OK then
at the time you missed / had to give up your spot on the ferry did you not realise you were going to run out of or be very tight on time ?
Why at this point did you not get in contact with your traffic office/ planners and ask “How am I going to get home if I run out of hours / driving time ?” In reality you should have asked this a long time ago and then you would have known your companies policy and been able to plan round it . If they will rescue you well and good , if not you can make your own plans to rescue yourself - if your silly enough to work without knowing things like this then I’m sorry nut you deserve to be left on the side of the road .Never expect someone else to sort out your problems - they won’t .
As others have said you should have stayed in the truck on the passenger seat or got into the van and refused to get out of it - your only breaking the rules if you get caught .
Rjan:
Carryfast:
If it’s paid for time then the DVSA would use that as evidence that it wasn’t part of the required daily rest period..
Which leaves the question of the silly start time in addition to the idea of using Southampton when surely Portsmouth would save running and crossing time ?.In which case ‘if’ it’s true all this needless aggro could have been easily avoided with a bit of common sense.
That’s because it wasn’t part of the daily rest time. It is as I say, leaving a person at the side of the road without a vehicle compels him to work to travel back to the operating base (or home) all the same as if he is expected to drive the vehicle itself back to the operating base.
On any occasion when a rescue is performed, or the driver has to rescue themselves, or on any occasion or in any circumstances where a person cannot reasonably be expected to start their uninterrupted daily rest, then work continues (and must be recorded) until the person reaches the sooner of either the operating base or home (or other reasonable place of rest that was foreseeable, at least as a possibility, before the journey commenced, such as a hotel).
Abandoning a driver by the side of the road is an act which stands very far indeed from the operator being able to demonstrate that they are scheduling work in such a manner as to comply with all applicable legal obligations. It does not go to mitigate the exceeding of the drivers hours, but only aggravates it by causing the driver a maliciously longer and disruptive journey back, and no doubt conniving to avoid the work being recorded.
That is even before considering the expectation that the driver return in the morning after obviously having taken less than 9 hours rest.
Where a driver is properly rescued and travels as a passenger, and relived of any active duty other than to allow himself to be carried back to base and book off, and to provide the driver with an ample period of rest before the next shift, then that is best the operator can make of the situation, and can hopefully plead that the infringement was due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances.
^ Agreed.
Although having said that the rules as they stand create a pointless catch 22 in that regard.IE if a driver can make it back to base on the 15 hour limit then needs to commute home over whatever distance that’s considered as being legal.While if the truck has to be stopped away from base,leaving the driver to commute home or to accomodation,possibly over a shorter distance,that’s considered as being illegal.It’s all bollox.In which case I can understand the temptation of a management possibly making the choice of leaving the driver to get on with it off the books.Rather than removing all doubt by bringing them in,booked as other work on the tacho and paying them for the time involved in the ‘rescue’ and then having to explain it all away.
Which still leaves the question of the stupid unbelievable start time v the pre booked and obviously known return ferry crossing at 10.30 am.Let alone adding to the issues by using Southampton rather than Portsmouth.
In which case maybe the story does ring true in the form of a management that hasn’t got a bleedin clue then stitching up the driver in an attempt to cover itself regarding the predictable results.All obviously not helped by the silly inconsistent,contradictory,hours regs regime which obviously creates the temptation to ‘get round’ the out of ( shift time ) hours away from base rescue type situation.Which should obviously be made legal in the interests of the driver.With a change in the hours regs that states that any such provision of emergency reductions of the daily rest regime means that the driver can’t start another shift within 24 hours of clocking off and going home. 
Which leaves the final question why would any driver go along with all that knowing the run allocated and the booking of the return ferry and the silly routing,in which it’s just as much his responsibility to say no,I’m not starting at 23.45,at that point. That bit being so unbelievable as to call the story bs.
beefy4605:
OK then
at the time you missed / had to give up your spot on the ferry did you not realise you were going to run out of or be very tight on time ?
If I’ve read it right the 10.30 am crossing was what was actually booked and obviously known before he started. 
One of ours is stuck on the island today as he missed his boat. Ferry service said he wouldn’t be able to get on a boat till 8. He’s still got 3 hours driving time left, but his wtd would be over 15 hours so he’s in a b&b overnight. We now have to do a report to our boss explaining how it went wrong in planning.
