Consultation  
Regulation Impact Statement  
 
National  Heavy Vehicle Braking Strategy  
Phase II  – Improv ing the  Stability 
and  Control  of Heavy Vehicles  
 
 
 
December  201 7  
  
Regulation Impact Statement   2 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Report Documentation Page  
Report No.  Report Date  File No.  OBPR Reference No.  
INFRASTRUCTURE 
VSS 03/2017  December  2017  17/2295  23081  
Title and Subtitle  
Regulation Impact Statement  
Improving the Stability and Control of Heavy Vehicles  
Organisation Performing Analysis  
Standards Development and International  
Vehicle Safety Standards Branch  
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  
Regulatory Agency  
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  
GPO Box 594  
Canberra   ACT   2601  
Key Words  Distribution Statement  
 
Electronic Stability Control , ESC, Roll 
Stability Control, RSC, Heavy Vehicle , 
Braking, Australian Design Rule, ADR   
Document is available to public during the 
consultation period, through the website:  
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/mo
tor/design/adr_comment.aspx  
Security Classification  No. Pages  Price  
 
Unclassified   
176  
No charge  
 Regulation Impact Statement   3 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  CONTENTS  
Executive summary  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
1. What is the Problem?  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9 
1.1. Road Trauma from Crashes Involving Heavy Vehicles  ................................ ............  9 
1.2. Extent of the Problem in Australia  ................................ ................................ ..........  10 
1.3. Government Actions to Address the Problem  ................................ .........................  12 
1.4. The National Road Safety Strategy 2011 -2020  ................................ .......................  15 
2. Why is Government Action Needed?  ................................ ................................ ..........  16 
2.1. Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles  ................................ ........................  17 
2.2. Current Market Fitment Rates  ................................ ................................ .................  18 
2.3. Available Standards  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 18 
2.4. Objective of Government Action  ................................ ................................ ............  19 
3. What Policy Options are Being Considered?  ................................ ...............................  20 
3.1. Available Options  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 20 
3.2. Discussion of the Options  ................................ ................................ ........................  20 
4. What Are the Likely Net Benefits of each Option?  ................................ .....................  31 
4.1. Benefit -Cost Analysis  ................................ ................................ ..............................  31 
4.2. Economic Aspects —Impact Analysis  ................................ ................................ ..... 46 
5. Regulatory Burden and Cost Offsets ................................ ................................ ............  52 
6. What is the Best Option? ................................ ................................ ..............................  54 
6.1. Net Benefits  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  54 
6.2. Benefit -Cost Ratios  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 54 
6.3. Casualty Reductions  ................................ ................................ ................................  54 
6.4. Recommendation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 55 
6.5. Impacts  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  56 
6.6. Scope of the Recommended Option  ................................ ................................ ........  57 
6.7. Timing of the Recommended Option  ................................ ................................ ...... 58 
7. Consultation  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  59 
7.1. General  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  59 
7.2. The National Heavy Vehicle Braking S trategy  ................................ .......................  60 
7.3. Public Comment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 61 
8. Implementation and Evaluation  ................................ ................................ ...................  62 
9. References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  63 Regulation Impact Statement   4 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Appendix 1 — Heavy Vehicle Categories  ................................ ................................ ...............  67 
Appendix 2 — Common Types of Heavy Trucks and Vehicle Combinations ........................  69 
Appendix 3 — Awareness Campaigns  ................................ ................................ ....................  72 
Appendix 4 — Information Campaigns  ................................ ................................ ...................  75 
Appendix 5 — Types of Antilock Brake Systems for Heavy Vehicles  ................................ ... 76 
Appendix 6 — Effectiveness of Antilock Brake Systems for Heavy 
Vehicles  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  79 
Appendix 7 — Types of Stability Control Sys tems for Heavy Vehicles  ................................  83 
Appendix 8 — Effectiveness of Stability Control Systems for Heavy 
Vehicles  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  85 
Appendix 9 — Available Standards for Stability Control Systems for Heavy 
Vehicles  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  89 
Appendix 10 — Compatibility ................................ ................................ ................................ . 92 
Appendix 11 — Summary of Proposed Changes to the Current Versions of 
ADRs 35 and 38  ................................ ................................ ..............................  93 
Appendix 12 — Benefit -Cost Analysis — Methodology  ................................ ......................  104 
Appendix 13 — Benefit -Cost Analysis — Details of Results  ................................ ...............  108 
Appendix 14 — Benefit -Cost Analysis — Sensitivities  ................................ ........................  149 
Appendix 15 — NHVBS Operator/Maintenance Survey June 2015  ................................ ..... 151 
Appendix 16 — Technical Liaison Group (TLG)  ................................ ................................ . 170 
Appendix 17 — NHVBS Phase II Industry Reference Group (IRG)  ................................ .... 171 
Appendix 18 — Acronyms and Abbreviations  ................................ ................................ ...... 172 
Appendix 19 — Glossary of Terms  ................................ ................................ .......................  174 
 Regulation Impact Statement   5 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
The impact of road crashes on society is significant, costing the Australian economy over 
$27 billion per annum  (BITRE, 2014 ).  Heavy vehicle crashes  constitute around $ 1.5 billion 
of this , including approximately  $375 million from crashes involving a rollover and/or loss of 
directional control (rollover and/or  loss of c ontrol crashes) . 
Crashes involving heavy vehicles have drawn increasing attention from policy makers, road 
safety advocates and the general -public, as well as from the heavy vehicle industry itself.  
While in fatal multi -vehicle crash es a lighter vehicle i s most likely to have been at fault  
(NTARC, 2017) , heavy vehicles nonetheless have characteristics that can increase both the 
risk and severity of crashes , including for example a high gross mass, elevated centre of 
gravity, long vehicle length and relativ ely long stopping distances . 
Heavy vehicles represent 3 per cent of all registered vehicles in Australia ( Australian Bureau 
of Statistics , 2017a ) and account for just over 8 per cent of total vehicle kilometres travelled 
on public roads ( Australian Bureau of Statistics , 2017b ).  However, on average they are 
involved in around 17 per cent of fatal crashes and 5 per cent of serious injury (hospital 
admission) crashes .  Over the last three years  (2014 -2016), an average of 220 people have 
been killed  from 190 f atal crashes involving heavy trucks or buses each year .  The two most 
recent years of available data (2012 -13 and 2013 -14) also show that close to 1,750 people are 
hospitalised each year from road crashes involving heavy vehicles . 
Heavy vehicle rollover and loss of control crashes  together make up the specific road safety 
problem that has been considered in this Regulation Impact Statement (RIS).  For this RIS, 
heavy vehicles are defined as passenger or goods vehicles greater than 4 .5 tonnes Gross 
Vehicle Mass (GVM) and trailers greater than 4.5 tonnes Gross Trailer Mass (GTM).  
Industry and governments have been active in encouraging or mandating advanced 
technologies such as Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB), Antilock Brake Systems  
(ABS),  Electronic Braking Systems (EBS), Electronic Stability Control (ESC)  and Roll 
Stability Control (RSC) .  These technologies are increasingly being mandated in some 
overseas and international regulations and so as part of Phase II of the National Hea vy 
Vehicle Braking Strategy under the National Road Safety Strategy 2011 -2020 (and associated 
2015 -2017 action plan), the Australian Government is considering the case for requiring 
advanced ESC based systems for new heavy vehicles.  If adopted, this would  be implemented 
through the national standards for new vehicles known as the Australian Design Rules 
(ADRs).  This would then build on requirements set in 2013 for ABS to be fitted to some 
heavy vehicles, as well as industry’s recently published guidance o n optimising braking 
performance when operating with equipment having different levels of these types of 
technologies.  
The RIS explored  six options to improve heavy vehicle control and stability by increasing the 
fitment of ESC systems to new heavy trucks/ buses and RSC systems to new heavy trailers .  
These were  Option 1: no intervention (business as usual); Option 2: user information 
campaigns; Option 3: fleet purchasing policies; Option 4: codes of practice; Option 5: 
mandatory standards under the Competit ion and Consumer Act 2010 (C’th)  (CCA) ; and Regulation Impact Statement   6 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Option 6: mandatory standards under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 (C’th) (MVSA).  
Of these options, Option 1, Option  2 and Option  6 were considered viable and so were 
examined in detail.  Option 2 was sepa rated into two sub -options: 2a (targeted awareness) 
and 2b (advertising).  Option 6 was separated into t hree sub-options : 6a (broad scope) , 6b 
(medium scope) and 6c (narrow scope) .  The results of the benefit -costs analysis over a 35 
year period for each of these options  (assuming an intervention period of 15 years ) are 
summarised in Table 1 to Table 3 below . 
Table 1:  Summary of gross  benefits and net benefits for each option  
 Gross  benefits ($m)  Net benefits  ($m)  
 Best 
case Likely 
case Worst 
case Best 
case Likely 
case Worst 
case 
Option 1: no intervention  - - - - - - 
Option 2a: targeted awareness  - 115 - - 69 - 
Option 2b: advertising  - 17 - - -52 - 
Option 6a: regulation (broad scope)  337 337 337 266 167 -24 
Option 6b : regulation (medium scope)  303 303 303 273 204 75 
Option 6c : regulation (narrow scope)  269 269 269 264 216 140 
Table 2:  Summary of costs and benefit -cost ratios for each option  
 Cost s ($m)  Benefit -cost ratios  
 Best 
case Likely 
case Worst 
case Best 
case Likely 
case Worst 
case 
Option 1: no intervention  - - - - - - 
Option 2a: targeted awareness  - 46 - - 2.51 - 
Option 2b: advertising  - 69 - - 0.24 - 
Option 6a: regulation (broad scope)  71 169 361 4.75 1.99 0.93 
Option 6b : regulation (medium scope)  30 99 228 9.96 3.07 1.33 
Option 6c : regulation (narrow scope)  5 53 129 51.8 5.10 2.08 
Table 3:  Summary of number of lives saved and se rious  injuries (hospital admissions) avoided  
 Lives saved  Serious injuries 
avoided  
Option 1: no intervention  - - 
Option 2a: targeted awareness  41 432 
Option 2b: advertising  9 92 
Option 6a: regulation (broad scope)  148 1496  
Option 6b : regulation (medium scope)  136 1292  
Option 6c : regulation (narrow scope)  124 1084  
Option 6a: regulation (broad scope) generated  the highest number of lives saved ( 148) and 
serious  injuries avoided ( 1496 ), of the options examined .  However, Option 6 c: regulation 
(narrow  scope) generated the greatest  net benefits ($ 216 m) and the highest benefit -cost ratio Regulation Impact Statement   7 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  (5.10).  In considering these options, industry was also surveyed regarding the practicalities 
of fitting ESC/RSC systems, including their use in regional and remote areas.  
According to the Australian Government Guide to Regulation (2014) ten principles for 
Australian Government policy makers, the policy option offering the greatest net benefit 
should always be the recommended option.  
Option 6c: regulation (narrow scope) is therefore the recommended option.  Under this 
option, fitment of ESC would be mandated for new prime movers greater than 12 tonnes 
GVM  and new buses greater than 5 tonnes GVM, fitment of ABS would be mandated for 
new trailers greater than 4.5 tonnes GTM , and fitment of RSC would be mandated for new 
trailers greater than 10 tonnes GTM .  The indicative implementat ion timetable for 
consultative purposes is:  
 For heavy trucks and  buses (ADR category NC and ME vehicles)   
– 1 November 2019 for new models and 1 November 2021 for all new vehicles.  
 For medium and heavy trailers (A DR category TC and TD vehicles)  
– 1 July 2019 for new models and 1 November 2019  for all  new vehicles.  
The full requirements would be targeted to where the biggest road safety gains could be made 
and so would not be applied to more complex and/or niche cases at this time a nd as part of 
this propos al.  In this respect ESC would not be required for  articulated or route service 
buses, or vehicles  ‘designed for off -road use’ .  Feedback is also being sought on a possible 
exemption from ESC for prime movers with four or more axles .  In addition, c onverte r 
dollies as well as trailers fitted with an axle group consisting of more than four tyres in a row 
of axles or more than four axles  in an axle group (certain low -loaders) would not be required 
to be equipped with either ABS or RSC.  
A sensitivity analysis was undertaken for Option 6c .  This considered  three variables: the 
discount rate , the effectiveness of stability control systems , and the expected business as 
usual fitment rate of stability control systems .  The net benefits from t his option remained 
positive under all scenarios.  
This RIS has been written in accordance with Australian Government RIS requirements, 
addressing seven questions as set out in the Australian Government Guide to Regulation 
(2014):  
1. What is the problem you  are trying to solve?  
2. Why is government action needed?  
3. What policy options are you considering?  
4. What is the likely net benefit of each option?  
5. Who will you consult about these options and how will you consult them?  
6. What is the best option fr om those you have considered?  
7. How will you implement and evaluate your chosen option?  Regulation Impact Statement   8 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  In line with the principles for Australian Government policy makers, the regulatory costs 
imposed on business, the community and individuals associated with each viabl e option were 
quantified and measures that offset these costs have been identified.  
This RIS will be circulated for a t least  a four-week  public comment period.  A summary of 
the feedback and D epartmental responses will be included in the final RIS that is used for 
decision making.  
 Regulation Impact Statement   9 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  1. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?  
1.1. Road Trauma from Crashes Involving Heavy Vehicles  
The impact of road crashes on society is significant.  Individuals injured in crashes must deal 
with pain and suffering, medical costs, lost income, higher insurance premium rates and 
vehicle repair costs.  For society as a  whole, road crashes result in enormous costs in terms of 
lost productivity and property damage.  The cost to the Australian economy has been 
estimated to be at least $27 billion per annum ( BITRE , 2014 ).  This translates to an average 
of over $1,100 per an num for every person in Australia.   This cost is broadly borne by the 
general public, business es and government.  There is also a personal cost for those affected  
that is not possible to  measure . 
In 2015 -16, the Australian domestic road freight task reache d 219 billion tonne -kilometres, 
increasing by more than 23 per cent since 2006 -07.  At the same time, crashes involving 
heavy vehicles have drawn increasing attention from policy makers, road safety  advocates 
and the general -public , as well as from the hea vy vehicle industry itself.   While in fatal 
multi -vehicle crashes a lighter vehicle is most likely to have been at fault  (NTARC, 2017) , 
heavy vehicles nonetheless have characteristics that can increase both the risk and severity of 
crashes, including for e xample a high gross mass, elevated centre of gravity, long vehicle 
length and relatively long stopping distances.  
Heavy vehicles represent 3 per cent of all registered vehicles in Australia ( Australian Bureau 
of Statistics , 2017a) and account for just over  8 per cent of total vehicle kilometres travelled 
on public roads ( Australian Bureau of Statistics , 2017 b).  However, on average they are 
involved in around 17 per cent of fatal crashes and 5  per cent of serious injury (hospital 
admission)  crashes .  These crashes are estimated to cost the Australian economy around  
$1.5 billion each year (in 2017 dollar terms), including approximately  $375 million from 
crashes involving a rollover and/or loss of directional  control (rollover and/or loss of control 
crashes).  
Heavy vehicle rollover and loss of control crashes  are the specific road safety problem that 
has been considered in this RIS.  According to data from Budd and Newstead (2014) , these 
account ed for 22 per cent  of all heavy vehicle injury crashes  in Aus tralia , over the period  
2008  to 2010 (including 16 per cent involving  rigid trucks, 34 per cent involving  prime 
movers and 52 per cent involving  road trains) .  Common causes of these  crashes i nclude 
entering corners at too high a speed, sudden steering manoeuvres to avoid other vehicles or 
obstacles, shifting of loads such as liquids in tanks, and cornering and/or braking  on road 
surfaces exhibiting uneven levels of grip (e .g. dry bitumen and loose gravel).  Regulation Impact Statement   10 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Industry and governments have been active in en couraging or mandating advanced 
technologies such as AEB, ABS,  EBS, ESC and RSC .  These technologies are increasingly 
being mandated in some overseas and international regulations and so as part of Phase II of 
the National Heavy Vehicle Braking Strategy un der the National Road Safety Strategy 2011 -
2020 (and associated 2015 -2017 action plan), the Australian Government is considering the 
case for requiring advanced ESC based systems for new heavy vehicles.  These systems are 
specifically designed to reduce th e risk of rollover and loss of control crashes.  If adopted, 
this would be implemented through the national standards for new vehicles known as the 
Australian Design Rules (ADRs).   In parallel, Australian heavy vehicle industry bodies  have  
worked together to develop  a ‘Guide to Braking and Stability Performance for Heavy Vehicle 
Combinations’, which would complement any regulated requirements for ESC based 
systems, together with  already  regulated requirements for compatibility.  Further detail  on 
compatibility and this guide are included in  Appendix 10 . 
For the purposes of this RIS, heavy vehicles are passenger or goods vehicles greater than 
4.5 tonnes G VM and trailers greater than 4.5 tonnes GTM.  Under the ADRs, these are 
represented by the vehicle categories MD4, ME, NB2, NC, TC (> 4.5 tonnes  GTM ) and TD .  
Appendices  1 and 2 describe these vehicles in more detail.  
1.2. Extent of the Problem in Australia  
Fatal crashes  
The Australian Road Deaths  Database , maintained by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport 
and Regional Economics , provides basic details of road crash fatalities in Australia as 
reported by the police each month to the State and Territory ro ad authorities.   This includes 
details on the number of fatal crashes and fatalities in crashes involving heavy articulated 
trucks  (prime movers ), rigid trucks and buses.   During  the 12 months to the end of December 
2016, 213 people died from 191 fatal crashes involving heavy trucks or buses.  Over the last 
three years (2014 -2016), an average of 220  people have died from 190 fatal crashes involving 
heavy trucks or buses each year . 
Figure 1 shows the annual number of fatal crashes involving heavy trucks and buses in 
Australia for each calendar year in  the period 2007 to 201 6, while Figure 2 shows the 
corresponding number of fatalities . Regulation Impact Statement   11 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Figure 1: Fatal crash es involving heavy trucks and buses in Australia , annual totals  2007 -2016 (source: Australian 
Road Deaths Database ) 
 
Figure 2: Fatal ities in  crashes  involving heavy trucks and buses  in Australia , annual totals  2007 -2016 
(source:  Australian  Road  Deaths  Database ) 
It can be seen that f atalities in crashes involving prime movers  decreased by nearly 
40 per cent between 2007 and 2013, but have been relatively constant over the last four years.  
Fatalities in crashes involving rigid trucks and buses have been relatively constant over the 
last 10 years.  
The involvement of trucks in fatal crashes is much greater than buses.  Over the last three 
years (2014 -2016), the proportion s of fatal heavy vehicle crashes involving a prime mover , 
rigid truck or bus were 52 per cent, 40 per cent and 10 per cent respectively ( these add up to 
more than 100 per cent because  some crashes involve d more than one heavy vehicle type).  
Based on detailed injury crash data from Budd and Newstead  (2014), it is estimate d that  there 
are currently around 45 deaths each year in approximately 40 fatal crashes that involv e a 
rollover or loss of control of a heavy vehicle.  Further, around three quarters of these fatalities 
(approximately  35 each year ) are from crashes i nvolving  a prime mover . 
 
