TheAA no longer prioritising lone women for recovery

[Imayhaveerred]

A woman tweeted this “ hi @TheAA_UK I am a lone woman whose car has broken down at night in the dark. Your call handler has told me you treat lone women and lone men as exactly the same priority in such circumstances because “that’s equality”

TheAA reply: “Hi Helen, you've been advised correctly. We don't prioritise based on gender, we do consider the location so as an example we would prioritise someone on a motorway over someone in a supermarket carpark”

twitter.com/theaa_uk/status/1483867262373220356?s=21

Surely lone women are always at higher risk than lone men? And that’s before the egregious use of gender when they mean sex…

Sheila's wheels, looks like underwritten by RAC

RAC prioritise all customers who are in potentially vulnerable situations. This could be a woman on her own on a remote road, an elderly driver on a motorway, or drivers with young children, as they understand how worrying these situations can be. Not all these drivers are in vulnerable situations every time but when they are, they are put on a higher priority

In the end I can't see what it's not ok equality to prioritise in this way.

This site majority women so naturally that will be what many posters are thinking of.

However obv equality also includes things like age, disability etc.

I see this as sensible tbh, to see what situation in and prioritise.

However I do know from RL that frequently those who are not going to be seen as having personal vulnerabilities get pretty resentful about what's usually described as special treatment.

(Obv where person is, is a factor unrelated to their personal characteristics which is as it should be obv).

@Whitefire

That's just standard risk assessment from Green Flag. The question they need to answer would be who would get priority if it was a man on a garage forecourt at the side of the A1 or a woman in the Tesco car park?

Who do you think should get priority there?

It's not obvious to me.

I do feel at the moment sometimes we want equality for women until it doesn't suit.

If women actually had equality, I would object less to this policy. But the fact that we don't and yet it's always the areas where women might receive benefit (as opposed to the vast majority where men do) which are changed in the name of "equality" really fucks me off. For example, men cause 95% of deaths and serious injuries on the road, and are generally shitter drivers, and yet "equality" means they can't be charged more for insurance.
With regard to the "men are assaulted more" claim - I take it we're including sexual assaults in this too? Because I don't for a second believe men are more likely to endure that than women.

It's not a situation where I think sex automatically means you are most vulnerable/highest priority.

It's a significant factor, of course but a lot depends on circumstances.

The last time I needed such a service I was in a perfectly safe public place, with plentiful amenities (cafe/food/toilets).

I was not a priority compared to a man broken down on a motorway hard shoulder sitting outside the car in cold/wet weather, freezing to death or risking injury inside the car.

The only other time I had to call a breakdown service was in the situation above when my tyre blew on the motorway.

It was wet/cold and whilst I had a spare wheel/Jack and knew how to use them, I just didn't have the physical strength to release the wheel nuts (that a man might have had).

In that situation, I think I would have been a priority as a lone woman compared to a man in the same circumstances.

As such I don't have an issue with sex being the most important criteria for evaluating priority as long as it is an important factor when considering the safety of customers.

To be honest, I'm not all that shocked - I broke down on a major A-road, no lay-bys anywhere near me, no paths or pavements, very little in the way of a barrier (with a steep drop-off behind); it was pitch black (no street lights) and bloody freezing! I stood further down the grassed side area from the absolutely dead car and waited.

It took the AA over 90mins to get to me, even though I'd stressed I was a woman on my own, even though I'd stressed I was blocking the inside lane of a major A-road, even though I rang back twice to see what was happening and spoke to the same shirty operator. 90+ mins in the cold and dark, watching cars speed past. When the patrol finally turned up - not his fault, just where he's been prioritised - he was appalled at the situation.

This was several years ago, so I'm not surprised they've made official changes to their policy now. As a PP said, I'm not with Green Flag, who use local recovery agents, so should be quicker.

*now with Green Flag

Thinking about the thread I realised that this is an example of something that comes up all the time for older girls and women. Across loads of things to do with men, women, girls, risk and it's always to do with sexually motivated behaviour, or expression of dominance.

That we're always put in a no win position, our reactions are supposed to be different depending on things that are irrelevant to us, but relevant to men (in general).

We are told conflicting things constantly that we must do, or shouldn't worry about, or shouldn't do, or obviously we want to do but if we do we're inviting trouble etc.

Are women (from driving age 17 up) vulnerable or not? When we're by ourselves in a place where we can be easily seen, but also a place where easy to target with minimal risk of someone there and then noticing/doing anything.

On the one hand when there's a sex crime committed against a woman or girl over puberty. Focus immediately on what she did wrong. We need to 'protect ourselves' by adhering to an immense list of 'rules'. If we put a for wrong then well. Sad but well. She took a risk so there you go.

OTOH we're told that it's wrong to paint all men with the same brush. Out and about v unlikely anything will happen. Woman says, man did this he was out of line. He creeped me out. Radar said dodgy I legged it. Response loads of people including MN which is female dominated. That was really rude. Maybe he has poor social skills etc. You're paranoid. What did he actually do? Probably being friendly! Meant as a compliment! Etc.

In short we're told to look out for ourselves and listen to instinct etc. But when we do, reams of people don't actually like it. Man could have been misunderstood, how did he feel???

They will have a complex risk calculator, and simply being a woman is not a rational reason to be prioritised, all other things being equal.

A father with a toddler in the car should be prioritised over me (all things being equal). Anyone stuck on the hard shoulder (or worse - in one of the refuges on our smart motorway which no longer has a hard shoulder) should be prioritised over anyone else.

Someone's sex (and please can we have one thread where we don't have to have the gender/sex argument?) should only come into it in certain situations, which I'm sure is built into their risk programme.

Leaving a decent breakdown company simply because they don't drop everything because you're female, is just ridiculous.

Well I've cancelled and not cancelled at the same time. I've had AA cover for decades. I also had Green Flag which came with Clydesdale Bank current account. Thought AA might be more reliable.

Clydesdale re branded as Virgin Money so I moved my main current account to Bank of Scotland which includes AA cover. Never got round to cancelling the AA cover.

So here.

Girls women 17 +.

If there's not reason to consider vulnerable when alone in situation where huge amounts of random men see alone, and also place where plenty cover and those passing v unlikely to notice anything dodgy.

Then why are we bombarded from all sides to get cabs, don't wander about after dark alone, avoid quieter roads, be alert, etc etc?

Why is our risk assessment basically always wrong whatever we do?

Act on our own assessment? Paranoid, unfair on men, most stuff happens at home so what about that then!, in these circs must ignore etc.

Don't act? If something happens. Essentially boils down to. Inviting it ignoring the rules. Or, sort of, just one of those things what can you do. Bad thing but well. Just the way it is.

So in this case.

When I was 17. And yes this is about me personally so feel free to put the boot in but bear this genuine personal view.

When I was 17 if broke down motorway by self.

Sitting on grass verge/ hanging about behind barrier. My assessment? Based on experience. Even at 17. I would have been conflicted and prob would have got out because I'm a rule based sort of person.

But I would have KNOWN that I had a fucking great neon sign over me for dodgy men to act on.

Spot, pull over, check can't see others with me. And game over for me.

That's not obvious to some?

In my case, my hair seemed to be a beacon for shit from men, it was very obvious. I was what 7 stone ish 5'2. Clearly not a force to be reckoned with when came to struggling etc.

Motorway HUNDREDS of drivers passing. Enormously increasing risk of dodgy man/men passing.

But that thought process is silly. Get out. Be seen.

Oh and! Due to equality. That risk assessment is nonsense. That risk imaginary nonsense. Equality, see.

So why OTOH all this protecting ourselves shit?

(Oh right. It's because. Of all the above. Anything goes wrong then it's our fault. Or a tragic incident, but one that women/girls are vulnerable to just by existing. He was a monster. So sad. Why was she wearing headphones though? Foolish. Etc etc).

@saraclara

They will have a complex risk calculator, and simply being a woman is not a rational reason to be prioritised, all other things being equal.

