There is a post that asks what EU rule should we get rid of first, I would like to see a new UK rule regarding rear fog lights to be introduced.
As you know rear fog lamps should only be used in poor weather conditions, I think they should activate a speed limiter set at 90kmh
as part of the system for safety reasons, this will only deactivate 5 minutes after you have figured out what the orange light on the dash
is trying to tell you and you turn them off.
I must be getting old as fog lamps really annoy me from September to April on
clear nights.
I’d say have the speed limiter set at 70kmph so you could overtake the two ats and not have to sit behind them for miles down the road and fit every car with a “fog lights active” audible warning which would sound every time the car exceeded 68 kmph or travelling at less than 60kmph might be annoying enough for them to notice after a while…
UK car drivers have to have these headlamp deflector thingies which we’re told “bend the beam so it doesn’t shine in the eyes of oncoming traffic when driving on the continent with a RH drive car”…
All well and good, but are we not a bit sick of all those mercs and BMW cars that approach from behind, look like they’ve got their full beams on, so we end up “averting our eyes from the nearside mirror” - only to find out as they finally overtake that those headlights are not on full beam at all, but just shining up in the air like 20th century fox searchlights…
The EU shouldn’t now be able to sell their Junk to the UK - until a trade agreement is agreed. first.
That way, Germany loses hand-over-fist - if they don’t pull their damned finger out and press the EU commission to sign up to a free trade agreement with the UK - pronto!
I’d like to see just the actual driving rules kept on like 4.5hrs and having to take a 45 break - rather than this thing where you get an infringement if you don’t take a 30 minute break in the first six hours on duty - regardless of how much or how little driving has been done at that point… Also, drop this crap about not being able to work more than a 10 hour shift on nights. (Doesn’t apply to agencies anyway it seems, but it would be nice to be offered a decent full time contract again one day - with the opening for OVERTIME on it!)
Drop the WTD stuff, and keep the actual driving safety stuff then, I would suggest.
Winseer:
UK car drivers have to have these headlamp deflector thingies which we’re told “bend the beam so it doesn’t shine in the eyes of oncoming traffic when driving on the continent with a RH drive car”…
All well and good, but are we not a bit sick of all those mercs and BMW cars that approach from behind, look like they’ve got their full beams on, so we end up “averting our eyes from the nearside mirror” - only to find out as they finally overtake that those headlights are not on full beam at all, but just shining up in the air like 20th century fox searchlights…
The EU shouldn’t now be able to sell their Junk to the UK - until a trade agreement is agreed. first.
That way, Germany loses hand-over-fist - if they don’t pull their damned finger out and press the EU commission to sign up to a free trade agreement with the UK - pronto!
I’d like to see just the actual driving rules kept on like 4.5hrs and having to take a 45 break - rather than this thing where you get an infringement if you don’t take a 30 minute break in the first six hours on duty - regardless of how much or how little driving has been done at that point… Also, drop this crap about not being able to work more than a 10 hour shift on nights. (Doesn’t apply to agencies anyway it seems, but it would be nice to be offered a decent full time contract again one day - with the opening for OVERTIME on it!)
Drop the WTD stuff, and keep the actual driving safety stuff then, I would suggest.
It is 15 minutes not thirty doh! The 30 minutes only applies if your duty is between 6 hours and 9 hours long. If you do an 8 hour shift with under 4.5 hours driving you can take 2 x 15 min breaks (providing of course they don’t dock you 45 min!)
dave docwra:
There is a post that asks what EU rule should we get rid of first, I would like to see a new UK rule regarding rear fog lights to be introduced.
As you know rear fog lamps should only be used in poor weather conditions, I think they should activate a speed limiter set at 90kmh
as part of the system for safety reasons, this will only deactivate 5 minutes after you have figured out what the orange light on the dash
is trying to tell you and you turn them off.
I must be getting old as fog lamps really annoy me from September to April on
clear nights.
A recurring mild electric shock at two minute intervals delivered via the drivers seat would be equally effective (and more fun to watch when you’re stuck behind them).
Speaking as a driver, I’d like to see a new law on consignor liability.
Under the present UK system, the carrier and the driver are answerable for overloads whilst the consignor gets away with telling porkies about the weight of a load.
IMHO, a more efficient system would be that it should be the carrier’s responsibility to tell the consignor (in an email) what weight his vehicle can legally carry. The consignor would then have to confirm (by emailed reply) that he acknowledges what weight he can load onto that vehicle.
It’s not rocket science and wouldn’t be much of an administrative burden at time of the freight booking being agreed, but above all it would be much fairer than the present system in that the consignor would then become legally responsible for his share of any grief he causes.
dieseldave:
Speaking as a driver, I’d like to see a new law on consignor liability.
Under the present UK system, the carrier and the driver are answerable for overloads whilst the consignor gets away with telling porkies about the weight of a load.
IMHO, a more efficient system would be that it should be the carrier’s responsibility to tell the consignor (in an email) what weight his vehicle can legally carry. The consignor would then have to confirm (by emailed reply) that he acknowledges what weight he can load onto that vehicle.
It’s not rocket science and wouldn’t be much of an administrative burden at time of the freight booking being agreed, but above all it would be much fairer than the present system in that the consignor would then become legally responsible for his share of any grief he causes.
The Germans already have Consignor liability on load security.
dieseldave:
Speaking as a driver, I’d like to see a new law on consignor liability.
Under the present UK system, the carrier and the driver are answerable for overloads whilst the consignor gets away with telling porkies about the weight of a load.
IMHO, a more efficient system would be that it should be the carrier’s responsibility to tell the consignor (in an email) what weight his vehicle can legally carry. The consignor would then have to confirm (by emailed reply) that he acknowledges what weight he can load onto that vehicle.
It’s not rocket science and wouldn’t be much of an administrative burden at time of the freight booking being agreed, but above all it would be much fairer than the present system in that the consignor would then become legally responsible for his share of any grief he causes.
The Germans already have Consignor liability on load security.
Correct!!
Not everything from Euroland is automatically a bad thing.
I don’t understand why DVSA don’t push for more things like this in the UK since they’re [supposed to be] all about road safety.
dieseldave:
Speaking as a driver, I’d like to see a new law on consignor liability.
Under the present UK system, the carrier and the driver are answerable for overloads whilst the consignor gets away with telling porkies about the weight of a load.
IMHO, a more efficient system would be that it should be the carrier’s responsibility to tell the consignor (in an email) what weight his vehicle can legally carry. The consignor would then have to confirm (by emailed reply) that he acknowledges what weight he can load onto that vehicle.
It’s not rocket science and wouldn’t be much of an administrative burden at time of the freight booking being agreed, but above all it would be much fairer than the present system in that the consignor would then become legally responsible for his share of any grief he causes.
The Germans already have Consignor liability on load security.
Correct!!
Not everything from Euroland is automatically a bad thing.
I don’t understand why DVSA don’t push for more things like this in the UK since they’re [supposed to be] all about road safety.
Because we have a notional debt that is spiralling out of control (currently 80+% of our GDP), and we need to pay for it some how…
Darkside:
The Germans already have Consignor liability on load security.
Correct!!
Not everything from Euroland is automatically a bad thing.
I don’t understand why DVSA don’t push for more things like this in the UK since they’re [supposed to be] all about road safety.
I think we already have some Consignor liability in UK law, that is the law states its an offence to permit, as well as uses.
Regulation 40A of the Road Traffic Act1988 introduced by the Road Traffic Act 1991
40 A. A Person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when:
(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or
(b) the purpose for which it is used, or
(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or
(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,
is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.
This DVSA video also covers the consignor responsibilities, start at about 1:34.
However I assume its easier to prosecute a driver with an instant roadside fines than build a case and take a company through the courts, which is why we don’t hear about companies being prosecuted for insecure loads.
However most of the time its the driver securing the load, but if a company is liable for contractors on their sites, they should also be responsible for making sure a load doesn’t leave until its correctly secured.
Darkside:
The Germans already have Consignor liability on load security.
Correct!!
Not everything from Euroland is automatically a bad thing.
I don’t understand why DVSA don’t push for more things like this in the UK since they’re [supposed to be] all about road safety.
I think we already have some Consignor liability in UK law, that is the law states its an offence to permit, as well as uses.
Regulation 40A of the Road Traffic Act1988 introduced by the Road Traffic Act 1991
40 A. A Person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when:
(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or
(b) the purpose for which it is used, or
(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or
(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured,
is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.
This DVSA video also covers the consignor responsibilities, start at about 1:34.
However I assume its easier to prosecute a driver with an instant roadside fines than build a case and take a company through the courts, which is why we don’t hear about companies being prosecuted for insecure loads.
However most of the time its the driver securing the load, but if a company is liable for contractors on their sites, they should also be responsible for making sure a load doesn’t leave until its correctly secured.
Quite often they do, then drivers start moaning about over the top and ridiculous health and safety.
do not know if this is eu reg I would like all vehicle that use amber beacons that they should be no more than one and a minimum height of 4 meters off the ground
Instigate a fine of £1,000 for driving with the n/s headlamp out, and £10,000 and vehicle confiscation if you drive with the o/s one out. Oh, and £500 for driving on sidelights.
