Reversing signal

[malc d]

I've just come across a ' Backalert ' reversing bleeper in the C.A.K. Tanks brochure.

This gadget, which is simply a replacement for the reversing light bulb, beeps a warning when reversing but can be turned off when required, e.g. at night on site.

Has anyone any experience of these. They cost about £35 so it would be nice to know how effective / durable they are before considering one.

Thanks

[Basil]

Hi malc,

 

I believe that these are not legal on vehicles under a certain weight.

 

Bas

[michele]

Basil,

Dont rush off ! WHY ????

[Dave Newell]

technically they are only legal on vehicles over 3500KGs MAM but I've never heard of anybody being even warned over having them fitted to lighter vehicles. They do potentially provide warning to passers by that a vehicle is about to reverse, although I'm pretty sure you'll still get wallies who will walk across behind the moving vehicle 8-) .

 

D.

[michele]

So the law is an ass .

Go ahead and fit it atleast you are trying to help people .

[tonyishuk]

Same as

 

http://www.care4car.com/productdisplay/productid/66/Reverse_Alert_Bleeping_Bulb.html ??

 

A little cheaper ?

 

Rgds

[Guest Tracker]

A good idea but just stand in any bus station or anywhere that hgvs are turning and notice how many people are totally oblivious to these bleepers?

 

Nevertheless if it does help avoid a nasty incident it ought to be worth a try if one feels so inclined?

[paulni]

I drive an HGV and yip some people do seem to ignore them. Especially in pedestrian precincts where some people seem to think we shouldn't be driving. How else do we get to the delivery points!! >:-( >:-(

Paul

 

A good blast of the airhorn soon shifts them! (lol)

[David B]

I fitted a beeping bulb (bought on Ebay) to my Nuevo. As well as telling people you are reversing, it tells you that you have correctly engaged reverse gear!

 

David

[Brian Kirby]

However, obvious this may seem, they are no substitute for someone acting as lookout.  Whatever the audible warning, there is always the danger that a child or animal does not react, and there are also the deaf.  If a lookout is not possible, a reversing camera is the next best option, then good sensors.  The onus is firmly on the driver.  Of course, the audible warning could be beneficial in conjunction with any of the above, but I don't think it can be looked upon as a substitute.

Should there be an accident while using one, involving a vehicle on which they are not legal, I guess it is remotely possible the audible warning might make matters worse for the driver.  It might be claimed, for example, that undue reliance had been placed on the audible warning by the driver, who consequently had been acting carelessly, or recklessly.  Pure conjecture, of course, and highly dependent on circumstances, but not impossible.

[SID RAT]

I've been using a bleeper for years and regard it as an add on to the things Brian suggests in his post. There are times when pedestrians ignore it, but then they would probably ignore someone with a red flag and a megaphone as well. And when I'm on my own it's better than nothing. Mine came from Vehicle Wiring Products (www.vehicleproducts.co.uk) and switches off when the lights are on. Price £10.50 + VAT.

 

 

[malc d]

Thanks for all those replies, some interesting stuff there.

A bleeper is of course not a substitute for a camera, it has a different purpose.

(A camera doesn't warn anyone that you are about to reverse).

Interesting also to see such a wide price range, I'll have to find out what the differences are.

The ' legallity ' bit seems strange - you would think safety devices would be welcome on any vehicle.

Thanks again to all.

[Basil]

Dave Newell - 2007-12-13 3:05 PM

 

technically they are only legal on vehicles over 3500KGs MAM but I've never heard of anybody being even warned over having them fitted to lighter vehicles. They do potentially provide warning to passers by that a vehicle is about to reverse, although I'm pretty sure you'll still get wallies who will walk across behind the moving vehicle 8-) .

 

D.

 

I have no axe to grind here but it is strange how people can turn on and turn off the fact of legality e.g. A frames are 'technically' illegal the reversing bleepers ARE illegal on vehicles under the specified weight. nobody has been prosecuted or warned (with proof other than my friends second cousin twice removed says) for using an A frame but you cannot use the same argument for something that is actually stated as illegal in the C&U regulations.

Incidently it is also illegal to use any of them after dark some do not have auto shut off so that can affect the price.

 

Bas

[Guest Tracker]

And the noise that these bleeping bleepers make just adds to rest of the assault on your ears that venturing into any town centre brings - yuk!

[tonyishuk]

Tracker - 2007-12-14 3:28 PM

 

And the noise that these bleeping bleepers make just adds to rest of the assault on your ears that venturing into any town centre brings - yuk!

 

and on the campsite, at sleepytime, when you decide to re-level the m/home. :$

[Guest JudgeMental]

Dave Newell - 2007-12-13 3:05 PM

 

technically they are only legal on vehicles over 3500KGs MAM but I've never heard of anybody being even warned over having them fitted to lighter vehicles. They do potentially provide warning to passers by that a vehicle is about to reverse, although I'm pretty sure you'll still get wallies who will walk across behind the moving vehicle 8-) .

 

D.

 

Yes and in front of them! our London Mayor Ken Livingston who pushed traffic marshals out of way and marched out in front of lorries (Kings X rail project last month)

 

 

[davenewellhome]

Basil - 2007-12-14 3:22 PM

 

Dave Newell - 2007-12-13 3:05 PM

 

technically they are only legal on vehicles over 3500KGs MAM but I've never heard of anybody being even warned over having them fitted to lighter vehicles. They do potentially provide warning to passers by that a vehicle is about to reverse, although I'm pretty sure you'll still get wallies who will walk across behind the moving vehicle 8-) .

