Kitz Forum
Chat => Chit Chat => Topic started by: burakkucat on August 11, 2019, 10:02:23 PM
-
From the BBC web-site (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-49311260)
-
In fact my beloved has just told me a few minutes ago about the car, which was at Caol Reatha. Janet heard via the local grape vine. That is the extremely close narrows between Skye and the mainland where the little tiny car ferry still runs. Abounds in beautiful pink jellyfish at times.
"Caol" means "narrow" and "caolas" = "a narrows" - I have struggled for a long time with the meaning of this place name though and I will have to ask my next door neighbour.
The vowel spelling ao sounds like oe in french ‘oeuvre’ with a slight hint of long u in it too. In the past the spellings ai and oi were used, together with oe and ae too later. The ai spelling is I think revealing - vowel sound as in the word ‘why’, ‘sky’. But the fact The]at the spelling flip flopped between these alternatives could mean that the vowel sound was already something intermediate that the Latin vowels could not easily accommodate.
Coilabotas was a primitive Irish language personal name - ‘slender penis’ iirc (I would regularise this as ogham spelling coilabottas).
-
Thank you for the local details and language intricacies, etc.
I just put Caol Reatha (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kylerhea,+Isle+of+Skye+IV42+8NH/@57.2239165,-5.671481,12z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x488e996a92a98bdb:0x4f6d1017a3f71e39!8m2!3d57.223917!4d-5.671481?hl=en) into the Google Maps search bar and it returned the linked result.
-
Janet tells me that the car that went into the drink was a hire car used by holidaymakers, and the unfortunates in question were told by the insurance company that the insurance are moaning and saying that they will not be forking out a payment for an foc replacement hire car for the the rest of our unhappy people’s holiday.
-
From that BBC report...
The Volkswagen's handbrake failed
I should imagine above quote is the aspect that the insurance company are questioning, as there are very few circumstances that a failed handbrake (alone) should land a car in the drink.
The highway code is quite clear, that additional precautions are needed when parking on a hill. Principally, leaving the car in gear, and turning the steering to one side. Hardly anybody does so of course, but the fact that nearly everybody is wrong does not make them right.
Sympathies indeed to the holidaymakers. But if insurers are playing hardball then I should imagine their headache may be yet to come... if the hire company come after them for uninsured loss of the car, or the insurance company come after them to recover their own loss. :(
-
This is what I hate so much about insurance companies. They should just pay up and do their job.luckily I have always had zero problems in the past. In fact I have made far more than I have ever put in in the total of my contributions. The number of car theft claims I put in living in London in the 1980s was quite extraordinary and thankfully the insurance company we were using at the time of our house fire in 2003 was superb, I think it might have been Norwich Union, but memory completely fails me.
-
But why?
I am insured by my insurance company for driving the car. Even if I make a mistake and cause and accident, that’s the agreement. But if my car is parked for the night , and I failed to lock the doors, and my car is ‘broken into’, many insurance agreements would exclude cover for theft. I think that’s tough, as it’s easy to do by mistake, but insurers are probably within their rights.
Why should it be any different if the owner/hirer fails to secure the car on a hill, then walks off to look at the wildlife? That’s not an easy mistake at all imho. If they depended solely upon a handbrake then it’s extreme negligence, no matter how commonplace it might be. That said, I don’t really know if insurers can use such ‘negligence’ to avoid payment, so perhaps I am being alarmist.
It’s actually one of my pet hates... people who leave a car on a hill just on handbrake, with no other precautions.
Automatic owners are even worse, as many don’t even apply the handbrake. But an auto in ‘park’ does not stop the car from rolling down a hill. Since it applies to the transmission, pre-differential, it just stops wheels on opposite sides from going round in the same direction. If one wheel is on ice, or mud, or loose gravel, ‘Park’ is useless. Highway code again offers clear advice.
-
The turning of the steering wheel, so that if the handbrake fails to hold the vehicle and it starts to roll down-hill, will only work if there is a sufficiently prominent kerb. In the case of this Isle of Skye incident, from looking at the photograph, there doesn't seem to be a kerb. (And I am somewhat puzzled as from where the car rolled to get to the position in which it finally came to rest.)
-
I’m with 7LM. It would never occur to me to rely on the handbrake. I would always leave the bus in gear too and if it was a steep hill I would take additional measures beside. If I put an obstacle under the wheel then I would first let the car roll back slightly onto the obstacle, so that the tyre could firmly ‘bite’ first, rather than parking the car and then placing the wedge in position afterwards - in hopeless fashion, trying to kick the wedge into a ‘jammed’ position too late and hoping it doesn’t just slip straight back out of position immediately again.
-
My house drive is on a slope, ans I would never think of not engaging 1st gear. Even then I'd tug damn hard on the handbrake. When I go in to neutral to start, the car sounds a creaky as old me getting out of bed.
-
The turning of the steering wheel, so that if the handbrake fails to hold the vehicle and it starts to roll down-hill, will only work if there is a sufficiently prominent kerb.
True, but you can often choose a steering position that will cause the car to roll into (say) a hedge rather than over a cliff.
My own drive is also on a slope, with the house directly at the bottom.
When visitors park in front of the house without any other precautions, I do sometimes sneak out and place a brick against one of their wheels. I also place another brick behind my own wheel. The second brick is not really necessary, as my car is in gear and steering aimed towards a very substantial mature hedge. But it allows me to point at both bricks and say “Sorry, I’m just a bit paranoid”. That way the visitor is less likely to offended by what he/she perceives as a criticism, yet may give a bit more thought to hill parking in future. :)
-
Rule 252
Parking on hills. If you park on a hill you should:
park close to the kerb and apply the handbrake firmly
select a forward gear and turn your steering wheel away from the kerb when facing uphill
select reverse gear and turn your steering wheel towards the kerb when facing downhill
use ‘park’ if your car has an automatic gearbox.
These aren't legal requirements unlike much of the Highway Code.
Insurance companies will usually pay out for a snapped handbrake cable.
-
@7LM Have you tested the effectiveness of the bricks by letting the handbrake off with the brick in place? Depending on how steep your drive is you may find that with only one wheel chocked the car will roll over it.
(Obviously do the test with the engine running to give you power assisted braking if you have to hit the footbrake if the chocking fails!)
-
When we were in Skye the other week our Hire car was a Ford Focus With Electric Handbrake :o >:D
Europcar Did not explain about the function of the Electric handbrake, we found out some times it did not come on when it should have done and we had to manually pull up the handbrake switch. :(
None on us had used one before, so I would think that was the case in this situation, but like what's been said they should have put it in first gear as well.
We all put our cars in gear when we park anywhere.
-
@7LM Have you tested the effectiveness of the bricks by letting the handbrake off with the brick in place? Depending on how steep your drive is you may find that with only one wheel chocked the car will roll over it.
(Obviously do the test with the engine running to give you power assisted braking if you have to hit the footbrake if the chocking fails!)
As I said, the bricks play no part in my own safety precautions, I don't use them for my own car. I use them simply as an opportunity to raise the topic with visitors, without causing offence, being perceived as criticising their driving skills.
The driveway is fairly flat at the bottom, just a gentle and barely perceptible slop. But most cars will gradually start to roll if the handbrake is released, and they roll straight towards the front window. ::)
These aren't legal requirements unlike much of the Highway Code.
Insurance companies will usually pay out for a snapped handbrake cable.
The Highway Code, as you'll have noticed, sometimes describes things that you MUST or MUST NOT do, and these sections refer to specific laws.
Elsewhere the HC uses words like 'may' and 'should', or 'should not', that do not directly correspond refer to any specific offences in legislation . It is however well-established that all parts of the Highway Code, including the 'mays' and the 'shoulds', etc, can be accepted by a court as supporting evidence for offences such as careless driving.
We really don't know all the facts about the car on Skye but based on the BBC story, it would seem that the car wasn't being driven at the time, it was parked. So I reason that it becomes more likened to a claim for theft, where I think it is not at all uncommon for insurers to reject claims where the owner(/hirer?) has shown negligence. If the insurers went down that path, I'd say that the HC could easily be cited as evidence that they were negligent. And you can still be negligent, even if you haven't broken any law.
-
We really don't know all the facts about the car on Skye but based on the BBC story, it would seem that the car wasn't being driven at the time, it was parked. So I reason that it becomes more likened to a claim for theft, where I think it is not at all uncommon for insurers to reject claims where the owner(/hirer?) has shown negligence. If the insurers went down that path, I'd say that the HC could easily be cited as evidence that they were negligent. And you can still be negligent, even if you haven't broken any law
Could's and Should's.
The driver/owner is liable.
The outcome would be that an insurance company will put such an incident down as the drivers fault, paying out the claim and increasing premiums.
The claim would need declared on subsequent insurance applications for 5 years.
I'd be very surprised (gobsmacked) if they completely rejected a claim for a broken handbrake cable for the reason of negligence.
Never come across that before and I can't find any examples of it online either.
In the 9 and half years I worked in a coachworks/car body repair shop (I qualified as a sheet metal worker when I left school) I never saw an insurance claim rejected for handbrake failure.
We probably repaired a dozen cars in that time that were both the perpetrator and/or victim of a handbrake failure.
-
Clearly j0hn, I bow to your experience.
Good news for the holidaymakers. :)
-
It may not be all that great for them.
Isurance isn't what it used to be with ever single detail needing declared now.
They do try weasel out any claim they can.
The car in question being a hire car I've no doubt the company that hired the car out has sufficient insurance to offset any possible losses.
