# Motorhome accident on M40 - showdogs



## bulawayolass (Jul 27, 2010)

If you have dogs does your breakdown cover it. The following is a pretty horrendous story to say the least with an awful ending.
It is on facebook the pictures are there of the remains of the motorhome but l will do a cut and paste of the story for those without facebook.

Breakdown Horror

Do you have breakdown cover with the RAC? And do you have dogs?
23 November 2013 at 13:01

Think you're going to be rescued if you break down? Think again.

Last night 3 ladies broke down on the M40. In their camper van they had 12 dogs. The dogs were contained in the van. The RAC refused to move the vehicle to safety because of the dogs being on board - not even to a nearby services. The van was parked on the hard shoulder in the darkness for THREE hours, until a lorry ran into it. 3 dogs died, several were running loose on the motorway. Two of the passengers were injured.

Today I have spoken to the RAC to clarify what my membership covers and they have told me it is at the discretion of the recovery driver if he chooses to recover the vehicle if there are dogs on board. Even if those dogs are secured or crated. The dogs don't have to pose a threat in any way, it's solely dependant on the person who comes out to you.

If you have RAC membership and own dogs, can I seriously suggest you speak to them, ask them to change their policies and until they do, look elsewhere for your cover.

Apparently all major breakdown services are not 100% on dogs so CHECK

site helper note - 2 threads merged to avoid duplication.


----------



## KeithChesterfield (Mar 12, 2010)

I can't for the life of me see why the MH couldn't have been moved to a safer place.

Both the lorry driver's and the Motorhome's Insurance company will have to ask serious questions to the RAC about there actions before they start to think about paying any money to whoever are considered the 'innocent' party.

Following on from that - there was a thread on the French forum of TripAdvisor earlier this year about dogs travelling in Europe and would they be repatriated with you if your vehicle broke down or was written off when abroad.

Apparently dogs are not covered by Insurance companies and it is up to the discretion of the breakdown services as to what would happen to the dogs – in this country or abroad.

I rang my insurance company, MHF / Aviva with RAC breakdown cover as you've asked, and according to the Insurance company pets are not covered but to their knowledge no animal has been left behind when the owners are brought back to the UK. 

That was what I was told over the phone but I have nothing in writing to confirm or deny what I was told.

Having a dozen dogs in one vehicle would complicate the situation as there is only so much space in a breakdown vehicle and some sort of decision, hopefully sensible, would have to be made at the roadside if you were abroad. 

But it beggers belief that the MH mentioned wasn't moved away from the roadside and/or the Police alerted and I would think the Police are asking the same question.


----------



## bulawayolass (Jul 27, 2010)

I know that's what l thought not moving it was insane. The dogs could have stayed in the vehicle no need to take them out or have contact that's what is so crazy.

It doesn't say size but could have been smallies like poms l think it was show dogs. Doubt was big ones but could be wrong.


----------



## cypsygal (Dec 19, 2009)

Someone posted about this, with a photo of the carnage, on my Facebook page. I have reposted it - absolutely disgusting and indefensible behaviour by the RAC. MAKE IT VIRAL !!


----------



## gaz44 (May 21, 2009)

The only reson we brought a motorhome was to travel and stay at dog shows.
And we chose our insurance specifcaly to cover breakdown, with three dobermanns on board i can guess were that would leave us.
As for leaving those ladies on the hard shoulder, it's verging on the side of criminality, at least get them to a place of safety.


----------



## selstrom (May 23, 2005)

The vehicle that ran into them is at fault not the RAC, it is up to us all to check the contracts we enter into meet our requirements.


----------



## fabfive (Dec 31, 2008)

It's not just the RAC though. I tried (unsuccessfully) this year to find any breakdown cover that would guarantee including repatriation of our (small) dog, along with MH and occupants and especially as we were concerned whilst on holiday in France.

The story was the same everywhere - it was not policy to guarantee transportation to include animals and would depend on the breakdown recovery driver. I asked if a dog could at least remain in the MH but there was inability even to guarantee this. 
We did break down in France this summer and were lucky to have friends travelling behind and who pulled in briefly behind in motorway service lane. Not ideal but my first thought was to offload our dog to them - just in case! When we eventually were taken 10 days later to collect our repaired vehicle, we were lucky that we gave notice that we had a dog and a taxi was found that would agree to transport.

This story is terrible though as at least the MH and dogs could have been moved to a safer area. 12 dogs is a pretty exceptional case but any risk should be insurable, at a cost. Hopefully this incident won't be in vain and lobbying will force some progress.


----------



## kaacee (Nov 29, 2008)

Horrendous


Lorry ploughs into broken down motor-home carrying 12 show dogs, killing three and seriously injuring owner on the M40

Dogs ran onto motorway after crash which killed three of them instantly
Lorry and caravan crashed on M40 near Banbury in Oxfordshire at 5.40am 
One of the dogs, a black and white Corgi, was lost but found safe hours later
All of them are believed to be show dogs being transported




Keith


site helper note - merged into other thread


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

It turned my stomach when I read the report this morning.

Although it is sad that 3 dogs died, after seeing the obliteration of the MH I was relieved to know that the three human occupants between them only suffered one broken leg - a minor miracle in my opinion. Maybe they were outside the vehicle, or in the cab area which seemed almost intact - maybe the hab area acted as a 'crumple-zone'

It re-emphasises the advice to leave the vehicle and retreat as far as one can from the hard-shoulder.  

Geoff


----------



## aikidoamigo (Aug 11, 2011)

that was a coach built…. I do wonder how well A class motorhomes fair; what cab protection is there in an A class?? Do they do any testing / have any roll-cages…. I don't think so!

Does anyone know different? :roll:


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

The RAC refused to move the van because of the dogs, it had been on the hard shoulder for 3 hours before a Lorry ran into it. There was a Service area not far away and the RAC driver also refused to tow it off the Motorway.

If you have dogs (like me) then you need to ask your breakdown company some searching questions.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

I think the RAC have a lot of explaining to do here, for that driver to just leave and put peoples lives at risk is appalling. :evil:


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopict-153065-.html

tony


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

We of course do not know where the dogs were - running loose, in dog-baskets, etc?

I think a recovery driver would want access to the vehicle ca, first to see if he could repair it at the roadside, and if not to ensure that the vehicle was in neutral, brakes released and steering lock diengaged before attempting to load it onto a recovery vehicle or 'specs'/towbar is used.