 

D.

 

I have no axe to grind here but it is strange how people can turn on and turn off the fact of legality e.g. A frames are 'technically' illegal the reversing bleepers ARE illegal on vehicles under the specified weight. nobody has been prosecuted or warned (with proof other than my friends second cousin twice removed says) for using an A frame but you cannot use the same argument for something that is actually stated as illegal in the C&U regulations.

Incidently it is also illegal to use any of them after dark some do not have auto shut off so that can affect the price.

 

Bas

 

Exactly what are you trying to say Bas? I have never condemned anyone for using an A frame but yes I have pointed out the legal issues just as I have pointed out the legal issues regarding reversing bleepers.

 

The fact that you quote my post before stating that "...it is strange how people can turn on and turn off the fact of legality e.g. A frames are 'technically' illegal the reversing bleepers ARE illegal on vehicles under the specified weight." suggests that you are pointing to me as being selective with my interpretation of the law.

 

I have no axe to grind either but I for one don't find your posting helpful in this discussion.

 

D.

[Basil]

Hi Dave,

 

Sorry you don't find my posting very helpful on this discussion, that is your perogotive, but I also did not find your posting helpful as your term stating that bleepers are 'technically' illegal on vehicles under 3500kg plus your inference that it does not matter anyway as you had not heard of any prosecutions does not alter the fact that it is definately, and in the written word of this country's law, illegal.

As you are so conciencious in upholding the laws, e.g. on speeding or on information on 'A' frames, that to suggest that a definately illegal act is ok to be ignored, by implication of your post, I find that selective to, use your term.

Sorry if that offends you but that is how it reads to me.

 

Bas

[Mel B]

Now then boys, too close to Christmas for there to be 'sparks flying' o here. Settle down and have some egg-nog otherwise you won't get any pressies from Father Christmas. :D

[davenewellhome]

Bas, I stated these bleepers are "technically" illegal as that is exactly what they are. they do not meet C&U regs for vehicles under 3.5 Tonnes GVW, that in my book is technically illegal. A pretty unequivocal term I would have thought! I never said it was OK to use them, I stated a fact, I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for using them on a lighter vehicle. A frames are "technically" illegal as is speeding. They are all three "technically" in disharmony with one or more legal aspects of driving a vehicle on UK roads. I simply don't understand what relevance to the subject of this thread your posting has.

 

Perplexed, D.

[woody.]

Just seen this on e bay only a few left in sale .......buy now

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2601

[Brian Kirby]

davenewell@home - 2007-12-15 8:43 PM Bas, I stated these bleepers are "technically" illegal as that is exactly what they are. they do not meet C&U regs for vehicles under 3.5 Tonnes GVW, that in my book is technically illegal.

It might be helpful to this discussion if anyone could quote what the C&U actually says.  I have tried to find the reference to reversing warnings, but drew a blank.  The obvious shortcoming is in respect of the deaf, for which I believe strobes were permitted, but what one really needs to know, surely, is if C&U actually says reversing warnings may not be used on vehicles weighing less than 3,500Kg, or whether it merely says they are obligatory for vehicles (but which vehicles?) over 3,500Kg, but remains "silent" on other categories.

If we at least knew that, we could all judge what their legal status is, and the debate could be put to bed.

Can anyone help?  I know MelE has access to C&U, but I couldn't even trace whether this is in the original regs, or in one of the many SIs or amendments issued since.

Incidentally, and to save you all lots of wasted time searching, C&U was issued the year before Acts and Statutory Instruments were published to the web, so although the amendments etc are visible, helpfully, the Regs themselves are not!  Doh!

[malc d]

As I feel a bit guilty about my thread starting an argument can I just say that I believe that Dave and Bas are actually in agreement that bleepers are illegal on vehicles under 3500 KGs, but just express it in different ways.

 

My interpretation is:

 

Dave is saying that they are illegal, but because people have fitted them to lighter vans, without prosecution, they may be unaware that they are illegal.

But, technically, or actually, they are illegal.

 

Bas is is saying that they are illegal (full stop).

 

 

I am hoping this is of some help as it is not in any way intended to interfere in their exhange.

It's just a bit of unsolicited arbitration.

( Feel free to tell me to go away).

[davenewellhome]

Thanks Malc, our little missives to each other are not in any way your responsibility. Bas and myself have been interchanging via web forums for a while now and although it might appear we are a pair of old washer women at each others throats the truth is quite different. Please don't feel in any way responsible for our little tiff.

 

I think the debate centres around our individual interpretations of the word "technically". I think over the years that this word has come to mean "illegal but nobody cares" whereas my use of the term was intended to mean "technically illegal means illegal".

 

No offence taken or meant, D.

[djchapple]

Any form of signaling is much more useful when only a few people are using it.

 

For example when greyhound coaches in the USA were the only ones using dipped headlights in daylight the bus journeys became much safer. Once most cars started using dipped headlamps in daylight this benefit disappeared.

 

It will be the same with reversing beepers.

 

Has anyone visited B&Q lately. Almost all the time we are being driven mad by motion beepers on their fork lifts. These beep when in forward and reverse gear.

 

Is it only me or are others fed of of being bombarded by noise wherever we go. One of the worst offenders are those who believe that wallpaper music is absolutely necessary all the time. Even serious programmes about current affairs and nature are overlaid with very distracting music.