Being taken to the cleaners for my honesty - advice needed.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
A couple of weeks ago I had a slight mishap when pulling out of a parking space. It was very tight side by side parking at a nature reserve with no marked bays. It was very busy and as I reversed out the danger was to my left so I was looking that way. Unfortunately I ended up grazing the car parked to my right. I have got a very long car and there just wasn’t enough space to get out easily. I checked the other car and there was a bit of surface scuffing on the paint on the front wing and door so I left a note on the windscreen. Incidentally my car was pretty much unscathed.

Next day the owner of the car phoned. He seemed a reasonable guy and thanked me for leaving a note and not just driving off. He also agreed that the damage to his car was minor. He said the only thing that concerned him was it would affect the resale value. His car is an 06 reg Toyota Yaris T3. I told him I’d rather pay for the damage myself than go through the insurance. He said he’d get a quote and get back to me. He also concurred that it didn’t look like a big job. At this stage I was hoping I’d get away with about £50 or £60, maybe £100 tops.

The other day he got back to me with a quote from a body shop local to him. 700 quid! I nearly passed out with shock. I asked how it could possibly be so much for a bit of scuffing on the paint. He said they told him they’d need to re-spray the whole side of the car to match the paint. He said he’d get one more quote but I’m not hopeful it’ll be much better. I’m on maximum no claims bonus and have got two cars with two policies, along with a £300 excess on the car involved in the incident. It would therefore end up costing me even more than the £700 to have it done through my insurance.

I just can’t believe something so minor looks like costing me so much money. You’d think I’d slammed into a brand new Range Rover rather than scuffed an 11 year old hatchback. Not to mention that I’m being taken to the cleaners for my honesty. I think my only hope is to reason with guy and try to agree for me to give him some cash to offset the loss in re-sale value of his car, say £200. I’d welcome any advice. Thanks in advance
1
 fullastern 16 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Ask him to get a quote from chips away, I used them for a similar scuff and they did a great job. You're still looking at at least 200 though I reckon.
 Dax H 16 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Get a quote yourself from a mobile paint guy.
The only problem is if it doesn't match you might have to get it done again.
At the end of the day regardless of the age of the car you damaged his property and its on you to make it right.

You can always try blag it and say you can't afford that much and had better go through the insurance, he might take a settlement rather than have his premiums loaded for the next 5 years over a non fault accident.
1
In reply to Dax H:

> You can always try blag it and say you can't afford that much and had better go through the insurance, he might take a settlement rather than have his premiums loaded for the next 5 years over a non fault accident.

That's a good idea.

With an 06 car he may not be that bothered about its appearance and £400 in his hand to spend however he likes might be worth more to him than an insurance company paying a paint shop £700.

1
 balmybaldwin 16 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

A low mileage 06 Yaris T3 wont fetch more than 1600 (trade price) according to autotrader. It might help to point this out.
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> A low mileage 06 Yaris T3 wont fetch more than 1600 (trade price) according to autotrader. It might help to point this out.

And I would hazard a guess that an 06 Yaris T3 with a scratch would probably have a trade price of around 1599.50
 pec 16 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Unfortunately, honesty doesn't always pay off so when you hear stories like this (which you do frequently) its hardly surprising a lot of people just drive off.

Was the parking space on a public or private carpark? If private, wouldn't he have to sue you for the damage which would effectively make it not worth his while or at least worth accepting a smaller cash payment? Not sure about this but it might be worth investigating if he's taking the piss.

I'd try and get a sensible quote which takes into account the real value of the car and say you're not willing to pay more. The scuff on his car will knock sod all off the value of it.

If the worst comes to the worst, make arrangements to pay the garage directly so he doesn't pocket the cash and never get the repair done.

11
 Sir Chasm 16 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

You could see if you can get a couple of quotes yourself if you don't believe him, but bodywork's expensive and £700 doesn't sound excessive for painting the side of a car.
P.s. The people suggesting you might be able to squirm out of it because it's an old car/it was private property etc, they're scummers. Put it down to experience and learn to park more carefully.
12
 buzby 16 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

unfortunately the cost of painting a car doesn't change that much regardless of age but the overall resale value does. think the advice of approaching him with a cash payment would be worth a try. A few hundred quid in his hand to compensate might be more appealing to him given the age of the car and possible resale loss he would incur.
 FreshSlate 16 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
He probably getting a quote because that's what he feels he should do rather than ripping you off. He's probably explained the situation to a garage who is offering him the 'good as new solution' rather than bang per buck or £ for £ of resale value.

I agree with others that there's little point getting the car resprayed, it will add little to the resale value and he will have to arse about putting it in the shop for the day. Offer him half of that to cover the difference in resale value and for the inconvenience.
Post edited at 23:52
 BrendanO 16 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
And well-done Gerry, well-done. Too many scumbags drive away, your karma is good. Have a like.
Post edited at 23:41
1
 aln 16 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> learn to park more carefully.

What was wrong with the OP's parking?

2
 Sir Chasm 16 Jan 2017
In reply to aln:

> What was wrong with the OP's parking?

Apart from "grazing" the car next to him? Or would you like, tediously but predictably for you, to call it unparking?
2
 Skyfall 16 Jan 2017
In reply to pec:

> Unfortunately, honesty doesn't always pay off so when you hear stories like this (which you do frequently) its hardly surprising a lot of people just drive off.

Are you effing joking?

I do, i think, I understand your point but, if it's my pride and joy, I'd be pretty f*cking upset and want a proper job done. I think there may be discussion about what a 'proper job' is but bear in mind a lot of people won't have had this sort of incident and just immediately think main garage style work (understandably enough). Basically, it's 'your' effing fault and do your best to help sort it out, even if that costs.
12
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

I feel for you. It is a sad state of affairs that we have been manipulated into a culture where anyone gives a shit about a tiny scratch on a car. Spray shops and insurers rake it in while everyone else pays. You are right to be honest but £700 (or even a tenth of that) is absolutely ridiculous.
14
 aln 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Apart from "grazing" the car next to him? Or would you like, tediously but predictably for you, to call it unparking?

Thanks for the tedious predictable response. Unparking isn't a word I've heard till now. Is it like deplaning, for getting off a plane?
13
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> P.s. The people suggesting you might be able to squirm out of it because it's an old car/it was private property etc, they're scummers. Put it down to experience and learn to park more carefully.

Bollocks. There's nothing unethical or scummy about offering him money in his hand to spend on what he likes as an alternative to an insurance company paying the garage £700 for a respray on an 06 car. If it was my car that got scratched I'd take a couple of hundred quid in my hand and forget about the scratch over £700 paid to a garage and the hassle of organising it. You'd be doing me a favour by proposing it.
Post edited at 01:22
4
Vector686 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

> A couple of weeks ago I had a slight mishap when pulling out of a parking space. It was very tight side by side parking at a nature reserve with no marked bays. It was very busy and as I reversed out the danger was to my left so I was looking that way. Unfortunately I ended up grazing the car parked to my right. I have got a very long car and there just wasn’t enough space to get out easily. I checked the other car and there was a bit of surface scuffing on the paint on the front wing and door so I left a note on the windscreen. Incidentally my car was pretty much unscathed.

> Next day the owner of the car phoned. He seemed a reasonable guy and thanked me for leaving a note and not just driving off. He also agreed that the damage to his car was minor. He said the only thing that concerned him was it would affect the resale value. His car is an 06 reg Toyota Yaris T3. I told him I’d rather pay for the damage myself than go through the insurance. He said he’d get a quote and get back to me. He also concurred that it didn’t look like a big job. At this stage I was hoping I’d get away with about £50 or £60, maybe £100 tops.

> The other day he got back to me with a quote from a body shop local to him. 700 quid! I nearly passed out with shock. I asked how it could possibly be so much for a bit of scuffing on the paint. He said they told him they’d need to re-spray the whole side of the car to match the paint. He said he’d get one more quote but I’m not hopeful it’ll be much better. I’m on maximum no claims bonus and have got two cars with two policies, along with a £300 excess on the car involved in the incident. It would therefore end up costing me even more than the £700 to have it done through my insurance.

> I just can’t believe something so minor looks like costing me so much money. You’d think I’d slammed into a brand new Range Rover rather than scuffed an 11 year old hatchback. Not to mention that I’m being taken to the cleaners for my honesty. I think my only hope is to reason with guy and try to agree for me to give him some cash to offset the loss in re-sale value of his car, say £200. I’d welcome any advice. Thanks in advanceadvance

Use insurance

8
 MG 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Skyfall:

This is why insurance is do expensive. "Pride and joy"! It's a ultiliarian lump of metal and plastic
2
 Rob Exile Ward 17 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

Some b*gger scrawled graffiti on my Picasso the other day. Ah well, it's just a bit of canvas stretched over wood, no real harm done.
4
Ferret 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Second the chips away (or similar company) idea - they have gadgets that allow them to custom mix the paint to match the existing (faded) paint. They could do a perfectly passable job for a good bit less than £700 I'd guess.

Been through this from other side twice - small incidents with my car, not my fault. People who bumped willing to sort out but preferring not to trouble insurance and me utterly horrified at crazy cost from main dealer/body shops. Chips away, everybody happy.

that said, it was a stress for me, wondering if it was worth the hassle and risk of the people not coughing up and as time passed thinking it was getting harder and harder to go down the insurance route if I needed to so be aware that the Yaris owner may be concerned about implications of doing you the favour of sorting it yourselves vs just handing it to the insurers.

Try to find out what his priorities really are... a bit of spending cash in compensation (and no repair), a cheap and cheerful repair job which will no doubt be good enough, especially as he is unlikely to have car for multiple years from here with neither side having any adverse insurance implications or a dam the torpedoes it needs done properly approach and go with whichever he wants, as it is after all, his car and your fault. Well done for being honest though.

The problem is - 11 year old cars cost as much to sort as 1 year old ones... it just doesn't seem worth the cost on them though!.
 MG 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Rather different - the purpose of art is to look nice. (Also if you leave it in a Tesco carpark, I don't have much sympathy)
In reply to Sir Chasm:
>Put it down to experience and learn to park more carefully.

I am always careful. This is my first ever at fault accident in 25 years driving. I parked carefully. The other car was parked after I parked up. It was very tight. I've got a very long car. The place was very busy with kids running around everywhere and a steady line of traffic coming from my left. I was also half blinded by a low winter sun. There were a lot of factors at play. Don't accuse me of being a careless driver when you don't know the facts.
Post edited at 08:44
4
 wintertree 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Good on you for not driving off.

High quality paint repairs can be expensive. You're lucky really that it wasn't a body coloured bumper or something fancy and new.

£700 is probably cheaper than the long term cost of going to insurers.

The more you argue with them the more likely they are to say feck-it and go to their insurers. Especially if they've now got written communication from you noting that their car was unoccupied and you taking liability.

Reverse into spaces, not out, where possible. Various good reasons for this.
2
In reply to Vector686:

> Use insurance

As I clearly explained in my first post it will cost me even more to go through my insurance.
In reply to Dax H:

> At the end of the day regardless of the age of the car you damaged his property and its on you to make it right.

I agree 100%. The thing that bothers me though is the thought of paying so much for such a big job, re-spraying the whole side of the car. That means I'm paying essentially to take the car back to 2006 when it was brand new. I'm paying to repair every scratch, scuff, scrape, stone chip, mark and blemish that car has accumulated over the past 11 years. I should only have to pay for the minor damage I did and I am fully prepared to do this.

1
 duncan b 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

> I’m on maximum no claims bonus and have got two cars with two policies, along with a £300 excess on the car involved in the incident. It would therefore end up costing me even more than the £700 to have it done through my insurance.

Are you absolutely sure about this? I had a very similar experience a few years ago and like you reached the same conclusion that it would be cheaper to pay it myself rather than go through insurance. However, after checking on price comparison websites the i discovered the impact of losing 2 years no claims and having a fault accident would only increase my premium by £20 or so. Also isn't there usually 0 excess on third party claims? The voluntary excess is for claims to your car.

 wintertree 17 Jan 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Bollocks. There's nothing unethical or scummy about offering him money in his hand to spend

I agree with what you've said but what you say does not relate to Sir Chasm's comment you are calling Bollocks. As I understand it he was referring to the all-to-predictable replies from some people saying the OP should attempt to shirk all responsibility.
 Sir Chasm 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

> >Put it down to experience and learn to park more carefully.

> I am always careful. This is my first ever at fault accident in 25 years driving. I parked carefully. The other car was parked after I parked up. It was very tight. I've got a very long car. The place was very busy with kids running around everywhere and a steady line of traffic coming from my left. I was also half blinded by a low winter sun. There were a lot of factors at play. Don't accuse me of being a careless driver when you don't know the facts.

Fair enough, you "carefully" grazed the car parked next to you.
11
 JimR 17 Jan 2017

£700 is ridiculous. I've used a body shop recently for massive scrapes on two cars £200 for a vectra and £300 for Peugeot 207. I know the guy and he knew it was not insurance claims. Scrapes were from concrete pillars in car park
Also suggest tcut might be worth a go if a minor scratch
Post edited at 09:27
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Bollocks. There's nothing unethical or scummy about offering him money in his hand to spend on what he likes as an alternative to an insurance company paying the garage £700 for a respray on an 06 car.

Absolutely. Anyone reading this is welcome to pay me a tenner to scratch my car. The scratches won't in any way effect the car's ability to get me to the crag and I can spend the money on petrol.
2
 planetmarshall 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Some b*gger scrawled graffiti on my Picasso the other day. Ah well, it's just a bit of canvas stretched over wood, no real harm done.

Did you just, without irony, compare a manky 10 year old hatchback to a Picasso? It's just a car ffs.
5
 Sir Chasm 17 Jan 2017
In reply to planetmarshall:

> Did you just, without irony, compare a manky 10 year old hatchback to a Picasso? It's just a car ffs.

Here, have a like for your sense of humour failure.
3
 wbo 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran: But that's just your opinion isn't it. Other people think differently, and as it's 'other people's' car you need to honour their opinion. It's unfortunate for the OP that making good his mistake is proving expensive.

And credit to Gerry for doing the right thing here, particularly as some people seem to think it's ok to run away just because they consider the car old and cheap, and it's not theirs so it doesn't matter.

1
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Fair enough, you "carefully" grazed the car parked next to you.

Get off my back will you. Have you never had the slightest mishap driving? Hah you probably can't even drive and if you could I bet you wouldn't think twice about driving off if it happened to you.

I have been driving for 25 years. I drove 7.5 tonners all over Europe for years. This was my first ever at fault accident and as I already explained there were many mitigating factors at play. I have been honest and am fully prepared to do the right thing and I'm just looking for some help, not some smartarse putting me down to feel good about himself.
7
 Trangia 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Well done you for being honest. I agree with those who suggest that you should insist that he gets competitive quotes including from repairers of your choice as you are paying. I had a similar incident a few years ago where a main dealer quoted £1700 to repair the damage to a car I had bumped in a car park. The bump had been my fault, and I was quite prepared to pay, but not that much! I found a local repairer who did it for £179. The was no way you could tell it had been repaired.

