Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think this driver was a twat

241 replies

PunkrockerGirl · 04/12/2015 22:01

Driving home about 6pm, very busy main road, 30mph speed limit.
A cat ran out in front of me, I braked, the car behind went right into me.
I got out of the car to a tirade of abuse and that if anything happened to the baby in the car I would be responsible Confused
I gently suggested that she had been driving very close to me right up my arse but just got screamed at.
I asked if they'd called the police and they said that they had. In the meantime, I called dh and ds to come and be with me. The police didn't turn up because they hadn't been called. Loads of incensed and abusive relatives turned up instead.

My dh and ds came, police were called and (rightly so) an ambulance to check the baby over (who was beaming and being bounced up and down by the outraged mother when dh went to see if they were ok).
Anyway, I feel very shaken up but glad that nobody was hurt.

Anyway, aibu to think if you drive so close to the person in front that you can't stop in time when they brake, then baby or no baby on board, you are driving like a twat.
And to say you've called the police when in fact what you've done is called loads of relatives to swerve up and intimidate the person you've bashed into is about as low as it gets.

OP posts:
dontcallmecis · 05/12/2015 05:50

They're at fault, yes. No point in arguing.

I wouldn't slam on the brakes for a cat, though. Not unless there was no one behind me.

NashvilleQueen · 05/12/2015 06:12

There's some poxy legal advice being asserted on this thread and no mistake! Safe stopping distances are to prevent exactly this.

Lunch - am glad you acknowledge that your link wasn't exactly on point.

Dipankrispaneven · 05/12/2015 06:38

Too right, Nashville. SmallLegs, cats most certainly are the property of their owners. How do you imagine people sell them if they don't own them in the first place?

SuffolkNWhat · 05/12/2015 06:41

Around here you bloody well brake if something dashes out onto the road as it may be a deer. Those fuckers will write your car and then some!

ProvisionallyAnxious · 05/12/2015 06:43

Ok. Avoiding a cat and avoiding a head-on collision = obviously not ok and hopefully the stronger instinct of "must not run into that car coming the obvious direction" will override the (pretty natural) instinct to avoid an object in the road in front of you.

But you're not going to kill or even seriously injure the driver behind you by braking in a 30 MPH zone, unless they are going significantly above the speed limit, are kissing your bumper, and not wearing a seatbelt. I would brake for a cat in a 30 MPH zone with someone behind me just as I would, you know, brake because there's a large object blown into the road (a common sight on my drive in this morning). It is the responsibility of the driver behind to be able to react to what you are doing.

Cats might legally be vermin but they certainly aren't to people who own them. Emergency stop on a motorway to save a cat's life - no. Slowing down in a fecking 30 MPH zone? Yes.

Dipankrispaneven · 05/12/2015 07:07

It's about risk assessing what's going to cause more harm to human life. Would slamming the brakes on do more damage or would hitting the cat?

No. Firstly, because when something runs out in front of you you don't have time to do a long, careful risk assessment. Secondly, because a very important element of that assessment is that the person behind you can be assumed to be obeying the law and have left an adequate stopping distance, in which event stopping would carry virtually no risk at all.

limitedperiodonly · 05/12/2015 07:21

Did the cat get away? I need to know.

Narp · 05/12/2015 07:31

It's her fault

Did she have a Baby on Board sticker?

Notasinglefuckwasgiven · 05/12/2015 07:31

Professional driver. Advanced driver training and Smith System trained. I've been taught that stopping distance is the key to avoiding accidents. OP did nothing wrong. It's irrelevant why a car may brake, that doesn't come into it. Everyone else should know the stopping distance in case a car in front has to stop quickly. You have no defence if you can't stop in time because you were simply too close. You can't see what's in front of the vehicle in front most of the time so always assume it may stop and keep your distance accordingly. You are in the right op.

BoomBoomsCousin · 05/12/2015 07:33

a very important element of that risk assessment is that the person behind you can be assumed to be obeying the law

This is a poor assumption. The OP isn't most at fault in this case. The woman behind her is. But if you are driving to a reasonable standard you should be well aware of how close behind you the next car is and adjust your driving, as far as you reasonably can, to be safe. In such a situation, if you realise the thing that has run out in front of you is not a person then you shouldn't slam on your brakes. Everyone on the road should be trying to avoid accidents as much as possible.

Original poster
PunkrockerGirl · 05/12/2015 07:40

limited I'm as sure as I can be that the cat got away Smile

OP posts:
londonrach · 05/12/2015 07:44

What if that cat was a child, debris in the road etc. of course you break. Yanbu. They are in the wrong for tail gating but i bet shock had something to do with this. Hope everyone was ok. I bet in the morning they realise they were too close if they couldnt stop.

