# Must a car have a reverse gear?



## User (4 Sep 2013)




----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (4 Sep 2013)

Yep your right. My grandad had a reliant with the reverse gear disengaged so he was legally allowed to drive it on his motor bike licence.


----------



## Mile195 (4 Sep 2013)

I don't think there's any law about it. In fact I seem to remember a rather infamous car featured on Top Gear that had a handle on the back to lift it and turn it round by.

What with the average car weighing in at at least a tonne though, I think I'd be reluctant to buy a car without one!!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> As I was riding home today an approaching car suddenly pulled across a left turning I was about to take and stopped right in my path. As it happens I was going quite slowly (uphill), so I just stopped and gave him an 'exasperated' look. He responded with an equally exasperated look.
> 
> I said, 'I want to go down there,' pointing down the turning.
> 
> ...


I don't know the ruling but I do know that the car's not roadworthy.


----------



## IanG1 (4 Sep 2013)

AFAIK there is no legal requirement to have a reverse gear. My other interest is kit cars and some of them that are powered by bike engines do not have a reverse gear unless a separate reverse gearbox is fitted or a starter motor is used to provide an electric reverse


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (4 Sep 2013)

Yes there is for cars over 400 kg iirc


----------



## compo (4 Sep 2013)

Up until 1963 only people with a full car licence could have a reverse gear on a 3-wheeler. Motor cyclist licence holders with no car licence had to have the reverse gear blanked off if it was fitted. The change of law in 1963 means that anyone can now have a reverse gear on a 3-wheeler.


----------



## Tcr4x4 (4 Sep 2013)

Its not tested on the MOT so how would anyone know?


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (4 Sep 2013)

compo said:


> Up until 1963 only people with a full car licence could have a reverse gear on a 3-wheeler. Motor cyclist licence holders with no car licence had to have the reverse gear blanked off if it was fitted. The change of law in 1963 means that anyone can now have a reverse gear on a 3-wheeler.


Hehe...proves I'm old with a good memory.


----------



## compo (4 Sep 2013)

many people are unaware of the changes to the licence groups introduced this year. Passing a motorcycle test no longer gives automatic rights to drive a three wheeler.
"There is still a belief that if you pass a motorcycle test that you can drive a 3-wheeler like a Reliant Robin, this is no longer the case. For those who took a motorcycle test and gained Group A on their license before February 2001, this gave them the full Group B1 entitlement. However, passing your motorcycle test after February 2001 does *not* give you full Group B1 entitlement. For those who passed a car test (Group B), although the driving license may not be explicitly marked with Group B1, it is included because Group B is the main category and also covers the sub-category B1". 

This of course has implications for firms like Morgan and other tricycle makers.


----------



## srw (4 Sep 2013)

Tcr4x4 said:


> Its not tested on the MOT so how would anyone know?


When the mechanic tries to reverse out of the inspection bay it might cause one or two issues...


----------



## Born2die (4 Sep 2013)

There was the peel as well top gear had one on no reverse on that either


----------



## simon the viking (4 Sep 2013)

I had an M.G.B where the reverse gear had packed in, it made parking interesting I had to find spaces in car parks where I could drive through and long spaces in streets. If I needed to reverse it the then girlfriend had to push it (Don't worry she was a strong girl) I straight swapped it for a Ford Orion in the end......


----------



## doug (4 Sep 2013)

A few years ago I was driving down a single track lane and met a Morgan 3-Wheeler coming in the other direction, since there was a passing place just a few metres behind it and my last passing place involved reversing round a blind bend, I asked he driver to reverse, but he replied he didn't have a reverse !
I googled it later and reverse gear was only fitted to some of those old Morgans.


----------



## Tcr4x4 (4 Sep 2013)

Sti


srw said:


> When the mechanic tries to reverse out of the inspection bay it might cause one or two issues...



l wouldn't necessarily fail the mot though. 

Mots are pointless really anyway.. They are only valid for the moment of test. 30 secs out of the test area and anything could happen which would cause a fail. 

A guy I know had a wheel come off on he road out of the garage after an MOT.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> As I was riding home today an approaching car suddenly pulled across a left turning I was about to take and stopped right in my path. As it happens I was going quite slowly (uphill), so I just stopped and gave him an 'exasperated' look. He responded with an equally exasperated look.
> 
> I said, 'I want to go down there,' pointing down the turning.
> 
> ...



Was it a Corsa by any chance?


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> There was a (probably apocryphal) story of a Bond Bug owner who drove into his garage up against the back wall, and then remembered he didn't have reverse so had to sit in the car for hours until someone came home and rescued him.


 
Geek alert: It wouldn't have been a Bond Bug. Bugs looked like a slice of processed cheese and the entire roof section lifted for access. Parking against a wall would have presented no problems.

Parking upside-down would be an issue.








To see what I mean, turn your screen upside-down and look at the image. Look out for cables and stuff if it's a desktop PC.


----------



## Cycleops (4 Sep 2013)

compo said:


> Up until 1963 only people with a full car licence could have a reverse gear on a 3-wheeler. Motor cyclist licence holders with no car licence had to have the reverse gear blanked off if it was fitted. The change of law in 1963 means that anyone can now have a reverse gear on a 3-wheeler.



Must admit I don't remember that.



compo said:


> many people are unaware of the changes to the licence groups introduced this year. Passing a motorcycle test no longer gives automatic rights to drive a three wheeler.
> "There is still a belief that if you pass a motorcycle test that you can drive a 3-wheeler like a Reliant Robin, this is no longer the case. For those who took a motorcycle test and gained Group A on their license before February 2001, this gave them the full Group B1 entitlement. However, passing your motorcycle test after February 2001 does *not* give you full Group B1 entitlement. For those who passed a car test (Group B), although the driving license may not be explicitly marked with Group B1, it is included because Group B is the main category and also covers the sub-category B1".
> 
> This of course has implications for firms like Morgan and other tricycle makers.



Do you work for the DVLA by any chance? Just as an aside I always remember when taking my motorbike test back then and the examiner conducted my emergency stop by jumping out from behind a parked car!


----------



## chriss2.0 (5 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> As I was riding home today an approaching car suddenly pulled across a left turning I was about to take and stopped right in my path. As it happens I was going quite slowly (uphill), so I just stopped and gave him an 'exasperated' look. He responded with an equally exasperated look.
> 
> I said, 'I want to go down there,' pointing down the turning.
> 
> ...



ok, first off, you are correct, although it is not a legal requirement to have a reverse in a car, however this must be by DESIGN, if a car was built with a reverse gear the it must be operational,
if not, the car is not fit to pass an MOT,
then It legally should not be on the road.
simply because the insurance would be instantly void.(car would be effectively
uninsured)
and upon a random police inspection the car would be toed.(policeman would also possibly fine you)

had trouble with this in the past (ironically it was a robin reliant)


----------



## chriss2.0 (5 Sep 2013)

i do it on most of my posts, i find black boring


----------



## slowmotion (5 Sep 2013)

I picked up a tiny rental car in Pisa six years ago. I was a bit nervous about driving amongst Italians, given their reputation. Half an hour later, I attempted to reverse for the first time.......the gearbox was knackered. It all got a bit hooty and shouty and interesting, but ultimately good-humoured.


----------



## swansonj (5 Sep 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Geek alert: It wouldn't have been a Bond Bug. Bugs looked like a slice of processed cheese and the entire roof section lifted for access. Parking against a wall would have presented no problems.
> 
> Parking upside-down would be an issue.
> 
> ...


Boris my friend, I think you are mistaken. I tested your assertion by turning my screen upside down as you suggest. Because I didn't want to get the cables tangled, as you point out, I did it on my iPad. I found that the car stayed the right way up, and, no matter how many times or which way I turned it upside down, there would have been no problem in opening to roof door, as it always remained on top.


