Female Abandoned by RAC at Night

sleepymans

Errrrrm....I don't think insurers will pay out on a claim for driving into water at all, will they?


I know people who have driven into a couple of inches of water, written off their car and had no recourse. That's why I never do it! I take no chances and have "turned back" many times.


I live in a rural area with no street lighting which is prone to flooding and puddles of unknown depth. Its inconvenient and means driving really carefully especially at night.


I guess the AA aren't keen on sending vehicles on calls to areas where there is deep water in case the rescue vehicle risks getting stuck too?


I am with Auto Aid - they come out, I pay by CC to the driver, and worry about reclaiming afterwards when home and dry. Maybe a better option?

Netwizard

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

tw*t .

Might be a bit harsh maybe, but Captain Flack has a fair point. So many people drive through these floods and hydrolock their engines.

It's one of those situations where common sense should take over and you should find another route, but common sense is nowhere near as common as we think. People carry on regardless and then complain when they have a £2,500+ bill for a new engine due to their own stupidity!

marlot

The RAC (and I think the AA) changed their Ts&Cs some time ago, so they only recover breakdowns free of charge. They charge for accidents and other incidents. The rationale is that they can then charge the cost to your insurer.

The motorbike community have known this for some time. If I dropped my bike and broke the gear lever, the bike would be unrideable - but there is no way I'd want to put in an insurance claim for a £10 part. But no recovery available.

Anyone driving a diesel needs to be particularly careful going through floodwater - the air intake is usually at the bottom of the engine.

arcon5

Some really harsh comments about op here. She clearly didn't judge the water to be that deep or to be a problem and obviously doesn't know much about mechanical engineering so certainly wouldn't know where the air intake was - or even what it was.
So how about certain members stop being such nobs.
Anyway it doesn't sound like it was even that bad a flood - especially if other cars was getting past with ease.

By the way op - for future reference going through in a higher gear would be recommended (not a higher speed, just higher gear).

And next time tell them the car just conked out.

Write a written complaint and in the complaint say you was driving on a wet and rainy night rather than you drive through water. As it doesn't sound from your post that you drive through anything more than a typical puddle

vikingaero

arcon5 wrote: »

Some really harsh comments about op here. She clearly didn't judge the water to be that deep or to be a problem and obviously doesn't know much about mechanical engineering so certainly wouldn't know where the air intake was - or even what it was.
So how about certain members stop being such nobs.
Anyway it doesn't sound like it was even that bad a flood - especially if other cars was getting past with ease.

By the way op - for future reference going through in a higher gear would be recommended (not a higher speed, just higher gear).

And next time tell them the car just conked out.

Write a written complaint and in the complaint say you was driving on a wet and rainy night rather than you drive through water. As it doesn't sound from your post that you drive through anything more than a typical puddle

Agree with arcon here. People are being too harsh.

But on the other hand I don't think micknmace understands what the purpose or terms and conditions of her RAC cover are. The cover is there for unforeseen breakdowns and not deliberately driving to car through flood water "because she was in first gear" or "the cars in front got through". That is a deliberate act with unfortunate consequences.

Despite what others say, many insurers still cover engines that have hydrolocked. (A few exclude it) so the port of call should have been her Insurer to get the car recovered.

I imagine that night the RAC were swamped (literally) with calls for breakdowns, flood damage and even obstructions (people even call the breakdown services when a tree obstructs their drive!). But they should have offered to recover the car with payment up front or have the insurer invoiced.

reeac

marlot wrote: »

Anyone driving a diesel needs to be particularly careful going through floodwater - the air intake is usually at the bottom of the engine.

I know that I'm getting off-subject but is this actually true and if so why? Seems silly to avoid the water-induced problems of an HT system and then to introduce another type of problem.

specialboy

reeac wrote: »

I know that I'm getting off-subject but is this actually true and if so why? Seems silly to avoid the water-induced problems of an HT system and then to introduce another type of problem.

No it's a load of rubbish, the air intake is the air filter which normally takes air from behind the front grill or sometimes from a vent in the bonnet on some sporty models.

AdrianC

specialboy wrote: »

No it's a load of rubbish, the air intake is the air filter which normally takes air from behind the front grill or sometimes from a vent in the bonnet on some sporty models.

It certainly isn't rubbish - many cars (petrol and diesel) do indeed have the air intake mounted low. And there is a real reason for it. Aerodynamics mean that it makes a lot of sense to take the air - both for intake and cooling - from the lower area. Often, the "grille" above the bumper is purely cosmetic and blanked off. The intake air is also best taken from a cool area, not from behind the radiator.

The "bonnet vent" on "sporty models" is sometimes for cooling air for the intercooler, particularly on Subarus, where the flat engine means that there's a lot of otherwise wasted space at the top - or it's actually a hot air exit (if it's functional at all).

Somewhat misleading thread title, too - the OP wasn't "abandoned". The RAC were still willing and able to recover them.

Retrogamer

arcon5 wrote: »

Some really harsh comments about op here.

Perhaps it's the thread title that ruffled some feathers. The OP has essentially damaged her own car by driving it through a puddle, too deep for it.

However, they have instead decided to try to play to people's emotion via thread title by asserting the RAC didn't positively discriminate for her, based on gender reasons.

specialboy wrote: »

No it's a load of rubbish, the air intake is the air filter which normally takes air from behind the front grill or sometimes from a vent in the bonnet on some sporty models.

The Rover 200 series diesels and MG ZR diesels have an air intake on the bottom of the front grill. just the right place to suck up all the puddles, dirty and leaves from the road

opinions4u

What does the thread title say about sexual equality?