This was the basis I agreed with the owner if it couldn't be seen after the repair he would agree to use my repairer, if not I would have to swallow hard and let him take it to the main dealer. Fortunately, for me the repair was perfect.
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to wintertree:

> You're lucky really that it wasn't a body coloured bumper.

If bumpers are not fit for purpose, they should at least be called something else.
3
 Sir Chasm 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Dry your eyes, I'm merely pointing out that, despite your protestations, in this instance you weren't careful, because if you'd been careful you wouldn't have this problem. And, as suggested above, have you checked that your excess applies to other people's cars you damage?
18
 Trangia 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If bumpers are not fit for purpose, they should at least be called something else.

I've often thought that!
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to wbo:

> But that's just your opinion isn't it. Other people think differently.

I know. And I think it is a sad reflection on our materialistic, money grubbing society that they do. As I said, it's not really any individual's fault (resale value is resale value), but of the pathetic culture that puts such a value on the absence of a scratch.
6
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> in this instance you weren't careful, because if you'd been careful you wouldn't have this problem.

I was being careful. I was being careful first and foremost not to hit any of the number of small kids who were running about everywhere. It was because I was being careful about the kids that it happened.

5
 planetmarshall 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

> I have been driving for 25 years.

To be honest, in 25 years of driving the odds are that you've done other damage but without ever realising it. In this instance you happened to notice and decided to be honest. Good for you, but I wouldn't expect to be rewarded for it. If you don't like the quote, just let the insurers deal with it.

8
In reply to duncan b:

> Are you absolutely sure about this? I had a very similar experience a few years ago and like you reached the same conclusion that it would be cheaper to pay it myself rather than go through insurance. However, after checking on price comparison websites the i discovered the impact of losing 2 years no claims and having a fault accident would only increase my premium by £20 or so. Also isn't there usually 0 excess on third party claims? The voluntary excess is for claims to your car.

Thanks for that advice. I will contact my insurance companies and find out how much it would cost.
 pec 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Skyfall:

> Are you effing joking? >

No I'm not, I simply said that given the ridiculous cost of repair for trivial amounts of damage which have no bearing on the cars functioning and little if any effect on its value, its not surprising that some people do drive off.
FWIW I've twice had people go into the back of me, the damage was trivial so I said don't worry about it at the roadside and let them drive off.

I've also come back to find my parked car with a wing mirror smashed off and a headlamp glass broken. It would have been nice if they'd offered me a bit of cash for the repair but if they thought I was going to ask them for £300 for a new mirror I'm not surprised they drove off.
As long as we live in a culture where people think its ok to spend excessive amounts of cash on trivial repairs to damage that has no bearing on the functioning of your car, possibly isn't even noticeable, then people will continue to drive off (I'm talking about about the scuffs here, not the wing mirrors.)
You wouldn't expect to wear a pair of shoes outside for 10 years and not have any scuffs on them, why should you expect a car to be different? And if you lost those shoes you wouldn't expect your insurer to fork out what you originally paid for them, not even on a new for old policy. If you did you'd be in for a shock.

2
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

I wonder how many people would either pay out of their own pocket or lose their no claims bonus if they put a tiny scratch on their own car.
3
 Phil1919 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

The infernal combustion engine. Got rid of mine 4 years ago. Never regret it. They do all sorts of damage to us.
1
 planetmarshall 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I wonder how many people would either pay out of their own pocket or lose their no claims bonus if they put a tiny scratch on their own car.

You should see the state of my Yeti. It was my first large car and I totally underestimated the size of it, and knocked it about a fair bit in the first week ( only on inanimate obstacles, I hasten to add ). I still haven't had it fixed, since the only reason for doing so would be for resale value.

Of course I might feel different if it were a Maserati.
In reply to Trangia:

> I had a similar incident a few years ago where a main dealer quoted £1700 to repair the damage to a car I had bumped in a car park. The bump had been my fault, and I was quite prepared to pay, but not that much! I found a local repairer who did it for £179. The was no way you could tell it had been repaired.

Back in 2000 a guy slammed into the back of me at a red light and my car needed a replacement rear bumper. I got quoted around £500 for a brand new bumper. The guy who hit me wasn't keen and suggested a place that would fit a bumper from a breakers and paint it up to the correct colour for £150. I put myself in the position of the other driver and sympathised with his plight and as the car I had at the time was 9 years old I agreed to this option. Let's hope I get a bit of kharma from that long ago incident and that the other driver is prepared to work with me in a similar way to provide a fair solution that won't clean me out.
 MonkeyPuzzle 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

I don't think you're being taken to the cleaners for your honesty, I think you're being taken to the cleaners for damaging someone else's property.

My other half pranged a car on our street and left a not. One panel respray - £400 at the local dealership. We suggested she try a local bodyshop instead, but she was nervous about it and preferred to use a dealership, so we sucked it up and paid the £400. It hurt, but we'd rather the money than know we'd damaged someone else's car, buggered off and left them out of pocket.
5
 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
> I’m on maximum no claims bonus and have got two cars with two policies, along with a £300 excess on the car involved in the incident. It would therefore end up costing me even more than the £700 to have it done through my insurance.

I would look at going through the insurance and then getting your costs down. Are you the main user of both cars? If you take out another policy with a high (or higher) excess the jump in premiums may not be too bad.

Cash deals after a bump can work well, but the other driver is within their rights to get it done expensively (which that is), and if that's what they want you might as well claim.
Post edited at 11:36
 planetmarshall 17 Jan 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I don't think you're being taken to the cleaners for your honesty, I think you're being taken to the cleaners for damaging someone else's property.

I think 'damaging someone else's property' is over egging it a bit. We're talking about some superficial paint damage, the car will, presumably, still work perfectly well. It's not like he put a brick through the windscreen and slashed the tyres for a laugh.

8
 hms 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

once you've contacted your insurers and let on about the accident, you can't uncontact them - the genie is out of the bottle.
 jkarran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

> I have been driving for 25 years. I drove 7.5 tonners all over Europe for years. This was my first ever at fault accident and as I already explained there were many mitigating factors at play. I have been honest and am fully prepared to do the right thing and I'm just looking for some help, not some smartarse putting me down to feel good about himself.

Best you can do really is talk it over with the guy, hope he's reasonable and ask him to get another quote or make him an offer to compensate for the loss of value (likely very little in reality but nobody likes having someone else damage their stuff especially if they keep it nice). If you're not careful there's a pretty good chance you'll just piss him off and make him intransigent. Ultimately you've probably just got to price up which is the bigger hit, £700 or 5 years no-claims discount.

A few years back when I put my partner on my policy I started paying a premium for a protected no-claims, partly because as a new ish driver she's more likely to scrape something than I am and partly so it wouldn't be an issue for us if she did. At the time I had two policies with full no-claims, one on a group 20 car so the discount was worth several grand over the time it would take to rebuild, the additional premium was about £100PA. Worth a thought for the future.
jk
 neilh 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

All I can say it that the cost of repairs/paint jobs for most cars are not £50-£100. So yes something that looks minor usually costs more than you think.

I would just pass it to your insurers and let them sort it out.
 MonkeyPuzzle 17 Jan 2017
In reply to planetmarshall:

> I think 'damaging someone else's property' is over egging it a bit. We're talking about some superficial paint damage, the car will, presumably, still work perfectly well.

So superficial paint damage isn't damage? What?
2
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
> I wonder how many people would either pay out of their own pocket or lose their no claims bonus if they put a tiny scratch on their own car.

Or ask them how much they would be prepared to pay to have a tiny scratch of their own doing on their own car repaired. The answers would tell us what the true value of not having a scratch is rather than what money grubbing scumbags are prepared to extort from other people just because they can.
Post edited at 12:17
5
 planetmarshall 17 Jan 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> So superficial paint damage isn't damage? What?

Well that's obviously not what I said. I can repost it here if it helps,

> I think 'damaging someone else's property' is over egging it a bit.

In other words, I think your phrasing exaggerates the seriousness of the damage.
 Nevis-the-cat 17 Jan 2017

Firstly, good effort on leaving a note, too many people would have just buggered off.

Cars are an emotive subject - for some it's just plastic and metal, for others, it's the pride and joy. You're not to know which camp the Yaris owner falls in so it is only right you left a note.

As to the repair, most dealers will take a view on minor scuffs and scratches, so the argument it kills value on an 11 year old car is not really that strong. A pal of mine runs a smart repairs business, and most of his clients are the dealerships having smart repairs done to used cars they are putting on the forecourt. if it's good enough for a 15 plate approved used XF or 6 Series, it's good enough for a Yaris.

I would source a couple of quotes - one form a smart repairer and the other a more mainstream bodyshop (not a dealership).
Post edited at 11:59
 planetmarshall 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> Cars are an emotive subject - for some it's just plastic and metal, for others, it's the pride and joy. You're not to know which camp the Yaris owner falls in...

Isn't that a reason to just let the insurers sort it out? At least then you know you'll be dealt with impartially and don't have to deal with someone who thinks their 10 year old Yaris is a Bugatti.
 Al_Mac 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Sadly, paintwork is expensive on cars and, to do a proper job, you do need to blow in other panels. On some cars this may mean a full door and then a small bit into each of the surrounding panels, whereas on other cars you may be able to get away with taking it to a mould or swage line that will naturally change the colouration of the paint and make the blend much neater. Prep is expensive, as is the equipment and the paint (modern water based rather than 2pk paints especially so). Smart repairers get around this by localising the repair and only doing a small amount of repainting but these are not proper repairs and I wouldn't choose to have one done on a car I cared about as they usually stick out a mile. That said, for the average person in the street this is perfectly acceptable as the average person really doesn't care much about their own car, let alone anyone else's. £700 is probably on the upper end of what you'd expect and sounds like it's a main dealer or high end bodyshop. Personally I'd say £4-500 would be more reasonable from an average 'shop but again, that depends on where in the country you're based.

It's interesting to read some of the attitudes here when those same posters get so worked up about people marking holds, or chipping, or bolting, or any number of potential infractions into their self-set book of climbing ethics. But of course a car can't matter to anyone because you don't view them as anything other than a box on wheels that makes getting somewhere easier. Heaven forbid that someone else has a differing view and asks you to respect that...
In reply to jkarran:

> Ultimately you've probably just got to price up which is the bigger hit, £700 or 5 years no-claims discount.

To be truthfull I don't know how it works. I've got two policies, each around £250 per year fully comp and on maximum no claims which I understand to amounts to around 66% discount. So I believe that if I lose both those no claims discounts that will mean another £500 per year approx on each policy plus the £300 excess on the car involved, adding up to around £1300 in total. Does that seem correct?

 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> Cars are an emotive subject - for some it's just plastic and metal, for others, it's the pride and joy. You're not to know which camp the Yaris owner falls in.

If there was a way of knowing how much the owner would be prepared to pay themselves if they had made the scratch, then that should be the maximum amount anybody else should have to cough up.
3
 Nevis-the-cat 17 Jan 2017
In reply to planetmarshall:

Yes and no.

If Gerry has full NCB - so say 9yrs, on a reasonable car, and it is not protected (not that really means much) he could lose well over £700 in just one year, but more likely 2 or 3.

Since it's paint and there's no bent metal, trying to do it using ££ seems sensible. Problem with using insurers is many farm out the claim to claims handlers, who want their ££, refer it onto lawyers and ambulance chasers for a referral fee (yes, even for paint) and then it all gets a bit Kafka....
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Cloverleaf:

> But of course a car can't matter to anyone because you don't view them as anything other than a box on wheels that makes getting somewhere easier. Heaven forbid that someone else has a differing view and asks you to respect that...

but there is something odd about people's attitude to. I don't think anybody gets worked up about scratches on, say, washing machines. Well maybe the odd real weirdo does.....
4
 jkarran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

> To be truthfull I don't know how it works. I've got two policies, each around £250 per year fully comp and on maximum no claims which I understand to amounts to around 66% discount. So I believe that if I lose both those no claims discounts that will mean another £500 per year approx on each policy plus the £300 excess on the car involved, adding up to around £1300 in total. Does that seem correct?

Not quite, that's only in the first year, there will be a further 3-5 years of 'inflated' premiums to pay depending upon your insurer to rebuild full value of the discount you currently have. They seem to increment at 10-15% off per year to a max of 50-70%. Some insurers may also respect the no-claim-discount on one policy despite the claim on the other, you'd have to check to be sure. Chances are £700 cash is actually still 'cheap'
jk
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> If Gerry has full NCB - so say 9yrs, on a reasonable car, and it is not protected (not that really means much) he could lose well over £700 in just one year, but more likely 2 or 3.

It's worse than that as I've got two cars and thus two policies both on full NCB.



 ebygomm 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


Yes, doesn't take much on that age car for insurance to decide it is a total loss cat d write off.
 Al_Mac 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

But is it? Playing devils advocate here, isn't it strange that people get so worked up about holds being altered or bolts drilled into a lump of rock in a quarry when the whole face is itself manufactured? I recall the argument for trad ethics (which I agree with btw) is that in general this doesn't damage the rock, whereas bolting does, and therefore the impact of trad is negligible whereas the impact of chipping/bolting does have an impact. Surely being careful around other people's property doesn't take any effort and leaves no negative impact whereas being careless, whether wilfully or otherwise, does potentially have a negative impact on someone who's property becomes damaged.

With cars it's a massively expensive purchase, and many people like to keep expensive purchases in good condition. Also, cars are a far more emotive object than a fridge to some (many); whether you do or don't find that to be the case with you is irrelevant. Many people do, and that has to be respected.
 gethin_allen 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

£700 is steep whichever way you look at it. Giving an example of 3 car bumps, 2 I was responsible and one that was a friends car that got crashed into.
1) brand new galaxy hire car, mangled wing replaced and sprayed with metalic paint etc. done by europecar so certainly not on the cheap, £630.

2) lotus exige in metalic silver, scrape down the side in.c real wheel arch and door. repaired by a private company with some decals bough in. The car was a "pride and joy" case so I doubt he accepted a shonky job. £285

3) BMW Z3 with dented and scratched door + smashed window. as with example 2 £300.

So unless you're not telling the whole truth about the severity of the scratch there's something slightly amiss.

I'd explain to this person that the costs are excessive and offer him £350 on the basis that this is probably twice what he'll lose in value or he could get an independent to do the job for this. With the cash in hand I doubt the owner will ever get the car repaired and will eventually flog it for pennies in a few years when it starts failing MOTs
 John_Hat 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
There's something here that's kind of niggling at me.

I'm not sure all the back-patting about being "honest" is relevent really and its kind of dispiriting that you're making a big thing of it and also that others are congratualting you. You didn't commit a criminal offence and drive off. You appear to be congratulating yourself and others congratulating you for not doing something morally and criminally wrong. This - to me - appears a massively skewed set of values. Sorry.

In my view you are the guilty party. The guy you hit has to go to multiple paint shops, he has to get multiple quotes, he has to spend his time and his money to rectify something that was inflicted on him - NONE of which time or money he will be compensated for.

If I was offered a few hundred quid for a repair that I was quoted £700 for, after doing a lot of running around in my spare time to try and get a lower quote for benefit of the person who did the damage in the first place, I'd be getting a bit frustrated and contact my insurance company.

The power is in the hands of the other party here. They have the ability to make it an insurance job, and cost you a lot of money. Hence you need to make them a happy person, and make life as easy as possible for them.

Incidentally, for what its worth, a scrape on my bumper and wing cost £1200 to repair.
Post edited at 13:08
7
 JMarkW 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

I'd be tempted to inform the other driver that if its going to cost £700 you would prefer to go down the insurance route and that if that's the case that they will also need to declare this when renewing their own insurance which may increase their own excess - even though they were not to blame.

all the best
cheers
mark
3
In reply to gethin_allen:

> So unless you're not telling the whole truth about the severity of the scratch there's something slightly amiss.

Of course I'm telling the whole truth. If I was the kind of person to be dishonest I wouldn't have left a note in the first place would I.

In reply to John_Hat:

> There's something here that's kind of niggling at me.

> I'm not sure all the back-patting about being "honest" is relevent really and its kind of dispiriting that you're making a big thing of it and also that others are congratualting you. You didn't commit a criminal offence and drive off. You appear to be congratulating yourself and others congratulating you for not doing something morally and criminally wrong. This - to me - appears a massively skewed set of values. Sorry.

I have had my own cars scratched or scraped a number of times over the years with no notes ever left. Everybody I have spoken to has told me I should have just driven off. Even my sister who is a school headmistress and goes to church every Sunday has admitted to twice scraping somebody else's car and driving off. I hope the next time you're out in your car you end up hitting somebody else's car and you can see if you're quite as holier than than thou as you claim to be. If you've got nothing helpful to offer just keep out of it.
14
In reply to jkarran:

> Not quite, that's only in the first year, there will be a further 3-5 years of 'inflated' premiums to pay depending upon your insurer to rebuild full value of the discount you currently have. They seem to increment at 10-15% off per year to a max of 50-70%. Some insurers may also respect the no-claim-discount on one policy despite the claim on the other, you'd have to check to be sure. Chances are £700 cash is actually still 'cheap'

I don't doubt what you're saying but it's still shocking isn't it? How can they get away with it? I thought the whole point of paying insurance premiums year after year was that it doesn't cost you the earth when you have an accident.

In reply to hms:

> once you've contacted your insurers and let on about the accident, you can't uncontact them - the genie is out of the bottle.

Does this mean I could end up losing my no claims even if it doesn't go through my insurance in the end?
 Indy 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

> I thought the whole point of...

You thought wrong then.
1
In reply to John_Hat:

> In my view you are the guilty party. The guy you hit has to go to multiple paint shops, he has to get multiple quotes, he has to spend his time and his money to rectify something that was inflicted on him - NONE of which time or money he will be compensated for.

Wrong again. I sent the guy £20 the day after the incident to cover his petrol costs for getting quotes.
2
 John_Hat 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

OK, you're stressed and upset, and need good news right now. FWIW, I'd never just drive off. Not just that its simply wrong, but because it's a criminal offence and by the time the police have got involved and my insurance company have got annoyed as I didn't report it, it would end up costing me a hell of a lot more than it would have if I'd just fessed up.

If your experience has differed then that's a shame, and obviously colours your views of the matter.

Peace
 Tricky Dicky 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

As others have said Gerry, try to get some more quotes. My six your old son crashed his bike into somebodies newish Jaguar, leaving a nasty scratch. We fessed up and the respray was about £200 (they did a good job as well).

I once reversed out of a space and misjudged the distance to a brick wall, bringing the whole wall down! I was visiting somebody in the building and told the receptionists what had happened. Initially they went a bit nuts and wanted my insurance details etc, but the chap I was visiting sorted out a couple of brickies to rebuild it as part of another job they were doing, so it cost be nowt.

Well done for being so honest, despite what some others are saying
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:

> The guy you hit has to go to multiple paint shops, he has to get multiple quotes, he has to spend his time and his money to rectify something that was inflicted on him.

No he doesn't have to. He could make the world a slightly nicer place by saying "Not to worry, it's only a scratch". I'd like to think that this is what most people would do.
5
 MonkeyPuzzle 17 Jan 2017
In reply to planetmarshall:

>> > I think 'damaging someone else's property' is over egging it a bit.

> In other words, I think your phrasing exaggerates the seriousness of the damage.

It does if you insert words I've not used like 'purposefully' or 'seriously', but you'll notice I've not used either of those. Unintentional damage is still damage and the effect on the other person's car is the same.
1
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Cloverleaf:

> I recall the argument for trad ethics (which I agree with btw) is that in general this doesn't damage the rock, whereas bolting does, and therefore the impact of trad is negligible whereas the impact of chipping/bolting does have an impact.

That is not the the main (or even a minor) argument for trad ethics at all.
The analogy with cars is completely spurious.
 Rick Graham 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No he doesn't have to. He could make the world a slightly nicer place by saying "Not to worry, it's only a scratch". I'd like to think that this is what most people would do.

Exactly. Done just that several times myself.

But TBH I did once pull a driver out of his van once after he did not stop immediately when I thought he had creased my car.
Just as well he was not wearing a seat belt
J1234 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Well done for being honest.

From reading this thread it is so easy to see why lawyers make plenty of money.
Its an owd lump, slap some paint on, whats it matter.
Its my pride and joy, it must be as it was before.

Both valid opinions and both contradictory.

You have said your car is really long a couple of times and I keep visualising you in one of these http://www.victorycars.com/carimages/duesenberg%20spdstrRondrside1.jpg

 ScottTalbot 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

To be fair, if it was me, I'd be getting a quote from Toyota and the price would be the price. If you can't drive a long car, get a Mini.
2
 Dave Garnett 17 Jan 2017
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> To be fair, if it was me, I'd be getting a quote from Toyota and the price would be the price. If you can't drive a long car, get a Mini.

Or you could get a quote from our local guy who charged me £60 for taking a horrible deep scratch (almost certainly deliberate) out of the bonnet of my Audi.
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> To be fair, if it was me, I'd be getting a quote from Toyota and the price would be the price.

Bollocks. The price is what you pay. I bet, that if it was you who had damaged your own car, you would pay Dave's guy £60 if you could rather than £700 for an equally good repair. So why be a complete vindictive arse and penalise Gerry unnecessarily for an honest mistake he has owned up to?

6
 Al_Mac 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

You won't lose your no claims as such, as you won't have made a claim, but you need to be careful when disclosing 'accidents or incidents in the last X years, regardless of fault', which despite not impacting your no claims does still cause your base premium to rise (your discount will still apply, but on a higher starting point). Obviously the fault in this case is inarguable but I'd be wary. I was hit by a guy in a van years ago who did minor damage but because he then drove off and then refused to acknowledge he'd done it, despite half a dozen witnesses to the contrary (and also damaging other vehicles) I ended up claiming through my insurance on his. This didn't impact my no claims but did cause my premiums to rise. In hindsight I should have just paid out of my own pocket as a) the increase in premiums over four years totalled more than the repair would have cost and b) the repair looked like it was done by Stevie Wonder and grated every time I looked at the car until I sold it on several years later.
 Rob Exile Ward 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

You really don't get it do you? If you don't agree with people's values, like valuing their cars, washing machines, motorbikes, or whatever, that's fine (though it's actually a pathetically juvenile, superficial and ultimately nihilistic position that most of us ex-hippies grew out of when we were oh, I don't know, in a position to start having nice things ourselves.)

What isn't fine is to impose that value system on somebody's property that you have just damaged through your carelessness. There is no sensible alternative to making good the damage; this whole thread should only be about he gets the victim's property back to the state it was before, through no fault of his own, it got damaged because of someone else's actions. Property rights, mate; arguably the foundation of Western civilisation. (And though you might not entirely approve it's one hell of a lot better than any alternatives that have been proposed to date.)

2
 Rick Graham 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Cloverleaf:

> You won't lose your no claims as such, as you won't have made a claim, but you need to be careful when disclosing 'accidents or incidents in the last X years, regardless of fault', which despite not impacting your no claims does still cause your base premium to rise (your discount will still apply, but on a higher starting point). Obviously the fault in this case is inarguable but I'd be wary. I was hit by a guy in a van years ago who did minor damage but because he then drove off and then refused to acknowledge he'd done it, despite half a dozen witnesses to the contrary (and also damaging other vehicles) I ended up claiming through my insurance on his. This didn't impact my no claims but did cause my premiums to rise. In hindsight I should have just paid out of my own pocket as a) the increase in premiums over four years totalled more than the repair would have cost and b) the repair looked like it was done by Stevie Wonder and grated every time I looked at the car until I sold it on several years later.

F ing insurance industry.
Having to declare windscreen claims every renewal. Easier to pay for it yourself. £120 well spent and no hassle, worth it over £80 excess and hassle.
Wife had an accident over 20 years ago, not her fault of course. Got price from local garage, said I needed two for insurance, rang other garage in front of me to agree what price the other garage would quote and he could get the next job. About three times as much as arranging my own repair of course.
 Cú Chullain 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
> No he doesn't have to. He could make the world a slightly nicer place by saying "Not to worry, it's only a scratch". I'd like to think that this is what most people would do.

All very noble but it depends on the 'scratch' and what impact that would have on the cars resell value. Whether you like it or not the condition of a newish cars bodywork is a huge factor in determining its value. For many years I drove around in a pretty ancient car that was worth about £400, any scuffs or scratches that it picked up made little difference to its value. I now drive around in a decent midrange car that is only a few years old and is worth a decent amount, significant scratches would definitely impact on its resale value. Why should I have to 'suck up' the cost of someone else's carelessness?

Oh, and any of the its 'just a car/metal box' brigade can f*ck right off.
Post edited at 16:31
2
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Cú Chullain:
> Whether you like it or not the condition of a newish cars bodywork is a huge factor in determining its value.

The car in question is ten years old.

> Oh, and any of the its 'just a car/metal box' brigade can f*ck right off.

But it is.
Post edited at 16:40
9
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> If you don't agree with people's values, like valuing their cars, washing machines, motorbikes, or whatever, that's fine.

> What isn't fine is to impose that value system on somebody's property that you have just damaged through your carelessness.

I agree. I'm not imposing my value system on anyone else. That doesn't mean I don't think their value system is shit. I have said that Gerry was right to own up and that he should pay.

I just think it is a sad state of affairs that we live in society where insurance premiums etc are inflated by such a culture of materialism. The only people having anything imposed on them are those of us who have no choice but to pay higher insurance premiums because of this culture.

As I said, I just think the world would be a happier place if everyone adopted the "Don't worry, it's only a scratch" attitude (we'd all pay less insurance, not have the hassle of estimates and garage visits, and cars would maintain their value according to their actual usefulness).
Post edited at 16:54
4
 Nevis-the-cat 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Cú Chullain:


> Oh, and any of the its 'just a car/metal box' brigade can f*ck right off.

Agreed.

Just as most people will be perplexed when faced with that old photo of Jerry Moffat, with his Daily Mail sad face, complaining (rightly) about Hairless being chipped.

One man's Dacia Sandero is another man's Downhill Racer.
 Rob Exile Ward 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

'I thought the whole point of paying insurance premiums year after year was that it doesn't cost you the earth when you have an accident.'

The main point of car insurance premiums is that when you are *really* careless and run over a cyclist or brain damage a child there's money in the pot for the lifetime of care that they will need. Everything else is froth really.
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> The main point of car insurance premiums is that when you are *really* careless and run over a cyclist or brain damage a child there's money in the pot for the lifetime of care that they will need. Everything else is froth really.

Of course it is. But stuff like that is really rare while scratches are common. I wonder, as a matter of interest, what proportion of the total cost of car insurance payouts are for cosmetic damage.
Post edited at 17:50
1
 Shapeshifter 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Another vote for Chips Away - it will be well cheaper than a garage if it really is just a scuff/scratch. I had a scuff on the door - local garage were after £900 - Chips Away was about £200 from memory.
 pec 17 Jan 2017
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
8
 Robert Durran 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Obviously a very polarising issue. I'd put money on the "it's only a metal box" faction being mostly proper climbers and the "pride and joy" faction being mostly closet mountain bikers. Just a hunch.
4
In reply to Robert Durran:
How witty.
sebastian dangerfield 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> P.s. The people suggesting you might be able to squirm out of it because it's an old car/it was private property etc, they're scummers. Put it down to experience and learn to park more carefully.

If anyone's a scummer it's the guy with the scratched car. Clearly if he'd scratched his sixteen hundred pound old car himself he wouldn't pay £700 to get it resprayed. So asking someone else to pay that much isn't nice. Also clearly, the idea that he's taking the £700 because of the resale value is disingenuous at best. If he were an honest and good man, he'd take the cost of a touch up job plus a reasonable estimate of the loss of value.


5
sebastian dangerfield 17 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> in a position to start having nice things ourselves.

And there you have it - you've gone through life taking whatever attitude suits you/you can afford at the time

> What isn't fine is to impose that value system on somebody's property that you have just damaged through your carelessness.

Why is it okay to impose your value system?

>There is no sensible alternative to making good the damage;

Yes there is. If I got a small scratch on my car I'd never think of making someone pay £700 for it, because I wouldn't pay £700 for it if I did it myself. I'd take cost of a touch up and reasonable impact on resale value if anything.

> Property rights, mate; arguably the foundation of Western civilisation.

Property rights are most definitely over all a good thing. But.. 1. you can do them in different ways and the question of reasonableness can be involved which is quite subjective. 2. Just because you have a right, it doesn't make it morally acceptable to enforce it. Certainly property rights don't necessarily imply that your side of the argument's correct.
Post edited at 00:02
1
 ScottTalbot 18 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
> If anyone's a scummer it's the guy with the scratched car. Clearly if he'd scratched his sixteen hundred pound old car himself he wouldn't pay £700 to get it resprayed. So asking someone else to pay that much isn't nice. Also clearly, the idea that he's taking the £700 because of the resale value is disingenuous at best. If he were an honest and good man, he'd take the cost of a touch up job plus a reasonable estimate of the loss of value.

What about his loss of time getting quotes? What about his lack of a vehicle for a couple of days while the body shop has it?

In my opinion the guy hasn't thought it through at all... He should just put it through the insurance. That way he'd get the use of a hire car at Gerry's expense.

I know I sound a little harsh here, but it really pisses me off when people bang on about it being an old car, so the guy should just suck it up!? Maybe a 16 year old car is all he can afford. Why shouldn't he be able to keep it in good condition?

I'm sure Gerry's done the decent thing because he's a decent chap and not because there were witnesses... Yes, I'm that cynical.
Post edited at 00:11
3
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Gerry, don't wrestle with pigs in shit, i.e. the profile-less Sir Chasm.
They love it, you end up smelling of shit!!!
sebastian dangerfield 18 Jan 2017
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> What about his loss of time getting quotes? What about his lack of a vehicle for a couple of days while the body shop has it?

He can work what's reasonable... if he genuinely would get the car resprayed if he'd done it himself then fine. But he wouldn't.

This isn't directed at you in particular, but I find your side of the argument to be pretty selfish and cynical. Makes me a bit sad for society and you all. You'd all be happier if you were nicer more generous people.
2
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to ScottTalbot:
> Maybe a 16 year old car is all he can afford. Why shouldn't he be able to keep it in good condition?

