A Frame Disaster (1 Viewer)

[TonyEmm]

The fact they didn't know it was gone until they stopped for fuel is mind blowing.

possibly the most common statement from users of toads is “we don’t even know it’s there”….

so they were not alone!

 

[Barclaybasher]

TBH entering into litigation, as a private citizen v a company with (presumably) considerable resources, isn’t a path I would to choose to follow unless any action is on a no win no fee basis. The choice isn’t mine to make though!
My view would be that it would be better to report to the relevant authorities, (which it has been), let them assess the evidence and hopefully take any required action.

She is not doing that though is she?

Seems to me she is just looking for a way out of possible prosecution.

Just my thoughts, speculation..

 

[Stoosal]

The police were in attendance.

Were any charges labelled against the driver?

 

[TonyEmm]

She is not doing that though is she?

Seems to me she is just looking for a way out of possible prosecution.

Just my thoughts, speculation..

SHE is trying to avoid a possible prosecution? I think it’s very much the other way round! There has already been a paltry offer but, it’s tied to a gagging order.

quite rightly, she’s told them to Foxtrot Oscar!

 

[TonyEmm]

Were any charges labelled against the driver?

None.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[TheBig1]

All these sort of cases, where information is let out, drip, drip, drip, are very frustrating. The damage is obvious, but the way it was allowed to develop is not. IF the owner stated that they were unaware of losing the tow car till they got to a petrol station, then a different light is shed on the "accident". Driving without due care and attention and an unsafe load are the minimum possible charges. How can you lose a car being towed and not realise?? Scraping noise from the A frame on the road for a start and not checking the mirrors. Sorry, but if they failed to notice till later and had to go searching for the wreck, then they should stop driving

 

[TonyEmm]

All these sort of cases, where information is let out, drip, drip, drip, are very frustrating. The damage is obvious, but the way it was allowed to develop is not. IF the owner stated that they were unaware of losing the tow car till they got to a petrol station, then a different light is shed on the "accident". Driving without due care and attention and an unsafe load are the minimum possible charges. How can you lose a car being towed and not realise?? Scraping noise from the A frame on the road for a start and not checking the mirrors. Sorry, but if they failed to notice till later and had to go searching for the wreck, then they should stop driving

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The opinion of the police that attended was that no action need be taken against the users. Also, the insurers paid out…..

 

[bigtwin]

How can you lose a car being towed and not realise??

possibly the most common statement from users of toads is “we don’t even know it’s there”….

Wot he said. The only way we know our is still there is if we switch the reversing camera on. We cannot tell otherwise as it’s not visible in the mirrors.

Ian

 

[Jamesh]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The opinion of the police that attended was that no action need be taken against the users. Also, the insurers paid out…..

Have you thought about campaigning against smart motorways far more dangerous than an A frame.....

 

[SSILVO]

We have a car fitted for A Frame, but I won't be using it again.
Nothing to do with safety, or servicing, or installation, or the law, or any of the things that have caused so much fizz on this thread.

For us it is because we can't trust the car to not start on its own and then blow up its own engine block.... again. We have to use an auto (medical reasons) and autos are problematic for A Framing.

However, if you:

• have a little car
• can fit all your party into the car
• have a with a manual box
• have a key ignition
• know a competent installer
• can afford the few thousand to fit one
• can get the A Frame serviced annually
• never intend to use it outside of UK
• have no trailer
• like to park your moho up for the duration of your stop, but still like to do stuff

I'd say go for it, con brio.

Hi we have keyless auto (aygo) and have towed with no issues at all , what makes you think your engine could or will fire up while towing?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[monzer]

Wot he said. The only way we know our is still there is if we switch the reversing camera on. We cannot tell otherwise as it’s not visible in the mirrors.

Ian

Big difference in not feeling a car being towed and losing a car under tow.

 

[DDJC]

Hi we have keyless auto (aygo) and have towed with no issues at all , what makes you think your engine could or will fire up while towing?

A hole literally blown through the engine block, black smoke pouring out of the Suzuki bonnet, less than three miles from home, while being towed on the A Frame. A quote from Suzuki for seven grands worth of work, that our local garage did for two grand. Plus hire car charges for three weeks.

 

[TonyEmm]

Have you thought about campaigning against smart motorways far more dangerous that A frame.....

One thing at a time! I HATE smart motorways, did quite a few miles on the M3 when I was going from Lincolnshire to hants& dorset.

Fortunately, lincs has few motorways (none smart) and Norfolk has none at all! Drains, dykes and tractors are more of an issue round here….

 

[SSILVO]

I’ll agree that rust is a factor. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s now clear that much of the rust was actually caused by the initial A-frame installation, with a lack of suitable reinforcing and poor rust preventative measures.
But, the vehicle in question despite it’s age, has less than 7000 miles on the clock. The vehicle is/was in such good condition that the assessors agreed to pay out twice the market value of a regular vehicle of that type and age, they clearly didn’t think it was an issue.

it’s also fair to say that annual inspections were not carried out. This, however, again lies at the door of the installer though who never suggested they were necessary and didn’t offer the service. While I’ve heard they do now (though it isn’t at all obvious on their website), they have never suggested, retrospectively, to the owner that they have it done.

