yourhavingalarf:
switchlogic:
yourhavingalarf:
Speed limit raised to 60 on the motorway, limiters set to 65.Speed limit never changed on motorway, in England and Wales at least. Still is 60
I can see how…
It reads. Limiters to 65 and maintain the present HGV motorway speed limit.
Better?
It reads how it was written, and now you have corrected it
Macski:
switchlogic:
yourhavingalarf:
Speed limit raised to 60 on the motorway, limiters set to 65.Speed limit never changed on motorway, in England and Wales at least. Still is 60
But that is irrelevent as trucks are speed limited.
That’s as well as maybe but I was simply pointing out a fact. And not always irrelevant, can legally roll over limiter to 60 despite what tacho is shouting at you
I’d scrap the driving hours reduction to 9hrs
_JD:
you are not making your life easier by easing the rules, you are giving the employer more slack to exploit you further
+1
switchlogic:
Franglais:
ROG:
A mix between EU and domestic regs is neededDifferent daily rest rules for those sleeping at home and for those sleeping away
Until someone decides to sleep in the unit, instead of driving home in the rush hour with an early start next day. What rules apply then?
He’d be having an 11 anyway as he’s at yard so no change required. I imagine what Rog is saying and what I agree with is ban 9 hour rests back at base, by time you’ve commuted back and forth and done all things home life requires you’ll be lucky to get 6 hours sleep sometimes. Keep 9’s for trampers. When I mention this on CPC courses it always gets universal approval. As I always point out too with the stupid 24 hour timeframe thing the fact that a longer day equals a shorter rest is absolutely mind bogglingly stupid, I can’t begin to imagine how multiple people thought that was a good idea and got it into law. Do away with the b/s 24 hour nonsense and have limits on length of days. Longer day equals longer rest, simple logic which sadly defeats the legislators
My point is that if a driver chooses to sleep in the cab to avoid commuting a long distance, should he be allowed to start earlier, and avoid a morning rush-hour, or have same time off as someone in the same depot who goes home? I agree that a reduced break if commuting is no good, but if that also excludes sleeping in cab at base is that right?
More than once I have done such, getting home to spend ten minutes with the missus before having an early night, and then waking her with my alarm in the morning isn`t very good for relationships.
A shorter break means an earlier start, may mean earlier finish and a decent amount of time at home later.
Franglais:
switchlogic:
Franglais:
ROG:
A mix between EU and domestic regs is neededDifferent daily rest rules for those sleeping at home and for those sleeping away
Until someone decides to sleep in the unit, instead of driving home in the rush hour with an early start next day. What rules apply then?
He’d be having an 11 anyway as he’s at yard so no change required. I imagine what Rog is saying and what I agree with is ban 9 hour rests back at base, by time you’ve commuted back and forth and done all things home life requires you’ll be lucky to get 6 hours sleep sometimes. Keep 9’s for trampers. When I mention this on CPC courses it always gets universal approval. As I always point out too with the stupid 24 hour timeframe thing the fact that a longer day equals a shorter rest is absolutely mind bogglingly stupid, I can’t begin to imagine how multiple people thought that was a good idea and got it into law. Do away with the b/s 24 hour nonsense and have limits on length of days. Longer day equals longer rest, simple logic which sadly defeats the legislators
My point is that if a driver chooses to sleep in the cab to avoid commuting a long distance, should he be allowed to start earlier, and avoid a morning rush-hour, or have same time off as someone in the same depot who goes home? I agree that a reduced break if commuting is no good, but if that also excludes sleeping in cab at base is that right?
More than once I have done such, getting home to spend ten minutes with the missus before having an early night, and then waking her with my alarm in the morning isn`t very good for relationships.
A shorter break means an earlier start, may mean earlier finish and a decent amount of time at home later.
The law is long winded enough without covering every last possibility
switchlogic:
The law is long winded enough without covering every last possibility
Agreed.
So why mixnmatch two different sets of rules?
Eleven off for all, or for none.
But if you allow 9 off for one set of drivers, then why not for all?
That is already making the law more long winded than is necessary.
Simple rules are a blunt tool.
I can see why those at home need more time off than those away from home. Recognising that, is admitting of an extra possibility.
Recognising that is going part way to " covering every last possibility". It is a question of what is too far along that line.
Rules are easy enough why try to complicate them. This is why I tramp its easier. Park up 11 off then carry on. The 9 off is a no. Your rest starts when you get home you have less than 8 hours to yourself. Before the sleeping in a tin mob get angry it’s a personal choice saves me disturbing the family when I go out in the morning
A simple 12 on 12 of shift, 5 times a week can be extended to 6 every other week. No reductions in daily rest at all.
Driving hours at 9 with increase to 10 twice a week, breaks back to old scheme of 45 min before 4.5hrs driving, minimum 15 mins to count and no need for the last one to be a 30. I feel just the same doing 3 15’s or a 20 and 25 spreadover 4.5hrs than the current 15 and 30.
Weekly rest of 48, can be reduced if working a 6th shift but payback the following weekly rest
WTD carp thrown out completely
Mandatory that your paid from card in to card out, no deduction for breaks
Speed limiters at 60
London Lorry control thrown in the bin as well, as most of the route you need to take to avoid it adds more time and pollution instead of the more direct route
Weight limits only used for actual weak structures/seriously non suitable route and not to appease the NIMBYS
switchlogic:
Franglais:
ROG:
A mix between EU and domestic regs is neededDifferent daily rest rules for those sleeping at home and for those sleeping away
Until someone decides to sleep in the unit, instead of driving home in the rush hour with an early start next day. What rules apply then?
