britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/12/07 at 05:17 PM |
|
|
Police try to prosecute for reverse light n/s
Recently in Scotland a driver knocked down a 90 year old lady while reversing out of his drive.
One of the charges the police tried to prosecute on was having defective reverse lights.
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7122736.stm
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 3/12/07 at 05:34 PM |
|
|
While it's probably not a great idea to reverse out onto a main road
a) it's not a requirement to have reversing lights at all
b) the Highway Code in itself is guidance... some of the "rules" in there are legal requirements/prohibition, some are just good
practice.
Driving without due care and attention sounds right to me.
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 3/12/07 at 05:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mangogrooveworkshop
Highway Code ruled drivers should always reverse into driveways and drive out forwards.
thats me breaking the law then with my bec
Its an advisory not a law to the best of my understanding. Rules which are legal requirements have the words "Must" or "must
not" in bold in the Highway Code so not breaking the law in itself.
Typically though, the Highway Code also states....... "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a
person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the
law' to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."
So make of this what you will......
"201
Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can."
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/12/07 at 05:59 PM |
|
|
Interestingly "he was cleared" on the reverse light charge --- it should of course never have been brought or have been thrown out.
A worrying lack of knowledge of what actually is the motoring law appears have been displayed by all and sundry.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 3/12/07 at 06:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Interestingly "he was cleared" on the reverse light charge --- it should of course never have been brought or have been thrown out.
A worrying lack of knowledge of what actually is the motoring law appears have been displayed by all and sundry.
Doesnt surprise me in the slightest!! I recently had to defend myself in court for "failing to produce a valid MOT test certificate" and
also "failing to display a valid tax disk". This was dispite being on a SORN declaration and on my way home from a pre-booked MOT test
with a failure notification in my hand when the police asked me why my tax disk was out of date.
The Prosecution even tried arguing a point that as I have been building kitcars for the past 8 years then I should know that the tintop would fail its
MOT and had no excuse for not passing and should have therefore passed and had a valid MOT at the time - I kid you not!!!
Needless to say both charges got thrown out when i produced the relevent sections of the RTA relating to SORN, Mot's etc etc
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 3/12/07 at 08:11 PM |
|
|
I know you don't need to have a reverse light, but is it not a case of IF there are reverse lights fitted to a vehicle then they MUST be working
satisfactorily?
I may be wrong (I usually am!).
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 3/12/07 at 08:52 PM |
|
|
You should see some of the accidents our neigbours have had backing out onton our main road
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
onzarob
|
| posted on 3/12/07 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
I think the main problem here is not the reversing lights, but the driving not looking where he was going!!!
If the reversing lights were working, is it the responsibility of the hazard to move?!!!
|
|
|
rf900rush
|
| posted on 3/12/07 at 09:44 PM |
|
|
Lucky that reversing lights are not compulsory.
What would BEC's do with no Reverse Gear !
|
|
|
muzchap
|
| posted on 3/12/07 at 09:51 PM |
|
|
Paul Tiger B6,
That is SHOCKING what a flagrant disregard for protocol.
The police in this country make me sick!
Well done on producing the relevant info! 
M
------------------------------------
If you believe you're not crazy, whilst everybody is telling you, you are - then they are definitely wrong!
------------------------------------
|
|
|
MkIndy7
|
| posted on 3/12/07 at 11:13 PM |
|
|
It always makes me chukkle thinking of an Accident I'd seen in Morrisons car park whilst working there.
An Escort van (no rear windows) reversing up quite a steep hill out a a space and an old boy reversing down hill in a newish small car....
They had a bit of a bump anf the old boy started playing hell about the little scuff on his bumper "I want your details blaa blaa laa" and
wanted me to be whitness.
I just said "it'll polish out and really it was your fault.. he was doing a hill start in reverse with limited rear visibility.. you were
rolling backwards down hill with full visibility" to the old Guy and that was before I'd ever driven a van!
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 4/12/07 at 11:55 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rf900rush
Lucky that reversing lights are not compulsory.
What would BEC's do with no Reverse Gear !
Switch on the dash, with a tell-tail - just like the fog light I'd expect. Either that or maybe observing the driver getting out and pushing
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 4/12/07 at 08:06 PM |
|
|
must say its one of my pet hates, people reversing unsafely. Either onto main roads or just plain incompetently. Woman reversed into my mates car
yesterday in a car park, claimed she didnt even realise she had hit him!
I always reverse into my drive because its much easier to reverse when the car is warm, all windows clear etc and you know where everyone is. Means
you can drive off in the morning without getting neck ache! 
|
|
|
Dazza
|
| posted on 4/12/07 at 11:18 PM |
|
|
mmm
if the lights are fitted, they MUST work for an mot.
my old recovery truck didnt eevn have a loop in the wiring for a reverse light. but when i reversed, i had 2 rear flood lights and 4 revolving
strobes, so if anyone missed me, they were clearly blind....
the idea that we should all be carefull is great, as i am sure everyone of US on here are, i am, but there are those that are less than carefull.
the way of the world......
fuckit
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 5/12/07 at 08:56 AM |
|
|
NOT an MOT testable item
The MOT can only test obligatory lights, at one stage in the late 60s and early 70s the MOT/Depatment of Transport/DoE staff couldn't make thier
mind up if number plate lights were included.
Reverse lights are limited to 21 watts.
Driving & fog lights are tested and if fitted have to be in pairs and meet the regulations.
|
|
|
MkIndy7
|
| posted on 5/12/07 at 05:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Reverse lights are limited to 21 watts.
Definatly?
I'm about to fit another light to the Kangoo van low down as the rear visability with 1 reverse light on 1 side of the van is poor to say the
least when reversing down dark driveways etc.
I was thinking of fitting an old front foglight below the bumper shining at the ground... I suppose I could just switch it off or take the bulb out
come MOT time tho.
|
|
|
