son hit neighbours car

elvis86

RacyRed wrote: »

Oh get real. Most victorian terraced houses have yards that can be converted for parking. Most areas have garages or parking spaces for rent within a reasonable distance.

How exactly would you convert the yard of a mid-terrace in back-to-back housing? A flyover crossing your neighbours' property to afford your vehicle access into your yard?:D

Using my parents' estate as an example:

In their street there are 20 houses with around 10 cars regularly parked on the street due to households having 2+ cars. Generally these are parked half on the pavement which leaves a gap for pedestrians to walk down and sufficient space in the road for other motorists to pass.

I'd guestimate that there are around 500 houses on the estate, so we could assume that there are 250 cars parked on the road/pavement in such a way.

To my knowledge, there is one block of around 10 garages which are rented.

By my calculations, that leaves around 240 cars that need to be accomodated. What solution do you propose? The demolition of the children's play area and the construction of a multi-storey car park in it's place?

Or perhaps people could continue to (on the whole) park relatively considerately on the road/pavement, and any pedestrian with an unusually wide buggy could occasionally look both ways and navigate around the car into the (quiet residential) road where the pavement is too narrow to pass. I imagine they wouldn't mind as there's a fair chance that their own people carrier is parked in a similar fashion outside their own house.

RacyRed wrote: »

The majority of motorists don't park on pavements thank goodness. That is a fact that is often overlooked by those who think their right to park where they like is sacrosanct.

Exactly, so clearly most of those that do only do so as a last resort and don't really deserve to be vilified quite so much:

RacyRed wrote: »

Pavement parking is selfish. Full Stop.

:cool:

Imp

RacyRed wrote: »

What you really don't seem to understand is that we are considering the SAFETY of children, the elderly, the disabled, mums with pushchares, wheelchair users versus the convenience of motorists who park on the pavement.

As we are worrying about safety, then can we get back to using a scooter on pavements, which may (subject to a court's interpretation of the legislation) be an offence, and certainly possess a significant hazard to children, the elderly, the disabled, mums with pushchairs and wheelchair users, due to the speed and instability of the scooter.

These scooters do not compare favourably against a car parked considerately on a pavement, which rarely topples over or changes direction without warning. And as previously mentioned, parking a car on a pavement is not an offence in itself, except in London.

elvis86

sassyblue wrote: »

Oh G*d here we go.... The OP said her son was going a few doors down to see his friend.

Can the assumers and judgementalists leave this forum please? You're all wrecking a really nice place, can nobody ask advice without the thread turning into a b*tchfest?

newcook wrote: »

As for those making digs at OP letting her son be out un-supervised, he was on his way to play at his friends house a couple of doors down – Im sure that most of you played out with your friends/neighbours unsupervised when you were 6 or 7?!

To clarify, I wasn't digging at the OP. I was pointing out that whilst another poster is making arguments about busy roads, it appeared to me from the OP's post that we're talking about a residential street here (where it is quite reasonable that a 6 year old would be playing outside).

Incidentally, I played out in the street loads when I was a kid, as did all the neighbours' kids. And do you know? Not one of us was ever injured because a neighbour parked their car half on the pavement..:D

delain

globalds wrote: »

Why didn't you complain about the cars before your kid hit one of them ...seems to me your looking for a reason not to do the right thing.

If someone damaged something of yours what would you hope for ?

If a six year old fell off a scooter and damaged OH's car if it was parked on the pavement I'd be telling him that he shouldn't have left it there, after going to see if the child was OK, and disowning him completely if he tried to charge them anything!

Roads are for cars - pavements are for people.

RacyRed

Imp wrote: »

As we are worrying about safety, then can we get back to using a scooter on pavements, which may (subject to a court's interpretation of the legislation) be an offence, and certainly possess a significant hazard to children, the elderly, the disabled, mums with pushchairs and wheelchair users, due to the speed and instability of the scooter.

These scooters do not compare favourably against a car parked considerately on a pavement, which rarely topples over or changes direction without warning. And as previously mentioned, parking a car on a pavement is not an offence in itself, except in London.

You do realise we are talking about a child on a small plastic scooter, not a large motorised scooter?


Elvis86, if you want to champion shelfishness that is up to you. Just don't expect sympathy from me if your cars are damaged because you parked on the pavement.

Oh, and I also live in a quiet residential cul de sac with poor parking. But not a single resident finds it necessary to park on the pavement. No-one here thinks it is fair to expect a parent with a buggy and maybe a toddler or 2 in hand to negotiate through the local traffic because badly parked cars prevent them using the pavement.

