Speed limit in reverse?

[Mr Macaw]

What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ydf0x...@red.lan>, at 13:54:40 on Fri, 26 Feb 2016,
Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?

20mph, but if too fast for the prevailing conditions it could also be
Careless Driving, even if under 20mph.
--
Roland Perry

[Mr Macaw]

So there's no way 10mph could be considered illegal?

And what evidence would be required if it is?

And would you say there's a difference in "dangerous driving" between reversing at x mph and forwards at x mph?

[Roger Hayter]

Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:01:59 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message <op.ydf0x...@red.lan>, at 13:54:40 on Fri, 26 Feb 2016,
> >Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
> > What is the speed limit when reversing
> >into a side road in a 20mph limit area?
> >
> > 20mph, but if too fast for the prevailing conditions it could also be
> > Careless Driving, even if under 20mph.
>
> So there's no way 10mph could be considered illegal?

Yes, it certainly could if a police officer beleived it was unsafe in
all the circumstances

>
> And what evidence would be required if it is?

The opinion of a police officer, in the absence of a refutation that
convinced a magistrate.

>
> And would you say there's a difference in "dangerous driving" between
> reversing at x mph and forwards at x mph?

Definitely, especially round corners.

But note that going at 10mph could still be dangerous in a 20mph limit
even if one was going forwards.



--

Roger Hayter

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:36:40 -0000, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:

> Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:01:59 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > In message <op.ydf0x...@red.lan>, at 13:54:40 on Fri, 26 Feb 2016,
>> >Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
> > > What is the speed limit when reversing
>> >into a side road in a 20mph limit area?
>> >
>> > 20mph, but if too fast for the prevailing conditions it could also be
>> > Careless Driving, even if under 20mph.
>>
>> So there's no way 10mph could be considered illegal?
>
> Yes, it certainly could if a police officer beleived it was unsafe in
> all the circumstances

So would a policeman have to be present at the time of the reversing?

>> And what evidence would be required if it is?
>
> The opinion of a police officer, in the absence of a refutation that
> convinced a magistrate.
>
>> And would you say there's a difference in "dangerous driving" between
>> reversing at x mph and forwards at x mph?
>
> Definitely, especially round corners.
>
> But note that going at 10mph could still be dangerous in a 20mph limit
> even if one was going forwards.

10mph is running speed, I hardly think that's ever dangerous for anything. Maybe inside a shopping mall?

[Andy Burns]

Roland Perry wrote:

> Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>
>> What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?
>
> 20mph

Indeed, it's a speed limit, not a velocity limit.

[steve robinson]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:36:40 +0000, ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter)
wrote:

In 2014 several drivers were prosecuted in Birmingham for careless
driving , although non of the drivers broke the speed limit. The
police argued successfully in several cases that 30 mph was to fast
given the prevailing conditions at the time , school children were
either entering or leaving school on mass caused quite an uproar at
the time. Non of the drivers were driving erratically or involved in a
near miss.

[Mike Bristow]

In article <op.ydf1o...@red.lan>,

Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:01:59 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <op.ydf0x...@red.lan>, at 13:54:40 on Fri, 26 Feb 2016,
>> Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>> What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?
>>
>> 20mph, but if too fast for the prevailing conditions it could also be
>> Careless Driving, even if under 20mph.
>
> So there's no way 10mph could be considered illegal?

It's not breaking the speedlimit.

If you deliberatly reversed at 10mph over a person lying in the road,
I think it would be attempted murder. If you reversed at 10mph while
blind drunk, you'd be guilty of drink-driving. Depending on exactly what
was going on, other crimes - or none at all - might be committed.

> And what evidence would be required if it is?

It depends on the crime. For dangerous driving, for example,
evidence that convinces the magistrates that the driving was far below
the standard expected of a careful and competent driver etc. This
could be a witness statements that teh magistrates believe.

> And would you say there's a difference in "dangerous driving" between reversing at x mph and forwards at x mph?

In law, no: the standard is the the same. In practice, probably;
the practicallities of reversing makes it more likely to be dangerous
due to reduced visability (and other factors that are obvious to a
careful and competent driver). Careful and competent drivers
mitigate those things by driving more slowly.

IMO, 10mph isn't per-se a daft speed to reverse; but as with many
things, it will turn on the facts, not the law.


--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[RobertL]

You mean you could legally go at 20 mph sideways?

R

[Mr Macaw]

I'm assuming there must be some kind of law against reversing very fast. For example if someone modified their car so it could go 70mph in reverse, then did so on a motorway, would that not be illegal?

Do they just assume that unmodified cars simply can't go too fast backwards, since R is a lower ratio than 1 and probably redlines at 15 or less.

I also read on a forum where somebody had complained about a dustcart going too fast backwards, that since you cannot see your speedo when reversing, you cannot be held liable for breaking the speed limit.

[Mr Macaw]

That's ridiculous. If they want people to go under 30mph then they need to install "20 mph when lights flashing" signs. You can't enforce a law which hasn't been stated!

Sounds rather like the head of my council who told me I shouldn't be going as fast as 20mph (forwards, nothing to do with this post) on a mile long straight wide road in a built up area. This was because I complained that the humps she'd installed were only suitable for going over at 10mph. When I told her to change the limit to 10mph before someone damaged their car, she said she wasn't allowed to. When I told her she wasn't the chief of police she terminated the phonecall.

[steve robinson]

enough to injure, many schools now have 5mph or dead slow signs as
you enter the grounds , some companies especially in the oil
industry bar you from site if you reverse out of a parking space or
drive over 5 mph, we required permits to park nose , reversing out
required 3 people driver and two banks men , no messing about you
don't obey the rules your barred from site

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ydf4a...@red.lan>, at 15:07:28 on Fri, 26 Feb 2016,
Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>since R is a lower ratio than 1 and probably redlines at 15

In old Landrovers reverse is geared at around halfway between first and
second, so despite the relatively low top speed means you can do a bit
over 20mph.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

There is a hamlet of a couple of dozen houses near me where many of the
front doors open onto the single lane (no pavements) road. I have spent
more than ten years driving throught it at 15-20mph. The speed limit is
60mph. I have had two near misses in that time, one a toddler ran 6 ft
in front of me when I was driving on snow at less than walking pace.
The other was last week when a young woman walked across the road a few
yards in front of me without looking. Neither my speed nor the risks of
those two events would have been different if the speed limit had been
30mph. Had I been going at 30mph both would have been at least
severely injured.

--

Roger Hayter

[Mr Macaw]

Automatics tend to use the same gear as 1st but swap the direction with something, so you can get 40mph in reverse.

[Mr Macaw]

Drifting? There's probably a law against doing that on purpose. By accident would be considered dangerous driving.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Friday, 26 February 2016 14:00:01 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
> What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?

20mph I should imagine. My BMW actually shows the correct speed in reverse (counts the ABS bumps I think).

When I was much younger I was threatened by a rookie PC with "excessive reversing" when I reversed quickly into a space outside the nick.

In any event unless you are pretty good, you will struggle to stay in control in reverse at any speed especially when turning.

[Mr Macaw]

5? That's a brisk walk.

> we required permits to park nose , reversing out
> required 3 people driver and two banks men , no messing about you
> don't obey the rules your barred from site

I assume two banksmen is for HGVs, not cars.

[Mr Macaw]

Either the limit should be changed or the people that live there need to learn the green cross code. In any case, I would not have blamed you if you were doing the legal 60 limit and someone crossed without looking.

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:01:07 -0000, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> wrote:

> In article <op.ydf1o...@red.lan>,
> Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:01:59 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <op.ydf0x...@red.lan>, at 13:54:40 on Fri, 26 Feb 2016,
>>> Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>>> What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?
>>>
>>> 20mph, but if too fast for the prevailing conditions it could also be
>>> Careless Driving, even if under 20mph.
>>
>> So there's no way 10mph could be considered illegal?
>
> It's not breaking the speedlimit.
>
> If you deliberatly reversed at 10mph over a person lying in the road,
> I think it would be attempted murder. If you reversed at 10mph while
> blind drunk, you'd be guilty of drink-driving. Depending on exactly what
> was going on, other crimes - or none at all - might be committed.

In this case it's reversing into a sideroad instead of driving a much longer distance where it's possible to do a u-turn. Nothing was run over. No pedestrians were even present. A resident claimed it was too fast.

>> And what evidence would be required if it is?
>
> It depends on the crime. For dangerous driving, for example,
> evidence that convinces the magistrates that the driving was far below
> the standard expected of a careful and competent driver etc. This
> could be a witness statements that teh magistrates believe.

One against one?

>> And would you say there's a difference in "dangerous driving" between reversing at x mph and forwards at x mph?
>
> In law, no: the standard is the the same. In practice, probably;
> the practicallities of reversing makes it more likely to be dangerous
> due to reduced visability

Not in most cars, unless you have tinted windows at the back.

> (and other factors that are obvious to a
> careful and competent driver). Careful and competent drivers
> mitigate those things by driving more slowly.

What factors are you referring to? Competent drivers have no problem reversing.

> IMO, 10mph isn't per-se a daft speed to reverse; but as with many
> things, it will turn on the facts, not the law.

I think it just looks faster to passersby as the gearbox makes that whining noise.

[steve robinson]

That's an urban myth, besides dustcarts have very large mirrors
forward of the driving position some even have reversing cameras , a
competent driver should be capeable of judging speed whilst reversing

[Mike Bristow]

In article <op.ydf4a...@red.lan>,

Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> I'm assuming there must be some kind of law against reversing
> very fast. For example if someone modified their car so it could
> go 70mph in reverse, then did so on a motorway, would that not be

> llegal?

It wouldn't be breaking the speed limit. Other laws might apply.

I suspect "dangerous driving" would be easy to prosecute.

> I also read on a forum where somebody had complained about a
> dustcart going too fast backwards, that since you cannot see your
> speedo when reversing, you cannot be held liable for breaking the
> speed limit.

