Wing mirrors tucked in – driving with due care then???

[johndoc2000]

How many times have we seen people driving around town, national roads or motorways with wing mirrors folded back from when they were last parked up?

Question – is this an open and shut case of driving without due care?

What does a BIB think when these jokers are (regularly) spotted?
If your wing mirrors are folded back, then how did you just perform that turn without checking for other road users under/over taking. Mirrors are in the MOT test so VOSA seem to think they're necessary.
Roundabouts, motorways and all the rest – its worrying when you see these people – they just can’t be paying attention!!!

(This has got to be right up there with driving at night with no lights on! 'Your dashboard is completely dark! What speed are you doing!?!? Is your oil water ok??!??')

Edited by johndoc2000 on Friday 16th June 15:27

[tigger1]

Not that long ago some cars only had one wing mirror (some VWs I think, probably others, I'm too young to remember)...so perhaps they just always look over their shoulder? Not ideal, but would do the job.

Still, it is annoying. As for speed...you can always have a pretty good idea what speed your doing from engine speed / responsiveness </devils advocate>

Lights off though is mental. "Where's the road gone?!?"

[pdV6]

I think the legal requirement is just to have one mirror... AFAIK this can be internal.

Therefore driving with one or both mirrors folded, whilst blatantly stupid and clearly due to lack of attention, can't possibly be legally termed as driving without DC&A.

[dougc]

AFAIK MoT requirement for modern cars is 2 mirrors. Cars before a certain date (sometime in the '70's I think) only need one.

More than prepared to be wrong on both counts though....

[justinp1]

dougc said:

AFAIK MoT requirement for modern cars is 2 mirrors. Cars before a certain date (sometime in the '70's I think) only need one.

More than prepared to be wrong on both counts though....

Mid to late eighties Testarossas only had one mirror on the drivers side. I think they changed this because it looked crap rather than for any other reason though!

[vonhosen]

You have to have two mirrors, one of which must be offside.

[Lambochick]

vonhosen said:

You have to have two mirrors, one of which must be offside.

I'm screwed then - never did understand the offside rule!

[^Slider^]

Due care is the manor of driving.
Mirror offences would be a construction and use offence ie mirrors not conforming if they are tucked in.

But should an accident occur which could have been advoided by the use of the mirrors it would be a due care issue.

[johndoc2000]

dougc and vonhosen are right. After 1/6/78, cars need
- one external offside
- one of either external nearside or internal

Before that, they needed one internal or one external
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506860-05.hcsp#P494_26344

Its and open and shut to me anyway - I always stay clear of these jokers. Don't want it to be my bodywork that wakes them up from their snooze/commute!!

Would any of our BiB friends have a word and ask them what they thought those shiny things stuck on the side were for though
(edit - noted Slider.
But if their WM's are tucked in, then the manner in which they are driving is as follows:
Signal - Manouvre)

Edited by johndoc2000 on Friday 16th June 16:18

[^Slider^]

Obviously suitable advice should be given and if they did so on another occasion then FPN would follow.
Depends on the officer some would ticket straight off others would warn first then ticket on another occasion

[^Slider^]

Yeah i appreciate the point that they may not have the observation aspect. But MSM is not a requirement.

Thats why the construction and use aspect is there to be used as a warning.

Agreed you should always observe before any manouver but alot of people with wing mirrors dont look either. We cant deal in the future for something that may happen.

If a collision was to occur then it would be a factor for Due care in the fact they could not have looked rather than the assumption that they did not look if they had wing morrors.

[allaway]

Even if mirrors are folded out there is no guarantee drivers will look in them or act correctly. In the same way that it doesnt matter how high the standard of the driving test it doesnt guarantee that drivers will continue to drive to a high standard.

[tigger1]

^Slider^ said:

<snip>We cant deal in the future for something that may happen. </snip>

So speeding then...is dangerous because...something MIGHT happen to make it dangerous?
Posession of a weapon is an offence because...one MIGHT use it.

Folding your mirrors in and then not bothering to use them is an offence because...

God the law is an ass.