Reversing whilst looking forward

[sussex2]

Interesting attitude? If you are parking in shall we say a supermarket or some such do you not regard the pedestrian as having priority? Not a criticism but more a question.

Yes, I do give priopity to pedestrians, but I find that I can see more using mirrors. That's not to say that I neglect to check around. However, as a pedestrian, if I see a vehicle reversing, I stop and wait for my own safety.

It was the use of the word scurry that attracted my attention as it seems to be the predominant feature of UK pedestrians.
They scurry across roads and dart from behind cars; even children seem encouraged to adopt this approach.
It is quite noticeable when I return from abroad and takes a bit of getting used to.
When I am in an area frequented by pedestrians - car parks, driveways, busy mixed streets or garage forecourts the peds have absolute priority as far as I am concerned; however this is not something which seems to be general practice in the UK.
It's all a bit odd.

[fungus]

I think that, although as a driver I give priority if pedestrians are crossing, as a pedestrian, I am wary that the driver may not see me, and consequently tend to stop if a vehicle is reversing. This is probably the result of my parents instilling into me that a driver may not see me, and that the driver can not stop on a sixpence, so look out for yourself.

[Astraist]

I look forward as a method! I do check behind both my shoulders, out the window (which I always open for reversing) and even open the door, get out and around the car or use the assistance of a bystander, all depending on the car.

Looking forwards gives an overall better view through side mirrors to curbs, other cars and alike. It covers the corners and the blindspot behind the C roof pillars. For many drivers who are relatively short, the interior mirror will often provide a better view down into the blindspot behind the rear bumper.

Turning to look behind while stretching up in the seat can sometimes get a better view down into the blindspot and it gives a wider angle than any single mirror, as well as enabling to better gauge distance - so I do turn to look back, but generally I rely more on mirrors.

[TheInsanity1234]

....and (yet) another thing (you'll get tired of this shortly ): in order to give decent coverage for reversing purposes at night, cars should have twin reversing lights, one at each rear corner. I don't like this cheapo system of having a single reversing light at the left rear, and a single fog lamp at the right rear, which is what we seem to have on many cars at the lower end of the price range.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I have always found the cheap system as you describe above to be hugely irritating, not for visibility purposes, but for aesthetic purposes, as I like a car to look symmetrical, and the single colourless lens for a reversing light and a single red lens for a fog light in the same place in the light cluster on the other side just annoys me to distraction.
I do understand that people may see me as a bit batty for this reason, but I still voice my displeasure at this cost-saving scheme.

[GJD]

I do understand that people may see me as a bit batty for this reason, but I still voice my displeasure at this cost-saving scheme.

I don't think that's batty. The asymmetry offends my eye too.

[TheInsanity1234]

I do understand that people may see me as a bit batty for this reason, but I still voice my displeasure at this cost-saving scheme.

I don't think that's batty. The asymmetry offends my eye too.

It annoys me to the point I could never consider purchasing and driving a car which has that sort of set up. Another thing I've just though of:
(It is an exceedingly rare situation, I know, but, the chances are, it will happen)
What if, the vehicle reversing has only one light on the nearside (as often is the case) and they are reversing around a tight left-hand corner which is obscured by a tall hedge (e.g. reversing out of the driveway onto a road) and you don't see the reversing light around the hedge until it is far too late?
If you had two lights, you would see the other light, and be able to brake quickly.
(Incredibly rare, but still...

[sussex2]

I can honestly say the set up of the lights would not influence my decision to buy.
What would influence the decision is how the vehicle drove and handled; whilst I'm at it I would take into consideration safety ratings and bells and whistles but they wouldn't be at the top of the list. If the thing is pug ugly (and there are a lot of them about) it would be discounted irrespective. There is no excuse for that these days.
I own an MX5 and the rear lights of that model ended up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. I could not say however how many and where the various rear lights are without nipping out and looking.
They work and I am thankful for that

[GJD]

If the thing is pug ugly (and there are a lot of them about) it would be discounted irrespective. There is no excuse for that these days.

I thought the excuse behind much modern ugliness was pedestrian safety. It's inconceivable that people could be putting all these hideous blobs on the road because they want to, and I can't believe the light bulbs have blown in all the drawing offices.

[Ancient]

If the thing is pug ugly (and there are a lot of them about) it would be discounted irrespective. There is no excuse for that these days.

I thought the excuse behind much modern ugliness was pedestrian safety. It's inconceivable that people could be putting all these hideous blobs on the road because they want to, and I can't believe the light bulbs have blown in all the drawing offices.

