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



## Sore Thumb (17 Sep 2013)

3 year old banned from cycling because it might scratch all the precious cars.

Mother to get letter informing her of the ban.



Anti cycling, anti children playing, anti exercise for a healthier country. Best way to keep people inside and get fat. 

The car rules again above everything else.






http://road.cc/content/news/94079-three-year-old-banned-riding-dagenham-housing-association


A three-year-old girl has been banned from riding her Barbie bike in a quiet cul-de-sac by a Dagenham housing association because of fears the tearaway toddler might damage residents’ cars.

Tracy Osborne-Facey was showing her granddaughter Lilly how to ride with stabilisers when an officer from London and Quadrant (L&Q) housing association told her riding bikes was banned in the street.

Tracy told the Barking and Dagenham Post's Sara Odeen-Isbister that it was one of many “over-the-top” rules enforced in the street by L&Q. The association said it had instituted a “no balls or bikes” policy after complaints from residents who believed their homes and cars could be damaged by children playing outside.

Tracy, 43, said: “I could understand stopping ball games maybe, but they’ve basically banned children from playing outside. But it’s not just the children. We adults are not allowed to congregate or talk outside either. I got a letter once telling me off for chatting to a neighbour outside for about 20 minutes.

“Others have received letters too about all kinds of things which they apparently shouldn’t be doing.

“The officer who told me Lilly couldn’t ride her bike said I should expect a letter about it soon. It’s ridiculous.

“I realise people want to live somewhere peaceful, but the children that play here are all under 12 and not antisocial at all.”

A housing association spokesman said: “L&Q strives to create places where people want to live but unfortunately due to the concern of the local residents we had to enforce a ‘no bikes no ball games’ policy around the area.”


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Sep 2013)

I know, I read that about an hour ago and was left utterly speechless.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Sep 2013)

Critical Mass due down that street I think.


----------



## procel (17 Sep 2013)

Sounds outrageous. And bloody L&Q spokesperson quoting their corporate slogan as justification.


----------



## Beebo (18 Sep 2013)

What if one of us lived in that road, would we have to walk to the end of the street before we could mount our bikes? Or is it just no kids on bikes?

In my road the most noisy things are cars. The guy down the road who starts his diesel taxi at 5am and leaves it to warm up for 15 minutes is the biggest offender.


----------



## MontyVeda (18 Sep 2013)

feck me.... surely there's a human rights issue being stamped on by L&Q... quick, call Brussels!


----------



## Saluki (18 Sep 2013)

Sore Thumb said:


> 3 year old banned from cycling because it might scratch all the precious cars.
> 
> Mother to get letter informing her of the ban.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't want to live there. I don't think any of my friends would either.
We live in a quiet cul-de-sac, owned partially by a housing association as quite a few have bought their homes. We cycle, the kids cycle. One of the neighbours flies his birds of prey every evening to exercise them. One of the neighbours grazes her daughters pony on the green fairly often. The kids play football, heck the adults play football on the green too. Its a proper community here.

One of the neighbours has a big American car, he is really the only person who makes noise when he is coming or going (not including the stoners next door who have been pretty quiet since the neighbourhood whinged about them).

A good job we don't all get letters when we stand around and chat, the entire area would be deserted as we all do it,


----------



## Saluki (18 Sep 2013)

Just a thought, is this a private road? This cul-de-sac. Just wondering as a bike is technically a mode of transport and I cannot see how you could ban a bike from a public road.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Sep 2013)

Forty-three and the grandmother of a three-year-old?

Well...... Quite.

What was the article about again?


----------



## Bromptonaut (18 Sep 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Forty-three and the grandmother of a three-year-old?
> 
> Well...... Quite.
> 
> What was the article about again?



A generation or two ago Grandmother at 43 would have been commonplace; first child at 20*2. It's hardly a definition of chavdom today.


----------



## oldfatfool (18 Sep 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Forty-three and the grandmother of a three-year-old?
> 
> Well...... Quite.
> 
> What was the article about again?



I was a grandad at 39, my eldest offspring at the time was 12, he still as no children, go figure.


----------



## steve52 (18 Sep 2013)

challenge it,, they have no right to ban her. and it would be unliky to be held up in court, but i dont know the full story so there may be unknown factors, that said it makes me feel very GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRr


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> Your post made no sense to me, until I looked at ignored content - just Boris spouting unpleasant sh1t again, As you were.


 
I feel that may be TinyMynewt is competing with herself in terms of how often she tells CC that she's ignoring me and that I'm horrid.

It's a pretty close-run thing, but she seems to be winning at present. And beating herself into second place, which is never easy.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (18 Sep 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I feel that may be TinyMynewt is competing with herself in terms of how often she tells CC that she's ignoring me and that I'm horrid.


Boris, ignoring you is not possible


----------



## Bromptonaut (18 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> Your post made no sense to me, until I looked at ignored content - just Boris spouting unpleasant sh1t again, As you were.



I've considered an ignore list but on the whole I'd rather do a manual scan/speed read and discount the poster's opinion. Sometimes though I just need to look at the name/avatar. If I do it that way thread as a whole still makes sense. 

