Some years ago my wife was driving briskly down a country road we know well at dusk, when she came suddenly upon a flood and two policemen probably setting up flood warning notices.
She went through the flood creating the kind of splash you get on a water ride at a theme park.
The policemen disappeared and Mrs O thought that, on balance, it was best just to keep going.
|
I would swop three points for that any day.
|
|
|
|
>I spoke to a firm of driving instructor's with over 60 years experience and they had never heard of it.
Who are they? just so they can be avoided.
|
>I spoke to a firm of driving instructor's with over 60 years experience
OT, but who was this reply to? I can't see the article in this thread.
|
the woman who failed "spoke to the frim of instructors..." who had "never heard of it"
|
Her comment "didn't really think that much of it at the time" says it all.
Typical, arrogant, selfish dobber. I'd have failed her too.
|
|
|
|
"I spoke to a firm of driving instructor's with over 60 years experience and they had never heard of it.
Who are they? just so they can be avoided."
She's referring to Red Driving School, who have 240 drivers with three months experience. (All earning up to 30k)
|
A farmer friend was on a grass verge beside an enormous puddle when he heard a vehicle approaching at speed. He recognised it, a Land Rover belonging to another farmer well known to him. Then he noticed it was accelerating towards the enormous puddle, and that the farmer at the wheel hat noticed his vulnerable situation and was grinning fiendishly.
All just knockabout bucolic fun, surely?
Edited by Lud on 08/09/2008 at 14:28
|
Just above our house, the road has a large dip and then rises up a STEEEP hil. When it rains heavily the puddle is about 20cms deep by 5 metres long by 3 wide.
It's a 30 mph limit.
The number of drivers who go through the puddle with no evasive action at 40mph plus suggests that most people do not care.
I was cutting the hedge one day when the rain stopped and could not get out of the way in time.
Got totally - like totally - soaked by a Range Rover who just went through like he was pursued by the police...
|
No Sympathy from me I'm afraid, the examiner was quite right!
|
Quite right, fail.
Said something along the lines of teaching learners about the splash laws....give me strength....could try a course in common sense i suppose.
S'funny but i take a pride in never splashing anyone with my 6 axled truck, and watch in amazement as cars in front and behind me manage to cover some poor soul in a deluge, its only a matter of timing, road placement and a little thought, don't need a physics degree.
Same as usual you have to hit 'em in the pocket before it registers, 3 points, several hundred quid and cleaning and compo or clothing replacement for the victim(s), that would soon sharpen them up.
|
|
I followed a LR Discovery for a couple of miles recently, heading towards Preston. Driver went through each considerable puddle, even pulling to the kerb to get maximum "fun". However, he did avoid a puddle by an occupied bus stop, so clearly was reading the road. Unlike the silly cow in a hatch who drenched an older guy, just a mile further on! Some drivers just don't see beyond their bubble.
|
As my gran would have said (to most things in the 21st century): RIDICULOUS.
Would the learner also have failed for running over a sparrow?
Is a driver always going to be held liable if s/he fails to take avoiding action, however risky? What if there had been double white lines in the road? What if there had been nowhere to stop other than a double yellow line? Another chance to fail. Fantastic.
If the deliberate splashing of a pedestrian (by which I mean deliberately increasing speed or deliberately not slowing down where safe to do so) constitutes a "crash" according to the Examiner (was his surname Meldrew?), then let's see a test case for failing to stop after a "crash", assault, ABH, whatever, actually come to court.
|
You shouldn't need to swerve across double white lines or stop on double yellows. In that situation slow down to a speed that doesn't cause a splash, and if you can't slow down in time you're going too fast, which itself is a good reason to fail a test.
Having said that, the other day I saw two people chatting on the pavement next to a large puddle on a busy road. Not the best place to stand, whatever the rights and wrongs.
|
|
The young lady has just been on the regional TV news. Apparently she shouldn't have failed; she didn't see the puddle and "it was an accident".
|
>> The young lady has just been on the regional TV news. Apparently she shouldn't havefailed; she didn't see the puddle and "it was an accident".
