We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Complaint to the AA
Options
Comments
-
Which was nothing of the kind.
But such a feeling of vulnerability would be heightened by scaremongering of this type.
No, you didn't link to one remotely relevant news story. Now you admit that you don't know of one...
Not sure why you keep banging on about scaremongering, it's totally illogical. You admit the recovery companies ask the gender question so they themselves must feel women are more likely to feel at risk otherwise why ask the question.
Your very abrasive manner leads me to believe you're quite an arrogant character. Each to their own. Some folks like to assist in a variety of ways and I'm not sure yours is suitable on a supposedly supportive website.
Here's a little story for you https://uk.yahoo.com/news/watch-shocking-moment-13-year-old-girl-fights-off-sex-attacker-broad-daylight-095823676.html0 -
Not sure why you keep banging on about scaremongering, it's totally illogical.
Yes, it is. But still you keep doing it.Here's a little story for you https://uk.yahoo.com/news/watch-shocking-moment-13-year-old-girl-fights-off-sex-attacker-broad-daylight-095823676.html
There are risks from being at the roadside, especially on trunk roads, with a broken down vehicle. But they are not gender-related. They are traffic-related. They are exacerbated where there are children present, because people are more reluctant to get children out of the car and behind the barrier, especially in poor weather.0 -
Not sure why you keep banging on about scaremongering, it's totally illogical. You admit the recovery companies ask the gender question so they themselves must feel women are more likely to feel at risk otherwise why ask the question.
Your very abrasive manner leads me to believe you're quite an arrogant character. Each to their own. Some folks like to assist in a variety of ways and I'm not sure yours is suitable on a supposedly supportive website.
Here's a little story for you https://uk.yahoo.com/news/watch-shocking-moment-13-year-old-girl-fights-off-sex-attacker-broad-daylight-095823676.html
Luckily, 13yo girls aren't allowed to drive cars.0 -
It strikes me that if the OP feels that she is vulnerable, she shouldn't put herself into that position in the first place. I am female, I also happen to be disabled, but throughout my life I have driven up and down the country, both for work and pleasure. Over my whole driving career of 35 years I have broken down 3 or 4 times, including at night.
I would call whichever service I was registered with at the time, and then just wait, like any other customer (and yes, we all grumble to ourselves/friends if it took more than an hour or 2, don't we?)
Seriously, in the past I would never have expected the rescue service to prioritise me over anyone else, I always assumed they dealt with calls in chronological order.
Actually, now I'm a Motability user, I understand that the RAC have an undertaking to prioritise my call over others. Customers in my position are asked if they need medication or anything else urgently when they make the call to the RAC. I have responded to that question "No, I'm OK and can wait my turn for rescue".
But if the OP wants to take her modified "show car" out and about, and risk it breaking down and needing special facilities to get it to a garage, she should be prepared to accept the circumstances.I try not to get too stressed out on the forum. I won't argue, i'll just leave a thread if you don't like what I say.0 -
Yes, it is. But still you keep doing it.
And there you go again, with totally irrelevant scaremongering.
There are risks from being at the roadside, especially on trunk roads, with a broken down vehicle. But they are not gender-related. They are traffic-related. They are exacerbated where there are children present, because people are more reluctant to get children out of the car and behind the barrier, especially in poor weather.
What you you think would be the result of 'scaremongering'? Go on, figure it out.
Do you think it could make women more likely to take more safety precautions. Well, that's not a negative thing, is it?
Anyway, we don't know where the OP broke down, do we?0 -
BeenThroughItAll wrote: »Luckily, 13yo girls aren't allowed to drive cars.
No, but they're old enough to be sexually assaulted when alone, aren't they?0 -
No, but they're old enough to be sexually assaulted when alone, aren't they?
Which has exactly no relevance whatsoever to the question of the AA applying sexist principles when prioritising callouts.
Children of both sexes get sexually assaulted, which doesn't help back up your argument; so you've not posted any of the hundreds of equally irrelevant articles about boys being fiddled with by their maths teachers, priests, or carers, have you?0 -
What you you think would be the result of 'scaremongering'?
There is only ever one result of scaremongering. Unnecessary fear.Do you think it could make women more likely to take more safety precautions. Well, that's not a negative thing, is it?
It is if those "precautions" include not doing things you would otherwise be happy to do.
B'sides, since the real risks are non-gender-specific, why should it only be one gender taking precautions? Especially if those precautions are irrelevant to the real risks. What precautions were you thinking of, anyway? Maintaining your car properly, so it's less likely to break down in the first place?Anyway, we don't know where the OP broke down, do we?0 -
There is only ever one result of scaremongering. Unnecessary fear.
It is if those "precautions" include not doing things you would otherwise be happy to do.
B'sides, since the real risks are non-gender-specific, why should it only be one gender taking precautions? Especially if those precautions are irrelevant to the real risks. What precautions were you thinking of, anyway? Maintaining your car properly, so it's less likely to break down in the first place?
Given that they had left a venue that's right on the trunk road network, but were still three hours from home, it's safe to assume they were somewhere on the trunk road network.
We seem to have veered off the beaten track. I took exception to your misogynistic lack of empathy with the OP's fear of being a lone and stranded female, even with total disregard of her feelings. But now I've come to realise something.
Now, we all have fears. Me, I'm not too keen on heights. So, I really didn't mean to instill a fearful scenario on your deep and dark unconscious mind and make you so scared.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards