ADUK Archive

hir wrote:

ROG wrote:This is the actual EU LAW ......

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 013:EN:PDF
Article 9
2. Any time spent travelling to a location to take charge of a
vehicle falling within the scope of this Regulation, or to return
from that location, when the vehicle is neither at the driver's
home nor at the employer's operational centre where the
driver is normally based, shall not be counted as a rest or
break unless the driver is on a ferry or train and has access to a
bunk or couchette.

This is fascinating stuff, no, really.

Is the legislation saying that a driver, in the circumstances cited by the OP, could not get a train home unless he had access to a bunk or couchette on that homeward bound train? An unlikely scenario given the state of Britain's railways! Am I completely missing the point or is the law a complete ass; maybe it's just me that's being an ass?

No, I think it's saying that the trip home by train can't count as "rest" unless they have access to a bunk/couchette - ie they still have to get some rest at home before they can drive again.

jont wrote:No, I think it's saying that the trip home by train can't count as "rest" unless they have access to a bunk/couchette - ie they still have to get some rest at home before they can drive again.

Ah, I see. The travel home on the train from a non-depot location is a sort of limbo world. Neither "work" nor "rest". That makes sense. Well not really, but I think I now understand how the legislation works.

But, having said that, hasn't someone said that one of their drivers got in to trouble when being given a lift home. Which makes me think that the time spent in the employer's vehicle being ferried home is neither "limbo" nor "rest" but something more sinister dreamt up by the Brussels bureaucrats. I can't imagine why.

Given that one can "rest" just as easily on a train as one can at home, - [no children demanding help with their homework - no wife nagging about the jobs that need doing], do we know the intention behind this particular piece of legislation? It obviously isn't the quality of "rest" that's at issue because travel home from the depot, even on a non-couchette train, is allowed as part of the "rest" period.

Puzzled.

Looking forward to the longer explanation and to see how it differs to local VOSA interpretation too

If they all sang from the same songsheet it would be so easy for us all to be compliant, wouldn't it?

How does any interpretation comply with the law that states that a driver must be 'freely able to dispose of his time' when on a daily rest? If he's free to drive home after leaving work, then surely he's free to drive home when leaving the lorry for another driver to take over?

hir wrote:Given that one can "rest" just as easily on a train as one can at home, - [no children demanding help with their homework - no wife nagging about the jobs that need doing], do we know the intention behind this particular piece of legislation? It obviously isn't the quality of "rest" that's at issue because travel home from the depot, even on a non-couchette train, is allowed as part of the "rest" period.

Puzzled.

I suspect that, with most of the drivers' hours rules, the intention is to try to prevent unscrupulous employers from exploiting their driving workforce. So that they can't tell a driver, "keep going until your 15 hours are up, then, if you're still a couple of hours away from base, don't worry, we'll send a van out to come and get you and bring you back here so you can go home. Oh, what, you don't want to do a 17 hour day every day? Well tough, get another job then!"

Edited to add, they can't rack up 15 hours every day, only for three days a week, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Looking forward to the longer explanation and to see how it differs to local VOSA interpretation too

If they all sang from the same songsheet it would be so easy for us all to be compliant, wouldn't it?

How does any interpretation comply with the law that states that a driver must be 'freely able to dispose of his time' when on a daily rest? If he's free to drive home after leaving work, then surely he's free to drive home when leaving the lorry for another driver to take over?

Stokie1976 wrote:How does any interpretation comply with the law that states that a driver must be 'freely able to dispose of his time' when on a daily rest? If he's free to drive home after leaving work, then surely he's free to drive home when leaving the lorry for another driver to take over?

While the driver is being transported, he is not free to dispose of his time. See explanation above as to the prevention of exploitation.
Once back at base and the driver leaves work, he's free to dispose of his time. If, for example, he choses to live an hour's drive from where he works, that's of no consequence to his employer or to the legislators.

If this rule did not exist, where would you draw the line? Would employers be able send out a second driver in a van and bring the orignal driver back to base if he was three hours away or even more? There'd be nothing to stop them from doing that if that time was allowed to be taken as a daily or weekly rest. The driver could end up spending nearly all of his time under the control of his employer.

Kevin wrote:

hir wrote:Given that one can "rest" just as easily on a train as one can at home, - [no children demanding help with their homework - no wife nagging about the jobs that need doing], do we know the intention behind this particular piece of legislation? It obviously isn't the quality of "rest" that's at issue because travel home from the depot, even on a non-couchette train, is allowed as part of the "rest" period.

Puzzled.

I suspect that, with most of the drivers' hours rules, the intention is to try to prevent unscrupulous employers from exploiting their driving workforce. So that they can't tell a driver, "keep going until your 15 hours are up, then, if you're still a couple of hours away from base, don't worry, we'll send a van out to come and get you and bring you back here so you can go home. Oh, what, you don't want to do a 17 hour day every day? Well tough, get another job then!"

Edited to add, they can't rack up 15 hours every day, only for three days a week, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Yes, that would make sense.

hir wrote:

Kevin wrote:

hir wrote:Given that one can "rest" just as easily on a train as one can at home, - [no children demanding help with their homework - no wife nagging about the jobs that need doing], do we know the intention behind this particular piece of legislation? It obviously isn't the quality of "rest" that's at issue because travel home from the depot, even on a non-couchette train, is allowed as part of the "rest" period.

Puzzled.

I suspect that, with most of the drivers' hours rules, the intention is to try to prevent unscrupulous employers from exploiting their driving workforce. So that they can't tell a driver, "keep going until your 15 hours are up, then, if you're still a couple of hours away from base, don't worry, we'll send a van out to come and get you and bring you back here so you can go home. Oh, what, you don't want to do a 17 hour day every day? Well tough, get another job then!"

Edited to add, they can't rack up 15 hours every day, only for three days a week, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Yes, that would make sense.

Now all we need is similar legislation to protect us from nagging wives

The regulations I quoted from are EU law which trumps UK law so there is no need to make UK law for those regulations

When the regs mention trains with bunks they are referring to trains which the truck can be transported on and the driver has their own 'cabin type room' like on a ferry

Mentioning shift times like 15 hour days is likely to get a driver into hot water because the EU regs work on the amount of rest required in a 24 hour period from starting a shift

It is possible to do 6 x 15 hour shifts in a row if the 3+9 rest rule is used

ROG wrote:The regulations I quoted from are EU law which trumps UK law so there is no need to make UK law for those regulations

I don't believe that's the case. EU regulations are written into the laws of England and Wales, and of Scotland, in order for them to apply in those countries.

David

kfae8959 wrote:

ROG wrote:The regulations I quoted from are EU law which trumps UK law so there is no need to make UK law for those regulations

I don't believe that's the case. EU regulations are written into the laws of England and Wales, and of Scotland, in order for them to apply in those countries.

David

That's what I thought, until ROG stated otherwise.

From: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduction/what_regulation_en.htm

Regulations are the most direct form of EU law - as soon as they are passed, they have binding legal force throughout every Member State, on a par with national laws. National governments do not have to take action themselves to implement EU regulations.

Every day I learn something new

EU directives need to be made into UK law but not EU regulations