DisgraceToTheYChromosome · 05/12/2015 07:48

I drive professionally, and I don't give a shiny shit about vehicles behind me, only stopping distance. This will be 4 seconds dry, 8 seconds wet.
Occasionally they get a surprise when I don't run a yellow light, and after that they keep their distance. About once a year one hits me. Stsndard procedure is to check for injuries, exchange details, take LOTS of pictures. One firm had a policy of not claiming unless the trailer was bent more than an inch, but if that happened the trailgater would be a write off anyway.

carolinemoon · 05/12/2015 07:51

Cats don't have owners?

Google "cat ownership laws uk" and you'll see two reasonably reliable sources that disagree (as would I without a prior google).

If anyone can find an actual law that says OP should have run over the cat, I'll eat my hat.

Perhaps sometimes it would be better to hit an animal (eg rather than swerve into the path of another car and cause more serious damage) but nothing changes the fact that whether it was a cat/child/any other thing, the driver behind is responsible for maintaining an adequate stopping distance. OP is therefore not at fault (but she would have been if she had swerved into another car).

Notasinglefuckwasgiven · 05/12/2015 07:52

Yeah we follow the 4 second ( at least ) gap rule. Told with a full bus on wet roads to leave closer to 20! I too don't care if you rear end me. You're way too close if you do. Plus in my bus, if you are tailgating me I can't actually see you in my mirrors so don't know you're there anyway Hmm

swisscheesetony · 05/12/2015 07:54

I could use some advice in this vein.

Last night I rear-ended someone in the dark when she stopped for sheep. I got out of my car to a volley of abuse and told I was driving too fast/too close. Logic dictates that as I'd been following her five miles "too fast" is not relevant - and I am very careful about "too close".

As she drove away and took the next turning it clicked that the reason I'd shunted her is because her sodding brake lights didn't work!

Where would that leave me? No police called and no apparent damage to cars.

mrsmugoo · 05/12/2015 07:57

The driver sounds like a twat but you should not have braked do suddenly without checking to make sure it was safe to do so in your rear view mirror. The fact that you had some arsehole driving too close meant no.

If you had killed a baby to save a cat I'm sure you would have been devastated.

LyndaNotLinda · 05/12/2015 07:58

Blimey, the fact that some people who drive think you were in the wrong is a bit scary.

Hope you're okay OP

LyndaNotLinda · 05/12/2015 08:01

And I wrote that post too before the two previous people posted :(

swisscheese - entirely your fault. You'd be hard-pressed to prove that her brake lights weren't working and if you hit her, then yes, you were driving too close.

wasonthelist · 05/12/2015 08:02

Agree Lynda, some of the utter bobbins being talked on here is worrying.

Dipankrispaneven · 05/12/2015 08:04

But if you are driving to a reasonable standard you should be well aware of how close behind you the next car is and adjust your driving, as far as you reasonably can, to be safe.

However, since you can't drive with your eyes glued to your mirror, you are not necessarily going to know if at any given moment the car behind has moved too close to you. And you can only adjust your driving to be safe by slowing down to such a speed that if they have to stop suddenly they won't hit you - which is probably only going to make them more impatient and more risky. It is unrealistic to say that adjusting your driving will include making a decision to hit the cat, because it's a split second instinctive decision. There is no way OP could be at fault.

swisscheesetony · 05/12/2015 08:05

Lynda - I know the driver behind is "wrong" and of course there's no way of oroving her lights were inadequate. :( it just goes to indicate I suppose that the first sign you have of danger is a car appearing "larger" in your field of vision rather than great big red lights.

There was no reason for her to be so bloody rude though. I guess it's some people's default.

Dipankrispaneven · 05/12/2015 08:06

If you had killed a baby to save a cat I'm sure you would have been devastated.

A ridiculous thing to say. The only way a baby would be killed in this scenario would be if she wasn't strapped in and her parent was driving well over the speed limit. In which case it would be no more OP's fault than if she had stopped at traffic lights.

londonrach · 05/12/2015 08:09

Swiss even if no lights you must have been too close or not paying any attention to hit the car. You at fault. What if had been a brick wall, deer etc with no lights.

mrsmugoo · 05/12/2015 08:09

Ok, injured a baby, or an adult. Basically braking suddenly for a cat without checking your rear view mirror to see if it's safe is stupid and you would live with the consequences,

In your driving test you fail if you don't check your rear view mirror before performing an emergency stop.