I can understand that if the dogs were loose anyone of them might consider the driver an 'intruder' and he might be wary.

This situation is abnormal because 12 dogs were present. If there are only 2 dogs they could be put on leads and led up the embankment while the recovery driver does his business and then returned to the vehicle. I doubt whether this would cause a problem.

Insurance and recovery companies may give different answers.

Now onto cats, parrots ........ :roll:  

Geoff


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

747 said:


> The RAC refused to move the van because of the dogs, it had been on the hard shoulder for 3 hours before a Lorry ran into it. There was a Service area not far away and the RAC driver also refused to tow it off the Motorway.
> 
> If you have dogs (like me) then you need to ask your breakdown company some searching questions.


one or 2 pet dogs would be fine, but 12 show dogs? How were they kept in the motorhome? In cages or loose? I would think the question from the RAC would be is this a commercial rescue, rather than a normal domestic, or could it be that the owners only had "ordinary" RAC cover rather than that for motorhomes? Too many questions there to make a case against the RAC. In the picture, the undamaged (!) overcab had advertising logos - was it insured generally as domestic rather than a business?

ditto Greygit's post, don't make a judgement until you know what really happened.


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

GEMMY said:


> http://www.motorhomefacts.com/ftopict-153065-.html
> 
> tony


thanks tony - didn't realise it had already been covered elsewhere. I'll see what I can do about getting theses threads merged.


----------



## philoaks (Sep 2, 2008)

It always frustrates me when things like this happen how quick people are to pillory organisations and individuals when they are not privy to to full "facts" of the situation. 

Heresay says that the RAC man refused to deal because of the dogs and the RAC says there was a suitable vehicle already en route. Was the initial patrol in a vehicle that wasn't even able to tow the motorhome off the motorway, hence the need for a "suitable" vehicle?

About the only things you can say were fact was that a lorry ploughed into the back of the motorhome so the driver had an issue of some description (mechanical/physical or otherwise).

The second fact is that the occupants of the motorhome would have been safer out of the van, but again we don't know the reason that they weren't.

Yes it sounds an awful situation but don't lets make it worse by apportioning blame unfairly.


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

bognormike said:


> 747 said:
> 
> 
> > The RAC refused to move the van because of the dogs, it had been on the hard shoulder for 3 hours before a Lorry ran into it. There was a Service area not far away and the RAC driver also refused to tow it off the Motorway.
> ...


Whatever the circumstances, they should never have been left alone for 3 hours in the dark on a Motorway.

I regularly carried 6 dogs to Championship Dog Shows around the country. I also advertised by having our registered Kennel Club Affix on the cycle rack (which is possibly similar to what is on the overcab).

If I had been in that situation, I would have used the emergency motorway phone and declared an emergency as well as dialling 999. There is no way I would have just sat there WHATEVER the RAC breakdown guy had said.

There is a good case for carrying extra safety equipment if you have a motorhome. A very bright flashing emergency beacon would be a start. I would even rig up blue flashing lights (illegal, I know) as even half asleep drivers register the Emergency services. When the life and safety of my family are concerned, I would break any Law to have a better chance. It,s time to put my thinking cap on.


----------



## takeaflight (May 9, 2005)

Just got off the phone to the RAC, it is up to the discretion of the recovery guy and also applies to cars. 

However, apparently there was rescue on the way.

The guy I spoke to couldn't understand why the highways didn't set up either warning protection or tow them off.

Sad for all concerned.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

from the small amount of FACTS that are available we cannot say what was going on or who was to blame, apart from the lorry driver.
Maybe the motorhome was not able to be towed and was waiting for a better breakdown vehicle. Maybe the office sent him onto another breakdown as there was a second recovery vehicle coming for the motorhome. Maybe the dogs were not an issue. 
All I can say is, the RAC telephone service should be taught to ask about animals as well as how many humans etc. This info should be sent to the driver being sent to the broken down vehicle, often only location details are actually sent. The first recovery driver should have been allowed or told to place his vehicle to provide awareness of the brake down. And 3 hours is much too long, unless it was a specialised vehicle needed, this can take time.honestly.

cabby


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

We have, several times in the last few years, been in exactly the position of those poor ladies.
The main problem the RAC have is to recover a "motorhome" at all. You have to remember that they deal mostly with cars. When calling I have always made it quite clear about the type of vehicle involved. It takes them time to find a recovery vehicle that will cope with a motorhome. The one they send is usually from a contractor.
Once that part is sorted we then tell them about the dogs in the vehicle. We have NEVER had a problem. The driver arrives, we tell him that we have dogs and he just shrugs. The dogs are secured inside our motorhome and it is lifted onto the recovery vehicle.
I wonder if the ladies concerned wanted some other sort of recovery? We have never been "towed" always "lifted". Was there a suitable recovery vehicle in the area? Perhaps they did not want the dogs left in the motorhome?


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Comments and info from the article:

elaine, kent, United Kingdom, 
People in the dog world are leaving the RAC in their hundreds after the way these women were treated. Waiting for over three hours for assistance is not what we pay for. All the dogs were caged and safe in that vehicle despite what RAC workers are saying on Facebook.Charlie, Reading, United Kingdom,

What the RAC have neglected to say here is that they left three women and their dogs stranded for THREE HOURS on their own on the hard shoulder of a motorway in the dark where they were consequently plowed into by a lorry because they refused to attend to them because they had twelve show dogs on board. Three dogs died and a young girl is now badly injured in hospital.

.
Denise Hanlon, llanelli, United Kingdom,

The lady in hospital has a broken femur, broken ribs , 3 spinal fractures and a collapsed lung. The RAC ( or their agent) had been once and refused to do anything because of the dogs who were all securely crated in the vehicle.. No police visited the ladies who waited, in total for 3 hours on their own. the dogs that were killed were not all Corgis, and not as shown in the photo. The backlash on the RAC from those who travel the country, and there are lots of them, week in week out with dogs is enormous now. I am one of them and travel with another lady in a small motorhome and we have RAC cover, it is very worrying.