The OP should have either been sitting in the passenger seat on way home or in a room overnight. Think the OP needs to find a new employer as this whole escapade is farce.
Assuming it’s true I don’t get the attitude of the relief drivers. Law or not the decent thing would be to give your fellow colleagues a lift. I don’t think I could leave someone I worked with stranded. Certainly wouldn’t be able to look them in the eye after.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
Would any driver really get home at 18:00, having spent £64 on a taxi to get home, and then go to work for the same firm at 23:45 the same night? I call BS.
Harry Monk:
Would any driver really get home at 18:00, having spent £64 on a taxi to get home, and then go to work for the same firm at 23:45 the same night? I call BS.
Not just that.We also have to believe that the guvnor wanted a 23.45 start time and the driver agreed to it both knowing that the return ferry was ‘booked’ for 10.30 the following morning.
But who knows with the modern day conformist generation who’ll do whatever authority tells them to do without questioning or arguing about it.
beefy4605:
OK then
at the time you missed / had to give up your spot on the ferry did you not realise you were going to run out of or be very tight on time ?
Why at this point did you not get in contact with your traffic office/ planners and ask “How am I going to get home if I run out of hours / driving time ?” In reality you should have asked this a long time ago and then you would have known your companies policy and been able to plan round it . If they will rescue you well and good , if not you can make your own plans to rescue yourself - if your silly enough to work without knowing things like this then I’m sorry nut you deserve to be left on the side of the road .Never expect someone else to sort out your problems - they won’t .
As others have said you should have stayed in the truck on the passenger seat or got into the van and refused to get out of it - your only breaking the rules if you get caught .
In my brief experience as a TM and knowing planners you’d be amazed how many drivers simply drive right up to their hours then phone office ‘I’m out of hours’ having given them no warning whatsoever. You can normally tell at least a couple hours before you run out that there is going to be a problem, this is when you should tell the planners
I know a driver who got caught up on the M5 shenanigans the other week when the lorry went over with all the dough on and did 10hrs 7mins driving. Had his final 45 (which he was late taking anyway) at Gordano and cracked on…didn’t tell anybody either till it came up on ‘the machine’!
switchlogic:
In my brief experience as a TM and knowing planners you’d be amazed how many drivers simply drive right up to their hours then phone office ‘I’m out of hours’ having given them no warning whatsoever. You can normally tell at least a couple hours before you run out that there is going to be a problem, this is when you should tell the planners
According to the OP, he started raising the issue even before he left the IoW, over 4 hours before he ran out of duty time…
Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk
Roymondo:
switchlogic:
In my brief experience as a TM and knowing planners you’d be amazed how many drivers simply drive right up to their hours then phone office ‘I’m out of hours’ having given them no warning whatsoever. You can normally tell at least a couple hours before you run out that there is going to be a problem, this is when you should tell the plannersAccording to the OP, he started raising the issue even before he left the IoW, over 4 hours before he ran out of duty time…
Why would he need to ‘raise any issue’ then.When he and the guvnor supposedly already knew the time of the return crossing before he even started because that was the crossing he was actually ‘booked’ on and at which point it was obvious that he’d probably run out of hours if starting at 23.45 ?.All of which is why the story is probably bs.
nightline:
Wind up there is nobody that thick and to make it worse there is no two thicks together that would come up with this
Also there is no company that would do that
I have seen the same thing happen to a mate. Office bod used a pool car (co. Vehicle) to bring a driver trainer to collect the truck. They refused to give my mate a lift so he was left at the side of the road.
Personally I would have dropped the trailer and pulled the curtains. In fact I have done that. Their priority is the load, my priority is me. Any issues then I dont drop the trailer so they would lose the whole rig for a daily rest period
Carryfast:
Rjan:
[…]^ Agreed.
Although having said that the rules as they stand create a pointless catch 22 in that regard.IE if a driver can make it back to base on the 15 hour limit then needs to commute home over whatever distance that’s considered as being legal.
Well, by convention, the commute between home and a permanent workplace is not considered working time.
That doesn’t mean the employer doesn’t need to take account of it in an overall assessment of fatigue, if they are working drivers in extreme ways. And if it is not the driver’s permanent workplace, then the commute actually needs to be recorded and treated as work.
