Neljorpa

question for tacho - rats (rest times)

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I'm here again to ask a question to the cousins of other police offices in Europe about  some offenses relating to the tachograph, only topic of traffic police common throughout Europe.

 

I state that this question make sense only if you have in the UK as in Italy a progressive system of penalties for violations of driving and rest times. If, however, your system of sanctions is not progressive, my question does not make sense because in your case the problem there is no problem.

 

Anyways in Italy infringements for excess in daily and weekly driving times and reduction of daily and weekly rests are progressive and related to the percentage of increase in illegal driving and unlawful reduction of rest.

 

The question I ask myself and where I have a conflict of interpretation with a colleague - friend regards the weekly rests

 

I start by making a brief summary of European legislation according to Reg. EC 561/2006 on weekly rest:

short rest (at least 24 h.) è long rest (at least 45 h.) è short rest (at least 24 h.) long rest with  recovery of the non compliance (minimum 45 h. + 21 h.). All these rest should be at a maximum of 6 rounds of 24 h. between them.

 

So far no problem ....... I describe the problem of interpretation from now on:

 

I believe that the ability to have a weekly long rest (45 h.) and a short (24 h.) alternating between them is a abstract right that is independent from the actual compliance with the regulations. I describe my theory as if the sequence described above can be printed on a sheet of translucent paper to be overlaid to the real rests made by the drivers. This overlap has to be made in the manner most favorable to the driver, that is, putting the concrete short rest in coincidence of theoretical 24 h. and a concrete longer rest in coincide with the theoretical rest of 45 h. If we did the opposite it would be a punitive treatment towards the drivers because a real rest for 20 h. superimposed to a theoretical rest of 45 h. is sanctioned more heavily than it happens if we overlap to a theoretical rest of 24 h.

 

My friend - colleague believes, in contrast, that the driver earns the right to have a short rest (24 h.) only if he has actually and really done before a long rest (45 h.), it is like a carpet that unrolls slowly in front of a person walking on it and giving small kicks to it. The right to give the kick to the carpet and unroll it earns having a rest along 45 h. In this way, for a same sequence of wrong rests sanctioning treatment becomes heavier.

 

I show you the following example with a sequence of weekly rest all irregular:

 

20 h è 20 h. è 20 h. è 20 h., etc.

 

I think right calculate the shortfall once starting from 45 h. (sanction higher because the shortfall is greater: 45-20 h. = 25 h.) and once starting from 24 h. (penalty lowered because the shortfall is less: 24 h. - 20 h. = 4 h.) and continuing with this sequence until the fourth rest that will have a very heavy sanction because the shortfall is to be calculated from the rest of the theoretical 70 h. (45 h + 25 h of recovery from the first short rest). Anyway for the first three weeks I believe is right to do a penalty high and a penality low alternating between them.

 

My friend and colleague, thinks, instead, in the above sequence, that there is no rest for 45 h. so the driver has not right to have a rest period of 24 h. All the shortfalls of the first 3 weeks must be calculated from 45 h. And all the penality are very strong.

 

You can understand that taking a through interpretation or other causes large differences in penalties for drivers in a system (such as Italian) which increased penalties in % to the increase of the non compliance.

 

What do you think of these two different interpretations? ... .. I repeat, if you in the UK have a system with fixed and not growing penalities this problem does not exist for you.

 

Thank you in advance who will respond.

 

And please - if you want to meet - to use plain english because I have a little difficulty to translate into Italian

 

Gabriele

 

Greetings to all the tacho - rats in the UK !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back. I think that the tacho legislation is very complex, but nothing seems so complex as an Italian trying to explain in English, the idiosynchosies of the legislation !! ;)

In the UK.our legal system Is such that each Magistrate has their own interpretation of the severity of offences and can punish to varying degrees according to a standard scale. This means that one serious offence can receive a less severe punishment than a minor one because the Magistrate (or Sheriff in Scotland) has decided what punishment to give.

Anyway, I've been away from Road Policing for nearly 2 years and hated tacho legislation when I was RP. Hopefully another member can make sense of what you are trying to explain and give you a UK interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gabriele

Give me a day to work it out.

The UK do use Graduated Fixed Penalties, such as Fail to use Driver Card - £300

Drive with out break 4.5 Hrs to 5.5 Hrs £100

What system are you using for analysis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank to 999Tommo and Traffic Rat for their response .....

 

I understand that with a national system of sanctions different from ours it is difficult to reason on the subject.

 

Anyway I try to provide further data to explain better the problem.

 

I expose a summary of the italian penality systyem for the infringements relating to the reduction of weekly rest below the minimum allowed:

 

- If the reduction does not exceed 10% of the rest: no sanction (strange but true) but there is anyway the obligation to recover the shortfall within the third consecutive week

 

- If the reduction is between 11% and 20% there is a penalty of € 372.00 (€ 496.00 if the offense is committed during the night) and deduction of three points on driving licences

 

- If the reduction exceeds 20%, there is a penality of € 425.00 (€ 566.67 if the offense is committed during the night) and deduction of 5 points on the driving licence.