Regulation Impact Statement   12 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Fatal road crashes involving heavy trucks and buses in Australia cost approximately 
$1 billion  each year (in 2017 dollar terms).  Using the above fatality figures, t hose involving 
a rollover or loss of control of a heavy vehicle are  estimated to cost $200 million  each year 
(in 2017 dollar terms).  
Appendix 12  and Appendix 13  set out the detail ed methodology and calculations used to 
estimate the above fatali ties in heavy vehicle rollover and loss of control crashes , as well as 
the cost of these crashes.  
Serious injury  crashes  
Data compiled  by the National Injury Surveillance Unit  at Flinders University, using the 
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare  National Hospital Morbidity Database  provides 
details on hospitalisation due to road crashes, including those involving heavy vehicles.  The 
two most recent years of available data (2012 -13 and 2013 -14) show that close to 1,750 
people are hospitalised each ye ar from road crashes involving heavy vehicles.  While not a 
perfect  measure , hospital  admission  provides  the best  available  indication  of serious injury  
crashes in Australia . 
Based on the injury crash data from Budd and Newstead (2014), it is estimate d there are 
currently (as of 2016 -17) around 500-525 people admitted to hospital  each year from road  
crashes involving a rollover or loss of control of a heavy vehicle.  It is estimate d that  between 
half and two  thirds of these cases (around 290 hospital ad missions  each year) were from 
crashes involving  a prime mover . 
Serious injury  crashes involving heavy trucks and buses in Australia cost approximately 
$550 million each year (in 2017 dollar terms).  Those involving a rollover or loss of control 
of a heavy vehicle are estimated to cost $ 160 million each year (in 2017 dollar terms).  
Appendix 12  and Appendix 13  set out  the detailed methodology and calculations used to 
estimate the above hospitalisations in heavy vehicle rollover and loss of control crashes , as 
well as the cost of these crashes.  
1.3. Gove rnment Actions to Address the Problem  
Existing  government actions to address the problem of road trauma in crashes involving 
heavy vehicles include: the setting of national vehicle standards by the Australian 
Government through the ADRs; the setting of req uirements for the configuration and 
operation of heavy vehicles through Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) or by States and 
Territories; the application of Performance Based Standards (PBS), and other special access 
arrangements  and conditions . Regulation Impact Statement   13 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  National Veh icle Standards  
The Australian Government administers the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989  (C’th) 
(MVSA), which requires that all new road vehicles, whether they are manufactured in 
Australia or are imported, comply with national vehicle standards known as the ADRs, before 
they can be offered to the market for use in transport in Australia.  Th e ADRs set minimum 
standards for safety, emissions and anti -theft performance.  
The brake system is one of the most critical systems for vehicle control and stability.  
ADR  35/05  – Commercial Vehicle Brake Systems  (Australian Government, 2014b) sets the 
minimum requirements for  brake systems on heavy vehicles and ADR  38/04  – Trailer Brake 
Systems (Australian Government, 2014c) sets the minimum requirements for brake systems 
on heavy trailers.  The current versions of ADRs 35 and 38 were introduced in 2013  and 
implemented changes agreed for Phase I of the NHVBS.  The focus of these changes was the 
mandating of ABS for heavy trucks/buses and ABS or Load Proportioning (LP) for heavy 
trailers.  
ABS is a safety technology that monitors the wheel slip on sensed w heels and manages 
(modulates) the brake pressure applied to the controlled wheels to prevent the wheels from 
locking during braking ( ARTSA , 2011 ).  Appendix 5  outlines the operation of the various 
types of ABS available for heavy vehicles.  LP modifies the braking signal of a vehicle, 
relative to  the load carried , to provide a more consistent deceleration response across the full 
range of vehicle load conditions .  This prevents over -braking of wheels, particularly on high 
grip surfaces (e .g. dry bitumen roads), which also limits wheel lock.  Prevention of wheel 
lock helps to maintain directional stability and control during braking .  This reduces loss of 
control crash es involving jack -knifing of articulated vehicles and road or lane departure , due 
to skidding of wheels under heavy braking.  
ABS is also an integral part of more advanced EBS (or in the case of trailers , TEBS) , 
including ESC for heavy trucks/buses and RSC  for heavy trailers.  ESC and RSC systems 
provide for added braking control and stability and are the focus of Phase II of the NHVBS 
and so the subject of this RIS.  Appendix 7  outlines the operation of the ESC and RSC 
systems available for heavy vehicles.  
Heavy Vehicle National Law  
The Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) was established in 2014 to provide nationally 
consistent arrangements for regulating the use of heavy vehicles to improve safety, and better 
manage the impact of heavy vehicles on the environment, road infrastructure and public 
amenity.  The HVNL also aims to promote the safe transport of goods and pa ssengers, and 
improve the heavy vehicle industry’s productivity, efficiency, innovation and safe business 
practices.  It is administered by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator ( NHVR ) in all States 
and Territories  except for Western Australia (WA)  and the Northern Territory  (NT). WA and 
the NT instead continue with their own local arrangements . Regulation Impact Statement   14 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  The Australian Government has: 
 Driven  the establishment of the NHVR and continues to provide support to it with  
respect to heavy vehicle road safety reforms.  It has committed $15.9m funding to the 
NHVR for heavy vehicle safety initiatives , includ ing the installation of new 
monitoring systems, as part of a national compliance and enforcement network.  Other 
initiatives include industry education on chain of responsibi lity obligations that have 
been strengthened under the HVNL, and assisting with the development of Industry 
Codes of Practice to strengthen safe business practices.  
 Committed over $800,000 over two years to fund a joint heavy vehicle driver fatigue 
researc h project between the Cooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and 
Productivity and the National Transport Commission (NTC) .  These organisations 
will work together to undertake research to evaluate the impact of HVNL fatigue 
provisions on road sa fety risks.  
Performance Based Standards  
The Performance Based Standards s cheme offers the heavy vehicle industry the potential to 
achieve higher productivity and safety through innovative and optimised vehicle design.   To 
obtain PBS approval , heavy vehicles must meet 16 additional safety standards and four 
additional infrastructure standards .  Vehicles meeting these requirements  can then be 
exempted from requirements relating to their dimensions and configurati on (including length, 
width, hei ght, rear overhang, retractable axles and tow coupling overhang/location etc .) 
and/or be permitted for operation at higher mass limits on approved routes .  PBS has been in 
operation since October 2007.  
Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity  
The Australian G overnment has also e xtended the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity 
Programme (HVSPP) and will provide $40 million per year from 2021 -22 onwards, building 
on the current $328 million investment from 2013 -14 to 2020 -21.  The HVSPP is an initiative 
to fund  infrastructure projects that improve productivity and safety outcomes of heavy 
vehicle operations across Australia .  The Government contributes up to 50 per cent of the 
total project cost , through national partnership agreements  with State and Territory 
governments .  Examples of current safety projects include road freight route 
upgrades/improvements and the construction of more roadside rest areas for heavy vehicle 
drivers.  
Other Government Actions  
The NSW Environment  Protection  Authority  (EPA), which regulates the on -road transport of 
dangerous goods in NSW, has prohibited the transport of dangerous goods in heavy tanker 
trailers built after 1 July 2014 that do not have RSC fitted ( NSW EPA , 2014a)  and has made 
a determination wh ich will prohibit from 1 January 2019 ( NSW EPA , 2014b), the  transport of 
dangerous goods in all heavy tanker trailers that do not have RSC fitted.  Regulation Impact Statement   15 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  VicRoads  implemented  a requirement for EBS with RSC to be fitted to all B-Double  trailer s 
used in key logging  areas.  It reports ( VicRoads , 2013 ) that rollovers were subsequently  
reduced from around 40 per year in the areas covered (average for 2006 to 2009) to eight 
semitrailer rollovers and no B -double rollovers in the year  following introduction.   
VicForests f ollowed on from this by requiring  all semitrailers used in heavy vehicle 
combinations (not just B -Doubles) contracted by it to be equipped with EBS with RSC 
(VicRoads 2013 ). 
Additional safety requirements and access arrangements also exist for heavy vehicles, 
including most buses subject to state/territory government contract s for fleet services as well 
as many heavy trucks used in major infrastructure projects in NSW and Victoria.  For 
example, the NSW Government  has implemented the Safety, Productivity & Environment 
Construction Transport Scheme (SPECTS)  which allows greater road access  and higher mass 
limits for enrolled trucks /trailers  throughout a defined network of ro ads within the 
Newcastle -Sydney -Wollongong region.  To qual ify for SPECTS , all trucks and trailers 
manufactured after 1  January 2017 must be equipped with ESC and RSC respectively.  
1.4. The National Road Safety Strategy 2011 -2020  
Under t he N ational Road Safety Strategy (NRSS) 2011 -2020 , the Australian Government and  
state and territory governments have  agreed on a set of national road safety goals, objectives 
and action pri orities through the decade 2011 -2020 and beyond  (Transport and Infrastructure 
Council, 2011) .  The NRSS  aims to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the 
nation’s roads by at least 30 per cent by 2020 (relative to the baseline p eriod 2008 -2010 
levels), as endorsed by the Transport and Infrastructure Council (the Council), in 2011.  
An updated  National Road Safety Action Plan 2015 -17 (the Action Plan) developed 
cooperatively by federal, state a nd territory transport agencies, was endorsed by the  Council 
in November 2014  (Transport and Infrastructure Council, 2014) .  The Action Plan is intended 
to support the implementation of the NRSS, addressing key road safety challenges identified 
in a 2014  review of the strategy.  It details a range of national actions to be taken over the 
period . 
Considering the case for mandating  ESC for new heavy vehicles, is one of three priority 
actions identified in the Action Plan, to improve the safety of the vehicle fleet . 
 Regulation Impact Statement   16 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  2. WHY IS GOVERNMENT AC TION NEEDED?  
Government action may be needed where the market fails to provide the most efficient and  
effective solution to a problem.  In this case the problem is that heavy vehicle crashes 
involving a loss of vehicle control and/or stability, are estimated to cost the Australian 
community around  $375 million every year.  These crashes are not reducing as much  as they 
could , given the availability of effective safety technologies and the mandating of them in 
major markets such as Europe and the US.  
In Australia , the introduction of safety technologies  through market action alone is 
significantly slower for heavy vehicles than it is for light vehicles .  A major reason for this is 
the nature of construction of heavy vehicles .  In compar ison to light vehicles ( for example 
cars and Sports Utility Vehicles), heavy vehicles are more likely to be built to order , with 
engines, drivetrains, suspensions, brakes, axles and safety systems such as ESC and RSC 
individually specified by the purchaser.  Purchasers will mostly  focus on  maxim ising  
productivity for the money they spend.  Further, a significant number of hea vy vehicles  are 
built in Australia and/or specifically for the Australian market.  For example, nearly half of 
heavy duty trucks (see Figure 3 below ) and around 95 pe r cent of heavy trailers are built in 
Australia.  This means that the designs and regulations of other countries will have a lesser 
influence on the makeup of the Australia n heavy vehicle fleet .  In the case of heavy trailers, 
which are almost exclusively designed and built in Australia, there is even less influence on 
the vehicles that end up in the fleet .  Because of this, the relatively low level of fitment of 
safety systems  in Australia will continue  without some sort of market  intervention.  
 
Figure 3: Truck Sales in Australia (2014) by Country/Region of Manufacture  (source: TIC, 2015)1 
                                                 