While if the truck has to be stopped away from base,leaving the driver to commute home or to accomodation,possibly over a shorter distance,that’s considered as being illegal.It’s all bollox.In which case I can understand the temptation of a management possibly making the choice of leaving the driver to get on with it off the books.Rather than removing all doubt by bringing them in,booked as other work on the tacho and paying them for the time involved in the ‘rescue’ and then having to explain it all away.
We all “understand” management. But for a moment I’ll put aside whether I’d ever accept such roadside abandonment, whether I’d be working for such a company in the first place or afterwards, or whether I’d have allowed the situation to arise (I generally abandon journeys that I don’t think can be completed within the available time, whether that means stopping in an appropriate place if equipped for a night out, or returning to base early if driving days).
In the OP’s position, I would be putting in a timesheet and enforcing payment of my hourly rate, I’d be enforcing payment of the expenses of travelling home, I would be recording the hours worked using a manual entry and a written manual entry describing the circumstances, and I’d quite possibly be squawking like a canary about what had happened to any authority figure who would listen.
Which still leaves the question of the stupid unbelievable start time v the pre booked and obviously known return ferry crossing at 10.30 am.Let alone adding to the issues by using Southampton rather than Portsmouth.
In which case maybe the story does ring true in the form of a management that hasn’t got a bleedin clue then stitching up the driver in an attempt to cover itself regarding the predictable results.
Indeed, to my eye the behaviour of the company is not unbelievable at all - I’ve worked (or in some cases, declined to work) for firms that are just as hard faced. The only thing that stretches credibility is the driver allowing it all to happen as he claims it did, but even that is not impossible if he feels, as many do, unable to stand up for himself.
All obviously not helped by the silly inconsistent,contradictory,hours regs regime which obviously creates the temptation to ‘get round’ the out of ( shift time ) hours away from base rescue type situation.Which should obviously be made legal in the interests of the driver.With a change in the hours regs that states that any such provision of emergency reductions of the daily rest regime means that the driver can’t start another shift within 24 hours of clocking off and going home.
Which leaves the final question why would any driver go along with all that knowing the run allocated and the booking of the return ferry and the silly routing,in which it’s just as much his responsibility to say no,I’m not starting at 23.45,at that point.
The real problem is not the drivers hours rules (which set the outer limits of working hours under any circumstances), but the lack of apparent enforcement of what is a reasonable pattern of work within those limits.
For example, 9 hours off between shifts for a tramper who works steady, predicable, pre-planned days on known routes with lots of foreseeable waiting time (involving no active duty), may be perfectly sustainable.
But if you’ve started at an odd time of day or night without a full sleep, commuted an hour to work, have been sent all over the place to unfamiliar places, didn’t know how long the day would be when you started the journey (because it hasn’t been planned), have been participating in the loading and unloading, haven’t had decent meals at normal times, and then finally have to drive an hour home, then this is likely to cause excessive fatigue in itself before the end of the shift, even before there is rinse and repeat after only 9 hours off.
I’m not entirely sure why but this industry doesn’t seem to have woken up yet to the problem of fatigue management.
Rjan:
I’m not entirely sure why but this industry doesn’t seem to have woken up yet to the problem of fatigue management.
Because…
They’re happy to watch drivers do 15 hour days with the blessings of the law behind them.
We can do 45 hours by Wednesday when everyone else does a 48 hour week (without the illusion of the farce that is POA and averages) in 5 days.
Management cares more about productivity and profit than wether or not old Bill Muggins falls asleep at the wheel.
andyatmorri:
No there is no hotel at clacket lane Kent bound. The only one is opposite side of M25…
yes I’m new, very new to driving lgv’s.
I asked for advise on the law as clearly I didn’t and don’t know it.
Why would this be a wind up. Yes it’s a very regular run but first time I’ve done it and
normally stay within 40 miles of base. So yes I agree I’ve messed up but transport mNager told me my responsibility is for me to work out out how I’m getting home,
Other driver was doing the very same job in his own vehicle.
So, an O/D lets someone else take his vehicle?
I call Bull
Rjan:
Well, by convention, the commute between home and a permanent workplace is not considered working time.That doesn’t mean the employer doesn’t need to take account of it in an overall assessment of fatigue, if they are working drivers in extreme ways. And if it is not the driver’s permanent workplace, then the commute actually needs to be recorded and treated as work.
