RAC refused to help breakdown because they had dogs inside the vehicle

WTFH

thorsoak wrote: »

yes. Rac were also informed that the vehicle concerned was a 35' motorhome.

...and that it was full of dogs?

gettingready

Full of dogs or not - they sent a mechanic who could not fix on the roadside as it happens often with other cars.

Mechanic could not fix, called for recovery truck to tow the motorhome away (with dogs inside).

Again - very misleading thread title as nothing happened "because of the dogs".

Empty motorhome would have to wait the same amount of time for a suitable towing truck.

duchy

Principia wrote: »

If they had got the dogs out and some of the dogs suffered because of that then I expect you would be blaming them for that too.

Personally I feel the only one to blame here is the lorry driver. However I wonder whether, in view of the danger of waiting on the hard shoulder, perhaps breakdown companies should always aim tow people off of the hard shoulder asap, even before trying to fix the problem at the motorway side. Equally if a camera catches someone on the hard shoulder who hasn't broken down, points and very substantial fine should be given out.

Ah yes the obsession with our blame culture. We have no idea if the driver was to blame or not . The lorry could have had a tyre blow out for example ......or even the dog driver could have known there was a niggle with the motor home and left it to sort till after the weekend. We simply don't know.

Incidentally how do you expect the RAC to have towed this motor home off the hard shoulder without a weight capable tow truck? Your idea would have made no difference in this case as they would still have had to wait for the larger rig . In another scenario the first on scene may have been able to fix it anyway but you'd not want that and insist they wait for a suitable tow truck regardless ??

moggymutt

Because of how dangerous a hard shoulder is, I would have thought hard shoulder breakdowns would merit a vehicle capable of towing STRAIGHT AWAY.

lostinrates

A etching has just occurred to me.


A couple of years ago, three maybe, DH had a nasty crash on a minor road. We were with a breakdown service and they took too long to arrive. The police were in attendance.,

They said that it was unsafe to leave a crash on this minor country road for so long and arranged to tow our car. (It was an hour)

How long would they normally be prepared to leave a vehicle on a hard shoulder on?

Its something I just know zilch about. I understood the advice for breaking down in the cold was to stay in the vehicle and run the heater on full (if possible) for a few minutes every quarter hour or so to avoid temps dropping too low.

gettingready

moggymutt wrote: »

Because of how dangerous a hard shoulder is, I would have thought hard shoulder breakdowns would merit a vehicle capable of towing STRAIGHT AWAY.

How? To every breakdown?

Imagine insurance permiums jumping up if the whole fleet of recovery vehicles had to consist of ones able to tow all/any kind of a broken down car.

adouglasmhor

moggymutt wrote: »

Because of how dangerous a hard shoulder is, I would have thought hard shoulder breakdowns would merit a vehicle capable of towing STRAIGHT AWAY.

Such vehicles are very expensive and possibly even have to be booked from a contractor, they cannot possibly have them on standby everywhere, one was on the way after the initial mechanic could not get the breakdown fixed.

Principia_2

gettingready wrote: »

How? To every breakdown?

Imagine insurance permiums jumping up if the whole fleet of recovery vehicles had to consist of ones able to tow all/any kind of a broken down car.

Perhaps hard shoulder breakdowns could be prioritised?

(edited to add) To duchy

Ah yes the obsession with our blame culture. We have no idea if the driver was to blame or not . The lorry could have had a tyre blow out for example

That is a very valid point, thank you

Incidentally how do you expect the RAC to have towed this motor home off the hard shoulder without a weight capable tow truck? Your idea would have made no difference in this case as they would still have had to wait for the larger rig .

First they had insurance for a motor home and secondly they mentioned it to the RAC when reporting the breakdown. My idea would be that the larger rig would go straight out and tow them somewhere safer and then perhaps try to fix the vehicle on the roadside.

My thoughts on towing breakdowns on the hard shoulder as a priority was more a general observation that waiting on the hard shoulder is dangerous (no matter whose fault it is) and so perhaps any breakdown company could be attempting to minimising that wait, afterall some people have to wait in the car due to, say disabilities.

It's more learning from this accident rather than pointing the finger at any breakdown company because I don't think they did anything particularly wrong either, but I do wonder if they could change their procedures and perhaps save more life and limb than they do at the moment.

gettingready

Perhaps hard shoulder breakdowns could be prioritised?

Ermm - wouldn't that include ALL motorway break downs?

Principia_2

gettingready wrote: »

Ermm - wouldn't that include ALL motorway break downs?

I thought the police attended and shut down lanes if you literally broke down on the motorway? :eek: I assumed they arranged tows but maybe not?