tachograph:
A question for you ROG:
How would you define what is adequate rest for any individual in every conceivable situation ?
Easy - whatever the drivers says is adequate as only the driver knows
tachograph:
How can you regulate for every person in every conceivable situation
It can be done by making it crystal clear (legally) that adequate rest can only be determined by the driver and no-one else and unless I missed this in 561/2006 - did I 
ROG
:
tachograph:
A question for you ROG:
How would you define what is adequate rest for any individual in every conceivable situation ?Easy - whatever the drivers says is adequate as only the driver knows
tachograph:
How can you regulate for every person in every conceivable situationIt can be done by making it crystal clear (legally) that adequate rest can only be determined by the driver and no-one else and unless I missed this in 561/2006 - did I
And BINGO. You have finally got it. 
It isn’t in 561/2006 that legally rest can only be determined by the driver therefore it isn’t legally under 561/2006 solely down to the driver and the union rep got lucky.
Well done, took a few pages but finally you see it so we can put this one to bed now. 
BTW. I am sitting in Belgium in 28 degrees of sticky, uncomfortable heat and have been here on rest since 16:00 UK time. I will be setting off at 01:00 UK time, so i can get the a/c on, and last night I slept for 3 hours and started work at 05:00 today after a full weekly rest period. What is adequate rest for me as an individual in this situation as defined by 561/2006? 
Clue. the answer is a whole number between 8 and 10.
Coffeeholic:
What is adequate rest for me as an individual in this situation as defined by 561/2006?
As I know you need little sleep then some nameless people have decided that you need at least 9 hours off which is probably more than you require
As you have said in the past - having too much rest cannot be deemed as unsafe (or words to that effect)
The problem is when the shoe is on the other foot - a driver who NEEDS more than any stated minimum - no regulation for that and that could become a safety issue
As the regs were supposed to be designed for safety (amongst other things) then why should they miss out this one big safety issue ■■
I hope next time they look at these regs they address this major safety issue so that tribunal cases like the one the rep went to become a thing of the past
In the meantime we have drivers who are having their rest periods determined by planners etc who are under no legal obligation to consider the rest needs of an individual driver - this cannot be right by anyones standards
ROG:
tachograph:
A question for you ROG:
How would you define what is adequate rest for any individual in every conceivable situation ?Easy - whatever the drivers says is adequate as only the driver knows
tachograph:
How can you regulate for every person in every conceivable situationIt can be done by making it crystal clear (legally) that adequate rest can only be determined by the driver and no-one else and unless I missed this in 561/2006 - did I
So basically you’re saying that the driver should be allowed to work whenever he/she feels rested enough ?
ROG
Coffeeholic:
What is adequate rest for me as an individual in this situation as defined by 561/2006?As I know you need little sleep then some nameless people have decided that you need at least 9 hours off which is probably more than you require
No, I’m happy with 9 as I usually have plenty of stuff I want to do. Sleep and rest are different things.
ROG
The problem is when the shoe is on the other foot - a driver who NEEDS more than any stated minimum - no regulation for that and that could become a safety issueAs the regs were supposed to be designed for safety (amongst other things) then why should they miss out this one big safety issue ■■
I hope next time they look at these regs they address this major safety issue so that tribunal cases like the one the rep went to become a thing of the past
In the meantime we have drivers who are having their rest periods determined by planners etc who are under no legal obligation to consider the rest needs of an individual driver - this cannot be right by anyones standards
Can’t disagree with any of that. However when attempting to answer these legal questions on here we cannot base those answers on what we think should be in the regulations or what we hope the regulations might be in the future. We can only answer based on the actual legislation as it is at the moment and the answer to the OP’s question based on the current regulations was given way back on page 1 of this thread and lucky union reps don’t alter that.
Coffeeholic:
the answer to the OP’s question based on the current regulations was given way back on page 1 of this thread and lucky union reps don’t alter that.
Was he lucky or was the judgement based on safety rather than the actual regs - I don’t know - all I do know is that the regs were mentioned and used in the case but to what end ■■?
Next time I speak to him I’ll ask if he can remember what the conclusion of the tribunal was based on - general road safety, the regs or a combination of both
One day someone will take this to court and a definitive will be reached 
ROG
Coffeeholic:
the answer to the OP’s question based on the current regulations was given way back on page 1 of this thread and lucky union reps don’t alter that.Was he lucky or was the judgement based on safety rather than the actual regs - I don’t know -
But earlier in the thread you were insisting it was because the regs were for driver’s and there were separate regs for the industry. You said he argued the regs were for drivers and this is what he put to the tribunal and they bought it. Now you are saying you lied and you don’t actually know what the judgement was based on and it might have been nothing to do with 561/2006, which would actually make more sense? 
ROG
One day someone will take this to court and a definitive will be reached
Doesn’t need to go to court for the definitive answers as far as 561/2006 is concerned, that is already black and white. Maybe other other stuff such as H&S, road safety and so on but 561/2006 is clear on the subject.
Coffeeholic:
Doesn’t need to go to court for the definitive answers as far as 561/2006 is concerned, that is already black and white. Maybe other other stuff such as H&S, road safety and so on but 561/2006 is clear on the subject.
So are we saying that 561/2006 KNOWS what each driver requires as rest
ROG:
Coffeeholic:
Doesn’t need to go to court for the definitive answers as far as 561/2006 is concerned, that is already black and white. Maybe other other stuff such as H&S, road safety and so on but 561/2006 is clear on the subject.So are we saying that 561/2006 KNOWS what each driver requires as rest
(EC) 561/2006 doesn’t need to know each drivers rest requirement because if the driver isn’t up-to the job he won’t be doing it for long anyway.
I asked you a question on the last page which you haven’t answered.
ROG:
tachograph:
A question for you ROG:
How would you define what is adequate rest for any individual in every conceivable situation ?Easy - whatever the drivers says is adequate as only the driver knows
tachograph:
How can you regulate for every person in every conceivable situationIt can be done by making it crystal clear (legally) that adequate rest can only be determined by the driver and no-one else
Are you saying that the driver should be allowed to decide when to work based on whether or not he feels rested enough
Fostar - How did it go at the disciplinary?
Hope you can find your way through the ‘I know more than you do’ brigade to give us an update!
ROG
Coffeeholic:
Doesn’t need to go to court for the definitive answers as far as 561/2006 is concerned, that is already black and white. Maybe other other stuff such as H&S, road safety and so on but 561/2006 is clear on the subject.So are we saying that 561/2006 KNOWS what each driver requires as rest
No, no regulation could know that only one person can know what rest they require. ROG you need to stop thinking about this question in terms of an individuals rest requirements, that isn’t the question here. The question is purely about whether the driver has the sole right to decide to reduce or not.
The definitive bit is that under 561/2006 the operator is entitled to schedule the work so a reduced daily rest period is used, if the driver has one available. It is definitive because the regulations state that a transport undertaking must respect these regulations, meaning they must schedule the work so it doesn’t exceed any of the limits imposed by the regulations and scheduling a 9 hour rest, where one is available, does not exceed the limits and therefore does respect the regulations. It also says that a transport undertaking shall organise the work of drivers in such a way that the drivers are able to comply with Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 and if they schedule a reduced rest and the driver has one available then the driver is able to comply with the regulations.
So, under 561/2006 it is not solely at the discretion of the driver to reduce the daily rest period, the company is perfectly entitled to organise the work so a reduced daily rest period is taken, and that was the original question. There is no grey area there and no need for court cases to give a ruling, it’s already there in black and white.
Example. I worked an 11 hour shift today. I can decide whether to resume work after just 9 hours and reduce or after 11 hours or more and not reduce. I don’t have to be anywhere tomorrow to make a delivery it’s just an extended driving day day and be parked up in time to take a daily rest period and then complete the journey the next day in time for my booking. That makes it my choice, the driver.
If the boss had scheduled me a delivery tomorrow and the only way I could get that delivery done on time was to reduce my daily rest period, and I have three available, he is entitled to do that just as much as I can decide whether to reduce tonight or not.
However I have no right under 561/2006 to refuse if the work had been scheduled so I did have to reduce tonight to complete it in the time frame and if I did refuse the company would be within their right to say I am unsuitable for the job.
561/2006 is the regulation that allows for reduced rest periods, not H&S or any other legislation, and as 561/2006 allows the operator to make use of the available reductions it is not solely at the discretion of the driver to reduce or not.
Yes the driver can claim tiredness and so forth and it would be a pretty stupid company to insist he reduced but again that is not the original question.
Rog, you are definitely in the wrong job. You need to don your Superman undergarments again and sort out the airline industry.
Shock Horror
FAA regulations for regional and major airlines dictate that pilots can only fly planes for eight hours during a 24-hour period. When a pilot finishes the shift, he or she should have had at least nine hours of consecutive rest during the 24-hour period. Pilots can fly up to 100 hours in a calendar month and 1,000 hours a year.
Of course if they feel tired during their shift they can just pull over for a quick nap
I can’t really be arsed to look any further to see how many hours an Easyjet or Ryanair driver works, but the general thinking is that an adult can manage quite well on 6 hours sleep.
