The last time this came up:
I learned about the definition of a driver, which seems to include anyone that could potentially take over the driving. This does kind of change my attitude to when I am a passenger for whatever reason.
The question of whether the DVSA would be interested in someone who hasn’t driven for weeks or months is rather a moot point. If they were interested, it would be a sad state of affairs to be honest.
stevieboy308:
It is written in law that if you’re classed as a driver for the EU regulations then you must use the recording equipment.The definition of a driver for the EU regulations is anyone who is being carried in a vehicle as part of their employment to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary.
So if you’re getting a lift from a colleague to say go and pick up a car, you have no intention of driving the truck and have been doing holiday cover in the office for the past month, you would be classed a a driver for that lift, so would need to put your card in and have the previous 28 days of records with you
You’ve omitted two quite significant words from your definition. The relevant legislation says “‘Driver’ means any person, whether wage-earning or not, who drives the vehicle even for a short period, or who is carried on a vehicle as part of his duties in order to be available for driving if necessary;” (my emphasis).
In the situation under discussion (going to pick up another vehicle etc) he is being carried on the vehicle in order to get him from A to B, not to be available to drive the vehicle he is being carried in. ‘In order to’ is a subordinating conjunction which introduces a subordinate clause (to drive the vehicle if necessary) which is the purpose of the main clause (being carried on the vehicle). Those who draft our legislation take great care to use words and phrases which accurately convey the meaning intended. They didn’t write “…carried on a vehicle as part of his duties and as a consequence is available to drive it if it becomes necessary” because that’s not what they meant - They were concerned specifically with the purpose for which he is being carried on the vehicle.
(Edit to add: But if the situation changed and he did need to drive it (eg original driver taken ill etc) then he could only legally do so if he was in possession of records showing his activities for the previous 28 days)
I sometimes go out with another driver as a porter. When we are moving I might be helping with navigation, dealing with paperwork or calling the transport office or delivery points. None of that is poa. To get an accurate record of my days work I have to do it by recording that time as other work and I can’t do that if my card is in slot 2.
Mystery Action:
I sometimes go out with another driver as a porter. When we are moving I might be helping with navigation, dealing with paperwork or calling the transport office or delivery points. None of that is poa. To get an accurate record of my days work I have to do it by recording that time as other work and I can’t do that if my card is in slot 2.
You can, you put you card in slot 2, you then do a printout to make the correct records of your duties, that is your only legal option
Roymondo:
stevieboy308:
It is written in law that if you’re classed as a driver for the EU regulations then you must use the recording equipment.The definition of a driver for the EU regulations is anyone who is being carried in a vehicle as part of their employment to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary.
So if you’re getting a lift from a colleague to say go and pick up a car, you have no intention of driving the truck and have been doing holiday cover in the office for the past month, you would be classed a a driver for that lift, so would need to put your card in and have the previous 28 days of records with you
You’ve omitted two quite significant words from your definition. The relevant legislation says “‘Driver’ means any person, whether wage-earning or not, who drives the vehicle even for a short period, or who is carried on a vehicle as part of his duties in order to be available for driving if necessary;” (my emphasis).
In the situation under discussion (going to pick up another vehicle etc) he is being carried on the vehicle in order to get him from A to B, not to be available to drive the vehicle he is being carried in. ‘In order to’ is a subordinating conjunction which introduces a subordinate clause (to drive the vehicle if necessary) which is the purpose of the main clause (being carried on the vehicle). Those who draft our legislation take great care to use words and phrases which accurately convey the meaning intended. They didn’t write “…carried on a vehicle as part of his duties and as a consequence is available to drive it if it becomes necessary” because that’s not what they meant - They were concerned specifically with the purpose for which he is being carried on the vehicle.
(Edit to add: But if the situation changed and he did need to drive it (eg original driver taken ill etc) then he could only legally do so if he was in possession of records showing his activities for the previous 28 days)
This is the definition from 561/2006 legislation
“driver’ means any person who drives the vehicle even for a short period, or who is carried in a vehicle as part of his duties to be available for driving if necessary;”
Either way I don’t see how “in order” changes anything anyway
Of course if it becomes necessary the passenger will take over driving, so he’s a driver, like you said, so therefore he was always classed as a driver and as a driver needed his card in and the previous 28 days of records. Intention to drive is irrelevant.
stevieboy308:
Mystery Action:
I sometimes go out with another driver as a porter. When we are moving I might be helping with navigation, dealing with paperwork or calling the transport office or delivery points. None of that is poa. To get an accurate record of my days work I have to do it by recording that time as other work and I can’t do that if my card is in slot 2.You can, you put you card in slot 2, you then do a printout to make the correct records of your duties, that is your only legal option
If it was me I’d just do a manual entry the next time I’m driving and just record it all as other work and add in a break if it lasted more than 6 hours.
I’m not gonna win on the legal side of an argument with Steve.
But on the common sense angle. It makes the most sense by far.
