“The Department for Transport (DfT) has introduced a temporary relaxation of the enforcement of the EU drivers’ hours rules in England, Scotland and Wales for drivers involved in the delivery of Operation London Bridge during the National Mourning period.
This relaxation reflects the urgent case resulting from the demise of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the need for substantial amounts of goods and numbers of personnel to be moved at short notice to support the main official ceremonial events taking place across Great Britain (for example, but not restricted to, Her Majesty’s State Funeral).”
Seems now the Gov have got a taste for it, they can ‘relax’ the rules whenever they see fit (for them only).
I fail to see how providing goods & services for an event should allow drivers to drive longer & rest less.
What next? Individual companies being able to argue the super important nature of their work to necessitate similar ‘relaxation’?
I hope anybody being charged for exceeding their hours, without having an accident/incident, is taking notes.
ScaniaUltimate:
for drivers involved in the delivery of Operation London Bridge during the National Mourning period.
Is probably the most relevant bit.
Relaxation of some EU rules, (does not apply to GB Domestic) for those “drivers involved in supporting Operation London Bridge” and “goods and numbers of personnel to be moved at short notice to support the main official ceremonial events taking place across Great Britain (for example, but not restricted to, Her Majesty’s State Funeral).”
And only after H&S risk assessments, and notifications are passed etc.
It isn`t any type of general “get you home Friday” rule, nor any work 25hrs a day compulsion.
Yeah it’s only going to be applicable to a very small number of drivers working for a very small number of companies. It’s not like the one that ran from 2020 until May where any company could relax the hours and do up to 105hrs duty time over 7 days, take 24hrs off then repeat again.
Nothing wrong there it has been clearly explained. It’s for a good reason.
I’m curious if this could of been done while we was in the EU?
Either way I think it’s fine. Has a very limited scope.
Worth pointing out that such drivers might also need to have appropriate security clearance. Not the sort of people you’d normally find on an agency’s books.
I s’ppose it’s true the old saying ‘‘Nothing is as permanent as a temporary decision (solution?)’’
WheelsofCardiff:
Nothing wrong there it has been clearly explained. It’s for a good reason.
There is everything wrong with it, you have an accident in exceeded hours and you’re a danger to the public, irresponsible, a criminal in fact, who could face jail.
CBA to read the details of this ‘‘concession’’, but I’m assuming it is exceeding present limits.
So then you do it one week when it suits them, and suddenlly it’s deemed ‘safe’ to exceed the (already ridiculous) hours.
I ain’t involved but if I was they would be told to ram it right up there, they can’t have it both ways where one day something is unsafe, the next day it ain’t, and the day after that…back to square one.
Could this have been done if we were still in the EU?
Answer yes, and was frequently done.
Following spring to mind:
Falklands war for drivers employed in servicing ships with provisions prior to sailing south.
Tanker drivers dispute in 2000, for drivers moving foodstuffs to replenish empty supermarket shelves.
I think there was one for the movement of carcasses during foot and mouth.
Each government was allowed to temporarily suspend parts of the regulations for emergency situations as long as there was a defined period, reason and restricted to drivers involved.
mi13ke:
Could this have been done if we were still in the EU?Answer yes, and was frequently done.
Following spring to mind:
Falklands war for drivers employed in servicing ships with provisions prior to sailing south.
Tanker drivers dispute in 2000, for drivers moving foodstuffs to replenish empty supermarket shelves.I think there was one for the movement of carcasses during foot and mouth.
Each government was allowed to temporarily suspend parts of the regulations for emergency situations as long as there was a defined period, reason and restricted to drivers involved.
Correct also used for bad weather. I can’t remember when it was (2012ish) but it was used due to heavy snowfall
mi13ke:
Could this have been done if we were still in the EU?Answer yes, and was frequently done.
Following spring to mind:
Falklands war for drivers employed in servicing ships with provisions prior to sailing south.
Tanker drivers dispute in 2000, for drivers moving foodstuffs to replenish empty supermarket shelves.I think there was one for the movement of carcasses during foot and mouth.
Each government was allowed to temporarily suspend parts of the regulations for emergency situations as long as there was a defined period, reason and restricted to drivers involved.
Falklands war.? …Ok, omething like that would be one of the very few things that would change my stance,.possible saving of servicemen’s lives, fair play, but something enabling paying tribute to the dead?..as much as I respect the Queen,… No chance.
Recruit more drivers working legal hours by offering an excellent pay rate instead.
If the country can afford lavish funerals and lavish Royal and civil ceremonies. it would be a drop in the ocean in comparison.
Anybody,.driver, who agrees to complying to these type of schemes is an idiot imo.