----------



## sidevalve (5 Sep 2013)

Most of the above is a bit off the point for the OP. As to whether a 3 wheeler can have or can't have a reverse is irrelevant. I still don't believe a reverse gear is a requirement. So I don't think the guy in the car was actually in the wrong [a bit dim maybe but not breaking any laws].


----------



## uclown2002 (5 Sep 2013)

I refuse to read the green text;most off-putting


----------



## compo (5 Sep 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Geek alert: It wouldn't have been a Bond Bug. Bugs looked like a slice of processed cheese and the entire roof section lifted for access. Parking against a wall would have presented no problems.



I had a Bond Bug. I eventually swapped it for a Messerschmitt car which had far less street appeal (??) but was much more fun. I sold it for £25. I see now they go for thousands. Wish I still had it.


----------



## chriss2.0 (5 Sep 2013)

uclown2002 said:


> I refuse to read the green text;most off-putting


*fair enough, how about blue?*


----------



## chriss2.0 (5 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> It's a bit thoughtless though, as it's very difficult to read. Do you write with a green crayon too?


i apologize, for me green is easier to read, i find black on a white surface hard (dyslexic) i have to use a green piece of plastic to read


----------



## Tanis8472 (5 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> Well, the OP did introduce the three-wheeler thing! Leaving aside the horrible green text, I think chriss2.0 is right and the car would be judged unroadworthy - a lot of people don't realise that even a bald tyre can invalidate their insurance.



No it doesnt 
The third party portion of the insurance is liability for the driver, not the vehicle.
If, however, you are found to have caused the accident due to bad maintenance etc, the ins might try to recover some of their costs from you.

Thats the whole point of third party ins. Its to indemnify you, not the vehicle


----------



## srw (5 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> Thanks for that really helpful contribution - so don't worry folks, just stick with third party policies and there's no need to keep our cars roadworthy .


From the private motor wording of a reputable insurance company:
"You must do all you reasonably can to... keep it in a good an roadworthy condition." I doubt other insurers' wordings are significantly different. 

I'd like to hear the arguments that would mean that a car with a failed reverse gear is roadworthy.


----------



## classic33 (5 Sep 2013)

Why are cars fitted with reversing lights?


----------



## mr_cellophane (5 Sep 2013)

Don't Gold WIngs and some Harleys have a reverse gear ?


----------



## Cycleops (5 Sep 2013)

I think the Lead Wing has one.


----------



## srw (5 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> As you know srw (sorry), I believe insurance companies always look for the slightest reason to avoid paying out to policyholders, so your quote just confirms what I said earlier - unroadworthiness will in effect invalidate people's insurance.


Yes, which means they're driving illegally and could be prosecuted. Good news. AND the RTA would still ensure that that third party liability would apply.


----------



## IncoherentJeff (5 Sep 2013)

Not sure if its a requirement for modern cars, I assume all cars for sale new with in the UK have them these days possibly a few road legal kit-cars don't.
Some classics don't. Unsure if it's true but I like the old tale of people driving bubble cars into garages and getting stuck! Due to no reverse gear & a door on the front 

The guys probably either needs to repair his gearbox or he didn't put the clutch in & moved the gear stick towards a gear resulting in a grinding noise from the gear box, a childish move!


----------



## slowmotion (6 Sep 2013)

2634551 said:


> And how did the locals take it?


 A gentleman, even older than me, kindly pushed the tiny car out of the traffic, and we all had a bit of a laugh.


----------



## Cyclopathic (6 Sep 2013)

Tcr4x4 said:


> Its not tested on the MOT so how would anyone know?


They'd notice when they tried to reverse out of the inspection pit area.


----------



## Tanis8472 (6 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> Thanks for that really helpful contribution - so don't worry folks, just stick with third party policies and there's no need to keep our cars roadworthy .