1 Medium duty trucks have a GVM >8  tonnes and a GCM ≤ 39 tonnes.  Heavy duty trucks have a) 3 or more 
axles; or b ) 2 axles, a GVM >8  tonnes, and a GCM > 39 tonnes.  
Regulation Impact Statement   17 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  The purpose of this RIS is to examine the case for Australian Government action to reduce 
rollover and loss of control crashes  of new heavy ve hicles supplied to the Australian market.  
In this respect , there are stability control systems available for heavy vehicles that are 
effective in reducing the se types  of crashes.   There are also a number of viable actions (policy 
options) , as detailed in section 3 of this RIS , that the Australian Government could take to 
increase the rate of fitment of such systems to new heavy vehicles in Australia.  There are 
also technical standards currently mandated in other markets which would provide a sound 
basis f or regulation of these systems through the ADRs.  
Stability control systems are also being considered as a priority technology for heavy vehicles 
under the NRSS as increasing fitment of RSC and/or ABS to new trailers will facilitate the 
future fitment of ot her advanced technologies such as AEB.  This is because ABS on trailers 
(including as part of RSC systems) helps prevent trailer swing out during heavy (i.e. 
emergency) braking, including during automatically commanded braking actions as occur 
with an AEB system.  
Consideration of requiring AEB on heavy vehicles may follow as a subsequent proposal to 
this one.  In this respect it is important to highlight that it would be addressing a different 
subset of crashes to ESC and so does not impact on the analysis in this RIS.  
2.1. Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles  
Two different types of stability control systems are available  for heavy vehicles.  These are 
RSC and ESC.  Both are driver assistance technologies, designed to improve heavy vehicle 
control and sta bility.  
RSC is designed to reduce the chance of a vehicle rolling over.  RSC automatically 
decelerates a vehicle when it detects , based on the measurement of vertical tyre loads  or at 
least lateral acceleration and wheel speeds, that the vehicle is at risk  of a rollover.  This is 
achieved through automatically applying the brakes on at least one axle of the vehicle.  
Automatic reductions in engine power and engine braking may also be used to slow power 
driven vehicles.  RSC systems are currently available f or heavy trucks, buses and trailers.  
NHTSA estimated  that RSC for heavy vehicles is 37 -53 per cent effective in reducing 
rollover crashes and 2 per cent effective in reducing loss of control crashes  (NHTSA , 2015) . 
ESC is designed to reduce the chance of a  vehicle understeering  (ploughing out), oversteering 
(spinning out) or rolling over.  ESC systems for heavy vehicles incorporate all of the 
functionality of an RSC system.  In addition, ESC also acts to bring a vehicle back on course 
when it detects based on the measurements of steering wheel angle and the vehicle yaw 
(angular acceleration) rate that the vehicle is not following the course intended by the driver.  
This is achieved by the system automatically and selectively braking individual wheels to 
generate the forces needed to bring the vehicle back on track.  ESC sy stems are currently 
available for heavy trucks and buses, but not trailers.  NHTSA estimated that ESC for heavy 
vehicles is 40 -56 per cent effective in reducing rollover crashes and 14 per cent effective in 
reducing loss of control crashes  (NHTSA , 2015) . Regulation Impact Statement   18 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Appendix 7  includes further detail on the types of stability control systems available for 
heavy vehicles, while Appendix 8  includes further detail on the effectiveness of these 
systems . 
2.2. Current Market Fitment Rates  
In Australia, around 25 per cent of new heavy trucks are fitted with ESC and around 40 per 
cent of new heavy tr ailers are fitted with RSC (various industry sources 2016).  Notably, this 
is much lower than in Europe where fitment of these systems is now mandatory (subject to 
some limited exemptions) for all new heavy vehicles (there was a phased implementation  
betwe en 2011and 2016).  The mandate in Europe has therefore not strongly influenced the 
Australian market.  
2.3. Available Standards  
The recognised international heavy vehicle braking standard is the United Nations (UN) 
Regulation No. 13 (R13) – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles of 
categories M, N and O with regard to braking (UN, 2014).  This regulation covers general 
braking including compatibility between towing vehicles and trailers, as well as ABS and 
ESC/RSC systems, and the fitment of sta ndard connectors to provide power to electronic 
brake systems on trailers.   To meet the latest version of this regulation (UN R13/11), medium 
and heavy trucks and buses (with limited exceptions) must be equipped with ESC, and 
medium and heavy trailers with  air suspension and no more than three axles must be 
equipped with at least RSC.  
The United States has also recently introduced a national standard for ESC on heavy vehicles.  
This standard is the US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 136 – 
Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles  (NHTSA, 2016b).  It requires ESC 
to be fitted (with limited exemptions) to truck tractors (prime movers) and buses with a GVM 
over 11,793 kg (26,000 pounds).  It commenced as a mandatory standard for certain three -
axle prime movers manufactured on or after 1 August 2017 and will apply to all prime 
movers and buses (with a GVM > 11,793 kg) manufactured on or after 1 August 2019.  
Further detail of these standards is provided in Appendix 9  — Available Standards for 
Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles . Regulation Impact Statement   19 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  2.4. Objective of Government Action  
Australia has a strong history of government actions  aimed at increasing the availability and 
uptake of safer vehicles and Australian s have come to expect high  levels of safety.  The 
general objective of the Australian Government is to ensure that the most appropriate 
measures for delivering safer vehicles to the Australian community are in place.   The most 
appropriate measures will be those which provide the gr eatest net benefit to society and are in 
accordance with Australia’s international obligations.  
The specific objective of this RIS is to examine the case for government intervention to 
improve the stability  and control of the new heavy  vehicle fleet in Aus tralia.  This is in order 
to reduce the cost of road trauma to the community from heavy vehicle rollover and loss of 
control crashes.  
Where intervention involves the use of regulation, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to 
Trade requires Australia to adop t international standards where they are available or 
imminent.  Where the decision maker is the Australian Government’s Cabinet, the Prime 
Minister, minister, statutory authority, board or other regulator, Australian Government RIS 
requirements apply.  Th is is the case for this RIS.  T he requirements are set out in t he 
Australian Government Guide to Regulation (Australian Government, 2014 a). 
 Regulation Impact Statement   20 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  3. WHAT POLICY OPTIONS ARE BEING CONSIDERED ? 
A number of opt ions were considered below to improve h eavy vehicle stability and control 
through increasing the fitment of ESC systems to new heavy trucks/buses and RSC systems 
to new heavy trailers  supplied in Australia .  These include d both non -regulatory and/or 
regulatory means such as the use of market forces, public education campaigns, codes of 
practice, fleet purchasing policies, as well as regulation  through the ADR s under the MVSA . 
3.1. Available Options  
Non -Regulatory Options  
Option 1: no intervention  
Allow market forces to provide a solution (no intervention).  
Option 2: user information campaigns  
Inform ation campaigns (suasion) to inform the heavy vehicle industry  about the 
benefits of ESC and RSC . 
Option 3: fleet purchasing policies  
Permit only heavy trucks/buses fitted with ESC and heavy trailers fitted with RSC 
for government fleet purchases (economic approach).  
Regulatory Options  
Option 4: codes of practice  
Allow heavy vehicle  supplier associations, with government assistance, to initiate 
and monitor a voluntary code of practice for the fitment of ESC to new heavy 
trucks/buses and RSC to new heavy trailers (regulatory —volunta ry).  Alternatively, 
mandate a code of practice (regulatory —mandatory).  
Option 5: mandatory standards under the C ompetition and Consumer Act 
Mandate standards for fitment  of ESC to new heavy trucks/buses and RSC to new 
heavy trailers  under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010  (CCA) (regulatory —
mandatory).  
Option 6: mandatory standards under the MVSA  (regulation)  
Mandate standards for fitment  of ESC to new heavy trucks/buses and RSC to new 
heavy trailers  under the  MVSA (regulatory —mandatory).  
3.2. Discussion of the Options  
Option 1: No Intervention  (Business a s Usual)  
The Business as U sual (BAU) case relies on the market fixing the problem, the community 
accepting the problem, or some combination of the two.  Regulation Impact Statement   21 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  The current voluntary fitment of ESC to new heavy trucks is around 25 per cent (various 
industry sources 2016) while the current voluntary fitment  of RSC to new heavy trailers is 
around 40 per cent (various industry sources 2016).   These fitment rates have arisen without 
regulation in Australia, including  due to many heavy vehicle manufacturers and operators 
recognising the benefits of these technol ogies and responding accordingly.  However, it is 
also important to note that fitment of these technologies is significantly higher in some other 
markets, most notably Europe were fitment is now mandatory (subject to some limited 
exemptions) for all new ve hicles.  
Under Option 1, voluntary fitment by industry of ESC to new heavy trucks/buses and RSC to 
new heavy trailers is projected (based on recent trends and regulation in other markets) to 
gradually increase over the next 15 -20 years.   This BAU  option was  analysed further to 
establish the  baseline for comparison of the options . 
Option 2: User Information Campaigns  
User information campaigns can be effective in promoting the benefits of a new technology 
to increase  demand  for it .  Campaigns may be carried o ut by the private sector and/or the 
public sector.  They work best when the information being provided is simple to understand 
and unambiguous.  
Appendix 3  — Awareness Campaigns  details two real  examples of awareness campaigns; a 
broad high cost approach and  a targeted low cost approach.  The broad high cost approach 
cost $6  million  and provi ded a benefit -cost ratio of 5. The targeted low cost approach cost 
$1 million  and was run  over a period of four months. It provided an  effectiveness of 77 per 
cent.  However, these figures are indicative only as the campaigns do not relat e to ESC/RSC 
or automotive topics generally.  It is likely that a campaign would have to  be run on a regular  
basis to maintain effectiveness.  
Appendix 4  — Information Campaigns  details three notable automotive sector advertising 
campaig ns for Hyund ai, Mitsubishi and Volkswagen.  The cost of such  campaigns is not 
made public.  However, a typical cost would be $5  million  for television, newspaper and 
maga zine advertisements for a three -month campaign ( Average Advertising Costs  n.d.).  
Research has shown that for general goods, advertising campaigns can lead to an around 8 
per cent increase in sales (Radio Ad Lab, 2005).  This increase is similar to the result 
achieved by the Mitsubishi campaign  promoting the benefits of its ESC .  While some costs 
were available, the effectiveness of the campaigns was not able to be determined.   It is likely 
that a campaign would have to be run on a continuous basis to maintain its effectiveness. 
Campaigns around vehicle safety technologies do not  need to consider  manufacturer system 
development costs , because consumers are educated to choose from existing (developed) 
models that already include the technology.  
Table 4 provides a summary of the costs and known effectiveness of the various information 
campaigns.  Regulation Impact Statement   22 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 4: Estimation of campaign costs and effectiveness  
Campaigns  Estimated cost ($m)  Expected effectiveness  
Awareness - broad  6 $5 benefit/$1 spent  
Awareness – targeted *  1 per four month campaign, 
or 3 per year  Total of 77 per cent  awareness 
and so sales (but no greater 
than existin g sales if already 
more than 77 per cent ) 
Advertising*  1.5 per month campaign, or 
18 per year  8 per cent increase in existing 
sales.  
Fleet  0.15 - 
Other  0.2-0.3 - 
* used in benefit -cost analysis (Section 4).  
Targeted awareness campaigns  (Option 2a) could include the promotion of ESC/RSC for 
heavy vehicles  as well as market incentives, including at point of sale .  Such campaigns can 
be tailored to a specific user group.  With the existing BAU  fitment rates expected for ESC 
for heavy trucks and buses, it was determined that targeted awareness campaigns would 
remain relevant for the first 14 of the 15 years of implementation .  This would be an 
unusually  long period for a targeted awareness campaign .  This means advertising fatigue 
would need  to be considered together with cost in implementing this type of ca mpaign .  This 
has been taken into account in the benefit -cost analysi s for this sub -option, by adopting  an 
initial campaign period of 2 years followed by every second year.  
Advertising campaigns  (Option 2b) typically capitalise on media and event promotion of a 
technology, and may be less specific in effect than targeted awareness campaigns.  They 
usually have a minor to moderate effect on technology uptake in comparison to targeted 
awareness cam paigns, and may be more costly.  
With the existing BAU  fitment rates expected for ESC for heavy trucks and buses, it has been 
determined that targeted awareness campaigns would have the strongest effect over the later 
years of a policy lifespan for heavy tr ucks, and would have minimal effect  over the entire 
period for buses.   This is because buses have a  higher BAU  fitment rate , which means  only a 
small  increase in overall fitment is possible  relative to BAU .  Option s 2a and 2b  therefore 
only considered heav y trucks.  This has been taken into account in the bene fit-cost analysi s. 
This option (including its sub -options 2a and 2b) was analysed further in terms of expected 
benefits to the community.  Regulation Impact Statement   23 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Option 3: Fleet Purchasing Policies  
The Australian G overnment c ould intervene by permitting  only heavy trucks/buses fitted with 
ESC and heavy trailers fitted with RSC to be purchased for its fleet.  This would create an 
incentive for manufacturers to fit these systems  to models that are otherwise compatible with 
government  requirements . 
However, as the Australian G overnment fle et was made up of only 1066 heavy commercial 
vehicles as at 30 June 2013 (less than 0.2  per cent of all registered heavy vehicles) , Australian 
Government fleet purchasing policies are not co nsidered an effective means to increase the 
penetration of ESC/RSC systems more generally in the Australian heavy vehicle fleet.  
This option was therefore not considered any further.  
Option 4: Codes of Practice  
A code of practice can be either voluntary or  mandatory.  If mandatory, t here can be remedies 
for those who suffer loss or damage due to a supplier contravening the code, including 
injunctions, damages, orders for corrective advertising and refusing enforcement of 
contractual terms.  
Voluntary Code of  Practice  
Compared with legislated requirements, voluntary codes of practice usually involve a high 
degree of industry participation, as well as a greater responsiveness to change when needed.  
For them to succeed, the relationship between business, govern ment and consumer 
representatives should be collaborative so that all parties have ownership of, and commitment 
to, the arrangements ( Commonwealth Interdepartmental Committee on Quasi Regulation, 
1997 ). 
A voluntary code of practice could be an agreement through industry bodies  to fit ESC to 
heavy trucks/buses and RSC to heavy trailers  at nominated  fitment rates.  However, this 
would not cover all heavy vehicle industry participants and any breaches would be difficult 
for the various industry bodies or the A ustralian Government to control.  Further, given the 
sophistication of ESC systems for heavy trucks/buses, detecting a breach would be 
particularly difficult in a case of reduced performance.  Such breaches would usually only be 
revealed through failures i n the field or by expert third party reporting.  Any reduction in 
implementation costs relative to other options would therefore need to be balanced against 
the consequences of these failures.   In the case of ESC/RSC for heavy vehicles , a breach 
could have  serious consequences, including additional road deaths and injuries . 
For safety critical matters such as ESC/RSC for heavy vehicles, voluntary codes of practice 
are a high risk and cost proposition in terms of both monitoring and detecting breaches and 
being able to take timely action to intervene.  
This sub-option was therefore not considered any further.  Regulation Impact Statement   24 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Mandatory Code of Practice  
Mandatory codes of practice can be an effective means of regulation in areas where 
government agencies do not have the experti se or resources to monitor compliance.  
However, in considering the options for regulating the performance of heavy  vehicles, the 
responsible government agency (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) 
has existing legislation, expertise, res ources and well -established systems to administer a 
compliance regime that would be more effective than a mandatory code of practice.  
This sub-option was therefore not considered any further.  
Option 5: Mandatory Standards under the CCA —Regulation  
As with c odes of practice, standards can be either voluntary or mandatory as provided for 
under the CCA. 
However, in the same way as a mandatory code of practice was considered in the more 
general case of regulating the performance of heavy  vehicles, the responsible government 
agency (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) has existing legislation, 
expertise and resources to administer a compliance regime that would be more effective than 
a mandatory standard administered thr ough the CCA . 
This option was therefore not considered any further.  
Option 6: Mandatory Standards under the MVSA —Regulation  
Background  
Australia mandates approximately sixty ADRs under the MVSA.  Vehicles are approved on a 
model (or vehicle type) basis known as type approval, whereby the Australian Government 
approves a vehicle type based on test and other information supplied by the manufacturer.  
Compliance of vehicles built under that approval is ensured by the regular audit of the 
manufacturer’s prod uction processes.  
The ADRs apply equally to new imported vehicles and new vehicles manufactured in 
