jimboy124:
ROG:
Hopefully geebee45 will have a few spare mins to post on this …You must get right on his wick
I’l let Graeme answer that because you are unlikely to believe anything I say as you seem to have an agenda where I am concerned.
Wheel Nut:
Like Jim moving to TNT. I thought geebee45 had moved on too.Must be mistaken
Just because a person moves on does that mean their knowledge ie deleted?
shep532:
The driving of the 3.5t van does not require ANY records for domestic rules. It is not in scope of Operator Licensing - therefore exempt record keeping. Not even a log book. After driving it - the only record i would make is one to show work when I then get in the EU vehicle. When stopped by VOSA the ONLY record there would be would be my tacho showing 4 hours of work. Why would they ask what I had been doing during the 4 hours? It was just work, and is recorded accordingly and legally.
OK I see where you’re coming from now but in practical terms I don’t really see much of a problem, as you said why would anyone ask what you was doing for the 4 hours, and if they do … LIE 
shep532:
Would be a different matter if the rules said driving of the domestic vehicle counts as driving under EU. Would all make sense then
I don’t think it would make that much sense given that the definition of driving for domestic rules is completely different to the EU definition of driving.
shep532:
As it is - I think it is unclear and soooo open to legal fiddling
That’s a good thing isn’t it 
To be honest I think the scenario you’ve described is complicating a problem that as far as I’m concerned is solved at-least until we get a good reason for thinking otherwise.
When on mixed regulations you should comply with both sets of regulations, although ROG has said otherwise he’s been unable to substantiate the claim that domestic duty time can be ignored and hasn’t even tried to explain the reason why so …
tachograph:
When on mixed regulations you should comply with both sets of regulations, although ROG has said otherwise he’s been unable to substantiate the claim that domestic duty time can be ignored and hasn’t even tried to explain the reason why so …
Did I state that or was that info gained from a reputable and respected source ?
ROG:
tachograph:
When on mixed regulations you should comply with both sets of regulations, although ROG has said otherwise he’s been unable to substantiate the claim that domestic duty time can be ignored and hasn’t even tried to explain the reason why so …Did I state that or was that info gained from a reputable and respected source ?
I’ve no idea but either way you’ve been unable to give any reason for what you say other than someone told you so.
tachograph:
ROG:
tachograph:
When on mixed regulations you should comply with both sets of regulations, although ROG has said otherwise he’s been unable to substantiate the claim that domestic duty time can be ignored and hasn’t even tried to explain the reason why so …Did I state that or was that info gained from a reputable and respected source ?
I’ve no idea but either way you’ve been unable to give any reason for what you say other than someone told you so.
I do not know the reason - if I did I would have stated it
Perhaps you would care to contact the member who does know and ask them to put that reason on here 
tachograph:
ROG:
tachograph:
When on mixed regulations you should comply with both sets of regulations, although ROG has said otherwise he’s been unable to substantiate the claim that domestic duty time can be ignored and hasn’t even tried to explain the reason why so …Did I state that or was that info gained from a reputable and respected source ?
I’ve no idea but either way you’ve been unable to give any reason for what you say other than someone told you so.
This ^^^^ is another reason why anybody should take any notice of you …
ROG:
tachograph:
ROG:
tachograph:
When on mixed regulations you should comply with both sets of regulations, although ROG has said otherwise he’s been unable to substantiate the claim that domestic duty time can be ignored and hasn’t even tried to explain the reason why so …Did I state that or was that info gained from a reputable and respected source ?
I’ve no idea but either way you’ve been unable to give any reason for what you say other than someone told you so.
I do not know the reason - if I did I would have stated it
Perhaps you would care to contact the member who does know and ask them to put that reason on here
I’ve no intention whatsoever of bothering hard working people and asking them to give up their time to contribute towards a discussion they may or may not be interested in, if someone wants to take part in this discussion I’m sure they will without being bothered or pestered by me or anyone else.