And fit all vehicles with a huge spike which sticks up out of the driver’s seat when you switch on rear fog lights.
fuse:
do not know if this is eu reg I would like all vehicle that use amber beacons that they should be no more than one and a minimum height of 4 meters off the ground
I’d go one further - no beacons to be displayed at any speed over 80km/h…
Winseer:
UK car drivers have to have these headlamp deflector thingies which we’re told “bend the beam so it doesn’t shine in the eyes of oncoming traffic when driving on the continent with a RH drive car”…
All well and good, but are we not a bit sick of all those mercs and BMW cars that approach from behind, look like they’ve got their full beams on, so we end up “averting our eyes from the nearside mirror” - only to find out as they finally overtake that those headlights are not on full beam at all, but just shining up in the air like 20th century fox searchlights…
The EU shouldn’t now be able to sell their Junk to the UK - until a trade agreement is agreed. first.
That way, Germany loses hand-over-fist - if they don’t pull their damned finger out and press the EU commission to sign up to a free trade agreement with the UK - pronto!
I’d like to see just the actual driving rules kept on like 4.5hrs and having to take a 45 break - rather than this thing where you get an infringement if you don’t take a 30 minute break in the first six hours on duty - regardless of how much or how little driving has been done at that point… Also, drop this crap about not being able to work more than a 10 hour shift on nights. (Doesn’t apply to agencies anyway it seems, but it would be nice to be offered a decent full time contract again one day - with the opening for OVERTIME on it!)
Drop the WTD stuff, and keep the actual driving safety stuff then, I would suggest.
It is 15 minutes not thirty doh! The 30 minutes only applies if your duty is between 6 hours and 9 hours long. If you do an 8 hour shift with under 4.5 hours driving you can take 2 x 15 min breaks (providing of course they don’t dock you 45 min!)
I’m talking about taking the second break, just over six hours after the finish of the previous break…
Eg. Duty 13:00 start, take 30 minutes @ 18:00 hrs, re-commence duty @ 18:30, then at 00:32 get an infringement for NOT taking ANY break for 6hrs and 2 minutes since my previous break…
My duty times - are nearly always over 9 hours you see, and I’m often stuck in morning traffic trying to get back to depot at the end of my second trip out…
15 minutes, 30 minutes - isn’t making any difference. It’s getting parked up and on break on time and in time. that I’m concentrating on now.
If the WTD infringements “no longer counted”, with just the actual driving infringements staying on - then I would be no longer under pressure to take breaks to a timetable rather than at my convenience, taking traffic and general conditions into account.
“Legally enforce this country’s minumum wage with draconian measures.”
That means any EU situated firm employing EU based drivers coming over here working their 80 hour weeks on our roads they haven’t paid road duty to use, (having also filled up with diesel in France) for 400 Euros pw - gets fined heavily for paying the measly sum of 5 euros per hour - less than half of our minimum wage.
Winseer:
I’m talking about taking the second break, just over six hours after the finish of the previous break…
Eg. Duty 13:00 start, take 30 minutes @ 18:00 hrs, re-commence duty @ 18:30, then at 00:32 get an infringement for NOT taking ANY break for 6hrs and 2 minutes since my previous break…
Unless you have a job that entails a lot of “Other Work” you’ll not be getting anywhere near midnight (i.e. 11 hours into your shift) without taking at least 45 minutes Break simply for Drivers’ Hours purposes…
Who in their right mind works for 6+ hrs without taking a break anyway?
muckles:
… However I assume its easier to prosecute a driver with an instant roadside fines than build a case and take a company through the courts, which is why we don’t hear about companies being prosecuted for insecure loads.
However most of the time its the driver securing the load, but if a company is liable for contractors on their sites, they should also be responsible for making sure a load doesn’t leave until its correctly secured.
I couldn’t agree more, and I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with this ^^^
The consignors should be more responsible, or better said… the consignors should be made to be more responsible, so a good (and very cheap) way of doing this would be if DVSA/Police enforced the law equally and fairly to all concerned.
What I meant (and should have better explained ) , was a proper new law to specifically target road freight transport in which there would be proper definitions of Consignor, Carrier etc and setting out each of their respective and inescapable responsibilities similar to the way that ADR does it for the international transport of dangerous goods by road.
It’s not rocket science and wouldn’t be much of an administrative burden at time of the freight booking being agreed, but above all it would be much fairer than the present system in that the consignor would then become legally responsible for his share of any grief he causes.
) , was a proper new law to specifically target road freight transport in which there would be proper definitions of Consignor, Carrier etc and setting out each of their respective and inescapable responsibilities similar to the way that ADR does it for the international transport of dangerous goods by road.