Rules are already in place…to limit the hours we work.
But most drivers fudge them,for the overtime.
I won’t fudge them,which…apparently makes me inflexible
The fact that I’ll do permanent afters,shunting shift…kinda negates my inflexibility .
robroy:
WheelsofCardiff:
Nothing wrong there it has been clearly explained. It’s for a good reason.There is everything wrong with it, you have an accident in exceeded hours and you’re a danger to the public, irresponsible, a criminal in fact, who could face jail.
CBA to read the details of this ‘‘concession’’, but I’m assuming it is exceeding present limits.
So then you do it one week when it suits them, and suddenlly it’s deemed ‘safe’ to exceed the (already ridiculous) hours.
I ain’t involved but if I was they would be told to ram it right up there, they can’t have it both ways where one day something is unsafe, the next day it ain’t, and the day after that…back to square one.
That’s the way I see it too.
This is not a national emergency situation.
If pomp & ceremony are good enough reasons to exceed the ‘safe limits’ then the lobbying hauliers will soon be lowering the bar further for themselves.
This sounds too much like ‘Sunday working will only be on a voluntary overtime basis’ to me.
If it does lead to longer term change (it won’t, but if it does) then it’s no real surprise given that a party is in power who thinks we don’t work hard enough or are productive enough and aren’t overly keen on workers rights either…
The details of the “relaxation” are in essence that your two 10 hour drives in a week can be 11 hours (with the fortnightly driving limit going up to 99 hours) and that the requirement for a full 45 hour Rest every other week can be shuffled around a bit so that you do two Reduced weekly Rests on the trot.
The 60 hour Working Time limit is not changed. The Daily Rest rules are not changed.
There are numerous requirements for hauliers to consult and agree with drivers beforehand, and also to formally notify TPTB in advance of any use of the relaxation. Also risk assessments etc and specific direction that drivers are not expected to drive when tired. Drivers will be required to explain on a printout/chart the specific reason for the extended drive each and every time they do it.
Doesn’t appear to be anything to get worked up about.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
Roymondo:
The details of the “relaxation” are in essence that your two 10 hour drives in a week can be 11 hours (with the fortnightly driving limit going up to 99 hours) and that the requirement for a full 45 hour Rest every other week can be shuffled around a bit so that you do two Reduced weekly Rests on the trot.The 60 hour Working Time limit is not changed. The Daily Rest rules are not changed.
There are numerous requirements for hauliers to consult and agree with drivers beforehand, and also to formally notify TPTB in advance of any use of the relaxation. Also risk assessments etc and specific direction that drivers are not expected to drive when tired. Drivers will be required to explain on a printout/chart the specific reason for the extended drive each and every time they do it.
Doesn’t appear to be anything to get worked up about.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
I don’t share your faith in the usefulness of the tick-box exercises that will only cover the hauliers when a tired driver fails in their quest to meet expectations without incident.
It is not the detail that I object to most though (as bad as that is), it is the principle which robroy put more succinctly than I can.
I re-iterate - this is not a national emergency.
This is essentially being done so more people can buy more pretty flags than is possible under the current safety rules.
Roymondo:
The details of the “relaxation” are in essence that your two 10 hour drives in a week can be 11 hours (with the fortnightly driving limit going up to 99 hours) and that the requirement for a full 45 hour Rest every other week can be shuffled around a bit so that you do two Reduced weekly Rests on the trot.The 60 hour Working Time limit is not changed. The Daily Rest rules are not changed.
There are numerous requirements for hauliers to consult and agree with drivers beforehand, and also to formally notify TPTB in advance of any use of the relaxation. Also risk assessments etc and specific direction that drivers are not expected to drive when tired. Drivers will be required to explain on a printout/chart the specific reason for the extended drive each and every time they do it.
Doesn’t appear to be anything to get worked up about.
Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
Not ‘‘get worked up about’’ no, but a vote with driver’s feet telling them to ■■■■ right off, definitely.
Not getting worked up as such btw, but it does ■■■■ annoy me tbh.
11 hours driving? 
…and 2x a week? 
Aye right, no sweat in 1986 and then some, been there done all that but different days…
But in the present climate of pedantic stupid driving hours rules, excessive time allowed to work already, H&S, and the stigma and excessive penalties of causing an rta whilst driving over your time (usually 9/10 hours, not 11) as I said…
Ram it.! : 
Loving the obligatory get out clause/arse covering caviat as usual also btw. ,.don’t you just ■■■■ love the ■■■■■■■■
Maybe IS worth getting ‘worked up about’ after all on second thoughts eh?
you could not make this stuff up IS IT A DANGER TO DRIVE TO LONG OR IS IT NOT