We all “understand” management. But for a moment I’ll put aside whether I’d ever accept such roadside abandonment, whether I’d be working for such a company in the first place or afterwards, or whether I’d have allowed the situation to arise (I generally abandon journeys that I don’t think can be completed within the available time, whether that means stopping in an appropriate place if equipped for a night out, or returning to base early if driving days).
In the OP’s position, I would be putting in a timesheet and enforcing payment of my hourly rate, I’d be enforcing payment of the expenses of travelling home, I would be recording the hours worked using a manual entry and a written manual entry describing the circumstances, and I’d quite possibly be squawking like a canary about what had happened to any authority figure who would listen.
Indeed, to my eye the behaviour of the company is not unbelievable at all - I’ve worked (or in some cases, declined to work) for firms that are just as hard faced. The only thing that stretches credibility is the driver allowing it all to happen as he claims it did, but even that is not impossible if he feels, as many do, unable to stand up for himself.
The real problem is not the drivers hours rules (which set the outer limits of working hours under any circumstances), but the lack of apparent enforcement of what is a reasonable pattern of work within those limits.
For example, 9 hours off between shifts for a tramper who works steady, predicable, pre-planned days on known routes with lots of foreseeable waiting time (involving no active duty), may be perfectly sustainable.
But if you’ve started at an odd time of day or night without a full sleep, commuted an hour to work, have been sent all over the place to unfamiliar places, didn’t know how long the day would be when you started the journey (because it hasn’t been planned), have been participating in the loading and unloading, haven’t had decent meals at normal times, and then finally have to drive an hour home, then this is likely to cause excessive fatigue in itself before the end of the shift, even before there is rinse and repeat after only 9 hours off.
I’m not entirely sure why but this industry doesn’t seem to have woken up yet to the problem of fatigue management.
Firstly why should the ‘commute’ to/from a parked/rescued vehicle away from base either to/from home or ‘accommodation’ be treated any differently to the commute to/from base. Or for that matter what’s the point in criminalising employers and drivers in the event of running out of hours for ‘unforeseen’ reasons requiring the driver and vehicle to be ‘rescued’.When surely the rescue itself is evidence of compliance with the law as far as is possible in that case.
While if we want ‘enforcement’ and a decent fatigue regime then the best way to get that is to actually state that reduced daily rest can only be used in the case of being away from base with a suitably equipped vehicle and therefore involving no commuting time as part of that regardless.Or preferably just remove all the potential issues by imposing a blanket unbroken 12 hour daily rest provision requirement.While what is certain is that the EU hours regs regime is unfit for purpose in that regard and we could do a much better job by updating the domestic hours regs regime instead.
None of which will make much difference though in the case of management and a driver without the common sense to realise that a 23.45 start time to run to the IOW from Kent with a return crossing booked for 10.30 am ain’t going to work. Therefore at face value both should be nicked for scheduling/undertaking an impossible run that would inevitably result in the driver running out of hours without any facilities to take a daily rest provision in the vehicle.
On that note it seems like the perfect storm of thick driver and even more stupid management,all taking on mission impossible without even the luxury ( necessity ) of a sleeper cab equipped truck and instruction to use it if needed.I’m also guessing that the thing might even have been empty for the return run or at least nothing that couldn’t wait for 9 + hours.So not even any need to ‘rescue’ a time sensitive load in that case.Total bunch of muppets.
Driver-Once-More:
andyatmorri:
No there is no hotel at clacket lane Kent bound. The only one is opposite side of M25…
yes I’m new, very new to driving lgv’s.
I asked for advise on the law as clearly I didn’t and don’t know it.
Why would this be a wind up. Yes it’s a very regular run but first time I’ve done it and
normally stay within 40 miles of base. So yes I agree I’ve messed up but transport mNager told me my responsibility is for me to work out out how I’m getting home,
Other driver was doing the very same job in his own vehicle.So, an O/D lets someone else take his vehicle?
I call Bull
I think when the OP says “in his own vehicle” he meant “Not in my vehicle” - addressing an earlier question on whether they were double-manned.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Carryfast:
Rjan:
[…]Firstly why should the ‘commute’ to/from a parked/rescued vehicle away from base either to/from home or ‘accommodation’ be treated any differently to the commute to/from base.
