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

custardy

blossomsuz wrote: »

From the other posts I have read on the pet forums, the dogs were secured in airline approved travel crates - I am sure if they weren't even more of them would have been at rainbow bridge at this time.

The ladies involved couldn't unload the dogs due to it being a German RV type vehicle with the door facing out onto the carriageway. I am sure in the same circumstances MOST of us would stay in the vehicle with their dogs.

Also sadly I think it is now four dogs that have passed on as the one in veterinary care had to be put to sleep due to the injuries it sustained.

Regardless of who is at fault it is very sad for all involved and a big reminder to us all to check our breakdown policies.

Here is hoping for a speedy recovery for the young lady who sustained very bad injuries and big hugs to the poor people who lost their beloved companions.

I read that too
however looking at the crash pics,I surprised they didnt bring the RV further over when they stopped
looking at its positioning Im guessing they coasted to a stop

custardy

catkins wrote: »

"used for commercial purposes" - Really!!! What vehicle exactly should people who show dogs use?

Do you know they failed to carry out a risk assessment? Do you know they failed to keep the vehicle serviced? A vehicle could have a service and still break down. It is possible for a brand new car to break down you know.

How could they "egress" the vehicle to a safe place if it had broken down?

Good for you standing for 2 hours in the rain? Would you have been happy for your wife to stand alone in the rain, and possibly dark, for 2 hours if you had not been there?

People should be safe on the hard shoulder. They used to be so what changed? We should not accept that other vehicles regularly plough into broken down vehicles. It could happen if a vehicle has a blow out but in how many of these incidents is this the case?

It could have been of course that the RAC van could have been parked behind the broken down vehicle and then the lorry driver could have demolished that as well. It's a sad country we live in when being a breakdown mechanic has become a dangerous job and nothing is done about it

The 'safe' place is that big chunk of grass to the left of the vehicle
The hard shoulder has and never will be safe
physics dictates that

custardy

catkins wrote: »

Did the idiot driver swerve to miss a vehicle? I doubt it very much.

Across the country far more than 25 people will have cancelled their RAC cover. That is just the amount of people I know, but of course according to you, I only know idiots.

Anyone who drives regularly on our roads, particularly motorways, cannot have failed to see how awful a lot of lorry drivers are. I am only surprised there are not more accidents involving lorries every day. I hope this one goes to prison.

The RAC should have sent out a recovery vehicle capable of towing the broken down vehicle. They can tow lorries so I am sure a camper van is perfectly feasible for them.

I have seen photos of the completely wrecked vehicles in dog magazines and there are clearly reinforced dog crates.

Ah now we get to the crux
So the dog people are without reproach but you have decided there could be no valid reason for the HGV driver?
You're right,No doubt he will have just murdered a prostitute,prayed to Mecca and been driving for 4 days solid


So the RAC should send out a tow capable vehicle for a twin axle vehicle for every breakdown?
Is what you are getting on prescription?

custardy

Mojisola wrote: »

Perhaps the recovery organisations will put the information about not taking domestic animals more prominently in their T&Cs after this furore.

Even though we have breakdown cover, we still make sure we can look after ourselves for a few hours if we do break down or get stuck in a jam after a major accident. It doesn't take a lot of thinking - what do we need to keep warm, dry, have a pee, have a snack and a drink and a torch to see what's happening. In winter, we add in a snow shovel and some other bits and pieces. During the recent stormy weather, the chain saw went in the boot as well.

Is it in smaller print that the rest?
All the ones i checked had it in their standard exclusions

custardy

thorsoak wrote: »

As they were travelling in a MOTORHOME and had intending camping overnight Saturday for the show on the Sunday, it is reasonable to expect that they could (a) make a hot drink (b) would have sufficient blankets/bedding to keep 3 people warm and food sufficient for themselves and the 12 dogs.

As for people cancelling their RAC membership, this is what we did when we were taking part in dog shows, as I said in an earlier post. We chose to share our vehicle/travelling to shows with another couple - and he was a qualified ford motor mechanic, who could keep us on the road! Other dog-showers who knew of the RAC's policy did the same.

Obviously as years have gone by, people's awareness of this policy has diminished.

So what company do/did they use?

Mojisola

custardy wrote: »

Is it in smaller print that the rest?
All the ones i checked had it in their standard exclusions

No, but after such a outcry, their PR people will want to show that the company is doing "something".

As it seems that many people assume a domestic pet would be taken on from a breakdown along with the family, they could show they are trying to educate people that this isn't guaranteed.

ostrichnomore_2

I dont' think the RAC have done anything wrong. It's not a tow service - like all of these organisations they try to fix what is wrong so you can get on your way.Towing is the last resort. So sending the first vehicle available, even if it can't tow you, is normal and HELPFUL. Supposing it was only a minor fix on the van, but they'd been made to wait 3 or 4 hours for a different vehicle, instead of the short wait for the one that first attended? Everyone would moan about that as well.

I recently broke down and the AA sent a van out quickly. The problem was not fixable and we needed a tow. The van sent couldn't safely attach it's tow equipment to my car, and in any case the van could only take two passengers and there were three of us. so that vehicle left and we had to wait for a bigger tow truck. I'm still glad the first vehicle came. It wasn't his fault it was not a fixable problem. If it had been, we'd have been sorted out nice and quickly.

And I thought everyone knew you got the f away from your vehicle up the embankment. Even if it's cold. Even if it's raining. Even if it's in the night. Even if you have to leave animals (or even non-mobile people) in the car. So many of these accidents happen on the hard shoulder. So many people are killed in their vehicles.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Principia wrote: »

I've highlighted the last bit - I assume that also includes the hard shoulder?

Your highlight is noted, except the point being they should had left the vehicle. Yes it was cold.


Fortunately they are able to recount their experiences.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

It is no good Custardy. Them on FaceBucks and the Dog Squad want the lorry driver strung up, and the recovery man castrated.


Alas, the renown snapper was not in any difficulty getting her shots of dog crates though!

moggymutt

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.

All recovery companies are capable of calling in local businesses- in a rural area like mine, no matter RAC or AA, they normally send out our local garage.

Kids have died in cars on hard shoulders.