Because it makes f*ck all difference to its utility or resale value. Well he can if he really wants, but it shouldn't be by what is effectively extortion.
Post edited at 00:27
8
 DancingOnRock 18 Jan 2017
Go through the insurance.

They'll write the car off by the sounds of it, or tell him some home truths.
1
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> If anyone's a scummer it's the guy with the scratched car. Clearly if he'd scratched his sixteen hundred pound old car himself he wouldn't pay £700 to get it resprayed. So asking someone else to pay that much isn't nice. Also clearly, the idea that he's taking the £700 because of the resale value is disingenuous at best. If he were an honest and good man, he'd take the cost of a touch up job plus a reasonable estimate of the loss of value.

That’s one way to look at it I suppose. But all we know (rather than imagine) is that the chap had his car carelessly damaged by Gerry, he got a quote to repair the damage and Gerry doesn’t like the quote. If Gerry wants to avoid troubling his insurance company he can pay, or offer less than the only quote we have and hope the chap accepts. At the moment we don’t know what the cost of a touch up is or whether the bloke would accept it.
As to whether the bloke would pay to have his car resprayed if he’d damaged it himself, we don’t know. For me, if I damage my car I decide whether to repair, bodge or ignore it, and if someone else damages my car I still decide whether it gets repaired, bodged or ignored. The fact that I may have gaffer-taped the bumper back together after hitting a sheep doesn’t mean I wouldn’t make you pay if you ran into me and caused the same damage.
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> The fact that I may have gaffer-taped the bumper back together after hitting a sheep doesn’t mean I wouldn’t make you pay if you ran into me and caused the same damage.

Which you are entitled to do but which, in my book, makes you a bit of a shit. Good luck with your conscience.
Post edited at 09:21
12
 Rob Exile Ward 18 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

'Property rights are most definitely over all a good thing. But.. 1. you can do them in different ways and the question of reasonableness can be involved which is quite subjective. 2. Just because you have a right, it doesn't make it morally acceptable to enforce it. Certainly property rights don't necessarily imply that your side of the argument's correct.'

No and as I said before, if you can formulate a law that incorporates common sense, fairness, subjectivity and sweet reason in a way that doesn't at the same time allow the less socially responsible members of society to drive a coach and horses through it, (or play dodgems in the local Tesco car park, and get away by saying 'Oh it's only a few scratches, get over it'), I'll be entirely up for it.

But you won't be able to. So you will be left with the perfectly reasonable proposition that if you damage somebody else's property, you are obliged to make good the damage. And £700 is what a professional repairer, with all their investment in premises, staff, training, equipment and so on will cost. You could I suppose try offering the victim say, £300 to spend as they wish; they could get a patch, and be a few quid in pocket to make up for the inconvenience and depreciation to their car; but it's their car, and the law is on their side.
 ScottTalbot 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
Why does it make him a shit? If people were penalised more for being careless, maybe they'd learn to be less careless.

For me personally, I wouldn't be able to justify the cost of repairing it myself, as I prefer to eat. Does that mean i should just except any damage caused by careless drivers who don't give a crap about other people's property?

If you had a brand new Mercedes and someone carelessly opened their car door into the side of your car whilst you were sat in it, would you just roll your eyes and leave it at that? After all, it's always going to happen. It's impossible to keep any car in pristine condition, purely because people are careless/self centered.
Post edited at 09:57
 pec 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> The fact that I may have gaffer-taped the bumper back together after hitting a sheep doesn’t mean I wouldn’t make you pay if you ran into me and caused the same damage. >

Then I'm sorry Sir, but you are a selfish ****

10
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> Why does it make him a shit?

Because he clearly doesn't think the repair is worth the money but is prepared to make somebody else pay just because he can. He is a shit.

> Does that mean i should just except any damage caused by careless drivers who don't give a crap about other people's property?

Who said Gerry or anybody else doesn't give a crap about other people's property..... FFS.....

> If you had a brand new Mercedes and someone carelessly opened their car door into the side of your car whilst you were sat in it, would you just roll your eyes and leave it at that?

Anybody owning a brand new Mercedes would almost certainly be able to afford and would pay for the repair their self if they had caused the damage themselves and it would be worth doing so to maintain the resale value. It would therefore be reasonable to expect Gerry to pay too.
3
 pec 18 Jan 2017
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> Why does it make him a shit? If people were penalised more for being careless, maybe they'd learn to be less careless. >

Or maybe they'd just be more likely to bugger off and not leave a note when the cost is going to be grossly disproportionate to the "offence" committed and "damage" caused.

> If you had a brand new Mercedes and someone carelessly opened their car door into the side of your car whilst you were sat in it, would you just roll your eyes and leave it at that? After all, it's always going to happen. It's impossible to keep any car in pristine condition, purely because people are careless/self centered. >

Well if we had a sensible system that capped the cost for purely cosmetc damage to say 10% of the car's value then the swanky Merc driver has nothing to worry about, £5k gets a lot of respray. But people in 10 year old runabouts with scuffs and scratches all over them already can't take you to the cleaners for "damage" which has bugger all impact on the resale value of their car, they'd get a couple of hundred quid to touch up the actual damage, not get the whole panel resprayed to showroom condition.

 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Which you are entitled to do but which, in my book, makes you a bit of a shit. Good luck with your conscience.

Meh, I’m a massive shit . But I take responsibility for my mistakes rather than expecting others to clean up.
Have a like though, it’s good to get things off your chest.
1
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to pec:

> Then I'm sorry Sir, but you are a selfish ****

No need to apologise.
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Because he clearly doesn't think the repair is worth the money but is prepared to make somebody else pay just because he can. He is a shit.

What if I haven't got the money? If I can't afford to repair my bumper when I damage it you wouldn't have to pay me if you damage it? Hmm, apparently I might not be the only shit here.

 John_Hat 18 Jan 2017
In reply to pec:
> Then I'm sorry Sir, but you are a selfish ****

Why? That appears an amazingly harsh statement given we are talking about something I thought was just basic courtesy.

If I damage my own property because I am careless then I have a choice whether to replace, repair or ignore. I may decide on any of the above depending on my own financial situation at the time. Repairing the boiler may have greater import than sorting the car.

If I damage someone else's property because I am careless I have an obligation to make good the damage, and recompense my victim for any time and expense that they have incurred because I am careless. They did not choose to have their property damaged by me.

Or, to put it another way:

If I drop my own pint because I am careless then I may - or may not - go back to the bar and queue to replace it.

If I knock someone else's pint over I offer to replace it for them, and that includes going to the bar and queueing to get it. That's common courtesy. This applies whether they have half a pint left, or a brim-full one. I put them back in the same position - or better - as if I had not been careless.

If someone else knocks my pint over I expect them to exhibit the same common courtesy and offer to replace my pint, including going to the bar and queuing.

I may - or may not - depending on my current level of thirst - say "don't worry mate". But I would expect the offer, and I would also expect them not to have a problem if I said "thanks, it'll be a pint of Thatcher's".
Post edited at 10:28
 pec 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> The fact that I may have gaffer-taped the bumper back together after hitting a sheep . . . >

Just out of interest, did you make a point of tracing the farmer who's sheep you hit and offer to pay him for the loss of his livestock, or if it was only injured to pay the vets bills to bring it back to 'mint' condition
1
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to pec:

> Just out of interest, did you make a point of tracing the farmer who's sheep you hit and offer to pay him for the loss of his livestock, or if it was only injured to pay the vets bills to bring it back to 'mint' condition

Yes, we agreed he wouldn't charge me for the sheep and I wouldn't charge him for my bumper.
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Meh, I’m a massive shit .

Evidently.

> But I take responsibility for my mistakes rather than expecting others to clean up.

As has Gerry and as would anyone who is not a shit (nobody is saying he should have done a runner).
But only a shit would actually make him pay for a cosmetic scratch to an old banger.


2
 Mike Stretford 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Hmm, apparently I might not be the only shit here.

I think it's more a case that you're both pointlessly throwing shit at each other.

Gerry's made a mistake and had a bit of bad luck.... many people would take a few hundred quid on an 06 car, I would. One way or other he's going to take the hit financially, was shocked by the costs, and fancied a moan. You and Robert are at poles apart on this and could argue for ever but it would be nice to leave Gerry out of it now.
 Rob Exile Ward 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

'Anybody owning a brand new Mercedes would almost certainly be able to afford and would pay for the repair their self if they had caused the damage themselves and it would be worth doing so to maintain the resale value. It would therefore be reasonable to expect Gerry to pay too. '

Wow - one law for the rich - who can afford nice cars - and one law for the poor - who can't! Well, being modestly well off I'm all for it, where do I sign up?
 Rob Exile Ward 18 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:

Oh Christ, he hadn't been drinking had he???!!
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Evidently.

> As has Gerry and as would anyone who is not a shit (nobody is saying he should have done a runner).

> But only a shit would actually make him pay for a cosmetic scratch to an old banger.

Now he doesn't have to pay anything? Fascinating.
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> If I can't afford to repair my bumper when I damage it..........

If the cosmetic repair is worth doing (ie it increases the resale value of the car by as much as the cost of repairing it), then it would be worth borrowing the money
3
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Wow - one law for the rich - who can afford nice cars - and one law for the poor - who can't! Well, being modestly well off I'm all for it, where do I sign up?

Not at all. Just payment in line with the decrease in value of the car if the repair is not done. Whether it is a Mercedes that a poorish person has spent their life savings on or an old banger that a billionaire chooses to drive around in.
2
 John_Hat 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Oh Christ, he hadn't been drinking had he???!!

 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Now he doesn't have to pay anything? Fascinating.

He should pay for the decrease in value of the car and reasonable costs for inconvenience. In the case of an old banger, this might well be nothing.
1
 DancingOnRock 18 Jan 2017
In reply to pec:

There used to be and may still be a 'betterment clause' in insurance policies.

Essentially if the repair results in the car being worth more after the damage has been repaired then the insurance company will not pay that extra part.

So if the car is worth £1000 because the other panels are scratched and worn (obviously they are as he needs the side resprayed), if the work costs £700 and the car is then worth £1500 as a result of the respray, the insurance will only pay £200 towards the work.

Hand it to your insurance and let them argue it. Ultimately he may also have a large excess and decide not to proceed.
 ScottTalbot 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
The resale value is immaterial. I'm not looking to sell my car, I'm looking to keep it in good condition for as long as possible.

Basically, you seem to feel that the serf should just tug his forlock and smile benignly. Is that accurate?
Post edited at 11:52
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> If the cosmetic repair is worth doing (ie it increases the resale value of the car by as much as the cost of repairing it), then it would be worth borrowing the money

But if I haven't borrowed the money and repaired the damage I caused to my own property you'd feel free to damage it and not have to rectify the damage you caused? Interesting morals you have there.
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> The resale value is immaterial. I'm not looking to sell my car, I'm looking to keep it in good condition for as long as possible.

Which is your choice and has nothing to do with its monetary value, why should someone else pay for it? (note that I am not questioning your entitlement under law to make them pay, but just saying that you would be a shit to exercise that entitlement)

> Basically, you seem to feel that the serf should just tug his forlock and smile benignly. Is that accurate?

Not at all.

2
 DancingOnRock 18 Jan 2017
In reply to ScottTalbot:

It's all about resale value. It's the only measure of what the car is worth. Whatever you think it may be worth has little bearing unless you can get the insurance company to agree that it's better than A1 condition. In which case you should agree that with them before insuring it as they won't be insuring it for anything over what the book price is.
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> But if I haven't borrowed the money and repaired the damage I caused to my own property you'd feel free to damage it and not have to rectify the damage you caused? Interesting morals you have there.

If by that you mean that if you don't think its worth repairing then you shouldn't expect me to repair it, then yes.
4
 MG 18 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:
> If I damage someone else's property because I am careless I have an obligation to make good the damage, and recompense my victim for any time and expense that they have incurred because I am careless.

It's not really carelessness though so much as luck. Everyone knows that the average driver will occasionally make a mistake. If you use a car on the road, you know occasionally you will be on the receiving end of such mistakes. In this case insisting that your gold-plated Rolls(*) is repaired to perfection at an arbitrarily high cost at the Rolls approved gold finishing garage is perverse. You took the risk of putting it on the road, you should shoulder the cost above basic repairs to restore functionality.

(*) other penis extensions available.
Post edited at 12:21
6
 wercat 18 Jan 2017
In reply to pec:
a mile or so from here loose sheep caused a fatal accident to a moped rider. What makes you know that the farmer wasn't in part responsible?
Post edited at 13:06
1
 John_Hat 18 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

> You took the risk of putting it on the road, you should shoulder the cost above basic repairs to restore functionality.

Really?

So someone buys a new car for, say, 40k.

The day after it's collected by the owner, you scrape your car down the side of said car in a car park. Functionality is not impaired, it's cosmetic only.

Your view would be that there is nothing to pay for you, and if the owner wants a nice shiny car again it's their responsibility to cough up?

Really?

Unless you are posting on here as a wind-up. I am, erm, somewhat surprised at your views.

 MonkeyPuzzle 18 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:

Also, 'Cosmetic only' is a bit misleading here, as paint is a protective coat for the metal underneath, so if it's 'cosmetic only' the paint has done it's job in mostly protecting the metal underneath it, but now needs to be reapplied.

Does Gerry have a picture of the damage, as I'm sure that would help the debate?
In reply to John_Hat:
> Unless you are posting on here as a wind-up. I am, erm, somewhat surprised at your views.

Maybe not for £40K but if someone parked a £400K sports car with a carbon fibre body or a gold plated Bentley and it got scratched in a supermarket car park I don't think it's reasonable to expect a normal punter's insurance to pay the full price of restoring it. The owner of that car has created an unreasonable level of risk to other road users, its like sending a Van Gogh through the post, you can't expect the carrier to take responsibility for that kind of value.

I also don't think there should be an expectation of 'showroom condition' restoration if the car is more than a year old. It's a complete waste of time to respray one side of an average 06 car to deal with a parking nudge, the only people benefiting are insurance companies and garages. If there were some reasonable rules about what level of restoration was reasonable everyone could pay a bit less on 3rd party.
Post edited at 13:35
2
 MG 18 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:

Basically yes. I would say getting the paint done so rust doesn't affect the life of car is reasonable.

Essentially I think if you put a status symbols/works of art in a dangerous place, like a road, it is your responsibility if it meet a run-of-the-mill accident. Otherwise you are basically asking people who don't have much money and perhaps drive a small, old car, to pay for entirely foreseeable and predictable damage to your £xxx supercar.

And no, i don't know how the details of this would work but the principle seems reasonable to me.
2
 DancingOnRock 18 Jan 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It's known as fair wear and tear and is fairly well accepted what that covers.

But you are half right about an owners responsibilty to take reasonable care to make sure that highly likely events don't impact on them.

Leaving your Bentley unattended in a supermarket car park would raise a few eyebrows if you then went mad if someone accidentally bumped it with their shopping trolley. Then you'd also have your own fully comprehensive insurance, wouldn't you? Otherwise you're going to have a very hard time claiming against a pedestrian.
2
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:
> So someone buys a new car for, say, 40k.

> The day after it's collected by the owner, you scrape your car down the side of said car in a car park. Functionality is not impaired, it's cosmetic only.