I’m not sure there is an entirely coherent reason for the distinction, but note that the exceptional treatment of the commute as being part of the rest period does not apply to the worker’s “base” from which they happened to start that day, it applies to that worker’s permanent (i.e. settled) workplace.
One of the key differences is that, with a settled workplace, the worker usually has a degree of control over how far they choose to live from work, whereas with temporary workplaces the employer is in control.
There are of course counter-examples in each category, but it’s clearly a balancing act by lawmakers who probably haven’t felt that employers with workforces who attend a settled place via a fixed commute from home don’t tend to need the closest regulation in terms of working hours - the 8 hour day was won in factories at the end of the Victorian period, and these rules weren’t specially designed for drivers.
Or for that matter what’s the point in criminalising employers and drivers in the event of running out of hours for ‘unforeseen’ reasons requiring the driver and vehicle to be ‘rescued’.When surely the rescue itself is evidence of compliance with the law as far as is possible in that case.
Employers aren’t unduly criminalised for truly unforeseeable events. But they are expected to provide reasonable margins in their schedules. Loosely regulated, fragmented, and highly competitive markets in which market players are all trying to squeeze every last lawful second out of the rules (and possibly more) is not necessarily consistent with compliance, but that’s a problem with markets, not with rules.
While if we want ‘enforcement’ and a decent fatigue regime then the best way to get that is to actually state that reduced daily rest can only be used in the case of being away from base with a suitably equipped vehicle and therefore involving no commuting time as part of that regardless.
But what about the perfectly reasonable cases where a lot of the 15 hours consists of loading/unloading time, and the driver is staying in a hotel at the far end and gets a lie in the following morning? There isn’t a simple formula that allows all reasonable work to be done, at the same time as excluding all malign practices.
Or preferably just remove all the potential issues by imposing a blanket unbroken 12 hour daily rest provision requirement.While what is certain is that the EU hours regs regime is unfit for purpose in that regard and we could do a much better job by updating the domestic hours regs regime instead.
None of which will make much difference though in the case of management and a driver without the common sense to realise that a 23.45 start time to run to the IOW from Kent with a return crossing booked for 10.30 am ain’t going to work.
On that note it seems like the perfect storm of thick driver and even more stupid management,all taking on mission impossible without even the luxury ( necessity ) of a sleeper cab equipped truck and instruction to use it if needed.I’m also guessing that the thing might even have been empty for the return run or at least nothing that couldn’t wait for 9 + hours.So not even any need to ‘rescue’ a time sensitive load in that case.Total bunch of muppets.
Indeed. 
Rjan:
Carryfast:
if we want ‘enforcement’ and a decent fatigue regime then the best way to get that is to actually state that reduced daily rest can only be used in the case of being away from base with a suitably equipped vehicle and therefore involving no commuting time as part of that regardless.But what about the perfectly reasonable cases where a lot of the 15 hours consists of loading/unloading time, and the driver is staying in a hotel at the far end and gets a lie in the following morning? There isn’t a simple formula that allows all reasonable work to be done, at the same time as excluding all malign practices.
The problem with that is that reduced daily rest away from base but also taken away from the vehicle is more likely to result in exactly this type of scenario of reaching the 15 hour limit and then falling foul of the away from base commuting rule and/or with no convenient available accomodation anyway.
Also bearing in mind that reduced daily rest will probably more likely mean exactly that IE 9 hours off then start a new shift.In which case it doesn’t really matter what the proportion of other work v driving time makes up the shifts in question.The fact remains that it’s more likely that the end result will be a driver using the roads having had potentially less than 6,let alone 8,hours sleep between shifts based on the contradiction of it being considered ok to include commuting time within that 9 hour daily rest period in the case of shifts starting and ending at base.Which at the very least should mean that reduced daily rest should only apply in the case of daily rest taken away from base and with the vehicle.Or preferably just get rid of that provision anyway in addition to making it fit for purpose in the form of 12 hours unbroken daily rest no ifs no buts.
Instead of which we’ve got the worst of all worlds situation of it being considered ok to commute to/from base as part of a reduced daily rest period.Together with the contradiction that it’s considered illegal to rescue a driver and vehicle back to base in the event of unforeseen events resulting in the driver running out of hours.Or for that matter the driver to even commute to/from a parked vehicle without sleeper provision and suitable accomodation. Even if that accomodation is available ( doubtful without pre booking and knowing exactly where and when the shift will end ).IE the regs as they stand are a joke.
