A woman who splashed a pedestrian as she drove through a puddle failed her driving test because the incident was technically classed as a crash.
Michelle Kelly, 31, was passing a bus stop when she drove through the water, spraying a man who was standing there.
At the end of the test, the mother-of-two said she was told by her examiner that she had failed because she should have stopped and exchanged details with man, as her actions constituted an accident.
Mrs Kelly, who works for a funeral director, described the decision as "ludicrous" after failing in Blackley, Manchester.
"It was my third test and I was really confident," she said. "To fail for something like that really annoyed me.
"It's ridiculous. Why should you hand over your details? What good would that do? It wasn't as though I'd deluged this pedestrian and if I'd swerved to avoid the puddle I might have caused an accident."
Mrs Kelly said she had no idea that splashing someone could lead to failing her test.
"I spoke to a firm of driving instructors with over 60 years experience and they had never heard of it. I didn't do it on purpose and didn't really think that much of it at the time but the examiner said it was a fault.
"Apparently it constituted a traffic offence and he was treating it as a road accident. He said I should have pulled over and exchanged details with the pedestrian."
Although the Highway Code does not directly mention splashing, it refers several times to the consideration of "all road users" and recommends that motorists "take extra care around pedestrians" in wet weather.
Robin Cummins, road safety consultant for BSM, said in some circumstances splashing someone could lead to a fine.
"Splashing someone is not classed as an accident, but would be classed as a serious fault," he said.
"You have got to look at how it was done. If someone drives straight through a puddle without due care and attention, they may be prosecuted.
"People have been fined for similar incidents in the past, but it is very rare. Because of the weather we have had recently, you can see why it may come to light."
Andrew Howard, head of road safety for the AA, said at first glance Mrs Kelly's failure seemed absurd, but on reflection he could understand the decision.
"It is a difficult one," he said. "I don't think the average motorist would think about it under the circumstances, particularly if you are left with little option but to drive through the puddle, given Britain's crowded roads.
"The Highway Code says if you are involved in a collision which causes damage or injury to another person you must stop. But is hitting a puddle a collision? What damage was done to the other person and where do you draw the line?
"Don't ask me what I would have done, but probably say sorry under my breath and carried on - many people have splashed me over the years."
Mrs Kelly said she estimated that she would have to spend a further £200 to cover the cost of a fourth test.
"Then it's nearly £60 for the test, £40 to use the car for the test and I'll have to have more lessons in the meantime," she said. "I'll have to wait until I get paid again."
A spokesman for the Driving Standards Agency said the incident was being looked into.
Source