Reverse to work

The vehicle is unlikely to suffer a problem...

Tis illegal to reverse for long periods of time and I have been in a car when the driver was warned about it by a cop that spotted him doing the 1/2 mile to the pub from college once.

The message from Chris Whelan contains these words:

And you may find it /very/ hard to persuade either a court or the dibbles that it's "necessary" to win a bet.

get a tow!!

Althought AFAIK the highway code is guidance, not legally binding. For example how many people do you see prosecuted for reversing out of drives onto main roads.

However the CUR are law & binding.

Parts of the HWC contain statements that are legally binding. The statements always begin "You MUST NOT...", and end in a reference to the relevant law.

Did you look at the page I linked to? (Actually, have you ever looked at the HWC?)

There have been prosecutions of motorists reversing more the necessary. A high profile one of a few years ago was a guy in NI whose gearbox failed. He could only select reverse. He used to drive to church backwards every Sunday until prosecution stopped him.

Chris

The message from "Coyoteboy" contains these words:

Not enough.

CUR?

You really *haven't* read the HWC have you?

Construction & Use Regulations.

The HWCs acronyms are not even close to being on my list of priorities, in fact the last time I remember taking such great interest in acronyms in official, non-work-related documentation I was in high school. Since then my life has, fortunately, become a lot more full with more immediately important things.

If you drive, one of life's important things is to do so safely. The most fundamental part of that is an understanding of the HWC.

Chris

In case you hadnt spotted it there's a big difference between understanding the HWC and its requirements and knowing its acronyms off by heart so you can argue them on a usenet thread ;-) In much the same way as you dont need to know what laser is an acronym for in order to use a CD player .

You said "Althought (sic) AFAIK the highway code is guidance, not legally binding." It's clearly a lot more than the acronyms you are unfamiliar with!

Chris

Well spotted on the typo. What i meant was that a lot of the rules as read in the HWC are guidelines, not legally binding and are too open to questioning to be suitable for legal proceedings - this is why the HWC (the gov site itself) points you to the laws covering matter, instead of assuming it is the law itself. The HWC is a simplified set of guidelines outlining the law, it is not "the law" - theres a difference. Breaking the guidelines often means you break a law, but far from all cases. The one in question here (179) is covered by a law and therefore, yes, is legally enforcable.