Prison following changes to the Highway Code Rule 91

Anybody got any news on this update regarding the changes

Tired drivers could face unlimited fines and even prison following changes to the Highway Code Rule 91

I found this info gov.uk/guidance/the-highway … -89-to-102

the recent changes to the Highway Code we reported on 14th September, namely ‘Rule 91’ could mean drivers now face unlimited fines and even prison time if it is ‘proven’ they have not had enough sleep or rest prior to their ‘long’ journey.

Here is how the updated Rule 91 now reads on the official gov.uk website

Driving when you are tired greatly increases your risk of collision.

To minimise this risk

make sure you are fit to drive. Do not begin a journey if you are tired. Get sufficient sleep before embarking on a long journey
avoid undertaking long journeys between midnight and 6 am, when natural alertness is at a minimum
plan your journey to take sufficient breaks. A minimum break of at least 15 minutes after every two hours of driving is recommended
if you feel sleepy, stop in a safe place. Do not stop in an emergency area or on a hard shoulder of a motorway (see Rule 262 for guidance on places to take a break when travelling on motorways).
Although the Highway Code in general is referring to motorists, it also applies in full and even more so to vocational drivers. It is by the very nature of a vocational driver’s obligation to record their hours that they will be far more likely to fall foul of this new rule.

The records held on their driver digital card could be used to prove they had been driving fatigued, whereas with a motorist this would naturally be very difficult to prove at all.

Ok so all you fans of in cab cameras and those who justify them, just make sure you look fully alert for those cameras, after your last 3 x15s with 9 hours off in between each of them, and don’t do a ■■■■ big yawn before you go on to experience a sudden unexpected ■■■■ up situation …
Because whether or not that yawn is relevant to it or not, they will sure as hell pin it on you in a court of law.

But hey as you lot always say on here…
If you’re doing nothing wrong you’ve nothing to worry about’’ eh? :bulb:

If you have done nothing wrong you wont be getting your cheeks busted in chokey.

JeffA:
If you have done nothing wrong you wont be getting your cheeks busted in chokey.

That’s my point, though, with a camera in a cab in the situation I pointed out, you ain’t doing anything wrong, you’re just yawning (I have yawning ‘fits’ every ■■■■ morning) .
But by this new criteria for potentially doing time for driving tired , they have something to build a case up against you,.and try and ‘‘prove’’ you were going something wrong…ie driving whilst tired, to use against you. :bulb:

I ain’t one for wishing bad on people, but the irony of one of you lot on here falling foul on this, who justifies cameras would be amusing to say the least. :laughing: …sorry. :blush:

robroy:

JeffA:
If you have done nothing wrong you wont be getting your cheeks busted in chokey.

That’s my point, though, with a camera in a cab in the situation I pointed out, you ain’t doing anything wrong, you’re just yawning (I have yawning ‘fits’ every [zb] morning) .
But by this new criteria for potentially doing time for driving tired , they have something to build a case up against you,.and try and ‘‘prove’’ you were going something wrong…ie driving whilst tired, to use against you. :bulb:

I ain’t one for wishing bad on people, but the irony of one of you lot on here falling foul on this, who justifies cameras would be amusing to say the least. :laughing: …sorry. :blush:

Do you really think your camera doesn’t record mate?
If you had an “event”, they would 100% be able to look back and see your yawning fits. Driving while tired, case closed

How on earth could it be proven that a driver was driving tired from his/her tacho records?if you’re running bent then yes, but if you are complying with their own rules, which incidentally rule that it’s perfectly ok and legal to do 45 hours over a three day period with twenty seven hours off work in that time. More soundbites methinks.

If anyone was interested in doing more for road safety they’d be pushing for a maximum of twelve hours duty followed by a minimum of twelve hours off. But as we all know, that’ll never happen.

idrive:

robroy:

JeffA:
If you have done nothing wrong you wont be getting your cheeks busted in chokey.

That’s my point, though, with a camera in a cab in the situation I pointed out, you ain’t doing anything wrong, you’re just yawning (I have yawning ‘fits’ every [zb] morning) .
But by this new criteria for potentially doing time for driving tired , they have something to build a case up against you,.and try and ‘‘prove’’ you were going something wrong…ie driving whilst tired, to use against you. :bulb:

I ain’t one for wishing bad on people, but the irony of one of you lot on here falling foul on this, who justifies cameras would be amusing to say the least. :laughing: …sorry. :blush:

Do you really think your camera doesn’t record mate?
If you had an “event”, they would 100% be able to look back and see your yawning fits. Driving while tired, case closed

Ok, but I don’t think I said my ‘event’ camera would not record if it went off did I? :neutral_face:
That is exactly what it is for.
On the other hand I know for a fact that in event of the camera going off for any reason it can not see my face…enough said.
As for the outward facing half of it, that ain’t a problem to me whatsoever, I would be and am glad of it in fact.

the maoster:
How on earth could it be proven that a driver was driving tired from his/her tacho records?if you’re running bent then yes, but if you are complying with their own rules, which incidentally rule that it’s perfectly ok and legal to do 45 hours over a three day period with twenty seven hours off work in that time. More soundbites methinks.

If anyone was interested in doing more for road safety they’d be pushing for a maximum of twelve hours duty followed by a minimum of twelve hours off. But as we all know, that’ll never happen.

Exactly !.
Health and safety before all as they try and tell us…my arse.

robroy:

idrive:

robroy:

JeffA:
If you have done nothing wrong you wont be getting your cheeks busted in chokey.

That’s my point, though, with a camera in a cab in the situation I pointed out, you ain’t doing anything wrong, you’re just yawning (I have yawning ‘fits’ every [zb] morning) .
But by this new criteria for potentially doing time for driving tired , they have something to build a case up against you,.and try and ‘‘prove’’ you were going something wrong…ie driving whilst tired, to use against you. :bulb:

I ain’t one for wishing bad on people, but the irony of one of you lot on here falling foul on this, who justifies cameras would be amusing to say the least. :laughing: …sorry. :blush:

Do you really think your camera doesn’t record mate?
If you had an “event”, they would 100% be able to look back and see your yawning fits. Driving while tired, case closed

Ok, but I don’t think I said my ‘event’ camera would not record if it went off did I? :neutral_face:
That is exactly what it is for.
On the other hand I know for a fact that in event of the camera going off for any reason it can not see my face…enough said.
As for the outward facing half of it, that ain’t a problem to me whatsoever, I would be and am glad of it in fact.

My point is that you were sold this camera on the basis that it does not record constantly, only catches events.

The fact is though that it does continually record, and at least a day’s worth of footage will be viewable if they want to, it just gets overwritten each day if not saved

Just seems odd to me that you make so much fuss about people bending over and accepting these cameras, while you literally have one pointed at your face (covered or not) and it could be used to incriminate you just the same as any other

I’m driving while tired approx 99.9% of my working life.

idrive:
My point is that you were sold this camera on the basis that it does not record constantly, only catches events.

The fact is though that it does continually record, and at least a day’s worth of footage will be viewable if they want to, it just gets overwritten each day if not saved

Just seems odd to me that you make so much fuss about people bending over and accepting these cameras, while you literally have one pointed at your face (covered or not) and it could be used to incriminate you just the same as any other

Ok, you make some relevant points tbf, and rather than start arguing over it, I’ll try and explain it from my end,.with a bit of mitigation thrown in.

Firstly I was never ‘‘Sold’’ as such the idea of an inward facing ‘‘event type’’ camera’', (no probs with the outward facing half whatsoever btw)
So about 3 of us very loudly kicked off about it, naively thinking the rest would just do the same, but you can guess the outcome of that one. :unamused:

So we were faced with the choices of jacking (btw a job I quite like) or going along with it all,… or at least being seen to go along with it, but take steps to make the 'best out of a bad situation one of which I pointed out (maybe a bad move on reflection on a public forum :unamused: :smiley: )

I’m fully aware it is on a constant loop, but what I’ve said covers that aspect also.
No doubt there will be maybe some comeback on me in the future, but my camera virtually never goes off anyway, so for now I’ll settle for that, and come to any repercussions when they occur, but it’s been nearly 8 years up to press.

Like I said, salvaging something out of a crap situation,.and making the best of it.
Not an ideal way of dealing with stuff, granted,…but it’s my way.

So that is my point, what is YOUR view on this new legislation, and particularly when you throw inward facing cameras,.especially constant feed surveillance types in the mix?
I (maybe wrongly) think that you are one of those who justify cameras on these threads?..but cba to look back.

It’s not new legislation. The revised Rule 91 is based on exactly the same legislation as the previous version. The absence of a the words MUST or MUST NOT show that it is advice of “best practice”.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

On The Westminster Hour (radio) last night, this woman called Annabel Denham (Director of Communications at the Institute of Economic Affairs), was spouting off about driver’s hours and saying that they needed relaxing.

When the host asked her about safety and working conditions, she said “they are being overly cautious” :open_mouth: :unamused:

I’ve fired off a snotty email. It won’t change her mind, but it made me feel better.

JeffA:
I’m driving while tired approx 99.9% of my working life.

It’s getting tiresome now…

(See what I did there?)

Time they revised the rules then to allow a minimum
Of 12hours off every night except if tramping.
Then even if you have to commute 1hr+ each day it night leave time to actually sleep :exclamation:

Many times…

I’ve had a good nights sleep, a shower, decent breakfast and a stress free day ahead. Within 15 minutes of getting on the road, I’m yawning my head off. I’ve also done 10 hour drives and felt good enough to do another 10.

Apparently we’re now responsible for cyclists who pay no attention to what they’re doing. I’m sensing a pattern.

Driver blame here.

12 on 12 off end of.

robroy:

idrive:
My point is that you were sold this camera on the basis that it does not record constantly, only catches events.

The fact is though that it does continually record, and at least a day’s worth of footage will be viewable if they want to, it just gets overwritten each day if not saved

Just seems odd to me that you make so much fuss about people bending over and accepting these cameras, while you literally have one pointed at your face (covered or not) and it could be used to incriminate you just the same as any other

Ok, you make some relevant points tbf, and rather than start arguing over it, I’ll try and explain it from my end,.with a bit of mitigation thrown in.

Firstly I was never ‘‘Sold’’ as such the idea of an inward facing ‘‘event type’’ camera’', (no probs with the outward facing half whatsoever btw)
So about 3 of us very loudly kicked off about it, naively thinking the rest would just do the same, but you can guess the outcome of that one. :unamused:

So we were faced with the choices of jacking (btw a job I quite like) or going along with it all,… or at least being seen to go along with it, but take steps to make the 'best out of a bad situation one of which I pointed out (maybe a bad move on reflection on a public forum :unamused: :smiley: )

I’m fully aware it is on a constant loop, but what I’ve said covers that aspect also.
No doubt there will be maybe some comeback on me in the future, but my camera virtually never goes off anyway, so for now I’ll settle for that, and come to any repercussions when they occur, but it’s been nearly 8 years up to press.

Like I said, salvaging something out of a crap situation,.and making the best of it.
Not an ideal way of dealing with stuff, granted,…but it’s my way.

So that is my point, what is YOUR view on this new legislation, and particularly when you throw inward facing cameras,.especially constant feed surveillance types in the mix?
I (maybe wrongly) think that you are one of those who justify cameras on these threads?..but cba to look back.

Mate I am not having a go at you at all.
Just letting you know that your camera will definitely be recording and accessible. If your firm told you otherwise then they are lying.

I make no judgement on your personal situation, or anyone elses.

I absolutely do not agree with driver facing cameras. Never knowingly driven with one, turned down agency jobs in the past when they had them fitted.

I run my own trucks now and do not have them fitted and do not intend to.

As for the legislation, load of ■■■■■ like all other government speak. How can it be advised to take a break after two hours when we can legally drive twice that. It’s nonsense

the maoster:
How on earth could it be proven that a driver was driving tired from his/her tacho records?if you’re running bent then yes, but if you are complying with their own rules, which incidentally rule that it’s perfectly ok and legal to do 45 hours over a three day period with twenty seven hours off work in that time. More soundbites methinks.

If anyone was interested in doing more for road safety they’d be pushing for a maximum of twelve hours duty followed by a minimum of twelve hours off. But as we all know, that’ll never happen.

Where do you get the idea that reduced daily rest wouldn’t be used as ‘contributory’ evidence of ‘tiredness’ specifically in a case involving the accusation of tiredness resulting in a collision.Just as being within the speed limit is no defence against a charge of dangerous driving.

LuckyMatty:
AA minimum break of at least 15 minutes after every two hours of driving is recommended
if you feel sleepy, stop in a safe place.

Try that when trunking for the parcel companies, or any company that tracks you in real time. In fact any company who pays you by the hour.

the maoster:
How on earth could it be proven that a driver was driving tired from his/her tacho records?if you’re running bent then yes, but if you are complying with their own rules, which incidentally rule that it’s perfectly ok and legal to do 45 hours over a three day period with twenty seven hours off work in that time. More soundbites methinks.

If anyone was interested in doing more for road safety they’d be pushing for a maximum of twelve hours duty followed by a minimum of twelve hours off. But as we all know, that’ll never happen.

Yes let’s hope it never happens think of the loss of revenue :open_mouth: