1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140 
Bleep warning from SMMT
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE SOCIETY of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is highlighting the potential legal implications of not fitting reversing bleepers to commercial vehicles.
In a legal bulletin issued last week, the SMMT reminds its members — as vehicle operators rather than manufacturers — that reversing bleepers were legalised last February (although not made mandatory) on goods vehicles over two tonnes GVW.
The SMMT says that failure to fit a reversing bleeper could possibly be construed as a failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent a reversing accident, and leave the operator open to a charge of negligence.
Concludes the SMMT: "We suggest that members who do not currently use them should consider taking their Own legal advice • as to whether, in the context of their specific operations, some form of reversing warning device should be fitted."
An SMMT legal adviser told CM last week that it is not pressing for reversing bleepers to be made mandatory, nor is it advising firms to fit them. "What we are doing is drawing their attention to the possible implications of not fitting them."
Central to the argument for reversing warning devices is an accident last November when a reversing London Borough of Brent bus killed a nine-year-old boy.
The Hornsey Coroner recommended that the council fitted its vehicles with audible warning devices.