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

[Sara_H]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

It's a great story, I believe it.

 

[MarkF]

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

 

[glenn forger]

Loads of people are saying you're paranoid Mark.

 

[StuartG]

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?