He’d be having an 11 anyway as he’s at yard so no change required. I imagine what Rog is saying and what I agree with is ban 9 hour rests back at base, by time you’ve commuted back and forth and done all things home life requires you’ll be lucky to get 6 hours sleep sometimes. Keep 9’s for trampers. When I mention this on CPC courses it always gets universal approval. As I always point out too with the stupid 24 hour timeframe thing the fact that a longer day equals a shorter rest is absolutely mind bogglingly stupid, I can’t begin to imagine how multiple people thought that was a good idea and got it into law. Do away with the b/s 24 hour nonsense and have limits on length of days. Longer day equals longer rest, simple logic which sadly defeats the legislators
Exactly that 
I would introduce a law for distribution centres / warehouses / logistic hubs / whatever you want to call them.
Each RDC has a license which dictates how many inbound and outbound trailers they can accept each day. Failure to turn each trailer within 2 hours results in reduction in daily inbound/outbound trailer limit. Consistently turning trailers in under an hour result in an increase in the daily trailer limit. Sitting at Tesco’s Daventry for 6 hours waiting to tip is ridiculous and just another example of the supermarkets screwing over its suppliers/contractors. No wonder there is a shortage of drivers (or used to be) when we spend 70% of our time sat on a bay waiting for that one poor sod to unload 6 trailers before he makes it to us.
Yes I realise a 15 hour day with 3 hours driving is easy money, but you shouldn’t really be worried about your full charge tablet running out of battery while sat in some ■■■■■■ RDC driver waiting room.
As for existing rules which I’d change…
Having to take a 45min break when 5mins from the yard on a Friday after being away all week, total ■■■■■■■■!!!
Macski:
I would change the speede limiter laws, allow trucks to do 60, have the limiter set a bit higher, 70 maybe, 65? (I remember the tyimes before speed limiters fondly)
I too remember the times before speed limiters, although not quite as fondly. I remember being pressurised into driving at speeds which I felt were unsafe, knowing that if it all went ■■■■-up it would be me in Pentonville while the boss sat in his five-bedroomed detached house writing “get another driver” on his “to-do” list.
If you worked in a sausage factory and there was a sign on the wall saying “Only make 56 sausages an hour”, then why would you want to make 70?
Jibber:
Having to take a 45min break when 5mins from the yard on a Friday after being away all week, total ■■■■■■■■!!!
Run in 5 mins over?
So, why not 6 mins over?
Or 10, or 20, or…
Do yourself a favour: never put yourself in the way of temptation.
If I reckon I`m gonna be over the limit I …(I try anyway)… to get my head around having a bad day, and just accept it.
Park up somewhere more than 5, or 10, or 30, minutes away, and just run in.
“Stuff” happens.
Edit. That applies to an extra night out too, not just being 45min later!
Franglais:
switchlogic:
The law is long winded enough without covering every last possibilityAgreed.
So why mixnmatch two different sets of rules?
Eleven off for all, or for none.But if you allow 9 off for one set of drivers, then why not for all?
That is already making the law more long winded than is necessary.Simple rules are a blunt tool.
I can see why those at home need more time off than those away from home. Recognising that, is admitting of an extra possibility.
Recognising that is going part way to " covering every last possibility". It is a question of what is too far along that line.
You could start an argument in an empty room
switchlogic:
Franglais:
switchlogic:
The law is long winded enough without covering every last possibilityAgreed.
So why mixnmatch two different sets of rules?
Eleven off for all, or for none.But if you allow 9 off for one set of drivers, then why not for all?
That is already making the law more long winded than is necessary.Simple rules are a blunt tool.
I can see why those at home need more time off than those away from home. Recognising that, is admitting of an extra possibility.
Recognising that is going part way to " covering every last possibility". It is a question of what is too far along that line.You could start an argument in an empty room
switchlogic:
Franglais:
switchlogic:
The law is long winded enough without covering every last possibilityAgreed.
So why mixnmatch two different sets of rules?
Eleven off for all, or for none.But if you allow 9 off for one set of drivers, then why not for all?
That is already making the law more long winded than is necessary.Simple rules are a blunt tool.
I can see why those at home need more time off than those away from home. Recognising that, is admitting of an extra possibility.
Recognising that is going part way to " covering every last possibility". It is a question of what is too far along that line.You could start an argument in an empty room
Harry Monk:
Macski:
I would change the speede limiter laws, allow trucks to do 60, have the limiter set a bit higher, 70 maybe, 65? (I remember the tyimes before speed limiters fondly)I too remember the times before speed limiters, although not quite as fondly. I remember being pressurised into driving at speeds which I felt were unsafe, knowing that if it all went ■■■■-up it would be me in Pentonville while the boss sat in his five-bedroomed detached house writing “get another driver” on his “to-do” list.
If you worked in a sausage factory and there was a sign on the wall saying “Only make 56 sausages an hour”, then why would you want to make 70?
This ^^^^^^
A few posts in this particular thread adequately illustrate what I have always said…
Drivers are their own worst enemies, always have been,.and always will be. 
robroy:
switchlogic:
Franglais:
switchlogic:
The law is long winded enough without covering every last possibilityAgreed.
So why mixnmatch two different sets of rules?
Eleven off for all, or for none.But if you allow 9 off for one set of drivers, then why not for all?
That is already making the law more long winded than is necessary.Simple rules are a blunt tool.
I can see why those at home need more time off than those away from home. Recognising that, is admitting of an extra possibility.
Recognising that is going part way to " covering every last possibility". It is a question of what is too far along that line.You could start an argument in an empty room
0
Yep, the only way an empty argument will win!
Speed limiters on tippers set to 50mph.
WhiteTruckMan:
Speed limiters on tippers set to 50mph.
Only in reverse