This is nonsense. You are guilty of breaking the speed limit if
you travel faster than the limit. Being unaware of that doesn't
alter that. There are very few defences to speeding (other than
"I wasn't travelling that fast").

Cheers
Mike

--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Davey]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:07:28 -0000
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> I'm assuming there must be some kind of law against reversing very
> fast. For example if someone modified their car so it could go 70mph
> in reverse, then did so on a motorway, would that not be illegal?

The Austin Champ had a forward/reverse transfer box, so all gears
were the same whether used for forward or reverse motion. I don't know
if they could reach 70 mph.

--
Davey.

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 19:06:26 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 26 February 2016 14:00:01 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?
>
> 20mph I should imagine. My BMW actually shows the correct speed in reverse (counts the ABS bumps I think).

I've had cars without ABS that show speed in reverse. Presumably if you don't have ABS, you can still have an electronic measure of speed (output of gearbox I believe).

> When I was much younger I was threatened by a rookie PC with "excessive reversing" when I reversed quickly into a space outside the nick.

I would have challenged him on his ability to speak English. Excessive reversing implies you reversed too much, which you can't have done or you would have gone into the wall or car behind you.

> In any event unless you are pretty good, you will struggle to stay in control in reverse at any speed especially when turning.

I would say anybody who can drive decently can reverse without losing control. I can reverse a trailer without thinking hard or having to correct mistakes. Reversing without a trailer is peanuts and I don't consider it harder than going forwards. A PC shouldn't assume that someone reversing is under less control unless they see them not driving straight.

[Mr Macaw]

> No, the signs indicate the max speed.
>
> If conditions are such that a lower speed is required for safety, them
> there is no reason you couldn't be prosecuted.
>
> Another example would be if there was, say, fog on a motorway limiting
> visibility to perhaps 10 metres.
>
> Even if the advisory signs are not in use, it is the driver's
> responsibility to drive to the conditions.

But the road in question was under perfect conditions. Dry, clear visibility, daylight, no other vehicles about. She seemed to think the max sped of that road under any conditions was less than 20. Yet she put in a 20 limit. And put in bumps which are unsuitable to drive at more than 10. The bumps don't get smaller in good weather.

[Mr Macaw]

I know that "my alternator isn't working too well" doesn't work. My dad tried that one. I find having something that concerns them more is a good way out of it. Like a bald tyre, which won't give you a fine or points.

[steve robinson]

A speed limit is just that , it doesn't mean its always appropriate
to drive at that speed

[Mr Macaw]

But in the case above, the situation is always the same, the doors are always on the edge of the road. So it's never safe to go 60 (unless you train the people living there to look out for cars (which is common sense surely?)

[Mr Macaw]

Presumably it could if you used the same gears, unless the transfer box changed the ratio a little.

I wonder what they did on the famous "Eurocar" youtube film?

[Davey]

A bald tyre gets you three points, and a fine is possible.

--
Davey.

[Roger Hayter]

Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:27:22 -0000, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>

snip

> >
> > There is a hamlet of a couple of dozen houses near me where many of the
> > front doors open onto the single lane (no pavements) road. I have spent
> > more than ten years driving throught it at 15-20mph. The speed limit is
> > 60mph. I have had two near misses in that time, one a toddler ran 6 ft
> > in front of me when I was driving on snow at less than walking pace.
> > The other was last week when a young woman walked across the road a few
> > yards in front of me without looking. Neither my speed nor the risks of
> > those two events would have been different if the speed limit had been
> > 30mph. Had I been going at 30mph both would have been at least
> > severely injured.
>
> Either the limit should be changed or the people that live there need to
> learn the green cross code. In any case, I would not have blamed you if
> you were doing the legal 60 limit and someone crossed without looking.

Let us see how I can comment on that in a neutral and courteous way.
It is my belief that anyone who drove through there at 60mph, even
without harming anyone, should go to prison for a salutary period and be
banned from driving for life, as they are obviously not capable of doing
so safely. I would think to be unhelpful the opinion of someone who
did not blame them for an accident in those circumstances.


--

Roger Hayter

[steve robinson]

So is a kerbs what's the difference.

[Mr Macaw]

People keep saying that (actually it's officially 1 point per tyre), but it just doesn't happen. I must have been caught about 10 times with bald tyres and other vehicle defects. I got a pink slip which required me to get it fixed and stamped by an MOT garage and returned to the police in 14 days. No fine ever. No points ever. Only got points (18 of them in my whole life) for speeding. And fines for no seatbelt. I once got a pink slip for NO exhaust (2/3rds of it had fallen off), a bald tyre, a split tyre, a soft tyre, a non-functional handbrake, and going 95mph in a 70 limit. No fine, no points, just a ticking off and the pink slip. The defects seemed to distract them from the original speeding offence.

[Paul Rudin]

There are laws about careless, inconsiderate and dangerous driving;
quite separate from the speed limit laws.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Friday, 26 February 2016 23:01:19 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 19:06:26 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 26 February 2016 14:00:01 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >> What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?
> >
> > 20mph I should imagine. My BMW actually shows the correct speed in reverse (counts the ABS bumps I think).
>
> I've had cars without ABS that show speed in reverse. Presumably if you don't have ABS, you can still have an electronic measure of speed (output of gearbox I believe).

