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…

I have been broken down on the hard shoulder about 5 times. Never been hit. I drive 30,000 miles a year, mostly on motorways. Never seen a vehicle hit on the hard shoulder. I have seen pretty much every other kind of accident though - either happening or the aftermath.

From that I conclude that other accidents are more common.

I would like to see the data.

I can't believe that this has turned into an argument about how safe or unsafe the hard shoulder is. It is a risky place to be, better than the live lane of a smart motorway, but still incredibly dangerous. The statistic is probably misrepresented but it does not take away from the fact that one is more likely to be hit and killed whilst sat in a car on the hard shoulder. Sometimes a risk is replaced with a risk, I leave the key in my front door as I would rather risk someone using it to break in, then me not being delayed in getting out in the event of a fire, for example.

It is funny how the "I've never seen it, so it doesn't happen" is perfectly acceptable here. There will be videos on YouTube, just like there are of near misses and collisions at level crossings.

Someone at the side of the road is also a distraction for other drivers, so it isn't just about the car on the hard shoulder but also the moving traffic on the highway.

I am in the AA and have telephoned them to ask for clarification about what kind of triage system, if any, they will be operating.
To do this, you have to speak with their Membership Complaints section, even though it is not specifically a complaint. I am awaiting their response.

I agree that people left on a motorway, particularly the death trap smart motorways, should be prioritised.
All the “you wanted equality” retorts are basically nonsense, since a) a lot of women want liberation, not equality, and b) being treated exactly the same as men is not equity.

If any of the other breakdown services can offer a reasonable priorities list. I may well change, as I am not best impressed with them.
I recall a couple of years ago, breaking down in Scotland on a day out from my holiday cottage and having Relay back to England, as I had work the following day.
The first driver wouldn't make a detour off the main road a couple of miles to the cottage I was staying in, even though I had the medication that I need to take daily there (as well as a pot of soup on the stove, thankfully not lit). Not to mention gasses, clothes, etc.
Then I was dropped off at a deserted service station somewhere at around 2 am, to wait for the next truck to be located and roused.
It turned up about an hour and a half later, after I had been parked next to a couple of times by lone men, and I also got freezing. It was a horrible and stressful night.

I actually think that, from what Edmund King said (assuming what he said was accurate), it sounds like the AA do have a fair, equitable system of priority.

Of course, being a lone female will be one very important factor requiring you to be considered as a priority; but it isn't the single only one.

A healthy 30yo woman who has broken down in the car park of a very busy service station shouldn't necessarily be prioritised over an 80yo man with his two young grandchildren at the side of a motorway. However, if it's between her and a healthy 30yo man on his own in a service station car park, then the woman should indeed be given priority because of her sex, which renders her more vulnerable.

The statistic is probably misrepresented

Yes. That's the point pardon me for caring about accurate data.

Madison what a great answer!

To my post about why a 17yo girl might think twice about sitting on grass verge/ standing behind barrier.

Knowing vast number men driving past, can see you on own, that due to driving and speed going past no one likely to notice if they decide to do something dodgy.

And there 2 cars to do whatever in, often loads of coverage bushes etc too.

'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.'

It's so interesting isn't it.

How the personal assessment of risk done by women/girls. Is just always criticised widely.

IMO yes. A 17 yo girl sitting on grass verge is very likely to be spotted by a dodgy man who thinks pull over, check alone. And it's not always about rape. Often not. There's loads of other stuff.

It's fascinating.

And that comment. Ok whatever but when you're dead, you'll know I was RIGHT.

Vice versa. When young woman is sexually attacked while stuck car broken down and she got out. What will I say. Ha! See? Take that! Erm no.

I'd be upset at either assault or death.

You know, like most people.

And I wouldn't think fucking idiot what did they expect.

I agree with CheeseMmmm. It is plain that if a woman gets out and is then targeted by the next predator who drives past and sees a lone woman in a deserted place, it will be "why didn't she stay in the car?"

But if she stays in the car and someone crashes into it, people will feign bafflement at her motivations for doing so.

It's despicable.

I want women to be in the position to be able to make their own risk assessment.

I have not seen a single poster suggest that women are stupid to consider personal attack when doing that risk assessment. The point is that they need the information about the risks of remaining in the vehicle to make an informed choice.

I'm still waiting for anyone actually to provide any data to show that my stats on the hard shoulder are wrong. I'm getting a lot of "That can't be true", but no posters saying what the figures are, if mine are wrong. As @Whitefire says, the point is that hard shoulders are incredibly dangerous. Disbelieve the 30 minutes stat if you like, but you surely can't dispute the core fact?

And now some PPs are suggesting that posters who highlight the dangers of hard shoulders are somehow undermining women. That is just bizarre. Don't women deserve the facts? Our chances of being killed on the hard shoulder are very much greater than our chances of being killed or raped if we leave our vehicle. Every woman should know that, so she can make an informed choice. But that's entirely different from criticising a woman for choosing to prioritise avoiding personal attack.

The lack of media coverage of road accidents compared to stranger rapes/murders means that we tend to have a skewed view of the relative risks.

We all dread sexual assault. If a woman chooses to remain in her car because she would rather be hit by another vehicle than risk assault, I would understand that totally. But I think it would be tragic if a woman is killed because she remains in her vehicle, falsely believing it to be the safer choice.

THIS IS NOT TRUE

The CEO of The AA was on Radio2 yesterday explaining it.

1. The call handler was new and mispoke - is receiving more training
2. The call was handled correctly by the system, the woman identified as vulnerable and assigned within 4 minutes of her calling
3. She was attended 26 minutes after her call
4. Her car was fixed and she was on her way about 50 minutes after her call
5. The CEO had spoken to her directly to apologise for the poor way her call was handled and to reassure her that women who are vulnerable are prioritised.