A father with a toddler in the car should be prioritised over me (all things being equal). Anyone stuck on the hard shoulder (or worse - in one of the refuges on our smart motorway which no longer has a hard shoulder) should be prioritised over anyone else.

Someone's sex (and please can we have one thread where we don't have to have the gender/sex argument?) should only come into it in certain situations, which I'm sure is built into their risk programme.

Leaving a decent breakdown company simply because they don't drop everything because you're female, is just ridiculous.

I agree. I haven't left AA. I've finally got round to cancelling the duplicate cover.

The supermarket I use most is in a small retail park. The carpark is shared with several other stores and a fast food restaurant. It closes at 8p.m. Even if I'd left my shopping to the last minute there's at least 2 other shops which will still be open for another 2 hours plus end of day closing up. I could wait inside their front doors in the trolley section if I was worried. If my car breaks down there, there are bound to be people who should take priority over me. (Plus knowing my husband if I phoned him he'd be bound to leap in a taxi so he would wait for the AA instead of me)

@CheeseMmmm

So in this case.

When I was 17. And yes this is about me personally so feel free to put the boot in but bear this genuine personal view.

When I was 17 if broke down motorway by self.

Sitting on grass verge/ hanging about behind barrier. My assessment? Based on experience. Even at 17. I would have been conflicted and prob would have got out because I'm a rule based sort of person.

But I would have KNOWN that I had a fucking great neon sign over me for dodgy men to act on.

Spot, pull over, check can't see others with me. And game over for me.

That's not obvious to some?

In my case, my hair seemed to be a beacon for shit from men, it was very obvious. I was what 7 stone ish 5'2. Clearly not a force to be reckoned with when came to struggling etc.

Motorway HUNDREDS of drivers passing. Enormously increasing risk of dodgy man/men passing.

But that thought process is silly. Get out. Be seen.

Oh and! Due to equality. That risk assessment is nonsense. That risk imaginary nonsense. Equality, see.

So why OTOH all this protecting ourselves shit?

(Oh right. It's because. Of all the above. Anything goes wrong then it's our fault. Or a tragic incident, but one that women/girls are vulnerable to just by existing. He was a monster. So sad. Why was she wearing headphones though? Foolish. Etc etc).

But your situation was a priority because of your sex and where you were.

If you had been a 17 year old young man or a 77 year old man, alone on a motorway you should still get priority over female me stuck in Marks & Spencers' car park.

I think it's a very sensible policy. If I broke down and was parked up on the side of a residential road and a guy was at the edge of a roundabout or on a road blocking traffic, or the side of a dual carriageway, etc, I'd expect them to go there first. It'd be so selfish to be in a safe position and ask to be put first. In my experience, the dispatchers always ask where you are and how safe you feel.
And it goes without saying motorway breakdowns take priority over shopping carparks. Madness not to.

It was about the posters who said ridiculous a lone female on motorway hard shoulder wouldn't get out.

That was the point of that.

The scoffing at any older girl/woman deciding not to get out loiter motorway hard shoulder.

Whether a statistically good call or not. The fact is we have constant messages about how we are at risk, and what we ought to do to 'protect ourselves'. And if we don't and something happens? Well that's on us.

However at the same time we're also told that we should forget all that stuff, and our own experience based judgement. Just, because.

Side of motorway on own. We are not vulnerable because equality.

Going out late night walking home. Well. She made mistakes. These things sadly happen. Just how it is. Women/girls know this stuff is risky.

It's contradictory. Because it's not about consistency. It's about essentially the beloved press/societal hobby of telling women/girls they're doing it wrong.

@CheeseMmmm

So in this case.

When I was 17. And yes this is about me personally so feel free to put the boot in but bear this genuine personal view.

When I was 17 if broke down motorway by self.

Sitting on grass verge/ hanging about behind barrier. My assessment? Based on experience. Even at 17. I would have been conflicted and prob would have got out because I'm a rule based sort of person.

But I would have KNOWN that I had a fucking great neon sign over me for dodgy men to act on.

Spot, pull over, check can't see others with me. And game over for me.