Hedgerow, Staffordshire, United Kingdom,

What your article doesn't say is that the RAC left these 3 women in the middle of the night for 3 hours on the hard shoulder, because of the dogs, who were crated. The injured lady has suffered a broken femur, a colllapsed lung and 3 spinal breaks. The RAC need to be looking at the part they played in this accident

Ranirat, Windsor, United Kingdom,

Just to make sure people know that the owners of these dogs were very responsible people who had all their dogs crated in Aircraft Approved crates. The motor-home was completely destroyed by the impact, and the three dogs which died were Rage the Toy Poodle, Sweetie the Cardigan and the new Crested puppy. It is widely reported that the RAC initially refused to help because there were dogs in the vehicle, and that the ladies had been waiting three hours in the early morning dark and cold before being hit by the lorry. The young lady who suffered a broken femur, collapsed lung and spinal fractures was Russian and had only been in this country a few hours. She was travelling with her two friends and all were on their way to a dog show.

zellamere, Barton un Needwood, United Kingdom,

This would never had happened if the RAC Man who 1st attended had taken the motorhome off the Motorway, he would not BECAUSE IT HAD DOGS IN THE MOTORHOME, SO 3 PEOPLE AND DOGS WERE LEFT THERE, IN THE DARK UNTIL ANOTHER VEHICLE CAME TO HELP. BUT THE LORRY RAN INTO THEM BEFORE

tony

full article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-killed-woman-left-broken-leg-crash-M40.html
.


----------



## BrianJP (Sep 17, 2010)

Why didn't the police or the Highways agency protect this vehicle on the hard shoulder until proper help arrived. There are lots of questions to be answered here.
I am glad I am not with the RAC . I shall be checking my cover conditions with Saga
Asap..


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

Thanks for that extra information from social websites.

It is hard to defend the indefensible.


----------



## takeaflight (May 9, 2005)

My understanding is that all rescue services operate in a similar way, that is, it is up to the recovery driver.

I am also lead to believe from the chap I spoke to, is that a recovery vehicle suitable to recover a motorhome was on its way. 

The question is where was the highways agency ?


----------



## Yaxley (Jul 25, 2008)

I wonder did they place a warning triangle some distance from the rear of the motorhome.
If not it is a reminder to us all to use it in the event of a breakdown and to get away from the vehicle.
Ian


----------



## philoaks (Sep 2, 2008)

747 said:


> Thanks for that extra information from social websites.
> 
> It is hard to defend the indefensible.


With respect, how can social network posters from Kent, Llanelli, Staffordshire, Windsor and Barton un Needwood be assumed to be posting the "facts" of the situation. This is getting like trial by Facebook.


----------



## pilkingbeck (Jun 7, 2011)

I agree - we are very short of facts.

It was originally said that the RAC refused to assist them, but the RAC say they were on their way.

It has been said on the social media that they were waiting 3 hours, but I can't find an original source for that. 

Lots of people quoting each other on social media does not establish facts.


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

philoaks said:


> 747 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for that extra information from social websites.
> ...


Quite simply because people who show dogs have a countrywide network of friends. We no longer show our dogs but we retain the links with many friends from those days. I dare say that if I started ringing around, I would find out exactly who these women were and where they were from.

You are probably not aware that there are 2 weekly newspapers for this pastime (or hobby) of showing dogs. I would expect that there will be factual information in the next edition. They tend to be more trustworthy than their bigger daily cousins.


----------



## TeamRienza (Sep 21, 2010)

I would find it difficult to believe unconditionally any newspaper.

Those with a particular interest (doggy papers) might be even more partial than a red top.

Two sides etc; I shall reserve judgement, but it is good to see a lynch mob forming for the RAC, It takes the pressure off the forums new owners.


Davy


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

TeamRienza said:


> I would find it difficult to believe unconditionally any newspaper.
> 
> Those with a particular interest (doggy papers) might be even more partial than a red top.
> 
> ...


I fail to see how you come to that conclusion but if you have never read these papers or shown dogs then maybe it is understandable. If they show any bias then it is to not criticise the Kennel Club enough (although the letters pages make up for that if there is an issue). That is a similar position that the Motorhome Mags take with the Manufacturers and Dealers. 

BTW, I have no particular axe to grind with the RAC because they will not entertain my van as it is over 3.5 tonne. As Mr Royle would say "4th Emergency Service? My arse". Although when you think about it, the Police sometimes never arrive at all. :roll:


----------



## fabfive (Dec 31, 2008)

Tragic as this is, are we not missing the point of the original post here?
Our insurance is with Safeguard and provided through the AA. They don't impose weight / size restrictions on MH BUT they were still unable to guarantee me that our dog would be recovered, in the event of a breakdown.

As I posted earlier, we did break down this year in France and made us realise it isn't just about the immediate recovery, but also about the ferrying around, should you need to leave your MH for repair at a garage. Luckily, we were ok - but we would have preferred to not have had to leave to chance and to have had assurance through terms of the policy beforehand.

If anybody does know of a breakdown policy that guarantees recovery of pets, please do share. With sufficient pressure on AA, RAC and any others involved in recovery, perhaps they will start to take on board feedback and provide their customers with the service they require - even if that option is at a slightly increased cost?

I will also add that we can learn from motorway recovery in France! Regardless of size or circumstance, they make sure you are not left on the actual motorway. It took all of 20 mins to be recovered from the motorway itself and there are motorway emergency phones or emergency assistance from your mobile phone that can be used, as well as patrolling vehicles on behalf of the motorway that pull in, check you are ok and recovery on its way and advise you on safety. May be a pain to have to use their compulsory initial recovery services but actually it prevents these unsafe occurrences of being stranded in an unsafe position. I expect that will spark a wave of comment about their motorway tolls and preference for our toll free system - but what price safety?


----------



## dogphotographer (Apr 27, 2009)

I am unable to read the posts as my situation is still too fragile.. But I feel the need to clarify some facts as I am one of the three ladies ... The dogs were all secured in custom made steel and or fibreglass crates that were custom made to fit our rig. The dogs were running down the motorway after our vehicle was hit and obliterated .
We have such a large rig because we take our entire family of dogs with us whenever we are off on a weekend jaunt. 
We do not breed or show as a profession we have each been in dogs our entire lives. 
The RAC was informed the dogs were in crates
The Motorhome had what I believe was a clutch/gearbox failure as it was still revving but no gears engaged.
We did get out but ad the temps were brutal we were forced back in to get warm 
At all times we had all sidelights and flashers on
Repeated pleas were made to the RAC but they said they were having a hard time because the contractors were refusing to come
At no time did we ask if even one dog would be allowed in a recovery truck
Our dogs are our life and our kids - we did the best we could for them... Quite honestly evenif we had been sitting on the bank with the distance the chassis and debris was thrown we could have all been even more seriously injured, and I would never have been able recover witnessing my dogs being crushed.
Sincerely
Lisa Croft-Elliott


----------



## baldeagle7470 (Sep 21, 2010)

I have read this thread right through and the newspaper reports.
I make no judgement,but would just like to say how very sorry I am.
The scene looked terrible and one cannot image what you are going through.
I hope you and your friends make a speedy recovery and am thinking of you all.
I also hope lessons can and will be learnt by the neccessary authorities and Recovery organisations.
Best wishes.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I also have read through this thread and the account from one of the people actually involved in it - whose opinion and account I trust a lot more than social network pages, or even the press office of the RAC.

There are an awful lot of unanswered questions here, none of which are aimed at the people in the vehicle;

why did the RAC act in such a cavalier manner?

Why did the Highways Agency not attend?

Why did the police not attend? This was an obvious obstruction to the traffic flow.

Why did the initial RAC person not flag up the danger to the RAC?

We have been members of the RAC for more than 30 years, we do not have dogs but frankly that is not relevant; my contract with the RAC at no pointed specified such things AFAIK.

We are no longer renewing as members but not due to this but simply because they are unlikely to attend a call to Southern France - even though we had European cover...... they would probably use our vehicle registration (French) as a "get out" clause........

I feel a massive sympathy for those involved with the vehicle and hope that the physical injuries will be resolved soon (although that is unlikely to be less than 6 months as a minimum). I hope that the RAC will change it's practices - they do provide a good service at times, but the reports of when they don't are horrendous.

Sadly, there are other times from our experience where their quality of service leaves a great deal to be desired - we have experienced very poor service at least twice, once with MrsW, alone and with a flat front wheel in a narrow country lane in the winter and in the dark, and once with our youngest daughter similarly ignored for several hours even though she was a "lone female" and vulnerable.

They need to look carefully at the quality of service they supply - there are other rescue agencies available such as the AA and Green Flag.

Dave


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Quite frankly I can’t see what the problem was with the RAC ( yes I know I haven’t all the facts) but when we broke down in France a few years back the breakdown guy had me steer as he winched the van onto the bed of the breakdown truck ,then Michelle and myself sat in the cab of the truck and the dogs stayed in the van.


----------



## crusader (Jul 5, 2012)

And as is the norm ,,,, faceache sorry facebook have removed the original posting :evil: , sorry for your loss


----------



## takeaflight (May 9, 2005)

dogphotographer said:


> I am unable to read the posts as my situation is still too fragile.. But I feel the need to clarify some facts as I am one of the three ladies ... The dogs were all secured in custom made steel and or fibreglass crates that were custom made to fit our rig. The dogs were running down the motorway after our vehicle was hit and obliterated .
> We have such a large rig because we take our entire family of dogs with us whenever we are off on a weekend jaunt.
> We do not breed or show as a profession we have each been in dogs our entire lives.
> The RAC was informed the dogs were in crates
> ...


As a dog owner, I can fully understand the pain and trauma you went and are going through, I don't think if it was me I would fully recover from this tragic event that you had no control over.
If their is any small consolation to your family members passing, it could be making us all aware of the recovery with dogs situation in a vehicle , which I for one had not thought about, and now may force the services into action, which may prevent other desperate and tragic event.

You and your family are in our thoughts.


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

Thanks for the information Lisa. As ex exhibitors my wife and I wish you the best and hope you get over the tragic loss of your dogs. Please keep us informed of the recovery of your injured friend.

As an aside, this subject was aired on the wildcamping forum. I have been a member over there for a number of years but due to some of the nasty comments on the thread, I am seriously considering leaving. At the same time I would like to thank MHF members for NOT being a nasty bunch of cretins like some wildies.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Really sorry for your loss Lisa and thankyou for coming on to tell us the facts.

Surely in a situation like this the best thing to do is inform the Police or Traffic Wombles of your situation. Were the Police informed that there were three women and 12 dogs broken down on the motorway in freezing conditions and that there was a delay in moving them?

I would have made sure they were aware. Should the RAC not have contacted them? Surely the most important thing would have been to move the women to safety. 

People say you should always leave the vehicle but as Lisa has pointed out this isnt always possible if your waiting hours. Its winter and its freezing. So your left with a choice of getting Hyperthermia or risking sitting in the van. I would sit in the van. In which case if the van couldnt be moved, they should have been. Simple as that.

You see these pretend coppers in their 4x4's everywhere. Where the hell were they?


----------



## Jodi1 (Mar 25, 2010)

Thank you for posting Lisa, I do hope your friend recovers soon from her injuries. I also hope that your remaining dogs also recover from their scary ordeal and any injuries they might have received. It has truly been an awful situation and leaves a lot of people who travel with dogs, wondering if their roadside recovery insurance is worth the paper it's written on.

I hope you don't mind, but I copied and pasted your post to the Champdogs forum as a number of people there were very upset nd concerned as they are mostly dog breeders and many drive long distances with their dogs to attend dog shows.


----------



## Brock (Jun 14, 2005)

aikidoamigo - Hymer A-classes retain the base manufacturers crash protection. Hymer also crash test its vehicles although I doubt such tests replicate being hit up the rear on the hard shoulder by a lorry. In my 2000 Arto, Niesmann & Bischoff had also kept the Fiat crash protection.

As for the ladies, I am very sorry what has happened - and to the dogs. I can't imagine what they have gone through and are still going through. 

I do not know what stress the RAC, the traffic wombles or the three ladies were under at the time of and during the incident but I know from experience that most people's brain stops thinking logically when under excessive stress. Therefore, whilst we can sit at our PC being logical about what should have happened, we cannot say for certain how we would have reacted if we were in the same position as those involved. Therefore, I will suspend any condemnation of those involved, including the lorry driver, until I have a reasonable understanding of what happened. Those involved who should have done better will no doubt be dealt with in time.

It's a chilling thought that sitting in the cab rather than risking hyperthermia and flying debris by sitting on the banking may have saved them from even more serious physical and emotional trauma. Perhaps we should all think about how we would survive if we have to wait for three hours on the hard shoulder.

