On 08/04/2021 15:10, Scion wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 13:09:15 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

On 08/04/2021 12:57, Scion wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2021 12:37:01 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:08:58 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

Yes, that's the problem with automated, non-human tests: they can't
allow for the "I hadn't though of that hazard, but well done for
spotting it".

Or the numpties that look at a theory test question of:

What should you do as you approach this overhead bridge?

https://mocktheorytest.com/checkquestion/car/all/1/268/

And *not* click on:

C. Be prepared to give way to large vehicles in the middle of the road

*Because* ... 'a large vehicle couldn't fit under that bridge!!'. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Heh, the theory test was dead easy. Multiple-choice, often with only
one realistic answer.

"You are approaching a pedestrian crossing. Your traffic light is
flashing amber but an old lady starts to cross. Do you a) Accelerate -
you can squeak past if you swerve;
b) Stop but rev your engine and sound your horn to make her see the
error of her ways;
c) Run her over. You have right of way and she looked like didn't have
long left anyway;
d) Stop and wait until she has crossed before continuing."

The Highway code has a throwaway instruction to avoid accidents, so that
overrides the feeling of being in the right, or where you have a right
of way, so "d" is the obvious answer.

Would "a" not also suffice?

Difficult to prosecute anyone in that case, but the examiner is probably
wanting to know whether you intend to exercise care.

In this case the implication is you have time to stop, and hence a way
from the crossing. The anticipated need for remedial action implies you
are taking an unnecessary risk if you should "squeak past".

YMMV