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

custardy

custardy wrote: »

So to be clear
3 people,12 dogs
dogs all in crates apparently

So small dogs lifted in crates
larger dogs taken on leads and put into crates on embankment
Dogs have fur coats
people will no doubt have clothes given the size of their vehicle
sneeze all they want

Also as I said before. If it were me(and I assume they coasted or were under power)
I would have had my vehicle further over on the embankment
it was a gentle slope and plenty of space

meritaten wrote: »

oh and three women could push a 35 foot motorhome up onto a steep embankment? how about making the hard shoulder a bit wider?

Yup,thats what I said
oh wait,no i didnt

Tiffany_Aching

Three ladies go to a dog show, taking their 12 dogs, securely crated, in the back of their motor home. At some point in their journey the motor home breaks down and they call their breakdown provider, the RAC, for assistance. The RAC send out a small van to attempt to repair the motor home roadside - as is normal procedure. The motor home cannot be repaired so a larger vehicle capable of towing the motor home is ordered so that the ladies, dogs and motor home can be towed. Whilst the flatbed recovery vehicle is on it's way to the breakdown a lorry hits the motorhome. As I understand it, at the moment it is not known what caused this accident.

The RAC did not refuse to help these ladies due to the dogs. It would be unrealistic to expect a flatbed capable of this type of recovery to be within 20 minutes or so of any potential breakdown - the cost would be skyhigh. Until more information is known about what happened regarding why the lorry hit the motorhome then you cannot blame the lorry driver. Yes, it may be that the lorry driver took his attention off of the road for a split second and the accident was entirely his fault, but it may also be that another driver did something stupid and the lorry driver was reacting to this - so many possible scenarios that you cannot call who to blame until more is known.

Dog owners now know that the terms and conditions of the RAC / AA - and maybe other companies - membership means that they may not be recovered if there is a dog in the car (which is irrelevant in this story as they were going to recover). If this is in the terms and conditions you have agreed to then it is not the fault of the breakdown company if you don't read the terms and conditions. I am equally guilty of having not fully read the T&Cs and - as a dog owner myself - had only read the T&Cs concerning the weight / amount of passengers due to my driving a mini-bus.

I'm really not understanding why there is so much anger regarding this story.

adouglasmhor

catkins wrote: »

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?

It's prejudice and ignorance on their part as only the saliva of a dog is unclean (Haram) in their Holy books. In fact the instruction is not to eat any food a dog has had in it's mouth and to wash if a dog gets saliva on you.
http://islam.about.com/od/islamsays/a/Dogs-In-Islam.htm
http://www.islamicconcern.com/dogs.asp

adouglasmhor

custardy wrote: »

So to be clear
3 people,12 dogs
dogs all in crates apparently

So small dogs lifted in crates
larger dogs taken on leads and put into crates on embankment
Dogs have fur coats
people will no doubt have clothes given the size of their vehicle
sneeze all they want

Also as I said before. If it were me(and I assume they coasted or were under power)
I would have had my vehicle further over on the embankment
it was a gentle slope and plenty of space

Apparently reading the interview with one of the women linked earlier - they were all wee dogs (corgis, toy poodles etc.), but as the lady pointed out the door to the box body of the vehicle was on the traffic side and to attempt to move them would have meant egressing into the slow lane of the motorway.

custardy

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Apparently reading the interview with one of the women linked earlier - they were all wee dogs (corgis, toy poodles etc.), but as the lady pointed out the door to the box body of the vehicle was on the traffic side and to attempt to move them would have meant egressing into the slow lane of the motorway.

which is my point that I would have gone further over, on pulling into the hard shoulder

adouglasmhor

custardy wrote: »

which is my point that I would have gone further over, on pulling into the hard shoulder

I don't know the road but with a slipping clutch I would maybe have tried to get to a services if possible and one was near.

custardy

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I don't know the road but with a slipping clutch I would maybe have tried to get to a services if possible and one was near.

right,but when you realise/decide you aren't going to make it then you pull over
Its at that point you plan where
As you can see its a fairly gentle uphill slope (vs downhill where you would be forgiven not venturing over an unknown drop)

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi everyone

After seeing this we asked the RAC and AA for their stance on dogs in vehicles that need recovering. You can see their responses in our Cheap Breakdown Cover guide.

custardy

I had reason to call the RAC today(business fleet cover)
1st thing it tells you on the automated service is to exit the vehicle and wait at the side of the road (paraphrasing)

custardy

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi everyone

After seeing this we asked the RAC and AA for their stance on dogs in vehicles that need recovering. You can see their responses in our Cheap Breakdown Cover guide.

All you really got was what is stated in their T&Cs