Drive time

Whether driving and rest time rules for professional drivers have been improved is hotly contested. We speak with Hubert Linssen, IRU Permanent Delegation to the EU, to find out why.

The issue of whether driving and rest time rules for professional drivers have been improved is a question the IRU has hotly contested. To find out more about this much discussed matter Jonathon Edgley speaks with Hubert Linssen, General Delegate of the IRU Permanent Delegation to the EU, to find out exactly what the issues are.

The European Parliament has adopted the agreement on the draft European legislation to improve driving times and rest periods for professional drivers and step up checks on lorries. What is your understanding behind the thinking of this legislation and what it’s meant to bring to the sector?

The stated purpose behind the new rules was to simplify and clarify the existing regulatory framework. Making the legislation easier to enforce for national road control agencies would be in the interests of road safety and would also equalise competitive conditions for operators across the EU. To the extent that the new rules were meant to make the rules clearer, harmonise competition and improve road safety through better enforcement the IRU would be in full support. Nothing is more damaging to the professionalism and public image of the road transport industry than the cowboy operator who seeks to circumvent the rules and who is a danger to other road users. The IRU would endorse any project that strengthens the industry by exposing and dealing rigorously with such operators.

Unfortunately there is a presumption that prevails on the part of many that unscrupulous operators somehow form the majority. Nothing could be further from the truth but the desire to do something about them ensured that the political trade off between making the rules simpler to enforce and preserving the road transport industry's core operational flexibilities was not at all well balanced. Effective enforcement can be best achieved through smarter controls that are targeted and intelligence led. Instead, the emphasis was overwhelmingly on making rules so easy to enforce to the degree that many nuances that were there for a good reason, such as weekly rest flexibility for coach tours, were lost – to the great cost of that industry sector. Here was a good example of legislative overkill. Ironically, the final regulation – the result of a conciliation process most notable for its exceptionally fierce institutional rivalry and political trade offs – is far removed from the desired clear set of rules.

Genuinely well intentioned – but clumsy – efforts from legislators to improve road safety could be forgiven. However, there were other actors in the legislative process that cynically saw an opportunity to promote the now discredited policy of modal shift. By reducing the flexibility and cost effectiveness of the road transport industry it was assumed that other modes could be reborn. Time and the simple fact that railways and inland waterways do not generally run up the high street and lack the flexibility of road transport will mean that the sole outcome will be increased costs for the sector, the consumer, and ultimately, the EU economy.

So who in the industry will be most affected by this and how?
Perhaps the most significant loser from the revision process is the international coach tourism sector. Operators conducting EU wide coach tours, typically carrying North American or Asian tourists around the continent, relied for years on the ability to drive for more than six consecutive days without having to take a 45 hour weekly rest period. Six day trips are not so interesting for such clients who want to ‘see Europe’ in a relatively short space of time. Recognition of this and the fact that unlike the truck sector a coach driver’s day is made up of regular extended breaks while passengers disembark to site-see, was given in the old Regulation by the co called 12 day rule. This allowed a driver to carry out his work for up to 12 days between weekly rests and no scientific accident data suggested it was a problem for road safety. The removal of this distinction from the new rules means that coach operators will incur heavy additional costs resulting from having to employ more drivers to cover these trips. The change could make such tours prohibitively expensive. The tour organisers who contract the coach operators must take note of this major change in their 2007 tour schedules. There is a great challenge ahead in order to prevent American or Asian coach parties in major European cities becoming a rare sight, much to the regret and financial cost of the wider European tourism industry.

The rest of the road transport industry has also suffered serious losses in flexibility. To begin with there is now a strict 56 hour limit on weekly driving time where before a 90 hour two-weekly limit ensured that drivers could respond to busy weeks while compensating the extra hours the following week. Moreover, average transport distances in the European Economic Area have increased substantially since the old rules were adopted in 1985. The new 56 hour weekly limit ignores this trend and means that longer journeys will now have to be organised over two weeks and drivers will take more weekly rests away from home, often on increasingly unsafe motorway rest areas putting both themselves and their cargoes at risk.

However, the changes to weekly rest requirements are probably the second most negative outcome from the changes. The old driving and rest time rules permitted drivers to take a reduced weekly rest of 24 hours instead of a 45-hour rest on consecutive weeks. This was possible as long as any reduction was compensated within three weeks. In future reduced weekly rest of 24 hours will only be possible on alternate weeks with a compulsory full 45-hour weekly rest in between.

Seasonal activities and transport services delivering for industries that work six days per week cannot be organised efficiently if drivers must take a regular weekly rest every second week. Deductions from regular rest are often minor (a consecutive 24-hour reduced weekly rest as permitted under the old rules was a mainstay for delivery to industries working six days a week). Compensation by drivers was often made within the next two days. Time sensitive items such as newspapers or perishable goods will be particularly affected by the new rules unless more drivers are hired. Moreover, there is already a shortage of competent drivers. Seasonal peaks exist in many other industries like agriculture and these sectors will also require far more drivers if a regular weekly rest must be taken every second week.

Add to this an erosion of flexibility in the way that daily rest and breaks can be taken, will prevent drivers from being able to respond to unforeseen situations and organise their working day as circumstances demand (traffic, loading/unloading delays, etc). Not only is this a problem for employers but also for a driver’s autonomy to manage his work according to his own needs.

Overall there will be two effects of the new Driving and Rest Time Rules. Transport will become less reliable or costs will go up significantly as a result of having to hire extra drivers. Either way, there will be an overall cost for the economy.

Are there any positive points about the nature of the legislation that you believe can be built upon?
One positive element in the new rules is that for the first time the Regulation recognises the pressures placed on operators by those who contract them to carry out services. Shippers, freight forwarders and coach tour organisers must now bear equal responsibility or 'co-liability' for infringements caused by drivers. How this will be put into practice remains to be seen and must be thought through carefully to ensure that it does not remain an empty gesture from regulators without practical application. But at least this new element in the regulation recognises the fierce competitive pressures and squeeze on costs that is a dominant and not altogether healthy feature of the road transport market.

How would you suggest the legislation should be improved, what does the industry need in your opinion?
Now that the new Driving and Rest Times Regulation (561/2006/EC) has been published and will come into force next April, road transport operators will have to find ways to minimise the negative impact on their businesses. A major strength of the sector is its natural resourcefulness and simple determination to get on with the job. This will be no mean feat but the industry will rise up to the challenge. However, the IRU would not be thanked by its members if it simply sat by idly confident that the sector could succeed on its own laurels. Many regulators and control officers are now appreciating the persistent lack of clarity in the new rules that must be resolved.

There are many issues to deal with. One question that arises is whether a reserve driver can take a break alongside his colleague at the wheel. This is already is being interpreted differently by various authorities. Another concerns the number of tachograph record sheets a driver must carry with him to present to control officers. Where the legislation speaks about records for the last 15 days does this mean working days or calendar days? The legislation especially when translated into 20 different languages gives no real certainty. The IRU is convinced that we must achieve a common EU level understanding between national enforcement bodies and the industry on exactly how to interpret the new rules. The IRU will be using every channel, including the EU Regulatory Adaptation Committee on 561/2006/EC – to work with partners to ensure that there is clarity on all aspects of the Regulation. It is shame that the legislation that was intended to bring clarity now has to be reviewed thoroughly to check for inconsistencies.