Hopefully someone could confirm/clarify the law with regards to doing a split shift.
My understanding of it, is that if during the day you have 3 or more continuous hours of break/rest you can then reduce your daily rest to 9 hours without it counting against the allowance of three 9hr rests per week and that your spread over time can be increased from 15 hours to 16 hours without it effecting the allowance of three 15hr spreads per week
Am I right or am I as is more likely, totally incorrect?
You’re right in all aspects except you can’t do the 16 hour thing any more, it’s 15 tops.
(And when it was 16, you needed 4 hours in a maximum of 3 lumps of at least an hour with last being at least 8 hours to do it, but we won’t get into that… )
Just to clarify. Say for example that during the week I’d used all my 15’s and 9hr rests and couldn’t make it home on friday, but during the day had been messed about somewhere and spent say 3 1/2 hours on a bay (tacho on rest ofcourse)…could I then take just 9 as it is a split shift, even though I’ve used my weekly allowance of 9’s up already, or indeed extend my friday to another 15hr day to get home?
gonzothejaffa1:
3 hours durin the day tacho on break twice a week and it means you can do 5 15’s if you wish to
This won’t hurt (much )
Wanna bet?
dieseldave:
A day is a 24 hour period. (OK so far?)
So far.
dieseldave:
If you do a 15, then you have 9 hours off, that makes a day. (24 hours.)
Still going OK
dieseldave:
How many times per week are you allowed to reduce your rest to 9 hours (Clue: the answer is a number very like a “3” )
Still hanging in there
dieseldave:
Therefore, how many times per week can you do a 15 (Clue: the answer is a number not like a “5” )
Correct, it isn’t a number like a 5, it is 6
And it was all going so well. Clue: read the title of the thread before replying, it helps in not giving the wrong information. Gonzothejaffa1’s reply to the original poster was correct in that even though he had used all his reduced rest periods, as long as he takes a 3 hour rest period during the day he can still do ‘15’s’ and ‘9’s’ on his other two days, thus enabling him to get home on a Friday.
Even without splitting rest it is now possible to reduce daily rest 6 times a week and be legal. Before April 11 you could reduce daily rest 3 times a week. Since the rule changes you can reduce 3 times between weekly rest periods.
For example: Monday is part way through a driver’s working week and they have so far not taken any reduced rest periods since resuming work after their weekly rest period. Their work pattern continues as below.
A week as defined by the tacho rules means the period of time between 00.00 on Monday and 24.00 on Sunday. In the fixed week above (Monday to Sunday) the driver has had 6 x 15 hour days and 6 x 9 hour daily rest periods. It is still a reduced daily rest after Wednesday’s shift, as more than 13 hours were worked, extended into a weekly rest. Six reduced rests and 6 x 15 hour days in a week and legal.
You can of course use the split rest system 6 times a week, with the longest part of the required 12 hour daily rest being 9 hours, without using any reduced daily rest periods.
Coffeeholic:
Clue: read the title of the thread before replying, it helps in not giving the wrong information.
Fair point. I’d seen the title, but hadn’t realised that it’s a bit like half full Vs. half empty in that it means either split shift or split rest. That’s the reason for my (admitted) error, rather than an excuse.
Coffeeholic:
Gonzothejaffa1’s reply to the original poster was correct in that even though he had used all his reduced rest periods, as long as he takes a 3 hour rest period during the day he can still do ‘15’s’ and ‘9’s’ on his other two days, thus enabling him to get home on a Friday.
I did struggle with understanding this:
gonzothejaffa1:
3 hours durin the day tacho on break twice a week and it means you can do 5 15’s if you wish to
I did make an assumption, made far worse in that it was based on having first made an error Again, not an excuse.
Coffeeholic:
Even without splitting rest it is now possible to reduce daily rest 6 times a week and be legal. Before April 11 you could reduce daily rest 3 times a week. Since the rule changes you can reduce 3 times between weekly rest periods.
You have that one exactly right. I had completely missed that point. (In bold.)
The rest of what you wrote is fine, now that I’ve realised that I was missing the point above. Thank you for the above.
It certainly would have been, if I’d made a contest of it.
The way I see it, he did me a favour for which I thank him.
BTW, if you ever see me actually argue drivers’ hours with Mr Hobbs, please do me a favour and book me into the nearest psychiatric facility fifthwith. (It used to be forthwith but it’s now index linked and sounds quicker anyway )
In that event, please note that I may be gone for some time…
gonzothejaffa1:
3 hours durin the day tacho on break twice a week and it means you can do 5 15’s if you wish to
This won’t hurt (much )
Wanna bet?
dieseldave:
A day is a 24 hour period. (OK so far?)