As far as I’m concerned this is a debate about the regulations and like any other discussion simply saying that someone told you this that or the other has little or no relevance, apart from anything else how would we know that you never conveyed the question incorrectly or misunderstood the answer.
If you cannot be bothered to get the info from the source then why pester me for an answer to which I dont know the answer to ?
ROG:
If you cannot be bothered to get the info from the source then why pester me for an answer to which I dont know the answer to ?
When have I pestered you for an answer to any question let alone the one being discussed here 
You volunteered information that you claim you was told, you offered no explanation other than the fact that someone told you and now you’re getting upset because the information is being brought into question.
Given the fact that the information you volunteered seems to contradict VOSA’s own book GV262 and I can’t find anything in the regulations to back-up your information I can’t see any reason why you would not expect that information to be questioned.
You see ROG, contrary to what you believe should happen, what you say will not always and should not always be taken at face value just because you said it 
tachograph:
ROG:
If you cannot be bothered to get the info from the source then why pester me for an answer to which I dont know the answer to ?When have I pestered you for an answer to any question let alone the one being discussed here
You volunteered information that you claim you was told, you offered no explanation other than the fact that someone told you and now you’re getting upset because the information is being brought into question.
Given the fact that the information you volunteered seems to contradict VOSA’s own book GV262 and I can’t find anything in the regulations to back-up your information I can’t see any reason why you would not expect that information to be questioned.
You see ROG, contrary to what you believe should happen, what you say will not always and should not always be taken at face value just because you said it
All I did was pass on info from a super reliable source - whether you or anyone else wishes to believe that info is a different matter but if anyone thinks that either the info being passed on or the source has it incorrect then contact the source without giving excuses as to why not = simple
ROG:
All I did was pass on info from a super reliable source - whether you or anyone else wishes to believe that info is a different matter but if anyone thinks that either the info being passed on or the source has it incorrect then contact the source without giving excuses as to why not = simple
You actually regard not wishing to pester other people about a discussion they’re not directly involved in as an excuse … unbelievable
tachograph:
ROG:
All I did was pass on info from a super reliable source - whether you or anyone else wishes to believe that info is a different matter but if anyone thinks that either the info being passed on or the source has it incorrect then contact the source without giving excuses as to why not = simpleYou actually regard not wishing to pester other people about a discussion they’re not directly involved in as an excuse … unbelievable
Obviously you do not know this member as i do
I have stayed out of this discussion for the simple reason. I find the mixed driving rules very confusing and there are so many exemptions, loopholes and unclear legislation to use. The domestic rules were written in 1968 and do not fit easily into the 2007 EU legislation.
Wheel Nut:
The domestic rules were written in 1968 and do not fit easily into the 2007 EU legislation.
Blimey are you geebee45 in disguise !! - that is what he said to me
I’m going to approach VOSA on this one and see if I can get something in writing.
Meanwhile I think Wheelnut has the best answer … 
Thank you Rog for your answer to my question at the head of this thread, it has certainly stimulated an interesting debate 
Ragnarok:
Thank you Rog for your answer to my question at the head of this thread, it has certainly stimulated an interesting debate
You’re welcome
What I should have done is to stop at that post and not gone any further = lesson learned !!
shep532:
I’m going to approach VOSA on this one and see if I can get something in writing.Meanwhile I think Wheelnut has the best answer …
I think if your on domestic, is there not a limit on the amount of clicks you can drive say 50 to 100 to collect, say milk from a farm but if you go over that 100 kms then you revert to eu driving regs! Talking to a milk tanker driver about it last week at acton, copper thought he had him, dropped the domestic in, then bye bye driver no case to answer! Just sat me last DCPC on saturday, this is what came up! 
too confusing, open to legal fiddling 
Vehicles used for milk collection from farms or the return to farms of milk containers or milk products intended for animal feed.
There are no other caveats such as distance for that exemption