RAC denying responsibilty for towing accident

Stevee

raskazz wrote: »

Why would the car become an unbraked trailer? It is also not the case in law that the driver of a vehicle towing another disabled mechanically propelled vehicle is automatically responsible for any accident that damages the towed car or any third parties' property - it depends entirely on the circumstances of the loss.

Is there case law on this then? If so would you kindly point me towards it or at least name the case.

taz8066

a broken-down car is designed to be coupled to a motor vehicle when it breaks
down (it is fitted with a towing eye for this purpose) and, as such, would fall within the literal
definition of a ‘trailer’ in Article 4(b) of Regulation 561/2006/EC.

and if its over 750kg unbraked shouldnt be towed unless moving to a point of saftey as you were already in a layby you were at a point of saftey
keep on at the rac

ShaunJUK

When I was towed with one of these solid bar things I was told by the AA man that a) I dont have to worry about braking and b) If I dont steer his truck will drag me the right way anyway, it appears the RAC guy never left enough room to pull out, the bar is rigid, the car goes where the tow truck goes.

martindow

ShaunJUK wrote: »

When I was towed with one of these solid bar things I was told by the AA man that a) I dont have to worry about braking and b) If I dont steer his truck will drag me the right way anyway, it appears the RAC guy never left enough room to pull out, the bar is rigid, the car goes where the tow truck goes.

If the car is being towed with some arrangement where the car will steer itself a driver would not need to be in the car. The OP was obviously required to steer but would not need to brake with a solid bar. The question here is whether the RAC man made it clear what was required of him.

ShaunJUK

martindow wrote: »

If the car is being towed with some arrangement where the car will steer itself a driver would not need to be in the car. The OP was obviously required to steer but would not need to brake with a solid bar. The question here is whether the RAC man made it clear what was required of him.

I'm not saying I wasnt supposd to steer it, but if I hadnt the bar would have dragged me in the right direction, he said it wouldnt do my wheels or tyres any favours but most of the movement when towed on an articulated bar is forward anyway,

Stevee

taz8066 wrote: »

a broken-down car is designed to be coupled to a motor vehicle when it breaks
down (it is fitted with a towing eye for this purpose) and, as such, would fall within the literal
definition of a ‘trailer’ in Article 4(b) of Regulation 561/2006/EC.

and if its over 750kg unbraked shouldnt be towed unless moving to a point of saftey as you were already in a layby you were at a point of saftey
keep on at the rac

Thanks for that Tax8066 (I have thanked you), funny how raskazz has not come back with an answer.

I'd keep on at RAC, or keep onto your insurance to do it.

ilikedrawing

The RAC seem to be very reluctant to get their towing frames that lift out of the back of the van. Ive been in a few situations when they clearly cant be arsed.

The RAC man should not have got so close to the parked lorry in the first place. Usually the RAC and AA are very anal about 'health and safety'.

mcjordi

keep on at them ive been towed by a solid tow bar thing and did not have to steer or brake in fact the aa bloke said get in the van where its warmer lol

hewhoisnotintheknow

mcjordi wrote: »

keep on at them ive been towed by a solid tow bar thing and did not have to steer or brake in fact the aa bloke said get in the van where its warmer lol

surely that was an a frame and not just a single pole

newbie71_2

Dear all

Thanks for all the responses - appreciate everyone taking the time. Have been doing double shifts this week but will be looking at them all in more detail over the weekend (esp Steevee and Taz).

Thanks again MSE'rs! :T