Can you reverse along a street road while not wearing a seat belt?

sexmag

Is it legal to drive backwards along a stretch of road and while doing so not wear a seat belt?

I know the law states you can reverse while not wearing a seat belt but I'd like to know if it possible to drive say a mile backwards along a straight road provided you don't endanger traffic or pedestrians as below?

25.—(1) Before reversing a driver shall ensure that he can do so without endangering other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) A driver shall not reverse on to a major road from another road, or whenever his vision is such that to reverse would be likely to endanger other traffic or pedestrians.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/si/294/made/en/print

I'm sure there's probably some other law I'm not seeing so if someone could point me in that direction or answer id appreciate it.

Victor

sexmag wrote: »

I know the law states you can reverse while not wearing a seat belt but I'd like to know if it possible to drive say a mile backwards along a straight road provided you don't endanger traffic or pedestrians as below?

For a mile, driving without due care and attention comes to mind.

Lmklad

sexmag wrote: »

Is it legal to drive backwards along a stretch of road and while doing so not wear a seat belt?

I know the law states you can reverse while not wearing a seat belt but I'd like to know if it possible to drive say a mile backwards along a straight road provided you don't endanger traffic or pedestrians as below?

25.—(1) Before reversing a driver shall ensure that he can do so without endangering other traffic or pedestrians.

(2) A driver shall not reverse on to a major road from another road, or whenever his vision is such that to reverse would be likely to endanger other traffic or pedestrians.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1964/si/294/made/en/print

I'm sure there's probably some other law I'm not seeing so if someone could point me in that direction or answer id appreciate it.

Better look up the amendments. It is now an offence to not wear your seatbelt. Certain exemptions apply but reversing isn’t one of them.

Atlantic Dawn

Clunk click every trip...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddNr7rebaQo

coylemj

Victor wrote: »

For a mile, driving without due care and attention comes to mind.

Not colliding with anything while driving in reverse ipso facto means that you were driving with due care and attention.

Peregrinus

coylemj wrote: »

Not colliding with anything while driving in reverse ipso facto means that you were driving with due care and attention.

Not necessarily. You can be driving carelessly and inattentively, but due to sheer luck or the quick reactions of more careful and attentive road users a collision may be avoided.

sexmag

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not necessarily. You can be driving carelessly and inattentively, but due to sheer luck or the quick reactions of more careful and attentive road users a collision may be avoided.

To clarify I mean driving backward in the correct direction down the road and did not nearly even collide with anyone, literraly driving with due care just backwards.

colm_mcm

So, you were driving in the same direction as the cars on your lane, but pointing in the opposite direction, effectively on the other side of the road than you would usually be on when reversing?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Peregrinus wrote:

Not necessarily. You can be driving carelessly and inattentively, but due to sheer luck or the quick reactions of more careful and attentive road users a collision may be avoided.

No, no it does not. Not in the eyes of the law anyway.

sexmag

colm_mcm wrote: »

So, you were driving in the same direction as the cars on your lane, but pointing in the opposite direction, effectively on the other side of the road than you would usually be on when reversing?

No that's wrong and just to clarify this hasn't happened it's just a made up scenario

I'm saying as if you would drive normally on the correct side of the road in the correct direction just instead of the car facing forward you are reversing,abiding by speed limits etc

Also I was of the understanding that in the cases of reversing that a seat belt did not need to be worn but if someone could link me to the amendment that changed that also I'd appreciate it

GM228

Lillie Thousands Snapdragon wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

coylemj wrote: »

Not colliding with anything while driving in reverse ipso facto means that you were driving with due care and attention.

Not necessarily. You can be driving carelessly and inattentively, but due to sheer luck or the quick reactions of more careful and attentive road users a collision may be avoided.

No, no it does not. Not in the eyes of the law anyway.

The test for the offence of careless driving has always been whether the driver, objectively speaking, was guilty of a deviation from or a failure to meet the standard of care required in driving, they do not have to crash or not in order to satisfy the test.

colm_mcm

sexmag wrote: »

No that's wrong and just to clarify this hasn't happened it's just a made up scenario

I'm saying as if you would drive normally on the correct side of the road in the correct direction just instead of the car facing forward you are reversing,abiding by speed limits etc

Also I was of the understanding that in the cases of reversing that a seat belt did not need to be worn but if someone could link me to the amendment that changed that also I'd appreciate it

What you’re describing is what I’m describing.

coylemj

GM228 wrote: »

The test for the offence of careless driving has always been whether the driver, objectively speaking, was guilty of a deviation from or a failure to meet the standard of care required in driving, they do not have to crash or not in order to satisfy the test.

Agree 100%.

My point was that if you were reversing down a street, not hitting something would in and of itself show that you were driving with due care and attention since the slightest lapse in concentration when reversing and you'd be virtually certain to hit someone or something.

I was replying to a poster who suggested that simply driving down a street in reverse would constitute careless driving.

GM228

coylemj wrote: »

Agree 100%.

My point was that if you were reversing down a street, not hitting something would in and of itself show that you were driving with due care and attention since the slightest lapse in concentration when reversing and you'd be virtually certain to hit someone or something.

It does not show you were driving with due care and attention, you can drive without care and attention in either direction and still not hit anything, I can't see how a slightest lapse is virtually certain to result in collision, many motorists are blessed with nothing more than luck.

coylemj wrote: »

I was replying to a poster who suggested that simply driving down a street in reverse would constitute careless driving.

I would imagine Victor's point would fall more into the could rather than would category.

Victor

coylemj wrote: »

I was replying to a poster who suggested that simply driving down a street in reverse would constitute careless driving.

My point was doing it for a mile.

Peregrinus

When reversing, you don't have a clear a field of vision, or (for most drivers) as effective control over steering and even speed, as you do when proceeding conventionally. That isn't in itself an automatic case of driving without due care and attention, but it greatly increases the likelihood, that, if you drive that way on the public road for a mile or more, you will encounter circumstances where these limitations mean you are driving without d.c. and a.

The other point about reversing, of course, is that your speed is very limited by the low gear. If you're driving on the public road for a significant time in reverse, you're likely before long to find that you are driving slowly enough to materially inconvenience other road users. You're also driving in an unexpected fashion which makes it difficult for other road users to assess what you are doing, and what you are about to do - nobody expects you to reverse for more than a few metres, and reversing is normally associated with manouvering into or out of a confined space, not with making progress on the road. All of this, I think, puts you at risk of a charge of driving without reasonable consideration, which is a lesser charge than d.c and a., but still attracts 2 penalty points.