We are not allowed to carry them, as are most other companies, i believe. How would this guy have felt if things had turned out to be a lot worse than it actually did? He may be an owner driver but more probably an employed one. If employed, the brown stuff is sure to hit the oscillating cooling device!
As much as companies would like you to think you’re not allowed anyone in the lorry with you because of insurance - that’s ■■■■■■■■. If it’s company policy then fair enough. My old mans company doesn’t bother.
Carrying an unauthorised passenger over here is an offence with a one point penalty on your licence if caught by DOT. Some companies have passenger programs for people who want to take their wives or a child with them but those are for the ones who are away for weeks on end.
My company will fire a driver on the spot if caught.
just sounds a load of bolix to me
I mean what the hells is wrong with passengers
what harm can it do anyone
what the hell is wrong with peoples attitude nowerdays
i know that shower of ■■■■■ uni loads in warrington when they had there whoope do induction you where told no passengers
and they are trade plate drivers who rely on thubing a lift for ■■■■ sake
More to do with accident claims thats why.
I dont know how things work in the UK. In Canada as soon as any one steps foot inside a company vehicle, they are insured and thats the problem. Companies dont want claims from passengers etc. Most I’ve worked for here dont really give a ■■■■, they dont really want you taking hitch hikers etc but if you want to take family or friends thats not an issue.
If you were to carry passengers, that may make you happy. And no-one would want that, would they ? You shouldn’t be happy while you’re at work ! 
i take my wife all over europe, from behind, and on top.
she does ask for compensation, but we don’t get the insurance company involved.
i explained that she would have to swallow the excess. 
I think I’m correct when i say there were three people, a male, a female and a child, in the second truck. That means someone wasn’t in a seat and secured by a belt. That has got to be illegal.
Gloria
Paul Gloria Meadows:
I think I’m correct when i say there were three people, a male, a female and a child, in the second truck. That means someone wasn’t in a seat and secured by a belt. That has got to be illegal.Gloria
unless it was a truck with a double passenger seat , like cargo’s etc
Paul Gloria Meadows:
I think I’m correct when i say there were three people, a male, a female and a child, in the second truck. That means someone wasn’t in a seat and secured by a belt. That has got to be illegal.Gloria
Not entirely true.
The press report we are all basing our facts on here do not what trucks were involved.
It could well have been a 7.5t with three seats and belts, it could even have been a transit sized van.
I took my missus all over with me, it was for the best, that way I didn’t have to kiss her goodbye 
The biggest problem now is the companies customers who refuse passengers as part of elf and safety rules. Many older drivers learnt the job from their old dads when they went in the lorries during holidays. I didn’t as my dad wasn’t a lorry driver but I went with other drivers when I was a kid
You cannot exclude a passenger from any third party insurance policy.
My company have no issues at all with me taking the missus. If I’m working on a Saturday she generally comes with me.
Once got pulled by police with a passenger. he wrote driver and one passenger on my show your details at the local police station. my employer went with me and the certificate must had said passengers on it otherwise i would had been up it. My feelings are that the agency and company can get another driver as any claim would be insignificant should the inevitable happen. And the company gets a free truck Marshall that looks after the truck whilst im away
Pat Hasler:
Carrying an unauthorised passenger over here is an offence with a one point penalty on your licence if caught by DOT. Some companies have passenger programs for people who want to take their wives or a child with them but those are for the ones who are away for weeks on end.
My company will fire a driver on the spot if caught.
So how do you go on with those “Take your kid to work” days that get promoted in America? Is there an exemption either way?
Not having a dig, just curious.
Paul Gloria Meadows:
I think I’m correct when i say there were three people, a male, a female and a child, in the second truck. That means someone wasn’t in a seat and secured by a belt. That has got to be illegal.
Why? You don’t needs belts in the rear seating or sleeping area of a motorhome, or in the bunk second drivers use on long distance coach journeys coach for instance, so why would it be illegal for someone to be on the bunk without a belt on? If a belt is fitted you have to wear it but bunks don’t have belts fitted so no problem.
As has been said; ALL vehicles are supposed to be insured against 3rd party risks and a passenger is a 3rd party. You are not supposed to carry more passengers than there are seats for (Yes I too have seen five-seater cars broken down with mum, dad and half a dozen kids sitting on the verge); but whether the bunk is a seat is a grey area.Wasn’t it the Renault Premium that had a funny shaped cushion to make the bunk into a seat? No belt for that either.
I suspect that the answer is that there is no hard and fast rule in law. Of course if your employer forbids it (many don’t) then you are in the doo doo with them.
Coffeeholic:
You don’t needs belts in the rear seating … of a motorhome
Coffeeholic:
Why? You don’t needs belts in the rear seating or sleeping area of a motorhome, or in the bunk second drivers use on long distance coach journeys coach for instance, so why would it be illegal for someone to be on the bunk without a belt on? If a belt is fitted you have to wear it but bunks don’t have belts fitted so no problem.
I might stand corrected on this, but I don’t think a bunk is classified in law as a seat.
I’ve heard of (and I stress only heard of) HGV’s being pulled over when a copper’s seen one man sat on the bunk. Neil, might be something to do with the fact that rear seating in motor-homes isn’t forward-facing?
Perhaps one of our tame VOSA men could enlighten us here!