I think the ugliness stems more from secondary safety requirements for the occupants than from pedestrian safety (lower fronts predate pedestrian safety considerations because they look good/sporty, whilst fat ugly pillars are returning despite advances in production because they protect the occupants in the event of a crash).

[TheInsanity1234]

If the thing is pug ugly (and there are a lot of them about) it would be discounted irrespective. There is no excuse for that these days.

I thought the excuse behind much modern ugliness was pedestrian safety. It's inconceivable that people could be putting all these hideous blobs on the road because they want to, and I can't believe the light bulbs have blown in all the drawing offices.

I think the ugliness stems more from secondary safety requirements for the occupants than from pedestrian safety (lower fronts predate pedestrian safety considerations because they look good/sporty, whilst fat ugly pillars are returning despite advances in production because they protect the occupants in the event of a crash).

I do know that there are a lot of cars that look really just *yuck* simply because they have smoothed and curvy fronts that are designed to make the pedestrian feel like s/he is hopping into bed when they're being run over by one of these ugly cars (Just a minor exaggeration really...)
I have always liked Range Rovers simply because they have been one of the most consistently symmetrical cars I've ever seen, and they just look wonderful. They manage to pull off that trick of looking like a gentleman's car, yet being able to shove any MLHs or RLHs out of your way with their presence

[Astraist]

A curvy car, in all aspects, offers better passive safety. A circle or oval shape provides better energy absorption than a square. This engineering concept is a part of many designs, including armored vehicles and tanks, bridges and otherwise.

Pedestrian protection is mainly achieved by creating soft and deformable flashlights (plastic and not glass), bumpers and grills, and by lowering the engine block, alternator and other stiff components from the bonnet, so the flexible tin bonnet can absorb a pedestrian landing on it (head usually falling just short of the front windshield) without their head and torso hitting anything stiff.

[TheInsanity1234]

A curvy car, in all aspects, offers better passive safety. A circle or oval shape provides better energy absorption than a square. This engineering concept is a part of many designs, including armored vehicles and tanks, bridges and otherwise.

Pedestrian protection is mainly achieved by creating soft and deformable flashlights (plastic and not glass), bumpers and grills, and by lowering the engine block, alternator and other stiff components from the bonnet, so the flexible tin bonnet can absorb a pedestrian landing on it (head usually falling just short of the front windshield) without their head and torso hitting anything stiff.

That's exactly it.
Still doesn't make the cars look any nicer

[Ancient]

A curvy car, in all aspects, offers better passive safety. A circle or oval shape provides better energy absorption than a square. This engineering concept is a part of many designs, including armored vehicles and tanks, bridges and otherwise.

Pedestrian protection is mainly achieved by creating soft and deformable flashlights (plastic and not glass), bumpers and grills, and by lowering the engine block, alternator and other stiff components from the bonnet, so the flexible tin bonnet can absorb a pedestrian landing on it (head usually falling just short of the front windshield) without their head and torso hitting anything stiff.

That's exactly it.

Yeahbut

I have always liked Range Rovers simply because they have been one of the most consistently symmetrical cars I've ever seen, and they just look wonderful.

You obviously like the 'little truck' look

They manage to pull off that trick of looking like a gentleman's car, yet being able to shove any MLHs or RLHs out of your way with their presence
Still doesn't make the cars look any nicer

They certainly are effective when tailgaiting, with the high headlights lighting the inside of the car in front (sorry, a long M4 drive yesterday with lots of the Outer Lane Owner's Club in these, indifferent to the congestion or the fact that there were three lanes of brake lights ahead; one nearly lost it at one point - did drop back subsequently though so must have scared him/herself).

[sussex2]

I have always liked Range Rovers simply because they have been one of the most consistently symmetrical cars I've ever seen, and they just look wonderful.

You obviously like the 'little truck' look
[quote="TheInsanity1234"]

Even this one

http://evoque.landrover.com/gb

To me it's about one of the most hideous cars on the road and would definitely come into my 'pug ugly' category

[TheInsanity1234]

I have always liked Range Rovers simply because they have been one of the most consistently symmetrical cars I've ever seen, and they just look wonderful.

You obviously like the 'little truck' look

Even this one

http://evoque.landrover.com/gb

To me it's about one of the most hideous cars on the road and would definitely come into my 'pug ugly' category

*Gasp*
I adore all Range Rovers. (Apart from the useless '04-'13 Sport model. That was just awful.)
Having said that, I have a passion for Rolls Royces anyway, and I don't think they have that "mini truck" look.
There are many cars I like that definitely do not go under that 'little truck' look xD
A particular favourite of mine is the '06 Ford Fiesta. Wonderful car.