Insurance companies will only have statistics of claims made. AFAIK, nobody actually pulls them altogether. The information is not readily available anywhere, .gov don’t possess it!

Information is collated and available in the report at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trailer-safety-report where trailers between 750kg and 3500kg were assessed by the department of transport and various agencies. The report's conclusions dated 2018 and presented to parliament are the risk is not significant enough to warrant either extra regulation or inspection. For this period their were no significant issues or accidents involving A-frames

 

[TonyEmm]

Information is collated and available in the report at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trailer-safety-report where trailers between 750kg and 3500kg were assessed by the department of transport and various agencies. The report's conclusions dated 2018 and presented to parliament are the risk is not significant enough to warrant either extra regulation or inspection. For this period their were no significant issues or accidents involving A-frames

You need to read .gov’s own page with regard to their statistics.
They say they are ‘casualty’ based. While they are the most accurate available for fatalities, they admit themselves they are rather more flawed for lesser cases.
Bearing in mind there is no requirement to report trailer related accidents that didn’t involve fatalities, then anything is pretty meaningless.

from the report published 2019:
“it has long been known that a considerable proportion of non-fatal casualties are not known to the police, as hospital, survey and compensation claims data all indicate a higher number of casualties than police accident data would suggest. This is made clear in the annual Road Casualty report7.
Additionally, there is no obligation for people to report all personal-injury accidents to the police (although there is an obligation under certain conditions, as outlined in the Road Traffic Act). Accidents that happened on private land (including private drives) or car parks are not included in the statistics, with damage-only accidents also excluded.”

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SSILVO]

You need to read .gov’s own page with regard to their statistics.
They say they are ‘casualty’ based. While they are the most accurate available for fatalities, they admit themselves they are rather more flawed for lesser cases.
Bearing in mind there is no requirement to report trailer related accidents that didn’t involve fatalities, then anything is pretty meaningless.

from the report published 2019:
“it has long been known that a considerable proportion of non-fatal casualties are not known to the police, as hospital, survey and compensation claims data all indicate a higher number of casualties than police accident data would suggest. This is made clear in the annual Road Casualty report7.
Additionally, there is no obligation for people to report all personal-injury accidents to the police (although there is an obligation under certain conditions, as outlined in the Road Traffic Act). Accidents that happened on private land (including private drives) or car parks are not included in the statistics, with damage-only accidents also excluded.”

But the report went on to analyze likely risk and cost-benefit analysis, this was a report compiled for parliament, if there was a large tranche of nonfatal Injuries out there surely it would have been found and reflected in the risk analysis contained in the report. In fact, this is IMHO the hardest of evidence that there is not an issue with A-frames and anecdotal evidence of individual incidents just muddies the whole issue of risk and risk mitigation.

The report states that apart from possibly helping with theft, inspection benefits are minimal given the huge cost.

Just my tuppence worth.

 

[bigtwin]

Have you thought about campaigning against smart motorways far more dangerous than an A frame.....

Another, oft repeated, falsehood! Read this for some facts:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...safety-evidence-stocktake-and-action-plan.pdf

Ian.

 

[charliesgrandad]

Wot he said. The only way we know our is still there is if we switch the reversing camera on. We cannot tell otherwise as it’s not visible in the mirrors.

Ian

When I first decided to have a toad the thought crossed my mind that with a motorhome with no rear window that I would not be able to see if my toad was ok as I drove around so I had a reversing camera installed that was capable of showing the toad all the time on the screen on the dash in front of me whilst traveling

 

[VXman]

Have you thought about campaigning against smart motorways far more dangerous than an A frame.....

Another, oft repeated, falsehood! Read this for some facts:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...safety-evidence-stocktake-and-action-plan.pdf

Ian.

Interesting. However, I would suggest that in that case non smart motorways need more electronic signage, variable speed limits etc. A combination of this and a hard shoulder would be the safest option.

As the report shows, the risk of a collision between a moving vehicle and a stationary
vehicle is higher on non hard-shoulder motorways. But the risk of a collision between
two or more moving vehicles is lower. Because when the hard shoulder is removed,
technology is installed to smooth traffic flow with variable speed limits, enforced by
cameras. Messages warning motorists of incidents ahead are displayed on
electronic signs. This means less speeding, less tailgating and fewer rapid changes
of speed. This gives drivers more time to react if something happens.

 

[TonyEmm]

But the report went on to analyze likely risk and cost-benefit analysis, this was a report compiled for parliament, if there was a large tranche of nonfatal Injuries out there surely it would have been found and reflected in the risk analysis contained in the report. In fact, this is IMHO the hardest of evidence that there is not an issue with A-frames and anecdotal evidence of individual incidents just muddies the whole issue of risk and risk mitigation.

The report states that apart from possibly helping with theft, inspection benefits are minimal given the huge cost.

Just my tuppence worth.

How can it be when the information isn’t collected in the first place?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[olley]

You take a 3 lane mway, add an extra lane by using the hard shoulder which reduces the traffic density and claim they are safer.
And when the traffic density increases over time till it's back to the original, will it then be safer?

Lies damn lies and statistics.

 

[SSILVO]

How can it be when the information isn’t collected in the first place?

Anything below a death is registered via hospital admissions Mais3+ rating the injury 1 to 6..i have looked at this data and can see no trenche of injuries from trailers never mind A frames...making it very low risk to the point where a heading or sub category is not required. Your arguament for legislation on safety grounds can only be confirmed or denied based on risk and balance of probabilities neither of which are backed up by statistics of death or injury.

 

[SSILVO]

A hole literally blown through the engine block, black smoke pouring out of the Suzuki bonnet, less than three miles from home, while being towed on the A Frame. A quote from Suzuki for seven grands worth of work, that our local garage did for two grand. Plus hire car charges for three weeks.

Wow thats expensive ...did investigations show how this occured ....was it your first trip...did it jump imto drive or something .?

 

[TonyEmm]

Anything below a death is registered via hospital admissions Mais3+ rating the injury 1 to 6..i have looked at this data and can see no trenche of injuries from trailers never mind A frames...making it very low risk to the point where a heading or sub category is not required. Your arguament for legislation on safety grounds can only be confirmed or denied based on risk and balance of probabilities neither of which are backed up by statistics of death or injury.

And if there was no personal injury? Only property?

From .gov’s own advice page. “It has long been known that a considerable proportion of non-fatal casualties are not known to the police, as hospital, survey and compensation claims data all indicate a higher number of casualties than are reported to the police.”.

Anything below a death is registered via hospital admissions Mais3+ rating the injury 1 to 6..i have looked at this data and can see no trenche of injuries from trailers never mind A frames...making it very low risk to the point where a heading or sub category is not required. Your arguament for legislation on safety grounds can only be confirmed or denied based on risk and balance of probabilities neither of which are backed up by statistics of death or injury.

 

[TonyEmm]

Anything below a death is registered via hospital admissions Mais3+ rating the injury 1 to 6..i have looked at this data and can see no trenche of injuries from trailers never mind A frames...making it very low risk to the point where a heading or sub category is not required. Your arguament for legislation on safety grounds can only be confirmed or denied based on risk and balance of probabilities neither of which are backed up by statistics of death or injury.

To justify legislation on safety grounds, there doesn’t need to be a continual repeat of accidents, the occasional one is sufficient, especially when like Selby, it wipes out 2 high speed trains and kills 10 people….

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SSILVO]

To justify legislation on safety grounds, there doesn’t need to be a continual repeat of accidents, the occasional one is sufficient, especially when like Selby, it wipes out 2 high speed trains and kills 10 people….

Selby is nothing to do with A-frames or even trailers how can you use that as a risk factor in calling for inspection and more legislation of A-Frames..Selby was a driver falling asleep at the wheel, can you give real examples where A-Frames have either been the cause of accident or death because I have searched extensively globally and tbh found none as yet.

The discussion about A-frames being unsafe and requiring legislation is not really valid without that risk being calculable. I understand that you personally feel they are unsafe and that's fine kudos to you, but if you can't prove it, then surely, it's just an opinion set up against millions of uneventful journeys taken every year over the last 30 years.

 

[eddie]

19 pages trying to persuade us how dangerous A Framed cars are.

To read the posts you'd think that you'd walk down any High Street dodging and jumping out of the way of cars careering down the road, separated from the towing motorhome! Must be soul destroying to have only one case to refer too !

 

[TonyEmm]

Selby is nothing to do with A-frames or even trailers how can you use that as a risk factor in calling for inspection and more legislation of A-Frames..Selby was a driver falling asleep at the wheel, can you give real examples where A-Frames have either been the cause of accident or death because I have searched extensively globally and tbh found none as yet.

The discussion about A-frames being unsafe and requiring legislation is not really valid without that risk being calculable. I understand that you personally feel they are unsafe and that's fine kudos to you, but if you can't prove it, then surely, it's just an opinion set up against millions of uneventful journeys taken every year over the last 30 years.

Nothing to do with trailers? It was an Ifor Williams flat bed trailer on the back of a 4x4! With another on it’s back!

 

[charliesgrandad]

Nothing to do with trailers? It was an Ifor Williams flat bed trailer on the back of a 4x4! With another on it’s back!

STILL NOT AN A FRAME , it could have been a caravan or he could have been driving solo when he fell asleep or do people only fall asleep when towing something?

 

[icantremember]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

You obviously have yours and I have mine, as do many others on this forum.
While I don't mind anyone having a different opinion to mine, but I do object when somebody tries to force their opinion on others like you seem determined to do.
Meanwhile, I agree that toads and associated a-frames should be checked and serviced on a regular basis, so perhaps as you seem to have unlimited time to waste
spare you could setup the necessary business.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}