son hit neighbours car

elvis86

newcook wrote: »

Which is fine providing there is room for a pushchair to go past – a lot of the time drivers who park part on the pavement don’t think about if they have left enough space for people to walk past or if a pushchair/wheelchair can get past.

If you look back through my posts, I have repeatedly stated that I would only support parking on the pavement where a gap was left for pesestrians, and that completely blocking a pavement isn't acceptable.

RacyRed wrote: »

All I'm trying to say is that if it can be avoided it should be avoided. And if cars are parked in such a fashion then their owners have to accept the risks involved.

This is pretty much exactly what I've said! That it's not ideal, but that sometimes on narrow residential streets it's the lesser of 2 evils (block an entire street, or block half of a pavement).

And yet you've had me down as a selfish bas***d with complete disregard for the welfare of pedestrians, children, the disabled etc..:o

RacyRed wrote: »

My original arguement was that the OP's 6 y/o should not be held responsible for any damage in the particular set of circumstances described.

I disagree. I think that providing the neighbour doesn't take the p!ss, it would be best all round of the OP accepted responsibility for her son and responded to the neighbour's polite request accordingly.

If you're not willing to accept responsibility for your kids; I would suggest that a) you don't have any, or b) that you don't allow them out unsupervised where they might damage other people's things.

RacyRed wrote: »

You've not accepted my little challenge. I'm puzzled by that.

As Imp said, I'm a pedestrian too (more often than I'm a motorist, in fact!). Whilst I don't have a pushchair and 2 kids to hand, experience and common sense is enough to convince me that by parking half on the pavement when I visit my parents, I really am being a considerate as I can realistically expected to be (short of parking my car a mile away!).:)

newcook

elvis86, it was actually me, not RacyRed who said the first bit you quoted in post 162...


you seem to be taking a lot of these posts very personal - I dont think any of them have been aimed at you directly. it has always been at MOST drivers/SOME drivers not elvis86

mishkanorman

elvis86 wrote: »

What I, and a couple of others have said, is that on a quiet, narrow street, it makes more sense to park half on the pavement (leaving space for pedestrians to pass), and doesn't really cause that much of an issue for the odd mum with a large buggy to have to step out into a road that people deem safe enough to allow their kids to play in, and who is likely to have her own car parked in a similar fashion not too far away.

Thats not the drivers call, if there is no space for them to park in the quiet, narrow road then they need to find one where there is space.

perceived issue or not, you are saying that you (or more importantly perhaps your car) have priority over pedestrians on the pavement which as we all know is not the case !

There is also quite a difference between allowing your child to play on a pavement on a road that you deem safe enough to them playing in the actual road.

ShAnE

elvis86 wrote: »

As Imp said, I'm a pedestrian too (more often than I'm a motorist, in fact!). Whilst I don't have a pushchair and 2 kids to hand, experience and common sense is enough to convince me that by parking half on the pavement when I visit my parents, I really am being a considerate as I can realistically expected to be (short of parking my car a mile away!).:)

I'm sorry but in the eyes of the law you should go and park your car a mile away. And more than likely in the eyes of your insurer you should go and park your car a mile away in a safe and legal spot.

At the end of the day, parking your car illegally leaves you open to risk. What if some old lady in a wheel chair tried to squeeze along the path and scratched the car, should she pay for the neighbours obstruction??

If he can't find safe parking for 5 cars he shouldn't have 5 cars. If he is running a business he should have insurance to cover the damage for cars on his property. It's not as though he woke up one morning and his 5 car drive way had shrunk to only fit 3 cars.

Imp

Acc72 wrote: »

Strange .......

You are of course entitled to your opinion, however listing your qualifications does not somehow make this opinion univerally correct.

You need to look at the context (indeed, the quoted text) in which birkee dismissed a valid opinion because the birkee did not believe thegirlintheattic had any "engineering/mechanical experience". I fully agreed with thegirlintheattic's opinion, and to ensure the same accuastion birkee made towards thegirlintheattic was not made towards me, I provided the evidence birkee asked for.

Imp

ShAnE wrote: »

I'm sorry but in the eyes of the law you should go and park your car a mile away. And more than likely in the eyes of your insurer you should go and park your car a mile away in a safe and legal spot.

At the end of the day, parking your car illegally leaves you open to risk. What if some old lady in a wheel chair tried to squeeze along the path and scratched the car, should she pay for the neighbours obstruction??

We have already discussed the law. There is no law prohibiting parking on pavements outside London. There may be a law (subject to the interpretation of a judge/jury) prohibiting the use of scooters on pavements.

The law is a donkey, as I have said previously.

ShAnE

elvis86 wrote: »

Of course, when someone scrapes a shopping trolley down the side of your car, they don't stick around to swap insurance details. But in the OP's situation, the car owner does know who damaged his car.

I absolutely don't accept that I should have to supervise my car at all times to ensure that nobody damages it, else accept that other people's careless attitude towards my property is "part of being a car owner".

Would you apply the same logic to your house? Should you have guard it 24/7 or accept that possibly being burgled is "part of being a homeowner"? If your neighbour embarks on building work and accidentally disturbs the foundations of your house, bringing it crashing down around your ears, would you shrug your shoulders and accept that "accidents happen"?

Yes, accidents happen. But if another driver rear-ended me by accident, I would fully expect their insurance to cover any costs incurred by me. And vice versa. There's a difference between accepting that accidents happen and suggesting that we should live in a world with no culpability for anything.

Try quoting like for like if you're going to be so childish.

I'd put being burgled on par with the car being stolen.
Or to someone disturbing the foundations to someone blowing up your car.
In this case, someone kicked a ball over the garden fence knocking over one of your gnomes. Or at least that would be the case if the car wasnt ilegally parked.
So the accurate example would be someone kicking a ball over the fence and it hitting the roof of your shed, causing the heat lamps used to keep your illegal plants warm, to break.

ShAnE

Imp wrote: »

We have already discussed the law. There is no law prohibiting parking on pavements outside London. There may be a law (subject to the interpretation of a judge/jury) prohibiting the use of scooters on pavements.

The law is a donkey, as I have said previously.

Not London, still illegal, as it's quite clearly causing an obstruction. http://www.sefton.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3177

CBA to bring up the sites for all councils in the uk, so enjoy.

elvis86

mishkanorman wrote: »

Thats not the drivers call, if there is no space for them to park in the quiet, narrow road then they need to find one where there is space.

ShAnE wrote: »

I'm sorry but in the eyes of the law you should go and park your car a mile away. And more than likely in the eyes of your insurer you should go and park your car a mile away in a safe and legal spot.

Okay, seriously, you're not living in the real world.

pineapple

I used to be a sheltered housing warden and my tenants were always having problems with cars half parked on the pavement - especially those in wheelchairs. We did talk to police about it who said they had the power to move people on but were loath to do it as the road in question was so narrow, if everyone parked fully on the road, emergency vehicles would not get through.
I believe in this case as has been said, it's 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. Neither should have been on the pavement. I think a 50:50 split would be fair.