Joined: Oct 19, 2002 Posts: 897 Location: Canterbury
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: Re: the vine debate again
Lancelot wrote:
who in your opinion is responsible for us?
It has to be the local council planning office, they want the trucks in their area delivering, but do not make plan for before or after the deliverys _________________
There are 10 types of people who understand Binary - Those who do - and those who dont !
On the Barnwood Link road near me (The section that goes under the railway by the bowling alley) there is a layby on either side of the dual carriageway and in each layby is a beautiful modern toilet block. When they put the access road into the bowling alley complex they had to move that layby further north and rebuild the toilet block in the new layby.
6 Months later BOTH toilet blocks were locked up thanks to the activities of certain 'gentlemen'.
There is a footpath wich runs behing the block and the locals quite rightly didn't like having to run the guantlet of males.
Rather than solve the problem by proactive policing the council took the easier, and cheaper, option of closing down the toilets.
Now of course the residents are complaining of the smell coming from the layby. It is a regular stoping place for trucks waiting to load at the nearby Walls factory. _________________ Squarepeg ([])
Joined: Dec 21, 2002 Posts: 1025 Location: Lanarkshire
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject:
What always gets my imaganation going is that they still build new layby's at the road side with no protection for the drivers disembarking from there vehicles , The goverment , and councils and all other authorities always go on and on about health & safety to yourself and others round about you .
So why when building layby's do they not provide easy maintainance toilets in the layby's that can hosed down with a pressure washer every day or twice a day like some in Europe .
Why cant they provide layby's with seperate area's for cars and lgv's .
and finally if they cannot provide the top 2 at least build the layby so drivers can come and from there vehicles safely.
Can anyone tell me why drivers insist on driving up on the grass area of certain layby's where there is a protection island from the the trafic flow , then drive away and leave a trail of mud for miles.
To me that is shear stupidity , especially when the parking area is large enough.
Joined: Aug 31, 2002 Posts: 18733 Location: March Cambs
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:02 am Post subject:
For once I was driving as this was coming up and as I was due a 45 min breakI was able to park up and listen to it.
I had the phone ready to dial the number and pass our views on to the public
The first Woman from the FTA didn't do too badly until she said that they pass on advice to Lorry Drivers about parking and rubbish etc.
WRONG.....they pass on advice to our Bosses, who have never been in a layby for 9 hours without a toilet and in a position where to drive off and find one would make them liable for prosecution and the loss of their ability to work and do their jobs
The Lady driver who claimed that she had NEVER, EVER been put in this position and had to take such action either had never had a night out in a layby because her time had ran out and everywhere else was full or managed to go home every night
''If WE ( lady truckers) can do this lads then why can't you?''
The above quote had me spitting fire and flames..................surely if a LADY trucker can get the golden opportunity to speak on the radio it should be in defence of ALL lorry drivers and NOT bring the GENDER into it
BUT the thing that got me most was the constant referral to Lorry Drivers wanting to 'pocket' the money we would have to pay to park
This is taken from the RHA website
Quote:
Lorries with Sleeper Cabs
The onus is on the employer to satisfy himself that any amounts paid free of tax are no more than a reasonable reimbursement of the average allowable expenses of the driver whilst staying away from home and place of work overnight. The mere fact that a lorry has a sleeper cab does not prevent the employer paying an amount tax free up to the nationally agreed limit provided that he is satisfied that the driver did incur expenses on overnight accommodation and meals.
Where the employer knows that the driver uses the sleeper cab, he should pay free of tax only what represents a reasonable reimbursement of:
evening meal and breakfast
washing facilities
upkeep of bedding in the cab
Provided there is documentary evidence available to show that the employee concerned spent the night away from home and his normal place of employment, HMRC will accept that a payment of 75% of the nationally agreed figure does no more than reimburse the extra expense incurred when the driver uses the sleeper cab overnight. Where an employer wishes to make payments in excess of this amount without deducting tax he may do so provided he satisfies the conditions outlined above in (d)
The amounts of overnight subsistence negotiated and agreed by the Road Haulage Association with HMRC, effective from 1 January annually, are as follows:
2008 - £29.85 (sleeper cab rate is £22.39)
2007 - £28.62 (sleeper cab rate is £21.46)
2006 – £27.55 (sleeper cab rate is £20.66)
2005 - £26.90
2004 - £26.00
2003 - £25.15
2002 - £24.50
75% of the above figures should be used where drivers use sleeper cabs.
Nowhere does it say that a driver pays to park his EMPLOYERS vehicle out of his night out money
The cause of the problem debated, and never made clear to the public, is that too many Haulage Firms will NOT pay to park their vehicles and EXPECT lorry drivers to foot the bill or park in layby's
I sat there for the full amount of time this subject was live on the show continually dialling the number to get on there and make this point but it was engaged from start to finish
To all of those who tried to ring me while it was on the air and got the call 'stopped' as soon as it rang, this was the reason why, I needed to use the phone to get through
I make no apology for getting wound up about this
Pat _________________ You're not finished when you're defeated. You're finished when You Quit.
Joined: Feb 23, 2003 Posts: 2668 Location: Grimsby
Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject:
So it was you Pat that was stopping me getting through to the show.
I notice the lady from the FTA didn't mention their heroic activity in stopping Alconbury being closed down
No industrial esteate should be allowed to be built without consideration for drivers parking, and that includes sufficient parking for onsite staff, who very often end up parking on the access roads, thereby clogging up the roads for HGV access.
I'm not asking for a truckstop, maybe I should be, but at least a toilet would be good.
Existing estates should be looked at, such as J29/M62, where parking could be made available, opposite the truckstop is a huge piece of land they have been trying to sell for ages, would be ideal.
Magna Park, there is so much unused land, it would be cost effective to do so.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
PDF Charity