> Your view would be that there is nothing to pay for you, and if the owner wants a nice shiny car again it's their responsibility to cough up?

My view would be that they should cough up whatever it takes to restore the resale value of the car (though I do think it is utterly ridiculous that a tiny scratch affects the resale value of a car by more than about 2p - but that's the pathetic materialistic society we live in unfortunately.........)

Post edited at 13:57
2
 Al_Mac 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
For someone who is clearly smart and well educated you sure as hell lack any social empathy with people who have differing views to your own. What an ignorant and judgemental statement to make. People are different, and what one person likes will be different to the next; the key is respecting that difference, something you seem to be struggling with in this scenario.

And for what it's worth, if you damaged my car then yes, I would be looking for you to pay for it to be repaired back to the condition it was in prior to your interference, which funnily enough is the same price that I would be paying if it had been me who caused the damage.
Post edited at 14:00
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Cloverleaf:
> For someone who is clearly smart and well educated you sure as hell lack any social empathy with people who have differing views to your own.

No, I am just a beacon of common sense in a materialistic world full of shits.
I would prefer to pay insurance to recompense loss of monetary value, not to compensate for nebulous sentimental or materialistic whim (if people want that covered they should have to take out a separate policy)

Oh, and I should reiterate that I would offer to pay and pay (even if the amount is far beyond what is needed to restore the resale value of the car) because that is what the law says.
Post edited at 14:18
7
 Rob Exile Ward 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

'but that's the pathetic materialistic society we live in...'

Hmm, I wonder who wrote this:

'Have recently bought a really good camera and am enjoying getting to grips with it.'

Some people might say that the writer was being pathetically materialistic, why not just use a cheap 2nd hand camera for £2?. Others might say he was taking pleasure in a beautiful artefact that was a pleasure both to look at and to use. Bit like a car, some would say.
 Al_Mac 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

Okay, so by your particular definition of common sense then I'm a shit, I get that. But by my definition common sense would suggest an element of accepting that people's opinions differ, and therefore while you may not place value on your vehicle, some (many) people do. For someone who is saying that people are too materialistic you're placing an awful lot of focus on the relative value. I don't care whether my car's worth £500 or £50k, I would still keep it in good condition. And that value shouldn't influence people's behaviour, they should have respect for other people's property regardless of it's value. That is the issue to me here. Too many people have too little respect for other people's property. Not everyone views cars as white goods, and that's been the way since the car was invented. If I was materialistic about it I'd have the latest model on finance to keep up with the people's perception of success. Instead I own something older with more character; that does not mean it's less valuable to me, and it does not mean that people have the right to say 'oh, it's over ten years old, it isn't worth anything and doesn't matter'.
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> 'but that's the pathetic materialistic society we live in...'

> Hmm, I wonder who wrote this:

> 'Have recently bought a really good camera and am enjoying getting to grips with it.'

> Some people might say that the writer was being pathetically materialistic, why not just use a cheap 2nd hand camera for £2?.

Because my good camera takes better photos.

I really don't see the problem. Are you expecting me to consider a camera any different from car? My car is a metal box for getting from A to B. My camera is a metal box for getting taking photos. I bought a good camera to take better photos. Some people buy good cars to get from A to B faster or for more aesthetic cornering or whatever.

I insure my camera like a car. If someone puts it down on a rock and scratches it, the most I would expect would be restoration to it's second hand resale value (though in fact it wouldn't bother me).
If I wanted recompense for the destruction of one of the actual photographs, I would expect to have to pay a lot more for insuring against loss of their sentimental or aesthetic value to me rather than just the paper they are printed on or the data on my laptop.
Post edited at 15:30
2
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Cloverleaf:

> Okay, so by your particular definition of common sense then I'm a shit, I get that. But by my definition common sense would suggest an element of accepting that people's opinions differ, and therefore while you may not place value on your vehicle, some (many) people do.

In which case they should pay extra for their cover.
3
 Cú Chullain 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Cloverleaf:

> Okay, so by your particular definition of common sense then I'm a shit, I get that. But by my definition common sense would suggest an element of accepting that people's opinions differ, and therefore while you may not place value on your vehicle, some (many) people do. For someone who is saying that people are too materialistic you're placing an awful lot of focus on the relative value. I don't care whether my car's worth £500 or £50k, I would still keep it in good condition. And that value shouldn't influence people's behaviour, they should have respect for other people's property regardless of it's value. That is the issue to me here. Too many people have too little respect for other people's property. Not everyone views cars as white goods, and that's been the way since the car was invented. If I was materialistic about it I'd have the latest model on finance to keep up with the people's perception of success. Instead I own something older with more character; that does not mean it's less valuable to me, and it does not mean that people have the right to say 'oh, it's over ten years old, it isn't worth anything and doesn't matter'.

Hey man, you know its just stuff right, just another metal box, you should try and boycott the consumerist culture that we live in and not be a slave to the capitalist pig advertisers.........
1
 ScottTalbot 18 Jan 2017
In reply to DancingOnRock:

On the whole, I do agree with you and as I said earlier, I'd let the insurance company handle the claim. My real gripe is with people saying that it's an old car, so the owner should just say "don't worry about it".

I even think the guy is actually pulling a bit of a fast one with having to get the entire side sprayed to match it in, as that side will then not match the rest of the car anyway. Playing devils advocate can make for an interesting debate though.
 mike123 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
"I'm just looking for some help, not some smartarse putting me down to feel good about himself."
And you ve been reading UKC how long ?
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to mike123:
> "I'm just looking for some help, not some smartarse putting me down to feel good about himself."

> And you ve been reading UKC how long ?

That's the trouble with UKC; it's been overrun by mountain bikers who are as precious about their cars as they are about their bikes. I really don't know why they don't piss off to UKMB or wherever.
Post edited at 15:49
7
 Rob Exile Ward 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

What about canoeists?
 ScottTalbot 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

What is your beef with Mountain Bikers!? They always seem decent enough to me. I'm not sure why you think ALL climbers would think the way you think!?! Climbers are generally individuals, not sheep, with their own views on the world.

 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> What about canoeists?

Not in position to comment.
2
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> What is your beef with Mountain Bikers!? They always seem decent enough to me. I'm not sure why you think ALL climbers would think the way you think!?!

Have you ever looked at a Mountain Biking magazine? it's nothing but image and shiny gadget fetishism. Yes, there is, unfortunately, some of that in climbing, but nothing like as much. I'm not saying all climbers think like me, just that there is probably a tendency for climbers to be less obsessed by material shininess than mountain bikers.
5
 ScottTalbot 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

Haha! If that was true, most of the climbing shops would've gone under long ago.
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> Haha! If that was true, most of the climbing shops would've gone under long ago.

But the climbing shops only havn't gone under because of the dog-walkers (arguably a lower form of life than mountain bikers) buying top end goretex coats.
8
 Rob Exile Ward 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

'I recently bought a sea kayak. It is very beautiful...'
 Rob Exile Ward 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
Ever considered that you might be a tad, oh, I don't know, ... judgemental? A bit Mr Angry, even?
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'I recently bought a sea kayak. It is very beautiful...'

Yes, it's a nice shape. So are some of my photographs beautiful (in my opinion). But I'm not expecting anyone else to pay to insure my kayak's beauty.
Anyway it's now well scratched (though in fact that does, unlike with a car, affect its performance).
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> Ever considered that you might be a tad, oh, I don't know, ... judgemental? A bit Mr Angry, even?

No. Just fair.
Post edited at 17:24
4
 Rick Graham 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

Now Robert, you are ignoring the well proven fact that a freshly valeted and polished car with a full tank of fuel always runs smoother.
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rick Graham:

> Now Robert, you are ignoring the well proven fact that a freshly valeted and polished car with a full tank of fuel always runs smoother.

Would it also make the doors actually lock, the engine start reliably, and, if it does, prevent the hideous rattle as it does so? Maybe removing the fetid sock that's been in the rear footwell would help anyway. Mind you, last week, finding and removing the full pee bottle that had been under the passenger seat for three weeks didn't make any difference.
 Rick Graham 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Would it also make the doors actually lock, the engine start reliably, and, if it does, prevent the hideous rattle as it does so? Maybe removing the fetid sock that's been in the rear footwell would help anyway. Mind you, last week, finding and removing the full pee bottle that had been under the passenger seat for three weeks didn't make any difference.

Have you borrowed one of my vehicles ?
In reply to Robert Durran:

> In which case they should pay extra for their cover.

You dont understand insurance do you?
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> You dont understand insurance do you?

I'm just saying that if you want more (perceived aesthetic value, resale value etc. rather than just functionality) insured, then it would be fair to pay more. Maybe that is not possible under the way insurance currently works, but in that case maybe insurance needs reforming.
3
Lusk 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Maybe removing the fetid sock that's been in the rear footwell would help anyway. Mind you, last week, finding and removing the full pee bottle that had been under the passenger seat for three weeks didn't make any difference.

That sounds like The Numnum's bedroom.
As for your picture insurance: I think you'd have fun convincing an insurance company to pay out for your photographic masterpiece, if the only copy was on the destroyed camera card!
2
 balmybaldwin 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
That's exactly what you insurance does insure..... that any damage you do to another's vehicle, property or person with your vehicle is paid for.

If someone crashed into your purely aesthetic garden wall you'd be ok if they didn't repair it I take it afterall it doesn't affect the functionality of your rain shelter does it?
Post edited at 18:44
1
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I'm just saying that if you want more (perceived aesthetic value, resale value etc. rather than just functionality) insured, then it would be fair to pay more. Maybe that is not possible under the way insurance currently works, but in that case maybe insurance needs reforming.

Thats exactly how it works. My car costs significantly less than a Lambo to insure, so whats the point. Ive read some comments upthread which really anger me.

We should all respect other's property, regardless of its value.
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Thats exactly how it works. My car costs significantly less than a Lambo to insure, so whats the point.

Yes, but it should cost more to insure a Lamborghini against cosmetic scratches than against functional damage. Any car for that matter.

4
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> If someone crashed into your purely aesthetic garden wall you'd be ok if they didn't repair it I take it afterall it doesn't affect the functionality of your rain shelter does it?

I'd like the option to pay less to insure it against functional damage (such as keeping dogs from shitting on my lawn) than to insure it against accidental cosmetic damage as well.

In reply to Robert Durran:


> Yes, but it should cost more to insure a Lamborghini against cosmetic scratches than against functional damage. Any car for that matter.

It costs more to insure the lambo regardless of the damage. Its all taken into account by the underwriters.

1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Lusk:

> As for your picture insurance: I think you'd have fun convincing an insurance company to pay out for your photographic masterpiece, if the only copy was on the destroyed camera card!

Yes, I'd expect a huge premium to insure against loss between taking the photo and downloading it to my laptop.
sebastian dangerfield 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> 'Property rights are most definitely over all a good thing. But.. 1. you can do them in different ways and the question of reasonableness can be involved which is quite subjective. 2. Just because you have a right, it doesn't make it morally acceptable to enforce it. Certainly property rights don't necessarily imply that your side of the argument's correct.'

> No and as I said before, if you can formulate a law that incorporates common sense, fairness, subjectivity and sweet reason in a way that doesn't at the same time allow the less socially responsible members of society to drive a coach and horses through it, (or play dodgems in the local Tesco car park, and get away by saying 'Oh it's only a few scratches, get over it'), I'll be entirely up for it. But you won't be able to.

You can definitely have different laws that aren't more open to abuse. For example, simply limit what people can claim for superficial damage. But that's not the point at issue here - it's about morality of the guy choosing to enforce the rights he does have as he is.

> So you will be left with the perfectly reasonable proposition that if you damage somebody else's property, you are obliged to make good the damage.

Well given the example above I'm not left with that. And 'perfectly reasonable' is entirely subjective.

> And £700 is what a professional repairer, with all their investment in premises, staff, training, equipment and so on will cost. You could I suppose try offering the victim say, £300 to spend as they wish; they could get a patch, and be a few quid in pocket to make up for the inconvenience and depreciation to their car; but it's their car, and the law is on their side.

Sure the law's on their side, but again the point at issue is whether they're right to choose to enforce the law.
Post edited at 19:55
2
 MG 18 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Thats exactly how it works. My car costs significantly less than a Lambo to insure, so whats the point. Ive read some comments upthread which really anger me.

> We should all respect other's property, regardless of its value.

So if someone drove a gold engraved car and it was scratched in a Tesco car park,you would see no problem in someone struggling to afford a 10 year old micro being expected to pay millions to repair it?
4
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> We should all respect other's property, regardless of its value.

It is possible to have every respect for somebody's property and still damage it entirely accidentally, with no more actual fault than an "act of God". So why shouldn't the person who's car is damaged insure against such damage.

1
In reply to MG:

> So if someone drove a gold engraved car and it was scratched in a Tesco car park,you would see no problem in someone struggling to afford a 10 year old micro being expected to pay millions to repair it?

What a strange argument. If you read the original post you'll notice that the op scratched it with his car. Being as it is a legal requirement to have third party insurance in the uk then if the micra driver scratched the gold car whilst driving the car then the insurance would pick up the tab, the ncd would be reduced and the insurer would foot the bill, regardless of the amount. Its how the insurance market works. What they hit would be irrelevant to their ncd and the insurer would be obliged to pay for the damange.

If the micra driver didnt have insurance then I woukd hope that they had a decent bank balance to pay for their negligence. And I would hope they were prosecuted for breaking the law and receive 6 points on their licence.

This has nothing at all to do with carelessness or wilful damage of other people's property, whether it was a gold Bentley or a rusty Micra.
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It is possible to have every respect for somebody's property and still damage it entirely accidentally, with no more actual fault than an "act of God". So why shouldn't the person who's car is damaged insure against such damage.

Scraping someone's car when parking is an act of god? You really don't like taking responsibility for your own actions.
1
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It is possible to have every respect for somebody's property and still damage it entirely accidentally, with no more actual fault than an "act of God". So why shouldn't the person who's car is damaged insure against such damage?

They can and do, its called fully comprehensive. If a car is over a certain value then this is wholly sensible as it covers the owner driving into a wall or somesuch. It is also a requirement of many insurers when a car reaches a certain arbitrary value. Some insurers say 5k and others higher. Whether they seek to claim the loss of ncd and the resulting invreased premiums from the person who damanged the car by accident is a compleyely different matter amd would very much depend on the circumstances.
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Scraping someone's car when parking is an act of god? You really don't like taking responsibility for your own actions.

That's not what I said.

This actually happened to a friend in the Cairngorm carpark: he opened the car door just as a sudden violent gust of wind caught the door and it swung open with him unable to stop it hitting and chipping a car. It is hard to see how he could be said to be at fault.
4
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> That's not what I said.

Yes it is.

> This actually happened to a friend in the Cairngorm carpark: he opened the car door just as a sudden violent gust of wind caught the door and it swung open with him unable to stop it hitting and chipping a car. It is hard to see how he could be said to be at fault.

Well, if he was paying attention he could have parked nose into the wind (gives you more shelter at the boot too, top tip for you), had a better hold of the door handle, not parked so close etc. But you blame god if you want.
3
In reply to Robert Durran:

> That's not what I said.

