To think DH did nothing wrong here?

I was answering the people who were saying she should get out of her car and stand in the road persuading drivers to slow down. So she wouldn't be in her locked car.

Your DH did nothing wrong - tell him ‘no good deed goes unpunished’…

Why is that my job? I don't tell anyone to do anything so how on earth are you linking it as my job to ?

@Marblesbackagain No idea where that quote is from but cheers I don't need a man to protect me it ain't the early man ages.

Then perhaps you need to tell that to all of the women who keep lecturing men to speak up, or step in, whenever they see women being harassed or in trouble.

If he was 'sitting on the bend' then he wasn't near the woman's car and there would have been no reason (in her mind) to report him, surely?

But if you're doing something that endangers you and others, then the situation's different, surely?

Even if it's just endangering you, there's an argument for intervening.

Let's say the woman sat in the dark on a blind corner on a fast road has a 1/20 chance of being killed. Doesn't that warrant intervening?

Someone running across a motorway might face similar odds. Wouldn't you stop them if you could safely do so?

That's the point though, it could equally be interpreted as 'come and sit with me in my car' as it could be 'I'll sit with you in your car whilst an inattentive driver travelling the same way slams into the back of mine' or 'we'll both sit in our respective cars and wait for breakdown recovery or an accident to happen, whichever is the soonest' - although if it were that dangerous, surely he wouldn't be suggesting that he made the obstruction even larger and force cars to pull out onto the oncoming side for even longer; cars coming from the other direction might see the woman's car, think that was the only obstruction and continue on merrily until somebody is on the wrong side of the road overtaking his car first?

There is a saying no good deed goes unpunished.

Many years ago I had an accident on a country lane, oil all across the road. I was out of my car warning people to slow down but no one stopped. One guy did stop to ask if he could help I said I was waiting for recovery. He said he felt uncomfortable leaving me in December on an unlit lane. So he stayed in his car behind me with hazards on until my dad turned up to await the recovery. I actually thought he was being a decent human being.

Worse, the OP's clarification is actually being used by one poster as evidence that she is covering up for (or perhaps even complicit in, dun-dun-dun) her husband's "pervy" behaviour, which her subconscious couldn't prevent her accidentally giving away in the first post.

This is classic conspiracist rhetoric. "They" are out to get you, and "they" are incredibly clever and devious, but "they" also always leave subtle messages that only "we", the alert non-sheeple, can see. No slip of the tongue or pen or keyboard or swiping finger is ever innocent.

I'm a firm believer of: no good deed goes unpunished.

You try and be nice, and this is the thanks you get.

The fact that even after OP’s clarification numerous PPs think there was a suggestion that DH and the woman sit in the same car is immensely depressing.

The idea that he would do this never came up.

For the love of god, there was no ‘on my car’. DH ended up guarding the woman from afar to the benefit of the community.

In theory I agree with you however

So is it your belief that no man should ever intervene if a woman is doing something stupid and dangerous, even if he potentially saves other people from a bad car accident, because the woman exercising her autonomy and declaring her boundaries is more important?

You do understand, yes, that he wasn't just helping her, he was helping other drivers who might come along and hit the woman's car in the dark? Or do they not matter? He's just a weirdo creep and that's it?

But he did not try to convince her to get into his car. OP’s first post was ambiguous. She has cleared it up.

It was the woman’s choice not to get out of her car. Probably not the smartest statistically, but to do only with risk to herself. So that is fine.

However by the location of the breakdown was risking not only her own life, but others. I don’t know how she could feel threatened by DH if he was at a distance keeping her and others safe(r).

She was OTT, OP, and I am very sorry for your DH.

How is it that hundreds of posts into the thread, which the OP has updated several times, there are still posters so utterly clueless as to what happened? Obviously the OP's DH didn't sit in the woman's car with her. He sat in his own car round the corner with his hazard lights on to warn other drivers and prevent them slamming into the back of the woman's broken-down car, because she was too thick even to put her hazard lights on and was sitting in her car in the dark on a blind bend.

I would trust the judgement of someone who lived close to that bend and had to drive round it every day, over that of a stranger who randomly broke down there. Without a picture of the precise situation, the highest probability is that he knew better than she did what was and wasn’t likely to be safe on that stretch of road. To protect himself, he should also have called whatever number is advised for the county he lives in to report dangerous obstructions on the road. He didn’t think enough about his own safety and of protecting himself from risk of blame for any accident that might happen.

It’s incredibly hard to get back up to a dangerous speed before you encounter the hazard round the bend if you have just had to slow right down for another car. I’m sure his vehicle very effectively slowed cars down to a safe speed on the otherwise 60mph, winding country road.

Why is this so hard to understand?
He was parked up one side of a bend, forcing cars to pull out round him onto the wrong side of the road, on a bend. Cars coming the other direction are then at risk of a head on collision.
A warning triangle says 'watch out, there is a problem ahead' without anyone having to be on the wrong side of the road. Drivers know to slow down and look for a hazard. A car with its hazards on says it is an obstacle, broken down etc. Once another car has passed it, they will not automatically be looking for another one just round the corner.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if she was scared or not - she was risking a serious accident. Of course DH was right to intervene.

She probably didn't have one rather than wasn't willing 🙄, and presumably the problem with her car meant she couldn't use the hazards.

I don't know why she wouldn't accept the cones idea. Why didn't he do that instead if he had them?

Unfortunately many people lack common sense nowadays. Your DH sounds like his intentions were good to help a woman who was posing a danger to others and herself.

If you break down , if you cannot move the car to a safe place ( off a live road ) then you should leave the vehicle if possible and leave headlights on ( if possible) but at the very least hazard warning lights. Also notify the police if you’re in a dangerous situation.

In many countries in Europe it’s the law to carry a warning triangle ( not many people in the UK do).

I now have my breakdown cover phone number and policy number wrote down on a piece of paper incase my phone battery is dead or I can’t access the internet. I l leave the piece of paper in my glove box.
In the boot I carry a hi viz and a torch , and a warning triangle.
It’s better to be prepared because you can always guarantee it’ll happen when you least expect it.

How would it help for OP to put herself at risk as well as leaving her children uncollected?

But it's a very obvious obstacle, more so than a warning triangle. And it appears that this driver wasn't willing to put a triangle out.

See my comment above. An additional car with its hazards on is a hell of a lot better than nothing.