Failed my Driving Test Today for stopping for a cat in road

[masermartin]

roachcoach said:

Why would truck presence come as a surprise? There shouldn't be anything behind you that is a shock.

This.

[LocoCoco]

roachcoach said:

Why would truck presence come as a surprise? There shouldn't be anything behind you that is a shock.

You can't look in the mirror 100% of the time, you need to check every so often and just before you make any maneuveres. Braking is a maneuvere.
If an unexpected thing can appear in front of you why can't it appear behind?? I realise it's less likely because of your direction of travel.

[roachcoach]

LocoCoco said:

You can't look in the mirror 100% of the time, you need to check every so often and just before you make any maneuveres. Braking is a maneuvere.
If an unexpected thing can appear in front of you why can't it appear behind?? I realise it's less likely because of your direction of travel.

iirc you're 'meant' to check every X seconds* (or thereabouts), unless it is a lane change or an F1 engine toting truck, it's sudden [unexpected] arrival seems an unlikely event and far more likely to have been a mirror related failing.

*The number 3 seconds rings a bell, but I'm going with X since that may have been the guideline or it may have been made up by me.

[Frik]

roachcoach said:

iirc you're 'meant' to check every X seconds* (or thereabouts), unless it is a lane change or an F1 engine toting truck, it's sudden [unexpected] arrival seems an unlikely event and far more likely to have been a mirror related failing.

*The number 3 seconds rings a bell, but I'm going with X since that may have been the guideline or it may have been made up by me.

You should make an assumption though, you should always check your mirrors before any maneouver.

My point about the truck is that you seemed to be suggesting that checking what was behind you was irrelevant, giving that you would be braking anyway. My point was that checking your mirror for vehicles behind you might be particularly relevant if the vehicle behind you was a lot bigger than whatever you were stopping for and may seriously affect your decision to perform a stop at all.

[LocoCoco]

roachcoach said:

LocoCoco said:

You can't look in the mirror 100% of the time, you need to check every so often and just before you make any maneuveres. Braking is a maneuvere.
If an unexpected thing can appear in front of you why can't it appear behind?? I realise it's less likely because of your direction of travel.

iirc you're 'meant' to check every X seconds* (or thereabouts), unless it is a lane change or an F1 engine toting truck, it's sudden [unexpected] arrival seems an unlikely event and far more likely to have been a mirror related failing.

*The number 3 seconds rings a bell, but I'm going with X since that may have been the guideline or it may have been made up by me.

So just ignore unlikely events then?

You ever looked in your mirror and seen the driver looking across at his passenger or down at their mobile? It happens a lot, if I see that I'll be braking a lot slower for an upcoming obstable than normal.

This happens a lot on my way to work in the mornings, loads of people are half asleep at the wheel.

[roachcoach]

To be fair, 'optional' braking is (or should be) quite rare [and I don't consider a cat optional fwiw) and I'm not 100% convinced that someone behind you inappropriately close would be justification for mowing <something> down. Certainly don't recall a list of 'acceptable' things to plough through in my days! I'm not entirely sure you'd pass a test either for hitting something like that with the rationale of "I could've stopped, but there was a car behind me"

Feels very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation actually.

[roachcoach]

LocoCoco said:

So just ignore unlikely events then?

You ever looked in your mirror and seen the driver looking across at his passenger or down at their mobile? It happens a lot, if I see that I'll be braking a lot slower for an upcoming obstable than normal.

This happens a lot on my way to work in the mornings, loads of people are half asleep at the wheel.

My point is if you're checking mirrors regularly it takes something a bit special to catch you by surprise. I was perhaps a bit generous with my 'unlikely' phrasing: I'll be more blunt - if a truck can sneak up on you all ninja like, I'd bet my mortgage you've done it wrong.

In your example above, you're seeing they are distracted before you even think about braking and compensating - you're not checking the mirror with a view to braking (otherwise you can't brake more gently/early), you're not checking it because you're braking, you're checking it because you should and accommodating your braking second.

Cart before the horse as it were.

[R11ysf]

Except a cat is one of the "acceptable things" to plough through. In the eyes of the highway code and driving test it is no different to a cardboard box. Harsh but true.

[roachcoach]

I don't recall ever reading that or it being part of the theory test, but I concede I'm old.