> This actually happened to a friend in the Cairngorm carpark: he opened the car door just as a sudden violent gust of wind caught the door and it swung open with him unable to stop it hitting and chipping a car. It is hard to see how he could be said to be at fault.

Dude. If they fail to control their vehicle in any way it is their fault. I take double care to hold car doors when its windy. That is a poor excuse and i would expect to be fully reimbursed for any damage by either the thirty party insurer, which would be possible, or from the third party themself.

The op said he was driving the car at the time so Im not sure how godly acts came into the argument. The op shoud pay out of pocket or invoke the third party clause under his legally expected UK insurance policy.
1
 MG 18 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Insurance just covers your responsibilities - they are still paid for

So you do think paying for any absurdly expensive car is fine. Fair enough. I don't and think it is a ridiculous way to set things up
Post edited at 20:28
4
In reply to MG:

> Insurance just covers your responsibilities - they are still paid for

No they are there to pay for liabilities and accidents.

> So you do think paying for any absurdly expensive car is fine. Fair enough. I don't and think it is a ridiculous way to set things up

Thats just nonsense.
 MG 18 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> No they are there to pay for liabilities and accidents.

Just magically?

> Thats just nonsense.

Err no. It's just a different opinion to yours
Post edited at 20:38
2
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Yes it is.

I said more fault than an act of God, not that it actually was an act of God.

1
In reply to MG:

No, by premiums, which is a legal requirement.
 MG 18 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> No, by premiums, which is a legal requirement.

That are paid for!!! It's not magic money from nowhere!!
 balmybaldwin 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

You can if you really want. but you are getting confused. you are not paying to insure against damage to your car (unless fully comp) you are paying to reimburse the people you hit for damage YOU have caused and you are legally obliged to do so. If you don't want your insurance to pay for repairing a Lambo, don't crash into a lambo
1
 Brass Nipples 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It is possible to have every respect for somebody's property and still damage it entirely accidentally, with no more actual fault than an "act of God". So why shouldn't the person who's car is damaged insure against such damage.

It is no good blaming God. Sorry mate it was God that did it!
3
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Lion Bakes:

> It is no good blaming God. Sorry mate it was God that did it!

Oh FFS. Why can't people read?
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> You can if you really want. but you are getting confused. you are not paying to insure against damage to your car.

I know that, but I said earlier that I would prefer a system where you did have to pay more to be protected against accidental cosmetic damage. Or, to put it another way, less if you don't give a shit about accidental scratches - you pay less and insurance companies don't have to pay up for third party scratches.
3
 Rob Exile Ward 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

Oh FFS, why can't people read? If you can formulate a law that defines what you want in a way that can't be exploited by bad people, then I will be right behind you.

But you won't be able to. The only law that makes sense is 'You damage so and so's goods, and you make good the damage.' End of.
1
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, and in the example you cited your "friend" was at fault, so suggesting it was "no more actual fault than an "act of God"" is rather an irrelevance. Maybe you could come up with a better example?
1
 Brass Nipples 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Oh FFS. Why can't people read?

Of FFS take responsibility for your actions rather than blaming a pixie at the end of your garden.
1
 MG 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Lion Bakes:
Try reading. He didnt
 Brass Nipples 18 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

> Try reading. He didnt

Lol

 MG 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Oh FFS, why can't people read? If you can formulate a law that defines what you want in a way that can't be exploited by bad people, then I will be right behind you.

No insurance liability above a value of x for cars?

1
 balmybaldwin 18 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

> Insurance just covers your responsibilities - they are still paid for

> So you do think paying for any absurdly expensive car is fine. Fair enough. I don't and think it is a ridiculous way to set things up

I certainly dont think it's fine, however Judges see it differently.

They think some one who can't prove their injured is still entitled to compo (whiplash) including a number of passengers on a London double decker bus that got hit from behind by a mini (a proper mini not these new massive minis) at approx 5 mph(think about the physics of that collision - you'd get a bigger jolt going over a pot hole). The UK is unique (at least in Europe - im not sure about the US) in this legal interpretation, and as a consequence the average cost of a claim for an RTA in the UK is 3 times as high as the Netherlands for example

When a famous footballer (Darren Bent) had his Merc AMG crashed into, instead of accepting a normal courtesy car (actually a decent 3 series was offered so not a tiny car) while his car was repaired he hired an "equivalent vehicle" through a "Accident Management" company - in this case it was and Aston Martin DB9, over an unnecessarily extended period (nearly 6 months) of hire at a cost of £500+ a day totalling nearly £70,000 (Bare in mind you can lease one for about £1500 a month). He tried to Claim this from the at fault party.

The insurance company refused to offer more than the value of said 3 series originally offered. On the basis there was no real need for a replacement vehicle as he had plenty of other cars he could use if he really "needed" a flash motor.

This went to court and originally the ruling went against Bent, but was later overturned by the court of appeal.
http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news/2127489/england-footballer...

These are the 2 biggest factors in making everyone's insurance go up (minor injury fraud and credit hire). The cost of repairing scratches is pifling in comparison.

The government really need to get a handle on this, the problem is they don't like the idea of losing all the tax revenue generated by all these people getting in on the action. Until they do, premiums will keep going up and up.
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

> No insurance liability above a value of x for cars?

What is x?
 Rob Exile Ward 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Exactly.
 MG 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I'd go for around £20k
1
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

> I'd go for around £20k

So if I run into your car my insurance pays up to £20k and your insurance covers the rest? Even though it's my fault? Nah, don't like the sound of that.
And it wouldn't help Gerry much.
 MG 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> So if I run into your car my insurance pays up to £20k and your insurance covers the rest? Even though it's my fault? Nah, don't like the sound of tha

Yep

> And it wouldn't help Gerry much.

No. That requires phase 2

In reply to MG:

> That are paid for!!! It's not magic money from nowhere!!

Well, yes. Whats your point?
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> Oh FFS, why can't people read? If you can formulate a law that defines what you want in a way that can't be exploited by bad people, then I will be right behind you.

Well it can't be much worse than a system where some shit can get £700 for a scratch on a car worth not much more than that.

> But you won't be able to.

Indeed. Maybe I'm too Idealistic and have underestimated the number of shits around.
Post edited at 22:39
2
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> What is x?

It could be a sliding scale.
 pec 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> What is x? >

Well twice already I've suggested that it be limited to 10% of the cars value for cosmetic damage (obviously mechanical damage should be repaired at cost).
That way the swanky Merc driver gets a few thousand to throw at a first class respray whilst if you scrape a 10 year old Yaris (as in the OP) then you can give him £150 to cover the "loss in value" or to spend on a bargain basement chips away repair.

2
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Well it can't be much worse than a system where some shit can get £700 for a scratch on a car worth not much more than that.

Some shit? The quote was to respray the side of a car to ensure that the scratch blended with the rest of the bodywork. Which shit are you criticising. The resale value of the car is wholly irrelevant.

You seem to lack the understanding of liability, the cost of coachworks, insurance and doing the right thing.

 John_Hat 18 Jan 2017
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> These are the 2 biggest factors in making everyone's insurance go up (minor injury fraud and credit hire). The cost of repairing scratches is pifling in comparison.

I agree with you entirely about credit hire companies. Bunch of slimey self-serving lothesome underhand scum. Oh I so wish there wasn't a swearing filter so I could put what I really think. Just imagine a page full of *********.
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Yes, and in the example you cited your "friend" was at fault, so suggesting it was "no more actual fault than an "act of God"" is rather an irrelevance. Maybe you could come up with a better example?

Ok, I'm pulling out of a parking space at Tesco when a small child runs out in front of me. To avoid killing him, I scratch your precious car.
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> You seem to lack the understanding of liability, the cost of coachworks, insurance and doing the right thing.

No, it is you who lacks and completely misunderstands morality.
Post edited at 22:54
8
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Ok, I'm pulling out of a parking space at Tesco when a small child runs out in front of me. To avoid killing him, I scratch your precious car.

Just put your foot on the brake, that's the pedal in the middle (in a manual). Perhaps you're not suited to driving, bus pass maybe?
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Just put your foot on the brake, that's the pedal in the middle (in a manual). Perhaps you're not suited to driving, bus pass maybe?

Oh FFS. I'm allowed to actually use the pedal on the right. Otherwise I'll be in the Tesco car park for ever.
2
 John_Hat 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
> No, it is you who lacks and completely misunderstands morality.

**sprays coffee across keyboard**

That's kinda an interesting comment coming from you given some of your comments on this thread.

Right, I need to find something that will clear up coffee.
Post edited at 23:09
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Some shit? The quote was to respray the side of a car to ensure that the scratch blended with the rest of the bodywork. Which shit are you criticising. The resale value of the car is wholly irrelevant.

If you look at the average 06 car a small scratch will blend in fine with the rest of the bodywork. Maybe the garage should artfully add some fake rust and a few artificial scratches so the resprayed side matches up with the non-resprayed side.

3
 Rob Exile Ward 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
F*ck me, it's hard to know where to start:

'Well it can't be much worse than a system where some shit can get £700 for a scratch on a car worth not much more than that.'

Some bloke parks his car in a car park; some other bloke, driving carelessly, hits him, and the bloke who did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG becomes 'some shit.'

And you are penalising him because, according to you, his car isn't worth much compared to expensive cars (duh!) , he's not worthy - you freely acknowledge that if it was worth more he would be entitled to more.

You really need to twiddle the knobs of your common sense meter a bit and maybe re-calibrate it?
Post edited at 23:04
1
 pjcollinson 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

How could you tell?
 John_Hat 18 Jan 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Worth mentioning here that the OP stated that the "scuffing" extended across the front wing and door, hence it might be a little more extensive than people may be thinking. Or not, obviously I don't know what people are thinking.

Post edited at 23:07
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> Some bloke parks his car in a car park; some other bloke, driving carelessly, hits him, and the bloke who did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG becomes 'some shit.'

Only after he exploits the system to extort £700 for a tiny scratch on his old banger. Anyone with couple of brain cells could see that he is totally in the moral WRONG.

> You really need to twiddle the knobs of your common sense meter a bit and maybe re-calibrate it?

No, it is the car wankers who need to get a grip of some common sense.
Post edited at 23:10
8
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Only after he exploits the system to extort £700 for a tiny scratch on his old banger. Anyone with couple of brain cells could see that he is totally in the moral WRONG.

No, as I said this morning "all we know (rather than imagine) is that the chap had his car carelessly damaged by Gerry, he got a quote to repair the damage and Gerry doesn’t like the quote. If Gerry wants to avoid troubling his insurance company he can pay, or offer less than the only quote we have and hope the chap accepts. At the moment we don’t know what the cost of a touch up is or whether the bloke would accept it.". There's no extortion, the £700 was a quote and no one has provided another quote. Ffs, can't you read?

> No, it is the car wankers who need to get a grip of some common sense.

Yes, it's always someone else at fault, you've made that clear.
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I think you may be condemning yourself to a long and frustrating old age where you are out of kilter with an ever increasing proportion of your fellow citizens.

Maybe, but I'd rather be right than a immoral, materialistic sheep.

> You may be quite correct, of course, (I don't think you are, as it happens), but you are condemning yourself to an increasingly miserable existence, Good luck.

No, all the research shows that experiences rather than material shit pave the way to happiness.

5
 wintertree 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Ok, I'm pulling out of a parking space at Tesco when a small child runs out in front of me. To avoid killing him, I scratch your precious car.

What is this car that can accelerate to child-killing speed in less than the length of a parking space, and can only be stopped by dragging it down the side of another car that it can only possibly hit at a very shallow glancing angle?

I want one - I'm pretty sure it would contain some revolutionary technology...
Post edited at 23:25
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Yes, it's always someone else at fault, you've made that clear.

Not at all. If I deliberately drive into the back of your car then it's my fault.

 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to wintertree:

> Have you ever driven a car? Serious question.

Yes. Why do you ask?
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Not at all. If I deliberately drive into the back of your car then it's my fault.

But only if you do it deliberately, as long as you do it accidentally it's not your fault
 wintertree 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Yes. Why do you ask?

I edited my question to make that clearer - the situation you describe is ludicrously impossible. When driving out of a space you stop accelerating and start braking for a hazard, you don't crash into a parked car instead... what with your speed being on the order of a mile per hour and all...
Post edited at 23:27
 Rob Exile Ward 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
'all the research shows that experiences rather than material shit pave the way to happiness.'

Well let's all hope you change soon then, because just as your 'research' predicts, your new camera and canoe haven't had made you any happier either!

(Cheap shots I know and I'm sorry, at this point this is becoming like shooting fish in a barrel and I respectfully retire.)
Post edited at 23:34
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> No, as I said this morning "all we know (rather than imagine) is that the chap had his car carelessly damaged by Gerry, he got a quote to repair the damage and Gerry doesn’t like the quote. If Gerry wants to avoid troubling his insurance company he can pay, or offer less than the only quote we have and hope the chap accepts. At the moment we don’t know what the cost of a touch up is or whether the bloke would accept it.". There's no extortion, the £700 was a quote and no one has provided another quote. Ffs, can't you read?

> Yes, it's always someone else at fault, you've made that clear.

I think you are wasting your time. Move on, RD appears to be hard of reading and of logic.
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Well let's all hope you change soon then, because just as your 'research' predicts, your new camera and canoe haven't had made you any happier either!

My camera and kayak have allowed me many happy experiences. Nothing wrong with spending money on experiences. It's spending money on stuff for the sake of stuff that makes people miserable. I'm just glad I'm not the sort of sad bastard who wastes their life fretting over tiny scratches on a car.

I'm only trying to help.

2
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to wintertree:
> I edited my question to make that clearer - the situation you describe is ludicrously impossible. When driving out of a space you stop accelerating and start braking for a hazard, you don't crash into a parked car instead... what with your speed being on the order of a mile per hour and all...

Bollocks. Child runs from right. Obvious, instinctive and most appropriate reaction is to brake AND pull to left. Possibly scarping parked car.
Post edited at 23:45
2
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Bollocks. Child runs from right. Obvious, instinctive and most appropriate reaction is to brake AND pull to right. Possibly scarping parked car.

Really? You swerve towards the child?!
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to wintertree:

> What is this car that can accelerate to child-killing speed in less than the length of a parking space.

Child receives light blow, loses balance, cracks head on kerb. Dead.
2
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Really? You swerve towards the child?!

Sorry, apoplexy related typing error. I'll edit it.
1
 Sir Chasm 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Sorry, apoplexy related typing error. I'll edit it.

I wouldn't bother, left/right, your fault/my fault, arse/elbow, you don't seem to know the difference
1
 Robert Durran 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> But only if you do it deliberately, as long as you do it accidentally it's not your fault

Not necessarily. See my hypothetical child killing incident.

1
sebastian dangerfield 18 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> But only if you do it deliberately, as long as you do it accidentally it's not your fault

except no ones really saying that
 Rob Exile Ward 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran: 'I'm just glad I'm not the sort of sad bastard who wastes their life fretting over tiny scratches on a car. '

No but you ARE a sad bastard of a different sort all the same.

And that's DEFINITELY me out.