The AA has NOT changed it's priorities and assess risk/assign priority by location, danger to the individual and then by sex. All of which it has always done and will not change.

So a woman in a dark, lonely place will take precedence over a man in a similar situation but NOT necessarily over a car with 2 men in an actively dangerous space, like a bend on a fast, busy road

It was in the Jeremy Vine slot, if you want to listen to him, he made a lot of sense.

I'm still waiting for anyone actually to provide any data to show that my stats on the hard shoulder are wrong. I'm getting a lot of "That can't be true", but no posters saying what the figures are, if mine are wrong. As @Whitefire says, the point is that hard shoulders are incredibly dangerous. Disbelieve the 30 minutes stat if you like, but you surely can't dispute the core fact?

I do disbelieve it, because it's quite clearly nonsense. I don't have to be able to have accurate statistics (on what exactly? This whole "life expectancy on the hard shoulder" is bullshit) at my fingertips to say that.

200k cars pa use the hard shoulder, most of the drivers and passengers leave safely. Do the majority of these cars get hit by other cars even when people get out and wait for assistance? Because your "15 minute life expectancy" statistic would mean a car on the hard shoulder would be more likely than not to get hit whether people got out or not.

I am not disputing the core fact that the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous. Has anyone?

If a woman chooses to remain in her car because she would rather be hit by another vehicle than risk assault

That's a ridiculous way of framing it.

There's no way I'd stay in my car on the hard shoulder for a second longer than it takes to get out. It's a terrifying place to be.

Whatever the correct statistics, the risk of someone ploughing into the car is going to be higher than a random man risking his own life to pull in next to you to assault you.

Anyone encouraging a young woman to stay in her car if she breaks down in the motorway, is putting her at great risk.

I'm still waiting for anyone actually to provide any data to show that my stats on the hard shoulder are wrong. I'm getting a lot of "That can't be true", but no posters saying what the figures are, if mine are wrong.

But you haven't given any figures. You've just made a ridiculous statement about a 30-minute life expectancy if someone stops on a hard shoulder.

Give us some actual figures and we can work out what the real risk is. But I'll start with a rough calculation from the figures others have given on this thread.

Ereshkigalangcleg has said that 200,000 cars use the hard shoulder every year. This is about 550 per day.

LivingDeadGirlUK has found a figure of 4 cars per day which are hit when using the hard shoulder.

So if these figures are correct, then 4 out of every 550 cars which use the hard shoulder are hit by another vehicle. This is a significant risk, but suggests that the risk of being hit is less than 1%, so assuming you would be dead in 30 minutes if you stopped on the hard shoulder is ridiculous.

I do think that lone women should be prioritised.

However if you read some of the stuff on here, some feminists will argue that women are absolutely equal to men, even biologically/physically. Despite that being blatantly false. This policy is the result of stupidity. Can’t have it both ways. Women are different to men, about 2% of women will be stronger than a minority of men.

However if you read some of the stuff on here, some feminists will argue that women are absolutely equal to men, even biologically/physically.

I don't think you'll find many, if any, feminists doing that now, certainly on this board.

What twit thinks women are “absolutely equal to men, even biologically/physically” ????

@CuriousaboutSamphire

THIS IS NOT TRUE

The CEO of The AA was on Radio2 yesterday explaining it.

1. The call handler was new and mispoke - is receiving more training
2. The call was handled correctly by the system, the woman identified as vulnerable and assigned within 4 minutes of her calling
3. She was attended 26 minutes after her call
4. Her car was fixed and she was on her way about 50 minutes after her call
5. The CEO had spoken to her directly to apologise for the poor way her call was handled and to reassure her that women who are vulnerable are prioritised.

The AA has NOT changed it's priorities and assess risk/assign priority by location, danger to the individual and then by sex. All of which it has always done and will not change.

So a woman in a dark, lonely place will take precedence over a man in a similar situation but NOT necessarily over a car with 2 men in an actively dangerous space, like a bend on a fast, busy road

It was in the Jeremy Vine slot, if you want to listen to him, he made a lot of sense.

Not just a new call handler who misspoke, the AA tweeted this reply at the time

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.

I agree a combination of factors need to be considered but that should include sex and it looks like at best there is some confusion within the AA on whether sex is a factor

There isn't confusion with the AA, just some of the call handlers - and as per usual with Twitter, it's SM handler/s. The CEO did say that this was being addressed across the organisation with immediate effect and that, no matter what had been said (or Tweeted it seems) at the time, the woman was dealt with according to the AAs actual protocols, which do include sex as a priority!

That was his point. He was very clear on the matter. Have a listen. I would imagine that a he spoke after the incident, after the Tweet etc, he was up to speed on it. He may even have mentioned the Tweet, I wasn't trying to memorise what he said at the time.

By all means we need to keep such organisations on their toes - but could we target those who are ignoring such stuff, rather than those that have acknowledged an error and are addressing it?

So far this thread has condemend the AA. Nobody else has mentioned the rebuttal by the CEO. It is only right and fair that his information is included, isn't it?

The Chair or CEO, not sure which, came out with some bollocks on Twitter that you can't say you prioritise women as a vulnerable group "in law". He floundered.

So no it wasn't just the call handler and the patronising SM person.

Feminists don’t argue this at all

He didn't flounder on the Radio. Maybe he had had more time to put it together sensibly, maybe it was a different person. I don't know. I don't do Twitter.

All I know is that the man on the radio sounded very sure and was very plainly spoken - women are prioritised, just after location - which makes perfect sense to me.

Sorry that was to the pp saying feminists argue women are as physically strong as women etc