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

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Shiv699 wrote: »

Undergrowth is not easily stamped down sometimes... Also not in the dark... The accident occurred at 5.40am. Imagine how terrifying for the dogs and owners that would be, trying to get them out safely, tie them up safely and try keep warm also for 3 hours. It is in no way the owners fault. The lorry driver and the RAC yes.

Vehicle was being used for commercial purposes, transporting livestock. 12 show dogs. Probably invalidates motor insurance.

They failed to carry out a risk assessment prior to the journey, about egress of the livestock. Also probably failed to keep keep vehicle serviced.

Failed to egress the vehicle to a safe place. Note I stood with Ms BoP for 2 hours in the rain on the M5 in Bristol when I bumped my car once. Wet yes, but very safe.

krlyr

Why would show dogs be classed as livestock?

lostinrates

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Vehicle was being used for commercial purposes, transporting livestock. 12 show dogs. Probably invalidates motor insurance.

They failed to carry out a risk assessment prior to the journey, about egress of the livestock. Also probably failed to keep keep vehicle serviced.

Failed to egress the vehicle to a safe place. Note I stood with Ms BoP for 2 hours in the rain on the M5 in Bristol when I bumped my car once. Wet yes, but very safe.

Commercial purpose? Could have been part of commercial purpose of publicity for a commercial breeder but three women and twelve dogs also could be more like enthusiastic amateurs spending a fortune on their hobby and social life. Its very , very common for exhibitors to meet and travel together.

Showing is not part of a commercial enterprise for huge numbers of those who do it. ( its just expensive 'fun')

I know several of people who have four or five pet dogs who don't show or do other arranged activity. What about my relatively normal number of three? Or people taking one or two dogs out ( to a show or otherwise)?

These are interesting lines to draw.

Tiffany_Aching

I don't understand why there is so much blame directed towards the RAC in this case. It is usual to send a smaller van out first to see if the problem can be sorted at the roadside.

I drive a long wheel base mini bus and I often transport a passenger in their wheelchair, with the chair fixed in place with tracking on the floor. It is not easy to carry this passenger using a seatbelt for a host of reasons, one being that they will constantly take it off and fight to move around the vehicle as they are unable to understand danger. Should we break down we are aware that we will be more difficult to recover than a bog-standard car. These ladies must have also been aware that they would not be a normal recovery - considering they were in a motor home with a large amount of dogs. It is simply not a case of hooking up a tow and bunging everyone in the cab with the driver.

We are covered by the RAC and have broken down twice - once on the motorway. Both times we have had a small van sent out first to see if the bus can be fixed at roadside, the time we broke down on the motorway they were unable to restart us. We then had to wait for 2 hours for a truck able to transport us to arrive, during that time I chose to stay in the bus with my passenger as there was no way we would have been able to get him and his wheelchair up the embankment and he was not safe to leave on his own. As we were in a vehicle which was more difficult to transport than a car we had to wait for the only trailer near to us to become available. On talking to the driver I found out that he had come from the next county.

It is normal for the RAC (and the AA who I used to belong to) to send a smaller van out first. It is also normal to have to wait a couple of hours for a larger tow vehicle.

catkins

meritaten wrote: »

oh and I can remember the advice used to be (when motorways first opened), to drive onto the 'hard shoulder', stay in your vehicle and wait for help!

Yes the hard shoulder is meant to be the place for broken down vehicles and the advice was always to stay in the vehicle. Trouble is nowadays there are far more idiot drivers on the roads and incidents of vehicles (often lorries) ploughing into a broken down vehicle are sadly far too common. I think there are a lot of drivers on the road that definitely shouldn't be.

geri1965 wrote: »

I don't remember when motorways first opened, but I do remember being in my nan's car which broke down on the M5 when I was a kid, so some time in the 1970s, and I remember very clearly that we had to get out of the car and wait on the embankment.