Let alone when there’s people using day cabs,supposedly undertaking a return run,needlessly starting at 23.45 from Kent,to/from the IOW,with a ferry booked back from the IOW at 10.30 am the following morning.Which is an even bigger joke. ( If the story is true )
Carryfast:
Rjan:
Carryfast:
if we want ‘enforcement’ and a decent fatigue regime then the best way to get that is to actually state that reduced daily rest can only be used in the case of being away from base with a suitably equipped vehicle and therefore involving no commuting time as part of that regardless.But what about the perfectly reasonable cases where a lot of the 15 hours consists of loading/unloading time, and the driver is staying in a hotel at the far end and gets a lie in the following morning? There isn’t a simple formula that allows all reasonable work to be done, at the same time as excluding all malign practices.
The problem with that is that reduced daily rest away from base but also taken away from the vehicle is more likely to result in exactly this type of scenario of reaching the 15 hour limit and then falling foul of the away from base commuting rule and/or with no convenient available accomodation anyway.
How can there be no convenient accommodation, if the route and the stopping place is pre-planned and the work is properly organised? The fact that such well-organised work doesn’t really exist in the HGV driving world is, as I say, a symptom of a competitive market being involved and too many carriers seeking to perform work in an erratic and disorganised way.
Also bearing in mind that reduced daily rest will probably more likely mean exactly that IE 9 hours off then start a new shift.
It doesn’t have to mean that, but even when it does there can be other compensations for it that make it reasonable overall. For example, if you’re an owner driver and are sleeping in your own well-equipped wagon, the schedule is not tight, and you are choosing when to resume work.
In which case it doesn’t really matter what the proportion of other work v driving time makes up the shifts in question.The fact remains that it’s more likely that the end result will be a driver using the roads having had potentially less than 6,let alone 8,hours sleep between shifts based on the contradiction of it being considered ok to include commuting time within that 9 hour daily rest period in the case of shifts starting and ending at base.Which at the very least should mean that reduced daily rest should only apply in the case of daily rest taken away from base and with the vehicle.Or preferably just get rid of that provision anyway in addition to making it fit for purpose in the form of 12 hours unbroken daily rest no ifs no buts.
Or just have a fatigue management system, that actually takes into account all the various factors directly, rather than trying to use working hours as a crude substitute, where work may be similar in terms of hours but have wildly different fatigue profiles.
Employers will likely resist fatigue management precisely because it hinders reactivity and limits flexibility, but reactivity and flexibility are some of the factors that impose the greatest fatigue on workers, and really they are precisely the employers who you want to feel pressure.
Instead of which we’ve got the worst of all worlds situation of it being considered ok to commute to/from base as part of a reduced daily rest period.Together with the contradiction that it’s considered illegal to rescue a driver and vehicle back to base in the event of unforeseen events resulting in the driver running out of hours.
It’s not illegal to rescue a driver who reasonably requires rescue. The illegality arises in causing drivers run out of hours in the first place, and in fact failing to rescue could be perceived as the graver offence in cases where a driver is then forced to plough on in order to get home, instead of simply awaiting rescue.
The fact that the employer may not instruct the driver to carry on, and may even tell him to stay put for the night, if the implication of that is being out in the middle of nowhere with no food, drink, or bedding, then that may amount to inducing the further work to be done, because of their failure or inability to organise any reasonable alternative.
As I say, organising a rescue (and encouraging drivers to have confidence that they can stay put and expect to be rescued) is likely to be the best course of action for an employer - because if they try to leave a driver stranded, or have a reputation for doing so, they risk inducing further driving to be done.
Or for that matter the driver to even commute to/from a parked vehicle without sleeper provision and suitable accomodation. Even if that accomodation is available ( doubtful without pre booking and knowing exactly where and when the shift will end ).IE the regs as they stand are a joke.
The only “joke” you have identified is, as I say, the exception for commutes between home and a settled workplace not being treated formally as “working time”. That doesn’t mean a long commute doesn’t need to be taken account of at all, when an employer approaches the outer limits of what is permitted by the drivers hours rules, because it is possible to comply with the drivers hours rules at the same time as infringing other laws that are framed more generally in order to control unreasonable employer conduct.