Could be magnetic pick up on the prop-shaft - direction of rotation would not matter.

>
> > When I was much younger I was threatened by a rookie PC with "excessive reversing" when I reversed quickly into a space outside the nick.
>
> I would have challenged him on his ability to speak English. Excessive reversing implies you reversed too much, which you can't have done or you would have gone into the wall or car behind you.
>
> > In any event unless you are pretty good, you will struggle to stay in control in reverse at any speed especially when turning.
>
> I would say anybody who can drive decently can reverse without losing control. I can reverse a trailer without thinking hard or having to correct mistakes.

True for me. I once watched someone try to reverse a trailer through 180 degrees in our flats' courtyard. They kept jack-knifing the trailer. Eventually I offered to try and reversed it all the way round in one go first time despite never having done it before.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Correction - each bald tyre gets you three points [and usually a fixed penalty].

>
> --
> Davey.

[steve robinson]

As the plod said on TV at the time 30mph is the maximum speed you
can safely traverse down the roads in question , it doesn't mean its
safe to traverse down the roads in question at 30 mph all the time.

It certainly isn't an appropriate speed to travel down the road if
there are large groups of children entering or leaving school.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 10:46:40 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 26 February 2016 23:01:19 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 19:06:26 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, 26 February 2016 14:00:01 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >> What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?
>> >
>> > 20mph I should imagine. My BMW actually shows the correct speed in reverse (counts the ABS bumps I think).
>>
>> I've had cars without ABS that show speed in reverse. Presumably if you don't have ABS, you can still have an electronic measure of speed (output of gearbox I believe).
>
> Could be magnetic pick up on the prop-shaft - direction of rotation would not matter.
>
>
>>
>> > When I was much younger I was threatened by a rookie PC with "excessive reversing" when I reversed quickly into a space outside the nick.
>>
>> I would have challenged him on his ability to speak English. Excessive reversing implies you reversed too much, which you can't have done or you would have gone into the wall or car behind you.
>>
>> > In any event unless you are pretty good, you will struggle to stay in control in reverse at any speed especially when turning.
>>
>> I would say anybody who can drive decently can reverse without losing control. I can reverse a trailer without thinking hard or having to correct mistakes.
>
> True for me. I once watched someone try to reverse a trailer through 180 degrees in our flats' courtyard. They kept jack-knifing the trailer. Eventually I offered to try and reversed it all the way round in one go first time despite never having done it before.

I guess these are the same folk who can't operate a B&Q trolley with wheels that swivel only at one end. I'm always seeing them crashing into the aisles.

When someone can't reverse a trailer, why not just get out and do it by hand?

[Mike Bristow]

In article <hvm5dbd40c1f1olse...@4ax.com>,

steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
> As the plod said on TV at the time 30mph is the maximum speed you
> can safely traverse down the roads in question , it doesn't mean its
> safe to traverse down the roads in question at 30 mph all the time.

Actaully, speed limits are not just set on safty grounds; but that
is irrelevant to both your point and the law.

> It certainly isn't an appropriate speed to travel down the road if
> there are large groups of children entering or leaving school.

Agreed.

Cheers,

[the Omrud]

Even that's not quite right. It's the maximum speed you can *legally*
travel down the roads. It might be perfectly safe to go faster, but it
would not be legal.

--
David

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:50:02 -0000, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> wrote:

> In article <hvm5dbd40c1f1olse...@4ax.com>,
> steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>> As the plod said on TV at the time 30mph is the maximum speed you
>> can safely traverse down the roads in question , it doesn't mean its
>> safe to traverse down the roads in question at 30 mph all the time.
>
> Actaully, speed limits are not just set on safty grounds; but that
> is irrelevant to both your point and the law.

What other reason could there be? I know at one time in the past they had them for fuel economy when there was a fuel shortage, but not now.

[Mr Macaw]

Which is why I completely ignore the signs and concentrate on the road.

[steve robinson]

Noise levels, are one reason in a residential area , uniformity in
similar areas , all drivers know built up areas, are 30 mph unless
otherwise designated by signage. Lowers the stress levels , avoids
confusion for those in unfamiliar surrounds

[steve robinson]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:12:05 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Agreed, at the time i think they were pushing the safety angle though
more than the legal angle.

It seemed to have the desired effect though around the schools in
question

[polygonum]

On 28/02/2016 18:47, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
> What other reason could there be? I know at one time in the past they
> had them for fuel economy when there was a fuel shortage, but not now.

Noise.
Vibration.
Emissions.
And, whilst you appear to be thinking of safety solely with respect to
drivers, controlling vehicles and so on, there can be structural safety
reasons. That is, the actual structure on which you are driving may be
damaged by higher speeds (especially with heavy vehicles).

--
Rod

[Neil Williams]

On 2016-02-26 13:54:40 +0000, Mr Macaw said:

> What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?