 

One can well understand that the three different intervals assume different value if we take as a basis for reducing a rest period of 45 h. or 24 h.

 

If we take as a base a rest of 45 h. we have the following bands:

- Reduction no more than 10%: rest between 44h., 30 min and 44 h., 59 min.

 

- Reduction between 11% and 20%: rest between 36 hr., 00 min. and 44 hr., 29 min.

 

- Reduction over 20%: resting with length of less than 36 h., 00

 

If instead we take as a base a rest period of 24 h. We have the following bands:

- Reduction no more than 10%: rest between 21 h., 26 min. and 23 hr., 59 min.

 

- Reduction between 11% and 20%: rest between 19 h., 12 min and 21 h., 35 min.

 

- Reduction over 20%: resting with length of less than 19 h, 12 min.

 

At this point you can understand that a weekly rest along 20 h. falls in the third band if we take as basis the rest from the 45 h. and falls in the second band if we take as a basis the rest of 24 h.

 

I recover, now, the initial example: a series of weekly rest all irregular long 20 h.

 

I think it is correct to apply a penalty in the third band alternating with a penalty in the second band continuing in this way because the driver has an abstract right to consume a rest period of 45 h. and one of 24 h. alternating between them.

 

My friend - colleague believes instead that it is correct to apply a series of penalties all in the third band because the driver has not consumed any rest for 45 h. Under such conditions, he is not entitled to consume a following rest period of 24 h. In these conditions my collegue believs correct always use the 45 h. Rest as the basis for calculating the reduction.

 

Gabriele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Traffic rat:

 

For the analog charts we are equipped with some checkers (in italian they are called “cursori”).

 

For the tachograph cards we are equipped with two different portable devices for downloading and analyzing data:

- The Stoneridge Digifobpro

- the VDO Inspection -Kit

 

Obviously we control manually the printouts related to the days in which the devices show infringements.

 

We have not bought analysis programs for office because they are too expensive and there is the problem of the annual renewal of the licence of the program. Every year we would be forced to perform the acts to justify the expense of licence renewal that - in the famous Italian bureaucracy - you can assume that they are very very complex.

 

I can say that to use two different devices with different analysis programs is interesting because it brings out the different philosophies of the team of programmers who have created the programs. By inserting the same driver card first in a device and then in the other brings out that the messages of infringement often do not coincide, and in the first times it is frustrating but when you have understood the different philosophies of the programmers it becomes funny.

 

In recent months I am working on an article that illustrates these differences in the infringments-messages of these different devices. The article is almost ready but it is very long and is written in Italian, so I think it is useless for the UK tacho-rats. Anyway when it will be completed I will make a whistle on this forum and I will send it by email to those interested.

 

Gabriele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gabriele,

 

The Uk system seems a bit more straight forward

 

If a driver takes a Reduced weekly rest (24 Hrs) after 6 daily drives our penalaties are as follows :

Less than 24 Hrs more than 22 Hrs - £100

Less than 22 Hrs More than 21 Hrs - £200

Less than 21 Consecutive hours - £300

 

Full Weekly rest (45 Hrs) after 6 daily drives

Less than 45 Hrs, More than 43 Consecutive hrs - £100

Less than 43 Hrs, More than 42 Hrs - £200

Less than 42 Hrs - £300

 

With regard to Payback of hours for a Reduced Rest period

Fail to take 3 rs compansation rest required before 3rd week reduced weekly rest - £100

Fail to take more than 3, less than 4 Hrs comp rest before 3rd week - £200

Fail to take 4 Hr or more comp rest before 3rd week - £300

 

We use the Stoneridge Digifobpro for quick checking and downloading and move the data to Stoneridge OPTAC 3 for examination.

 

A problem we found is the Digifob appears to miss the Ferry ,movement rule so it will show an infringement for Insufficient daily rest, but when looked at properly, the movement was under the 11 Hrs Ferry rule so is permisable

 

It may be we look at teh Reduced daily rest in a more simplistic way or the rather teh program does and counts the hours better I dont know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Traffic rat:

 

Thank you for your very precise response.

 

I can see that in the UK you do not have this problem because a rest period of 20 h. falls into the third category of penalty (200 pounds) if you calculated the difference from 45 h. and if you to calculate the difference from 24 h.

 

Your system of sanctions is very nice and efficient  :clap: :clap: :clap:.... I want to come to work with you !!!......    ;)

 

Since you've talked of the particularity of Digifobpro, I tell you that I also have verified that the device is not able to read a transhipment above ferry or train and under this condition it shows infringments that do not really exist.

