For nearly four decades I have worked under EU drivers’ hours rules — first as a driver, now as an operator. I understand compliance. I support fatigue regulation. And I accept that working time limits exist for good reason.
But I believe it is time the industry had an honest discussion about the Working Time Directive (WTD) as it applies to tachograph drivers.
Because for HGV drivers, the question is not whether fatigue should be controlled. It already is.
The question is whether WTD improves safety — or simply changes how we behave around a clock.
What controlled fatigue before WTD?
Long before WTD was introduced in 2005, drivers’ hours rules already tightly regulated fatigue exposure:
- Maximum 4.5 hours’ driving before a break
- Strict daily driving limits
- Daily rest requirements
- Weekly rest requirements
- Compensatory rest for any reductions
- Averaging across reference periods
These rules directly control the two things that matter for fatigue: driving time and rest. They still do. WTD did not reduce maximum driving hours. It did not extend daily rest. It did not extend weekly rest.
So what did it change?
It changed how total working time is calculated and recorded. Before WTD, when a driver pulled onto a site, the tachograph automatically recorded “other work.” Drivers worked at a natural pace. They opened curtains, waited for forklifts, chatted with warehouse staff, had incidental human interaction. The job had rhythm.
After WTD, if a driver wants to maintain earnings beyond a 48-hour average, the behaviour changes. Now, every minute of “other work” counts toward the weekly average. So drivers manage the clock. They rush tasks. They return repeatedly to the cab to switch modes. They protect working-time totals. They become constantly aware of recorded minutes.
The tachograph head is in the cab. So the cab becomes the control centre of time. The outcome in terms of work completed is largely the same. Long-distance drivers can still be present 60 to 70 hours across a week using POA and break mechanisms.
But the psychological experience is different. Instead of working at a natural pace, drivers manage exposure to the clock. Instead of incidental interaction, they reduce it. Instead of flow, there is micro-management.
A question of human factors
This is not an argument for deregulation. It is a question of human factors. When you introduce a second overlapping compliance framework into an already tightly regulated environment, you change behaviour. And behaviour matters. Recently, when describing this pattern to a mental health professional, the phrase used was “quiet stress long before it reaches a crisis point”. That phrase resonated. We know that HGV drivers have been reported as having suicide rates higher than the national average. Suicide is the visible outcome — but for every individual who reaches crisis, how many are living in chronic low-level stress beforehand?
This article does not claim causation. It does ask whether the behavioural consequences of WTD in this sector deserve independent review.
The autonomy question
There is another anomaly worth discussing. In most UK sectors, employees may legally opt out of the 48-hour working week limit. Tachograph drivers cannot.This is despite being subject to some of the most stringent fatigue regulations in Europe under drivers’ hours rules. Why are the most tightly regulated drivers denied the same choice available to office workers?
An opt-out would not:
- Extend driving limits
- Reduce daily rest
- Reduce weekly rest
- Remove compensatory rest
- Increase legal fatigue exposure
Drivers’ hours would still govern safety. It would simply restore autonomy over how non-driving working time is averaged. Drivers who prefer a 40 to 48 hour structure could remain within WTD. Drivers who wish to opt out — while still fully compliant with drivers’ hours — could do so. Choice, not removal.
A policy reform that costs nothing
The industry speaks constantly about:
- Driver retention
- Mental health
- Recruitment shortages
- Improving the working environment
Many of the solutions — parking, facilities, infrastructure — require major investment. Introducing lawful opt-out parity for tachograph drivers would cost nothing. If a large proportion of drivers chose to opt out, that alone would provide policymakers with valuable evidence. If few did, that too would tell us something. Either way, we would be making decisions based on real behaviour — not assumptions.
The core question
Does the Working Time Directive materially enhance safety for HGV drivers beyond what drivers’ hours already control? Or has it introduced a layer of clock-driven behavioural pressure whose consequences we have not fully examined? This is not a call for confrontation. It is a call for evidence, review and mature debate. If WTD is proven to improve safety and wellbeing beyond drivers’ hours, let’s see the data.
If its primary effect is behavioural distortion without measurable safety gain, we should be prepared to adjust. Because regulation should protect people — not simply regulate them. And the clock in the cab is ticking.
Mathew Parry, director, Frenni Transport
