In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> You really don't get it do you? If you don't agree with people's values, like valuing their cars, . . .
> What isn't fine is to impose that value system on somebody's property that you have just damaged through your carelessness. >
What isn't fine is that people have the utterly unrealistic expectation that a machine that lives outside permanently, moving around in close proximity to hard objects made of metal and concrete, that gets parked in spaces that are far too small for modern vehicles
should look the same after 10 years as it did when new.
Cars get scratched and dented and chipped just like carpets get worn, paint peels and shoes wear down. Its what happens in the real world.
And as for carelessness, anybody who has driven around for years and never touched anything with their car isn't a good driver, they are just bloody lucky. In the real world when its raining and your screen is misted up or the sun is in your eyes or there's dirt on your mirrors or the kids are fighting in the back we all make mistakes. If you're lucky you'll just reverse into a low bollard that wasn't in any of your mirrors, or scrape a gate post etc, but sometimes its another car in a car park.
Now if you do cause some damage to another car then fair enough, you should pay in some way, but in any sane world the cost should be proportionate to the real harm caused. So when we're talking about cosmetic damage only to something which probably already had some cosmetic damage and if it hasn't already, probably will sooner or later because that's what happens, then the costs should be capped to say 10% of the cars value (or whatever).
If some people want to regard their car as an extension of their penis then they should pay for anything over that themselves, that should be what fully comp is for.
> There is no sensible alternative to making good the damage >
There is, anybody sensible would say f*ck it, its only a scratch, life's too short to worry about that sh*t.
Post edited at 18:51