Do I need a rear view mirror?
Discussion
With a PH user name like that I'd have thought you'd have picked up a shed load of road sense and know how useful mirrors can be.
Regardless of whether it's legal please get a mirror.
If someone drives into your rear end while you're stationary at a Give Way line, it'll look better for you if you have a mirror. Trust me.
Regardless of whether it's legal please get a mirror.
If someone drives into your rear end while you're stationary at a Give Way line, it'll look better for you if you have a mirror. Trust me.
carinaman said:
With a PH user name like that I'd have thought you'd have picked up a shed load of road sense and know how useful mirrors can be.
Regardless of whether it's legal please get a mirror.
If someone drives into your rear end while you're stationary at a Give Way line, it'll look better for you if you have a mirror. Trust me.
Eh? I have driven many thousands of miles with out a rear view mirror. Not because I knocked it off with my head but because the vehicle didn't come with one.Regardless of whether it's legal please get a mirror.
If someone drives into your rear end while you're stationary at a Give Way line, it'll look better for you if you have a mirror. Trust me.
carinaman said:
The OP may get used to driving without referring to that mirror, and develop a habit of not using it in future when they're then in vehicles that have a windscreen mirror.
That explains the top driving you get from truck drivers then when they pull ou to engage in a bit of elephant racing.jesta1865 said:
why if they hit him from behind whilst he is stationary it's their fault not his?
Look at the BMW driver in Court yesterday. And all the bickering here about apportioning blame. Is it worth giving the party that hits him, or their insurer any wriggle room for them to say 'But he didn't look in his mirror and his car didn't even have one'? Is it worth it? That wouldn't arise if he fitted a mirror. Excuse culture? Make it about the other party?Mirror Signal Manoeuvre?
Hi OP , I'm afraid that this is another case of just because it passes an MOT doesn't make it legal. If your vehicle has a window in the rear that you can see out of then you require by law to have a rear view mirror and an offside door mirror fitted. I know it's stupid but if for example you were to paint your rear window then you wouldn't need an interior one at all, only a nearside.
This comes under C+U regs Reg 33
6 A wheeled motor vehicle not in items 1 to 5, which is first used on or after 1st June 1978 (or, in the case of a Ford Transit motor car, 10th July 1978)
(i) At least one mirror fitted externally on the offside of the vehicle; and
(ii) at least one mirror fitted internally, unless a mirror so fitted would give the driver no view to the rear of the vehicle; and
(iii) at least one mirror fitted externally on the nearside of the vehicle unless a mirror which gives the driver an adequate view to the rear is fitted internally
So if you have a view to the rear you need an interior mirror.
The MOT requirement is worded differently.
It's not worth the price of a ticket not to get it fixed as I know of some of my colleagues (with standards far lower than mine) that have had cases go to court and the driver been convicted.
This comes under C+U regs Reg 33
6 A wheeled motor vehicle not in items 1 to 5, which is first used on or after 1st June 1978 (or, in the case of a Ford Transit motor car, 10th July 1978)
(i) At least one mirror fitted externally on the offside of the vehicle; and
(ii) at least one mirror fitted internally, unless a mirror so fitted would give the driver no view to the rear of the vehicle; and
(iii) at least one mirror fitted externally on the nearside of the vehicle unless a mirror which gives the driver an adequate view to the rear is fitted internally
So if you have a view to the rear you need an interior mirror.
The MOT requirement is worded differently.
It's not worth the price of a ticket not to get it fixed as I know of some of my colleagues (with standards far lower than mine) that have had cases go to court and the driver been convicted.
carinaman said:
jesta1865 said:
why if they hit him from behind whilst he is stationary it's their fault not his?
Look at the BMW driver in Court yesterday. And all the bickering here about apportioning blame. Is it worth giving the party that hits him, or their insurer any wriggle room for them to say 'But he didn't look in his mirror and his car didn't even have one'? Is it worth it? That wouldn't arise if he fitted a mirror. Excuse culture? Make it about the other party?Mirror Signal Manoeuvre?
i am still at a loss at how not looking in a mirror there or not apportions any blame to the driver sitting in a stationary car hit from the rear.
how would they argue the point if it was a panel van or luton with no rear mirror.
they don't have a leg to stand on.
carinaman said:
If someone drives into your rear end while you're stationary at a Give Way line, it'll look better for you if you have a mirror. Trust me.
I got rear ended at a set of traffic lights years ago. Watched the whole event play out in my rear view mirror. It didn't prevent any of the damage or injuries that ensued. I think I'd rather have not had the opportunity to look in the mirror and contemplate what was going to happen for several seconds as a vehicle bore down on me that had forgotten to brake for a red light. Nos Es Spurius said:
Hi OP , I'm afraid that this is another case of just because it passes an MOT doesn't make it legal. If your vehicle has a window in the rear that you can see out of then you require by law to have a rear view mirror and an offside door mirror fitted. I know it's stupid but if for example you were to paint your rear window then you wouldn't need an interior one at all, only a nearside.
This comes under C+U regs Reg 33
6 A wheeled motor vehicle not in items 1 to 5, which is first used on or after 1st June 1978 (or, in the case of a Ford Transit motor car, 10th July 1978)
(i) At least one mirror fitted externally on the offside of the vehicle; and
(ii) at least one mirror fitted internally, unless a mirror so fitted would give the driver no view to the rear of the vehicle; and
(iii) at least one mirror fitted externally on the nearside of the vehicle unless a mirror which gives the driver an adequate view to the rear is fitted internally
So if you have a view to the rear you need an interior mirror.
The MOT requirement is worded differently.
It's not worth the price of a ticket not to get it fixed as I know of some of my colleagues (with standards far lower than mine) that have had cases go to court and the driver been convicted.
So if the OP blocked the view out of his rear window he'd be OK without a rear view mirror?This comes under C+U regs Reg 33
6 A wheeled motor vehicle not in items 1 to 5, which is first used on or after 1st June 1978 (or, in the case of a Ford Transit motor car, 10th July 1978)
(i) At least one mirror fitted externally on the offside of the vehicle; and
(ii) at least one mirror fitted internally, unless a mirror so fitted would give the driver no view to the rear of the vehicle; and
(iii) at least one mirror fitted externally on the nearside of the vehicle unless a mirror which gives the driver an adequate view to the rear is fitted internally
So if you have a view to the rear you need an interior mirror.
The MOT requirement is worded differently.
It's not worth the price of a ticket not to get it fixed as I know of some of my colleagues (with standards far lower than mine) that have had cases go to court and the driver been convicted.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff