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

krlyr

!!!!!! wrote: »

Considering the number of cases reported of vehicles on the hard shoulder being hit by other vehicles then that was definitely a case of ignoring ALL the advice ever produced for this situation and putting comfort over safety

Trying to avoid hypothermia isn't really a matter of comfort though

System

catkins wrote: »

We should be asking why there are so many incidents like this, far too often involving lorries.

My personal opinion is that a lot of the reason is because of consumer expectation of fresh stuff being in the shops first thing in the morning and shops having to use JIT deliveries due to the need to reduce costs of stock storage.

This results in more and more lorries starting their delivery runs in the early hours (my niece's husband starts work at 2AM to enable deliveries to be done at 8AM). Having been a nightshift worker albeit in a different job, you never properly adjust to those hours and are not on top form.

You can't bank rest/sleep. The amount of sleep you get is normally the result of the amount of exertion previous to the sleep period. Consequently unless you are on a permanent early shift and adjust your life completely around it then by about 5-6AM you are starting to flag and can no longer keep up the level of concentration needed.

So the consequence is that early hour lorry crashes increase, but only get to hit the papers when they involve another vehicle on the hard shoulder.

Another factor to consider is the increase in foreign lorries on the roads and the problems of LH drive vehicles in a RH drive environment, with maybe a poor understanding of UK driving regulations etc.

M0ney

catkins wrote: »

But why are so many vehicles on the hard shoulder hit by other vehicles? There is no excuse for this unless maybe a vehicle suffered a tyre bursting at speed and the driver losing control. We should be asking why there are so many incidents like this, far too often involving lorries.

I know this advice never used to be given because it wasn't heard of for a broken down vehicle to be hit by another vehicle.

Quite, to say that the woman and dogs shouldn't have been in the vehicle is rediculous. OK it's goes against the standard advice but any driver who has passed his test especially a professional HGV driver should be expecting that at any moment there could be a broken down vehicle on the hard shoulder and it should be avoided regardless of whether anyone is in it. If he wasn't fit to drive through tiredness or eyesight, then again he and his company and culpable. I accept that there is an issue with foreign drivers on our roads as we don't know that their driving test will have been as rigorous as the UK driving tests.

pawsies

A better update on the situation

http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/104798

thorsoak

The breakdown occurred in the early hours of the morning - it was cold enough here and I imagine that it would have been even colder on the M-40 that night!

It would have been impossible to remove the crates from the motorhome, as they were firmly fixed in there - which is why the dogs would not have been removed onto the hard shoulder.

Yes, it was an accident, caused by an inattentive lorry driver - but it is an accident which could have been far less traumatic had the original RAC recovery driver used his initiative as well as his discretion.

One person seriously injured in hospital, three dogs dead, and the RAC's reputation down the drain

System

thorsoak wrote: »

had the original RAC recovery driver used his initiative as well as his discretion.

What do you suggest that the RAC man should have done? Bearing in mind that he was on the scene and assessed the situation whereas you have only a few news reports to base your assertions.

Towing was probably not an option as the motorhome probably exceeded the maximum towing capacity of a standard RAC van.He could not have got a dozen dogs either in or out of crates into his tool laden van. Hanging around was not an option as there were probably other calls to service and you can not tie up the van doing nothing for hours. What other options were available?

thorsoak

!!!!!! wrote: »

What do you suggest that the RAC man should have done? Bearing in mind that he was on the scene and assessed the situation whereas you have only a few news reports to base your assertions.

I have had first-hand reports of the situation.

Towing was probably not an option as the motorhome probably exceeded the maximum towing capacity of a standard RAC van.He could not have got a dozen dogs either in or out of crates into his tool laden van. Hanging around was not an option as there were probably other calls to service and you can not tie up the van doing nothing for hours. What other options were available?

The first telephone call to the RAC notified them that (1) the vehicle was a 35' motorhome which would require flat-bed recovery; and (2) that there were 12 dogs in the motorhome.

Had these facts been assessed correctly by the RAC before sending out the first vehicle, a more suitable vehicle might have been alerted to pick up the occupants and remove them to a place of safety whilst the recovery of the motorhome could await the arrival of the appropriate recovery vehicle.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Can we stop blaming the RAC as if this vehicle was a normal car. It was a professional vehicle transporting '12 dogs'. This would had required more specialist recovery, than the standard van would have been able to tend to. I also fail to note any sign of a crate!


Also, if this vehicle had broken down, I would check the service history.


From my view of the award winning photographers images, is that this vehicle was a camper van, or even possible a Van - caravan trailer.


As me, in my professional capacity, do have correct insurance for my car, and my professional items. One hopes that the those involved in this imminent also have the same.


Sits back and expects Daily Mail readers to ...

thorsoak

The vehicle was a 35' MOTOR HOME. The dogs were securely crated in the airline approved crates which were securely fixed in the vehicle.

The RAC were notified of this fact when the initial call for assistance was made - as was the fact that 12 dogs were in the vehicle.

geri1965_2

thorsoak wrote: »

T

The RAC were notified of this fact when the initial call for assistance was made - as was the fact that 12 dogs were in the vehicle.

But they don't send a recovery truck out for every call out, surely? A lot of breakdowns can be fixed at the scene, so until they get there they cannot know if a recovery vehicle will be needed or not.