So ROG is still wrongly insisting the rules are for the drivers and not the company but has failed to answer questions put to him earlier in this thread. Answers to which would show him to be wrong so has resorted to his usual trick of taking it to PM in an attempt to mask his ignorance and misconceptions regarding the regulations. You couldn’t make it up. 
dieseldave:
Wheel Nut:
I honestly think this particular thread is at an end, …Aw Malc, you spoilsport!!
I haven’t quite finished baiting ROG just yet…
Well I thought it was, but I hadn’t reckoned on Delboytwo joining the fray 
It could easily run for seventeen or eighteen pages now 
Wheel Nut:
dieseldave:
Wheel Nut:
I honestly think this particular thread is at an end, …Aw Malc, you spoilsport!!
I haven’t quite finished baiting ROG just yet…
Well I thought it was, but I hadn’t reckoned on Delboytwo joining the fray
I haven’t got the time for seventeen or eighteen pages mite manage 6 
Coffeeholic:
So ROG is still wrongly insisting the rules are for the drivers and not the company but has failed to answer questions put to him earlier in this thread. Answers to which would show him to be wrong so has resorted to his usual trick of taking it to PM in an attempt to mask his ignorance and misconceptions regarding the regulations. You couldn’t make it up.
Oh dear. 
ROG seems to have missed this:
dieseldave:
This show doesn’t have ‘PM a friend’ or ‘ask the audience’ as options.
And there was me thinking that the questions were easy.
Coffeeholic:
So ROG is still wrongly insisting the rules are for the drivers and not the company but has failed to answer questions put to him earlier in this thread. Answers to which would show him to be wrong so has resorted to his usual trick of taking it to PM in an attempt to mask his ignorance and misconceptions regarding the regulations. You couldn’t make it up.
If all the Qs are put in one post I’ll do my best to answer each one the best I can - hows that ? 
ROG:
Coffeeholic:
So ROG is still wrongly insisting the rules are for the drivers and not the company but has failed to answer questions put to him earlier in this thread. Answers to which would show him to be wrong so has resorted to his usual trick of taking it to PM in an attempt to mask his ignorance and misconceptions regarding the regulations. You couldn’t make it up.If all the Qs are put in one post I’ll do my best to answer each one the best I can - hows that ?
Blimey ROG, Do you expect that everybody else has as much time on their hands as you do??
The questions are already written, (but you chose to ignore them) and the good thing about this being a forum is that the questions are all still there for you and other people to see. 
If you really want questions to be grouped together, then my last but one post might be a good starting point.
The object of those questions is so that you can decide for yourself whether 561/2006 is just for drivers, so the word “driver” isn’t the answer to any of the questions.
The reason I wrote those questions is because of what YOU wrote earlier in this topic:
ROG:
That was the point the Rep won it in - that the driver was working to the DRIVER regs and not the INDUSTRY regs as that would include employers
Then I asked you this:
I:
Could you please tell me the exact name of the INDUSTRY regs you mentioned above?
(Just so we’re clear on this, I mean: What is the name of the INDUSTRY regs that YOU put in capital letters??)
ROG:
Coffeeholic:
So ROG is still wrongly insisting the rules are for the drivers and not the company but has failed to answer questions put to him earlier in this thread. Answers to which would show him to be wrong so has resorted to his usual trick of taking it to PM in an attempt to mask his ignorance and misconceptions regarding the regulations. You couldn’t make it up.If all the Qs are put in one post I’ll do my best to answer each one the best I can - hows that ?
It’s only one question that solves this and it has been asked several times but you have constantly ignored it. How is repeating that question again going to change that? You never fully read anything anyway so if I put the question too far into a post you won’t get to it
dieseldave:
Who has to obey Article 10 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 11 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 13 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 22 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 25 of 561/2006?
All those are under the Liability of transport undertakings section
ROG:
dieseldave:
Who has to obey Article 10 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 11 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 13 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 22 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 25 of 561/2006?
All those are under the Liability of transport undertakings section
So what does that tell you? Come on, you’re nearly there.
Coffeeholic:
ROG:
dieseldave:
Who has to obey Article 10 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 11 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 13 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 22 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 25 of 561/2006?
All those are under the Liability of transport undertakings section
So what does that tell you? Come on, you’re nearly there.
It tells you that the “Regulations for Drivers” has a “Transport Undertakings” section, which means that “Drivers” can tell “Transport Operators” what to do, because their section is in our regulations
Well thanks again to all for their responses. This appears to be a controversial topic of which i am glad because of all the varied answers and sources to support them i feel now i can come away with a better understanding of my situation. My disciplinary is tomorrow and although i now believe i have a good argument im more leaning toward the stance of “at least i still have a job” and according to how things go i shall just have to endure whats in-store for me until something better comes along. Will keep you all posted on the outcome.
Thanks
tachograph:
Coffeeholic:
ROG:
dieseldave:
Who has to obey Article 10 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 11 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 13 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 22 of 561/2006?
Who has to obey Article 25 of 561/2006?
All those are under the Liability of transport undertakings section
So what does that tell you? Come on, you’re nearly there.
It tells you that the “Regulations for Drivers” has a “Transport Undertakings” section, which means that “Drivers” can tell “Transport Operators” what to do, because their section is in our regulations
561 is a set of regulations that covers the transport industry (commercial undertakings over 3.5 tonnes is one group) but has seperate sections with certain rules for each part of the industry - would that be a correct viewpoint ?
@ this thread.