Not aimed at you though TMN, you're on my 'wish I could distil points so succinctly' list.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Sep 2013)

Saluki said:


> Just a thought, is this a private road? This cul-de-sac. Just wondering as a bike is technically a mode of transport and I cannot see how you could ban a bike from a public road.


probably adopted. And, as one of the respondents in the local paper pointed out, the poverty of the 'landscaping' tells you where they're coming from.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Sep 2013)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Boris, ignoring you is not possible


Oh, trust me, it's very possible


----------



## Ern1e (18 Sep 2013)

A housing association spokesman said: “L&Q strives to create places where people want to live but unfortunately due to the concern of the local residents we had to enforce a ‘no bikes no ball games’ policy around the area.”
Who the h*ll would want to live on that cul-de-sac looks to me like any one living there dare not do anything,say anything or what ever. I think we all need to get down there and help the poor souls escape !!!


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Sep 2013)

has anybody told Greg Dyke?


----------



## stowie (18 Sep 2013)

On the L&Q website one of the banner adverts reads "free summer activities for children and young people". Presumably this is being held far away from the cul-de-sac full of the residents' precious cars, maybe somewhere where they will be able to use those cars to travel to the event.

L&Q have bought up Walthamstow Stadium and some other sites around E17/E10/E4. They seem somewhat dogged by controversy - at one point they were cancelling meetings on the stadium plans because they felt "intimidated" by the dog owners and MPs who were opposing. It has to be pointed out that one of the MPs was Iain Duncan Smith who presumably was intimidating by being very, very quiet.


----------



## slowmotion (19 Sep 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> probably adopted. And, as one of the respondents in the local paper pointed out, the poverty of the 'landscaping' tells you where they're coming from.


 "Bleak" doesn't even come close. It's quite horrid.


----------



## mr_cellophane (19 Sep 2013)

Beebo said:


> In my road the most noisy things are cars. The guy down the road who starts his diesel taxi at 5am and leaves it to warm up for 15 minutes is the biggest offender.


Unless he sits in it for the whole 15 minutes that is an offence. HC Rule 123

My neighbour used to go out and send away the kids from outside our close who came in to ride round.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Sep 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Critical Mass due down that street I think.


 
Yes, but ideally with about forty 3 year olds!


GC


----------



## Tim Hall (19 Sep 2013)

mr_cellophane said:


> Unless he sits in it for the whole 15 minutes that is an offence. HC Rule 123


Surely if the car is empty and the engine running, it should be made safe by having the keys should be removed and handed in at the nearest police station as lost property?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (19 Sep 2013)

I'm going to organise a protest where I turn up in my shiny red new Suzuki Swift and ask people to ride round it all day


----------



## Domeo (19 Sep 2013)

stowie said:


> L&Q have bought up Walthamstow Stadium and some other sites around E17/E10/E4. They seem somewhat dogged by controversy .



L&Q are filling every square inch that isn't claimed and sticking their bloody flats everywhere. All the green space or potential greenspace in the borough is being sucked out by these people, but you are not not allowed to say anything as it is 'social housing'.


----------



## stowie (19 Sep 2013)

Domeo said:


> L&Q are filling every square inch that isn't claimed and sticking their bloody flats everywhere. All the green space or potential greenspace in the borough is being sucked out by these people, but you are not not allowed to say anything as it is 'social housing'.



With the stadium plans WF planning have granted it with no homes for social rent and only 20% available for affordable rent when the council's stated policy is 50% affordable rent on a development. Presumably the association will paint some narrow cycle lanes next to car parking in order to prove their green credentials and it will all be business as usual.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Sep 2013)

A bad week for kids' cycling - http://road.cc/content/news/94176-p...safety-pupil-bike-ban-plans-replace-bike-shed

We need your bike shed for school staff parking.


----------



## atbman (21 Sep 2013)

Many years ago, I was walking past a small patch of green, surrounded by houses. There was the usual "No ball games" sign. Kids were using the pole holding it up as a middle wicket.

And shouting "No ball!" each time they bowled.


----------



## avalon (23 Sep 2013)

The famous English Cul-de-sac once again raises it's ugly head.


----------



## MarkF (24 Sep 2013)

Two sides to this................

My car has deep gouges down one side, caused by the neighbours kid's bikes, things happen, kids are kids, it's not worth me getting upset about. But last year the whole front door was caved in, the parent of the young cyclist didn't want to know, result? A highly increased insurance premium for me.


----------



## glenn forger (24 Sep 2013)

A child cyclist pedaled fast enough to cave your door in?


----------



## MarkF (24 Sep 2013)

glenn forger said:


> A child cyclist pedaled fast enough to cave your door in?



Yes, the child was riding down a slope, lost control, didn't/couldn't brake, the whole inner panel crumpled. Car door panels are surprisingly thin, try pressing one with your fingertips.



User13710 said:


> So the answer to cars colliding with cyclists on the roads would be to ... ban cars from the roads? I think you might be on to something there.



Don't be silly. It was giving an other perspective, a financial one, I'd be happy for kids to cycle into my car and damage it daily, as long as there was some legal mechanism that ensured I, the innocent party, did not suffer financially. Geddit?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Sep 2013)

If you don't want on-road parking buy/move to a house with a garage.


----------



## MarkF (24 Sep 2013)

I've got a house with a garage, it's full of bicycles.


----------



## glenn forger (24 Sep 2013)

Was the kid ok?


----------



## MarkF (24 Sep 2013)

2670718 said:


> There is though, you could have sued the parents but presumably made a choice to take it on the chin rather than have a legal battle with a neighbour.



I did not know that was a possibility Adrian, at the time I was told, by the police and my insurers, that no legal recourse was available to me. Still, even if it was, you are right, I would not have gone down that route over a car door.

I am a cyclist and a parent, accidents happen, but I do know that I would have paid for the repair or additional insurance premium if it had been one of my children.


