It’s quite straightforward - Someone asserted (in a discussion about reversing lamps) that it was a legal requirement for all lights fitted to a truck to work (presumably including said reversing lamps). I said there was no no such requirement, not even in the RVLR. You then challenged this, posting chunks from said RVLR in support of this. I pointed out that said chunks actually confirm what I said (as they don’t mention maintenance of reversing lamps - nor BTW do they mention maintenance of various other “optional” lamps such as warning beacons, special warning beacons, front fog lamps, work lamps etc) - i.e. that there is no general requirement for all lamps that are fitted to actually work - only the “obligatory” ones.
No handbags involved (they’re not mentioned either, BTW).
My thoughts are, working on a theoretical basis, that the origin thread poster noted that he/she was aware that certain vehicular lamps were/are optional and are not obligatory, as can be confirmed /denied by the RVLR 1989.
The .Co. mentioned has felt a need to post upon the notice board aligning to said subject matter.(wording is not known and we are working on 3rd party hearsay).
The operation and use of the vehicle is not compromised by the lack of operational reversing lights that are fitted, but none the less are mentioned to be defective and a procedure should be followed to complete rectification of fault/s as soon as is reasonably practical.
Given that the driver mentions that they have done a routine vehicle inspection and duly reported, thereby full filling their initial objectives,
It is however noted that the vehicle is frequently used in various public trafficked areas whether that be vehicular or pedestrian.
It would not be unreasonable for the Co. to ask the driver to continue their duties and proceed with due caution having carried out a dynamic risk assessment at each reached delivery location.
If there are Health and safety risk implications for a reversing manoeuvre, then the use of a suitably trained `banksperson’ could be utilised and if totally inappropriate or unsafe, then the manoeuvre should not be attempted .
Certainly one factor lays on the driver as they are responsible on their part to fulfill their outlined duties and have a safety obligation.
Refusal can cause irritation, but the driver should not be reprimanded or (felt to) be victimised for their refusal and request.
Providing the relative clarification can be identified and disseminated , then all parties can agree.
trux:
My thoughts are, working on a theoretical basis, that the origin thread poster noted that he/she was aware that certain vehicular lamps were/are optional and are not obligatory, as can be confirmed /denied by the RVLR 1989.
The .Co. mentioned has felt a need to post upon the notice board aligning to said subject matter.(wording is not known and we are working on 3rd party hearsay).
The operation and use of the vehicle is not compromised by the lack of operational reversing lights that are fitted, but none the less are mentioned to be defective and a procedure should be followed to complete rectification of fault/s as soon as is reasonably practical.
Given that the driver mentions that they have done a routine vehicle inspection and duly reported, thereby full filling their initial objectives,
It is however noted that the vehicle is frequently used in various public trafficked areas whether that be vehicular or pedestrian.
It would not be unreasonable for the Co. to ask the driver to continue their duties and proceed with due caution having carried out a dynamic risk assessment at each reached delivery location.
If there are Health and safety risk implications for a reversing manoeuvre, then the use of a suitably trained `banksperson’ could be utilised and if totally inappropriate or unsafe, then the manoeuvre should not be attempted .
Certainly one factor lays on the driver as they are responsible on their part to fulfill their outlined duties and have a safety obligation.
Refusal can cause irritation, but the driver should not be reprimanded or (felt to) be victimised for their refusal and request.
Providing the relative clarification can be identified and disseminated , then all parties can agree.
Hi heels not necessary as matching attire
I suppose that’s as close as we’ll get to an admission that there is indeed no general requirement, under the RVLR (or any other legislation) that all lamps fitted to a vehicle must work (not even reversing lamps).
They probably put a memo out because they were getting fed up of people whining about it. If the light clusters were smashed or the tyres were about to blow fair enuff refuse it but when you know it’s not illegal to have a reverse lamp not working just pick up the keys, smile, grab your ■■■■ and go and earn a days wage. Be that little more vigilant when backing into places and Craic on. I’m not having a dig at the op but lately not just on here but talking to drivers out on the road there’s to much ■■■■■■■■ about ■■■■ money or crap conditions and then the same drivers find any excuse to sit in the yard in the morning and toss one off instead of putting them selfs out to get the wheels turning.
Dannyf:
the reverse light is not tested on a mot
but it still should be working it would give police or vosa a reason to look
yes I understand that it’s nice to have a set of fully functional reverse lighting but if they are not required to work by law what’s the original reason to look at what?
"Yes officer I have done my daily checks and my reverse lights are not working "
“It’s OK son they’re not required to work by law”
Is this so hard to understand?