20mph, so far as I know, but if you reverse too fast (in the opinion of
a Police Officer) you could I suppose get done for DWDCAA.

To me, a sensible, careful speed to reverse is not much more than walking pace.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

[Davey]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 15:10:16 -0000
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> I guess these are the same folk who can't operate a B&Q trolley with
> wheels that swivel only at one end. I'm always seeing them crashing
> into the aisles.

British Airport and Supermarket carts have this weird all four wheels
rotating thing, whereas everywhere else I have been sensibly restricts
the rotation to the front wheels only. That way, you have directional
control, and trying to negotiate a sideways slope does not mean that
the cart slides uncontrollably down the slope.

--
Davey.

[Davey]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 02:48:24 -0800 (PST)

"R. Mark Clayton" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > A bald tyre gets you three points, and a fine is possible.
>
> Correction - each bald tyre gets you three points [and usually a
> fixed penalty].

That sounds like a Confirmation rather than a Correction.

--
Davey.

[Davey]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:06:41 -0000

"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:46:21 -0000, Davey <da...@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:07:28 -0000
> > "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm assuming there must be some kind of law against reversing very
> >> fast. For example if someone modified their car so it could go
> >> 70mph in reverse, then did so on a motorway, would that not be
> >> illegal?
> >
> > The Austin Champ had a forward/reverse transfer box, so all gears
> > were the same whether used for forward or reverse motion. I don't
> > know if they could reach 70 mph.
>
> Presumably it could if you used the same gears, unless the transfer
> box changed the ratio a little.
>
> I wonder what they did on the famous "Eurocar" youtube film?

Famous to you, maybe.

--
Davey.

[Mr Macaw]

I find 4 wheel steer much easier. You can move the back of the supermarket trolley (where the handle is) side to side. Moving the far end is not so easy due to leverage. And if the front wheels were fixed, you couldn't rotate it. Remember, it's tight spaces in aisles. Consider driving a car of the same size (or same ratio to the aisle width) - you'd have people doing 3 point turns everywhere. If cars could 4 wheel steer, it would be much easier to drive around residential areas.

[Nogood Boyo]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1mj8hq1.8rfm7rmd9a4uN%ro...@hayter.org...

>
> There is a hamlet of a couple of dozen houses near me where many of the
> front doors open onto the single lane (no pavements) road. I have spent
> more than ten years driving throught it at 15-20mph. The speed limit is
> 60mph.

How can that be..? The people setting speed limits must have guidelines to
work to. It seems highly unlikely that a 60 speed limit would comply with
such guidelines.

[Mr Macaw]

He was presumably changing it so you could get more than 3 points for more than 1 tyre. But I've always heard 1 per tyre, so I don't know where he's getting that from. Also, I've been stopped about 7 times in my life for bald tyres, and not got a single point. Points only come from speeding.

[Mr Macaw]

Oh, I thought everyone had seen that. https://youtu.be/orVrp-oTWyU

[Mr Macaw]

You mean you've actually spotted logic to speed limits? I thought they just rolled dice.

[Davey]

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 14:55:27 -0000

"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:36:36 -0000, Davey <da...@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:06:41 -0000
> > "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:46:21 -0000, Davey <da...@example.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:07:28 -0000
> >> > "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm assuming there must be some kind of law against reversing
> >> >> very fast. For example if someone modified their car so it
> >> >> could go 70mph in reverse, then did so on a motorway, would
> >> >> that not be illegal?
> >> >
> >> > The Austin Champ had a forward/reverse transfer box, so all gears
> >> > were the same whether used for forward or reverse motion. I don't
> >> > know if they could reach 70 mph.
> >>
> >> Presumably it could if you used the same gears, unless the transfer
> >> box changed the ratio a little.
> >>
> >> I wonder what they did on the famous "Eurocar" youtube film?
> >
> > Famous to you, maybe.
>
> Oh, I thought everyone had seen that. https://youtu.be/orVrp-oTWyU

Thank you. I think.

--
Davey.

[Davey]

Well, there was no suggestion of having the front wheels fixed. The
problem with 4-wheel looseness is when negotiating a slope, the ramps
at Gatwick Airport were a disaster, I hope they have changed them
since I tried to navigate them. And if your supermarket car park has a
slope or even steep drain slopes, it's easy to hit a parked car with a
cart that goes downhill with nothing to keep it straight. I find no
disadvantages having only two wheels steerable.
Comparisons with theoretical cars are pointless, they are different
animals.

--
Davey.

[Roger Hayter]

Speed limits are a pretty blunt instrument for identifying and improving
hazards on small unclassified country roads. Outside the populous South
East these roads are unimproved and will have many hazards requiring
less than 20mph. Setting a lower global speed limit such as 40mph as
some police want to do would merely encourage idiots to keep up to the
limit where it is manifestly unsafe (5m visibility bends on single track
roads for example). And groups of a few houses don't normally get a
speed limit.

--

Roger Hayter

[Mr Macaw]

If you don't fix the front wheels, you have to fix the back wheels. Pretty difficult to steer a trolley when you're holding the end that doesn't steer.