If cars are that heavily parked then there is traffic in the street. I really cannot believe you suggested that a parent should have to wheel a buggy into traffic so you can park where you want. :mad:

birkee

Some of the people going on about their convenience when parking, need to think again.
Yes, .... there are some roads that are so narrow, that it's difficult to get a car through unless people park on the pavement, but then again, it seems to be, when they want to park on both sides of the road for their convenience.
Restrict parking to one side of the road only, and see how many people tolerate someone having five cars then.
Someone who says "I don't give a damn about the rest of you being able to park".

Perhaps it's time to go Japanese, when you are not allowed to have a car unless you have off-road parking for it, in certain area's.
No pavement blocking no matter how inconvenient it is for you!

elvis86

RacyRed wrote: »

Oh, and I also live in a quiet residential cul de sac with poor parking.

Really? Only 5 minutes ago you said..

RacyRed wrote: »

C. But then I took parking requirements into account when choosing my home.

RacyRed wrote: »

But not a single resident finds it necessary to park on the pavement. No-one here thinks it is fair to expect a parent with a buggy and maybe a toddler or 2 in hand to negotiate through the local traffic because badly parked cars prevent them using the pavement.

You're obviously lucky, your street can't be that narrow and/or parking mustn't be in such high demand. Unfortunately in many streets this isn't the case.

RacyRed wrote: »

If cars are that heavily parked then there is traffic in the street. I really cannot believe you suggested that a parent should have to wheel a buggy into traffic so you can park where you want. :mad:

The thing is, I'm not talking about "a mum with a buggy and a toddler or 2 in hand" being forced to walk for miles in the middle of a dual carriageway during rush hour. I'm talking about her perhaps having to skirt around the odd car on a quiet residential street if her buggy is particularly wide or the pavement at one point is particularly narrow.

If the mum in question is walking down the aforementioned residential street, chances are she lives locally. And it's quite probable that she may have a car herself which she may be forced to park halfway on the pavement. Surely it's just about people making the best of a bad situation (ie lack of off-street parking) and trying to rub along together?

Incidentally, whilst you're horrified by my suggestion that it may not always be possible to ensure that all pavements are kept clear enough to allow a woman with a double buggy, 2 toddlers and a german shepherd to pass by hand-in-hand, you'd presumably suggest that said woman parks her car a mile away from her house and walks home with the buggy, 2 kids et all and a week's grocery shopping in hand, if she's unable to park in her street without parking half on the pavement?:D

If I were her, I think I'd rather be able to park outside my house and "suffer" the occasional inconvenience when a neighbour doing the same results in the pavement being too narrow.

What I'm saying, is that there are compromises to be made. Of course nobody should park so that they are entirely blocking the pavement, but equally it's hardly life or death if someone with a larger than average buggy has to skirt around the occasional car. Besides, how do these women cross the road if it's so dangerous and unacceptable for them to step out into them?!

elvis86

birkee wrote: »

Perhaps it's time to go Japanese, when you are not allowed to have a car unless you have off-road parking for it, in certain area's.
No pavement blocking no matter how inconvenient it is for you!

Perhaps it's time to go Chinese, where folk are prevented from having more than one child, thus meaning no double buggies and less kids in the street on scooters?:D

Monkeynut

Have been reading this thread with interest, and can see both sides, but I do agree that the OP should wait and see what suggestions the neighbour comes up with and they can discuss it. It's good that at the moment things are friendly, and that the neighbour was nice when he came to the door - plenty wouldn't have been.
In regards to the morality of it, a few people said nearer the start of the thread why should it matter how much the estimate would be whether the OP 'does the right thing' and pays up, well lets flip that round and think of if it is a lot of money - can the neighbour morally demand money from someone who cannot afford to pay for something that was not entirely, (or at all?) her fault.

And just a quick note to people who are going on about the parking a mile away from home thing - lets not forget that this neighbour has several cars, so it's not as if this is the only car he uses. Someone choosing to have several cars should have first thought about parking or storage for them.

Hope things stay friendly between the OP and neighbour, let us know what happens.

Acc72

elvis86 wrote: »

With the obvious condition that the guy didn't take the p!ss, I would pay up.

Surely it can't cost that much, how much damage can a 6 year old on a scooter actually do?

Pretty much as above.

Did you see the damage ? - must have only been a scratch at most ?

If he comes back and says £20 then I would either pay (to maintain neighbourly relations) or offer half as he was blocking the pavement and effectively contributed to the accident.

If he comes back with quotes of hundreds of pounds then just tell him that before you agree to anything that you have an appointment with the council to go over what happened.