So far.
dieseldave:
If you do a 15, then you have 9 hours off, that makes a day. (24 hours.)
Still going OK
dieseldave:
How many times per week are you allowed to reduce your rest to 9 hours (Clue: the answer is a number very like a “3” )
Still hanging in there
dieseldave:
Therefore, how many times per week can you do a 15 (Clue: the answer is a number not like a “5” )
Correct, it isn’t a number like a 5, it is 6
And it was all going so well. Clue: read the title of the thread before replying, it helps in not giving the wrong information. Gonzothejaffa1’s reply to the original poster was correct in that even though he had used all his reduced rest periods, as long as he takes a 3 hour rest period during the day he can still do ‘15’s’ and ‘9’s’ on his other two days, thus enabling him to get home on a Friday.
Even without splitting rest it is now possible to reduce daily rest 6 times a week and be legal. Before April 11 you could reduce daily rest 3 times a week. Since the rule changes you can reduce 3 times between weekly rest periods.
For example: Monday is part way through a driver’s working week and they have so far not taken any reduced rest periods since resuming work after their weekly rest period. Their work pattern continues as below.
A week as defined by the tacho rules means the period of time between 00.00 on Monday and 24.00 on Sunday. In the fixed week above (Monday to Sunday) the driver has had 6 x 15 hour days and 6 x 9 hour daily rest periods. It is still a reduced daily rest after Wednesday’s shift, as more than 13 hours were worked, extended into a weekly rest. Six reduced rests and 6 x 15 hour days in a week and legal.
You can of course use the split rest system 6 times a week, with the longest part of the required 12 hour daily rest being 9 hours, without using any reduced daily rest periods.
It certainly would have been, if I’d made a contest of it.
The way I see it, he did me a favour for which I thank him.
BTW, if you ever see me actually argue drivers’ hours with Mr Hobbs, please do me a favour and book me into the nearest psychiatric facility fifthwith. (It used to be forthwith but it’s now index linked and sounds quicker anyway )
In that event, please note that I may be gone for some time…
By posting the opposite answer to Mr Hobbs, you argue with him.
Whether or not you made a contest of it is irrelevant - every time an “expert” arrives on our shore we place bets on how long it’ll be before Mr Hobbs catches him out. That particular “contest” is tradition, and his title is successfully defended…As it has been every other time and I feel certain it will continue to be in future.
By posting the opposite answer to Mr Hobbs, you argue with him.
Methinks I’m missing some logic here. If Mr Hobbs had posted first, I’d agree with you. He came along and put me right, and I’ve acknowledged that and thanked him. Sorry, but I just can’t see where I argued with him.
Lucy:
2. Whether or not you made a contest of it is irrelevant - every time an “expert” arrives on our shore we place bets on how long it’ll be before Mr Hobbs catches him out.
I’ll admit to being “caught out.” With hindsight, I should have clarified the question, but even that wouldn’t have got around Mr Hobb’s excellent point that he made bold. I did miss that. I think you might struggle to find where I’ve used any word like “expert” to describe myself though.
Lucy:
That particular “contest” is tradition, and his title is successfully defended…As it has been every other time and I feel certain it will continue to be in future.
I might be missing something else, but doesn’t a battle come before a victory? I don’t recall ever disputing anything Mr Hobbs has said on drivers’ hours. I do share your prediction for the future though…
Lucy:
So…As I said…Game, Set and Match to Mr Hobbs.
Since the “contest” is a tradition unknown to me, then “Game, Set and Match” does seem an apt description.
Now I’ve been informed that:
Lucy:
…every time an “expert” arrives on our shore we place bets on how long it’ll be before Mr Hobbs catches him out.
Since the gods have had their sport, might I have some feedback as to how long I lasted in the “contest” before being “caught out?”
How did my perfomance compare with any other “experts” in the “contest?”
I’d also be intrigued to know who placed what bets and who won and lost.
Better than ROG, who lasted only a matter of days.
About similar to X-Cop, although he has to be congratulated for the instantaneous and spectacular nature of his dummy spitting.
Not as well as Conor, although he has the advantage of many non-legal/information related posts to make him less of a challenge, and doesn’t pretend to be anything other than an average driver.
Much, much better than Scanny 77. But he is in a class of his own, and has accepted his defeat with an impressive amount of humble pie.
Nowhere near as well as Geebee45, although he cheated by not letting his credentials be known from the outset, and even then only on another website (although we did get tipped off before that.) He is, in fact, unbeaten…which is just as well, considering his position!
