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

[MarkF]

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]

I

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[MarkF]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...............

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]

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]

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]

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....