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…

"Do you make special arrangements for vulnerable customers (lone women, elderly, with children)?
Answer: Yes we do."
How is that not explicit to you?

And from Green Flag's Twitter account today:
"When we're contacted by a customer to assist with their vehicle, we take all the individual circumstances into account. Our customer facing teams actively prioritise customers who may be at risk, such as lone women, the elderly or families with young children."

@Ereshkigalangcleg

There is rarely any coverage of those deaths, so we have a skewed view of the relative risks.

Although I agree with a lot of your points, it does seem like you're using statistics in a misleading way, similar to the "35 year life expectancy" for MTF trans people. As NecessaryScene deduced, is it the case that your "15 or 30 minute life expectancy" is based on average time for all deaths caused by stopping on the hard shoulder, or is it on every person in a car that has stopped on the hard shoulder whether or not there was an accident and whether or not the people were safely recovered?

I am quoting stats that I was taught as part of emergency services training and that, as other posters have noted, are widely available online. What I was taught was that, if you stop on the hard shoulder and do not leave your vehicle, you will on average survive 15 mins (at the time I was trained, now 30 mins) until you are hit by another vehicle. This is from police data. Clearly they don't know - so cannot include - every single time that someone stops anywhere in the UK. But very large stretches of the motorway are under camera surveillance, so they have a large and robust sample, on which to base this. They have thousands of stretches of hard shoulder under continuous surveillance so have figures on all stops in those areas, however brief.

I find it fascinating that so many people are so invested in disagreeing with this. So far, other than the update about the average now being 30 minutes (which I accept) no one has posted any data showing a different figure. I'm just told that it's bollocks and that I don't understand life expectancy. I'd suggest the issue is more that people underestimate the risk. Think about the M25, for example. At its busiest points, 200,000 vehicles use it every day. Obviously they are not evenly distributed throughout 24h, but for simplicity let's estimate that two thirds travel between 7 am - 7 pm, and that they are evenly distributed during that time. That would mean 11,000 vehicles per hour. If you breakdown on the hard shoulder, 2,750 vehicles will pass you in 15 minutes. Is it really so hard to believe that one of them is likely to hit you?

And yes, of course, the M25 is a very busy motorway, but I have never suggested that the risk is the same, no matter how busy the motorway is. Of course, busier stretches are more dangerous and depress the average survival.

How ridiculous. Of course lone women are generally at more risk, it's not men getting raped and murdered while out jogging, by men abusing their police ID etc. It does depend on location though, and common sense. To anyone who says 'well, women wanted equality so here it is' - perhaps would agree when women are equally safe to walk around alone and not get attacked.

I find it fascinating that so many people are so invested in disagreeing with this.

I just don't like bad use of statistics. I'm not disagreeing that it's dangerous. The way you presented it was completely misleading. As pp said, like the TRAs present the "35 year life expectancy". Why not just admit that and move on? Clearly not every single car that parks on the hard shoulder gets hit by a car whether people get out or not

I'm genuinely wondering why so many cars on the hard shoulder get hit. Are we talking stupid 'smart' motorways, where it's often used as a lane or just normal ones where it's used for breakdowns only?

Is lane discipline that poor that drivers frequently swerve entirely into a different (occupied) lane without seeing the vehicle already in it? Does this happen frequently in the normal driving lanes, too - maybe only thwarted by other drivers (in working cars) taking preventative action when they see somebody heading straight for them?

Or is it that they see the tail lights (if they're still on/working in the broken-down car) and thus assume it must be a lane in use, expecting the vehicle on which they see the tail lights to be moving at a normal speed?

When people come out with obviously false or incomplete information, others may distrust whatever else they say too, so your undeniably important safety message is at risk of going unheard.

Lone men are at higher risk of assault/murder (by a stranger) than lone women outside the home. Inside the home, it is the opposite, women are at higher risk of being assaulted or murdered (by their partner or ex) than a man is.

So I think it’s perfectly correct to have equal priority in regards to different sex in terms of breakdowns. I think young children whether with a mother or father, should up the priority too. Of course if the person is stranded alone, and say gang members keep driving by in a pack of motorcycles...they would also get priority man or woman due to the circumstances.

Lone men are at higher risk of assault/murder (by a stranger) than lone women outside the home. Inside the home, it is the opposite, women are at higher risk of being assaulted or murdered (by their partner or ex) than a man is

Men are more likely to be assaulted outside the home but I've never read that it is lone men. A lot of male on male violence happens within groups of men.

Lone men are at higher risk of assault/murder (by a stranger) than lone women outside the home.

This isn't true of sexual assault, where women are much more likely to be victims. It also ignores the fact that women are far more likely to self-restrict. We are told not to go out late, to get a taxi rather than walk home, to stay in a group if we are going somewhere, to walk the dog early in Winter. Things men do without a second thought are taboo for us. Women accept these limits on our freedoms, which reduces strangers' opportunities to assault us. But once a woman is broken down in a lonely area and is advised that staying in the car is dangerous, any man who wants to attack her has ample opportunity, and that woman won't stand a good chance of fighting him off.
It isn't just a matter of pulling stats out and saying women are therefore safer in this specific scenario.

And frequently violence statistics exclude sexual violence, which is often why women are targeted when vulnerable.

X post

The President of the AA was on the phone to Shelagh Fogarty about this on LBC this afternoon. Was driving, didn't catch his name. He clarified their position and they do indeed prioritise people who they think are in a vulnerable position. He was very good actually - said the caller involved was a new member of staff and will be having further training and their social media account wasn't clear. He was very good and clear about their policies - it was good to hear.

Well. You all did well vipers!

Lone women drivers are top priority, says AA after tweet backlash www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60075906

@Mollyollydolly

The President of the AA was on the phone to Shelagh Fogarty about this on LBC this afternoon. Was driving, didn't catch his name. He clarified their position and they do indeed prioritise people who they think are in a vulnerable position. He was very good actually - said the caller involved was a new member of staff and will be having further training and their social media account wasn't clear. He was very good and clear about their policies - it was good to hear.

I agree that he was very good. I didn't find it apologetic, I found it reasonable and reassured that the opinions of the handler are over ridden by their systems.

To be fair, he did apologise on Twitter.

'Think about the M25, for example. At its busiest points, 200,000 vehicles use it every day. Obviously they are not evenly distributed throughout 24h, but for simplicity let's estimate that two thirds travel between 7 am - 7 pm, and that they are evenly distributed during that time. That would mean 11,000 vehicles per hour. If you breakdown on the hard shoulder, 2,750 vehicles will pass you in 15 minutes. Is it really so hard to believe that one of them is likely to hit you?'

Yes.

I've never ever seen a shunt on hard shoulder m25 in my life and use it a lot used to commute half way round for years.

Can you calculate the probability of one person never seeing one in say 1000 journeys, given the numbers you use in your calc please?

Also some numbers to show the chance of a man passing who decides to pull over when she's young woman alone on hard shoulder.

Thanks!

Clearly not every single car that parks on the hard shoulder gets hit by a car whether people get out or not
This.

It’s total nonsense to suggest that a car on the hard shoulder will be hit in 15 or even 30 minutes and that that will lead to fatality. I have NEVER seen a car hit on the hard shoulder and have travelled on motorways for more than thirty years. I’ve been stuck on the hard shoulder both in the car and behind the barrier (multiple times over the years) last time for over an hour. How could that be true?

I am quoting stats that I was taught as part of emergency services training and that, as other posters have noted, are widely available online. What I was taught was that, if you stop on the hard shoulder and do not leave your vehicle, you will on average survive 15 mins (at the time I was trained, now 30 mins) until you are hit by another vehicle. This is from police data.

Do you have a link to the police data?

You seem to be suggesting that if you stop on a hard shoulder you are almost certain to be hit by another vehicle, and this will happen, on average, after 15 minutes. This seems unlikely.

Is that really what the data show? Or is it that of those who are killed (or whose vehicles are hit) on the hard shoulder, the average time between stopping and being hit is 15 minutes? This is possible, but not the same as average survival time of 15 minutes.

I see some men are throwing their dummies out of their prams after the updated twitter apology, some assuming they should get discounts

twitter.com/TheAA_UK/status/1484216422037438464

Are people really saying because they drive on the motorway and have never seen someone hit on the hard shoulder it must not happen O_o Has that ever been an acceptable statement in any other argument?

Google suggests it's on average 4 per day although the article is old. The highways agency collates all its incident data (I used to be involved in this at a previous job) I'm sure its available somewhere.

Anyway back on point, hooray someone at the AA has shown some common sense.

Are people really saying because they drive on the motorway and have never seen someone hit on the hard shoulder it must not happen O_o Has that ever been an acceptable statement in any other argument?

No one has said that it doesn't happen the statistic of a "15/30 minute life expectancy" is nonsense though, clearly. 200k cars use the hard shoulder a year, most of them don't get hit. Think about it.

The "you wanted equality" is such a thick response - the whole point is we haven't got equality because lone women are more likely to be raped and murdered than lone men. The reason for the stats that men are more likely to be victims is men are more likely to be in pub fights and as a pp pointed out don't self limit like women are forced to.

That nutter woman on the radio was a disgrace ranting on that women were "cry babies" etc. Two words - Marie Wilkes.

Lone men are at higher risk of assault/murder (by a stranger) than lone women outside the home. Inside the home, it is the opposite, women are at higher risk of being assaulted or murdered (by their partner or ex) than a man is.

Women limit their lives to avoid being alone after dark outside the home.

I have seen for myself how a woman minding her own business while waiting for a taxi outside the local supermarket will be sexually harassed repeatedly in a way no man would encounter.

I do not believe men are going to randomly stop their cars on the road so they can start a physical altercation with a male stranger sitting next to his broken down car. And nor do you, Empress.