Son's bike damaged WWYD?

[C.Ann]

Damage the lawn? It's grass, for crying out loud! If it gets "dented" from having a bike parked/laid down on it, it will grow back. If a bike is laid down behind a car, is run over and dented, it will not "grow" back to normal. Seems to me the grass is a far better place than behind a car.

Here, we tell our kids that if they are careless enough to leave a bike/scooter/skateboard behind a vehicle and the driver damages it while backing out, then the kid is SOL and will have to do without said bike/scooter/skateboard for quite a while. They can leave the bike on the grass, but to put it right behind a car (especially flat on the ground) is begging for it to be run over.

DD knew this, but carelessly left her scooter behind DH's truck. He backed up and the scooter was a goner. It took her about 6 months to save up $50 for a new scooter and that's how long she had to wait to get a replacement. She's a lot more careful now about where she leaves things. Not long ago, one neighbor's kid left their scooter at the end of another neighbor's driveway. Our driveways are steep and you cannot see something flat on the ground from inside your car. Since the police around here advise that you NOT raise your garage door until you are inside your vehicle and ready to back out, the whole "checking behind you/ walking the perimeter" thing won't work. We get in our cars while in the garage, buckle up, lock the doors, raise the garage door and back out sloooooowly. That was the advice they started giving after people began to be targeted while getting in/out of their vehicles in their garages. Anyway, my neighbor slooooooowly backed out of her steep driveway, but just as she made it to the end of her driveway.....CRUNCH.....she ran over the abandoned scooter. It still works, but is seriously wobbly. She didn't offer to pay and the kid's parents knew better than to ask.

If DD was ever careless enough in the future to leave one of her bikes. etc. behind a vehicle and it was run over, I'd tell her it was her own fault and to start saving money for a new one because we wouldn't pay for it.

I agree with you 100%..

The "damage to the lawn" comment literally made me laugh out loud.. Lying the bike on the grass - or having it upright using the kick stand - is not going to cause hundreds of dollars of damage.. People either have to walk with a mower or use a ride-on mower to cut their lawns - how much "damage" does that cause?

 

[rockundergirl]

why does it matter whose "fault" it is. Something suckie happened to a bike, I would just give my son some extra chores till the bike could be fix with the money he earned, personally if I was the driver, I would probably offer the kid a chance to make some money mowing my lawn or something else because i feel bad about the bike. Its just one of those things.. kids mess up, mistakes happen. Was it some sort of special crazy expensive bike or something?

 

[buzz5985]

A bicycle isn't a toy. It's a means of transportation. In most areas, a bicycle rider is subject to the same traffic laws and rules of the road as any motor vehicle driver: ride on the right with the flow of traffic, stay off the sidewalks, obey all traffic signs and signals...

Sure, the OP's son should/could have left the bike upright on the kickstand if his bike had one that works. Since it is transportation, it makes perfect sense to place it where other modes of transportation not in current use/operation are placed, i.e. a driveway. Especially if the bike was left at a distance far enough from the car where a reasonable person could be expected to see it at some point - before entering the vehicle or in a rear- or side-view mirror before putting the car in gear - I can't see how the bicycle owner can be at anything but the tiniest percentage of fault.

Would you walk down the street and lay down under someone's back tires of their Ford Explorer?? Of course not - it's common sense.

Also common sense - you don't lay your bike down in a driveway behind a car.

I love the people claiming they walk around their cars, making sure everything is clear.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Yes, and as I said earlier the law doesn't always do what is right. Someone can break into my home, hurt himself, and sue me. And, sadly enough, win with some idiot judges. This would be the same sort of ruling. Stupid.

And, no, I don't walk around my car everytime I go out. If someone is stupid enough to park a bike behind me, I am not replacing it. And they would pay for any damage done to my car. Because it would be one of my yahoos.

Respectfully, since it's the vehicle driver's responsibility to ensure there is a clear path before moving the vehicle, and especially since you're now aware of this, to not make sure there's nothing behind your car before backing up and to blame the victim is disingenuous and an invalid argument in an attempt at assigning fault.

 

[kaytieeldr]

but to put it right behind a car (especially flat on the ground) is begging for it to be run over.

Honestly, I don't recall the OP ever saying the bike was right behind the car, or giving any indication of the distance between the car and the bicycle, or the length of the driveway. It's still, ultimately, the vehicle driver's responsibility to make sure they have a clear path before proceeding - in either forward or reverse. Sure, we don't know exactly what was meant by the parent and the car owner were "angry" with the OP's son. They may have just told him he shouldn't have left his bike there; they may have yelled at or blamed him - big difference between the two responses

That was the advice they started giving after people began to be targeted while getting in/out of their vehicles in their garages.