[Neil Williams]

On 2016-02-29 18:09:38 +0000, Roger Hayter said:

> Speed limits are a pretty blunt instrument for identifying and improving
> hazards on small unclassified country roads. Outside the populous South
> East these roads are unimproved and will have many hazards requiring
> less than 20mph. Setting a lower global speed limit such as 40mph as
> some police want to do would merely encourage idiots to keep up to the
> limit where it is manifestly unsafe (5m visibility bends on single track
> roads for example). And groups of a few houses don't normally get a
> speed limit.

It is, as they say, a limit, and not a target.

It's notable that in Milton Keynes where there are very high limits for
an urban area (mostly NSL), despite these causing safety issues in some
locations (primarily involving right turns, which are being
progressively closed) drivers tend not to look at the speedo at all,
but instead pay attention to what they are doing. As such most drivers
tend to drive below, sometimes well below, the actual speed limit,
particularly at very busy times, and speeding is restricted to a small
number of very long stretches. Indeed, enforcement is just about
non-existent because it simply isn't needed.

[|||new...@nezumi.demon.co.uk]

Paradoxically it probably does. The guideline which causes the trouble is if the road through the village is too narrow to merit a white line down the middle then it is nigh on impossible to get a 30mph limit imposed on it.

So you end up with clueless wazzocks driving though hamlet at 60mph.

That is until you get a serious head on collision at the first bend plus a couple of folk driving though hedges and totalling mains power poles...

Eventually they conceded on the speed limit but it was a long fight.

Regards,
Martin Brown

[Mr Macaw]

On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 12:04:20 -0000, <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 3:32:10 PM UTC, Nogood Boyo wrote:
>> "Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
>> news:1mj8hq1.8rfm7rmd9a4uN%ro...@hayter.org...
>> >
>> > There is a hamlet of a couple of dozen houses near me where many of the
>> > front doors open onto the single lane (no pavements) road. I have spent
>> > more than ten years driving throught it at 15-20mph. The speed limit is
>> > 60mph.
>>
>> How can that be..? The people setting speed limits must have guidelines to
>> work to. It seems highly unlikely that a 60 speed limit would comply with
>> such guidelines.
>
> Paradoxically it probably does. The guideline which causes the trouble is if the road through the village is too narrow to merit a white line down the middle then it is nigh on impossible to get a 30mph limit imposed on it.

Why on earth would the absence of a white line stop them putting a speed limit on it?

In fact there is a road here with no white line in the middle, made too narrow for one due to cycle lanes. The cars then stay out of the cycle lanes and head straight towards each other on the blind bend. That's a 30mph limit.

There's also a 20mph limit in a new housing estate with single track (!) roads, so obviously no white line. Also no pavement, hence the kids play on the road and pedestrians walk along people's lawns.

[Davey]

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 19:29:18 -0000
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> If you don't fix the front wheels, you have to fix the back wheels.

Exactly, that's what I'm recommending. The problem is that British
supermarkets and airports don't, whereas the rest of the world does.

--
Davey.

[Mr Macaw]

But as I said, that would be very difficult to steer. Take a B&Q trolley, the big flat ones for large heavy items. The end with the handle has the steerable wheels, so you can push it from side to side at that end to allow it to turn. How would you turn the far end wheels?

[Brett Dunbar]

In message <nb59gu$ttj$3...@dont-email.me>, Davey <da...@example.invalid>
writes

The reason for that is the first supermarkets in the UK opened in
existing premises which were mostly rather small. So they had rather
narrow aisles in order to fit more shelving in. The trolleys had four
castors as that gave much greater manoeuvrability. We got used to being
able to go in any direction and have stuck to it.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 20:58:33 -0000, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote:

> On 2016-02-29 18:09:38 +0000, Roger Hayter said:
>
>> Speed limits are a pretty blunt instrument for identifying and improving
>> hazards on small unclassified country roads. Outside the populous South
>> East these roads are unimproved and will have many hazards requiring
>> less than 20mph. Setting a lower global speed limit such as 40mph as
>> some police want to do would merely encourage idiots to keep up to the
>> limit where it is manifestly unsafe (5m visibility bends on single track
>> roads for example). And groups of a few houses don't normally get a
>> speed limit.
>
> It is, as they say, a limit, and not a target.

I never find myself needing to go under the limit. In areas full of parked cars it's usually a 20 limit anyway.

> It's notable that in Milton Keynes where there are very high limits for
> an urban area (mostly NSL), despite these causing safety issues in some
> locations (primarily involving right turns, which are being
> progressively closed) drivers tend not to look at the speedo at all,
> but instead pay attention to what they are doing. As such most drivers
> tend to drive below, sometimes well below, the actual speed limit,
> particularly at very busy times, and speeding is restricted to a small
> number of very long stretches. Indeed, enforcement is just about
> non-existent because it simply isn't needed.

Indeed. We mustn't eat, drink, smoke, or use a mobile while driving, but watching your speedometer is ok?!

[Davey]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 13:37:58 -0000
"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> But as I said, that would be very difficult to steer. Take a B&Q
> trolley, the big flat ones for large heavy items. The end with the
> handle has the steerable wheels, so you can push it from side to side
> at that end to allow it to turn. How would you turn the far end
> wheels?

That is a case that is different from the standard supermarket or
airport cart, which is what I am talking about. The 4-wheel-steering UK
airport cart can be a right f......g pain to control when going down a
slope with a bend, or heaven forbid, a U-turn, such as leaving
Stansted's terminal and heading to the car parks (at least two years
ago, when I was last there). The locking of the rear wheels makes this
much, much easier to control.

--
Davey.

[Nogood Boyo]

"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:op.ydo9h...@red.lan...

The same way as you reverse a car, which I thought you were expert at.

[Mr Macaw]

In a car, you turn the steering wheels using the steering wheel, which is always in reach of your hands. With a trolley, there are no controls, you have to physically push the trolley to one side. You cannot push the end you cannot reach.

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:13:51 -0000, Brett Dunbar <br...@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote:

> In message <nb59gu$ttj$3...@dont-email.me>, Davey <da...@example.invalid>
> writes
>> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 19:29:18 -0000
>> "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you don't fix the front wheels, you have to fix the back wheels.
>>
>> Exactly, that's what I'm recommending. The problem is that British
>> supermarkets and airports don't, whereas the rest of the world does.
>>
>
> The reason for that is the first supermarkets in the UK opened in
> existing premises which were mostly rather small. So they had rather
> narrow aisles in order to fit more shelving in. The trolleys had four
> castors as that gave much greater manoeuvrability. We got used to being
> able to go in any direction and have stuck to it.

If only cars did the same. Not being able to do a u-turn in a 2 lane residential road is rather pathetic for the 21st century.

[Mr Macaw]

Maybe, but I much prefer the ability to push it in any direction for getting round small spaces. Which requires 4 moveable castors. If I'm walking across the car park at full speed and wish to turn left, I simply walk to the right of the trolley, much in the same way as I'd move the car to the right to make the trailer go left when reversing.

[Citoyen Recorder]

On Friday, 26 February 2016 14:00:01 UTC, Mr Macaw wrote:
> What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?

I was involved in an accident when a car reversed onto a highway [street] from a private drive. I crashed my motorcycle into the vehicle as it was making this manoeuver.

The police wanted to prosecute the driver of the car for dangerous driving. He should not have reversed onto the street. His car should have been parked in his drive the other way round in the first place.

[Roland Perry]

In message <60751a98-73d8-4630...@googlegroups.com>, at
00:31:15 on Fri, 4 Mar 2016, Citoyen Recorder <cjdro...@gmail.com>
remarked:

>> What is the speed limit when reversing into a side road in a 20mph limit area?
>
>I was involved in an accident when a car reversed onto a highway [street] from a private drive. I crashed my motorcycle into the vehicle as it
>was making this manoeuver.
>
>The police wanted to prosecute the driver of the car for dangerous driving. He should not have reversed onto the street. His car should have
>been parked in his drive the other way round in the first place.

It does depend on the circumstances. I was recently living in a house on
a very busy road, with a drive, and it was undoubtedly safer to back
*out* than back *in*. That was simply because when backing in the
traffic I was holding up would become impatient, overtake me on either
side *while* I was making the manoeuvre and so on.

On the other hand, backing out was treated much more sympathetically.
And as there was quite a wide pavement, passing traffic had plenty of
warning that a vehicle was emerging, and after all are supposed to drive
sufficiently cautiously on the assumption that a small child might run
out from behind a parked car at any moment.

No doubt the circumstances in your case were different, but there
shouldn't be a one-size-fits all rule.
--
Roland Perry

[Davey]

However, that would not make sense if his car had been something like a
Lotus 7, where the driver is nearer the rear of the car than the front.

Did the police succeed, and if so, was it on that basis?

--
Davey.

[Roland Perry]

In message <nbbn9j$6g5$2...@dont-email.me>, at 10:19:22 on Fri, 4 Mar 2016,
Davey <da...@example.invalid> remarked:

>> I was involved in an accident when a car reversed onto a highway
>> [street] from a private drive. I crashed my motorcycle into the
>> vehicle as it was making this manoeuver.
>>
>> The police wanted to prosecute the driver of the car for dangerous
>> driving. He should not have reversed onto the street. His car should
>> have been parked in his drive the other way round in the first place.
>
>However, that would not make sense if his car had been something like a
>Lotus 7, where the driver is nearer the rear of the car than the front.

Even more so in an E-type jag (feet from the driver to the front,
anyway).
--
Roland Perry

[Nogood Boyo]

"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:op.ydrge...@red.lan...

You're talking about a B&Q trolley with one pair of steerable wheels and one
pair of fixed wheels, right? You position the far end (with fixed wheels)
the same way as you position the back end of a car when reversing and steer
from the other end.

[Davey]

Yup, and many others, my HRG for example, and probably many TVRs.

We still don't know if the police were successful with their
prosecution, though.