And if I ever get fined by the DVLA for having to do this I’d rather they just revoke my HGV entitlement.
adam277:
stevieboy308:
Mystery Action:
I sometimes go out with another driver as a porter. When we are moving I might be helping with navigation, dealing with paperwork or calling the transport office or delivery points. None of that is poa. To get an accurate record of my days work I have to do it by recording that time as other work and I can’t do that if my card is in slot 2.You can, you put you card in slot 2, you then do a printout to make the correct records of your duties, that is your only legal option
If it was me I’d just do a manual entry the next time I’m driving and just record it all as other work and add in a break if it lasted more than 6 hours.
I’m not gonna win on the legal side of an argument with Steve.
But on the common sense angle. It makes the most sense by far.
And if I ever get fined by the DVLA for having to do this I’d rather they just revoke my HGV entitlement.
But I don’t see the hardship for a full-time driver to just put their card in!
I get the headache it creates for an occasional driver who hasn’t got the previous 28 days of records.
They won’t revoke it, they’ll just give you a fpn of £300, you can decide to stop driving at that point if you want, but it won’t cancel the fine.
Get stuck in traffic, or a breakdown so the driver runs out of time, would you put you card in? Would you do a manual entry from the beginning? What if that means you might not make it back? Or would you start with a fresh card? That is why the rules say you must have your card in.
A now gone local firm to me used to run 7.5t with 2 drivers, 1st driver did his shift then 2nd driver did his shift, only their own cards in, on paper not limited to 21 hours
Ok,thanks for the replies,bloody hell,its complicated isnt it…
Roymondo:
stevieboy308:
“‘Driver’ means any person, whether wage-earning or not, who drives the vehicle even for a short period, or who is carried on a vehicle as part of his duties in order to be available for driving if necessary;”)This is the definition from 561/2006 legislation
“driver’ means any person who drives the vehicle even for a short period, or who is carried in a vehicle as part of his duties to be available for driving if necessary;”
.
Can either of you provide a link to the legislation? Or is it not in a simple form?
I think the words “in order” would be significant if they exist.
stu675:
Roymondo:
stevieboy308:
“‘Driver’ means any person, whether wage-earning or not, who drives the vehicle even for a short period, or who is carried on a vehicle as part of his duties in order to be available for driving if necessary;”)This is the definition from 561/2006 legislation
“driver’ means any person who drives the vehicle even for a short period, or who is carried in a vehicle as part of his duties to be available for driving if necessary;”
.
Can either of you provide a link to the legislation? Or is it not in a simple form?
I think the words “in order” would be significant if they exist.
driver’ means any person who drives the vehicle even for a short period, or who is carried in a vehicle as part of his duties to be available for driving if necessary;
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content … 32006R0561
Even if it said in order, that wouldn’t change anything anyway
Some interesting things crop up when looking at this.
I drive an 8 wheel wag and drag at max length. In the event of getting recovered by a wrecker theoretically I should put my card in as I am available to drive it if the need arose. Would I hell, Whilst being technically able to I,m not going to start driving something 30m bending all over the place.
Or if driving my car when not working, car breaks down and gets recovered. Haven’t got Tacho card with me. Getting a lift with a mate after having a few beers and same thing happens, over the limit.
What if you are in ADR vehicle but not trained.
Numerous reasons why you would not do so, you’d like to think you’d be OK
8wheels:
Some interesting things crop up when looking at this.I drive an 8 wheel wag and drag at max length. In the event of getting recovered by a wrecker theoretically I should put my card in as I am available to drive it if the need arose. Would I hell, Whilst being technically able to I,m not going to start driving something 30m bending all over the place.
Or if driving my car when not working, car breaks down and gets recovered. Haven’t got Tacho card with me. Getting a lift with a mate after having a few beers and same thing happens, over the limit.
What if you are in ADR vehicle but not trained.
Numerous reasons why you would not do so, you’d like to think you’d be OK
But you’re not being carried in the wrecker as part of your duties to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary
stevieboy308:
But you’re not being carried in the wrecker as part of your duties to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary
So that means the words “in order” are relevant!!!
stu675:
stevieboy308:
But you’re not being carried in the wrecker as part of your duties to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary
So that means the words “in order” are relevant!!!
The words “in order” are not in the legislation!
So no, they aren’t relevant.
You don’t work for the wrecker company, so you are not being carried in the wrecker to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary and you’re probably not gonna be insured to drive it either.
You don’t work for the wrecker company, so you are not being carried in the wrecker in order to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary and you’re probably not gonna be insured to drive it either.
I don’t get why people think there’s a significance in “in order” which isn’t stated in the legislation anyway, but it is featured in the official government guidance on the 562/2006 legislation
stevieboy308:
stu675:
stevieboy308:
But you’re not being carried in the wrecker as part of your duties to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary
So that means the words “in order” are relevant!!!
The words “in order” are not in the legislation!
So no, they aren’t relevant.
You don’t work for the wrecker company, so you are not being carried in the wrecker to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary and you’re probably not gonna be insured to drive it either.
You don’t work for the wrecker company, so you are not being carried in the wrecker in order to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary and you’re probably not gonna be insured to drive it either.
I don’t get why people think there’s a significance in “in order” which isn’t stated in the legislation anyway, but it is featured in the official government guidance on the 562/2006 legislation
But we are getting into semantics.