For now, my heart goes out to the three ladies and their dogs.


----------



## whistlinggypsy (May 1, 2005)

747 said:


> TeamRienza said:
> 
> 
> > I would find it difficult to believe unconditionally any newspaper.
> ...


*

This statement that the RAC will not recover a vehicle over 3500 tonne is not quite accurate, I have just checked with MHF/Aviva directly and had this response.

If you go directly through the RAC they will not recover vehicles in excess of 3500kg, if you go through the MHF/Aviva route they will cover you for vehicles in excess of this weight including RVs as they use the commercial side of the insurance cover, phew that's a relief days before we set off on our winter trip.*


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Our RAC membership was done via the C&CC as they also had the over 3.5t allowance using the commercial route......

Our ambulances also used to be covered by the same method although not via the C&CC :lol: 

If we broke down with a casualty/patient on board, the response was rapid to say the least - on that basis they were VERY efficient......

Dave


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

whistlinggypsy said:


> 747 said:
> 
> 
> > TeamRienza said:
> ...


*

Thanks for that whistlinggypsy. I already knew that. When I applied through MHF for Insurance they (Aviva) wanted over £200 more than anyone else to insure me. That is why Aviva (or MHF) will never get any business from me.*


----------



## johnthompson (Jul 29, 2010)

I broke down in a car and Caravan in fog on the M1 near Sheffield. An AA patrol arrived and said he was not allowed by law to tow a car and caravan but under the circumstances he was willing to take the risk and get us safely onto a MSA for the night. Recovery was then arranged for the next morning.

We have also broken down in the MH with RAC commercial attending. I had to wait 8 hours in the south lakes for a suitable vehicle to become available but the RAC kept us in touch and check on us regularly during our wait. This involved a change of staff in the process. I have also had recovery in Spain twice with no hassle. I have found their service excellent every time.

Every time I have stayed in the vehicle without worries. Like these ladies I feel I would be safer inside than risk hypothermia or flying debris on the hard shoulder.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

My sympathies to the occupants and dogs.

A lot of comment on here have centred around the rescue services(RAC, Police, Highways Agency)

What I have not seen is any reference to why the HGV knife-jacked. Without the lorry we would not be discussing anything. It may not be the HGV driver's fault, but something caused this tragedy, which could have been much worse.

As somebody posted crashes are rarely 'accidents'

Geoff


----------



## TeamRienza (Sep 21, 2010)

I am sorry that the crash happened, and sympathise with the people involved and thank them for their account of the incident.

The RAC have taken a lot of flack (rightly or wrongly), but no one has expressed any concern for the lorry driver or his condition, regardless of fault.

He will no doubt be traumatised by his experience too.

Davy


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

TeamRienza said:


> He will no doubt be traumatised by his experience too.
> 
> Davy


Perhaps he should have stayed in the right lane then and spared him(her)self all the anguish.?


----------



## TeamRienza (Sep 21, 2010)

YEA. like he did it deliberately.

Perhaps your avatar rules your head.

Davy (dog owner)[/quote]


----------



## emmbeedee (Oct 31, 2008)

nicholsong said:


> What I have not seen is any reference to why the HGV knife-jacked. Without the lorry we would not be discussing anything. It may not be the HGV driver's fault, but something caused this tragedy, which could have been much worse.
> 
> As somebody posted crashes are rarely 'accidents'
> 
> Geoff


I think I read somewhere that the jack-knife happened as a result of the crash, not that it was the cause of it.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

TeamRienza said:


> YEA. like he did it deliberately.
> 
> Perhaps your avatar rules your head.
> 
> Davy (dog owner)


What has the dog got to do with it? :roll:

S/He may not have "did it deliberately" but they "did it" all the same.

A friend of my daughter's didn't "deliberately" drive over a car in his truck but he got 6 years for it all the same. The guy who "caused" the Selby rail crash didn't "did it deliberately" he still ended up with a jail sentence.

So in this case that s/he didn't "did it deliberately" makes it OK then?

If you are driving a truck your job is to stay in the right lane and not hit huge great visible obstructions on the hard shoulder - if you can't do that hand your licence in.


----------



## aldra (Jul 2, 2009)

regardless of fault or blame

Lisa I am really sad that you suffered such a trauma and the loss of your 
Pets
I hope your friend is recovering

Iam also concerned about the driver of the truck although I'm not aware of the extent of his/her injuries

regardless of the reason the van was hit he/she is someone's family, and unless he was on a suicide mission it remains an tragic accident for all concerned Another family are no doubt waiting anxiously

I wish recovery both mentally and physically to all involved

Aldra


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

I've not waded through all 6 pages of posts on this so I may have missed something but I fail to understand why the dogs and owners didn't move from the danger of the parked van to the embankment.

This is standard safe practice in the event of a motorway breakdown.

Move all occupants to a safe place. the hard shoulder isn't a safe place and 3 hours there is madness.

The dogs should have been manageable either in cages or on leashes (and if they weren't manageable they shouldn't have been being transported)

I can also imagine that the RAC recovery person wouldn't have been happy dealing with a vehicle with 12 dogs in it. As far as we know he may have an issue with dogs. It's not a requirement of his job to be dog friendly or even tolerant. And as the owner I'd have considered removing the dogs to allow the vehicle recovery and making another arrangement for the dogs if need be (who by now would be safely out of the vehicle anyway)

A sad tale all round with the main fault falling to the collision of course but a lot of choices where made along that path that could have resulted in a less tragic outcome in my view.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Pat-H said:


> This is standard safe practice in the event of a motorway breakdown.
> 
> Move all occupants to a safe place. the hard shoulder isn't a safe place and 3 hours there is madness.


It is stated that they did just that until just before they froze to death.


----------



## BrianJP (Sep 17, 2010)

Pat-H said:
 

> I've not waded through all 6 pages of posts on this so I may have missed something but I fail to understand why the dogs and owners didn't move from the danger of the parked van to the embankment.
> 
> This is standard safe practice in the event of a motorway breakdown.
> 
> ...


Sorry but perhaps you should have read all the posts first (including the one from one of the ladies involved) before commenting on this tragic event


----------



## takeaflight (May 9, 2005)

Pat-H said:


> I've not waded through all 6 pages of posts on this so I may have missed something but I fail to understand why the dogs and owners didn't move from the danger of the parked van to the embankment.
> 
> This is standard safe practice in the event of a motorway breakdown.
> 
> ...


