Carryfast:
Rjan:
[…]Firstly why should the ‘commute’ to/from a parked/rescued vehicle away from base either to/from home or ‘accommodation’ be treated any differently to the commute to/from base.
I’m not sure there is an entirely coherent reason for the distinction, but note that the exceptional treatment of the commute as being part of the rest period does not apply to the worker’s “base” from which they happened to start that day, it applies to that worker’s permanent (i.e. settled) workplace.
One of the key differences is that, with a settled workplace, the worker usually has a degree of control over how far they choose to live from work, whereas with temporary workplaces the employer is in control.
There are of course counter-examples in each category, but it’s clearly a balancing act by lawmakers who probably haven’t felt that employers with workforces who attend a settled place via a fixed commute from home don’t tend to need the closest regulation in terms of working hours - the 8 hour day was won in factories at the end of the Victorian period, and these rules weren’t specially designed for drivers.
Or for that matter what’s the point in criminalising employers and drivers in the event of running out of hours for ‘unforeseen’ reasons requiring the driver and vehicle to be ‘rescued’.When surely the rescue itself is evidence of compliance with the law as far as is possible in that case.
Employers aren’t unduly criminalised for truly unforeseeable events. But they are expected to provide reasonable margins in their schedules. Loosely regulated, fragmented, and highly competitive markets in which market players are all trying to squeeze every last lawful second out of the rules (and possibly more) is not necessarily consistent with compliance, but that’s a problem with markets, not with rules.
While if we want ‘enforcement’ and a decent fatigue regime then the best way to get that is to actually state that reduced daily rest can only be used in the case of being away from base with a suitably equipped vehicle and therefore involving no commuting time as part of that regardless.
But what about the perfectly reasonable cases where a lot of the 15 hours consists of loading/unloading time, and the driver is staying in a hotel at the far end and gets a lie in the following morning? There isn’t a simple formula that allows all reasonable work to be done, at the same time as excluding all malign practices.
Or preferably just remove all the potential issues by imposing a blanket unbroken 12 hour daily rest provision requirement.While what is certain is that the EU hours regs regime is unfit for purpose in that regard and we could do a much better job by updating the domestic hours regs regime instead.
None of which will make much difference though in the case of management and a driver without the common sense to realise that a 23.45 start time to run to the IOW from Kent with a return crossing booked for 10.30 am ain’t going to work.
Therefore at face value both should be nicked for scheduling/undertaking an impossible run that would inevitably result in the driver running out of hours without any facilities to take a daily rest provision in the vehicle.
On that note it seems like the perfect storm of thick driver and even more stupid management,all taking on mission impossible without even the luxury ( necessity ) of a sleeper cab equipped truck and instruction to use it if needed.I’m also guessing that the thing might even have been empty for the return run or at least nothing that couldn’t wait for 9 + hours.So not even any need to ‘rescue’ a time sensitive load in that case.Total bunch of muppets.
Indeed. 