The type of person who makes an excuse like that quoted above were the ones that used to really irritate me when I was instructing. Too stupid and arrogant to accept they were wrong and blaming everyone but themselves. The puddle was there all the time, it didn't suddenly appear or jump out in front of her so she was guilty of not reading the road ahead at the very least.
I bet that when she does pass she goes on to be a poor driver with an attitude problem.
|
There are more issues here, and a ruthless, utterly pedantic no-win-no-fee lawyer would probably pursue the following arguments:
1. An uncleared puddle of oil on the road would be the responsibility of the local council and/or the spiller of the oil. Likewise a puddle of (rain)water suggests excessive camber, badly maintained road surface and/or poor drainage - again, council partly to blame.
2. A better course of action for a learner driver would be to reduce speed rather than to swerve round a puddle (if splash avoidance is the life threateningly crucial skill recent events suggest it is.) If push comes to shove (or rather, if plip comes to splash) it si better for a driver to continue on her course rather than make a sudden braking manouevre, which could cause more problems.
3. Is a pedestrian not at least partly responsible for keeping away from puddles or looking out for them?
|
"Is a pedestrian not at least partly responsible for keeping away from puddles or looking out for them?"
Most yes but I think the responsibility is 100% on the driver should that particular pedestrian be a member of the public who is deaf, partially sighted, partially disabled, too young, too old, too drunk or listening to his ipod. The driver is the guy with the big weapon, he holds all the cards and that's what road craft is all about.
In my opinion of course.
|
Shortly after passing my test I thought hitting big puddles was fun, it was until I experienced aquaplaning on the left hand side only and almost totalled my dads car. I never did it again.
Large puddles on road verges can also hide large holes - not good for tyres, suspension etc etc, so best avoided.
|
The manchester Evening news has just updated its headline on this story to "Splash Test Dummy" which I suspect they rather wish they'd thought of at the beginning.
|
Who are they calling the dummy?
The driver, the examiner or the pedestrian?
Edited by ifithelps on 09/09/2008 at 10:40
|
|
And interviewed on the morning news, the driver has said the puddle was 'unavoidable' - is there anything more to be said ?
|
Bilboman writes -
3. Is a pedestrian not at least partly responsible for keeping away from puddles or looking out for them?
>>
The pedestrian's competence was not beeing tested, the car drivers was. She should have seen the standing water in time to safely take action to avoid splashing the person on the pavement.
After she had actually done so, she should have stopped and exchanged details with the pedestrian as she had commited a traffic offence and was liable for any damage to the pedestrians clothing.
|
As my gran would have said (to most things in the 21st century): RIDICULOUS.
Is unneccessarily splashing someone with mucky water, making them have to clean, perhaps dry clean, their clothes, being inconvenienced by having to go home to change, or perhaps causing other problems with things being carried, ridiculous? I don't think so.
Would the learner also have failed for running over a sparrow?
That has nothing whatsoever to do with this, has it.
Is a driver always going to be held liable if s/he fails to take avoiding action however risky?
There should be no risk. Conditions should have been taken into account. That's at least partly why she was, quite properly, failed.
What if there had been double white lines in the road?
So what? That does not preclude taking avoiding action, or slowing down.
What if there had been nowhere to stop other than a double yellow line?
What need to even stop? None! Why do you mention all these irrelevant things?
|
|
In the course of my work, I frequently find that I have to walk along country lanes with no pavement. Despite my hi-viz vest and attempts to keep as close to the verge as possible, few motorists show any consideration at all. And, I have to say, women drivers are the worst culprits.
|
It's always more interesting coming to a thread like this late, when many others have had a go. My reaction to the reports was that it sounds like a Jobsworth, but as is often the case, we don't have all the details. There seems to be nothing specific in the Highway Code, so presumably the examiner used his skill and judgment to decide whether the driver was being careless or malicious, or whether it was simply unfortunate. After all, our roads are littered with potholes (as we are regularly reminded) so will be littered with puddles in wet weather. As a pedestrian (or cyclist) I have often cursed a driver for sousing my lower person, but one learns to anticipate that difficulty after a while.
Failed driving test? Not much to do with being in adequate control of a vehicle or awareness of road conditions, unless the soaked pedestrian was about to step into the road.
|
|
|
|
|