Rob K:
@ ROG
ROG:
561 is a set of regulations that covers the transport industry (commercial undertakings over 3.5 tonnes is one group) but has seperate sections with certain rules for each part of the industry - would that be a correct viewpoint ?
So based on that are these rules just for drivers, as the rep managed to somehow convince the tribunal, or are they indeed also for the company and operator? And furthermore, based on your post does that confirm that there are not separate driver’s and industry regs?
If you are still not convinced try finally answering my question to you about the reasons for the regulations, that should seal the deal. Or are you waiting for someone else to answer it so you can then nick the answer because you don’t actually know the answer?
I was not there so cannot say how the rep presented his case on the day
What I can see is that there is a SECTION of the regs that are rules for DRIVERS
I can see that the there is a SECTION of the regs AFTER the rules for DRIVERS that is titled LIABILITY OF TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS
I am going to GUESS that the rep referred to the SECTION that refers to DRIVERS along with article 1 which refers to road safety as the dismissed driver stated possible tiredness as an issue
Again, I’m GUESSING that referring to the ‘DRIVER REGS’ and metioning 561 was referring to that SECTION for drivers
It could be said that 561 as a WHOLE is the regs for the INDUSTRY as it encompasses drivers and those directly involved in that industry
Is this was you were getting at ?
Fostar:
Well thanks again to all for their responses. This appears to be a controversial topic of which i am glad because of all the varied answers and sources to support them i feel now i can come away with a better understanding of my situation. My disciplinary is tomorrow and although i now believe i have a good argument im more leaning toward the stance of “at least i still have a job” and according to how things go i shall just have to endure whats in-store for me until something better comes along. Will keep you all posted on the outcome.Thanks
Hi Fostar
I’m sorry you haven’t got the answer you would have liked but this has always been a subject that seems to create some disagreement between drivers, there are people who will remain steadfast in their belief that it’s the driver only who can decide to reduce the daily rest, but I’m afraid we have to work with the regulations as they are not how we would like them to be.
I think you’re right to lean towards the attitude that “at least I still have a job”, generally you could play on the safety aspect of reducing the rest period and the increasing work load, but may still have to grit your teeth and put up with it unless the extra work load really is becoming a safety issue, or is just not doable I’m afraid.
Good luck with the disciplinary hearing and do let us know how you get on
By the way, welcome to Trucknet UK 
ROG:
I was not there so cannot say how the rep presented his case on the dayWhat I can see is that there is a SECTION of the regs that are rules for DRIVERS
I can see that the there is a SECTION of the regs AFTER the rules for DRIVERS that is titled LIABILITY OF TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS
I am going to GUESS that the rep referred to the SECTION that refers to DRIVERS along with article 1 which refers to road safety as the dismissed driver stated possible tiredness as an issue
Again, I’m GUESSING that referring to the ‘DRIVER REGS’ and metioning 561 was referring to that SECTION for drivers
It could be said that 561 as a WHOLE is the regs for the INDUSTRY as it encompasses drivers and those directly involved in that industry
Is this was you were getting at ?
So your adamant assertion that there are different rules for drivers and ‘the industry’ earlier in the thread was just based on guessing and your limited knowledge of the rules? Jesus, you couldn’t make it up. Once again you latched on to something you half understood and made it out to be definitive, something of which you have a history of, and then refused to see it any other way despite several people who actually work to the rules on a weekly basis saying otherwise.
Incidentally the section you describe as rules for drivers, I assume you are talking about the area dealing with driving limits, breaks, rest requirements and so on, are just as much for the operator as the driver. The operator has a responsibility to ensure those areas are complied with regarding scheduling of work, training and by monitoring the driver’s records and then to take the necessary action if this isn’t the case, so there is not a section of 561/2006 which is only for drivers. I still can’t decide if the union rep was clever, lucky or actually ignorant of the rules, or maybe a bit of all three. Another day and a tribunal more aware of transport and he would have lost that case.
Still failed to answer the other question you have been asked I notice. Can I GUESS that you don’t actually know the answer?
Just a thought, but instead of guessing when you don’t know the answer to this sort of question would it not be an idea to leave it alone and stick to what you are good at, questions on training, driving licensing and the tests for example and not make guesses which could leave the questioner misinformed if all they see is your incorrect guess, take it as gospel and then never revisit the topic. Apart from your guesses on this topic this weekend you also made guesses at the use of the tacho when boarding ferries and using interrupted daily rest, something you say you have never actually done and unsurprisingly got wrong.
You don’t see Tachograph and me, for example, answering questions very often in your area of expertise probably because, and I can’t say for sure regarding Tachograph, in my case they would be guesses so I leave well alone. I would also not dream of making guesses in reply to questions regarding Diesel Dave’s area of expertise because again it could lead to the OP going away very misinformed and the consequences that would bring because in the same way you have never actually used the current tachograph rules I have never used the ADR ones.
Coffeeholic:
ROG:
I was not there so cannot say how the rep presented his case on the dayWhat I can see is that there is a SECTION of the regs that are rules for DRIVERS
I can see that the there is a SECTION of the regs AFTER the rules for DRIVERS that is titled LIABILITY OF TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS
I am going to GUESS that the rep referred to the SECTION that refers to DRIVERS along with article 1 which refers to road safety as the dismissed driver stated possible tiredness as an issue
Again, I’m GUESSING that referring to the ‘DRIVER REGS’ and metioning 561 was referring to that SECTION for drivers
It could be said that 561 as a WHOLE is the regs for the INDUSTRY as it encompasses drivers and those directly involved in that industry
Is this was you were getting at ?
