Of all the posts re this tragic event, Daves post is the most common sensed response i have read.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unfortunately, this is fairly average in busy times. Don't forget the road had been closed - and recovery vehicles are currently not allowed to use the hard shoulder unless authorised by the Police - otherwise they have to sit in the traffic too!
A30 Temple Bank Holiday- 9 vehicles to be recovered (overheating) We had to sit for 2 hours the same as everyone else to get to them, took two families at a time, crammed them in and back to base. Each relay took 4 hours to complete including loading/unloading...people had waited 6 hours each on average that day. It happens!
Recovery is just recovery - they are not allowed to do anything else! It is nice to have Police rearguard - that is something that is done when available. If no Police/HA are available you are on your own....it isn't nice for the person broken down, or the recovery driver dodging the traffic!
The motorhome was a sighwritten motorhome, which was there to document a dog show as that is what the newspaper/journal is about. It had cameras and other filming equipment on board for doing this - it would be very hard to say anything other than it was being used for business, and was loaded with that equipment. Even if you are taking your own dog, it makes no difference as the trip is for reward/business. You need documention for this as it is classed as animal transport.
No different than if you borrowed a taxi driver friends cab to get to work one day for example. You may only be doing your own private journey - but you need a licence to drive it - even though it would be privately used.
No-one is picking holes, it is just the facts need to be facts. It was a tragic accident, there is no doubt about that - but it is not uncommon and happens all the time!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-14567676
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/recovery-driver-hit-by-car-on-m60-800183
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/mourners-pay-tribute-break-down-recovery-1833221
There are dozens and dozens of reported incidences I could post up.
All the flashing lights in the world will not protect you - every day there are near misses and incidences where people have hit recovery vehicles recovering people.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Dave, just to add my opinion-I certainly do not agree with some of your allegations and am very disappointed in your attitude. What a shame, reduces the options I have for some work I had looked to contact you for needing an experienced motorhome engineer but its as well if we are all very clear about just who we are and what our core beliefs are
Well I suppose this is the risk I take by taking part in a discussion rather than confining myself to threads where I may score a job or twooh:.
I am frankly amazed that anyone would rule out a business doing any work for them because the owner has a different viewpoint on a totally unrelated subject, better not tell anyone what I think about football, rugby, any other popular sport or my views on politics then. Oh well Say Lavvy as they say over the water, live long and prosper Camconder.
D.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Ralph and Bev,
Wha on earth are you on about" they should have had cover," why do you think they and I are members of the RAC, that is cover if you break down, I am looking into my membership with the RAC yes I hold them responsible, and then the lorry driver, JMOP.
Football, rugby and politics are somewhat different than fundamental values Dave. It isn't just a "different viewpoint" you have it is a fundamental difference in the way we see others
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
No, not all knowing.
I leave that to you.
Yes, it must be nice. Is it?
I will express an opinion, which others are free to disagree with.
Yours, on the other hand, are obviously correct in every aspect (because they are yours) and therefore unassailable.
I may not agree, but I will respect yours and others' opinions.
Please afford me the same courtesy without resorting to insults.
I say the vehicle is an "animal transporter" because of the number of animals carried. "A few small dogs" hardly covers 12.
Business use: read Rainbow Chaser's last post.
I agree with Graham.
The women could have called the Police, rather than relying on RAC, could they not?
I don't profess to be an insurance expert either.
I was just wondering how the claim would go down, nothing more.
If that's ok with you, that is.
Maz,
Not a dog hater at all.
I just don't accept that everyone but the dog owner is wrong.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Nonsense, what a miserable attitude! Lots of know-it-alls on here as far as the "business" aspects are concerned as well. The dogs may not have been part of any business at all, just pet show dogs getting a lift with their owners friend. And if the RAC did not want to recover the motorhome because of "business use" they could have told the ladies that when they reported the breakdown so they could have arranged an alternative. The motorhomes insurance could also be perfectly in order for business.
As for recovery call centre operators not being "allowed" to inform the police- well, that is nonsense- I know that from personal experience with a breakdown myself. The operator informed me that the police would be advised as it was a major road and could pose a danger.
In any event, the motorhome along with the dogs inside it, in their crates, could easily have been recovered with a suitable low loader, so there should not have been an issue with the dogs.
The real issue is why the ladies were left in a dangerous position for 3 hours without the recovery service bothering to inform the police.
This forum seems to have become a microcosm of current British society - there are a lot of caring, decent people who would go out of their way to help others, and there are a lot of animal lovers here too. Sadly, there is also a group of animal/ dog haters and know-it-alls on here as well who seem keen on displaying a callous, couldn't care less attitude about the wellbeing of other people and their much loved pets and seem to revel in the misfortune of others. Thats the price of very large forums, I suppose, its not as friendly or as cosy as it was in the early days, that is for sure.
[HI]I also well known for saying it exactly as it is and I also couldn't care less if the nasty bunch don't like it, they can lump it![/HI]
We agree on something.....I don't suffer fools - so I am quite happy to spell things out to you in a direct manner knowing you won't be offended.
The Vehicle was a BUSINESS vehicle and was SIGNWRITTEN with the company name. Regardless of who intended to do what THAT DAY - it would be insured and have recovery for BUSINESS USE...for a whole year!....Common Sense (apparently)
THE COMPANY that OWNED the motorhome and EMPLOYED the women stated in the paper report that it had be on the way to DOCUMENT A SHOW FOR THE PAPER, and they had LOST CAMERA AND FILMING EQUIPMENT. That is what they call BUSINESS USE.
The purpose of its' business use being brought up was in response stating that the driver refused them - which was incorrect (as no driver ever arrived, refused them, their dogs or their vehicle) The point being - if a business vehicle, it would be covered for the animals, vehicle etc. as part of the business. That is the only relevance
I NEVER said that call centre staff are not allowed to call for assistance. LEARN TO READ CAREFULLY - I said, that REARGUARD IS GIVEN IF AVAILABLE and that RECOVERY DRIVERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THE HARD SHOULDER TO AVOID TRAFFIC QUEUES - THEY WAIT WITH EVERYONE ELSE. (Unless police specify and supply an escort)
YOU DO NOT KNOW if the recovery company informed the Police or not - so don't assume!
THERE WAS NO ISSUE WITH THE DOGS - THEY WERE NEVER REFUSED. A NUMBER of reports have confirmed that they were STILL WAITING for recovery to ARRIVE. They WOULD have been taken - WHEN THE TRUCK ARRIVED! NO TRUCK HAD TURNED UP OR REFUSED THEM.....According to the statement of WOMAN THERE.
NOBODY ARE DOG HATERS.... That is childish, unhelpful and pathetic response to other people trying to save your embarrassment from ranting on with INCORRECT INFORMATION, which could be seen as verging on Libel, as it is based on your personal assumptions and is totally ignorant of facts that emerge as the story develops - no-one minds someone getting something wrong in the early reports. But ignoring the facts, making accusations and attacking people is foolhardy.
People on here are kind and friendly, and will actively help each other find out the TRUTH in cases such as this without judgement - some people don't like being wrong - others have more integrity.
I am not going to support your posts and say you are right when you are so wrong with your information. Supply me with evidence that what you say is correct, and I will change my view. But currently, every statement released, every interview given by those involved in the incident says that your accusations are nothing more that fantasy.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Perhaps you would like to repeat that in person to me? no, thought not.
People on here are unfortunately not all "kind and friendly" - that is simply inaccurate and untruthful. Many are, but a lot are not. And there are a lot of dog haters on here. Yes, they are childish, immature and pathetic to hate dogs, but that is as it is.
I never said, although others did, that a recovery driver refused to take the dogs- . Likewise, the call centre could have let the police know. It appears that they did not.
Do try not to launch malevolent personal attacks on others who don't share your views. I disagree entirely with you, but that does not give you the right to question my integrity.
Well I am not going to support your posts either - I also do not suffer fools glady, so perhaps you should LEARN TO READ as well. Funny how many "heroes" emerge on here willing to abuse other forum users online. Wonder what the response would be face to face FWIW I don't rate you much either given your personalised insults about my apparent lack of integrity
Perhaps you would like to repeat that in person to me? no, thought not.
Just because the vehicle was signwritten and carrying camera equipment, does not make the fact that it was conveying the dogs per se into a business. The filming is the business aspect.
People on here are unfortunately not all "kind and friendly" - that is simply inaccurate and untruthful. Many are, but a lot are not. And there are a lot of dog haters on here. Yes, they are childish, immature and pathetic to hate dogs, but that is as it is.
I never said, although others did, that a recovery driver refused to take the dogs- what I did say was that the recovery driver could have been more helpful to the ladies instead of being a jobswerth, even if his vehicle was too small to help with recovery. Likewise, the call centre could have let the police know. It appears that they did not.
Do try not to launch malevolent personal attacks on others who don't share your views. I disagree entirely with you, but that does not give you the right to question my integrity.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
I have a different problem to the dog haters, I love my dog but my dog doesn't like me very much. What would you do in this situation.:Sad:
The highlighting is mine but we all surely need to make any further comments in light of those facts (whatever our previous views based on lesser information).There has been much criticism of the RAC on various social media sites after its failure to send help within the time the vehicle was immobile. [HI]Ms Russell-Smith said the company told her they were having difficulty finding a vehicle to help them because of the dogs.[/HI]
"I told them all the dogs were in crates and they said that would be OK but that the vehicle would have to come from a long way away,” she said. [HI]"During our wait the Highways Agency phoned a couple of times to see what our situation was.”[/HI]
The RAC told DW: "We always attend broken-down vehicles carrying animals. [HI]As this incident involved a large motorhome we had to ensure the correct recovery vehicle attended.[/HI] Sadly for all concerned, the recovery vehicle was on its way when the accident happened. Our thoughts are with the injured passenger and the owners of the dogs that died.
"We are extremely saddened to learn that a young woman has been injured and that four dogs have lost their lives as a result of this incident. We had despatched a specialist recovery vehicle to attend, but unfortunately the accident occurred while the vehicle was en route to the scene.” The following day the company said it was reading comments and views made on social media sites.
"There is an ongoing internal review of this matter but at this time we would like to clarify the [HI]rumours that a patrol vehicle was sent out and left the scene are false[/HI]. It is absolutely RAC policy to attend breakdowns when animals are involved - t[HI]he delay occurred because we were arranging for a suitable specialist vehicle to attend the large motorhome[/HI]. The recovery team arrived shortly after the accident but were stood down by the police who were dealing with the incident.
Are you for real...
Offering people out in a post... Ranting..
Here's a couple of simple facts.
Some people don't like dogs.. (I don't like cats.. Never thought of myself as a cat hater)
.. I'm glad the people in the motorhome survived.. Its sad about the dogs. If they had all been off the carriageway they may all have been uninjured and survived
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
[HI]"I don't rate you much either given your personalised insults" [/HI]
I am not insulting you - you are blinded from the facts by your views. I am merely pointing out (banging my head against a wall) that your views are based upon events that DID NOT HAPPEN according to witness accounts.
We have all posted views on what we had been given to go on at the time - these change as evidence becomes apparent in most cases. You views are based upon events since disproven.
[HI]
"Just because the vehicle was signwritten and carrying camera equipment, does not make the fact that it was conveying the dogs per se into a business. The filming is the business aspect."
[/HI]
The primary use (as seen in law) is business. That is where they were going, and what they were doing. Regardless of this - that vehicle would have everything in place to cover that - recovery for business, cover in place to take care of occupants, including the highly likely animal pressence.
They state the cages were custom made for the vehicle....so they would have been covered to have that many animals on board, and SHOULD have everything in place
What you are suggesting is that on Monday, you insure your car to go shopping - on Tuesday you insure your car to go to the tip. The car is insured and covered whatever you do. SAME WITH THIS VEHICLE.
What each person was doing is irrellevent - the company would or should have had cover in place for whatever that vehicle is being used for. In LAW it is a business vehicle.
[HI]
"what I did say was that the recovery driver could have been more helpful to the ladies instead of being a jobswerth, even if his vehicle was too small to help with recovery"
[/HI]
How can this be right, if no driver ever arrived??? According to the womans' testimony - no driver had arrived when the accident happened. She was about to phone the company as it had been 45 minutes, rather than the 30 they state.
Rearguard will be given if available. It depends on what else is going on in the area. A police vehicle could be an hour away! You have no idea if one was on it's way, or not available. If no-one is available as they are at other incidences, then you are alone. That is the way it is!
There are lots of things you can do with Hindsight. Many of the nasty people you talk of on here will tell you - I always advise people to take a tarp.....cost a pound each, gives you something to sit on, cover from sun, wind and rain. In her case, would have kept her and 12 dogs warm all for under a tenner!
So these forums are worthwhile aren't they?
What I am getting tired of saying is; there is NO-ONE to BLAME, it was a TRAGIC ACCIDENT that happens all the time!
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Rainbow Chaser felt it quite ok to question my integrity so I will respond as I wish to that, thank you, whether you happen to like it or not. Just because I don't agree with him does not mean my integrity is under question
You forgot to add to your simple facts:
- some people don't like people who don't like dogs and are openly callous/abusive about it.
- just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they lack integrity
- just because you say something is so, does not mean that is the definitive answer.
You're still ranting (and staring at me with your big starey eyes)
Subscribers do not see these advertisements