Bets were placed amongst the usual suspects, and merely involved the matter of whether or not our hero Hobbs would catch you out. We will begin the great “Drinking of the Profits” at approximately 9pm on Friday night in the chatroom…although pickings may be slim since no-one bet against us, which means there wasn’t actually any money to take. Should be able to manage a bowl of Twiglets for the occasion, though…
The nature of the contest and it’s purely humourous intent is such that the order of postings is irrelevant, and the title “expert” is defined as anyone who spouts forth on Hobb’s specialist subject, especially with the use of training and/or IAM Membership credentials to bolster their authority.
The second leg of the contest involves exactly how much better than Lucy you can be at avoiding saying “It’s a fair cop Guv, I were wrong” in the face of the evidence.
This includes the usage of all her favourite and most sanctimonious get out clauses along the lines of “I wasn’t wrong, I was misled”, “I wasn’t wrong I misread”, “I wasn’t wrong, I misunderstood”, and “I wasn’t wrong and am going to waste the next 6 months harrassing random fitters in a futile attempt to prove it”.
It also includes picking posts apart into multiple quotes in order to dilute the wrongness and attempt to detract from the scene of Hobb’s victory by crying foul play when faced with the details of the contest, and inserting the line “I thank you for making me think/causing me to investigate/doing me a favour” etc etc, a tactic which I consider to be pure plagiarism, as I used it to crawl out gracefully first.
In light of the above, can I congratulate you wholeheartedly on giving me a run for my money, and request that perhaps a meeting in person to discuss future avoidance of outright admission of wrongness and potential new tactics to be employed in such situations may be a bloody good laugh.
Dave never argue with a lady (or even Lucy) speshly a Yorkshire lass
As most drivers would sit in there cab on a bay with a copy of “Readers Wives” hidden within the “Daily Mirror” they appear to be reading.
So Mr H has a copy of the EU regs inside the “Readers Wives” (photographic proof available thanks to Jimboy)
oh and Lucy ■■? Twiglets eh ■■ it’s about time you brought something to the “gathering”
Lucy:
Bets were placed amongst the usual suspects, and merely involved the matter of whether or not our hero Hobbs would catch you out.
Thanks for the feedback, but then it was only a question of time…
The way this little episode went down reminded me of Jason and the Argonauts, hence the subject line…
Lucy:
We will begin the great “Drinking of the Profits” at approximately 9pm on Friday night in the chatroom…although pickings may be slim since no-one bet against us, which means there wasn’t actually any money to take.
Given the above, I wouldn’t have thought that there would [ever] be any money to take. Revenue raising tactics: 1. let it be known that Mr Hobbs will be holidaying on Mars for the next six months, or 2. inrcease the odds… (Wouldn’t make any difference, cos you’ll win anyway )
Lucy:
The second leg of the contest involves exactly how much better than Lucy you can be at avoiding saying “It’s a fair cop Guv, I were wrong” in the face of the evidence.
I’m always perpared to be wrong- and to own-up to it. I reckon I scored miserably (a fat zero??) in the avoidance stakes then…
Lucy:
… and inserting the line “I thank you for making me think/causing me to investigate/doing me a favour” etc etc, a tactic which I consider to be pure plagiarism, as I used it to crawl out gracefully first.
I’m happy to take a hit for plagiarism, but I say thanks for two reasons: 1. I think it’s polite, 2. I genuinely mean it.
Lucy:
In light of the above, can I congratulate you wholeheartedly on giving me a run for my money, and request that perhaps a meeting in person to discuss future avoidance of outright admission of wrongness and potential new tactics to be employed in such situations may be a bloody good laugh.
Thanks for that (exempt from plagiarism, I hope )
I’d add that I’d look forward to a meeting in person.
Didn’t hurt a bit MM. Softer landing if you don’t fight it
montana man:
Dave never argue with a lady (or even Lucy) speshly a Yorkshire lass
Wouldn’t dream of it, not without asking Lucy first.
montana man:
:As most drivers would sit in there cab on a bay with a copy of “Readers Wives” hidden within the “Daily Mirror” they appear to be reading.
So Mr H has a copy of the EU regs inside the “Readers Wives” (photographic proof available thanks to Jimboy)
Looks like I’ll need to start doing something similar.
montana man:
:o oh and Lucy ■■? Twiglets eh ■■ it’s about time you brought something to the “gathering”
There’s not much chance of that. Nobody will stake any money.
As for Twiglets LUXURY, when I was a lad, we had to eat a handful of cold gravel…(You walked right into that one MM )
)
Again, not an excuse.
Should be able to manage a bowl of Twiglets for the occasion, though…