I wonder what the examiner would have said if said moggy had been mown down

Perhaps I'm old school, but I always saw mowing st down as a guaranteed fail

[Mark.H]

telecat said:

Having hit a cat at Low speed Braking pretty heavily I can attest to the fact that your car will be damaged. In my case the Cat ran off, (hopefully just bruised), but it smashed my Fog-lamp and pushed it out of the bumper. If I had hit it at speed the damage would obviously be greater. Personally I avoid any contact with ANYTHING because of the damage they can cause.

Maybe, I hit a pheasant once at a high rate of knots shall we say, and no damage was done apart for some stuff that looked like pate on my bumper...

Maybe hitting small animals in a car is like punching a block of wood...hit is just that bit too soft and you break your hand, hit it harder and you smash through it with hand in tact???

(awaits flaming from PETA)

[Noisy]

julian64 said:

Chacking the mirror before you brake is lowest common denominator training.

In the real world there isn't time to check in a mirror before emergency braking. But then there doesn't need to be because at any particular time when you are driving, if you suddenly close your eyes you should already know what is around you, and especially what is following you.

If you ever look in a rear view mirror and suddenly spot a car on your tail then your observational skills need improving. Cars don't suddenly appear anywhere.

I don't know, those sneaky police cars have a habit of not being there one minute then there the next

[julian64]

Noisy said:

julian64 said:

Chacking the mirror before you brake is lowest common denominator training.

In the real world there isn't time to check in a mirror before emergency braking. But then there doesn't need to be because at any particular time when you are driving, if you suddenly close your eyes you should already know what is around you, and especially what is following you.

If you ever look in a rear view mirror and suddenly spot a car on your tail then your observational skills need improving. Cars don't suddenly appear anywhere.

I don't know, those sneaky police cars have a habit of not being there one minute then there the next

I somehow don't think you will ever have that problem, well at least not until the police cars start using rocket engines.

[roachcoach]

Mines is still working

[7mike]

R11ysf said:

Except a cat is one of the "acceptable things" to plough through. In the eyes of the highway code and driving test it is no different to a cardboard box. Harsh but true.

Realy? Could you provide references?

Here's the examiners' SOPs to get you started, I'm sure you have access to the HWC.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/dsa-dt1-standar...

[SVTRick]

Everyone knows you lean on the horn and shout out of the window...
"Get outa the road you stooopid ###king cat"

[R11ysf]

7mike said:

Realy? Could you provide references?

Here's the examiners' SOPs to get you started, I'm sure you have access to the HWC.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/dsa-dt1-standar...

I was referring to it being a non-reportable accident. Also I was told by my driving instructor that in the event of a pheasant that we had round our way, slow down but do not swerve and do not stop.

I still stand by that advice.

If you are an instructor are you genuinely saying that in the circumstance described by the OP that there is NOTHING he can do to not fail? If so I don't believe you.

[roachcoach]

On a test, if you spanked an animal/another obstacle where you could have stopped, would you take umbrage if failed?

More to the point, would you reasonably expect to pass a test after having an avoidable collision?!

[R11ysf]

roachcoach said:

On a test, if you spanked an animal/another obstacle where you could have stopped, would you take umbrage if failed?

More to the point, would you reasonably expect to pass a test after having an avoidable collision?!

If having an avoidable BUT not SAFELY AVOIDABLE collision then yes

[Snowboy]

Personally, I'd say that if you meet any hazard in the road then you should slow and/or stop if safe to do so.

That goes for a car, a dog, a bouncing ball, a potted plant, half a breeze block or a pheasant.

In the real world if I had to stop for a cat and there was something behind me I'd be flicking my hazards on as I was breaking – although this may make you fail a test.

It just seems somewhat foolish to knowingly drive into a 'thing' that could damage the car or cause any amount of hassle.

The only thing I would question is the manner of the stop. The last 5 words in the first sentence of this post and the important ones.

[7mike]

R11ysf said:

I was referring to it being a non-reportable accident. Also I was told by my driving instructor that in the event of a pheasant that we had round our way, slow down but do not swerve and do not stop.

I still stand by that advice.

If you are an instructor are you genuinely saying that in the circumstance described by the OP that there is NOTHING he can do to not fail? If so I don't believe you.

Sorry, call me thick but I just can't get my head around that question!