Article 1
This Regulation lays down rules on driving times, breaks and
rest periods for drivers engaged in the carriage of goods and
passengers by road in order to harmonise the conditions of
competition between modes of inland transport, especially
with regard to the road sector, and to improve working
conditions and road safety. This Regulation also aims to
promote improved monitoring and enforcement practices by
Member States and improved working practices in the road
transport industry.
Coffeeholic:
561/2006 is the regulation that allows for reduced rest periods, not H&S or any other legislation, and as 561/2006 allows the operator to make use of the available reductions it is not solely at the discretion of the driver to reduce or not.
Perhaps it could be argued that road safety trumps all other legislation 
ROG
Article 1
This Regulation lays down rules on driving times, breaks and
rest periods for drivers engaged in the carriage of goods and
passengers by road in order to harmonise the conditions of
competition between modes of inland transport, especially
with regard to the road sector, and to improve working
conditions and road safety. This Regulation also aims to
promote improved monitoring and enforcement practices by
Member States and improved working practices in the road
transport industry.Coffeeholic:
561/2006 is the regulation that allows for reduced rest periods, not H&S or any other legislation, and as 561/2006 allows the operator to make use of the available reductions it is not solely at the discretion of the driver to reduce or not.Perhaps it could be argued that road safety trumps all other legislation
Maybe it could and maybe it should but again that isn’t the question here. The question once again, as you constantly fail to grasp it, is whether the driver has the only say when it comes to reduced rest periods and the answer, under the regulation which sets the requirements for reduced rest periods, is clearly no.
I have known all along that planners CAN plan runs with a reduced daily rest without consulting the driver as they are not planning for the driver to do something illegal but that does not mean that they are planning something that is safe for the driver to do
As article 1 refers to road safety then how come the planners are not legally bound to consider that first
ROG:
LOOK EVERYBODY, I WAS WRONG AGAIN, AS PER USUAL. I CAN’T HELP IT. PLEASE STOP HAVING A GO AT ME!!
At last! Wasn’t so difficult, was it?
Rob K:
ROG:
LOOK EVERYBODY, I WAS WRONG AGAIN, AS PER USUAL. I CAN’T HELP IT. PLEASE STOP HAVING A GO AT ME!!At last! Wasn’t so difficult, was it?
you crack me up Rob 
Oh… and … 
ROG
I have known all along that planners CAN plan runs with a reduced daily rest without consulting the driver
So why given that did you have any confusion with the fact that the driver is not the sole person who can decide to reduce?
ROG
as they are not planning for the driver to do something illegal but that does not mean that they are planning something that is safe for the driver to doAs article 1 refers to road safety then how come the planners are not legally bound to consider that first
They are. And as the rest periods laid down in the regulations are deemed to be adequate, it says so in the bit you quoted and coloured in remember, then they are doing all they need to do legally regarding safety.
The eight hours a night thing has been pretty much proved to be not correct and most sleep experts agree that 6 hours is sufficient for most people and all the rest periods in the regulations easily allow for 6 hours sleep. The eight hour thing was around for so long that people have been conditioned to believe they need that when in reality they don’t. Now there will always be exceptions but as those are the industry regulations on rest periods if people do require a lot more sleep than can be taken in those rest periods then this maybe isn’t the industry for them, although there are jobs out there in which you get 12 - 16 hours rest every day so there is always the option of doing one of them. We have guys at our place who never do more than an 8 hour shift.
DD - the answer was deliberately done like to provoke a reaction - where is that fishing hookWho 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?
answer to all - member states
Now then ROG, I’d agree that this second attempt looks to be an attempt at adding the fishing hook to the trumpet that you’ve already earned.
You see mate, there’s an inescapable logic that you seem to have missed…
You started off by steadfastly ignoring all kinds of reasonable questions, then you asked for questions to be grouped together, and it was pointed out to you that there were already some to be getting on with. Up to that point, there wasn’t any tongue-in-cheek stuff going on, cos you were seriously suggesting that there were “INDUSTRY Regs, driver Regs” and a “UK version by VOSA.”
The you did a typical ROG and couldn’t be arsed to look at the Reg, which resulted in you taking a complete guess.
If any reasonable person reads this topic from start to finish, they’ll see that you’ve changed your tune as you’ve gone along. They’ll also notice that, no matter how much you try to deflect attention by asking for ‘grouped questions,’ you have consistently given incorrect or misleading answers. Your attempts at deflecting the questions are (IMHO) very entertaining whilst leaving you with [lots of] egg on your face. 
Here’s another new smiley for you… 
dieseldave:
Here’s another new smiley for you…
You’re the man for the smiley’s Dave, is there a sort of when you are in a hole stop digging one? That is exactly the smiley ROG needs.