----------



## glenn forger (24 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> I did not know that was a possibility Adrian, at the time I was told, by the police and my insurers, that no legal recourse was available to me. Still, even if it was, you are right, I would not have gone down that route over a car door.
> 
> I am a cyclist and a parent, accidents happen, but I do know that I would have paid for the repair or additional insurance premium if it had been one of my children.




It's very unusual for the police to offer advice on civil matters, and your insurers are plain wrong, no reputable insurer would make such a basic mistake.


----------



## MarkF (24 Sep 2013)

glenn forger said:


> It's very unusual for the police to offer advice on civil matters, and your insurers are plain wrong, no reputable insurer would make such a basic mistake.



Explain how they have made a mistake Glen, I am interested to know. The reputable insurer was Churchill.

This was actually the second incident involving a child riding into my car and severley damaging it, I posted on here maybe 3 or 4 years ago a similar incident. Same story, from the police & insurers, I had no legal recourse, child young and not insured.


----------



## StuartG (24 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> My car has deep gouges down one side, caused by the neighbours kid's bikes.


So this isn't damage when you are using your car on the road - but, (here I'm guessing), you 'garage' your car on the public road. Thus depriving your neighbour's kids the use of it to play footers, roller skate or all the other things I could do as a kid.

I do regard this practise as deeply anti-social. And whilst I can never condone damage as retribution - I can't feel sorry for you either. If kids had the vote maybe we could move towards banning residential on street parking.


----------



## MarkF (24 Sep 2013)

StuartG said:


> So this isn't damage when you are using your car on the road - but, (here I'm guessing), you 'garage' your car on the public road. Thus depriving your neighbour's kids the use of it to play footers, roller skate or all the other things I could do as a kid.
> 
> I do regard this practise as deeply anti-social. And whilst I can never condone damage as retribution - I can't feel sorry for you either. If kids had the vote maybe we could move towards banning residential on street parking.



Just for you, it is actually private land where the car sits, belonging to me. My house, yard & garden is separated from my garage by a strip of land. This I willingly let any kid play on, football, cycling, whatever, rather than fence it off like some power crazed pernickety land owner.. 

P.s. You are crap at guessing.


----------



## StuartG (24 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> P.s. You are crap at guessing.


Not just guessing


----------



## Sara_H (24 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> Just for you, it is actually private land where the car sits, belonging to me. My house, yard & garden is separated from my garage by a strip of land. This I willingly let any kid play on, football, cycling, whatever, rather than fence it off like some power crazed pernickety land owner..
> 
> P.s. You are crap at guessing.


But, to be fair, in the majority of cases his guess would have been right. The public at large now expect to be able to store their cars on public roads (more often than not half on the pavement), and the rest of us are meant to pussyfoot around their precious lumps of metal.


----------



## DRHysted (24 Sep 2013)

Sara_H said:


> But, to be fair, in the majority of cases his guess would have been right. The public at large now expect to be able to store their cars on public roads (more often than not half on the pavement), and the rest of us are meant to pussyfoot around their precious lumps of metal.



Not really pussyfoot around, but I would like other to respect my property, the same as I do theirs.


----------



## glenn forger (24 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> Explain how they have made a mistake Glen, I am interested to know. The reputable insurer was Churchill.
> 
> This was actually the second incident involving a child riding into my car and severley damaging it, I posted on here maybe 3 or 4 years ago a similar incident. Same story, from the police & insurers, I had no legal recourse, child young and not insured.



You are saying Churchill told you you had no legal recourse?


----------



## Sara_H (24 Sep 2013)

DRHysted said:


> Not really pussyfoot around, but I would like other to respect my property, the same as I do theirs.


Hmmmm.... but by leaving cars all over the road and pavement, motorists aren't really respecting the rights of children to play in the streets, are they? I ended up reporting a neighbour to the police recently because he was threatening to slap some kids who were playing football in the street near his car. Whats the worls coming to when kids can't play out because the road is littered with cars?


----------



## glenn forger (24 Sep 2013)

So, a child came cycling down a hill fast enough to smash in your door panel and dent it, came over your "yard" and drive and hit the car but presumably was unhurt, and your insurer told you there's nothing you can do? Sorry, your story isn't plausible.


----------



## BimblingBee (24 Sep 2013)

glenn forger said:


> So, a child came cycling down a hill fast enough to smash in your door panel and dent it, came over your "yard" and drive and hit the car but presumably was unhurt, and your insurer told you there's nothing you can do? Sorry, your story isn't plausible.



Well according to the CAB not being able to sue the parents appears reasonable advice unless he could prove negligence by the parent in their duty of care... http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotl...re_you_live_s/neighbour_disputes_scotland.htm this link is for Scotland but its similar for rest of UK. 

Personally I feel the OP's story is entirely plausible and the advise supposedly given by insurance and police to be quite likely and also reasonable.


----------



## glenn forger (24 Sep 2013)

The police don't offer advice on civil cases, and Churchill insurance are extremely unlikely to offer duff advice. The damage is claimable, and I'm struggling to see how a child could ride into a car door with enough force to smash it in and remain uninjured.


----------



## BimblingBee (24 Sep 2013)

glenn forger said:


> The police don't offer advice on civil cases, and Churchill insurance are extremely unlikely to offer duff advice. The damage is claimable, and I'm struggling to see how a child could ride into a car door with enough force to smash it in and remain uninjured.



The Police do offer advice, although on an informal basis. Churchill are just as likely to offer duff advice as anyone else as you generally speak to an unqualified call handler. If fact I made a claim against a similar insurance company for professional negligence- The surprisingly settled out of court! 

Modern cars are (as pointed out already) made from very flimsy metal/plastic in certain parts with the door skin being one of them, and it's entirely plausible that a child could cause damage but remain unscathed. If you have kids then I'm sure you'd understand.


----------



## glenn forger (24 Sep 2013)

Insurance company staff would be in serious trouble if they offered legal advice on civil matters. The police wouldn't even venture an opinion, why on earth would they, it's nothing to do with them. A child cries if they bump their head, you think they can smash in a car door and be fine? Naive. Maybe Mark could post a Google map of the scene?


----------



## Archie_tect (24 Sep 2013)

Beebo said:


> What if one of us lived in that road, would we have to walk to the end of the street before we could mount our bikes? Or is it just no kids on bikes?
> 
> In my road the most noisy things are cars. The guy down the road who starts his diesel taxi at 5am and leaves it to warm up for 15 minutes is the biggest offender.


You could get up + walk round one morning, turn the ignition key while he's inside his house and post it through his letterbox with a note... repeat every morning til he stops.


----------



## BimblingBee (24 Sep 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Insurance company staff would be in serious trouble if they offered legal advice on civil matters. The police wouldn't even venture an opinion, why on earth would they, it's nothing to do with them. A child cries if they bump their head, you think they can smash in a car door and be fine? Naive. Maybe Mark could post a Google map of the scene?



As far as I'm aware it was the bike that caused the damage not a child's head. If you think the police don't offer informal advice on civil matters then I'm afraid it's you that's naive. 

As insurance companies deal almost exclusively with civil matters, I'd hope they would offer legal advice on civil matters that are in direct relation to a claim- and they do. In this case it seems as the OP approached them with a potential civil claim which he wanted them to act on, and they have given them their viewpoint (advice?) that there is no legal recourse that they are willing to pursue. Of course he could take the matter up himself but I guess he would be unwilling to as his insurer has already advised him that they will not be pursuing the matter. I'm sure they gave a reason and this reason could easily be seen as advise too!

Unfortunately I agree with the insurers/police that there is no real course of action against a 3 yr old - they caused the damage and to prove the parents were negligent in their care of the child would likely be difficult to prove.


----------



## Archie_tect (24 Sep 2013)

2671984 said:


> I reckon it would slip out of my grasp and I would drop it down a drain the second morning.


That would have repercussions if caught though. Tempting though it would be!


----------



## glenn forger (24 Sep 2013)

BimblingBee said:


> As far as I'm aware it was the bike that caused the damage not a child's head. If you think the police don't offer informal advice on civil matters then I'm afraid it's you that's naive.
> 
> As insurance companies deal almost exclusively with civil matters, I'd hope they would offer legal advice on civil matters that are in direct relation to a claim- and they do. In this case it seems as the OP approached them with a potential civil claim which he wanted them to act on, and they have given them their viewpoint (advice?) that there is no legal recourse that they are willing to pursue. Of course he could take the matter up himself but I guess he would be unwilling to as his insurer has already advised him that they will not be pursuing the matter. I'm sure they gave a reason and this reason could easily be seen as advise too!
> 
> Unfortunately I agree with the insurers/police that there is no real course of action against a 3 yr old - they caused the damage and to prove the parents were negligent in their care of the child would likely be difficult to prove.



The parents don't have to prove anything other than that their child didn't cause the damage. The insurance company would not be likely to offer advice that is completely at odds with civil law. The "incident" seems highly improbable, the police advice is laughable, the insurance company would and should have taken it further because mark has claimed he paid out, the collision seems very inexplicable, a three year old child stoves a car door in and is unhurt? Get real.


----------



## Sara_H (24 Sep 2013)

glenn forger said:


> The parents don't have to prove anything other than that their child didn't cause the damage. The insurance company would not be likely to offer advice that is completely at odds with civil law. The "incident" seems highly improbable, the police advice is laughable, the insurance company would and should have taken it further because mark has claimed he paid out, the collision seems very inexplicable, a three year old child stoves a car door in and is unhurt? Get real.


My dog ran into a moving car last year, caused £500 worth of damage (basically caved in the door of the car) and came away a small graze above his eye.


----------



## glenn forger (24 Sep 2013)

My dog nicked my E Type Jag, got ripped to the tits on special k and wobbly eggs, wrote seventeen cars off and failed a breath test and they still won't confiscate his licence.


----------



## BimblingBee (24 Sep 2013)

glenn forger said:


> The parents don't have to prove anything other than that their child didn't cause the damage.



I think this quote just highlights your lack of understanding. I'm out!!


----------



## Sara_H (24 Sep 2013)

glenn forger said:


> My dog nicked my E Type Jag, got ripped to the tits on special k and wobbly eggs, wrote seventeen cars off and failed a breath test and they still won't confiscate his license.



But did the insurance company tell you if you had any recourse against him, or not?


----------



## glenn forger (24 Sep 2013)

They told me to get a black and white dog because the licence was cheaper, you couldn't make it up.


----------



## MarkF (25 Sep 2013)

Glenn, you've been shouting like a bike loathing, YouTube, car ranter, but not listening. I never mentioned the child's age, or, what, on impact, caused the damage.

First incident happened on the road with a kid cycling across a T junction without looking, via the pavement, (again downhill) second happened on my property with the car unoccupied.
The police offered, willingly, their view, there was nothing they, or I, could do in either incident.
Churchill offered the same view, either the parents stumped up on my request, or, I'd have to claim on my insurance policy with no prospect of them recovering.
You can push a modern day car panel in with your fingers.

"Bimbling Bee" has it, the child was young (in both incidents) and I'd have had to prove parental negligence, legally I could sue the child, but pretty pointless, unless he got a lot of pocket money weekly......... the parents were not being negligent, they had not let the kid loose with something dangerous so I wouldn't have rated my chances high suing them, not that I would have anyway.

I was just offering a perspective from the car owners, it's not as clear cut as bikes =good, cars = bad. If the residents of the cul-de-sac were comforted by the thought that they wouldn't have to pay for damage caused to their cars by anothers child, not unreasonable? Then perhaps they'd happily let her cycle?


----------



## DRHysted (25 Sep 2013)

I


Sara_H said:


> Hmmmm.... but by leaving cars all over the road and pavement, motorists aren't really respecting the rights of children to play in the streets, are they? I ended up reporting a neighbour to the police recently because he was threatening to slap some kids who were playing football in the street near his car. Whats the worls coming to when kids can't play out because the road is littered with cars?


It's on threads like these that I'm glad I live where I do. Yes the cars park on the street because there is no off street parking. The children however do not play in the street, they go to the playground using the footpaths. 
Personally I do not damage other people property, I only hope other people have the same uncommon respect of my property, be that my car, my bike, my house, or even myself.


----------



## Sara_H (25 Sep 2013)

DRHysted said:


> I
> 
> The children however do not play in the street, they go to the playground using the footpaths.
> .



Why do you think that is? We used to play out in the street when we were children. There's an interesting video about car culture by Mikael Colville-Anderson you should watch about people being forced off our streets to make way for cars. You should watch it.


----------



## glenn forger (25 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> Glenn, you've been shouting like a bike loathing, YouTube, car ranter, but not listening. I never mentioned the child's age, or, what, on impact, caused the damage.



I know, that's why I don't believe your story. And what have I posted that's "bike loathing"? Any child under 18 is the responsibility of the parents, they are liable. You refuse to provide details but you describe the kid as a "child" so presumably they are under 18 and so are covered by the parent's house policy under third party liability. Any insurance company worker would know this, so would the police, I would have thought. I'm not really sure why you are banging on about this, it's not a common scenario, usually it's cars killing children rather than children damaging cars. 



> Home policies of the at-fault party cover adults and kids in accidental mishaps like this, but intentional vandalism is usually not covered.



http://carinsurance.about.com/od/ComprehensiveClaims/a/A-Ball-Hit-My-Car-Who-Pays.htm

It wasn't deliberate or malicious. You're covered.


----------



## glenn forger (25 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> I did not know that was a possibility Adrian, at the time I was told, by the police and my insurers, that no legal recourse was available to me.



Call Churchill back and ask for a recording of that call, then demand why the company's representative is passing on completely inaccurate information that left you out of pocket. Come back and tell us how you got on.


----------



## BimblingBee (25 Sep 2013)

The site you have quoted is an American one with different laws.


----------



## MarkF (25 Sep 2013)

glenn forger said:


> I know, that's why I don't believe your story. And what have I posted that's "bike loathing"? Any child under 18 is the responsibility of the parents, they are liable. You refuse to provide details but you describe the kid as a "child" so presumably they are under 18 and so are covered by the parent's house policy under third party liability. Any insurance company worker would know this, so would the police, I would have thought. I'm not really sure why you are banging on about this, it's not a common scenario, usually it's cars killing children rather than children damaging cars.
> 
> http://carinsurance.about.com/od/ComprehensiveClaims/a/A-Ball-Hit-My-Car-Who-Pays.htm
> 
> It wasn't deliberate or malicious. You're covered.



I didn't "refuse" to provide anything, nobody has asked me for the children's age (not that I know the exact age anyway) and I don't see it as important, "young", that is under the age of responsibility, is all that matters. You, used "3 years old" to back up your spurious nonsense about car damage,of which you appear to know nothing, modern cars are designed to absorb impact & crumple easily.

I was told clearly, twice, by Churchill that my chances of gaining satisfaction via them, nil. I believe that to be 100% correct. I'd have to prove negligence on the parents part. How Glenn? 

Still, my experience throws a different light on the original thread story, which was it's purpose.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 Sep 2013)

On a jollier note, my toddler youngest (now fourteen) came straight from a sandpit many years ago and decided to join up the raindrops on my mother-in-law's lovely new Mondeo with his sandy finger. All the way round, from knee height to the waistline.

Just a toddler's finger with sand on it was enough to scratch the beautiful malachite paintwork beyond the help of T-Cut. For the next four years (until sale) the car was an amusing testament to the tenacity of our youngest child. He was so pleased with his work, he came joyfully in to tell us about it. My saintly mother-in-law was (and still is) a picture of loving restraint.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Sep 2013)

glenn forger said:


> I'm not really sure why you are banging on about this


 
You're the one 'banging on' about it simply because you don't believe him. Big deal!
Who are you that he has to prove anything to?



> http://carinsurance.about.com/od/ComprehensiveClaims/a/A-Ball-Hit-My-Car-Who-Pays.htm
> 
> It wasn't deliberate or malicious. You're covered.


 
If you're going to cite insurance advice at least choose one that is relevant to this country, not American.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (25 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> I was told clearly, twice, by Churchill that my chances of gaining satisfaction via them, nil. I believe that to be 100% correct. I'd have to prove negligence on the parents part. How Glenn?



I know, you said that, and it's completely incorrect, most insurance companies record all calls, ask for a copy and then explain they're advice is wrong. It wasn't malicious or vandalism, you're covered. Don't you want to get your cash back?


----------



## glenn forger (25 Sep 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> If you're going to cite insurance advice at least choose one that is relevant to this country, not American.
> 
> GC



Happy to help:



> If the child was accompanied by a responsible adult at the time of the accident, it may be possible to sue the adult, if it can be shown that the adult acted negligently by failing to supervise the child properly.
> 
> Even if the child was not accompanied by an adult, it may be possible to sue an adult for failing to supervise the child adequately at the time of the accident.



http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/engla...umer_driving_e/traffic_accidents.htm#children

I can't see how a child on a bike can cause that much damage, a friend reversed into a pole in his Astra van and dented the bumper and wing, cost £135, not worth whining about IMO. I also can't see how an insurance company and the police would advise there's nothing a customer can do in a civil claim- that's got nothing to do with them.


----------



## MarkF (25 Sep 2013)

Oh give over Glenn, I have wasted enough time on you, you have come up with nothing, yet you claim to "know" so much. Googling and then providing insurance "evidence", from Kansas or wherever, to justify your knowledge (nil) on an incident that occurred in West Yorkshire (UK), only confirms my suspicions that you are crackers.

It is not an unsual case, and the result is always the same, the child is under the age of responsibility and seeing as the child was simply cycling, not being let loose with say, an airgun to cause damage to another's property, the chances of proving parental negilgence would be infinitesimal, if, it ever went to court, via private small claims or with the insurers themselves.

Google all you like, but if you don't know, you don't know...............



glenn forger said:


> I can't see how a child on a bike can cause that much damage, a friend reversed into a pole in his Astra van and dented the bumper and wing, cost £135,.



What damage Glenn? What., specifically, do you know about the damage caused to my car to be enable you to draw a comparison with a friends astra van with bumper?  You appear to know nothing. In the first incident, the child wrote off my front door a.n.d front wing, yet he didn't have a scratch on him and even, once out of shock, cycled home.

You have not explained one thing, not one, just claimed things are "wrong". I'll wait for your proof/evidence whatever, when you have it, pm me at that time .


----------



## glenn forger (25 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> the chances of proving parental negilgence would be infinitesimal,
> .........



You don't need to. I've explained this four times now, your information from Churchill is quite wrong. Why aren't you pursuing them? You want your cash back but you're refusing to chase Churchill?


----------



## StuartG (25 Sep 2013)

Amongst the rants on a newspaper story about silly cyclists was a claim by a driver that a cyclist had hit his car and cracked a rear light. Bill £238!!!

Having bought bits for some cars that is believable. And it leaves me in a quandary. Had I been that cyclist and had it been my fault - should I fork out £238 (or share it between other cyclists thru 3rd party insurance) or offer him a tenner? - a fair offer for the damage done. The balance of £228 being an exorbitant amount his car manufacturer seeks to extort for such a precious marque - and the driver has responsibility for choosing such an exotic marque - not me.

Be careful with your answer if you ride a titanium roadie


----------



## hopless500 (25 Sep 2013)

Phhhhttt. This thread has got ridiculous! 
What on earth is up with everyone.....a whole pile of arguing escalating about not a lot, and with no (personal) knowledge on the whole. 
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....


----------



## Sara_H (25 Sep 2013)

2672524 said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2013)

hopless500 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.


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 (25 Sep 2013)

StuartG said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2013)

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 (25 Sep 2013)

[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 (25 Sep 2013)

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 (25 Sep 2013)

Sara_H said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2013)

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 (25 Sep 2013)

Sara_H said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2013)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2013)

hopless500 said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2013)

2672839 said:


> 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.



swansonj said:


> 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?


----------



## Sara_H (25 Sep 2013)

swansonj said:


> 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.



I think I agree, but you've used long words and I've got a nasty cold!


----------



## RedRider (25 Sep 2013)

Sara_H said:


> 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.


A big plus 1 to this and all your contributions in the thread, sara.
There was a lottery-funded initiative called playstreets with an aim to reclaim the streets for playing out by closing residential streets to cars for odd days. The link suggests it was funded only 'til 2011 but it must be going on in some format 'cos I saw a local London news item about an event recently. Watching this news item I thought 'great idea, at least it's a demonstration of what's been lost to the car, maybe people will think on'. But considering the ban on play in the OP and some of the comments since, it's clear this 'screw you, screw your kids and screw the idea of streets as community space' sense of entitlement is deeply entrenched. Very, very sad.


----------



## hopless500 (25 Sep 2013)

StuartG said:


> 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.


By gum, I hope you're not as smug in real life as you come across on here


----------



## TonbridgeSteve (25 Sep 2013)

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.


----------



## RedRider (25 Sep 2013)

I wonder what Nancy Astor MP would've thought about the 'ban' in the OP. In 1926 she told the HoC: ‘There is no more pitiable sight in life than a child which has been arrested for playing in the street. Of all the pitiable sights that I have seen that is the most pitiable. Though these children may be fined, we stand
convicted.’


----------



## MarkF (25 Sep 2013)

Sara_H said:


> 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



Broadly Sara, I agree with all your points regarding space/children/society.

My view is not "skewed", that is the wrong word, my experiences have "enhanced" my understanding of both points of view, the parent and the car owners. If you have read all the posts, you would know that recovering costs is practically impossible, in court or through insurers. Your view on dings on cars is the same as mine but just like my later view, I would suggest that yours would soon change when a ding became severe damage along with an expensive repair? But to others, dings on a car are a life changing calamity, some people define themselves by their "wheels", we are all different.

Back to to the issue the car owners may have and the question you skillfully avoided, there should be a simple legal mechanism, through courts or through "set aside" insurance funds for accidental damages caused by a minors, triggered by parents who cannot pay or will not pay. Is this unreasonable? Until such a thing exists then I'd expect more situations like this to occur on private or association land, these car owners have a point, IF the financial implications are indeed the reason why the girl has been banned from cycling.


----------



## MarkF (25 Sep 2013)

TonbridgeSteve said:


> 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.



The first parent did intially verbally agree to pay for the damages, he also thanked me profusely for my wife staying with his son until she was sure that he was 100% ok. But when the true costs became known, and, probably his legal obligations, he backed out, "Nothing to with me squire", such is life.


----------



## Tim Hall (25 Sep 2013)

2673036 said:


> Or a notice that reads "Children play here. Park at your own risk, if you must."


I think improvement is a few commas away:

Children, play here. Park, at your own risk, if you must.


----------



## Sara_H (25 Sep 2013)

2673036 said:


> Or a notice that reads "Children play here. Park at your own risk, if you must."


Yes, I tried to say something similar earlier but couldn't find the right words. You've hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 Sep 2013)

2673121 said:


> It can't be impossible. After all most business car parks have a disclaimer of that sort.


 
My wife's first car after graduating was a gorgeous, chic and economical Citroen AX (then very new and zappy and a pleasant change from the ubiquity of the 205).

She'd had bizarre old Maxis, Humbers and Rovers as a teen, but this was the first new car.

While it was parked at the office in a vicious storm a sign fell on it and put a big, sharp dent in the roof. It was the sign that said *"Cars are left here at owners' risk".*


----------



## MarkF (25 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> It still seems totally ridiculous to me. So if a kicked football goes over a fence and breaks a window, or a greenhouse pane, or a precious plant, it would be equally fair and understandable to say no one, whatever age, should ever kick a ball about outside? What's so special about damage to a CAR? That's what upsets you so much, it seems.



Thought I'd made it quite clear by now (surely ) that a car is not special to me, nor am I, or was I, ever upset............my car is still out there, available for kids to ride into, should they so wish.

I'd compare damage to a window or a plant to a gouge or scratch on car paintwork perhaps, the remedial costs may be similar? You cannot compare them however, to severe damage costing several hundred pounds to put right, do you see the difference?


----------



## MarkF (25 Sep 2013)

2673599 said:


> I would of course love to believe that this is a true story.



It's a great story, I believe it.


----------



## MarkF (25 Sep 2013)

You got me, you are Glenn, I give in.


----------



## glenn forger (25 Sep 2013)

Loads of people are saying you're paranoid Mark.


----------



## StuartG (25 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> I'd compare damage to a window or a plant to a gouge or scratch on car paintwork perhaps, the remedial costs may be similar? You cannot compare them however, to severe damage costing several hundred pounds to put right, do you see the difference?


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?

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


----------



## i hate hills (25 Sep 2013)

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


----------



## glenn forger (25 Sep 2013)

TonbridgeSteve said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2013)

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


----------



## MontyVeda (25 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> 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 (25 Sep 2013)

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 (26 Sep 2013)

StuartG said:


> 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. 



StuartG said:


> 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 (26 Sep 2013)

User said:


> 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 (26 Sep 2013)

User said:


> 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?



User said:


> 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 (26 Sep 2013)

User said:


> 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 (26 Sep 2013)

2674367 said:


> 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 (26 Sep 2013)

User said:


> 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 (26 Sep 2013)

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 (26 Sep 2013)

Not allowed to chat to a neighbour? Crazy stuff.


----------



## Longshot (26 Sep 2013)

User said:


> 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.



2674373 said:


> 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 (26 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> 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


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Sep 2013)

[QUOTE 2674134, member: 30090"]Wow, cycle centricity rears it's ugly head once again on cycle chat. Awesome sauce.[/quote]
Child centred more like.

Anyhow, I wish they'd stop children cycling in the supermarket car park. Heaven knows how often I've come back to find some errant child cyclist has put dents all over the car....


----------



## Longshot (26 Sep 2013)

2674466 said:


> It would be better to think about the needs and rights of all parties no?



I have, frequently. I just don't feel the need to share those thoughts in this instance. Plenty of others have expressed similar views to those that I hold already.


----------



## MarkF (26 Sep 2013)

StuartG said:


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



No, no offence intended.  Because you (and others) seem to have adopted my posts and suggestions as possibly endorsing the residents (possible) concerns at the expense of a 3 year old girl who wants to cycle. At no time have I done that, or, even suggested that the action taken by the car owners was right.

In nutshell................I read the headline, but didn't jump in, I took the time to read the story. Then I thought about my car outside, covered down one side with gouges and scratches (the kids have an unyielding attraction to cycling between the car and a fence) which we've already established, don't bother me. Then I thought about the two more serious incidents where young children cost me a lot of money, incidents where the parents admitted responsibility but refused to pay a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g towards repairs, taking advantage of their chidren's ages and my impotence to do anything, legally, about it.

Then, I simply posted that perhaps the residents might have a legitimate concern. I think that they do. How to solve the situation to everybody's satisfaction? I don't know.

I hope this clarifies things for you and everybody else who wishes to ignore the car owners perspective.


----------



## mcshroom (26 Sep 2013)

To turn this round. 

Parked cars are a major risk for pedestrians, especially children being run over on the roads. Using the HA's logic, then surely these cars parked on the roads should be banned? Otherwise, should not the owners fo said vehicles be responsible for the costs of the emergency response and ongoing care?



(of course the life and health of the person involved is priceless so I stuck to the cold economic impact).


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Sep 2013)

Longshot said:


> I have, frequently. I just don't feel the need to share those thoughts in this instance. Plenty of others have expressed similar views to those that I hold already.


Yeah but if you don't constantly state all your views, and constantly point out that you agree or disagree with other people's views... then other posters will always jump to inane conclusions, put words in your mouth, demand you fully explain what you mean by a single word/sentence in one of your posts four pages ago, then call you a troll if you persist in evading or disagreeing with them.


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Sep 2013)

MarkF said:


> No, no offence intended.  Because you (and others) seem to have adopted my posts and suggestions as possibly endorsing the residents (possible) concerns at the expense of a 3 year old girl who wants to cycle. At no time have I done that, or, even suggested that the action taken by the car owners was right.
> 
> In nutshell................I read the headline, but didn't jump in, I took the time to read the story. Then I thought about my car outside, covered down one side with gouges and scratches (the kids have an unyielding attraction to cycling between the car and a fence) which we've already established, don't bother me. Then I thought about the two more serious incidents where young children cost me a lot of money, incidents where the parents admitted responsibility but refused to pay a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g towards repairs, taking advantage of their chidren's ages and my impotence to do anything, legally, about it.
> 
> ...


 personally, i think we should burn you at the stake and be done with it


----------



## Longshot (26 Sep 2013)

2674532 said:


> Which shows the degree to which we live in an unthinking carcentric culture.



I disagree with you on that suggestion.


----------



## Frood42 (26 Sep 2013)

It's not the cars fault, it's the owners fault (bit like dog owners, some good, some bad).

If you are living in a residential area, then you should expect people to be out "playing" or doing other activities, so if you want to park your car in a shared space then expect the unexpected to happen to it.

No wonder communities and streets are dying, the sheer fact we have to have schemes to claim back the streets really says it all, doesn't it.

The streets needs to be taken from cars and given back to Everyone to use (pedestrain priority), they should not be a car park (I am really, really fed up of some of the selfish a*holes where I live, who seem to think double or single yellows signify a free car park, or double park so that buses cannot get through, at a roundabout exit as well FFS).


----------



## Boris Bajic (26 Sep 2013)

A particular bugbear of mine is the parking of cars (and vans, even worse) so close to junctions that they obstruct the view of motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.

I think this is dangerous.

When we lived in the East End (before Residents' Parking and all that malarkey) we were only two minutes' walk from a Tube Station.

Cars were left EVERYWHERE and I'm afraid I occasionally called the authorities to remove those parked dangerously close to (or overlapping) the junction.

Of perhaps ten calls over the years, maybe five or six were towed away. This is pretty rich considering my flagrant abuse of parking restrictions in my youth.

One evening a young man, almost in tears rang on my bell asking if he could make a call as he thought his car had been stolen. A nice, shiny MkII Scirocco, then still in production. I let him make the call, but said I thought I'd seen it towed. He looked like a very, very stressed man who needed to get home.

I wished I'd had the courage to tell him I'd made the call, but I didn't. Our road was later fenced across as a part of the Tower Hamlets traffic-calming measures... and the dangerous parking lifted with the morning mist.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Sep 2013)

2674618 said:


> To illustrate quite how deeply engrained car centricity is, have a look at a housing estate where the road is not wide enough for cars to park both sides in the carriageway and people can't turn their front garden into a parking space. What is the common solution? Signs permitting parking half on the pavement.


 
Even where they have ample driveways they continue to abuse the pavements. Here's a couple I see all the time, about to be the subject of a complaint.

Note the dropped kerbs to the empty driveways.












GC


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Sep 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Even where they have ample driveways they continue to abuse the pavements. Here's a couple I see all the time, about to be the subject of a complaint.
> 
> Note the dropped kerbs to the empty driveways.
> 
> ...



very considerate bit of parking that... anyone pushing a couple of toddlers in a double buggy is forced to used the road.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Sep 2013)

MontyVeda said:


> very considerate bit of parking that... anyone pushing a couple of toddlers in a double buggy is forced to used the road.


 
Exactly, with a blind crest. Madness.

GC


----------



## benb (26 Sep 2013)

So let's get this straight. Someone chooses to store their personal property in a public space, where people are naturally going to do public outdoor things, like children playing, and then they complain when their stuff is damaged? And the solution is to ban people from playing in public spaces? This is insane, and barbaric.


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Sep 2013)

the banning of children playing is insane... complaining when your stuff gets damaged isn't.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (26 Sep 2013)

Perhaps people on that estate should request that cars be banned because there is the potential they could damage children living there.


----------



## glenn forger (26 Sep 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Even where they have ample driveways they continue to abuse the pavements. Here's a couple I see all the time, about to be the subject of a complaint.
> 
> Note the dropped kerbs to the empty driveways.
> 
> ...



Crap parking, but then houses that size shouldn't really have drives, it's bad for rainwater flood off. If I had to squeeze past that car I wouldn't be surprised, or remotely concerned, if it got gouged.


----------



## StuartG (27 Sep 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Crap parking, but then houses that size shouldn't really have drives, it's bad for rainwater flood off.


Not necessarily - if only Mr Pickles, instead of protecting criminals, would change the law so councils could mandate solutions like: http://ritter-technik.com/grass.html


----------

