September 30, 2011
Posted by on
I would strongly advise members to consider the views aired in the September edition of ROADWAY concerning the differences between the first and second-generation digital tachograph.
When the digital tachograph was first introduced in May 2006, the European Union issued clear guidance about the relationship between the way analogue and digital tachographs record driving time and how enforcement by member states should reflect this. I refer to Guidance Note 4 to Regulations EC 561/2006 and EEC 3821/85.
The guidance note points out that drivers involved in frequent or multi-drop or stop/start operations may be faced with higher records of driving time when using the (first generation) digital tachograph than would be the case with an analogue tachograph. Compensating for the differences, the EU said that member states could allow up to 15 minutes tolerance over a 4.5-hour block of driving time, provided such claims could be supported by evidence.
At the time the EU said this was because the digital tachograph recorded driving time more accurately than the analogue. We all know that it was because it rounds up driving time to the next whole minute.
The introduction of the second-generation digital tachograph means that the operators of large commercial vehicles now have the opportunity to redress the balance. Operator tests, run in conjunction with the tachograph manufacturers, have proved that there is a profound difference between the way the old and new digital tachographs record driving time. The second generation only records the activity that accounts for the larger part of a minute and there are significant productivity gains to be had, as was illustrated by the trial conducted by RHA member Smith’s of Denny. Operators can retrofit the new tachograph now and, according to the tachograph manufacturers, the cost of doing so should be recouped in a relatively short time. All newly-registered vehicles must be fitted with version two from 1 October this year.
A major aim of the EU’s “Social Legislation in Road Transport” – the legislation behind all of this – was to harmonise conditions of competition between operators. The existence of the second digital tachograph raises the distinct possibility of competing operators being in a position where one would be prosecuted while another does not breach the regulations for the same working practices. As driving time recorded on an identical journey by both types of tachograph can vary up to as much as an hour – favouring the second generation unit and by even more if it is true multi-drop work – there could be legal challenges in the pipeline.
Unfortunately the RHA’s view is that there is very little prospect of VOSA or the DfT being minded to change its policies on enforcement. Currently, the official view is clear: the driver has driven the number of hours that the tachograph fitted to their vehicle says they have driven.
At some point the EU will no doubt issue guidance on this, but that will take some time and will need member states to lobby for it. So our advice to members is retrofitting is the best way to address the current imbalance.
December 2, 2010
Posted by on
It was a real pleasure to see the Secretary of State for Transport visiting our offices in Weybridge. As our local MP, we had already met Philip Hammond at a constituency event, but his acceptance of an invitation to visit the RHA and to be interviewed for ROADWAY gave us an opportunity to question one of the key decision-makers for our industry.
One refreshing aspect of his comments was the way that he readily acknowledged an old-fashioned view of the industry when he took up his post. More important was his recognition, having met hauliers, that ours is an industry which is often cutting edge and sophisticated and plays a key role in the UK economy. Such a change in opinion only comes from exposure to the realities of the modern road haulage industry, and we were delighted when he made the point that getting in touch with local MPs is a very effective way of lobbying.
This is why the RHA is developing Deliver UK, which will encourage members to get involved in a comprehensive programme designed to change the attitude of MPs and government.
The Transport Secretary made it very clear that the industry must embrace the concept of being “green”. Given that the vast majority of CO2 emissions in our sector come from using diesel fuel, there is little doubt that the “greening” of road haulage can be a win-win situation: burning less diesel means cost savings as well as producing less CO2.
We have seen some of the big players in the industry claiming to be green, and their contracts often impose similar obligations further down the supply chain. But how much of this is window dressing? How many times do so-called green companies force hauliers into inefficient operations for their own convenience? How many loads are shipped when the vehicle is well below capacity for spurious health and safety reasons? How many times is the transfer of freight from road to rail a glorified publicity stunt, which actually produces more CO2, not less?
We know there is a need to produce less CO2, but please can we have a degree of common sense? Can we have less box-ticking and more real action that genuinely does see the win-win situations that benefit hauliers as well as their customers?
Finally, it was also reassuring to hear that Mr Hammond is progressing with plans to level the playing field when it comes to foreign trucks. We hope that such a scheme does not affect the huge sections of our industry that do not face foreign competition. We also hope that the government does not overlook the fact that the compliance standards of foreign firms often falls way behind the UK operator. That is just as important to the level playing field as a road-user charge.