At one time many years ago, I had to reverse a car (a Herald 13/60) and
it's attached car-carrying trailer out onto the main road in central
Loughborough, from a narrow lane. There happened to be a traffic warden
there writing a ticket, and the first she knew of me was when the rear
end of the trailer appeared at the edge of her vision as it progressed
onto the road. I could see her head moving to follow it. I backed out on
to the road, the traffic let me out, I then changed to forward motion;
she said nothing, and I drove away.

--
Davey.

[Mr Macaw]

Agreed - I always reverse out. I can wait until the road is clear and inconvenience nobody. People reversing in cause congestion, frustration, and accidents, they cannot wait until the road is clear, as they're already on it.

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 08:54:41 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

[Roland Perry]

In message <nbc7hv$6g5$4...@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:54 on Fri, 4 Mar 2016,
Davey <da...@example.invalid> remarked:

>At one time many years ago, I had to reverse a car (a Herald 13/60) and
>it's attached car-carrying trailer out onto the main road in central
>Loughborough, from a narrow lane. There happened to be a traffic warden
>there writing a ticket, and the first she knew of me was when the rear
>end of the trailer appeared at the edge of her vision as it progressed
>onto the road. I could see her head moving to follow it. I backed out on
>to the road, the traffic let me out, I then changed to forward motion;
>she said nothing, and I drove away.

Traffic Wardens can only do parking tickets, not even obstruction and
stopping in a cycle lane. Anything to do with actual driving needs a
policeman.
--
Roland Perry

[Davey]

Oh, I knew that, but the timing and positioning were just perfect!

--
Davey.

[Mr Macaw]

Actually one booked me for no tax disk while it was in a car park otherwise legally parked.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Even though the Highway Code advises against this?
Tips:
Stop just past your drive if legal to do so. You will not be inconveniencing
anybody if this is legal.
Check mirrors, turn steering wheel and reverse into drive if capable of
doing so.
You will then be able to drive your "car" out safely onto the road.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ydtdw...@red.lan>, at 19:03:53 on Fri, 4 Mar 2016,
Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>> Traffic Wardens can only do parking tickets, not even obstruction and
>> stopping in a cycle lane. Anything to do with actual driving needs a
>> policeman.
>
>Actually one booked me for no tax disk while it was in a car park otherwise
>legally parked.

I've heard about such things, but it's not a "driving" offence.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nbcrb1$ngc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 20:34:09 on Fri, 4 Mar 2016,
Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@RationalThought.com> remarked:

>> Agreed - I always reverse out. I can wait until the road is clear
>> and inconvenience nobody. People reversing in cause congestion,
>> frustration, and accidents, they cannot wait until the road is clear,
>> as they're already on it.
>
>Even though the Highway Code advises against this?
>Tips:
>Stop just past your drive if legal to do so.

It's only not legal on Red Routes. Or are they making the astonishing
assumption that just past your drive is somewhere you can parallel park,
that hasn't already been grabbed by someone else?

And are they assuming your drive is on your nearside; what if it's on
the offside? That complicates things a lot if reversing (but not so much
if trying to go in forwards).

>You will not be inconveniencing anybody if this is legal.

You will be inconveniencing all the people behind you.

>Check mirrors, turn steering wheel and reverse into drive if capable of
>doing so.

And if you aren't "capable" of doing it because the bloke behind is
right up your rear bumper and all you could ever do is drive forwards?

--
Roland Perry

[Mr Macaw]

I assume the problem was I'd driven it there on a public road with no tax disk. So it was a driving offence.

[Davey]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 21:37:34 +0000
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> >You will not be inconveniencing anybody if this is legal.
>
> You will be inconveniencing all the people behind you.
>
> >Check mirrors, turn steering wheel and reverse into drive if capable
> >of doing so.
>
> And if you aren't "capable" of doing it because the bloke behind is
> right up your rear bumper and all you could ever do is drive forwards?

Amen to both those points. By the time you have convinced the guy
behind that you really mean to stop there, he will be right up your
rear bumper, and probably hooting at you as well. And the queue behind
him will be as angry. I would go with the shorter duration of backing
out the next morning.

--
Davey.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ydtkh...@red.lan>, at 21:26:22 on Fri, 4 Mar 2016,

Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>>> Traffic Wardens can only do parking tickets, not even obstruction and
>>>> stopping in a cycle lane. Anything to do with actual driving needs a
>>>> policeman.
>>>
>>> Actually one booked me for no tax disk while it was in a car park otherwise
>>> legally parked.
>>
>> I've heard about such things, but it's not a "driving" offence.
>
>I assume the problem was I'd driven it there on a public road with no tax disk.
>So it was a driving offence.

No, it's a failing to have tax offence, which you can gather on a car
parked on a public road since before the previous tax expired.
--
Roland Perry

[Mr Macaw]

I back into my drive about once every 3 months, because I have something big or heavy in the boot I want to get out more easily. There is no other reason to annoy everyone around me. And if there are loads of other cars about, I'll pull in forwards anyway, then turn it later.