If you can't be bothered to read, IMO don't bother to post.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

BrianJP said:


> Pat-H said:
> 
> 
> > I've not waded through all 6 pages of posts on this so I may have missed something but I fail to understand why the dogs and owners didn't move from the danger of the parked van to the embankment.
> ...


Indeed I would have read that and known.
I'd still not have returned to the vehicle. I'd have found another solution. The hard shoulder is just not safe. I don't recall the average time you can expect to be stopped there before being hit but it's not very long. That's why the police now attend and try and warn approaching traffic but it's not uncommon for the police cars to get hit.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Pat-H said:


> I've not waded through all 6 pages of posts on this so I may have missed something but I fail to understand why the dogs and owners didn't move from the danger of the parked van to the embankment.
> 
> This is standard safe practice in the event of a motorway breakdown.
> 
> ...


As others have commented, if you have not read why they found it necessary to return to the vehicle perhaps your comment is likely to cause some offence.

We all know what best practice is, but sitting on a hard shoulder and gradually chilling into hypothermia is not best practice.

Taking the dogs out and putting them on leashes would have incurred exactly the same risks and potentially any of the dogs could have been frightened and pulled away.

Please read the report from the ladies involved and then decide "How would I have dealt with it?"

Faced with a three hour delay I suspect many of us would have tried to preserve our core temperature, particularly as once chilled, rational thought becomes impossible - that is characteristic of hypothermia in it's early stages. Would that be safe in a person on the hard shoulder?

I don't think so.......

The site should have been protected - either by the RAC man who apparently refused to deal with it, or he should immediately have notified the Highways Agency or the police using his radio and control - there is a definite failure there IMO.

Dave


----------



## Jodi1 (Mar 25, 2010)

If you look at pictures of the crash, and there are now plenty to be viewed on the Internet, there is a steep embankment rising sharply up from the hard shoulder. If you also read the post from one of the ladies from the accident, you would also have seen that even if they had sat on the embankment they would most likely have been badly injured from all the flying debris.

Getting away from the vehicle onto the hard shoulder is the best thing to do, but few of us would want to leave our furry friend and would want to take them with us. The hard shoulder and the verge is a nasty place full of debris and glass and rubbish. I heard of one story recently where a stranded couple and their dog were making their way away from the hard shoulder, only for the dog lead to suddenly break and the young excitable dog was suddenly loose within a few yards of the motorway. Luckily a bellowed 'stay' from the owner worked (this time) and all was well, but what a fright. The lady involved commented how frightening it was to be sitting on the embankment still too close to a busy roaring motorway for hours on end as they awaited rescue


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

I thought about this on a dark and lonely A66 this morning at 6:30 am.

It was quiet and freezing. I was cold, the car was cold until it got going. I wondered how long one would last should I break down now and have to sit on the roadside for 3 hours. Not bloody long for sure and certainly not three hours!

Therefore what should one do when faced with this dilemma? Phone the police, emergency services or is there indeed a phone number for the traffic Wombles?

Surely the priority should be to get people to safety when its dark and cold. If recovery is going to take hours then there should be a solution to take the occupants away somewhere warm and safe as fast as possible.

It could well be -10c again soon. How long would you all think you would last before jumping back in the cab?

I hear the words safety first a lot these days. Well I think there should be some kind of new law to prioritise getting pedestrians which is what they become off our motorways within 20 min of a breakdown.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

With 20/20 hindsight, perhaps when they started to feel threatened by hypothermia they should have called an ambulance, which service when attending on a motorway would have probably alerted the police.

This is no criticism of the ladies involved, but my tolerance level would not have stretched to 3 hours - I would have been screaming blue murder at somebody - and probably everybody.

We do not know where the HGV ended up(not visible in photos, and we do not know who took those and when).

Geoff


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

Good points Geoff.

I reckon 90% of MHF members would have gone off it if they were not attended to in very quick time, even in favourable weather conditions. The critical ones on this thread would probably be the worst offenders.  

This country has certainly gone to the dogs if you follow forums, very few have any respect, sympathy or compassion. They all have strong opinions which are never wrong of course. I am getting sick and tired of reading puerile spats on forums, often over virtually nothing. Perhaps I will stop posting completely and just be a freeloader (gleaning knowledge without inputting any). The trouble is that forums will not be worth joining if more members take that route.

Whatever happened to being nice to people! :?


----------



## Jodi1 (Mar 25, 2010)

Some further info on crash plus a telephone interview from the other lady involved in the crash. She reduced me to tears at one point.

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


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

747 said:


> Good points Geoff.
> 
> I reckon 90% of MHF members would have gone off it if they were not attended to in very quick time, even in favourable weather conditions. The critical ones on this thread would probably be the worst offenders.
> 
> ...


Ive seen the other thread on the other forum and its not pleasant. I think it is the silly season again though. Some people are just looking for any excuse to vent bile and become keyboard warriors. Our mission is to defuse this with purile humour! 



Jodi1 said:


> Some further info on crash plus a telephone interview from the other lady involved in the crash. She reduced me to tears at one point.
> 
> http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/104798


So the facts would seem that the excuse given by the RAC was that they could not get a contractor to take the van because of the dogs. Nobody has turned up refused them and driven off. The RAC used this as the reason they could not get a suitable vehicle.

Call me sceptical but has this just been an excuse because they were struggling to get a recovery vehicle big enough at this time of night? In my experience 3 hours is quite typical from phone call to being loaded onto a flat bed by the time they have sent the wrong van or an initial small van to check out what is required. They never just send a huge one straight away.

So. The facts are. They knew it was going to take a long time and the Traffic Wombles were notified as to what was going on. In that case, somebody should have removed them to a safe place. Nearest service station or wherever. Ok they might have had to leave the dogs but that is what should have happened.


----------



## adingo (Nov 25, 2013)

It was possible to park the van well onto the grass verge, make room to exit the dogs safely and who doesnt carry a torch in a motorhome that could have been left 100m behind the van.

3 hours sat on a hardshoulder in the middle of the night goes against all sensible advice and is a bit like russian roulette in that you wouldnt fancy a go.

