highest.

I drive a 1998 4.0L Jeep Cherokee, I need a "proper" 4x4 for my work, it was designed in the 1970's. It's narrower than a current Ford Fiesta, 1.72m - 1.92m! 8" is a massive difference in a parking space. People say to me "That must be awkward to park" yet it's dwarfed by Mondeos and looks like it'd fit in the back of a new Land Rover Discovery, car design has got very silly.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 2819154, member: 259"]Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at, with posters insisting that the damage was inevitable (which it isn't), or that the OP had taken some kind of silent contract on to accept car park dings (which they haven't),

Other than that, it's been waffle.[/quote]
Is there some sort of silent contract that says other people have to take particular care of your property when you leave it, unattended, in a public place? Even if your leaving it where you do inconveniences them and their use of their property?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 2819085, member: 259"]I still don't get this. Am I alone in thinking that if you damage someone else's property you should own up and pay for it? Because that would be the decent thing to do, even if it was a *gasp* car?[/quote]
Would the equally decent thing to do be for the owner of the car to shrug and say "forget it it's nothing, sh1t happens" or some such?

A question for everyone....

My brand new Fiat 500 vs my 20 year old tired and worn Fiat Cinquecento....

Both get dinged in a public car park... Does decency mean the dingers have to cough up for both in equal measure? If not why not?

Similarly.... you find £1000 in a carrier bag in the street.... decency demands you hand it in no?
You find £10, £1, 10p in a bag in the street.... what does decency demand you do? If that is handing it in sn't that at odds with common sense....?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Depends on what it is. Mostly no but if it is a nice car, nice to be defined on a case by case basis, then yes. It is all really simple you know.

What are the criteria for the depends? And who are the judges? Case-by-case or otherwise.

 

[400bhp]

It isn't a moral dilemma because morally the thing to do is own up. The dilemma is to decide if you are going to behave immorally or not.

There is a complication in that some people drive around in vehicles of ridiculous size and might park it so close to your own car that you can't get in without risk of damage.

Altho' I use a transit sized van, I have noticed that it is actually the width of an ordinary car and narrower than most 4x4 monstrosities. It is just longer and higher. Even so like most van users I do not park near the entrance to shops where parking density is highest.

So it is a moral dilemma then?

In practice, everyone would own up, but it just isn't that simple is it (which I alluded to).

 

[User482]

To a point. I try to leave it where I can see it. But there have been instances on group rides, inc FNRttC, and LonJOG where it has got scratched as a result. I don't expect the 'scratcher' to even notice necessarily or to fess up or pay up. Everything decays. It's a means of transport not a fetish object.

Yet you were telling us that you never leave your good bike unattended in a public place...

 

[User482]

So do the laws of physics. Such is life.

Is having one's property damaged through the carelessness of others is a fundamental property of the universe?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Is having one's property damaged through the carelessness of others is a fundamental property of the universe?

ime and yours? yep. (I admit the logical fallacy of appeal to experience)

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Yet you were telling us that you never leave your good bike unattended in a public place...

I rather think I didn't say that, actually.

 

[User482]

I rather think I didn't say that, actually.

"I simply made the choice on acquiring the nice bike(s) that they weren't going to be risked, and got the hack(s) in parallel."

Yet you do risk your nice bikes, and they have been damaged...

ime and yours? yep. (I admit the logical fallacy of appeal to experience)

All of my bikes have been left in a public place at one time or another, and not all of them have been damaged.

Anyway, I'm going to stop the tit-for-tat. It seems clear to me that the OP has every right to be hacked off, and he would garner more widespread sympathy if he had substituted "bike" for "car" in his complaint.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Anyway, I'm going to stop the tit-for-tat.

What a very good idea.

 

[Mugshot]

Threads like this serve to remind me that there are some breathtakingly odious people around, such is life I suppose.

 

[asterix]

Is having one's property damaged through the carelessness of others is a fundamental property of the universe?

No. The existence of a duty of care for personal injury and property damage was established in the civil case of Donoghue and Stevenson (1932):

"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question " Who is my neighbour ?" receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour ? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
Lord Atkin

Mrs Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend. The friend brought her a bottle of ginger beer and an ice cream. The ginger beer came in an opaque bottle so that the contents could not be seen. Mrs Donoghue poured half the contents of the bottle over her ice cream and also drank some from the bottle. After eating part of the ice cream, she then poured the remaining contents of the bottle over the ice cream and a decomposed snail emerged from the bottle. Mrs Donoghue suffered personal injury as a result. She commenced a claim against the manufacturer of the ginger beer.

The circumstances might seem a bit different to bashing someone's car but nevertheless that's the precedent.

 

[donnydave]

So are cars a special case then when it comes to damaging other people's property? All the people who sign up to the "its only a car" philosophy, would you own up if you accidentally damaged someone else's car?

What if it was someone's house, say you were clumsy with a ladder and put through a neighbours window, or bit of fence or something. "its only a house" doesn't quite cut it.

I can see both sides of "its only a car", owning a cheap banger for day to day and something nicer for the weekend. I think it depends what value (which may not simply by monetary) it has to the owner though, not what the person inflicting the damage thinks it may be worth (i.e. "its only a car" so I can take less care opening my door near it)

 

[GrumpyGregry]

So are cars a special case then when it comes to damaging other people's property? All the people who sign up to the "its only a car" philosophy, would you own up if you accidentally damaged someone else's car?

What if it was someone's house, say you were clumsy with a ladder and put through a neighbours window, or bit of fence or something. "its only a house" doesn't quite cut it.

I can see both sides of "its only a car", owning a cheap banger for day to day and something nicer for the weekend. I think it depends what value (which may not simply by monetary) it has to the owner though, not what the person inflicting the damage thinks it may be worth (i.e. "its only a car" so I can take less care opening my door near it)

True long story short.

A passenger, a work colleague, in my old crap SAAB 9000 dinked another two year old Jag door in the shared car park at work. The door had three other dinks in it that I could see. I took a photo and I left a note suggesting I'd like to discuss settling without going via insurance. Without a word from him he had it repaired and had the invoice sent to me at my work address. Adjoining premises - hence shared car park. The repair bill was for over £500 + VAT, mostly labour. He had had the door reskinned and resprayed via the main agent. I told him not to be silly. He claimed he could not drive the car because of 'my' dink; it was the last straw and though he could have had it dealt with by a chip company, and indeed had got a quote from one, he decided that was not good enough and he had no choice but to deal with it properly. I got a copy of the quote from the chip people and offered him £75. Some of which the passenger had given me. He made a fuss with my boss. She made a fuss to me. I told her not to be silly. And told him not to be silly again. His insurance company wouldn't entertain the claim. Neither would mine, as the repair had been done without reference to them. He rocked up in reception and got very shouty. "Sue me" said I. He took me to court. The court decided he had lots of choice in the matter and had behaved like a nobber. He came away with nowt. A few days later I offered him £75 again and he told me to "go away" and "it wasn't the money it was the principal". The £75 went to charity.

I resolved that folk who get really upset and behave unreasonably about dinks or who claim "it isn't the money it is the principal" are nobbers.

Ask me what happened next....