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

catkins

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

I learned to drive in the 80s and even then you were told not to sit in your car on the hard shoulder.

In fact, when we frequently broke down in the 70s my father had us all get out of the car and sit well away from the road. It happened so often, it seemed to be part of our holiday!

Just want to add that I'm not blaming these ladies at all. My anger at the situation is reserved entirely for the truck driver.

I never heard advice to get out of the car if it broke down until much later than the 80's.

The advise used to be to stay IN the car

duchy

catkins wrote: »

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?

I doubt they'd leave the kids in crates in the motorhome ...so what is your point ?

It's a stooopid question - they'd either have said "It's a slipping clutch I'll baby the car to the next services" or WALKED the kids to the embankment -10 or 12 children from one family would be a spread of ages from babies to teens and waited for the RAC to send transportation for them all if they couldn't fix it at the roadside.

Frankly if it was only a slipping clutch it'd be a very inexperienced driver who'd stop on the hardshoulder rather than drive in the slow lane to the next services ......the driver could have done so many things differently with a far better outcome. Hindsight is a wonderful thing admittedly but I hope others learn lessons for the future from this.

duchy

catkins wrote: »

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

For the same reasons he wouldn't be allowed to take a child to work
1 He's paid to work not play with his "baby" He can do that at home.
2 H&S regs depending on his job
3 Cos the boss says so...Don't like it? Get another job. The dog isn't the boss or the co-workers problem-just like a child isn't. If the dog needs a sitter and he has to work-do what millions of parents do -pay for a sitter.

You really do live on another planet !!

custardy

catkins wrote: »

I never heard advice to get out of the car if it broke down until much later than the 80's.

The advise used to be to stay IN the car

Which is over 20 years ago then

System

duchy wrote: »

For the same reasons he wouldn't be allowed to take a child to work
1 He's paid to work not play with his "baby" He can do that at home.
2 H&S regs depending on his job
3 Cos the boss says so...Don't like it? Get another job. The dog isn't the boss or the co-workers problem-just like a child isn't. If the dog needs a sitter and he has to work-do what millions of parents do -pay for a sitter.

You really do live on another planet !!

4. There is a person at work that has an allergy to dogs

adouglasmhor

It's all online now, and motorways have their own rules.

https://www.gov.uk/breakdowns-and-incidents-274-to-287/additional-rules-for-motorways-275-to-278

Breakdowns and incidents (274 to 287)

Breakdowns (274)
Additional rules for motorways (275 to 278)
Obstructions (279 to 280)
Incidents (281 to 283)
Incidents involving dangerous goods (284 to 285)
Documentation (286 to 287)
2. Additional rules for motorways (275 to 278)
275
If your vehicle develops a problem, leave the motorway at the next exit or pull into a service area. If you cannot do so, you should

pull on to the hard shoulder and stop as far to the left as possible, with your wheels turned to the left
try to stop near an emergency telephone (situated at approximately one-mile intervals along the hard shoulder)
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
do not put yourself in danger by attempting even simple repairs
ensure that passengers keep away from the carriageway and hard shoulder, and that children are kept under control
walk to an emergency telephone on your side of the carriageway (follow the arrows on the posts at the back of the hard shoulder) – the telephone is free of charge and connects directly to the Highways Agency or the police. Use these in preference to a mobile phone (see Rule 283). Always face the traffic when you speak on the phone
give full details to the Highways Agency or the police; also inform them if you are a vulnerable motorist such as disabled, older or travelling alone
return and wait near your vehicle (well away from the carriageway and hard shoulder)
if you feel at risk from another person, return to your vehicle by a left-hand door and lock all doors. Leave your vehicle again as soon as you feel this danger has passed.

I was wrong to suggest a warning triangle earlier but was quickly and politely put right by another user.

jackyann

This thread is so long I am not sure if anyone answered the question about animal belts. On a dog they are like a harness, with a loop that you can pass a seat belt through.
This stops the dog jumping about & potentially distracting the driver. They are obviously not suitable for transporting several dogs, but work well for the family pet.
I do think they can be helpful. Many years ago I witnessed an accident where a lorry passed much too close to a car that had just parked. The side of the car was peeled open like a can of sardines. The driver was fine as the metal just missed her. Had the dog been harnessed, it would have been fine, but it was loose on the back seat. It jumped out and in its distress, ran into the road and caused several cars to swerve & hit various things. All at low speeds, so no-one was hurt - not even the dog as everyone avoided it! But it escalated the situation and could have been much worse.

sooz

Yesterday I saw a breakdown on the hard shoulder of the m40.

It was a large car, with two adults, and three children in buggies. The reason I noticed them as I drove past[STRIKE] at 69mph officer[/STRIKE] was they were all up on the embankment and all wearing yellow high vis vests. The woman was also partially wrapped in a foil blanket. The children were in buggies, with the back of the buggies facing the road, & the high vis jackets over the handles facing the cars.

They were very visible, & had clearly planned & thought about what to do in the event of a breakdown. They would have been warmer & more comfortable inside the car. They would have had to open the boot to get to the buggies. They would have had to strap three children into buggies either on the hard shoulder, or up the embankment. But they did so because it was safer.

I feel sorry for the ladies involved & their dogs. That notwithstanding, many posters here cannot see the poor risk assessment that they unfortunately made.

Person_one

sooz wrote: »

I feel sorry for the ladies involved & their dogs. That notwithstanding, many posters here cannot see the poor risk assessment that they unfortunately made.

I'm sorry, but what exactly do you think they should have done?

There was risk inherent in driving on the motorway with 12 dogs in a large vehicle, I suppose, but I'm pretty sure its now clear that they did the right thing by leaving them in their secure crates in the motorhome.

custardy

Person_one wrote: »

I'm sorry, but what exactly do you think they should have done?

There was risk inherent in driving on the motorway with 12 dogs in a large vehicle, I suppose, but I'm pretty sure its now clear that they did the right thing by leaving them in their secure crates in the motorhome.

Is it?

..................