Serious question: can you also not see the ends/bottoms of your driveways from, say, a window in the house before you leave? Sure, checking the driveway from an upstairs window doesn't 100% guarantee there won't be something there when you leave the house five minutes later - but it's a fairly good indication (and of course if you look at 7 AM and don't leave until noon, all bets are off ).

 

[kaytieeldr]

I love the people claiming they walk around their cars, making sure everything is clear.

Sigh... you're right. I don't. Let's see. At home, I approach from the rear - I know there's nothing behind my car. At the supermarket, ditto. School? Work? I back into the parking space, so I put the car in drive to proceed - so I can see there's nothing in front of me. Bank? Drugstore? Parallel park. I'm 100% certain there IS something both in front of my car and behind it - other cars - and I take care not to hit them. Visiting family? Park on the street in suburban neighborhoods.

That about covers it. Mostly, yeah, I approach my car from behind and leave quickly - so I know there was nothing behind me. Or I know there is, and wait (and wait, and wait, and wait, and...) for 'it' to move

Thanks for asking.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I had a revelation this morning - but haven't had access to a computer until recently and just found this thread again

Okay. If a driver backs into a parked or inanimate object she/he can see - car, motorcycle, wall, etc - , who's at fault? The driver, right? Certainly not the owner of the parked vehicle.

If the driver pulls forward into any of the same/similar items, again, who's at fault? Again - the driver, not the owner of the parked vehicle or inanimate object.

So why, when the inanimate (= unmoving) item is a bicycle or toy, is the item's owner suddenly at fault? When the driver can see the object, it's the driver's fault, but when she/he can't, suddenly the onus is on the owner of the item hit? With that reasoning, "I didn't see it" should be a valid claim ANY time someone backs into something - whether it's a fence, a wall, a tree, a car, a fire engine...

 

[squirrel]

I had a revelation this morning - but haven't had access to a computer until recently and just found this thread again

Okay. If a driver backs into a parked or inanimate object she/he can see - car, motorcycle, wall, etc - , who's at fault? The driver, right? Certainly not the owner of the parked vehicle.

If the driver pulls forward into any of the same/similar items, again, who's at fault? Again - the driver, not the owner of the parked vehicle or inanimate object.

So why, when the inanimate (= unmoving) item is a bicycle or toy, is the item's owner suddenly at fault? When the driver can see the object, it's the driver's fault, but when she/he can't, suddenly the onus is on the owner of the item hit? With that reasoning, "I didn't see it" should be a valid claim ANY time someone backs into something - whether it's a fence, a wall, a tree, a car, a fire engine...

I have to agree with you. If the person who parked in the driveway had backed in then they would be able to see the bike in front of the vehicle. I always back my car into the driveway. I always try to back into parking spots. Grocery shopping and other times when I will have a shopping cart to unload then I don't back in, as it's much harder to load up the trunk.

 

[Halbleib1]

We were taught in drivers ed. that you should always walk around the car before getting in and driving off. How many actually do it? I agree not many but this is not an excuse. Plain and simple it is the drivers responsibility to be sure that nothing is in the path of their vehicle.

We were also taught that if their are small children around that we need to make them go inside the home (make sure an adult is aware of what is going on as well) or off to the side next to an adult until after we have driven away.

 

[Halbleib1]

I had a revelation this morning - but haven't had access to a computer until recently and just found this thread again

Okay. If a driver backs into a parked or inanimate object she/he can see - car, motorcycle, wall, etc - , who's at fault? The driver, right? Certainly not the owner of the parked vehicle.

If the driver pulls forward into any of the same/similar items, again, who's at fault? Again - the driver, not the owner of the parked vehicle or inanimate object.

So why, when the inanimate (= unmoving) item is a bicycle or toy, is the item's owner suddenly at fault? When the driver can see the object, it's the driver's fault, but when she/he can't, suddenly the onus is on the owner of the item hit? With that reasoning, "I didn't see it" should be a valid claim ANY time someone backs into something - whether it's a fence, a wall, a tree, a car, a fire engine...

I totally agree with you. A few years back my fil backed into a concrete post with his truck while pulling out of a fast food parking lot. He was totally responsible for the damage caused. Yes the post was short enough that it was not easy to see but ultimately it was his responsibility as the driver to know what was around him. If we went by what some were saying on this thread than in this case the owner of the parking lot would have been held responsible in the same way that many are saying the owner of the bike is responsible. That is just absurd to think that should be the case.

Responsible driving is knowing what is around you at all times. You are to be in control of that vehicle 100% of the time.