4
 ScottTalbot 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
I hate to break it to you, but you seem to have wasted an entire day fretting over a scratch on someone else's car! Not that you're a sad Bastard or anything... :-P
Post edited at 00:14
2
sebastian dangerfield 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> 'I'm just glad I'm not the sort of sad bastard who wastes their life fretting over tiny scratches on a car. '

> No but you ARE a sad bastard of a different sort all the same.

> And that's DEFINITELY me out.... [because I'm DEFINiTELY not a sad bastard arguing on the internet and getting angry about it like that other guy ]
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> No but you ARE a sad bastard of a different sort all the same.

Maybe, but not as sad or as big a bastard as you lot.

5
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to ScottTalbot:
> I hate to break it to you, but you seem to have wasted an entire day fretting over a scratch on someone else's car! Not that you're a sad Bastard or anything... :-P

As I said, I'm only trying to help save you lot from yourselves. I feel quite good about it. Happy, in fact.
And it helped me pace my bouldering session very satisfactorily.
Post edited at 00:22
1
In reply to Robert Durran:

> As I said, I'm only trying to help save you lot from yourselves. I feel quite good about it. Happy, in fact.

No, you just came across as someone who didn't want others to enjoy their own pursuits if it didn't fit with your view of the world.
2
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> No, you just came across as someone who didn't want others to enjoy their own pursuits if it didn't fit with your view of the world.

But not all world views are equal. Take Hitler's for example. Not that I am implying that all mountain bike widget fetishishists and car wankers are as evil as architects of genocide. Just making the point that there is a moral hierarchy to these things.
5
 wintertree 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Bollocks. Child runs from right. Obvious, instinctive and most appropriate reaction is to brake AND pull to left. Possibly scarping parked car.

Total nonsense. Manoeuvring should be sufficiently slow that even if you do have such an instinctive reaction you'd brake to a stop before hitting another car.

Mind you pulling left is prettty dumb as the kid will be running faster than you are driving and will therefore be left by the time you get there...
Post edited at 08:36
1
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to wintertree:

> Total nonsense. Manoeuvring should be sufficiently slow that even if you do have such an instinctive reaction you'd brake to a stop before hitting another car.

Not if you're edging out past one of those ridiculous four wheel drive things that take up one and a half parking spaces at Tescos.
2
In reply to Robert Durran:
> But not all world views are equal. Take Hitler's for example. Not that I am implying that all mountain bike widget fetishishists and car wankers are as evil as architects of genocide. Just making the point that there is a moral hierarchy to these things.

OMG, you managed to get Hitler into a discussion about someone's car being scratched in a car park.

Let me put it a different way to bring some colour to this, although I doubt your opinion will change as you seem completely unable to take another person's point of view. I am a family man of 3 children, have a decent job and a lovely wife. I don't litter, I'm kind to animals, kind and generous to my friends and treat my work colleagues with respect and decency. I guess you could call me a decent bloke with decent values.

I also have a BMW 530d fully specd estate which I adore. It wasnt brand new when I purchased it as I couldnt afford it but it was near enough and it cost me a small fortune. I worked very hard for it and its what you could call my dream car for my social position. I probably wont get another car for about 5 years and I treat it like my 4th child. I insure it fully comprehensive, never drive over 70 on the motorway and always stick to the speed limit. In fact I get well over 40mpg for a car with 260bhp which stands as evidence that I dont drive like a hooligan. When i use public car parks I make special effort to either go to the top floor of a multi story to stay away from other thoughtless drivers who dont care if they open doors onto other people's property. I always go to the end of supermarket car parks ensuring that there is a space at each side because I know other people dont care as much about my car as I do, even though I would never dream of damaging someone else's car. I fact recently I noticed someone had done just that to my car, they dented it by getting in theirs. Do you think that I just look at that dent and think 'ah its just tin, I dont care'. No, I think 'what a f*cking selfish tw*t for doing such a thing and then driving off'. In your moral hierarchy, who has the moral high ground here, a pillock with no respect for other people because he doesnt see that people like cars or someone who happens to have a nice car but wouldnt damage others people property and not care about it. The damage incidentally is going to cost me about £250 to put right.

I should also add that I drive over 40k miles per year for work which means that I need some comfort so whilst the car is a treat, in some ways I see it as payment for the amount of time I am stuck behind the wheel.

So, oh moral teacher that you are let me spell this out. If you were parked beside my car and opened your door onto it or scratched it by careless driving and then stood by the roadside preaching morality at me then you would get much more than a bill for the repairs.

Over and out, too many bell ends on this thread for my liking.
Post edited at 09:00
4
 Sir Chasm 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Not if you're edging out past one of those ridiculous four wheel drive things that take up one and a half parking spaces at Tescos.

If you're edging out then you just put your foot on the brake and stop, no wild swerving required.
Your first example didn't back up the stupid point you were trying to make and this imaginary scenario is an even more pathetic attempt to abdicate your responsibilty to take a little care when you're driving.
1
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> I probably wont get another car for about 5 years and I treat it like my 4th child.

I'm not reading any further. Case closed. You need help. Seriously.

12
 Cú Chullain 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Not if you're edging out past one of those ridiculous four wheel drive things that take up one and a half parking spaces at Tescos.

All the supermarkets near me, including Tesco's, seem to have reconfigured their carpark markings to allow for extra space between parked cars. So you have to be a pretty crap driver if you find negotiating your car in and out of these spaces a challenge.
 Cú Chullain 19 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> I also have a BMW 530d fully specd estate


BURN HIM
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Cú Chullain:

> BURN HIM

And his children; he can't tell the difference.
7
In reply to Robert Durran:

> And his children; he can't tell the difference.

Too far dude.

You are either a tw*ttish wind up merchant, or simply a tw*t. In either case the end result is the same.
3
 timjones 19 Jan 2017
In reply to MG:

> So if someone drove a gold engraved car and it was scratched in a Tesco car park,you would see no problem in someone struggling to afford a 10 year old micro being expected to pay millions to repair it?

They wouldn't have to pay millions. They would alrady have covered the cost by paying a tiny fraction of that amount as their insurance premium.
 Rob Exile Ward 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

It's only January, so it's early days, but I think we may have a serious contender for UKC most self centred, up your own a*se post of the Year award.

Mountain bikers = Hitler. Okey Dokey.
Where does that leave oh, I don't know, people who enjoy, say, shopping for clothes every weekend? Not my bag but millions do. Worse than Hitler?

So who don't you feel superior to?
1
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Cú Chullain:

> All the supermarkets near me, including Tesco's, seem to have reconfigured their carpark markings to allow for extra space between parked cars. So you have to be a pretty crap driver if you find negotiating your car in and out of these spaces a challenge.

Ok, maybe not at Tescos, but it's easy enough to imagine driving situations where, through no fault of one's own, the choice might be between hitting a car or a child. Of course, if it were a choice between one of TheDrunkenBakers children and his BMW, I might as well go for the one which would cause least damage to my own car - almost certainly the child.

Actually, I probably shouldn't jest. I was obviously enjoying a bit of a wind up on this thread, but when someone says they treat their car like one of their own children, it seems I've brought something really pretty dark to the surface. Maybe it's time to call it a day.
5
 Oceanrower 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
> I might as well go for the one which would cause least damage to my own car - almost certainly the child.
Maybe it's time to call it a day.

That's a good idea, that hole you're digging seems to be getting very, very deep.
Post edited at 09:41
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Ok, maybe not at Tescos, but it's easy enough to imagine driving situations where, through no fault of one's own, the choice might be between hitting a car or a child. Of course, if it were a choice between one of TheDrunkenBakers children and his BMW, I might as well go for the one which would cause least damage to my own car - almost certainly the child.

> Actually, I probably shouldn't jest. I was obviously enjoying a bit of a wind up on this thread, but when someone says they treat their car like one of their own children, it seems I've brought something really pretty dark to the surface. Maybe it's time to call it a day.

Dont be such a tw*t, you know its a turn of phrase. 'treat like child (in car context) = look after it very well. Are you really such a wanker. And yes you shouldn't jest about hitting one of my kids in a car. You dont know me so dont have that privilege. You should banned you pompous self righteous piece of shit.
Post edited at 09:43
5
 MG 19 Jan 2017
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
If you want to treat you car like a piece of art/human, fine. Don't expect others to as well though. The odd scratch is just par for the course.
Post edited at 09:59
6
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Oceanrower:

> That's a good idea, that hole you're digging seems to be getting very, very deep.

I will. This thread has ceased to be fun. Some people are taking themselves rather too seriously.

6
 wintertree 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Not if you're edging out past one of those ridiculous four wheel drive things that take up one and a half parking spaces at Tescos.

Seriously? When the manouver is more dangerous, you go faster.

You're either delusional, dangerous or a wind up merchant.
2
 Cú Chullain 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I will. This thread has ceased to be fun. Some people are taking themselves rather too seriously.

I have the feeling you were being all too serious and fairly unpleasant to boot, you have ended up painting yourself into a corner. Suddenly playing the 'I was just winding people up/jesting' card is probably not going to wash on here.
1
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Cú Chullain:
> I have the feeling you were being all too serious and fairly unpleasant to boot. Suddenly playing the 'I was just winding people up/jesting' card is probably not going to wash on here.

While I do think there are real issues with the materialism of a culture which puts such a high value on the absence of tiny cosmetic scratches on a car, I can assure you that, especially in the latter part of the thread I was, and I thought at the time obviously, enjoying a bit of a wind up. If I have misjudged how seriously some of the car people take themselves, then I can only apologise.

I was genuinely taken aback when someone said they treated their car like one of their own children - I'll take their word for it that it is only a metaphor (though I do think it is an inappropriate one).
Post edited at 10:31
5
 Oceanrower 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

How has it gone from "surface scuffing on the front wing and door" to "tiny cosmetic scratches"?
1
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Oceanrower:

> How has it gone from "surface scuffing on the front wing and door" to "tiny cosmetic scratches"?

Cosmetic damage then if you like. The discussion moved on from the exact specifics of the OP's case.
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> Mountain bikers = Hitler. Okey Dokey.

> Where does that leave oh, I don't know, people who enjoy, say, shopping for clothes every weekend? Not my bag but millions do. Worse than Hitler?

Yes. Somewhere between boulderers and top-ropers.


Post edited at 12:32
 John_Hat 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
> I will. This thread has ceased to be fun. Some people are taking themselves rather too seriously.

Actually, I think the vast majority of the reasonable people on this thread were coping fine with the debate but you - and only you - ended up getting further and further unhinged to the point where you threatened to run over someone's child.

A rapid back-pedal on your part saying it was all a joke - as CC said above - doesn't wash. Also, excuse me, when does threatening to run over someone's child become funny or an acceptable wind-up?

This is in off-belay, so is permanent. It's not going to get deleted. Perhaps that's something you should think about.
Post edited at 19:22
7
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Good luck achieving a mutually satisfying outcome to this. If both sides are reasonable people that may be straightforward; if not, well done for 'fessing up in the first place.

T.
 Tobes 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

here's one for you all,

Just the other day heading home after a 7hr drive, pulled into motorway services nr Glasgow (not relevant I guess) any ways me and gf get back to our car. There's a van park behind us and one space away to the left, the occupants of this van return, open both passenger and drivers doors then turn the key whilst both stood next to van but not actually in it.....it's in gear (as they would have known!?) so lurches forward which startles them both (initially laughing then maybe realising their luck that it didn't hit anything). The van would likely have hit the car in front (had there been one at the time) and possibly the vehicles/wing mirrors on either side-remember both doors open (again had there been any). This was late at night so lucky it was quiet.

Act of god? f*&kwittery? you decide.

 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:
> Actually, I think the vast majority of the reasonable people on this thread were coping fine with the debate but you - and only you - ended up getting further and further unhinged.............

I assure you that I am in no way unhinged. A ludicrous suggestion.

> ........to the point where you threatened to run over someone's child.

Oh dear. No sane person could possibly have taken it as a serious threat. Even, the person involved, though evidently angry, referred to it as a jest. His reference to treating his car like his own children, whether metaphor or, as I took it at the time, to some extent literal, did, in the context of the already obviously over the top wind up, pretty much invite it anyway.

> A rapid back-pedal on your part saying it was all a joke - as CC said above - doesn't wash.

I can absolute assure you that there was no back pedalling. The worst I could be accused of is taking the wind up too far. I do consider these people who get so precious about their cars legitimate targets for a wind up and make no apology for that - as I said, I just seemed to have misjudged how serious some of these people can become and I have already apologised for that.

If you insist on believing that I was back pedalling, then that is your problem. I find it extraordinary that anyone following the thread could have seen anything but a robust wind up. I compared mountain bikers to Hitler FFS - so over the top that only a, well, unhinged person could have taken it as a serious comment.

> This is in off-belay, so is permanent. It's not going to get deleted. Perhaps that's something you should think about.

That's fine. It's there plain to see for anyone to see who accuses me of being unhinged or making serious threats to run over children.
Post edited at 20:41
5
sebastian dangerfield 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

Just ignore them. You've obviously touched a nerve and there's a little part of them starting to think, "ah, shit, maybe I am a dick" They obviously don't want to listen to that part, so they start misrepresenting what you said instead. It's very clear that you don't want to run over anyones child
4
sebastian dangerfield 19 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:

Bit unhinged to take a hypothetical example to try and make a point about a silly argument to be a threat, no?
2
 John_Hat 19 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
My personal view would be that what he wrote is there to see. The best possible interpretation of the words (which is how Robert Durran is trying to spin it) is a joke in spectacularly poor taste.

I don't think he's actually going to try and find where the relevant children are either and sit outside their house with engine revving, but I would submit that even joking about how you will run over someone's kids is way, way too far - even for UKC.
Post edited at 21:47
6
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:

> My personal view would be that what he wrote is there to see.

Absolutely. My view too.

> The best possible interpretation of the words (which is how Robert Durran is trying to spin it) is a joke in spectacularly poor taste.

As I explained, I don't even think it's in poor taste in the context. You lot really do need to lighten up. As he said, maybe I have just, perhaps regettably, touched a nerve.

4
 Robert Durran 19 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

> Bit unhinged to take a hypothetical example to try and make a point about a silly argument to be a threat, no?

Indeed. Unhinged and hysterical.
4
 John_Hat 19 Jan 2017
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

I would add that like other folk, I'm out of here. This is turning exceptionally unpleasant.
3
sebastian dangerfield 19 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:

> My personal view would be that what he wrote is there to see. The best possible interpretation of the words (which is how Robert Durran is trying to spin it) is a joke in spectacularly poor taste.

My personal view is that read in context his comment is absolutely fine. He's saying people are to precious about their cars, someone else says their car is like a child to them, he says oh well, if there both equally important I may as well choose to hit the kid as it'll do less damage to his car. Obviously a joke. I wouldn't say it's in poor taste, but each to their own. What it's most absolutely definitely not, is a threat.

You trying to make it something it's not is in spectacularly unhinged poor taste.
2
sebastian dangerfield 19 Jan 2017
In reply to John_Hat:

> I would add that like other folk, I'm out of here. This is turning exceptionally unpleasant.

Right about the time you started chucking accusations about threatening kids?

Probably for the best
4
 ThunderCat 19 Jan 2017
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

F*ck me, is this bollocks still going on?
 Nevis-the-cat 20 Jan 2017
In reply to ThunderCat:

Amazing isn't it?