If I am given a lift by a driver to the local McDonald’s I am not putting my card in. Ye there may be a million to one chance of the driver having a heart attack and me having to drive the vehicle back to the yard. But even then I’d just do a manual entry.
Your quoting as you full well know quite obscure legislation that many people have asked for its source because they being experienced drivers have not even heard of it before.
Regardless of the law you have to admit it is ■■■■■■■ stupid and needs simplifying. Simply for the fact that there is so much confusion on this very thread and we are all HGV drivers; the people who are meant to understand the rules.
adam277:
stevieboy308:
stu675:
stevieboy308:
But you’re not being carried in the wrecker as part of your duties to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary
So that means the words “in order” are relevant!!!
The words “in order” are not in the legislation!
So no, they aren’t relevant.
You don’t work for the wrecker company, so you are not being carried in the wrecker to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary and you’re probably not gonna be insured to drive it either.
You don’t work for the wrecker company, so you are not being carried in the wrecker in order to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary and you’re probably not gonna be insured to drive it either.
I don’t get why people think there’s a significance in “in order” which isn’t stated in the legislation anyway, but it is featured in the official government guidance on the 562/2006 legislation
But we are getting into semantics.
If I am given a lift by a driver to the local McDonald’s I am not putting my card in. Ye there may be a million to one chance of the driver having a heart attack and me having to drive the vehicle back to the yard. But even then I’d just do a manual entry.
Your quoting as you full well know quite obscure legislation that many people have asked for its source because they being experienced drivers have not even heard of it before.
Regardless of the law you have to admit it is [zb] stupid and needs simplifying. Simply for the fact that there is so much confusion on this very thread and we are all HGV drivers; the people who are meant to understand the rules.
I’m not getting into semantics, some people are over 2 words which don’t even feature in the legislation. I’m saying even if they were in there, like they are in the official guidance on the legislation, then it makes absolutely no difference at all anyway.
That might be the most expensive MD’s you eat! Because you now know that if you get stopped you’re gonna be getting a £300 fine, in the eyes of the law you’re no different to if the driver didn’t have his card in, you can disagree with it all you want or say it’s stupid, but it’s what the legislation says that’s important not your opinion.
Intent to drive is irrelevant in the legislation, it’s basically if you would if it becomes necessary, so waiting till you do then doing a manual entry is not a legal option. Again there’s no hardship for a full-time driver to put their card in for the food run.
I’m not quoting obscure legislation, I’m quoting the definition of a driver from the 561/2006 legislation, what we call the EU regs and the full official UK government guidance on that legislation too. People haven’t heard of it because the majority of drivers don’t have a good understanding of the rules, the vast majority will have never read the legislation or the full official guidance, let alone remember a very good understanding of it. Do you disagree with that?
Where do you draw the line? Getting a lift for food 5 miles away, 10, 20, 50, 100, 300?
2 drivers, 1 just as a porter, on a 1 hour driving run, chances are the porters very unlikely to need to drive, but 5 hours, 7, 8, 9, 10, it becomes far more likely the porter is going to need to drive. Then if they don’t drive for a day or 2, boom they’ve laughing because they on paper say they’ve had a weekly rest,
The line is drawn at if you’re being carried on the vehicle as part of your duties to be available to drive it if it becomes necessary, that’s pretty simple, just the vast majority haven’t taken time to read it
“to be available” infers intention. (That’s a fact of the English language).
So the driver and porter scenario, where the porter could drive if the driver fell ill. But the purpose he is in the vehicle is to be a porter with no intention of driving.
If the legislation was meant to be interpreted as you suggest, it would simply use the word “are”, “are available” i.e. a matter of fact that the passenger is able to drive. “To be” brings in intention.
Is there any case law on this?
stu675:
“to be available” infers intention. (That’s a fact of the English language).
So the driver and porter scenario, where the porter could drive if the driver fell ill. But the purpose he is in the vehicle is to be a porter with no intention of driving.
If the legislation was meant to be interpreted as you suggest, it would simply use the word “are”, “are available” i.e. a matter of fact that the passenger is able to drive. “To be” brings in intention.Is there any case law on this?
Eh?
‘driver’ means any person who drives the vehicle even for a short period, or who is carried in a vehicle as part of his duties to be available for driving if necessary;
Just point out again which bit is saying there must be an intention to drive, maybe it’s me!!!
Just to toss something else into the mix, I’ve a friend who has had his license suspended pending medical decision. He’s hoping to get it back, but in the meantime he’s being sent out as a passenger to supervise agency drivers (It’s a complex job, not just simple rdc work). As he’s got no license he obviously can’t drive, but should he use his card to record his work?
WhiteTruckMan:
Just to toss something else into the mix, I’ve a friend who has had his license suspended pending medical decision. He’s hoping to get it back, but in the meantime he’s being sent out as a passenger to supervise agency drivers (It’s a complex job, not just simple rdc work). As he’s got no license he obviously can’t drive, but should he use his card to record his work?
No, but if / when he starts back he’ll need the previous 28 days of records, so could use it for that as that would be the easiest way to do it