 

But there is a special feature of the analysis program installed on digifobpro that I hate, and on which I prefer the VDO analysis program. It is a peculiarity in the analysis of offenses for daily rest. I try to explain it to you to see if you have noticed it and what you (and others tacho-rats) think about this thing.

 

When in the same week we find an infringement for absolute irregular daily rest (less than 9 h.) and then this irregular rest is followed by three reduced rest (between 9 h. and 11 h.) the digifobpro shows two offenses: a first offense for absolute irregular rest (and for me this is OK) and a second offense for excessive reduced rests (for me this offence does not really occur).

 

this happens because the digifobpro computes two times the absolute irregular rest: the first time to show an infringment by itself; the second time the irregular rest is added together with the other three reduced rests. In these conditions, the third reduced rest slips in fourth position and emerges a second infringment for weekly excess in the reduced daily rests.

 

The analysis program of VDO, contrary, computes separately the absolute irregular rest (less than 9 hours) and the reduced ones (between 9 hours and 11 hours). In this way, under identical conditions, the device displays a single infringement because the reduced rests do not exceed the maximum of three in a week. They are exactly three and it is O.K.

 

On this point I think that the interpretation of the VDO programmers it is more correct than the one of the Stoneridge programmers.

 

On this argument I say to you that there is a littele ideological war between my police office (specifically me) and the police office of the of the city that borders mine, (where my friend and colleague, who I mentioned in the early intervention, works). They follow the interpretation of Stoneridge, we follow the interpretation of VDO, so in the exact same conditions they detect and sanction two infringements and we detect and sanction only one.

 

What do the british tacho-rats think about this diatribe?

 

Gabriele

 

P.S.: You should know that, I and the colleague whom I have already spoken twice, we are real fanatics of tacho-controls.... We use to meet out of service at least once a month in front of good food and good wine to talk about the strangest cases happened .... We always end up arguing about these strange interpretations...... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traffic Rat & Tommo

I've seen this % figure (or rest periods) on a software program we've just purchased (Police controller) so I can see where Gabriele is coming from with the %.

 

Without having studied the OP in too much detail to work it out, I must admit out system of using 1-2 or over 4 hours etc is failry straight forward as a way of dealing with any infringement(s).

 

The Digifobpro is an easy to use download / quick view tool.

 

Does anyone on here use Policecontroller?

 

On this argument I say to you that there is a littele ideological war between my police office (specifically me) and the police office of the of the city that borders mine, (where my friend and colleague, who I mentioned in the early intervention, works). They follow the interpretation of Stoneridge, we follow the interpretation of VDO, so in the exact same conditions they detect and sanction two infringements and we detect and sanction only one.

 

What do the british tacho-rats think about this diatribe?

Gabriele, I've only used the Digifob pro for downloading/ quick view of charts so I can't comment on the above between the two devices, however I prefer to read the graphs and detail on third party software (Optac3) initially provided by the download tool before I sanction any drivers. The device software has been written  'down the line' and doesn't allow for any minor infringements. Do you or your colleagues just use/ rely on the Digifobpro for dealing with infringements OR do you follow any infringement up later on with other software applications?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cockeneybob,

 

First I give you a little statistics in the use of various readers devices and analysis programs on the Italian territory.

 

Here, the State Police used, all over Italy, the police controller program installed on laptops for the roadside controls.

 

The different offices of city police (which I belong) use VDO systems (inspection Kit + TIS program) or Stoneridge systems (Digifobpro + Optac 3) depending on the individual choice of the city administration.

 

In my city, as I said, we opted to use and compare both devices for road-side controls without buying a program of in-depth analysis because they are too expensive.

 

So we use both devices (digifobpro + inspection Kit) on the road, but we check individually all printouts relating to infringments shown by the two devices.

 

As soon as I read your response I asked my friend (the usual I mentioned) who uses jointly digifobpro and Optac 3 if Otac 3 shows, as the digifobpro, dual infringement in a week as I described in my previous intervention.

 

He replied that he seems to remember that even the Optac 3 shows the same double infringement; but he promised to recheck carefully recent cases and he will let me know.

 

As soon as I have detailed information I will write a reply on this topic.

 

Gabriele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I promised to Cockney Bob, I'm here again for the answer to his question.....

 

In the last days I and my friend perused the archives in the computer of our offices looking for a file of a driver with a working week that has the condition I explained in my previous post (irregular daily rest followed by three reduced daily rests).

 

when we found we submitted the file to the analysis with the digifobpro and with Optac 3........
 
The results are different: the digifobpro shows the two offenses as I had explained, One for irregular rest and an one for excess of reduced daily rests. The OPTAC 3 (as the VDO inspection kit) shows the only offense for irregular daily rest.
 
My friend is beginning to change his interpretation of the question, coming to my side ........ :D  :D  :D
 
Thanks.
 
Gabriele
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.