There have been similar threads on Singletrack.

There used to be a buswanker on UKC who would post about how cars are the work of the devil, that nobody needed one and that people imbued them with some sort of anthropomorphic character.

He was later caught posting on the Lift forum asking for a ride to Scotland.....

I love cars. I love the engineering, the design and the ability to tinker and fettle of a Saturday afternoon. I've restored a Land Rover and a 67 Alfa, and i take great pride in my work on them and driving them. for some people, cars area hobby. Just let them get on with it.

I also spent 7 hours in mine yesterday and a 12 hour driving day is not unknown (not all at once, although a run to Cham or Tarascon can easily turn into one). I enjoy driving. I've got a nice car and I enjoy it.

Keeping your car in good nick is perfectly reasonable - it often represents a major investment. Mine does. Just the same as keeping your house nice means cutting the grass and not stacking old mattresses in the front garden - after all, it's just a house isn't it?

I was the first person in both sides of my family to stay on at school after 15. My folks were the first to buy a house where taking a shit did not entail a walk to the end of the street or the garden. My car is the result of a lot of hard work and effort. I don't expect other people to get a hard on when they see it, but i expect them to respect the fact I worked f*cking hard for it, from nothing, it means some thing to me, as i would respect their property - it's just polite.

So it's not about being "materialistic", it's about working hard and giving yourself the ability to make life choices.

Anyhow, you can drown out the whiney feckers with the sound of a 450 bhp twin turbo V8.......

2
 planetmarshall 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> ...buswanker...

Haha. This will never cease to be funny.
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> ...a buswanker ....

Nice! I'm using that.

This thread ought to be studied for lessons in diplomacy and de-escalation. Who could ever have seen it turning out like this? It's like WWI.

Good luck Gerry!
 Robert Durran 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Just Another Dave:

> It's like WWI.

Comparing alleged threats to run over a mere handful of children to the slaughter of millions in the trenches is in exceptionally poor taste. Next it will be Hitler and the holocaust no doubt. You should be banned.
3
 Nevis-the-cat 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Just Another Dave:

Not mine I'm afraid - that came courtesy of the Inbetweeners
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Comparing alleged threats to run over a mere handful of children to the slaughter of millions in the trenches is in exceptionally poor taste. Next it will be Hitler and the holocaust no doubt. You should be banned.

The irony of your comment will be lost on anyone not reading the entire thread (surely that's nearly everyone)
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I think that comment is actually his easiest yet to take as humour, I like it.

And Nevis: I know
 Robert Durran 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> So it's not about being "materialistic", it's about working hard and giving yourself the ability to make life choices.

But it is all about materialism. Either you are bothering in a materialistic* way about cosmetic scratches for their own sake, or, quite reasonably, bothering about them because of the decreased resale value of the car. But this decrease in resale value is brought about by the collective materialism of a society where enough people bother about the scratches in a materialistic way that the resale value is decreased.

You are perfectly entitled to your life choices. All I object to is that the collective materialism of society passes on the cost to people like myself who aren't in the slightest bothered about scratches for their own sake. I and others have been arguing for a system where the cost could somehow be born by those who do care about them - whether or not this is practicable is another matter.

*if you wish to replace with "aesthetic" my case still stands.

1
 Sir Chasm 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

People like yourself? You mean careless parkers. You want to feel free to damage other people's property and have them pay to rectify your failings because their values are not yours.
3
 Robert Durran 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> People like yourself? You mean careless parkers.

No. All drivers who are paying higher premiums because they have no choice but to live in a society that puts high value on the absence of cosmetic scratches. All those insurance payouts for expensive spray jobs has to come from somewhere.

> You want to feel free to damage other people's property and have them pay to rectify your failings because their values are not yours.

Not at all. But I'd happily pay a lower premium if that meant anybody else accidentally scratching my car didn't have to pay up.
Post edited at 11:13
 Nevis-the-cat 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
I suspect the cost borne by the car insurance market is primarily a result of drilling cars into trees and paying out to people who thereafter have to rely on a soup based diet and poo into a bag.

Whilst I admire your striving for a lentil based economy in a yoghurt platting nirvana, the fact remains, if you damage someone's stuff, you have to pay for it. Once you've put your hand in your pocket and ponied up, you are perfectly free to sell to the recipient your off grid spoon whittling lifestyle, living with the squirrels and stroking the trees.

I wager if someone spilled woad on your yurt you'd be well pissed off.
Post edited at 11:21
3
 john arran 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

There would be some merit in considering insurance payouts being related to subsequent reduction in value rather than to actual costs of repair, which would discourage absurd cosmetic fixes to already beaten up cars but would still justify expensive repairs to near-pristine vehicles.
 Sir Chasm 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No. All drivers who are paying higher premiums because they have no choice but to live in a society that puts high value on the absence of cosmetic scratches. All those insurance payouts for expensive spray jobs has to come from somewhere.

I’m struggling to think of what you mean, apart from your careless parking, that causes these cosmetic scratches you’re so incensed by, but I’m sure you’ve got an example all two (after all your previous examples have been great).

> Not at all. But I'd happily pay a lower premium if that meant anybody else accidentally scratching my car didn't have to pay up.

Third party, fill yer boots.
 Nevis-the-cat 20 Jan 2017
In reply to john arran:

Maybe, but given the excess, most minor scratches can be sorted with smart repairs.

My old man caught a lady's Audi Q3 yesterday, with his towbar. It was a tight parking spot and he made a small dent and scratch on the door as he reversed out.

£300 later it's all sorted after they both got quotes and shook hands on it. No insurance needed
In reply to Robert Durran:

Good de-escalation Robert. Your last couple of posts are spot-on. Everyone (whether pride-and-joy camp, or leave-it-it's-just-a-metal-box camp) seems to agree the underlying problem is the inflated cost of aesthetic repairs, exploited by the insurance industry.

Dunno how everything got out of hand up there, but I've found it fascinating. Re-reading, I find the thread was a perfectly decent exchange of views until Rob Exile accuses you of being "pathetically juvenile, superficial and nihilistic" at 16:25 on Tuesday.
There's the Princip/Ferdinand moment, then other factors imploded.
 wbo 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

But Robert this is very simple. If you don't care about scratches on your car, don't claim. But you cannot enforce your values onto someone else who does want a large scratch or dent fixing. That is a simple lack of respect on your part for the opinions of another.

It is indeed sad that society is so materialistic, and this is a manifestation of that. Another manifestation though is a pride in craftsmanship, nice things, which can be argued is a good thing. Also, while you may not care about scratches on cars there are things you do care about and that if your opinion is ignored there you are likely to get very excited about this lack of respect for your opinion (bolts!!!)

 Mike Stretford 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> I was the first person in both sides of my family to stay on at school after 15. My folks were the first to buy a house where taking a shit did not entail a walk to the end of the street or the garden..

You've really overplayed this one over the years. It's the same for me, most of the people I grew up with, and I'd wager most of the population over a certain age. Being from a working class background does not automatically validate your opinions.

Regarding your discussion with Robert, the car insurance market does not function well and from time to time gets completely fecked up... I've legitimately claimed for whiplash, the sums were well out of proportion and I had someone calling round my house trying to get me to exaggerate the claim.

I've also spent time doing up cars, including bodywork. It's common knowledge there's an 'insurance job' price and a lower one for people paying out of their own pocket. Some bodyshops only quote the 'insurance job' price when a cheaper job would be fine.

I might not totally agree with Robert but I can see how his point of view developed, and don't feel the need to resort to very tired yogurt based cliches.


1
 Robert Durran 20 Jan 2017
In reply to wbo:

> But Robert this is very simple. If you don't care about scratches on your car, don't claim.

I don't. Someone recently scratched my car and owned up. I didn't bother following it up.

> But you cannot enforce your values onto someone else who does want a large scratch or dent fixing. That is a simple lack of respect on your part for the opinions of another.

Under my suggestion above, I would still pay through my insurance if I scratch somebody else's car and they want me to. Though I would prefer to see a system where the repair only restores the car to it's existing condition and/or value. The possible £700 in the OP's case seems ludicrous.

 Nevis-the-cat 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> You've really overplayed this one over the years. It's the same for me, most of the people I grew up with, and I'd wager most of the population over a certain age. Being from a working class background does not automatically validate your opinions.


You're probably right - the inside of my head is the Four Yorkshiremen sketch on a loop


> Regarding your discussion with Robert, the car insurance market does not function well and from time to time gets completely fecked up... I've legitimately claimed for whiplash, the sums were well out of proportion and I had someone calling round my house trying to get me to exaggerate the claim.

Not denying that. Agreed with that point upthread.

> I've also spent time doing up cars, including bodywork. It's common knowledge there's an 'insurance job' price and a lower one for people paying out of their own pocket. Some bodyshops only quote the 'insurance job' price when a cheaper job would be fine.

Busy bodyshops I suspect, like a tradesman will quote a higher price if they happen to be busy - go to another or use a smart repair

> I might not totally agree with Robert but I can see how his point of view developed, and don't feel the need to resort to very tired yogurt based cliches.

Which is what? The insurance industry needs to be overhauled, with fewer "claims management" outfits or that taking a pride on your car / possessions makes you somehow socially deficient?

I'd agree with the former.

The latter is an interesting argument to take forward, but acting like a reformed smoker is not the best way to sell your vision.
 Rob Exile Ward 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

'I and others have been arguing for a system where the cost could somehow be born by those who do care about them - whether or not this is practicable is another matter.'

But there's the rub - and you have spent a lot of time and energy arguing a point that virtually nobody could possibly disagree with!

If there was a credible way that some people could arrange to pay lower premiums by waiving their right to minor repairs when someone bashed into them, that wouldn't be open to abuse and endless litigation, determining the threshold of when repairs should and shouldn't be paid for then who could possibly complain?

But there isn't. SO you've just spent several days ranting, comparing mountain bikers to Hitler and making equally daft and juvenile comments for absolutely no reason. Ridiculous - you've plainly got too much time on your hands.
1
 Robert Durran 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> I’m struggling to think of what you mean, apart from your careless parking, that causes these cosmetic scratches you’re so incensed by, but I’m sure you’ve got an example all two (after all your previous examples have been great).

Swerving to avoid hitting a child square on who suddenly runs out between parked cars in a built up area. And I think it is unrealistic to suggest that I should always be driving at such a low speed that I might never have to do this.
 Rob Exile Ward 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Just Another Dave:

So it's my fault? Oh well.
 wintertree 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Swerving to avoid hitting a child square on who suddenly runs out between parked cars in a built up area. And I think it is unrealistic to suggest that I should always be driving at such a low speed that I might never have to do this.

If your swerve can't be judged well enough to miss a big stationary car then it can't be judged well enough to miss smaller, mobile human targets.

Ergo it is to fast.
3
 Robert Durran 20 Jan 2017
Perhaps there could be a financial incentive (insurance, tax?) to have a car with proper rubbery bumpers and those rubbery strips along the sides and rubbery bits on the edges of car doors which prevent accidentally scratching cars in tight Tesco carparks when loading your shopping.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

No, multifactorial: tensions were already building. Historians will take different views.... Was WWI Princip's fault?
 Nevis-the-cat 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

Here you go...

Based on the Satsuma Castenet XR4 Turbo.

http://media.citroen.co.uk/image/56/3/-0mm60nfc-1ce3a5nzzzzza01z-zzzzzzzz-0...
 Robert Durran 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> SO you've just spent several days ranting, comparing mountain bikers to Hitler and making equally daft and juvenile comments for absolutely no reason.

Maybe, but it's been fun though (mostly.........).
1
 Rob Exile Ward 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Just Another Dave:

I blame the railways.
 Robert Durran 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> Here you go...

> Based on the Satsuma Castenet XR4 Turbo.


But I couldn't possibly be seen driving something so ugly
 Nevis-the-cat 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

At last, we agree on something!

Have a like
 Mike Stretford 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


> Busy bodyshops I suspect, like a tradesman will quote a higher price if they happen to be busy - go to another or use a smart repair

That's Gerry's bad luck innit, the bloke has gone to an expensive non-smart place and can't reasonably be expected to shop around.

> Which is what? The insurance industry needs to be overhauled, with fewer "claims management" outfits or that taking a pride on your car / possessions makes you somehow socially deficient?

As I say I don't agree with Robert but I can see how frustration at the industry might lead to the 'it's just a lump of metal' mentality.

In general I've got mixed feeling on cars . Love the freedom and took loads of pride in my Golf GTI, but they are damaging in many ways.... I do respect tree huggers who go without them, I put my own enjoyment first.
Post edited at 12:45
 Sir Chasm 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Swerving to avoid hitting a child square on who suddenly runs out between parked cars in a built up area. And I think it is unrealistic to suggest that I should always be driving at such a low speed that I might never have to do this.

So you're driving fast enough that you can't stop, but swerving into a parked car only causes a tiny scratch? No, fail, better example please.
2
 Nevis-the-cat 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

When I had my mountain biking accident a few years ago (I was trying to run over a toddler while dressed as an SS Panzer officer) I was inundated with claims texts and calls.

Apparently I could claim, and be owed £££ if I sued the person responsible.

i could thus sue myself for being shit and falling off.

What boiled my piss was that someone in the NHS - ambulance, hospital etc, had sold my details to the vampires - who all take a cut, pushing up insurance costs.
 Robert Durran 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> So you're driving fast enough that you can't stop, but swerving into a parked car only causes a tiny scratch? No, fail, better example please.

Just as the toddler runs out, a mountain biker (also, obviously, dressed in SS uniform) pulls out on the other side without looking. I make a split second decision to swerve towards the bike. Unfortunately I scuff one of the gold swastikas painted on his mudguard.
 Nevis-the-cat 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

Can i just ask

is it a 26", 29er, 650b, 650b+ or fat bike he's riding, and does it have Boost hubs?

It's an important distinction to make.

 Sir Chasm 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

If you and the mountain biker want to wear SS uniforms that's up to you, I'm just glad you've moved on from trying to run down toddlers.
1
 Robert Durran 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> Can i just ask

> is it a 26", 29er, 650b, 650b+ or fat bike he's riding, and does it have Boost hubs?

> It's an important distinction to make.

No idea. What type is most popular with Nazis?
 Robert Durran 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> If you and the mountain biker want to wear SS uniforms that's up to you.

It's not me wearing a Nazi uniform; I'm not a mountain biker - heaven forbid!

> I'm just glad you've moved on from trying to run down toddlers.

I've no wish to run down anyone. Just coming up with scenarios where I might have no choice. If it was toddlers running from both directions I might have no choice but to run one of them down - obviously a tricky spur of the moment decision (unless one of them has found an SS uniform in the dressing up box).
 Mike Stretford 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No idea. What type is most popular with Nazis?

Single Speed.
Post edited at 14:57
 Sir Chasm 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It's not me wearing a Nazi uniform; I'm not a mountain biker - heaven forbid!

Well you said the mountain biker was also wearing an SS uniform.

> I've no wish to run down anyone. Just coming up with scenarios where I might have no choice.

And your complete failure to do so is noted.


1
 Nevis-the-cat 20 Jan 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No idea. What type is most popular with Nazis?

half track

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...