They had been given sound advice to move out of the van and who in the RAC would believe they didnt take it, indeed who would believe it better to be in a van during an accident than see your motorhome destroyed from the safety of an embankment.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

I listened to the radio clip.

The lady on there - I do not know if she was the driver or not- described the original problem as a 'slipping clutch' 

If that is correct, and unless the clutch had packed up completely - and even then one could have 'crashed' it into gear - would it not have been sensible to proceed to J12 and get off the M/Way?
If I suspected a slipping clutch I would get into 3rd gear, hazards on, pull onto hard shoulder and exit at next junction.

I do accept that not all drivers, and maybe including these ladies, know enough about the mechanics of a vehicle to make those types of decisions.

I know, wise after the event, but it might help others on here with their thinking in a similar situation in future.

Geoff


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

adingo said:


> It was possible to park the van well onto the grass verge, make room to exit the dogs safely and who doesnt carry a torch in a motorhome that could have been left 100m behind the van.
> 
> 3 hours sat on a hardshoulder in the middle of the night goes against all sensible advice and is a bit like russian roulette in that you wouldnt fancy a go.
> 
> They had been given sound advice to move out of the van and who in the RAC would believe they didnt take it, indeed who would believe it better to be in a van during an accident than see your motorhome destroyed from the safety of an embankment.


I see you have 100% hindsight.

You also seem to absolve the RAC of all responsibility in this matter. It would seem that it is enough to tell these ladies to stand on the embankment, jump back in your van and scoot off, is a responsible way to conduct the business of the 4th Emergency service.

This is another post where a member is incapable of putting himself in the position of 3 women stranded on a motorway in the middle of the night in freezing conditions and left to their own devices for 3 hours.

Your comments denigrate ALL women in my eyes. But hey, now the 3 of them are as aware as you that the hard shoulder is a dangerous place.

Whatever happened to compassion. Oh sorry, I covered that in an earlier post. :?


----------



## BrianJP (Sep 17, 2010)

adingo said:


> It was possible to park the van well onto the grass verge, make room to exit the dogs safely and who doesnt carry a torch in a motorhome that could have been left 100m behind the van.
> 
> 3 hours sat on a hardshoulder in the middle of the night goes against all sensible advice and is a bit like russian roulette in that you wouldnt fancy a go.
> 
> They had been given sound advice to move out of the van and who in the RAC would believe they didnt take it, indeed who would believe it better to be in a van during an accident than see your motorhome destroyed from the safety of an embankment.


Did you read all the previous posts ?The area adjacent to the hard shoulder turned out to be just as lethal.
Also these ladies dogs were like their children. Would you leave your kids in the Motorhome in these circumstances and walk away ?


----------



## emmbeedee (Oct 31, 2008)

nicholsong said:


> I do accept that not all drivers, and maybe including these ladies, know enough about the mechanics of a vehicle to make those types of decisions.
> Geoff


Good point Geoff, I was thinking the same, but difficult to know what you can do about it. Not very practical requiring all drivers to have a basic knowledge of vehicle mechanics.
This point was brought out to me a while ago when Tesco (& others) had a problem with their petrol which caused vehicles to go into "limp-home" mode. Many drivers of the vehicles involved simply stopped where they were, sometimes in live lanes. They then waited for assistance, not realising that they could have carried on, albeit with reduced power & speed. In this connection, mis-naming the fall back limp-home mode as simply "limp" mode doesn't help the perception by Joe Public. It is designed (& will) get you home or at least to a place of safety.
None of this of course reduces in any way the culpability of the lorry driver involved. I am sure the Police will be wanting to know why he was driving on the hard shoulder.


----------



## emmbeedee (Oct 31, 2008)

747 said:


> You also seem to absolve the RAC of all responsibility in this matter. It would seem that it is enough to tell these ladies to stand on the embankment, jump back in your van and scoot off, is a responsible way to conduct the business of the 4th Emergency service.


I think the RAC said they HADN'T sent a van at all? They were just trying to get a suitable vehicle to transport the MH. If they had have sent a van, it would probably have been able to at least get the MH off the motorway by towing it off along the hard shoulder.
I wonder if the ladies used the motorway phones to call the police, or just used their mobiles to call the RAC direct? I suspect the latter. If the police were involved I would have hoped they would have done more to make the scene safe before three hours had elapsed. Difficult though if lorries are driving along the hard shoulder.


----------



## Glasandra (Feb 5, 2012)

If some of you can actually bother reading the interview with one of those involved in the crash, as mentioned in Jodi1's post above, you will see that the ladies did not get out of their motorhome at all until after the crash - quote 

""We had picked up the motorhome that day after its MOT,” Ms Russell-Smith said. 
They phoned the RAC who said they would attend within 90 minutes and advised them to get out of the vehicle.
"But to get the dogs out would have meant opening the door onto the inside lane, which we didn’t want to do,” Ms Russell-Smith said. "So we thought we would sit and wait. Quite honestly, if we had been sitting on the hard shoulder and watched the lorry plough into the motorhome killing the dogs I don’t think we would ever have got over it."

She also confirms that there was no 'RAC patrol van' that refused to help them.
"We sat for three hours and nobody came. It was bitterly cold. I was in the driver’s seat and Lisa the passenger’s, and Twinkie was sitting just behind us. In the last call from the RAC they said they would be with us in 45 minutes and 43 minutes were up and I said ‘They should be here in a minute’, so we started gathering our stuff together, bags and phones and so on when there was an almighty crash. "

So all this blether about the hard shoulder and the heartless RAC man is a load of coswallop.

Criticise the RAC for taking 3 hours to get to them, and the powers that be for letting them stay there unprotected if you wish, but get your facts straight first.


----------



## takeaflight (May 9, 2005)

You know it's so easy in the comfort and warmth of your armchair spouting on, in what should have been and what I would do, and if only it was this or that, why couldn't they have have done the other !

Well I can tell you in my working life I undertook many hours and weeks, months of training, including simulations for situations.

But when the poo hits the fan, you cannot be sure how you will react and if I am totally honest I have got away with things, afterwards in quiet moments, I thought, why the hell did I do that, I should have done, what ever.

So as the saying goes, "there for grace of god go I" !!


----------



## TheNomad (Aug 12, 2013)

747 said:


> adingo said:
> 
> 
> > It was possible to park the van well onto the grass verge, make room to exit the dogs safely and who doesnt carry a torch in a motorhome that could have been left 100m behind the van.
> ...


Why on Earth are you saying that an RAC patrol attended and then left them?

They did not.

Given that it was a large motorhome, and it needed recovering, the RAC sent a specialist, Contractors, recovery vehicle out to the scene which was almost there, and it arrived just after the lorry had ploughed into the motorhome.


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

If I misread the situation then I apologise. I assumed a small van had turned up then left.

This in fact just makes the RAC look worse than ever. I can understand a delay in a large vehicle transporter arriving to pick up the motorhome but what happened to the normal RAC Mechanic coming out to effect a repair - or do they no longer have men in vans? I thought you got free membership if they did not turn up in 20 minutes?

I expect if they had said the breakdown was due to a flat battery, the RAC would have been there within 5 minutes to flog them one at double the normal price. :roll: 

Just another example of Big business not delivering the goods. Only this time it could cost them dearly with enough publicity.


----------



## takeaflight (May 9, 2005)

I have just received an email from the RAC.

There was a recovery vehicle on its way, the delay was due to locating a suitable one.

So IMO the angst should be directed at the highways, let's face it there's enough cameras watching our every move, without anyone informing them.

Mind you I was recently on a motorway services walking the dogs, I noticed a 4x4 pulling off towing a twin axle caravan, one of the caravan tyres had been punctured, I was it far away to alert the driver, in the parking lot there was an highways agency patrol with two officers. I told them about the situation and probably the driver could be stopped before entering onto the motorway.

Their response was, well they will soon find out if there's a problem and carried on eating their Mc Donald's.


----------



## adingo (Nov 25, 2013)

747 said:


> adingo said:
> 
> 
> > It was possible to park the van well onto the grass verge, make room to exit the dogs safely and who doesnt carry a torch in a motorhome that could have been left 100m behind the van.
> ...


Its not about compassion.

And I think most women drivers would be appalled at your sexism implying women drivers are less knowledgeable when it comes to basic safety than men and would no doubt have heeded the advivce of the RAC and done the sensible thing by exiting the vehicle.

Like it or not there was more that could have been done to protect themselves and their animals, but it simply didnt get done as they didnt fully comprehend the danger they were in.

That is down to the individuals.


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

Are you an employee of the RAC adingo?

You are certainly doing a good whitewash job for them.

The simple fact remains that if anyone from the RAC had turned up, this might never have happened in the first place.


----------



## sweetie (Nov 28, 2005)

747 said:


> If I misread the situation then I apologise. I assumed a small van had turned up then left.
> 
> This in fact just makes the RAC look worse than ever. I can understand a delay in a large vehicle transporter arriving to pick up the motorhome but what happened to the normal RAC Mechanic coming out to effect a repair - or do they no longer have men in vans? I thought you got free membership if they did not turn up in 20 minutes?
> 
> ...


Can,t see on my RAC membership where I get free membership if they do not turn up in 20 minutes.

Last year my battery died in my Citroen C5 while in town RAC supplied and fitted battery also checked alternator output £10 cheaper than Halfords also cheaper than 4 other suppliers I phoned after I got home. So no not double the price.

Always makes me laugh at some of the comments when people do not know the facts.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

takeaflight said:


> There was a recovery vehicle on its way, the delay was due to locating a suitable one.
> 
> So IMO the angst should be directed at the highways, let's face it there's enough cameras watching our every move, without anyone informing them.


According to the report the delay was because they couldnt find a contractor that would deal with dogs in a motorhome. Truth or Bullsh*t you decide?

And the Highways Agency was informed. So where were they? What exactly do they do?


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

They were not cheap when my Daughter was stranded with a flat battery.

Over £100 for a Peugeot car battery. 8O 

She changed to Green Flag at renewal time.


----------



## Patrick_Phillips (Aug 17, 2006)

I think we need to remember that neither the AA nor the RAC are the clubs they used to be.
They are both commercial companies, neither of the UK based at that.
When the clubs operated not-for-profit the ethos was "what can we do for the member in distress" and they guys who did it had no other concern because they were patrolmen.
Now the ethos is about "what is the cheapest way of filling our contractual obligations?" and very few of the players in the drama actually work for the organisation that heads the name. Most are independent outsourced contractors.
But hey, we get cheaper insurance from all this which is what we appeared to want. How many of us seek out the best service rather than the cheapest?

Patrick


----------



## Annsman (Nov 8, 2007)

The number of people offering their take on things on this thread is staggering! We don't know for certain what was said between the RAC and recovery driver as to their ETA, we don't know if they were dealing with other incidents, we don't know what or how the assessment was made by the RAC call handler. Neither do we know what action the police and highwways agency were taking. Yes it took three hours but there might have been other incidents. With the amount of cuts to both organisations budgets lately they can't be everywhere all the time.

Most "accidents" are a situation where a number of faults/co-incidencies come together at the same time. If the RAC recovery had arrived a few minutes earlier, if the HGV driver had done something different a few minutes earlier, if the police/HA had turned up earlier, if the vehicle hadn't been there, but 100 metres further on, if the weather had been kinder. The list is endless. There is a good chance if any of these points had been different it would just be a conversation based on "What If"

The outcome will be investigated by the police and if anyone is at fault I'm sure a court case, of some description, will ensue and perhaps until then we all should be very careful about who gets impuned without recourse to answer back.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Patrick_Phillips said:


> I think we need to remember that neither the AA nor the RAC are the clubs they used to be.
> They are both commercial companies, neither of the UK based at that.
> When the clubs operated not-for-profit the ethos was "what can we do for the member in distress" and they guys who did it had no other concern because they were patrolmen.
> Now the ethos is about "what is the cheapest way of filling our contractual obligations?" and very few of the players in the drama actually work for the organisation that heads the name. Most are independent outsourced contractors.
> ...


They have got pricey as well. The fact they use a variety of contractors made me start using Autoaid. Kind of cuts out the middleman. All our vehicles for both of us (Excluding the van) are covered for £39 a year. You can pick your own recovery company or garage if you break down or they will find one for you. The only difference is you pay on your card when recovered and send in a claim. Within two weeks they pay you back.

Used it once last year. Dead simple and paid straight away. The reviews are pretty good and I think the service is pretty much as like for like as the RAC one I had for about £140.


----------

