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

custardy

moggymutt wrote: »

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.

yup,and how many 'local' have low loaders ready to roll?

System

ostrichnomore wrote: »

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. .

And that is why the service is called 'Vehicle ROADSIDE and Recovery' and not just 'Vehicle Recovery'

gettingready

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

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


![/B]

Well - people see the title like on THIS thread and forget to use logic/their own brain to analyse.

The thread title on this thread is completely wrong.. to start with.

moggymutt

custardy wrote: »

yup,and how many 'local' have low loaders ready to roll?

Must just be my area because lots of low loaders out here.

Guess I'm just a total coward. I seldom go on motorways and if I did break down I would want to be got off there asap.

catkins

custardy wrote: »

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

The hard shoulder did used to be reasonably safe. Me and OH broke down a few times between 1980 and probably 2000 and sat in the vehicle. It never occurred to us not to. I know of other people also who broke down and sat in the vehicle. It's not a safe place now with all the idiots on the road that's for sure but should we just accept that?

custardy wrote: »

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?

The RAC must have known what the vehicle was. The women would have said on the phone and it would be the vehicle that they were PAYING to be covered every month.

I don't give a damn what the lorry driver did before he hit that vehicle but he probably should not have been driving, like a great percentage of lorry drivers.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Try to keep up to date with advice like that.
https://www.gov.uk/breakdowns-and-incidents-274-to-287/additional-rules-for-motorways-275-to-278
leave the vehicle by the left-hand door and ensure your passengers do the same. You MUST leave any animals in the vehicle or, in an emergency, keep them under proper control on the verge. Never attempt to place a warning triangle on a motorway

Must try harder to keep up to date with advice. Must try harder to keep up to date with advice (how many lines would you like me to do?)

There is no way EVER I would get out of the vehicle and leave any animal of mine inside

catkins

gettingready wrote: »

Ermmmmm - terrible thing to happen BUT:

1) No recovery vehicle is able to take on 12 dogs and 3 people at once.

Wonder what they would do if they attended a breakdown involving one of the abnormally large families in this country? Parents and 8 children? 10 children? 12 children?

bugslet

catkins wrote: »

I don't give a damn what the lorry driver did before he hit that vehicle but he probably should not have been driving, like a great percentage of lorry drivers.

As long as you apply that rationale to anyone that has an accident, of which car drivers have more in relation to the miles they drive.

I really dislike the vitriol that you have come out with towards differing sections of society, most of which seems to based on prejudice and certainly not on knowledge. I can respect people that post from an informed position even if I disagree with them, you just post twaddle.

Never put anyone on this forum on ignore before, first time for everything.

custardy

catkins wrote: »

The hard shoulder did used to be reasonably safe. Me and OH broke down a few times between 1980 and probably 2000 and sat in the vehicle. It never occurred to us not to. I know of other people also who broke down and sat in the vehicle. It's not a safe place now with all the idiots on the road that's for sure but should we just accept that?


So roads with cars going 70mph next to a stationary object were safe? Or is that based on the fact you are alive?




The RAC must have known what the vehicle was. The women would have said on the phone and it would be the vehicle that they were PAYING to be covered every month.

I don't give a damn what the lorry driver did before he hit that vehicle but he probably should not have been driving, like a great percentage of lorry drivers.

and as been said many many times. They go out with a first contact of getting the vehicle running,not recovery.
Yet again,how do you know it was the HGV drivers fault?




Must try harder to keep up to date with advice. Must try harder to keep up to date with advice (how many lines would you like me to do?)

There is no way EVER I would get out of the vehicle and leave any animal of mine inside

well then,what would you like everyone else to do if you(like the people in this incident) choose to do that?

catkins

Contrary to what people are posting on here the advice used to be if you broke down to move the vehicle, if possible, onto the hard shoulder and REMAIN in the vehicle. It never used to be to get out of the vehicle because there is every chance you will be hit and killed

catkins

bugslet wrote: »

As long as you apply that rationale to anyone that has an accident, of which car drivers have more in relation to the miles they drive.

I really dislike the vitriol that you have come out with towards differing sections of society, most of which seems to based on prejudice and certainly not on knowledge. I can respect people that post from an informed position even if I disagree with them, you just post twaddle.

Never put anyone on this forum on ignore before, first time for everything.

If you are talking about muslims, I have some that are friends. The fact is most of them do not like dogs believing them to be unclean etc. That's knowledge not prejudice.

Why should my OH no longer be allowed to take a dog to work for a few hours a week because of 1 PERSON?