You're welcome 

I never said that cars should not be roadworthy 
You will get prosecuted for causing an accident if driving an unroadworthy car so its not that simple is it


----------



## PeteXXX (6 Sep 2013)

For an MOT, all lights fitted must work. If a car has a knackered gearbox and the reversing lights doesn't work, it would be a fail. (Yes, I know lots of reversing lights are operated by a switch on the gearstick, not by the gearbox itself)


----------



## sidevalve (7 Sep 2013)

mr_cellophane said:


> Don't Gold WIngs and some Harleys have a reverse gear ?


 
True but its not a requirement. Have you ever tried pushing a goldwing backwards ?!!


----------



## Tanis8472 (7 Sep 2013)

Just been looking into this, and there is no mention in the MOT book about reverse gear being required.
You may get a refussal to test as the tester is unable to reverse from ramp and brake tester.
http://www.partinfo.co.uk/files/VOSA Inspection Manual Classes 3 4 5 & 7.pdf


----------



## machew (7 Sep 2013)

simon the viking said:


> I had an M.G.B where the reverse gear had packed in, it made parking interesting I had to find spaces in car parks where I could drive through and long spaces in streets. If I needed to reverse it the then girlfriend had to push it (Don't worry she was a strong girl) I straight swapped it for a Ford Orion in the end......


Which one did you swap, the girlfriend or the car?


----------



## simon the viking (7 Sep 2013)

machew said:


> Which one did you swap, the girlfriend or the car?


Both as it happens.... the replacement girlfriend (now Mrs V) is worth far more than a Ford Orion


----------



## chriss2.0 (7 Sep 2013)

Tanis8472 said:


> Just been looking into this, and there is no mention in the MOT book about reverse gear being required.
> You may get a refussal to test as the tester is unable to reverse from ramp and brake tester.
> http://www.partinfo.co.uk/files/VOSA Inspection Manual Classes 3 4 5 & 7.pdf



"All original parts must be present and working" that is what we were told when the reverse light switch failed so we replaced it with a manual one. basically if it rolled out of the factory with one, then it must work.


----------



## lukesdad (8 Sep 2013)

chriss2.0 said:


> "All original parts must be present and working" that is what we were told when the reverse light switch failed so we replaced it with a manual one. basically if it rolled out of the factory with one, then it must work.


 Does that include the radio ? Ooh err I could be up sheet creek !


----------



## Tanis8472 (8 Sep 2013)

chriss2.0 said:


> "All original parts must be present and working" that is what we were told when the reverse light switch failed so we replaced it with a manual one. basically if it rolled out of the factory with one, then it must work.



So you are saying that it should be failed as the switch is now not the original?


----------



## chriss2.0 (8 Sep 2013)

we had to replace the microswitch in the gearbox for it to pass, i see what you mean, i will try and find it on the mot list,but i think it only applys to safety and mechanical equipment in the car, so no dont need to worry about radio as i believe these are optional extras


----------



## chriss2.0 (8 Sep 2013)

another interesting thing, the car apparently would also fail if they cant reverse it onto the ramp


----------



## chriss2.0 (8 Sep 2013)

ok i looked it up, i was wrong, apparently its all factory fitted lights must work as intended,
(me thinks that my inspector was being pedantic)

but i did find that must be able to drive in and out under its own power so it should still fail


----------



## on the road (8 Sep 2013)

User13710 said:


> Thanks for that really helpful contribution - so don't worry folks, just stick with third party policies and there's no need to keep our cars roadworthy .


If you don't keep a car roadworthy then it would eventually fail its MOT test.


----------



## Tanis8472 (8 Sep 2013)

chriss2.0 said:


> ok i looked it up, i was wrong, apparently its all factory fitted lights must work as intended,
> (me thinks that my inspector was being pedantic)
> 
> but i did find that must be able to drive in and out under its own power so it should still fail



A technicality 
It would be a refusal to test, hence a fail


----------

