hello bit of advice needed…
started new job as a hiab driver cat C,im confused about brakes.when i drive tacho is on drive mode.when i offloading deliveries tacho goes into other work mode.so when i have to take brake,after 4,5 hours of starting job or after 4,5 hours of driving only? does other job count as driving or not? been driving dustcarts before-no tachos no cards but 8-10 hours of work everyday…out of order,that was full-time council job i
joker83:
hello bit of advice needed…
started new job as a hiab driver cat C,im confused about brakes.when i drive tacho is on drive mode.when i offloading deliveries tacho goes into other work mode.so when i have to take brake,after 4,5 hours of starting job or after 4,5 hours of driving only? does other job count as driving or not? been driving dustcarts before-no tachos no cards but 8-10 hours of work everyday…out of order,that was full-time council job i epsom,surrey
You should have a 45 minute break before exceeding 4½ hours driving, driving is basically when the wheels are turning so other work does not count as driving.
The 45 minute driving break can be split into two parts, the first part must be at-least 15 minutes and the second part must be at-least 30 minutes and they must be taken in that order.
To comply with the working time regulations (WTD) you should also have a 15 minute break before exceeding 6 hours working time (other work, and driving), if you’ve done some driving this break can count as the first part of a 45 minute driving break.
WTD breaks can count for the drivers breaks if appropriate and vice versa.
After 4½ hours of driving. Other work doesn’t count towards this, although it does theoretically count towards Working Time Directive time, although nobody takes any notice of that. 
Harry Monk:
After 4½ hours of driving. Other work doesn’t count towards this, although it does theoretically count towards Working Time Directive time, although nobody takes any notice of that.
^^This^^
Once you get past the rules that actually matter (tacho regs) and onto rules that are just daft (WTD), it gets needlessly complicated.
robinhood_1984:
Harry Monk:
After 4½ hours of driving. Other work doesn’t count towards this, although it does theoretically count towards Working Time Directive time, although nobody takes any notice of that.^^This^^
Once you get past the rules that actually matter (tacho regs) and onto rules that are just daft (WTD), it gets needlessly complicated.
Well the WTD may be daft but unfortunately it does matter to many if not nearly all employers, telling someone to forget them which is what you appear to be suggesting is bloody stupid and likely to lead them into trouble with their employer.
Will you still tell people to forget the WTD when they get threatened with the sack for failing to comply with regulations that all employers I’ve worked for expect drivers to comply with.
Complicated and daft or not it’s what we have to live with.
tachograph:
robinhood_1984:
Harry Monk:
After 4½ hours of driving. Other work doesn’t count towards this, although it does theoretically count towards Working Time Directive time, although nobody takes any notice of that.^^This^^
Once you get past the rules that actually matter (tacho regs) and onto rules that are just daft (WTD), it gets needlessly complicated.
Well the WTD may be daft but unfortunately it does matter to many if not nearly all employers, telling someone to forget them is bloody stupid and likely to lead them into trouble with their employer.
Will you still tell people to forget the WTD when they get threatened with the sack for failing to comply with regulations that all employers I’ve worked for expect drivers to comply with.Complicated or not it’s what we have to live with.
I have to agree with tachograph and for the youngsters who have worked with RTD since its inception it should be quite straightforward. Yes the press and even VOSA have said the priority is to concentrate on Driving & Rest Periods but to suggest it isn’t worth bothering with hasn’t had to work with a large company who have time to follow the rules to the letter.
In reality, if you keep your 561/2006 hours something like correct, it follows that the RTD will be somewhere close to the rules.
tachograph:
robinhood_1984:
Harry Monk:
After 4½ hours of driving. Other work doesn’t count towards this, although it does theoretically count towards Working Time Directive time, although nobody takes any notice of that.^^This^^
Once you get past the rules that actually matter (tacho regs) and onto rules that are just daft (WTD), it gets needlessly complicated.
Well the WTD may be daft but unfortunately it does matter to many if not nearly all employers, telling someone to forget them is bloody stupid and likely to lead them into trouble with their employer.
Will you still tell people to forget the WTD when they get threatened with the sack for failing to comply with regulations that all employers I’ve worked for expect drivers to comply with.Complicated or not it’s what we have to live with.
I was agreeing with the post above my own. As for the WTD mattering to nearly all employers, you’ve having a laugh aren’t you?
If the OP works for a large company that insist on this sort of thing, then fair enough. I’m giving my opinion on what I do, not saying what he should be doing. Like I said, my post was merely an agreement of like minded opinion to the one I quoted.
robinhood_1984:
As for the WTD mattering to nearly all employers, you’ve having a laugh aren’t you?
No.
I can assure you that nearly all companies I’ve driven for and all large companies I’ve driven for expect drivers to comply with the working time regulations and will come down heavy on drivers who consistently fail to comply with them.
Failure to comply with the 6 hour rule is particularly easy to spot and will generally be reported as an infringement by the analysis company if ones involved.
I doubt many of us would disagree that the WTD is unnecessary but nevertheless companies have a legal obligation to comply with it and they do pass on that responsibility to the drivers.
I realise that you was responding to the post above and I was responding to both posts, It’s probably fair to assume that someone who needs to ask about the driving time limit is probably not to familiar with any of the regulations, and my concern is that people being told that the WTD doesn’t matter are likely to disregard them only to find themselves being reprimanded by their employers, not something most new employees would want to happen so they might as well learn the rules regardless of how unnecessary they are.
tachograph:
robinhood_1984:
I realise that you was responding to the post above and I was responding to both posts, It’s probably fair to assume that someone who needs to ask about the driving time limit is probably not to familiar with any of the regulations, and my concern is that people being told that the WTD doesn’t matter are likely to disregard them only to find themselves being reprimanded by their employers, not something most new employees would want to happen so they might as well learn the rules regardless of how unnecessary they are.
Fair point. I wouldn’t want the OP to get in to any sort of trouble with his company for taking my opinions of way of working as fact.
DCPC anyone 
shep532:
DCPC anyone
I was thinking more along the lines that the employer had failed his obligations under PUWER ?
Mike-C:
shep532:
DCPC anyone
I was thinking more along the lines that the employer had failed his obligations under PUWER ?
You’ll have to explain that one to me. I know what the obligations are but can’t get it to fit this situation.
PUWER is about protecting people from the equipment. In this case it isn’t the equipment that is the danger 
shep532:
Mike-C:
shep532:
DCPC anyone
I was thinking more along the lines that the employer had failed his obligations under PUWER ?
You’ll have to explain that one to me. I know what the obligations are but can’t get it to fit this situation.
PUWER is about protecting people from the equipment. In this case it isn’t the equipment that is the danger
Yes i can agree it doesn’t hit you 100% in the face so to speak. But PUWER’s provisions make it that employees have to be trained to use any equiptment (thats mobile too, i.e trucks/LGV’s), we know about pre use checks and maintaiance so don’t need to go over that bit. To speak simply, if a fella is out in a truck and doesn’t know what he’s doing then the liability falls on his employer. I’ve been saying since its inception that the DCPC will (if drivers stick out for it), have to be paid for by the employer. If you where sacked for not having a DCPC then you would have a field day at an employment tribunal. Thats what i said. Now it seems several solicitors are agreeing. No training, maybe DCPC or otherwise and you’re out of a job because of this fact would be an admission that the employer has not complied with the PUWER regulations. Of course you may get an employer that put his employees through every course applicable to the job under the sun, but none that qualify for DCPC status. Maybe.
Scenario…you’re sacked because you’re getting infringements on your tacho and havn’t got a clue what you’re doing even though you hold a class one licence (or class two, 7.5 ton whatever…). Fact…you’re employer has to train you and make sure you are able to comply. Not only that, he’ll have to show he has provisions in place for this. This is also a condition of operators licensing. If you’re drivers are getting it wrong, you HAVE to train/educate them.
Your glib reply indicating that drivers should know what they’re doing misses the fact that employers need to be showing /training them what to do. You’ve just started a career based on this, and you where previously a manager, i’d of thought you might be more clued up?
Mike-C:
Your glib reply indicating that drivers should know what they’re doing misses the fact that employers need to be showing /training them what to do. You’ve just started a career based on this, and you where previously a manager, i’d of thought you might be more clued up?
I’m not sure I would interpret the PUWER regulations the way you have. Operating the machine is one thing - knowing the laws of the road■■? Give someone a new design of taillift - yep they need training. Give them a vehicle that works differently - yep they need training. Ask them to do something they haven’t done before - yep they need training. That’s all PUWER - or that’s how I see it.
However - these people came to the table saying they were drivers and at that point knew the rules and regs of the road/job. Nothing has changed. If new rules came out all staff working for me got ‘trained’. This might have only been a handbook or memo or toolbox talk etc but it was sufficient taking into account the danger/risk involved. Digi tacho arrived - training sessions were put on before a digi tach even arrived in the company.
I wouldn’t say I am not clued up. I just have a different view than you. I interpret things differently - does that make me not clued up? Don’t think so.
I have already sought legal advice from employment law specialists and I would be happy to dismiss drivers in September 2014. Our legal people are willing to back this as long as the process they have prescribed is followed. It is a safe and fair process - although the drivers won’t think so. New staff have different contracts which contain specific clauses regarding DCPC. The company has to be protected.
September 2014 will be a right mess for the industry - no two ways about that. September 2013 will be the time to observe. See what happens in the PSV industry. Plenty of time for court cases to set the standard and tribunals to rule. The haulage industry will then shape themselves accordingly.
Yes I have started a career in training and I support training 100%. I always have. My old boss would sack a driver for tacho infringements. When I arrived I started a training system and even gave up my own time to help drivers and saw some miraculous improvements. This meant we retained experience and didn’t just pass the problem to another employer. But … I still stand by my conviction that drivers should know the rules - it is just a fact that some dont because they have never been taught. Nobody taught me either … I went out of my way to learn and some just won’t do that. Some won’t help themselves.
Unfortunately there is a ‘law’ says a driver needs a DCPC or they cannot be employed. There isn’t a law says an employer has to supply that DCPC. An employer could just give a 1 hour toolbox talk training session on drivers hours and they have satisfied any training obligation - they aren’t forced to give DCPC.
In my opinion (and my legal people) if an employee has been given sufficient training in their job role - obligations under PUWER, HSE stuff and employment law are covered … no DCPC delivered and no DQC gained. No tribunal could agree the employ wasn’t trained. Training records in place etc etc but still no DCPC.
We could ‘discuss’ all day. We have different views and probably always will.
I’m a nice guy. I’ll help anyone I can. But when I have my managers/consultant hat on - I am there to help the company. When I have my trainer hat on - I’m there to help the driver (but I want paying )
shep532:
I’m a nice guy. I’ll help anyone I can.
Ok got ya. Just out of interest, if you’re a consultant would you be able to scan a copy of (with any private details like company name etc… redacted) just what the instructions from a company are on say for example…pump truck and tail lift use ? I’d love to see what they look like because unfortunatley i’ve never know an employer to comply with this small part…?
You’ll have a copy though, sureley?
Mike-C:
shep532:
I’m a nice guy. I’ll help anyone I can.Ok got ya. Just out of interest, if you’re a consultant would you be able to scan a copy of (with any private details like company name etc… redacted) just what the instructions from a company are on say for example…pump truck and tail lift use ? I’d love to see what they look like because unfortunatley i’ve never know an employer to comply with this small part…?
You’ll have a copy though, sureley?
Instructions from the company.
“If you don’t know how to use it then don’t. If you want to know how to use it then ask and we will show you. if you do use it and get it wrong your fingers might fall off”
Now write that paragraph in legal speak and put it in a company handbook - it’ll take up a good few pages.
Almost all companies I am involved with give tail lift and pump truck/manual handling training. All equipment has the approriate instructions and warning lables. Manufacturers literature/handbooks are made available. Standard “if you don’t know how to use it then dont’” instructions exist.
After that - they have insurance.
Even the toilet paper has instructions printed on.
Unfortunatley a company simply cannot cover every single aspect of everything. Under HSE/PUWER/LOLER etc laws risk has to be minimised where practicable and within reason. Risk cannot always be removed or reduced completely.
Cover the big and nasty things and work down from there. Tail lifts, pump trucks - all pretty easy to cover with general instructions which manaufacturers supply. Often actual training is not required (but would be nice) - written and pictoral information will often suffice. After that we have insurance
What’s next? signs on roller shutter doors that say “This will hurt if you slam it on your hand”
I have worked at companies where the HSE have carried out site inspections and there were no issues - but if someone got hurt? The company would be in the wrong.
A worker ran over his own toes with a pump truck (HTF?). he had nice white trainers on - now with red splashes. All documentation and training records demonstrated he had been trained, the equipment was maintained and correctly signed and labeled. he had broken company policy regarding boots. he had not used the equipment as outlined in his training etc etc etc. it was his own fault. Local health and safety inspectors arrived, checked paperwork, risk assessments, written instructions, equipment maintenance records and were happy the company had done all it could to minimise the risk. The insurers still bloody paid out though … cheaper than fighting it in court.
No company can be perfect. Some at least try to do the right thing by the employees. Some however just couldn’t care less.
None of this however makes a bit of difference to the DCPC.
If the boss told half the people on here they had to attend a DCPC course in using a pump truck, tail lift and how not to trap your hand in a roller shutter door - all hell would break loose. “I’ve been doing this job 20 years who the ■■■■ do you think you are to teach me anything” blah flamin blah. But that is what needs to happen according to you.
Apart from which - I ‘consult’ on Operator Compliance … I just do H&S on the side
shep532:
I just do H&S on the side
It shows !! You’ll know (or should) full well that as well as implementing these regimes, training and practices that employers have actually to check adherence of their own procedures and make sure they are implemented. Just giving a leaflet out is not enough. Something which, in the case of a guy going to work with training shoes on using a pump truck appears to be obviously lacking. Thats seems to me on the face of it why they paid out and not because it cost to much !!
You don’t really wanna bore the boys to much with the risk assesments and method statements their employers should do for them but never do , they wouldn’t believe it. But its all there…
shep532:
Instructions from the company.
“If you don’t know how to use it then don’t. If you want to know how to use it then ask and we will show you. if you do use it and get it wrong your fingers might fall off”
Now write that paragraph in legal speak and put it in a company handbook - it’ll take up a good few pages.
The risk assesment and method statement will identify if a pump truck or tail lift is required. The regulations specify what is required after that. How you arrive at …if you want to know how to use it then ask…i’ll never know. You’re not doing to well as a consultant with me up to now. I’d be asking for my money back.
shep532:
If the boss told half the people on here they had to attend a DCPC course in using a pump truck, tail lift and how not to trap your hand in a roller shutter door - all hell would break loose. “I’ve been doing this job 20 years who the [zb] do you think you are to teach me anything” blah flamin blah. But that is what needs to happen according to you.
No, not me says that. The LAW says that.