Who told you to get out of the car? Your nan? That definitely was NOT the common thing to be told. I know me and OH have broken down a few times during our married life and it is only fairly recently that we have got out of the car because we know that is now what the advice is. We didn't even meet until 1980 so it was normal for people to stay in their vehicle I would say at least into the 90's (in reality I think it was much later than that)

custardy wrote: »

Apart from choice of vehicle and choice of staying in the car.
Cold & scared vs hit by an HGV
Whats to choose?
and since you state it,what could the RAC do?
its a massive motorhome that needs a specific vehicle to remove it. So?

We all think yes of course we would stand in the rain or snow, freezing cold for hours to be safe, but would we all in reality? They waited over 3 hours. For all we know they could have stood for 2 hours 45 minutes getting wetter and wetter and colder and colder and thought we will risk sitting in the vehicle for a short while to try and warm up and dry out a bit and lo and behold a lorry hits them.

We should be asking why it is not safe to sit in a broken down vehicle. What if it were a woman on her own? Is she meant to stand on the embankment for 3 hours freezing and wet with the added threat of maybe being attacked?

catkins

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Vehicle was being used for commercial purposes, transporting livestock. 12 show dogs. Probably invalidates motor insurance.

They failed to carry out a risk assessment prior to the journey, about egress of the livestock. Also probably failed to keep keep vehicle serviced.

Failed to egress the vehicle to a safe place. Note I stood with Ms BoP for 2 hours in the rain on the M5 in Bristol when I bumped my car once. Wet yes, but very safe.

"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

catkins

custardy wrote: »

How hard? A flimsy camper van vs an HGV at M/way speeds
Would only take a clip to cause massive damage
So what happens if this 'idiot' driver had to swerve to miss a vehicle veering into his lane? would he still be an idiot?
personally I think the 25 people cancelling without knowing the full story are the idiots

Edit: on closer inspection of the pics
I see this is a twin rear axle motor home
well outside the scope of a standard tow. So you tell me. How exactly could the driver tow it?
I that situation with a Transit(we assume) he cant tow it
So what does he do?
have 3 people and 12 dogs in the cab?

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.

thorsoak

I have had first hand reports of this dreadful accident, which is why I posted, to correct surmises, what-ifs, etc.

The people involved included an internationally-renowned photographer of dogs, her assistant and a dog owner. They were travelling to attend/compete in two dog shows. The woman who was injured has suffered spinal injuries, ruptured spleen and a broken leg. The driver of the articulated lorry suffered no injuries.

This case has highlighted what could well be a problem to other non-dog showing families. Whether you own one dog or three, if you take them on holiday, or just out for a drive to take them for a walk, if you have an accident/breakdown, you cannot rely on the fact that they will recover you and your dogs. It is at the discretion of the recovery driver.

Just be aware that you may not be getting what you thought you had paid for! These ladies paid the price for not realising that fact.

Mojisola

Shiv699 wrote: »

Undergrowth is not easily stamped down sometimes... Also not in the dark... The accident occurred at 5.40am. Imagine how terrifying for the dogs and owners that would be, trying to get them out safely, tie them up safely and try keep warm also for 3 hours. It is in no way the owners fault. The lorry driver and the RAC yes.

So they were travelling at night
- did they have several good torches in the car?
- a couple of flasks of hot drinks?
- several blankets/warm waterproof clothes?
- a plan for looking after the dogs if they broke down - a way to keep them warm and dry and safe?


The RAC did what any of the similar companies would do - send out a van to see if a roadside repair could be made. When that wasn't possible, a suitable tow truck had to be brought in. Unless you break down near to where the tow truck is kept, a long wait would have been inevitable.

I wonder what the people who have cancelled their RAC membership will do now. Join one of the other companies that has the same exceptions as the RAC or pay up for private recovery when they next break down?

adouglasmhor

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Vehicle was being used for commercial purposes, transporting livestock. 12 show dogs. Probably invalidates motor insurance.

They failed to carry out a risk assessment prior to the journey, about egress of the livestock. Also probably failed to keep keep vehicle serviced.

Failed to egress the vehicle to a safe place. Note I stood with Ms BoP for 2 hours in the rain on the M5 in Bristol when I bumped my car once. Wet yes, but very safe.

Dogs are not livestock.