Australia.  No distinction is made on the basis of country of origin/manufacture and this has 
been the case since the introduction of the MVSA.  
Under Option  6, the Aust ralian Government would determin e new versions of ADR s 35 and 
38 under the MVSA , including requirements for ESC on heavy trucks/buses, ABS on 
medium trailers and RSC on heavy trailers, to improve heavy vehicle control and stability .  
As ADRs onl y apply under the MVSA to new vehicles, implementation of this option  would 
not affect  vehicles already in service.  Regulation Impact Statement   25 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  If this option were chosen to be implemented, the requirements for ESC/RSC would be 
aligned as much as possible and appropriate with corresp onding requirements of the 
international standard UN  R13 and in the case of ESC for trucks/bus es, the United States 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.  136 – Electronic  Stability Control 
Systems for Heavy Vehicles.  
As discussed earlier, consi deration of the case for mandating of ESC for heavy vehicles 
(limited to RSC for trailers) is one of three priority actions identified in the National Road 
Safety Action Plan 2015 -17, to improve the safety of the vehicle fleet .  This proposed action 
also c onstitutes Phase II of the National Heavy Vehicle Braking Strategy (NHVBS) as set out 
at item 16 (c) in the Safe Vehicles section of the NRSS 2011 -2020.  
Mandatory standards for ES C for heavy vehicles have been adopted in other markets 
(including Europe, the USA and Japan – each to varying extents) and are considered a viable 
option for Australia.  T his option was therefore analysed further in terms of expected costs to 
business and benefits to the community.  
Scope/Applicability  
There is considerable variation in the characteristics of heavy vehicles across ADR categories 
and in some cases also within categories.  This includes variations in GVM/GTM, wheelbase, 
brake system type (hydraulic or air), number of axles, suspension type  (steel springs or air), 
and centre of gravity height.  There is also considerable variation in the nature of applications 
for which various categories of heavy vehicles are used, which in -turn alters the risk of a 
heavy vehicle being involved in a type of  crash (e .g. a rollover) that might be prevented by 
ESC/RSC.  For example, prime movers ( predominantly ADR category NC)  are the most 
likely to be used for longer distance (including interstate) freight transport at highway speeds 
and cover a large number o f kilometres in a year, while medium rigid trucks ( mostly  ADR 
category NB2 vehicles) are more suitable for local deliveries in urban areas with lower speed 
limits.  
Further, there is also some variation in the categories of heavy vehicles for which ESC/RSC 
has been mandated for new vehicles in other markets, including the major markets of Europe, 
the United States and Japan.  
Given this variation in heavy vehicle characteristics by category and the extent/scope of 
mandatory requirements in other markets, ther e is also likely to be some variation in the 
relative benefits and costs of ESC/RSC across the different ADR categories for heavy 
vehicles.  Taking all of this into account, t here were t hree sub -options considered  relevant  in Regulation Impact Statement   26 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  relation to the scope of vehic les for which mandatory requirements for ESC/RSC could be 
applied under the ADRs.  These are:  
 Option  6a: regulation (broad scope) — a new version of ADR 35 would be 
implemented to require ESC for new trucks/buses greater than 4.5 tonnes GVM and a 
new versi on of ADR 38 would be implemented to require ABS for new trailers 
greater than 4.5 tonnes GTM, with the addition of RSC for new trailers greater than 
10 tonnes GTM.  These vehicles are represented by ADR vehicle categories NB2, 
NC, MD4, ME, TC and TD.  
 Option 6b: regulation (medium scope) — a new version of ADR 35 would be 
implemented to require ESC for new trucks greater than 12 tonnes GVM and new 
buses greater than 5 tonnes GVM, and a new version of ADR 38 would be 
implemented to require ABS for new traile rs greater than 4.5 tonnes GTM, with the 
addition of RSC for new trailers greater than 10 tonnes GTM.  These vehicles are 
represented by ADR vehicle categories NC, ME , TC and TD. 
 Option 6c: regulation (narrow scope) — a new version of ADR 35 would be 
imple mented to require ESC for new prime movers greater than 12 tonnes GVM and 
new buses greater than 5 tonnes GVM, and a new version of ADR 38 would be 
implemented to require ABS for new trailers greater than 4.5 tonnes GTM,  with the 
addition of RSC for new tr ailers greater than 10 tonnes GTM.  These vehicles are 
represented by ADR vehicle categories NC (of which prime movers are a subset), 
ME, TC and TD. 
ESC was considered  rather than RSC for heavy trucks and buses because the ratio of overall 
effectiveness in  rollover and loss of control crashes relative to incremental cost for each of 
these systems is such that ESC will produce the greater net benefit.  Further, this aligns with 
the approach taken in the major markets of Europe, Japan and the US.   RSC was considered  
for heavy trailers , as this is the only stability control system available for trailers.  
Each sub -option (6a , 6b and 6 c) was analysed further in terms of expected benefits to the 
community as well as costs to business and consumers.  
Technical Requirements  
ADRs 35 and 38 currently set Australian developed requirements for commercial vehicle 
brake systems and trailer brake systems respectively, but also allow the international standard 
UN R13 as an alternative.  
Following completion of Phase I of the NHVBS in 2013,  an Industry Reference Group (IRG) 
was established to help with implementation and any necessary follow -on amendments to 
ADRs 35 and 38.  The IRG comprised representatives of heavy truck, trailer and bus 
manufacturers and operators as well as brake system suppliers  (refer  Appendix 17 ).  Since 
2014, the IRG  has again provided its expertise towards Phase II, which is being considered as 
part of this RIS .  As a result of this work, the technical requirements around Option 6 are 
close to finalised, pending feedback as part of this RIS process.  Regulation Impact Statement   27 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  In terms of the requirements set out with the IRG, Option  6 as a whole would continue to 
allow for certification o f vehicles to UN R13 as an alternative, as the current series of UN 
R13 already includes requirements for ESC for heavy trucks/buses and RSC for medium and 
heavy trailers .  Some limited supplementary requirements would continue to  be applied for 
vehicles c ertified to UN R13 (refer to Appendix 11  and to the draft ADRs provided as part of 
the consultation for full details ).  These are necessary for certification of specific types of 
vehicles , including vehicles  designed for use in road  train combinations  (which is not 
provided for in UN R13) , some heavy trucks/buses  designed for off -road use, a s well as  for 
ongoing compatibility of new truck  brake systems with heavy trailers  in the Australian fleet.  
Technical requirements for ESC on he avy trucks/buses and RSC on heavy trailers, would also 
be included in the t ext of the new versions of ADRs  35/38.  
In the case of ADR 35, ESC performance based requirements  have been developed and 
would be applied for h eavy buses (category ME vehicles) greater than 12 tonnes GVM and 
prime movers (category NC prime m overs).  These are closely aligned with the performance 
requirements of FMVSS 136.   The proposed test was not developed for and would not be 
applied under any sub-option to  buses between 4.5 and 12 tonnes GVM or rigid trucks.  The 
performance requirements would be supplemented by functional requirements for the ESC 
system, as it is not possible to cover all loss of vehicle stability  and control  scenarios through 
a single tes t type.   These functional requirements would be closely align ed with those in both 
UN R13 and FMVSS  136 (which are similar in practical terms).  
ESC would not be required  under any option for articulated  buses, route service buses, trucks 
or buses  ‘designed  for off -road use’ (note: ‘designed for off -road use’ would be defined for 
relevant vehicle categories in an appendix to the ADR)  or rigid trucks with four or more 
axles .  These exemptions are proposed because the benefits of ESC relative to costs are 
expe cted to be relatively low  for these vehicles.  
An exemption for ESC on prime  movers with four or more axles  has also been included in 
the consultation draft ADR 35/06 .  This is because there are only around 100 of these sold 
each year by up to seve n differe nt manufacturers, wh ich would make testing of ESC for these 
models or variants very expensive on a per vehicle basis.   An alternative option could be to 
require prime movers with four axles to be equipped with ESC, but not require  manufacturers 
to conduct the J-turn test for these.   The Department would welcome feedback  on this 
proposal, including the alternative option  for prime movers with four axles . 
In the case of ADR 38, LP would no longer be an alternative to ABS, and functional 
requirements are proposed to be included for RSC on heavy trailers (greater than 10 tonnes 
GTM).  These requirements would be closely aligned in practical terms with UN R13, which 
already includes r equirements for both ABS and RSC on medium and heavy trailers.  Regulation Impact Statement   28 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Exemptions from mandatory fitment of both ABS and RSC are proposed  for converter dollies 
as well as trailers fitted with an axle group consisting of more than four tyres in a row of 
axles or mo re than four axles  in an axle group ( in-practice: certain non-standard low-loaders).   
This is because RSC is expected to provide much more benefit on a semi -trailer than a 
converter dolly, and non -standard low -loaders are more niche vehicles that typically  travel at 
relatively low speeds, often behind a pilot/escort  vehicle.  
In contrast to  UN R13  which currently only requires RSC on trailers with air suspension , the 
Department is also proposing to require RSC on trailers with other types of suspension  (e.g. 
steel springs) , and would welcome feedback on this  proposal .  This is because t here may no 
longer be any technical barrier to fitment of effective RSC systems on trailers with other 
types of suspens ion, steel spring suspension is much more common in  Australia than Europe,  
and UN  R13 may be amended in the near future to also require this.  
Automatic slack adjusters would be required for the service brakes of all vehicles under 
ADR  35/06, and at least all category TC (>4.5 tonnes GTM) and TD trailers equipped with 
ABS (including as part of an RSC system) under ADR 38 /05.  These automatically adjust the 
initial clearance between brake friction elements (pads/shoes and rotors/drums) to 
compensate for changes arising from wear.   Poorly adjusted brakes  can i ncrease the vehicle 
stopping distance, as well as reduce the effectiveness of stability control  systems, which 
automatically and  in the case of ESC  selectively apply these brakes whenever the vehicle is at 
risk of a rollover and/or loss of control.   Automa tic slack adjusters are most important for 
vehicles equipped with ABS  (including as part of ESC/RSC) , as the combination of poorly 
adjusted brakes and the modulation of braking by the ABS , is expected to result in the 
greatest  increase in overall air consu mption .  However, given poorly adjusted brakes continue 
to be one of the most common safety defects found by heavy vehicle inspectors, the 
Department is also proposing to extend the requirement for automatic slack adjusters in 
ADR  38/05 to apply to all category TC  (>4.5 tonnes GTM) and TD trailers, and would 
welcome feedback  on this  proposal . 
Trucks designed for use in road train combinations would be required (by ADR 35) to be 
equipped with a 24-volt electrical connector (ISO 7638 -1 connector).  Likewis e, each trailer 
designed to tow another trailer  in a road train combination  would be required (by ADR 38) to 
be equipped with a 24-volt electrical connector at the front and rear.  This is because a 
12-volt truck supply  can often be inadequate to power TEB S (including RSC systems and 
ABS) on third and subsequent trailers in road train combinations, due to voltage drops along 
trailer electrical wiring and across connectors.  
There are also a number of deregulatory changes, in response to  suggestions by indust ry, 
which the Department is proposing to include as part of Option 6.  These include the 
inclusion of alternative service and secondary brake effectiveness test procedures for 
compressed air brake vehicles in ADR 35  and allowing a rated brake chamber volum e to be 
used to determine the minimum required air reservoir (storage) volume for vehicles with 
certain brake chamber types in both ADRs  35 and 38.  Further  rationale for these changes is 
included  in section 4.1 of this RIS below  (under the heading ‘saving s’). Regulation Impact Statement   29 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  As discussed above, t he detailed form of changes proposed to the current ADRs 35 and 38 to 
implement this option, have been established in consultation (including circulation of a 
number of draft ADRs) with the IRG .  Further detail of t he proposed changes for the 
sub-option with the largest net benefits (Option 6c) is provided in Appendix 11 .  Draft 
ADRs  35/38 are also provided as part of the public consulta tion for this particular sub -option.  
As ESC for heavy trucks/buses, ABS for medium trailers and RSC for heavy trailers  are the 
most significant changes being proposed, this RIS primarily focuses  on these technologies . 
Implementation Timing  
The ADRs only ap ply to new vehicles and typically use a phase -in period to give models that 
are already established in the market , time to change their design.  The implementation 
lead-time of an ADR is generally no less than 18 months for models that are new to the 
marke t (new model vehicles) and 24 months for models that are already established in the 
market (all new vehicles), but this varies depending on the complexity of the change and the 
requirements of the ADR.  
In this case, the Department considers that relative t o new trailers complying with the 
proposed requirements for ABS and RSC, more time would need to be allowed for new 
heavy trucks/buses to comply with the proposed ESC requirements.  This is because 
manufacturers of prime movers and heavy buses would need t o undertake detailed 
development and testing of ESC systems as well as other braking changes to ensure they 
satisfy the minimum performance requirements proposed for ADR  35, while there are trailer 
brake sub -assemblies already available for trailer manufac turers to use which would meet the 
ABS and RSC requirements proposed for ADR 38.  
The proposed applicability dates for heavy trucks and buses under this option (including each 
sub-option) are:  
 1 November 2019 for new model vehicles; and  
 1 November 2021 for all new vehicles.  
These dates are approximately 24 months for models that are new to the market (new model 
vehicles) and 48 months for models that are already established in the market (all new 
vehicles) .  This lead -time is considered suitable to allow for  the scope of design change and 
testing needed to incorporate an ESC system.  
The proposed applicability dates for medium and heavy trailers under this option (including 
each sub -option) are:  
 1 July 2019 for all new model vehicles; and  
 1 November 2019  for all new vehicles.  Regulation Impact Statement   30 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  These dates are approximately 20 months for models that are new to the market (new model 
vehicles) and 24 months for models that are already established in the market (all new 
vehicles).  This lead -time is considered suitable for manufactu rers to implement any design 
and production changes needed, source trailer brake sub -assemblies already available in the 
market and update certification information.  
 Regulation Impact Statement   31 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  4. WHAT ARE THE LIKELY NET BENEFITS OF EACH  OPTION?  
4.1. Benefit -Cost Analysis  
The Benefit -cost methodology  used in this analysis is a Net Present Value (NPV) model.  
Using this model, the flow of benefits and costs are reduced to one specific moment in time.  
The time period for which benefits are assumed to be generated is over th e life of the 
vehicle(s).  Net benefits indicate whether the returns (benefits) on a project outweigh the 
resources outlaid (costs) and indicate what , if any,  this difference is.   Benefit -cost ratios 
(BCRs)  are a measure of efficiency of the project.  For net benefits to be positive, this ratio 
must be greater than one.  A higher BCR in turn means that for a given cost, the benefits are 
paid back many times over (the cost is multiplied by the BCR).  For example, if a project 
costs $1m but results in benefit s of $3m, the net benefit would be 3 -1 = $2m while the BCR 
would be 3/1 = 3.  
In the case of adding particular safety features to vehicles, there will be an upfront cost (by 
the vehicle manufacturers) at the start, followed by a series of benefits spread th roughout the 
life of the vehicles.  This is then repeated in subsequent years as additional new vehicles are 
registered.  There may also be other ongoing business and government costs through the 
years, depending on the option being considered.  
Three of th e policy options outlined in Section  3.2 of this RIS (Option  1: no intervention; 
Option  2: user information campaigns; and Option  6: mandatory standards under the M VSA 
(regulation)), were considered viable to analyse further.  Option 6 has three sub options that 
have varying levels of regulation, depend ent on vehicle category and type .  The results of 
each option were compared with what would happen if there was no g overnment 
intervention, that is, Option 1: no in tervention ( BAU ). 
The overall period of analysis would be for the expected life of the option (around 15 years 
for regulation) plus the time it takes for benefits to work their way through the fleet (around 
35 years, the  maximum lifespan of a heavy vehicle).  
Given ADRs 35 and 38 are primarily intended to make vehicles safer to use, the benefit side 
of the analysis focuses on safety benefits from expected reductions in fatal and serious injury 
crashes.  However , it should be noted that many operators would be likely to obtain other 
benefits ( for example,  lower tyre running costs due to fewer flat spots on trailer tyres) that 
have not been counted towards the overall benefits in this RIS.  The net benefit and the  
benefit -cost ratio for each option are therefore likely to be conservative estimates.  
Benefits  
For Option 1, there are no benefits (or costs) as this is the BAU  case.  Regulation Impact Statement   32 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  For O ptions 2 and 6 the benefits were estimated based on the difference between the expe cted 
BAU  level of fitment of stability control systems (i.e. ESC or RSC as applicable) to new 
heavy vehicles  and the level of fitment  expected under the implementation of each proposed 
option .  Figure 4 to Figure 9 show the anticipated level of fitment  for each of the analysed 
options (1, 2a, 2b , 6a, 6b and 6c ) across the intervention period ( 2020 -2034). 
 