That's not obvious to some?

In my case, my hair seemed to be a beacon for shit from men, it was very obvious. I was what 7 stone ish 5'2. Clearly not a force to be reckoned with when came to struggling etc.

Motorway HUNDREDS of drivers passing. Enormously increasing risk of dodgy man/men passing.

But that thought process is silly. Get out. Be seen.

Oh and! Due to equality. That risk assessment is nonsense. That risk imaginary nonsense. Equality, see.

So why OTOH all this protecting ourselves shit?

(Oh right. It's because. Of all the above. Anything goes wrong then it's our fault. Or a tragic incident, but one that women/girls are vulnerable to just by existing. He was a monster. So sad. Why was she wearing headphones though? Foolish. Etc etc).

It's not a law that you have to get out. Next time you just stay in the car and hope a tired lorry driver doesn't ram into the back of you and shunt you down the hard shoulder. It's your choice at the end of the day.

The misinterpretations and outrage are awesome :D

PPs said that lone female should not be considered as a factor full stop.

So if two motorway breakdowns.

One lone woman (or girl, 17+) should not be proritised as no particular elevated risk.

I think the reasons were-

• You wanted equality deal with it
• Men get attacked more on street so in this situation they more at risk. (That's to me a very iffy assumption. Pulling over on motorway to get out attack man spotted Vs see lone female 17 up. But no I don't have stats.)

“All the outraged responses to the AA’s policy seem to have forgotten that a stranded motorist of either sex is far more likely to be killed/injured by another vehicle than to be wilfully attacked. Your life expectancy on a motorway hard shoulder is about 15 minutes. If it was your son on the hard shoulder, do you really want the AA to go to the woman in the café first? “

^ Most sensible comment.
Where is the woman exactly? Hasn’t this always been the case? The AA have always arrived quickly when I’ve called them, they’ll even stay on the phone with you. If your under attack or fearful of your life shouldn’t you ring the police rather than the AA.

I recently had the misfortune to break down on the M1. I was very fortunate that I wasn't further south on the death-trap Smart motorway bit of that motorway.

I was still absolutely determined not to end up on the hard shoulder of the M1 and luckily the car held out another couple of miles to a slip road where I stopped on its hard shoulder.

I stayed in the car. I KNOW it's dangerous to do so but I did not feel that getting out of the car with my 4 year old was the right thing to do at night. The highways officer who turned up after five minutes actually agreed with me and left us in the car but set up some lit cones behind us.

RAC said I was a priority being a woman with a young child by a motorway. Two hours we waited and it was a local contractor not an RAC employee that was sent to us. We were then passed from that local contractor to another in a deserted bit of Wetherby services at 1am.

I felt vulnerable.

How does someone who is under attack, or a person has given them reason to feel they have murderous intent (so up close and personal generally) make a phone call exactly?

Is this like how Sarah everard should have called the police to check the arrest was aok, as the police told women afterwards?

15 mins link please.

Suzi-

If women /girls 17+, AREN'T at any particular risk from men when standing around with 100s of men going past, but also in a place where if targeted there's vv little risk to the attacker. Plus options in car or often plenty shrubbery about for cover.

Then why exactly the stuff about how we need to avoid certain things because we are at risk?

That's a conundrum to be sure.

I'm pleased to hear though that 17yo girls and women don't get weird/intimidating/criminal sexually motivated behaviour from men any more than 17yo boys and men do.

That's brilliant news!

15 mins link please.

I think this is from the same numerical illiteracy that gives us the "life expectancy of transwomen" as 35.

I suspect the actual reality is the same:

Of the people who were killed on the hard shoulder, on average they had been there 15 minutes. (Which would be consistent with people being rescued within about 30 minutes, say - there wouldn't be many killed on the hard shoulder after being there 2 hours or 5 days...)

Of the transwomen who are murdered, on average they were 35, much the same as all murder victims. Very young and very old people are not murdered at as high rates, and murder victims cluster around adulthood.

If you're selecting and averaging people who died of a particular cause, that's not a "life expectancy".