The last few times I've hired a car I've been able to pay a small fee to avoid any possible insurance excess in the case of an accident.
It was around £4-5 or I could choose not to pay the fee but there would be a £500 excess if I had an accident.
Different hire firms will have different insurance policies and the holiday makers in question may well end up on foot with no assistance from the insurance company.
It would be very worrying if they had to pay for any damages above any agreed excess, if there was one.
A driver is liable for any damages caused by a handbrake failure (for the reasons in the highway code, it's preventable). A fully comprehensive insurance policy should cover any damages done though.
Any compulsory/voluntary excess would need paid and premiums would likely increase on any policy without a protected no claims bonus.
-
Moving away from the specific example on Skye, coincidentally, I spent the past weekend changing the handbrake cables on my ten year old Volvo.
I reckon that if any average person with a basic mechanical aptitude or awareness of physics had to do that job, even if they were not into car maintenance, they might reassess their faith in the handbrake. A single small 10mm nut secures the cable to the lever, via a washer that’s significantly disfigured from the strain. The first cable fans out into two cables that transfer to the wheels, with quite delicate looking pivots on the expanders within the wheel mounted mechanisms. And these two cables don’t provide redundancy, an equaliser rod ensures that failure of either cable would cause failure on both wheels. And that’s on a Volvo, with reputation for safety. :o
I’ve never had the opportunity to drive a car with electric handbrake. But fairly sure if I took one apart, I would find I had even less confidence in it, vs cable operated. :(
-
I think it may be more pertinent asking what on earth was the car doing parked on the pier as opposed to whether or not it had been left in gear.
I was a bit puzzled at the position of the car and how it could have ended up like that. Using b*cats link, I switched to the street view version from where you can see there is a no entry sign prohibiting vehicles on the pier unless they are loading onto the ferry.
It says in the news report that they had quote "parked their car on Kylerhea's steep pier to view otters in the sea nearby." From looking at the streetview, there is absolutely no way the car could have ended up where it was unless it had been on the pier ramp. If it had been on the other side of the no enty sign then it would have either hit the hut or dry stone wall if the handbrake failed. To make matters worse, there is a proper car park further up with picnic area where they should have parked for otter watching.
The fact that the car was left parked in a place where vehicles were prohibited and beyond a no entry sign is more likely why the insurance company is bitching.
That sign quite clearly says "No vehicles to pass this point unless instructed by a crew member".
Street view linky (https://www.google.com/maps/@57.227617,-5.6651004,3a,75y,1.91h,75.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRW3WyOyXGW3E5XU5Fwytjg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)
-
My speculation would be that the car was actually parked just before the “do not pass” sign, in a similar spot to the red car on street view. If left with steering set to the right might it not roll onto the ramp, then off the right hand edge, into the approximate resting place?
-
I'm not too sure. :-\
The image shown on the BBC web-site bothers me. How could the car end up in the position? My only suggestion is that it was dragged, via a line (or lines) from the shore, into that position. The ultimate aim being that a suitable recovery vehicle, with an appropriate hoist and parked on the roadway, would lift the car from that rather damp situation.
-
There might also be the possibility that the keys were left in the car, thus preventing the steering wheel lock from holding the steering position. In that case, depending upon which wheel first contacted the beach, the steering could have suddenly changed direction. That is, it went over the edge whilst steered to the right then, on contact with the beach, steering span back to the left.
Leaving the keys in the car may not be that unlikely. Personally I find a hire car’s keys a bit of a nuisance to carry, as they are not attached to my other keys. The hirer might have assessed that since there was obviously no realistic possibility of theft in such an idyllic spot, leaving the keys in the car would do no harm.
-
If it was parked were the red car is and even if the steering wheel was turned to the right, natural trajectory surely would have taken it over the left hand side of the pier, not the right? I can't see any way if it was parked before the no entry sign, that it could go over the RH side.
B*cat may be correct about it being tethered in that position for easy recovery later. It does say the lifeboat crew ran lines to the shore to stop it fully submerging.
ETA
There's a little bit more info in the Sun (https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4592818/skye-car-sea-kylerhea/) where it says they had parked it on the slipway. :(
A PAIR of tourists and their child parked their car on a slipway to look at the wildlife - only for it to slide into the sea.
"They couldn't have applied the handbrake firmly enough. Fortunately they were not in the vehicle. It rolled over the side of the slipway, turned upside down but settled the right way up.
"It meant we had to cancel the rest of the day's sailings, but we will be operating as normal on Monday.
"It is the first time I can remember such a thing happening. The recovery truck did a great job and got it out with a crane. But the car is not in a good state."
Kyle Inshore Lifeboat was launched at 1.15pm. As the tide was coming in and the car was in danger of becoming fully submerged, the lifeboat crew assisted with securing the vehicle to the pier to enable the car to be recovered.