Problem with cyclists

Strider590

Bongles wrote: »

:huh:

Are you suggesting that because the OP parked on the road instead of somewhere where the car would be at less risk of damage from careless, irresponsible behaviour, that somehow completely absolves everybody else of the responsibility not to carelessly, irresponsibly damage his property?

In short.... Stop defending chav spawn

thelawnet

Norman_Castle wrote: »

There is no suggestion from the OP that the car is causing an obstruction. Car owners do have the right to park on the road. Are you supporting these children because they are on bicycles and you have an anti car agenda?. The OP also mentioned these children have ridden into his pregnant wife.

I am not supporting the children per se, however I object to the OP's posting this as a 'Problem with cyclists', which I consider borderline trolling, when they are not 'cyclists' by any normal understanding of the term, merely feral kids.

The basic problem is (a) the feral kids are in one place (b) the OP's car is in the same place.

As I have repeatedly explained you do NOT have the right to park on the public road as explained here for example - http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/TransportAndStreets/Parking/ParkingonVerges.htm 'There is no legal right for anyone to park on a public road or outside their property.'

That being so, the OP has no more right to park there than they have to play ball games or whatever. Normally people can park more-or-less wherever they like, a car is a big immoveable object, and once your car is there possession is 9/10 of the law - however when you find children, basically outside the law, damaging your car, the natural order of things tends to get turned around. Solutions? Move house or move your car I would say.

Strider590

thelawnet wrote: »

I am not supporting the children per se, however I object to the OP's posting this as a 'Problem with cyclists', which I consider borderline trolling, when they are not 'cyclists' by any normal understanding of the term, merely feral kids.

But.... This is what most people associate with cyclists.
How often do they moan about cyclists "Jumping into the road", "riding on the wrong side", "riding on the pavements", etc etc etc?
The negative comments people come out with are nearly always about things that kids would do and I think that many also automatically treat cyclists as though they're teenaged "feral" youths. IN exactly the same way that the word biker conjures up images of rude, inconsiderate, queue jumping nutters, buzzing past traffic at 90mph.

The truth is often a long way from the stereotype, but stereotype's are VERY hard to change because they built into the very fabric of our society.

pitkin2020

thelawnet wrote: »

I am not supporting the children per se, however I object to the OP's posting this as a 'Problem with cyclists', which I consider borderline trolling, when they are not 'cyclists' by any normal understanding of the term, merely feral kids.

The basic problem is (a) the feral kids are in one place (b) the OP's car is in the same place.

As I have repeatedly explained you do NOT have the right to park on the public road as explained here for example - http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/TransportAndStreets/Parking/ParkingonVerges.htm 'There is no legal right for anyone to park on a public road or outside their property.'

That being so, the OP has no more right to park there than they have to play ball games or whatever. Normally people can park more-or-less wherever they like, a car is a big immoveable object, and once your car is there possession is 9/10 of the law - however when you find children, basically outside the law, damaging your car, the natural order of things tends to get turned around. Solutions? Move house or move your car I would say.

Fair dos the thread title might not match the exact problem the OP is having, but its not a mile off.

Your solution, move house or move your car is just ridiculous. The OP shouldn't have to do either just because other people can't control THEIR kids. You must be a right push over if you just try to move away from your problems rather than dealing with them. What do you do when you get an electric bill you can't pay, move house and change your name?? Come on wake up and get into the real world, problems like this need to be dealt with head on, moving would be the very last resort!!

As for not parking on the street, its to be expected. The number of cars on the road are increasing year on year whilst houses with off street parking are decreasing. Your link also states there is no legal right right for parking on the road, but it doesn't say it is illegal either!!

Bongles

thelawnet wrote: »

As I have repeatedly explained you do NOT have the right to park on the public road as explained here for example - http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/TransportAndStreets/Parking/ParkingonVerges.htm 'There is no legal right for anyone to park on a public road or outside their property.'

I'm not sure what you (or Suffolk CC) mean by that statement. Certainly I have no more right than anyone else to park on the piece of public road that happens to be outside my house. But within certain restrictions (e.g. yellow lines, clearways, restrictions near junctions, not causing an obstruction etc.) I believe I am permitted to park my car by the side of the road. Do you think that's not the case?

thelawnet

Strider590 wrote: »

The truth is often a long way from the stereotype, but stereotype's are VERY hard to change because they built into the very fabric of our society.

Well indeed hence my reply in a manner not entirely sympathetic.

thelawnet

Bongles wrote: »

I'm not sure what you (or Suffolk CC) mean by that statement. Certainly I have no more right than anyone else to park on the piece of public road that happens to be outside my house. But within certain restrictions (e.g. yellow lines, clearways, restrictions near junctions, not causing an obstruction etc.) I believe I am permitted to park my car by the side of the road. Do you think that's not the case?

You need to distinguish between a 'right' and 'that which is permitted or tolerated'.

For instance there is a place in London where pedestrians walk through, but one day a year they close the gates. This is done in order to prevent a RIGHT of way arising by continued use. If they wanted to stop people going through there forever, they could.

OTOH, Jeremy Clarkson has a right of way over his land in the Isle of Man (AIR), walkers have a legally enforceable right to go over it and indeed this is being sorted out in the courts I believe as he objects.

Regarding parking your car on the public highway, this is very widely tolerated/permitted, but you have no enforceable 'right' to do so.

pitkin2020

thelawnet wrote: »

You need to distinguish between a 'right' and 'that which is permitted or tolerated'.

For instance there is a place in London where pedestrians walk through, but one day a year they close the gates. This is done in order to prevent a RIGHT of way arising by continued use. If they wanted to stop people going through there forever, they could.

OTOH, Jeremy Clarkson has a right of way over his land in the Isle of Man (AIR), walkers have a legally enforceable right to go over it and indeed this is being sorted out in the courts I believe as he objects.

Regarding parking your car on the public highway, this is very widely tolerated/permitted, but you have no enforceable 'right' to do so.

Your correct you have no enforceable right to park there, but unless there are restrictions in place like double yellow lines/residential parking permit etc there is nothing to stop you parking there.

In this case the OP has no right to park there, but also there is nothing stop him. The OP has caused no offence legally by parking there yet the cyclists are causing offences cycling on the pavement and criminal damage!!

Bongles

thelawnet wrote: »

You need to distinguish between a 'right' and 'that which is permitted or tolerated'.

Regarding parking your car on the public highway, this is very widely tolerated/permitted, but you have no enforceable 'right' to do so.

OK. I think I've understood the distinction. But is it relevant to the OP's problem? He legitimately parked his car somewhere where parking cars is permitted. And then some people damaged it.

The fact that parking his car there is permitted rather than a right, to use your distinction, has no bearing on other people's responsibility not to negligently damage his car does it?

Tilt

Again we have a thread where the OP has only posted twice but the thread is already 50 posts long because the rest of you are arguing! The advice should be that if the OP's car is parked legitimately outside his/her house and it is being damaged by inconsiderate kids on bikes, train a CCTV camera on your car and if/when damage occurs, identify the culprit(s) and send the parent's a bill. If they don't pay up, take them to court... simples. Have you ever watched Judge Judy? She deals with cases like this the way they should be dealt with!