Failed my Driving Test Today for stopping for a cat in road
Discussion
I thought, and this is back in the days of my own test, that if you cause an unnecessary hold up to other traffic then it's a fail no matter what the circumstance.
i.e if there had been no one behind you that had to stop / that was impeded then you would have been ok or at worst had a minor. I believe there is also something somewhere in the highway code that says that an animal in the road is not reason to stop and, if stopping would cause a hazard, you should just keep going.
So I suspect, to the letter of the law, your fail is correct.
But, as a decent human being you did the right thing. If the price of that is failing your test then hold your head high - well done and, as a cat owner, thanks.
i.e if there had been no one behind you that had to stop / that was impeded then you would have been ok or at worst had a minor. I believe there is also something somewhere in the highway code that says that an animal in the road is not reason to stop and, if stopping would cause a hazard, you should just keep going.
So I suspect, to the letter of the law, your fail is correct.
But, as a decent human being you did the right thing. If the price of that is failing your test then hold your head high - well done and, as a cat owner, thanks.
If you did brake sharply and the vehicles behind you had to come to stop then it is going to be pretty easy for the examiner to defend their position that you presented a serious hazard, which of course is grounds for a major fault. That said, I would have thought speed would play into it, but I'm guessing this happened in a 30 or 40mph zone. If you caused someone behind you to stop suddenly then you are pretty much squarely in the wrong, in the eyes of the test criteria.
In real life, if it was quiet you would stop for the cat, or at least slow significantly. However, if you had someone following closely and you were at speed, you have to make a fairly quick decision on whether or not braking is going to cause an accident.
Did I see earlier in the thread you mention the cat "stared for 10 seconds" at you? If so, was that real or an exaggeration? If you had 10 seconds to react and your choice of action was to brake sharply at the last minute, it is perhaps not unsurprising nor unjust that you failed for it.
You live and learn!
In real life, if it was quiet you would stop for the cat, or at least slow significantly. However, if you had someone following closely and you were at speed, you have to make a fairly quick decision on whether or not braking is going to cause an accident.
Did I see earlier in the thread you mention the cat "stared for 10 seconds" at you? If so, was that real or an exaggeration? If you had 10 seconds to react and your choice of action was to brake sharply at the last minute, it is perhaps not unsurprising nor unjust that you failed for it.
You live and learn!
okgo said:
Ridiculous.
I'd have called her a complete idiot and taken it straight above her head.
Mind you your story would have more clout if you had not got so many minors.
Loving the beer/coke thing.
This!I'd have called her a complete idiot and taken it straight above her head.
Mind you your story would have more clout if you had not got so many minors.
Loving the beer/coke thing.
Not sure how anyone can say you should have killed someone's much loved pet when it was obviously avoidable (as you avoided it without causing an incident), so what if the guy behind you had to get on the stoppers, they should be allowing sufficient distance.
jagracer said:
The thing is that if you'd have run it over you'd have failed so you can't win. Maybe there's more to it than you are letting on but then again the people behind should have been driving at a reasonable enough distance to be able to stop safely.
I don't think he would.The way I'd look at it would be the choice of who you pass the danger on to. Running over a cat is not going to cause you to crash or risk injury to yourself if you choose to run it over. So a cat suddenly runs across the road in front of you and you don't have time to check your mirrors to see if it's safe to emergency brake. Do you A) Maintain your course and avoid braking harshly and/or unexpectedly, although risking injury or death to the cat or B) Do whatever it takes to not hit the cat, risking injury or death to other road users.
Of course, to pretty much anyone, that sounds harsh and there are plenty of side arguments (such as following traffic needing to stop in the distance etc...), but that might just be the rub of it.
10 Pence Short said:
Running over a cat is not going to cause you to crash or risk injury to yourself if you choose to run it over. So a cat suddenly runs across the road in front of you and you don't have time to check your mirrors to see if it's safe to emergency brake. Do you A) Maintain your course and avoid braking harshly and/or unexpectedly, risking injury or death to the car or B) Do whatever it takes to not hit the cat, risking injury or death to other road users.
But why do the rules change when it's a dog instead in that case? 10 Pence Short said:
I don't think he would.
The way I'd look at it would be the choice of who you pass the danger on to. Running over a cat is not going to cause you to crash or risk injury to yourself if you choose to run it over.
But it will make you feel sick and distracted, then you'll drive sThe way I'd look at it would be the choice of who you pass the danger on to. Running over a cat is not going to cause you to crash or risk injury to yourself if you choose to run it over.
t and fail anyway!!What constitutes a minor nowadays?
2slo said:
Zwoelf said:
But why do the rules change when it's a dog instead in that case?
Running over a cat is not a reportable collision under the RTA. Running over a dog is.2slo said:
As far as this thread goes I suspect some economy with the truth on the part of the OP.
It's the internet, one takes that as read before opening a web browser. 
Beeby said:
I have two cats. You did the right thing. Anybody with a conscience would have done the same.
The driver did the WRONG thing and the examiner was correct in their decisionA cat WILL easily move out of the way if the driver is doing 20 or under
The problem is that not all drivers and especially new drivers know this
If a driver stops for a cat the chances are that the cat will stay where it is and may then mean the driver getting out to shoo (not shoe) it which might be fine if no other road user is going to be unnecessarily inconvenienced which may in turn lead to a safety issue
30 limit - slow to 20 and carry on - that is what the examiner was expecting
PS - anyone who does not believe what I am saying then try it - it works every time
Zwoelf said:
2slo said:
Zwoelf said:
But why do the rules change when it's a dog instead in that case?
Running over a cat is not a reportable collision under the RTA. Running over a dog is.2slo said:
As far as this thread goes I suspect some economy with the truth on the part of the OP.
It's the internet, one takes that as read before opening a web browser. 
croyde said:
OP is that your real name? I used the same as an alias in the early days of dial up internet.
Plus I know a cat is mainly smaller than a dog but it could still cause a lot of damage to a modern car. What if you had hit it and the body had gone flying off and hit a baby in a pram.
Yeah. And then that baby gets out of its pram with a bad attitude and a 9 iron and starts fPlus I know a cat is mainly smaller than a dog but it could still cause a lot of damage to a modern car. What if you had hit it and the body had gone flying off and hit a baby in a pram.
king with your ride, smashing the st out of everything. I've seen it happen.
this current topic is on the same issue http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff