shep532:
dieseldave:
chappy261 said this, which IMHO is incorrect:
chappy261:
any mistake you do like forgetting to change your tacho to rest, you must take 2 printouts and write on the back of both that a mistake was made and note the time of the rest period should have been. you keep one for 28 days and give the other to your transport manager for their records.
dieseldave:
chappy261’s wording suggests to me that he strongly believes what he wrote, which if you read the links I provided above prove that this isn’t correct. I’ve even suggested where I think he might have got confused, because sometimes two printouts are actually required.
I have read what chappy261 posted and cannot see why it isn’t correct.
Shep,
I quoted the whole of chappy 261’s first post on this topic, and it’s not a selective quote, so there’s nothing added or removed.
If you cannot see why chappy261 is incorrect, can you point to the part of the 561/2006 or GV 262-03 that I’ve missed?
shep532:
He hasn’t said that in the situation described by the OP he should take 2 print outs etc etc. He has said that ‘in general’ if you make a mistake do 2 print outs, write on them etc etc and I believe that to be sound advice. His post starts “Any mistake you do like forgetting to change your tacho to rest”. I read that to mean that if you make a mistake - do 2 print outs, write the story on the back of both, hand one in and carry one for 28 days.
The one word in chappy261’s post that seems to have caused the multiple posts is the word MUST, as in “you must take 2 print outs”. I would imagine he used the word ‘must’ because he believes it is a ‘must’ to do this to cover all eventualities.
Agreed, but what “eventualities” could there be?
One certainty is that 561/2006 does not require a print out in the circumstances as stated by chappy261.
Another certainty is that VOSA’s own GV262-03 clearly stops short of making a print out to be an actual requirement in the same circumstances.
I’m at a loss to imagine what other “eventualities” there could be, unless those eventualities are foreseen by some other requirement, such as happens if any person fits any of the bullet points in my last post. 
That’s my point about the importance of knowing exactly where the goalposts are, and the difference between that and good practice.
shep532:
An example “Have you been to see you Mum and Dad for Christmas Pete?”. “No I haven’t”. “Oh but you must!” “Really - I MUST? is it law?? or do you just think I MUST■■?”. Some people use the word must in strange places.
I think this is true, so maybe chappy261 could tell us whether he meant it in that way.
shep532:
How do I cover things like this during DCPC? it all depends how the particular course goes. One of the good aspects of DCPC is that you can easily have 20 drivers from varying backgrounds and with varying knowledge and experience all in one room. We are then able to promote sharing experiences, thoughts and knowledge. By discussing everyones views and thoughts we can come down to a difinitive answer. I often take somebody’s view and use it as an example often ending up quoting the regs from the book to prove/show why this view is right, wrong or just another way of looking at it. You cannot beat real life experiences being presented to the class.
I complete agree with you here Shep, and that’s the very reason why I posted on this topic.
On the one hand we had the OP saying that he knew he needed to take a print-out, and on the other hand chappy261 saying that he must take two print-outs.
I’ll admit that at first I didn’t know who was correct, but surely you can agree that both cannot be correct in law.
I looked into it, and saw where the OP is correct. I also saw where IMHO chappy261 might have got confused.
I still think that chappy261 holds an honestly held, but mistaken belief.
shep532:
In a way that 20 people in the room with a common interest is a ‘little trucknet forum’ where everyone in the room can ‘post’ (speak) but people may think twice before opening their mouths and saying something they would readily type whilst hiding behind a username. therefore it may remain a little more polite
So - in the example of this particular thread. lets say the OP was on the same course as chappy261. OP relays his question and I turn to the class for possible answers. Chappy261 says “Take two print outs etc etc”. I would then pose this to the whole class and take views on it. Discuss the rights and wrongs etc. I am sure this would be along the lines of “Why would you need 2 print outs?” "Well you aren’t wrong but, the rules don’t say I need to do that and I could have done this or this or that … " Chappy261 would be able to put his reasoning across - and that is exactly what this forum does not allow people to do. I always try to include people in the classroom. Some don’t want to be included, some enjoy it but it certainly benefits the group.
If nobody in the group feels talkative and doesn’t want to join in - then it helps if the trainer has a few experiences to draw on (i.e. ex-driver)
I also encounter this in a classroom, which IMHO is why I think it’s very important that the exact goalposts are properly known, as well as your point about being an ex-driver. Only then can an instructor do a good job of ‘chairing’ the ensuing discussion.
shep532:
didn’t chappy261’s first post need a reply such as “Well yes you could do that, but I don’t believe the law says you have to. The law actually says blah blah blah and I would suggest the OP did this, this and that rather than 2 print outs etc”.
I think I did exactly that, so I’ll stand by what I said in my post above on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 5:12 pm
shep532:
Anyway - the final answer was correct. the OP got his advice and learnt from it.
The problem that sometimes raises its head is that sometimes (Eg. when company policy is given as ‘the law’) an OP can end up having to make a choice between well-meant, but conflicting pieces of advice.
I also learned what the actual requirement is too. 
No matter which way chappy261’ meant to write his advice, I reckon the replies to the OP prove the need for clarity.
