To think DH did nothing wrong here?

[Challas]

On my way to do the school run in the dark I nearly slammed into a little black car that was broken down just around a blind on our very rural 60 mile an hour road. I noticed a woman alone sitting in the car. I called DH and asked him to go at least put cones around the car but also to offer to the woman for him to stay with her (in his car) or come stand on our drive so she didn't get killed sitting in the car. He went up to her and she politely declined (all fine but he was legitimately afraid for her). He did then drive back around the bend and sat there with his hazards on to slow any cars coming down. Eventually the recovery van came for her and all was well until a few hours later we had the police at the door saying this woman reported DH for having made her feel threatened!? He's now said in the future he just won't even offer help if he's in the same position again. The police were fairly aggressive with wanting to know exactly what he said and did so clearly she was very uncomfortable.

I think all men should be aware how their actions may be interpreted by women. He knows he was trying to help, but she didn't know that. If she lets him help and all is well, next time - with not such a nice bloke - her guard may be down.
FWIW, I would be creeped out if some random guy was sitting in a car behind me in the dark.
The obvious thing was to get the husband to do the school run, as they were so close to OP's home, or call the police.

Don't be silly, a warning triangle means "problem ahead".

A car with its hazards on looks like it is the problem.

Sounds more like a frightened woman was further frightened by a bloke turning up when she was vulnerable and saying

'I can stay with you' - um, no. 'In my car' - not getting in your car with you.

'You can come back to my house, I'm just around the corner' - no.

'You can stand in my driveway' - still not going with you to your house.

'My wife asked me to help you' - how do I know that? You could have seen me here and decided to take the opportunity.

'This is my name and address' - does that make getting in your car as a strange man inviting me back to your house any safer when it could easily be a false name and address?

Just because he meant 'I'm going to rescue you and although you haven't a scooby whether I'm doing this for altruistic reasons or so you feature in a documentary in nine years about how you disappeared from a broken down vehicle and was never seen again but a piece of paper with a false name and address was found at the scene, I'm definitely doing this because I'm a latter day Knightrider' doesn't mean that she was going to instinctively know that going against everything women learn about how dangerous men can be would be fine on this occasion.

All the advice for women in the event of a breakdown that isn't on a motorway is to stay in the car, to not accept help from strangers (specifically men) and to report if somebody (specifically men) make you feel uncomfortable. And that a genuinely benign person - man - won't be offended.

A car with its hazards on will attract approaching motorists’ attention, so they’ll be concentrating on the situation as they approach. Plus, they’ll likely reduce their speed, which further reduces the risk to the broken-down vehicle. Sure, a warning triangle might be preferable, but DH’s action was still very useful. It may also be that he was going to flag down or otherwise warn drivers as they approached.

Well quite, but I honestly think some people just don’t think things through when they’re in a bit of a panic.

The very purpose of a warning triangle is to.... Warn people. A car with hazards on is an obstacle. I can't believe I'm actually having to explain this.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

The idea that he would do this never came up.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?