The Twilight Zone
Page 42
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A European ruling on the meaning of drivers' hours regulations has angered police and the DOT which believes it allows drivers to stay behind the wheel for long periods without proper rest.
Last December the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled on the subject of drivers' hours, setting out what it believes to be the correct interpretation of Article 7(1 ) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 governing the number of hours that a driver may remain at the wheel without a break The case had been referred by the Crown Court at Manchester which was seeking clarification from the European Court on three questions to allow them to deal with an appeal under the Transport Act 1968 and the Drivers' Hours Regulations 1986.
The English Court wanted to know.
1 Did the Regulations create separate _1. periods of 4.5 hours driving after or during which the driver must take at least 45 minutes rest?
)In relation to a daily driving period, at Ze what point did the calculation of 4.5 hours commence?
3Did one period end and a fresh 4.5 hour period begin: a. upon completion of the aggregated 45 minutes rest or: b. at the end of 4.5 hours of aggregated driving or: c. on a rolling basis at any time when the driver has been driving for 4.5 hours in the aggregate and has not during that period taken at least 45 minutes break?
The court, in answering questions 1 and 3, held that where a driver has taken 45 minutes break either as a single break or as several breaks of at least 15 minutes during or at the end of a 4.5-hour period, the calculation should begin afresh without taking account of the driving time and breaks previously completed. This means that where a break totals 45 minutes, it does not matter that the driver has only driven one or two hours, he begins a new 4.5 hour driving period.
This changes the way LGV and coach drivers' hours are calculated. Both police and the Department of Transport, think this is likely to adversely affect road safety On the second question the Court ruled that the time of driving starts when the driver switches on his tachograph and starts driving.
Before the December ruling, the United Kingdom (and the Netherlands) had taken the view that a driver must never exceed any four and a half hour driving period without a break of 45 minutes (aggregated or as a single break). In effect this "rolling period" interpretation meant a certain amount of double counting of the hours but it did, at least in theory, ensure that drivers did not become unduly tired.
What the new ruling means is that if a driver so chooses he may "use his hours" in the following way: allowing a driver to remain behind the wheel of his vehicle for eight hours and 59 minutes with only one 15-minute break It is this aspect that is concerning the authorities in this country, the more so as it encourages drivers to drive without adequate rest. There was also concern, expressed during the hearing, that any decision which allowed drivers to extend their periods behind the wheel would fly in the face of the preamble to the Regulation which has, as two of its aims, the preservation of road safety and the improvement of the living and working conditions of drivers.
CM put these concerns to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Department of Transport.
Superintendent Chris Leithead, head of London's traffic police says: "Any extension to the number of driving hours is of serious concern to us particularly when fatigue is fast becoming recognised as a major cause of accidents. Drivers should be aware of this and take breaks at regular and frequent intervals."
Ron Norman, Branch Crown Prosecutor at Maidstone comments: "We are in the business of prosecuting offences which have a bearing on road safety and an obvious example of that is drivers' hours offences. The cases referred to us by Kent Police are always substantial breaches of the law and not simply a couple of minutes over."
"In other words the cases which we prosecute are those where there is a clear offence and most deserving of prosecution_ 1 know that the magistrates also take a serious view of these matters. So far as the ruling of the European Court is concerned, we deal with each case on its merits in line with the ruling."
The Department of Transport says: "The judgement of the European Court has implications for road safety The Department has raised this with the Commission and has suggested an amendment to the regulations as the only way in which a change in the law can be brought about. The Commission is currently reflecting on our suggestion but meanwhile the judgement has clarified the law as it stands and we are enforcing it."
As if the fog surrounding the regulations was not enough a further question has arisen on the subject of drivers' hours as a result of a case before Middleton magistrates. The question has to do with the right of a driver to take part of his break at the beginning of his second driving period and may be referred again to the European Court by way of 'further clarification' for Manchester Crown Court (which has yet to reconvene on the original case). If it is not, it may have to go to Luxembourg as a question in its own right.
There is a ray of hope for the future. The European Commission is currently examining all aspects of drivers' hours' legislation to take account of advances in technology—particularly the on-board capture devices which are due to replace the current tachographs by the end of this century. With luck the result will be a little clearer than is currently the case.
L I by Patrick Hook