Figure 4: Percentage of new heavy trucks (over 4.5 tonnes GVM) fitted with ESC under BAU (no intervention) and 
Options 2a (intervention) scenarios in Australia  
 
Figure 5: Percentage of new heavy trucks  (over 4.5 tonnes GTM ) fitted with E SC under B AU (no intervention) and 
Option  2b (inter vention) scenarios in Australia  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035Percentage of new heavy trucks
Year
Intervention No Intervention
Regulation Impact Statement   33 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development   
Figure 6: Percentage of new heavy trucks and buses (over 4.5 tonnes GVM) fitted with  ESC under BA U (no 
intervention) and Option 6a  (inter vention) scenarios in Australia  (excludes route service and articulated buses)  
Regulation Impact Statement   34 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development   
Figure 7: Percentage of new heavy trucks and buses (over 4.5 tonnes GV M) fitted with  ESC under BAU (no 
intervention) and Option  6b (intervention) scenarios in Australia  (excludes route service and articulated buses)  
Regulation Impact Statement   35 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development   
Figure 8: Percentage of new heavy trucks and buses (over 4.5 tonnes GVM) fitted wit h ESC under BAU (no 
intervention) and Option 6c (intervention) scenarios in Australia  (excludes route service and articulated buses)  
Regulation Impact Statement   36 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development   
Figure 9: Percentage of new trailers (over 4.5 tonnes GTM) fitted with RSC under BAU (no intervention) and 
Option s 6a, 6b and 6c (interven tion) scenarios in Australia  
The BAU fitment rate of ESC to heavy buses (excluding route service and articulated buses) 
was set much higher than that of trucks and trailers.  For the purposes of the analysis  an 
80 per cent BAU fitment rate was assumed for new heavy buses in 2017, rising to 95 per cent 
by 2023.  The relatively high BAU fitment rate for buses is considered to be  due to a 
combination of state/local government contract arrangements, higher  in-service mass limits 
available for buses with ESC, and a general desire among  the operators/ purchasers of new 
buses to minimise (including by adopting new safety technologies) the risk of their vehicles  
(which can carry significantly  more occupants than other categories of vehicles ), being 
involved in road crashes .  Much of the  benefit of national regulation of ESC on buses would  
therefore likely come through the transfer of state/local  contract arrangements and standards 
into national standards.  This would allow for the requirements for each bus model to be 
handled only once and on a national basis.  
Effectiveness of  stability control systems for heavy vehicles  
The effectiveness of ESC/RSC  for heavy trucks and buses and RS C for heavy trailers  in 
reducing rollover and loss of control crashes were estimated  by weighting effectiveness 
values  used by NHTSA for each crash type (NHTSA, 2015), according to the relative 
incidence of these crashes by heavy vehicle category/body styl e in Australia  (from Budd and 
Newstead, 2014 ).  Table 5 shows the effectiveness values established using this method.  
  
Regulation Impact Statement   37 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 5: Estimated effectiveness of ESC/RSC for heavy trucks and buses, and RSC for heavy trailers  (bold values 
used in analysis)  
 ESC Effectiveness (per cent)  RSC Effectiveness (per cent)  
 Rollover 
(R) Loss of Control 
(LoC)  Overall 
(R & LoC)  Rollover 
(R) Loss of Control 
(LoC)  Overall 
(R & LoC)  
Prime 
Movers    27   18.4 
Rigid 
Trucks  48 
(40-56) 14 22.5 45 
(37-53) 3 12.8 
Buses    
20.8   10.6 
Trailers  n/a n/a n/a   18.4 
Appendix 8  includes further detail on the effectiveness of ESC and RSC systems for heavy 
vehicles.  
Costs  
System development costs  
No additional system development cost was added for options 2a and 2b, a s it was assumed 
that the heavy vehicle owners/operators persuaded by information campaigns to purchase 
heavy trucks and trailers equipped with stability control systems , would simply choose from 
existing models available  with these systems . 
A development cost of $400,000 was added for each additional vehicle model for which  ESC 
would be developed due to government intervention under options 6a, 6b and 6c.   The truck  
development cost  was determined by averaging cost estimates  from a number of 
manufacturers  for prime movers .  These ranged between $250,000 and $565,000 to design, 
produce and test a model  equipped with ESC to the proposed requirements .  The average 
development cost for rigid trucks would likely be higher than this , particularly  if an ESC 
performance test (e.g. J -turn test) were to be required for these vehicles.  This is because rigid 
trucks are typically  available in a much larger range of wheelbase and axle configurations  
than prime movers , and ESC system design and testing is highl y dependent on these  design 
variables .  However, as there is no  ESC performance test proposed under any option for rigid 
trucks,  the average development cost for prime movers was taken  to be reasonably 
representative of the average for all types of trucks  under options 6a and 6b , as well as for 
prime movers under option 6c . Regulation Impact Statement   38 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  No additional system design and development cost were allocated  for the vehicle models that 
would be fitted  with ESC under BAU.  For these models, it is assumed manufacturers are 
alread y undertaking  (and will continue to undertake)  extensive vehicle tests, computer 
simulation and /or component test s to validate the performance of their ESC system s prior to 
supply to market .  In m any cases, this would  include test s for certification to UN R13 and/or 
FMVSS  136, which the manufacturer could then use  to demonstrate  compliance to the ADR .  
For the remaining cases, the manufacturer  would likely use any further regulatory tests as 
part of a much broader  internal  validation process, and there would be no more than a minor 
impact on the overall system design and development cost.  
Beyond purchase and installation costs, n o additional system design or development cost 
were allocated  for trailers under options 6a, 6b and 6c .  This is becau se, the major brake 
suppliers in Australia have already designed and developed brake s ub-assemblies/kits  that 
trailer manufacturers could directly install .  These comply with the proposed requirements 
and so would not require additional testing to be carri ed out for each model of trailer.  It is 
expected  that this would continue to be the case for the duration of this option.  
System cost s 
A system fitment cost of $1,500  was allocated for  each additional truck and $3,000 for each 
additional bus equippe d with ESC as a consequence of government  intervention under 
options 2a, 2b, 6a, 6b and 6c.   This was determined by averaging cost data from  heavy 
vehicle manufacturers  and represents the incremental  cost of an ESC system relative to the 
ABS that would oth erwise be fitted to these vehicles  under BAU .  This is because ABS, 
which is mandatory (under ADR 35/05) for all heavy trucks and buses with no more than four 
axles, includes ma ny components in common with ESC .  The additional components required 
for ESC t ypically  include a yaw sensor, a steering angle sensor, and additional cables/wiring  
as well as an electronic control unit  upgrade.  Further modification of the general brake 
circuits and/or steering column (to allow for the steering angle sensor ) may also be required 
for some vehicles . 
An additional system fitment cost of $525  was included  for each additional trailer equipped 
with RSC  as a consequence of government intervention under options 2a, 2b, 6a, 6b and 6c.  
This was determined by averaging cost dat a provided by trailer brake suppliers and represents 
the incremental cost of an RSC system (which includes  ABS) relative to the mix of brake 
systems (i.e. mainly ABS  or LP) that would otherwise be fitted to these trailers under BAU.  
Additional system fitment costs of $175 were also included  for each additional trailer 
equipped with ABS instead of LP, as a consequence of government intervention under 
options 6a, 6b and 6c  (note: this was increased to $1,150 for trailers not equipped with LP  
under  BAU ).  This was determined by averaging cost data provided by trailer brake suppliers 
and represents the incremental cost of an ABS system relative to the mix of brake systems 
(i.e. mainly  LP plus some conventional air brake  systems ) that would otherwise be fitted to 
these trailers under BAU.  Regulation Impact Statement   39 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Other business  costs  
In time and with the increased fitment of advanced braking systems (including RSC and/or 
ABS) on heavy vehicles , system manufacturers have continually improved the ruggedness 
and reliability of the underlying electronics and sensors.  Modern systems are much more 
capable than ever of operating in hostile environments , where the systems are exposed to 
extreme heat, cold, dust or mud.  
Nonetheless, through the ongoing NHVBS process and in particular the IRG, there have been 
some concerns raised about the suitability of advanced braking systems in remote areas, 
particularly  with regard to maintenance and repair costs.  As a result, the Department of 
Infrastructure and Regional Development (the Department) undertook  a wide survey of 
operators and maintainers to gather information  on any issues.   This survey was followed up 
with face-to-face visits at a number of operators ’ premises,  to gather further information  and 
insights . 
Operator concerns  raised in regard to  reliability and maintenance were  centred on trailers 
rather than trucks , with ABS sensors , electrical wiring and connectors ( RSC/ABS plugs and 
sockets) identified  as the components which need the most maintenance .  Overall, operators 
reported  that while there are some added costs in running and maintaining advanced braking 
systems, these are generally outweighed by the benefits, including prevention of rollovers an d 
other crashes.   The NHVBS Operator/Maintenance Survey summary is included as Appendix 
15 to this RIS.  
In terms of the Benefit -Cost analysis  for this RIS , the Department applied  an annual  
maintenance premium for each additional trailer that would be operated with ABS (including 
as part of an RSC system) in remote areas due to  implementation of  options 6a, 6b or 6c.  
This equated to around $220  of possible extra maintenance per annum  (over an average of 11 
years  in operation)  for 5 per cent (percentage of outer regional/remote area operators based 
on industry estimates)  of new trailers entering the fleet each year .  No other business  cost was 
allocated for the balance of  trailers primarily operated in major cities and inner regional 
areas, because any increase d running  cost (e.g. maintenance) for advanced systems , would 
likely be more than  offset by other savings  not co unted as benefits  in this RIS (e.g. fewer tyre 
flat spots , less property damage in non -injury crashes, insurance savings  etc.).  Similarly , no 
other business  cost was allocated for trucks or buses as new trucks /buses  are already required 
to be equipped with ABS under BAU a nd the additional components required for ESC (i.e. 
steering wheel angle sensor, yaw rate/lateral acceleration sensor and an upgraded control 
unit) would be unlikely to greatly  add to the overall cost of running these vehicles.  Regulation Impact Statement   40 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Government costs  
It was assu med there would be a cost of $ 600,000 per year for the Australian Government to 
create  and run a targeted awareness campaign under option 2a, and a cost of $18m per year 
for the Australian Government to create  and run an advertising campaign under option 2 b. 
It was assumed there would be an estimated annual cost of $50,000 for the Department  to 
create, implement and maintain a regulation under Option 6, as well as for the National 
Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) , WA and NT  to develop processes for its in -service use, 
such as vehicle modification requirements.  This includes the initial development cost, as 
well as ongoing maintenance and interpretation advice.  The value of this cost was based on 
Department experience.  
Summ ary of costs  
Table 6 provides a summary of the various costs associated with the implementation of Options 
2a, 2b, 6a, 6b and 6c.  Regulation Impact Statement   41 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 6: Sum mary of costs associated with the implementation of each option  
Costs related to:  Cost relative to BAU  Option(s)  Applicability  Impact  
Development of 
systems  Best 
Case  Likely  
Case  Worst  
Case     
Trucks  $250,000  $400,000  $565,000  
6a, 6b, 6c  Per model1 Business  
Buses  $250,000  $400,000  $565,000  
Trailers  - - -    
Fitment of 
systems  Best 
Case  Likely  
Case  Worst  
Case     
Trucks  $800  $1,500  $3,48 0 2a, 2b,  
6a, 6b, 6c  Per vehicle2 Business  
Buses  $2,500 $3,000 $3,500  
Trailers  RSC  
ABS  
 $400  
$50 
($1000)4 $525  
$175  
($1150)4 $800  
$300  
($1300)4    
Maintenance of 
systems  - -     
Trucks     
6a, 6b, 6c  Per vehicle  
each year3 Business  
Buses     
Trailers  $185  $220  $275     
Implement and 
maintain policy  $600,000  2a Per year  Government  
Implement and 
maintain policy  $18,000,000  2b Per year  Government  
Implement and 
maintain 
regulation  $50,000  6a, 6b , 6c Per year  Government  
Notes:  
1 Limited to 70 per cent of heavy truck models, 90 per cent of medium truck models, and 50 per cent of bus models, for 
which ESC would not be developed under BAU  
2 Limited to vehicle s that would not be fitted with ESC/RSC  (or ABS in the case of certain trailers) under BAU  
3 Limited to  5 per cent  of all new medium and heavy trailers estimated to be primarily used in outer regional/remote  
operations (various industry sources)  
4 Value used for small percentage of trailers not equipped with LP under BAU  
Savings  
System development savings  
It is proposed that an  alternative set of service and secondary brake test procedures with 
maximum stopping distance limits be included under options 6a, 6b and 6c , to allow results 
from service and emergency brake tests conducted according to the US FMVSS No. 121 – 
Air Brake Systems , to be used in demonstrating compliance to ADR 35.  The full details of 
these alternative tests and the stopping distance limits for each test are included in the draft 
ADR  35 provided as part of the public consultation.   It is estimated that this would likely save 
around  $12,500  in test costs (ranging between $ 10,000 and  $15,000 ) for an average of  six Regulation Impact Statement   42 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  new truck models introduced  to the Australian market  by North American (or North 
American parent) based truck manufacturers each year.  
System savings  
Under the current  ADRs 35 /05 and 38 /04, the minimum air reservoir (i.e. storage) capacity 
required for compressed air  brake system s is a defined multiple (12 times for trucks /buses  
and 8 times for trailers) of the combined volume of the brake chambers /actuators at the 
maximum travel (stroke) of their pistons or  diaphragms .  The intention is to ensure the brake 
reservoir volume is sufficient to maintain an adequate air pressure supply to each brake 
chamber after several brake applications in quick succession.  
The current ADR requirements for the air reservoir cap acity were adopted  from an earlier 
version of the US FMVSS No. 121 – Air Brake Systems.  However, t he US NHTSA has 
since amended FMVSS 121  to allow a rated volume to be used as an alternative , for certain 
standard types  of brake chambers .  This allow s manufacturers to use certain standard longer 
stroke brake chambers , without needing to increase the reservoir volume above that typically 
required for short stroke brake chambers of the same nominal piston or diaphragm area.  
Before  making this change, NHT SA considered  results of  research tests conducted by its own 
Vehicle Research and Test Center and the Society of Automotive En gineers (SAE), both of 
which indicated long stroke brake chambers  use similar volumes  of air to standard length 
chambers, when pro perly adjusted .  NHTSA concluded  that long stroke brake chambers 
would “help improve the braking efficiency of vehicles, increase the reserve stroke, reduce 
the number of brakes found to be out of adjustment during inspections, and reduce the 
incidence of dragging brakes”  (NHTSA, 1995) .  The current Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard (CMVSS) No.  121 also allow s the same rated brake chamber volumes  (Transport 
Canada, 2013) . 
Although  the current ADR requirements do not prohibit longer stroke brake chamber s, they 
do require a larger reservoir volume  to be installed , which is a disincentive for manufacturers 
to fit them.  Given these l ong stroke chambers can offer safety benefits while generally not  
using  any more air, there is no longer a safety case to require a larger reservoir volume when 
they are fitted.  Therefore, it is proposed under options 6a, 6b and 6c to amend the ADR 
requirements for the air reservoir capacity to allow the same rated volumes as the current 
FMVSS 121  (NHTSA, 2016a) and CMVSS 121 .  Automatic slack adjusters would also be 
required on all service brakes (as is also the case in FMVSS 121 and CMVSS 121) to reduce 
the likelihood of any elevated air consumption due to brakes being  out of adjustment.   Based 
on advice from the TIC  in Australia, it is estimated that manufacturers would choose to fit an 
additional 20 per cent of all new trucks sold in Australia with long stroke brake chambers, 
and this would save an average of $1000 per vehicle, ranging b etween $500 and $1,500 
per vehicle.  Regulation Impact Statement   43 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Overall these proposed changes would allow manufacturers, particularly North American 
(and North American parent) based truck manufacturers not otherwise already  certifying 
vehicles to UN R13 , to fit the same combination  of brake chambers and slack adjusters as for 
other larger markets  (including the US and Canadian markets) .  The estimated savings would 
be realised  through economies of scale and standa rdisation of production .  Further, this will 
also help to minimise ESC development costs , as the installation of different brake system  
component s (including different size brake chambers ), would  otherwise be likely to 
necessitate further development  and testing of the ESC . 
Summary of savings  
Table 7 shows the savings estimated  as a result of the proposed deregulatory change s under  
options 6a, 6b and 6c . 
Table 7: Savings associated with the implementation of each option  
Saving s related to:  Saving  relative to BAU  Option(s)  Applicability  Impact  
Development of 
systems  Best 
Case  Likely  
Case  Worst  
Case     
Trucks  $15,000  $12,500  $10,000  
6a, 6b, 6c  Per model1 Business  
Buses  - - - 
Trailers  - - -    
Fitment of systems  Best 
Case  Likely  
Case  Worst  
Case     
Trucks  $1,500  $1,000  $500  
6a, 6b, 6c  Per vehicle2 Business  
Buses  - - - 
Trailers  - - -    
Notes:  
1 Limited to an estimated 6 new truck models certified each year by North American or North American parent based truck 
manufacturers  
2 Limited to an estimated 20 per cent of all new trucks that would be sold each year in Australia with long stroke brake 
chambers  because of the proposed change to the ADR  
These savings were subtracte d from the costs for the 15 years of regulation considered in the 
benefit -cost analysis for options 6a, 6b and 6c.  
Benefit -Cost Analysis Results  
Appendix 13  details  the calculations for the be nefit-cost analysis.  A summary of the results 
is provided below in  Table 8.  A seven  per cent discount rate was used for all options.  Regulation Impact Statement   44 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 8: Summary of benefits, costs, lives saved and serious injuries  avoided under each option  
 Net Benefits 
($m) Cost to 
Business  
($m)  Cost to 
Govern ment 
($m)  Benefit -Cost 
Ratio  Number of 
Lives Saved  Serious 
Injuries  
Avoided  
Option 1  
Best case  - - - -   
Likely case  - - - - - - 
Worst case  - - - -   
Option 2a 
Best case  - - - -   
Likely case  69 43 2.4 2.51 41 432 
Worst case  - - - -   
Option 2b 
Best case  - - - -   
Likely case  -52 5.0 64 0.24 9 92 
Worst case  - - - -   
Option 6a  
Best case  266 70 0.7 4.75   
Likely case  167 169 0.7 1.99 148 1496  
Worst case  -24 360 0.7 0.93   
Option 6b  
Best case  273 30 0.7 9.96   
Likely case  204 98 0.7 3.07 136 1292  
Worst case  75 228 0.7 1.33   
Option 6c  
Best case  264 4.5 0.7 51.8   
Likely case  216 52 0.7 5.10 124 1084  
Worst case  140 129 0.7 2.08   
Sensitivity Analysis  
A sensitivity analysis was carried out for Option 6c, to determine the effect of some of the 
less certain variables  on the outcome  of the benefi t-cost analysis .  This was  the option 
showing the highest net benefit . 
Firstly, while a  7 per cent (per annum) real discount rate was used for all option s, the 
benefit -cost analysis for Option 6 c was also run with a rate of 3 per cent and  10 per cent.   
Table 9 shows that the net benefits are positive under all three discount rates.  
Table 9: Impacts of changes to the real discount rate  (Option 6c)  
 Net benefits ($m)  BCR  
Low discount rate (3%)  452 7.19 
Base case (likely case) discount rate (7%)  216 5.10 
High discount rate (10%)  130 4.06 Regulation Impact Statement   45 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Secondly, the effectiveness of ESC/RSC systems on heavy vehicles was also subjected to a 
sensitivity analysis, including both a high and a low effectiveness scenario.  As discussed 
earlier, the overall effectiveness values assumed for the base case analysi s in this RIS range 
between 18  per cent (for RSC on trailers) and 27 per cent (for ESC on prime movers).  In this 
respect, NHTSA in its final notice for FMVSS 136 estimated that ESC for truck tractors (i.e. 
prime movers) reduces rollover and loss of contro l crashes by 25 -32 per cent overall, while 
Bendix (a major stability system manufacturer) claimed from its own analysis of the same  
crashes that ESC  would be 78 per cent effective overall ( NHTSA, 2015 ).  To account for 
uncertainty, b oth a low (10 per cent)  and a high (40 per cent) effectiveness  value were used 
for ESC/RSC  either side of the likely effectiveness ( 18.4 per cent  for RSC on trailers , 
20.8 per cent for ESC on buses  and 27  per cent  for ESC on prime movers ).  As shown in 
Table 10, even with a rel atively low effectiveness of 10 per cent , the net benefits remain 
positive.  
Table 10: Impacts of changes to effectiveness  of stability control systems  for heavy vehicles (Option 6c)  
 Net benefits ($m)  BCR  
Low effectiveness (10%)  69 2.31 
Base case (likely case) effectiveness  
(18% for RSC on trailers; 27% for ESC on prime movers)  216 5.10 
High effectiveness (40%)  341 7.45 
Finally, the BAU  fitment rate was also subjected to a sensitivity analysis, including both a 
high and a low fitment rate scenario, to account for variations  in the market uptake of 
stability control systems .  For the base case analysis , the following BAU  fitment  rates were 
estimat ed: 
 for category NC prime movers  — 32.5 per cent of new vehicles fitted with ESC in 
2019, increasing by 2.5 per cent per annum to 70 per cent by 2034;  
 for category ME omnibuses — 85 per cent of new vehicles fitted with ESC in 201 9, 
increasing by 2.5 per cent per annum to 95 per cent by 202 3; and 
 for category TC (>4.5 tonnes GT M) and TD trailers — 40 per cent of new vehicles 
fitted with RSC in 2019, remaining constant over the analysis period.  
As a sensitivity test , the annual increase in the voluntary fitment of ESC to prime movers and 
buses was set at 1.5 per cent per annum for the low case and 5 per cent per annum for the 
high case , while  the voluntary fitment of RSC to trailers was kept  constant.   As shown in  
Table 11, the net benefits remain positive even with a higher voluntary fitment rate.  
Table 11: Impacts of changes to the BAU fitment rate of stability control systems for heavy vehicles (Option 6c)  
 Net benefits ($m)  BCR  
Low fitment  rate ( 1.5% per annum increase ) 258 5.36 
Base case (likely case) fitment  rate  
(2.5% per annum increase)  216 5.10 
High fitment  rate ( 5% per annum increase ) 141 4.38 Regulation Impact Statement   46 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  More detailed results of the sensitivity analyses are available at  Appendix 14 . 
4.2. Economic Aspects —Impact Analysis  
Impact analysis considers the magnitude and distribution of the benefits and costs among  the 
affected parties.  
Identification of Affected Parties  
In the case of stability control systems for heavy vehicles , the parties affected by the options 
are: 
Business  
 vehicle manufacturers or importers;  
 component suppliers;  
 vehicle owners; and  
 vehicle operators.  
There is an  overlap between businesses and consumers when considering heavy vehicles .  
Unlike light vehicles, heavy vehicle owners and operators, in general, are purchasing and 
operating these vehicles as part of a business. This is distinct to businesses that manufacture 
the vehicles or supply the components.  
The affected business es are represented by a number of  peak bodies, including : 
 The Australian Livestoc k and Rural Transporters Association (ALRTA), that 
represents road transport companies based in rural and regional Australia;  
 The Australian Road Transport Suppliers Association (ARTSA) that represents 
suppliers of hardware and services to the Australian r oad transport industry;  
 The Australian Trucking Association (ATA), that represents trucking operators, 
including major logistics companies and transport industry associations;  
 The Bus Industry Confederation (BIC), that represents the bus and coach industry ; 
 Commercial Vehicle Industry Association Australia (CVIAA);  that represents 
members in the commercial vehicle industry;  
 Heavy Vehicle Industry Australia (HVIA), that represents manufacturers and 
suppliers of heavy vehicles and their components, equipment and technology; and  
 The Truck Industry Council (TIC), that represents truck manufacturers and importers, 
diesel engine companies and major truck component suppliers.  
Governments  
 Australian/state and territory governments and their represented communities.  Regulation Impact Statement   47 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Impact of Viable  Options  
There were three options that were considered viable  for further examination: Option 1: no 
intervention; Option 2: user information campaigns ; and Option 6: regulation. This section 
looks at the impact of these options in terms of quantifying expected benefits and costs, and 
identifies how these would be distributed among affected parties .  This is discussed below 
and then summarised in  Table 12. 
Option 1: no intervention  
Under this option, the government would not intervene, with market forces instead providing 
a solution to the problem.  
As this option is the BAU  case, there are no new benefits or costs allocated.  Any remaining 
option(s) are ca lculated relative to this BAU  option, so that what would have happened 
anyway in the marketplace is not attributed to any proposed intervention.  
Option 2: user information campaigns  
Under this option, heavy vehicle owners and operators would be informed of  the benefits of 
ESC for trucks and RSC for trailers through information campaigns.  
As this option involves intervention only to influence demand for stability control systems in 
the market place, the benefits and costs are those that are expected to occur  on a voluntary 
basis, over and above those in the BAU case.  The fitment of stability control systems would 
remain a commercial decision within this changed environment.  
Benefits  
Business — heavy vehicle owners/operators  
There would be a direct benefit th rough a reduction in road crashes (over and above that of 
Option  1) for the heavy vehicle owners/operators who are persuaded by information 
campaigns to purchase and/or operate heavy trucks and trailers equipped with stability 
control systems.  This would save an estimated 41 lives and 432 serious injuries under 
Option  2a, and 9 lives and 92 serious injuries under Option 2b (over and above Option 1).  A 
significant proportion  of these  would be occupants of a heavy vehicle .  There would also be 
direct benefits to business (including owners/operators and/or insurance companies) through 
reductions in compensation, legal costs, driver hiring and training, vehicle repair and 
replacement costs, loss of goods, and in some cases, fines relating to spills that lead to 
environmental contamination.  
There could also be other minor benefits such as reduced tyre wear and fuel savings, as well 
as better on road handling of heavy vehicle combinations.  These minor benefits were not 
costed in the benefit -cost analysis.  Regulation Impact Statement   48 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Business — manufacturers/component suppliers  
There would be no direct benefit to heavy vehicle manufacturers (as a collective).  Heavy 
vehicle owners/operators persuaded by the campaign would simply choose from existing 
truck and trailer models already equ ipped with stability control systems.  This could lead to 
some shift in market share between the respective heavy vehicle brands (depending on the 
availability/cost of the technology by manufacturer), but would be unlikely to have much 
effect on the overal l number of new heavy vehicles sold.  Brake suppliers would benefit 
directly in terms of increased income/revenue from supplying more brake sub -assemblies 
equipped with stability control systems, to truck and trailer manufacturers.  
Governments/community  
There would be an indirect benefit to governments (over and above that of Option 1) from the 
reduction in road crashes that would follow the increase in the uptake of new heavy trucks 
and trailers equipped with stability control systems, achieved as a result  of the information 
campaigns.  
This would have benefits of $115 m under Option 2a and $17 m under  Option 2b  over and 
above Option 1. These benefits would be shared among governments and so the community.  
Costs  
Business  
There would be a direct cost (over an d above that of Option 1) to the heavy vehicle 
owners/operators who are persuaded by information campaigns to purchase and/or operate 
heavy trucks and trailers equipped with stability control systems .  This is due to the  additional 
cost of purchasing a veh icle equipped with these technologies .  This would cost $43 m for 
Option 2a  and $5.0 m for Option 2b  over and above Option 1.   The heavy vehicle 
owners/operators would be likely to absorb most of this cost  (but, as noted above, would also 
receive much of the benefits).  
Governments  
There would be a cost to governments for funding and/or running user information 
campaigns to inform heavy vehicle owners and operators of the benefits of stability control 
system s.  This is estimated at $2.4 m for Option 2a and $64 m for Option 2b.  
Option 6: regulation  
As th is option , including each of the sub option s, involve s direct intervention to compel a 
change in the safety performance of heavy vehicles supplied to the marke tplace, the benefits 
and costs are those that would occur over and above those of Option 1.  The fitment of 
stability control systems  would no longer be a commercial decision within this changed 
environment.  Regulation Impact Statement   49 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Benefits  
Business — heavy vehicle owners/operato rs 
There would be a direct benefit through a reduction in road crashes (over and above that of 
Option  1) for the heavy vehicle owners/operators who purchase and/or operate new heavy 
trucks and trailers equipped with stability control systems, due to the Au stralian Government 
mandating standards .  This would save an estimated 148 lives and 1496  serious injuries under 
Option 6a, 136 lives and 1292  serious injuries under Option 6b, and 124 lives and 1084  
serious injuries under Option 6c (over and above Option 1).  A significant proportion  of these 
would be occupants of heavy vehicles .  There would also be direct benefits to business 
(including owners/operators and/or insurance companies) through reductions in 
compensation, legal costs, driver hiring and training, vehicle repair and replacement costs, 
loss of goods, and in some cases, fines relating to spills that lead to environmental 
contamination.  
There could also be other minor benefits such as reduced tyre wear and fuel savings, as well 
as better on r oad handling of heavy vehicle combinations.  These minor benefits were not 
costed in the benefit -cost analysis.  
Business — manufacturers/component suppliers  
There would be no direct benefit to heavy vehicle manufacturers (over and above that of 
Option 1).  Brake suppliers would benefit directly in terms of increased income/revenue from 
supplying more brake sub -assemblies equipped with stability control systems to truck and 
trailer manufacturers.  
Governments/community  
There would be an indirect benefit to governments (over and above that of Option 1) from the 
reduction in road crashes that would follow the increase in the number and percentage  of new 
heavy trucks and trailers equipped with stability control systems, due to the Australian 
Government mandating standards.  
This would have benefits of $337 m under  Option 6a, $303 m under  Option 6b, and $269 m 
under  Option 6c  (over and above Option 1).  These benefits would be shared among 
governments and so the community.  Regulation Impact Statement   50 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Costs 
Business  
There would be a direct cost to heavy vehicle manufacturers (over and above that of 
Option  1) as a result of design/development, fitment and testing costs for the additional heavy 
vehicles sold fitted with stability control systems due to the A ustralian Government 
mandating standards.  This would cost $ 188 m under Option 6a, $ 118 m under Option 6b, 
and $ 72 m under  Option 6c (over and above Option 1).  However, there is also an estimated 
$34 m in savings for manufacturers from other proposed changes to the mandatory standards 
(see Table 7 above).  The net direct cost to heavy vehicle manufacturers would the refore be 
$154 m under Option 6a, $ 84 m under Option 6b, and $38 m under  Option 6c (over and 
above Option 1).  It is likely that the manufacturers would pass this net increase in costs on at 
the point of sale to heavy vehicle owners/operators who would the n absorb most of it (but, as 
noted above, would also receive m uch of the benefits) . 
There also may be some extra cost for owners/operators, particularly those based in rural and 
regional areas, to maintain and repair electronic components (e.g. sensors) an d wiring for 
stability control systems on heavy vehicles (see Table 6 above).  This is estimated to be 
$14 m under  Options 6a, 6b and 6c . 
Governments  
There would be a cost to governments for developing, implementing and administering 
regulations (standards) that require the fitment of stability control systems.  This is estimated 
to be $0. 7 m for each sub -option.  
  
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 12: Summary of the benefits and costs of each option  (for 15 year life of policy/intervention ) 
 Option 1: no intervention  Option 2a:  Option 2b:  
Gross benefits  Costs  Gross benefits  Costs  Gross benefits  Costs  
Business — 
manufacturers/  
component 
suppliers  n/a n/a None  
Cost of vehicle 
countermeasures — $43 m None  
Cost of vehicle 
countermeasures — $5.0 m 
Business — 
owners/operators  n/a n/a Reduced road 
trauma — $115 m  
Reduced road 
trauma — $17 m  
Government  n/a n/a Cost of information 
campaigns — $2.4 m Cost of information 
campaigns — $64 m 
Lives saved  n/a n/a 41 lives   9 lives   
Serious Injuries  
prevented  n/a n/a 432 cases   92 cases   
BCR  n/a n/a 2.51  0.24  
 
 Option 6 a: regulation  (broad  scope)  Option 6 b: regulation  (medium  scope)  Option 6 c: regulation  (narrow  scope)  
Gross 
benefits  Costs  Savings  Gross 
benefits  Costs  Savings  Gross 
benefits  Costs  Savings  
Business — 
manufacturers/  
component 
suppliers  None  Cost of vehicle 
countermeasures  
(incl. remote 
operator 
maintenance ) 
— $203  m Savings for 
tests/components 
— $34 m None  Cost of vehicle 
countermeasures  
(incl. remote 
operator 
maintenance ) 
— $132 m Savings for 
tests/components  
— $34 m None  Cost of vehicle 
countermeasures  
(incl. remote 
operator 
maintenance ) 
— $86 m Savings for 
tests/components  
— $34 m 
Business — 
owners/operators  
Reduced 
road 
trauma  
— $337  m  
Reduced 
road 
trauma  
— $303 m  
Reduced 
road 
trauma — 
$269  m  
Government  Cost of 
implementing  
and 
administering 
regulations  
— $0.7 m None  Cost of 
implementing  
and 
administering 
regulations  
— $0.7 m None  Cost of 
implementing  and 
administering 
regulations  
— $0.7 m None  
Lives saved  148 lives    136 lives    124 lives    
Serious Injuries  
prevented  1496 cases    1292 
cases    1084  cases    
BCR  1.99   3.07   5.10   Regulation Impact Statement   52 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  5. REGULATORY BURDEN AN D COST OFFSETS  
The Australian Government Guide to Regulation (2014) requires that all new regulatory 
options are costed using the Regulatory Burden Measurement (RBM)  Framework.  Under the  
RBM  Framework, the regulatory burden is the  cost of a proposal to business and the 
community (not including the cost to government).  It is calculated in a prescribed manner 
that usually results in it being different to the overall costs of a proposal in the  benefit -cost 
analysis .  In line with the RBM Framework, the average annual regulatory costs were 
calculated for this proposal by totalling the undiscounted (nominal) cost (including 
development and fitment cost) for each option over the 10 year period 2020 -2029 inclusive.  
This total was then divided by 10.  
The average annual regulatory costs under the RBM of the six viable options, Options  1, 2a , 
2b, 6a, 6b and 6 c, are set out in the following four tables.  There are no costs associated with 
Option  1 as it  is the BAU  case.  The average annual regulatory costs associated with Options 
2a, 2b , 6a, 6b and 6 c are estimated to be $6.5 million, $ 0.5 million , $23.9 million, 
$15.5 million  and $ 10.6 million respectively . 
Table 13: Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate table — Option 1  
Average annual regulatory costs (relative to  BAU ) 
Change in costs 
($ million)  Business  Community organisations  Individuals  Total change in costs  
Total, by sector  - - - - 
Table 14: Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate table — Option 2a 
Averag e annual regulatory costs (relative to  BAU ) 
Change in costs 
($ million)  Business  Community organisations  Individuals  Total change in costs  
Total, by sector  $6.5 m   $6.5 m 
 Regulation Impact Statement   53 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 15: Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate table — Option 2b  
Average annual regulatory costs ( relative to  BAU ) 
Change in costs 
($ million)  Business  Community organisations  Individuals  Total change in costs  
Total, by sector  $0.5 m   $0.5 m 
Table 16: Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate table — Option 6a  
Average annual regulatory costs ( relative to  BAU ) 
Change in costs 
($ million)  Business  Community organisations  Individuals  Total change in costs  
Total, by sector  $23.9 m   $23.9 m 
Table 17: Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate table — Option 6b  
Average annual regulatory costs ( relative to  BAU ) 
Change in costs 
($ million)  Business  Community organisations  Individuals  Total change in costs  
Total, by sector  $15.5 m   $15.5 m 
Table 18: Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate table — Option 6c  
Average a nnual regulatory costs ( relative to  BAU ) 
Change in costs 
($ million)  Business  Community organisations  Individuals  Total change in costs  
Total, by sector  $10.6 m   $10.6 m 
The Australian Government Guide to Regulation sets out ten principles for Australian 
Government policy makers.  One of these principles is that all new regulations (or changes to 
regulations) are required to be quantified under the RBM Framework and where possible  
offset by the relevant portfolio.  
It is anticipated that regulatory savings from further alignment of the ADR s with international 
standards will offset the additional RBM costs of this measure . 
 Regulation Impact Statement   54 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  6. WHAT IS THE BEST OPTION?  
The following options were identified earlier in this RIS as being viable for analysis : 
 Option  1: no intervention;  
 Option 2: user information campaigns; and  
 Option 6: mandatory standards under the MVSA (regulation).  
6.1. Net Benefits  
Net benefit (total benefits minus total costs in present value terms) provides the best  measure 
of the economic effective ness of the options .  Accordingly, the Australian Government Guide 
to Regulation (2014) states that the policy option offering the greatest net benefit should 
always be the recommended option.  
Option 6c: regulation (narrow scope  – ESC for new prime movers greater than 12 tonnes 
GVM and new b uses greater than 5 tonnes GVM, and ABS for new trailers greater than 4.5 
tonnes GTM, with the addition of RSC for new trailers greater than 10 tonnes GTM ) had the 
highest net benefit of the options examined, at $216 m for the likely case.   This benefit would 
be spread over a period of around 45 years, including the assumed  15 year  period  of 
regulation followed by a period of around 30 years over which the overall percentage of 
heavy vehicles fitted with these technologies in the fleet continues to rise as older vehicles  
without ESC are deregistered at  the end of their service life . 
Option s 2a: targeted awareness , 6a: regulation (broad scope)  and 6b: regulation (medium 
scope)  also had positive net benefits  of $69 m, $167  m and $ 204 m respectively  for the likely 
case.  However , Option 2b (advertising) had negative net benefit s, indicating the costs of 
implementing this option  would exceed the benefits.  
6.2. Benefit -Cost Ratios  
Option 6c had the highest BCR of 5.10 (likely case) .  Option  6b had the next highest BCR of 
3.07 (likely case) , followed by O ption 2 a with a BCR of 2.51 (likely case)  and Option 6 a with 
a BCR of 1.99 (likely case) . 
6.3. Casualty Reductions  
Option 6a would provide the greatest reduction in road crash casualties, including  148 lives 
saved and 1496  serious injuries (hospital admissions)  avoided .  The next  best reduction in 
casualties  would be  for option 6b, with 136 lives saved and 1292  serious injuries  avoided,  
followed by Option  6c, with 124 lives s aved  and 1084  serious injuries  avoided . 
The road casualty reductions for user information campaigns would be much lower  than 
regulation , with 41 lives saved and 432 serious injuries avoided  under option 2a, and only 
nine lives saved and 92 serious injuries  avoided  under option 2b.  Regulation Impact Statement   55 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  6.4. Recommendation  
This RIS identified the road safety problem in Australia of crashes involving rollover and/or 
loss of control  of heavy vehicles, particularly  articulated combinations.  The primary 
countermeasure used to reduce the occurrence of these crashes is a stability control system.  
Although market uptake is increasing, the current overall fitment across the fleet is still 
relatively low with around 25 per cent of new heavy trucks fitted with ESC and 40 per cent of 
new heavy trailers fitted with RSC . 
There is a strong  case for government intervention to increase the fitment of stability control  
systems  to heavy vehicles.  The current low fitment rate , number and severity of crash 
outcomes indicate s a need for intervention.  The analysis has shown that a narrow scope 
regulation aimed primarily at articulated combinations  (headed by prime movers)  will 
provide significant reductions in road trauma  while achieving  the maximum  net benefit for 
the community.  
In this case, Option 6 c (regulation) would offer positive net benefits of $216 m resulting from 
savings of 124 lives and 1084  serious injuries from  a 15-year period of regulation.   In terms 
of efficiency of regulation, the BCR for Option  6c is 5.10.  The higher net benefits and BCR 
for Option 6c relative to Options 6a or 6b is mainly because prime movers are much more 
likely (on a per vehicle basis) than rigid trucks to be involved in a fatal or serious injury crash 
involving a rollover or loss of control.  For example, the proba bility of a prime mover being 
involved in a fatal rollover or loss of control crash is estimated to be nearly 13 times greater 
than the average for a rigid truck.  For comparison, the probability of a prime mover being 
involved in an injury crash of any se verity or type is estimated to be just under 3 times gr eater 
than the average for a rigid truck.  These differences in crash risk are  thought  to be more 
because of differences in exposure due to the way these vehicles are used  (e.g. long distance 
vs. more localised transport) , rather than the design characteristics of these vehicles.  
The BCR  for Option 6c is higher than the typical value of around  two for a vehicle safety 
regulatory proposal .  Overall, the positive net benefits and high er than average BCR are 
because:  
 There are still relatively low fitment rates of stability control systems on heavy 
vehicles ; 
 Heavy vehicle s are much more likely on a per vehicle basis to be involved in rollover 
crashes than light vehicles .  This is particularly the case for prime movers .  This 
means that targeted fitment of s tability control  systems  can provide  a relatively cost  
effective technical countermeasure for these crash types ; 
 Significant regulatory savings have been identified and proposed as part of the overall 
package , without reducing safety ; and 
 Heavy vehicle crashes  are relatively expensive on average , due to the size and mass  of 
these  vehicles, and play an  important role in contributing to Australia’s productivity.  Regulation Impact Statement   56 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  The costs associated with  stability control sy stems would  be minimised through closely 
aligning the requirements with those in UN R13 and FMVSS 136 .  This provides 
manufacturers flexibility to use systems that have already been developed and tested in the 
regions that the vehicle was originally designed.  In the case of trailers, the stability control 
systems are already available as kits and are being used on many trailers in Australia . 
Option 6 offers the important advantage of being able to guarantee 100  per cent provision of 
stability control systems  to applicable vehicles.  There  would be no guarantee that 
non-regulatory options, such as Option 2, would deliver an enduring result, or that the 
predicted take -up of stability control systems  would b e reached and then maintained.  Given 
there is currently a  relatively low uptake of this technology, there is good reason to conclude 
that, under BAU , sections of  the market will continue to offer stability control only as an 
extra — often as part of a more expensive package  of options .  If regulation had to be 
considered  again in the future , there would also be a long lead time (likely to be greater than 
two years  to redevelop the proposal, as well as the normal implementation, programming, 
development, testing and certification time necessary for implementing stability control in 
line with a performance based standard) . 
According to the Australian Government Guide  to Regulation ( Australian Government, 
2014 a) ten principles for Australian Government policy makers, the policy option offering 
the greatest net benefit should always be the recommended option.  Option 6 c: regulation 
(narrow  scope  stability control - ESC for new prime movers greater than 12 tonnes GVM and 
new b uses greater than 5 tonnes GVM, ABS for new trailers greater than 4.5 tonnes GTM, 
with the addition of RSC for new trailers greater than 10 tonnes GTM ), is therefore the 
recommended option.  It repre sents an effective  option that would guarantee on -going 
provision of improved stability control  in the new heavy  vehicle fleet  in Australia.  
Although the recommended option does not include mandating ESC for rigid trucks, this 
could be revisited at a later stage, should it be warranted ( particularly for category NC 
vehicles ).  In this respect, it is likely  that the costs of testing, developing and fitting ESC to 
rigid trucks will come down over time.  In the meantime, voluntary measures such as policies 
by certain companies or sections of industry w ill continue to enco urage increasing fitment of 
ESC to rigid trucks, especially those considered  more susceptible to rollovers  (for example 
trucks with concrete agitators and waste disposal units) .  It is also expected  that mandating of 
ESC for new prime movers will result in more operators demanding ESC on new rigid trucks, 
as they become increasingly  aware of  the benefits of these systems.  
6.5. Impacts  
Business/consumers  
The three options considered would have varying degrees of impact on consumers, business 
and the government.  The costs to manufacturers  would be passed on to operators (purchasers 
of new heavy vehicles) who would mostly absorb them .  Much  of the benefit  would be 
directly received by heavy vehicle operators through reductions in road trauma (at least half  
the lives saved are expected to  be from heavy vehicles ) and other road crash related c osts, 
with the remainder shared between governments and the wider community . Regulation Impact Statement   57 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Option 6 would normally be considered the most difficult option for the vehicle 
manufacturing industry, because it would involve regulation -based development and testing 
with forc ed compliance of all applicable models.  However , in the case of heavy vehicle 
stability control , the three major markets  of Europe, the US and Japan have each mandated 
standards for electronic stability control on heavy vehicles .  This would give manufacturers 
flexibility to adapt stability control systems from their home markets to the vehicles they 
supply in  Australia .  This should enable some leveraging of testing and certification already 
conducted in other markets , which wil l help to minimise design and development costs as 
much as possible . 
Governments  
The Australian Government maintains and operates a vehicle certification system, which is 
used to ensure that vehicles first supplied to the market comply with the ADRs.  A co st 
recovery model is used and so ultimately,  the cost of the certification system as a whole  is 
recovered from business.  
6.6. Scope of the Recommended  Option  
As discussed in section 2.3 above , the relevant international standard  is the UN Regulation 
No. 13, and the heavy vehicle categories for which stability control requirements  apply under 
this regulation are the UN vehicle categories of M2 and M3 (omnibuses ), N2 and N3 (goods 
vehicles — GVM exceeding 3.5 tonnes) , as well as  O3 and O4 (trailers — GTM exceeding 
3.5 tonnes ).  The US FMVSS 136  standard for ESC on heavy vehicles  applies to a smaller 
range of vehicles: truck tractors  (i.e. prime movers)  and b uses with a GVM exceeding  
11,793  kg (11.793 tonnes) .  There are various other exemptions  under both of these 
standards.  
Under the recommended option 6c, a new ADR 35 /06 would be implemented to require ESC 
for new prime movers greater than 12 tonnes GVM and new buses greater than 5  tonnes 
GVM ; and a new ADR 38 /05 would be implemented to require ABS for new trailers greater 
than 4.5 tonnes GTM, with the addition of RSC for new trailers greater than 10 tonnes GTM .  
These vehicles are represented by ADR vehicle categor ies NC (of which prime movers are a 
subset), ME, TC (> 4.5 tonnes GTM) and TD.   Exemptions from fitment of ESC would apply 
under ADR 35/06 for articulated and route service buses, and trucks and buses ‘designed for 
off-road use’ (note: ‘designed for off -road use’ would be defined for relevant vehicle 
categories in an appendix to the ADR) .  Feedback is also being sought on a possible 
exemption for ESC on prime movers with four or more axles .  Exem ptions from fitment of 
both ABS and RSC would apply under ADR 38/05 for converter dollies as well as trailers 
fitted with an axle group consisting of more than four tyres in a row of axles or more than 
four axles  in an axle group (certain non-standard low-loaders).  Regulation Impact Statement   58 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  6.7. Timing of the Recommended  Option  
As discussed in section 3.2 above , the indicative implementation  timetable of the proposed 
ADRs 35/06 and 38/05 for consultative purposes is:  
 For heavy trucks and buses (ADR category NC and ME vehicles)  
– 1 November  2019 for new model  vehicles  and 1  November  2021 for all new 
vehicles . 
 For medium and heavy trailers (ADR category TC and TD vehicles)  
– 1 July 2019 for new model  vehicles  and 1  November 2019  for all  new vehicles . 
As noted earlier, the implementation  lead-time for an ADR change that results in an increase 
in stringency is generally no less than 18 months for new models and 24  months for all other 
models.  The proposed  timetab le wo uld meet these typical minimum lead -times.  A longer 
implementation lead -time is recommended for heavy trucks and buses relative to trailers , 
because  truck/bus manufacturers  would need to undertake detailed development and testing 
to ensure each vehicle model satisfies  the proposed ADR 35/06 , while there are brake 
sub-assemblies already available for trailer manufacturers to use , which would meet the 
proposed ADR 38 /05. 
 Regulation Impact Statement   59 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  7. CONSULTATION  
7.1. General  
Development of the ADRs for safety and anti -theft under the MVSA is the responsibility of 
the Vehicle Safety Standards Branch of the Department.  It is carried out in consultation with 
representatives of the Australian Government, state and territory governments, manufacturing 
and operating industrie s, road user groups and experts in the field of road safety.  
The Department undertakes public consultation on significant proposals.  Depending on the 
nature of the proposed changes, consultation could involve the Technical Liaison Group 
(TLG)  and the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board (AMVCB) , the Strategic 
Vehicle Safety and Environment Group (SVSEG)  and the Austroads Safe Vehicle s Theme 
Group (SVTG) , the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials’ Committee (TISOC) and 
the Trans port and Infrastructure Council (the Council).  
 TLG consists of technical representatives of government (Australian and 
state/territory), the manufacturing and operational arms of the industry (including 
organisations such as the Truck Industry Council  and the Australian Trucking 
Association) and of representative organisations of consumers and road users 
(particularly through the Australian Automobile Association).   AMVCB consists of 
the government members of TLG.  
 SVSEG consists of senior representatives of  government (Australian and 
state/territory), the manufacturing and operational arms of the industry and of 
representative organisations of consumers and road users (at a higher level within 
each organisation as represented in TLG).   SVTG consists of the g overnment 
members of SVSEG.  
 TISOC consists of state and territory transport and/or infrastructure Chief Executive 
Officers (CEO s) (or equivalents), the CEO of the National Transport Commission, 
New Zealand and the Australian Local Government Association.  
 The Council consists of the Australian, state/territory and New Zealand Ministers with 
responsibility for transport and infrastructure issues.  
While the  TLG sits under the higher level SVSEG forum , it is still  the principal consultative 
forum for advising o n the more detailed aspects of ADR proposals.  Membership of the TLG 
is shown at Appendix 16  — Technical Liaison Group (TLG) . Regulation Impact Statement   60 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  7.2. The National Heavy Vehicle Braking Strategy  
The NHVBS began as a request by  the then Standing Committee on Transport for the NTC to 
review the case for mandating ABS on heavy vehicles.  This ran in parallel with a general 
Departmental review of the heavy vehicle braking ADRs 35 and 38 in 2006, and the 
publication of ADRs 35/02 and 38/03 in 2007.  These came into force  in 2009.  As the issues 
that needed to be considered became  broader than just ABS, the NTC, in conjunction with the 
Department, initiated a project to develop a more comprehensive NHVBS.  
This began with an extens ive consultation process.  P ublic meetings were held in Melbo urne 
in 2005 involving discussions with representatives of transport industry groups, to discuss the 
general situation with heavy vehicle braking regulation and on -road performance.  A 
discussion paper (Hart, 2006 ) was released in 2006 that identified seven strategic objectives.  
Three workshops were held in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth to describe the proposals and 
to receive feedback.  These were then followed by a further meeting of around twenty 
industry and road agency representatives.  Overall, t he consultation process involved detailed 
discussions with about 200 representatives and written comments were received from about 
40 correspondents.  
Following thi s process, the final NHVBS (Hart, 2008) was published in November 2008  and 
after further consider ation was adopted into the NRSS in two parts:  Phase I and Phase II.  
Phase I focused on the adoption of ABS (with an allowance for LP systems for trailers) and 
was finalised in 2013.  The adoption of stability control systems is the focus of Phase II, 
considered in this RIS . 
Following the completion of Phase I, the Department undertook to survey industry regarding 
the advantages and disadvantages, including reliability, of other advanced braking systems  
(e.g. ESC, RSC etc.) , to support the development of this RIS under Phase II of the NHVBS .  
This survey was followed -up with face-to-face visits at a number of operators ’ premises,  to 
gather further information  and insights .  The NHVBS Operator/Maintenance Survey 
summary is included as Appendix 15  to this RIS.  
The proposal to mandate stability control systems for heavy  vehicles  has also already been 
discussed at a number of SVSEG and TLG meetings  and has been developed in close 
consultation with  the NHVBS Phase II IRG , comprised mainly of industry technical experts 
on heavy vehicle braking .  The m ember  organisations  of the IRG are shown  at Appendix 17 .  
There has been  significant progress made on ADR content through the group and the draft 
ADRs now have  broad support within the IRG .  However, it is also recognised that heavy 
vehicle brakin g is a complex topic and as such  there is likely to  be further feedback received 
as a result of this RIS and the public comment period.  Regulation Impact Statement   61 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  7.3. Public Comment  
The publication of an exposure draft of the proposal for public comment is an integral part of 
the consul tation process.  This provides an opportunity for businesses and road user groups , 
as well as all other interested parties, to respond to the proposal by submitting their comments 
to the Department.  Analysing  proposals through  the RIS process assists stakeholders in 
identify ing the likely  impacts of the proposals and enables more informed discussion  on any 
issues.  
In line with the Australian Government Guide to Regulation (2014) i t is intended that the 
proposal be circulated for at least a four-week  public comment  period .  A summary of public 
comment input and Departmental responses will be included in the final RIS used for 
decision making.  
 Regulation Impact Statement   62 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  8. IMPLEMENTATION AND E VALUATION  
New ADRs or amendments to the ADRs are determined by the Minister  for Urban 
Infrastructure under section 7 of the MVSA.  
As Australian Government regulations, ADRs are subject to review every ten years as 
resources permit.  This ensures that they remain relevant, cost effective and do not become a 
barrier to the importat ion of safer vehicles and vehicle components.  The new versions of 
ADR s 35 and 38 would be scheduled for a full review on an ongoing basis and in line with 
this practice.  
 Regulation Impact Statement   63 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  9. REFERENCES  
Abelson, P. (2007). Establishing a Monetary Value fo r Lives Saved: Issues and 
Controversies . Paper presented at the 2007 ‘Delivering Better Quality Regulatory 
Proposals through Better Cost -Benefit Analysis’ Conference, Canberra, Australia.  
ARTSA (2011). Combination Vehicle Brake Code of Practice: Part 5—Review of 
Electronically -Controlled Brake Technologies for Heavy Vehicles . Retrieved April 
2017  from http://www.artsa.com.au/assets/library/2011/Part_5_2011.docx . 
Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2013 ). Population Projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to 
2101 , 2013 . Report No. 3220 .0.  Retrieved August  2016 from 
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3222.02012%20(base)%2
0to%202101?OpenDocument . 
Australian Bureau of Stati stics. (2014 ). Australian Historical Population Statistics , 201 4. 
Report No. 3105.0.65.001 .  Retrieved August  2016 from 
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3105.0.65.0012014?Open
Document . 
Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2017a ). Motor Vehi cle Census, Australia, 2017 . Report No. 
9309.0.  Retrieved October  2017 from 
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ViewContent?re adform&view=product
sbyCatalogue&Action=Expand&Num=11.3 . 
Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2017b ). Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 months 
ended 30 June 2016 . Report No. 9 208.0.  Retrieved October  2017 from 
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ViewContent?readform&view=product
sbyCatalogue&Action=Expand&Num=11.2 . 
Australian Government ( 2014a). The Australian Government Guide to Regulation . Retrieved 
April 2017 from https://www.cuttingredtape.gov.au/handbook/australian -government -
guide -regula tion. 
Australian Government (20 14b). Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 35/05  – 
Commercial Vehicle Brake Systems ). Retrieved September  2017 from 
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details /F2014C01106 . 
Australian Government (20 14c). Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 38/04  – Trailer 
Brake Systems ). Retrieved September  2017 from 
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2014C01105 . 
Australian Government (2016). Guidance Note: Cost -Benefit Analysis . Retrieved October 
2017 from https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource -centre/regulation/cost -benefit -analysis -
guidance -note. 
Bibbings, R. (1997). Occupational road risk: Toward a management approach . Journal of 
the Institution of Occupational Safety & Health, Vol. 1 (1), pp.61 -75. Regulation Impact Statement   64 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Budd, L.,  & Newstead , S. (2014). Potential Safety Benefits of Emerging Crash Avoidance 
Technologies in Australasian Heavy Vehicles . Monash University Accident Research 
Centre.  
Bureau of Transport Economics  (BTE)  (2000 ). Road Crash Costs in Australia (Report No. 
102) Canberra, Australia . 
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2009), Cost of road 
crashes in Australia 2006 , Report 1 18, Canberra , Australia . 
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2014 ), Impact of road 
trauma and measures to improve outcomes, Report 140 , Canberra , Australia . 
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2016), Fatal heavy 
vehicle crashes Australia quarterly bulletin , Jul-Sep 2016 , Canberra , Australia . 
Bureau of  Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2017a), Fatal heavy 
vehicle crashes Australia quarterly bulletin , Jan-Mar 2017 , Canberra , Australia . 
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2017b), Road trauma 
involvin g heavy vehicles 2016 statistical summary , Canberra , Australia . 
Commonwealth Interdepartmental Committee on Quasi Regulation. (1997). Grey Letter Law . 
Retrieved April 2017 from  http:/ /www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/grey -letter -law. 
European Union (2009). Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type -approval requirements for the general 
safety of motor vehicles, their trail ers and systems, components and separate 
technical units intended therefor . . Retrieved October  2017 from  http://eur -
lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0661 . 
Hart, P. (2003). Prime Mover Standards Project: ABS Braking Requirements (Stage 3) . 
Hart, P. (200 8). National Heavy Vehicle Braking Strategy: Final Report . National Transport 
Commission.   Retrieved September 2017 from 
https://www.ntc.gov.au/publications/?year=2008 . 
Murray, D.,  Shackelford , S., & Houser , A. (2009). Analysis of Benefits and Costs of Roll 
Stability Control Systems  for the Trucking Industry . American Transportation 
Research Institute . 
National Road Transport Commission & the Federal Office of Road Safety (1994). Anti Lock 
Braking Systems for Heavy Vehicles: Stage 1 . 
National Road Transport Commission & the Federal O ffice of Road Safety (1996). Anti Lock 
Braking Systems for Heavy Vehicles: Stage 2 . Regulation Impact Statement   65 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  NHTSA (1995).  Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ; Air Brake Systems; Long -Stroke 
Brake Chambers Final Rulemaking (Docket No. 93 -54, Notice 2).  Retrieved October 
2017 from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR -1995 -01-12/pdf/95 -752.pdf . 
NHTSA (2015).  Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ; Electronic Stability Control 
Systems fo r Heavy Vehicles  Final Rulemaking (Docket No. NHTSA -2015 -0056).  
Retrieved August 2017 from 
https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/FMVSS -136-Final -Rule -
05182015%20final.pdf . 
NHTSA (2016a). Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 1 21; Air brake systems 
(49 CFR 571.121) 10 -1-16 Edition . US Government Publishing Office’s Federal 
Digital System.  
NHTSA (2016b). Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standa rd No. 136; Electronic stability 
control systems for heavy vehicles  (49 CFR 571.136) 10 -1-16 Edition . US 
Government Publishing Office’s Federal Digital System.  
NSW EPA (2014a). Determination: Transport of Dangerous Goods in Tank Trailers . 
Retrieved Septemb er 2017 from 
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/dangerousgoods/140060TrailerDgList.pdf . 
NSW EPA (2014b). Determination: Transport of Dangerous Goods in Tank Trailer s. 
Retrieved September 2017 from 
http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/dangerousgoods/DGRoverdetAug2014.pdf . 
NTC (2010). Heavy Vehicle Types and Charges . 
NTC (2016). Who Moves What Where, Freight and Passenger Transport in Australia, August 
2016. Retrieved September 2016 from 
https://www.ntc.gov.au/Media/Reports/(D62E6EFC -36C7 -48B1 -66A7 -
DDEF3B04CCAE).pdf . 
NTARC (2017). 2017 Major Accident Investigation Report: Covering  major accidents in 
2015 . Retrieved October  2017 from 
https://www.nti.com.au/supporting/trucking/latest -report.php . 
Transport and Infrastructure Council (2011). National Road Safe ty Strategy 2011 -2020. 
Retrieved April 2017 from 
http://www.transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/publications/ . 
Transport and Infrastructure Council (2014). National Road Safet y Action Plan 2015 –2017 . 
Retrieved April 2017 from 
http://www.transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/publications/ . 
Transport Canada (2013).  Technical Standards Document No. 121, Revision 4R – Air Brake 
Systems . Retrieved October 2017 from 
https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/roadsafety/121 -TSD -EN-Rev-4R.pdf . Regulation Impact Statement   66 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  TIC (2015). Truck Industry Council Fleet Report 2015 . Retrieved November 2017 from 
http://www.truck -industry -
council.org/res/f ile/TIC%20Fleet%20report%202015%20screen%20view%20 -
%20A3%20format.pdf . 
UN (2014).  United Nations Regulation No. 13 – Revision 8 – Uniform provisions concerning 
the approval of vehicles of categories M, N and O with regard to braking . Retrieved 
October 2017  from https://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs1 -20.html  
VicRoads (2013). Electronic braking and stability control system eliminates rollovers . 
Retrieved August 2017 from https:// www.nrspp.org.au/resources/vicroads -electronic -
braking -and-stability -control -system -eliminates -rollovers/ . 
Wang, J . (2011). Effectiveness of Stability Control Systems  For Truck Tractors . The National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration . Retrieved October 2017 from http://www -
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811437.pdf . 
Woodrooffe, J.,  Blower , D., Gordon , T., Green , P., Liu, B., & Sweatman , P. (2009). Safety 
Benefits of Stability Control Systems for Tractor -Semitrailers . The University of 
Michigan T ransportation Research Institute . 
 Regulation Impact Statement   67 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 1  — HEAVY  VEHICLE CATEGORIES  
A two -character vehicle category code is shown for each vehicle category.  This code is used 
to designate the relevant vehicles in the national standards, as represented by  the ADRs, and 
in related documentation.  
The categories listed below are those relevant to vehicles greater than 4.5 tonnes Gross 
Vehicle Mass  and trailers greater than 4.5 tonnes Gross Trailer  Mass  (Heavy Vehicles) . 
OMNIBUSES  
A passenger vehicle having more than 9 seating positions, including that of the driver.  
An omnibus comprising 2 or more non -separable but articulated units shall be considered as a 
single vehicle.  
LIGHT OMNIBUS  (MD)  
An omnibus with a ‘ Gross Vehicle Mass ’ not exceeding 5.0 tonnes.  
Sub-category  
 MD4 – over 4.5 tonnes, up to 5 tonnes ‘ Gross Vehicle Mass ’ 
HEAVY OMNIBUS  (ME)  
An omnibus with a ‘ Gross Vehicle Mass ’ exceeding 5.0 tonnes.  
GOODS VEHICLES  
A motor vehicle constructed primarily for the carriage of goods and having at least 4 wh eels; 
or 3 wheels and a ‘ Gross Vehicle Mass ’ exceeding 1.0 tonne.  
A vehicle constructed for both the carriage of persons and the carriage of good shall be 
considered to be primarily for the carriage of goods if the number of seating positions times 
68 kg i s less than 50  per cent of the difference between the ‘ Gross Vehicle Mass ‘ and the 
‘Unladen Mass ‘. 
The equipment and installations carried on certain special -purpose vehicles not designed for 
the carriage of passengers (crane vehicles, workshop vehicles, p ublicity vehicles, etc.) are 
regarded as being equivalent to goods for the purposes of this definition.  
A goods vehicle comprising two or more non -separable but articulated units shall be 
considered as a single vehicle.   Regulation Impact Statement   68 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  MEDIUM GOODS VEHICLE  (NB)  
A goods v ehicle with a ‘ Gross Vehicle Mass ’ exceeding 3.5 tonnes but not exceeding 
12.0 tonnes.  
Sub-category  
 NB2 – over 4.5 tonnes, up to 12 tonnes ‘ Gross Vehicle Mass ’ 
 HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE  (NC)  
A goods vehicle with a ‘ Gross Vehicle Mass ’ exceeding 12.0 tonnes.  
 
TRAILERS  
A vehicle without motive power constructed to be drawn behind a motor vehicle.  
MEDIUM TRAILER  (TC)  
A trailer with a ‘ Gross Trailer Mass ’ exceeding 3.5 tonnes but not exceeding 10 tonnes  
HEAVY TRAILER  (TD)  
A trailer with a ‘ Gross Trailer Mass ’ exce eding 10 tonnes  
 Regulation Impact Statement   69 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 2  — COMMON  TYPES OF HEAVY TRUCKS  AND VEHICLE C OMBINATIONS  
Rigid heavy commercial vehicles offer a load carrying area and may be equipped with a tow 
bar or other coupling on the rear of the vehicle.  Articulated heavy co mmercial vehicles 
consist of a prime mover (towing vehicle) which has no significant load carrying area but is 
linked with a turntable device to a semi -trailer.  
The various types of heavy commercial vehicles operating in Australia are detailed below. In 
summary, there are five main operating classes of heavy commercial vehicles. These are:  
 Rigid commercial vehicles  
 Rigid commercial vehicles with trailers  
 Semi -trailers  
 B-Doubles  
 Road trains  (including B -Triples)  
A B-Double combination consists of a prime mov er towing two semi -trailers.  The first trailer 
includes a turntable, which links to the second trailer, rather than using a dolly to link the 
trailers as in many road train configurations.  A road train comprises of a prime mover 
hauling t hree or more trailers (including any converter dolly ) or a rigid heavy commercial 
vehicle hauling two or more trailers.  
RIGID HEAVY COMMERCI AL VEHICLES  
1. TWO AXLE  
 
2. THREE AXLE  
 
3. FOUR AXLE TWIN -STEER  
 
  
Regulation Impact Statement   70 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  4. TWO AXLE WITH TWO AXLE DOG TRAILER  
 
5. THREE AXLE WITH THREE AXLE DOG TRAILER  
 
ARTICULATED HEAVY CO MMERCIAL VEHICLES  
6. THREE AXLE SEMI -TRAILER  
 
7. FIVE AXLE SEMI -TRAILER  
 
8. SIX AXLE SEMI -TRAILER  
 
9. SEVEN AXLE B -DOUBLE  
 
10. EIGHT AXLE B -DOUBLE  
 
11. NINE AXLE B -DOUBLE  
 
Regulation Impact Statement   71 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  12. B-TRIPLE  ROAD TRAIN  
 
13. DOUBLE ROAD TRAIN  (or A-DOUBLE)  
 
14. AB-TRIPLE ROAD TRAIN  
 
15. TRIPLE ROAD TRAIN  (or A -TRIPLE)  
 
16. BAB QUAD ROAD TRAIN  
 
17. ABB QUAD ROAD TRAIN  
 
Images sourced/adapted from National Transport Commission ( 2010)  
 
Regulation Impact Statement   72 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 3  — AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS  
There are numerous examples of awareness advertising campaigns that have been successful. 
One particularly successful campaign was the Grim Reaper advertisements of 1987. In an 
attempt to educate the public about risk factors for HIV Aids; television and n ewspaper 
advertisements were run showing the Grim Reaper playing ten pin bowling with human pins. 
This campaign led to significant increases in HIV testing requests meaning that the campaign 
effectively reached the target market. Other awareness campaigns can be as successful if well 
designed, planned and positioned. Two examples are the more recent Skin Cancer Awareness 
Campaign and the Liquids, Aeroso ls and Gels Awareness Campaign.  
Providing accurate costings is a difficult task. Each public awareness cam paign will consist 
of different target markets, different objectives and different reaches to name a few common 
differences. In providing a minimum and maximum response two cases have been used; the 
maximum cost is developed from the Department of Health &  Ageing’s Skin Cancer 
Awareness Campaign. The minimum cost is developed from the Office of Transport 
Security’s Liquids, Aerosols and Gels (LAGs) Awareness Campaign.  
Broad High Cost Campaign  
The “Protect yourself from skin cancer in five ways” campaign was  developed in an effort to 
raise awareness of skin cancer amongst young people who often underestim ate the dangers of 
skin cancer.  
Research prior to the campaign found that young people were the most desirable target 
market as they had the highest incidenc e of burning and had an orientation toward tanning. 
This group is also highly influential in setting societal norms for outdoor behaviour. A mass 
marketed a pproach was deemed appropriate.  
The Cancer Council support investment in raising awareness of skin c ancer prevention as 
research shows that government investment in skin cancer prevention leads to a  $5 benefit for 
every $1 spent.  
Whilst it is not a direct measure of effectiveness, the National Sun Protection Survey would 
provide an indication as to the c hanged behaviours that may have arisen as a result of the 
advertising campaign. The research showed that there had been a 31 per cent fall in the 
number of adults reporting that they were sunburnt since the previous survey in 2004 
suggesting that the campa ign was to some extent effective.  
The actual effectiveness of the campaign was not  publicly released.  
  Regulation Impact Statement   73 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  The costs of this campaign were from three sources:  
Creative Advertising Services (e.g. advertisement development)  $378,671  
Media Buy (e.g. placement of advertisements)  $5,508,437  
Evaluation Research (measuring the effectiveness of the campaign)  $211,424  
Total  $6,098,532  
Applicability to Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles  
Using a mass marketing approach can be regarded as an effective approach because it has the 
ability to reach a large number of people. However, this may not be the most efficient 
approach as most  people exposed to such advertisements would  not be members o f the target 
market.  Further,  political sensitivities can arise from large scale marketing campaigns and 
that there would likely  be a thorough analysis of any such spending. As a result, it would be 
essential  to demonstrate that such a campaign is likely to be effective prior to launch.  
The scale of the above example would be too large for a campaign targeting an Australian 
heavy vehicle fleet. Unlike the examples given in Appendix 4 , heavy vehicles are 
traditionally not advertised as commodities through television  media , as the target market  is 
too small proportion of the public . In lieu of advertising the equipment through manufacturers 
commercials , a safety advert isement would instead reach a larger proportion of the public that 
have the means to act on the campaign . Comparing to reported expenditure of government 
agencies for 2015 -2016 (Department of Finance, 2016), the estimate of $1.5  million  per 
month,  or $18  million  per year to run a mass market approach was comparable . 
Targeted Low Cost Campaign  
In August 2006, United Kingdom security services interrupted a terrorist operation that 
involved a plan to take concealed matter on board an international flight to su bsequently 
build an explosive device. The operation led to the identification of a vulnerability with 
respect to the detection of liquid explosives.  
As a result, the International Civil Aviation Organisation released security guidelines for 
screening Liquids, Aerosols & Gels (LAGS). As a result new measures were launched in 
Australia. To raise awareness of the changes , the following awareness campaign was run over 
a period of four months : 
 14 million brochures were published in English, Japanese, Chines e, Korean & Malay 
and were distributed to airports, airlines, duty free outlets and travel agents  
 1200 Posters, 1700 counter top signs, 57000 pocket cards, 36 banners and 5000 
information kits were prepared.  
 Radio and television Interviews  
 Items in news bu lletins  
 Advertising in major metropolitan and regional newspapers  
 A website, hotline number and email address were established to provide travellers 
with a ready source of information.  
 5 million resealable plastic bags were distributed to international air ports  Regulation Impact Statement   74 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development   Training for 1900 airport security screeners and customer service staff was funded 
and facilitated by the department.  
The campaign won the Public Relations Institute of Australia (ACT) 2007 Award for 
Excellence for a Government Sponsored Campaign hav ing demonstrated a rapid rise in 
awareness. 77 per cent of travellers surveyed said they had heard of the new measures in 
general terms and 74 per cent of respondents claimed to be aware  of the measures when 
prompted.  
The costs of this campaign were from t hree sources:  
Developmental Research (e.g. Understanding Public Awareness prior 
to the campaign)  $50,000  
Media Buy (e.g. Placement of advertisements)  $1,002,619  
Evaluation Research (Measuring the effectiveness of the campaign)  $40,000  
Total  $1,092,619  
Applicability to Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles  
This campaign had a very narrow target market; international travellers. As a result, the 
placement of the message for the most part was able to be specifically targeted to that market 
with mini mum wastage through target ing airports and travel agents.  
Should a  heavy vehicle  campaign be run, there would be a similar narrow target market; new 
heavy truck/bus and/or trailer  buyers. As a result, placement of similar marketing tools could 
be positione d in places where these buyer s search for information. Particular focus may be on 
heavy vehicle  sales locations  and in print media (e.g. magazines) specifically covering heavy 
vehicles . 
The scale of the above example would be too large for a campaign targe ting an Australian 
heavy vehicle campaign. Targeting specific media publications, both online and print media, 
would provide the best outcomes. Using reported expenditure of government agencies for 
2015 -2016 (Department of Finance, 2016) , an estimate of $2 00,000 for a three month period 
was used. The cost modelling of this option started with a two year campaign followed by 
campaigns every second year  (to prevent advertising fatigue)  while the BAU fitment rate 
remained under 70  per cent . 
 Regulation Impact Statement   75 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 4  — INFORMATION CAMPAIGN S 
The following are real -world adverti sing campaigns that featured  automotive technologies as 
a selling point, with a measured outcome:  
A Mitsubishi Outlander advertising campaign was launched in February 2008.  It focuse d 
solely on the fact that the car ha d “Active Stability Control as standard”.  Change s in sales 
were  attributable directly to the campaign.  There was an immediate effect with sales of the 
Mitsubishi Outlander increasing by 9.1 per cent for the month of February  alone .  
A Hyundai advertising campaign was launched in April 2008 , offering free ESC on the 
Elantra 2.0 SX until the end of June.  This was supplemented by television commercials 
launched in early May.  The impact of this campaign was  significant,  with a 52.8 per cent 
increase in sales f or this model over the period.  
A 2008 Volkswagen Golf advertis ing campaign aimed to inform the market that the Golf had 
“extra features at no extra cost”.  The result was a 69.1 per cent increase in sales for those 
models over the April – June period.  
 Regulation Impact Statement   76 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 5  — TYPES OF ANTILOCK BR AKE SYSTEMS FOR HEAV Y VEHICLES  
Antilock Brake S ystems (ABS) may be grouped according to how wheel braking is 
controlled.  The basic types are:  
Individual control (IR)  
This controls braking individually for each wheel. Giving the shortest stopping distances, it 
can also produce higher yaw moments when road adhesion is different between right and left 
wheels (known as split -µ conditions).  It is normally only used on non -steer axles.  
Select -low control (SL)  
This controls braking at the same level across an axle, giving no yaw mome nts in split -µ 
conditions.  The braking level is set to that of the axle in the multi -axle group with the least 
grip.  In split -µ conditions the stopping distances are longer than IR but under  normal 
conditions they are the same.  
Select -high control (SH)  
This controls braking at the same level across an axle, giving no yaw moments in split -µ 
conditions.  The braking level is set to that of the axle in the axle group with the most grip.  
In split -µ conditions the stopping distances are shorter than IR but un der normal conditions 
they are the same.  
Wheel lock -up can occur on the un -sensed wheels.  The performance differences between the 
Select -low and Select -high set -ups is mainly relevant to multi -axle rear groups.  The brake 
design rules require that wheels  on at least axle be independently sensed and this can result in 
two of three axles in a tri -axle group not being sensed.  All wheels are however, controlled 
based upon the performance of the sensed axle.  
Select -smart control (SSM)  
This controls braking at  the same level across an axle and so is similar to SL.  However in 
this case the wheel with the least grip is allowed to lock to a limited extent  and so stopping 
distances are shortened when compared to SL, with only a minor reduction in steer  ability in 
split-µ conditions.  
Individual control modified (IRM)  
This controls braking individually for each wheel but modifies it slightly to reduce yaw 
moments.  
Generally, the control strategies for Anti -Lock Brakes have become more sophisticated as 
these systems h ave been paired with vehicle stability controls.  Controlled levels of wheel 
lock can be allowed or implemented by most current controllers to improve stability 
performance.  Regulation Impact Statement   77 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  ARTSA (201 7) outlines the systems in terms of the numbers of wheel speed Sensors ( S) and 
Modulators (M) used and their fitment to Australian vehicles.  
Trucks  
2S/2M —A single -axle system.  Two sensed wheel ends on one axle and two modulators 
controlling that axle.  This system is not used on trucks in Australia as it does not meet the 
ADR  requirement that all wheels on the vehicle be controlled.  
4S/3M — Sensors on four wheels on two axles (a front and a rear axle).  The steer axle 
wheels are modulated together (one modulator) and the rear axle has two modulators.  The 
rear axle(s) have inde pendent side modulation.  The rationale for it is that ABS modulation 
on one side of a steer axle might cause a steering effect under heavy braking.  Hence the steer 
axle has a single modu lator that controls both sides.  
This configuration is often used on air-over-hydraulic (AOH) brake systems that are common 
on light -medium commercial vehicles.  Only one AOH booster is required for the steer axle 
ABS.   This scheme is rarely if ever used on full airbrake trucks in Australia.  
4S/4M —Four sensed wheel ends and  four modulators.  T his is t he usual scheme on 
Australian motive trucks whether they have singe -axle or multi -axle groups.  Each rear 
modulator controls one , two or three wheels o n each side of both rear axles.   It is relatively 
common on all configuration s including 8x4 trucks.  
6S/4M —Six sensed wheel ends and four modulators.  The rear wheels are controlled in pairs 
so that the ABS responds to pending lock -up on any of the rear wheels.  A 4S/4M system will 
have comparable ABS performance to a 6S/4M system if its sensors are installed on the rear 
axle that is most likely to lock -up first.  
This configuration can be beneficial for Automatic Traction Control (ATC) systems installed 
on reactive drive axle suspensions. The axle that spins first on acceleration do es not usually 
lock first under braking.  Therefore individual wheel sensing is desirable when ABS and 
ATC are both installed.  A 6S/6M has the added benefit of independent wheel control.   It is 
relatively uncommon.  Many trucks with ATC have 4S/4M systems . 
6S/6M —A fully controlled and modulated system for three -axle vehicles.   It is commonly 
used on buses that have a rear -group axle with single tyres in front of a rear -group axle with 
dual tyres.  
Trailers  
2S/1M —Two wheel ends are sensed and all wheels on t he group are controlled.  This scheme 
is sometimes used on steerable axles at the front of a trailer (or dolly trailer).  The advantage 
is that there is no steering effect arising from the modulation of the wheels on one side only.  Regulation Impact Statement   78 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  2S/1M systems are widely  used on North American trailers (which tend to have bogie axles, 
both of which are controlled) and occasionally used in Australia.  When used in Australia, 
2S/1M ABS is applied to steerable dolly trailer axles.   However, it is more likely that a dolly 
will have a bogie or tri -axle group and it will have a 4S/3M system installed rather than a 
2S/1M system.  
2S/2M systems are commonly used on dual -axle and tri -axle axle groups  on semi -trailers .  It 
is occasionally used on dolly trailers.  When used on a tri -axle group, it is common for the 
centre axle to be sensed.  That is, the scheme is mid -way between Select -hi and Select -low. 
4S/2M systems are commonly used on semi -trailers.  Usually the front and the rear axles in 
the rear group are se nsed independently.  The controller therefore takes account of both 
Select -hi and Select -low control levels when determining the intervention points.  
4S/3M —the usua l ‘dog’ trailer configuration.  It is r arely use d on dual -axle or tri -axle 
semi -trailers.   It can be used on a quad axle semi -trailer with a rear self -steering axle.  
6S/3M  is available although seldom used in Australia.  It is applicable to dual -axle steerable 
groups.  
4S/4M  is not currently available for  Australian trailers.  
Technical Standards  
All new heavy trucks and buses  in Australia , with not more than four axles , must be equipped 
with ABS complying with  the design and performance requirements in ADR  35/05 .  All new 
heavy trailers (except for some trailers meeting certain additional criteria)  must be equipped 
with ABS or a Variable Proportioning Brake System  (LP).  Where fitted to a new heavy 
trailer , the ABS must comply with  the design and performance requirements in ADR 38/04 . 
Both ADR 35/05 and ADR 38/04 require that at least one axle in ea ch axle group must 
remain unlocked (above 15 km/h speed) when a full -force brake application is made.  The 
test, which must be conducted for motive trucks /buses , is conducted in both laden and 
unladen states on a dry, sealed high -friction road surface at 4 0 km/h and at 80 km/h.  
ADRs 35/05 and 38/04 both also allow UN R 13 as an alternative standard, and this includes 
UN ABS requirements.  While the basic test is similar to the ADRs, there are additional  
adhesion utilisation tests, and heavy trucks and buses  must have a Category 1 system  and 
heavy trailers a Category A system .  These are split -µ systems, which means  they control left 
side braking and right side braking individually.  
 Regulation Impact Statement   79 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 6  — EFFECTIVENESS OF ANT ILOCK BRAKE SYSTEMS FOR HEAVY 
VEHICLES  
Multiple studies from around the world and over a long period of time have demonstrated the 
effectiveness of ABS in helping to reduce heavy vehicle crashes.  
ABS has been mandated on both prime -movers and trailers in the US since March 1997 
(model  year 1998).  In its Final Economic Assessment for the updated braking standard, 
FMVSS 121, the US used data from an earlier German study in 1984 by Otte et al.  This 
study looked at crashes involving heavy vehicles in the Hamburg region and concluded that , 
as a consequence of ABS use, personal injuries suffered by occupants of commercial vehicles 
were preventable or reducible in severity in 8.7 per cent of cases.  In the case of personal 
injuries suffered by others involved in the crash 7.2 per cent were e stimated to be preventable 
and 3.6 per cent estimated to be reducible in severity (Hart, 2003).  In re -examining the crash 
reports, NHTSA determined that for the US case, combination vehicles would have had 8.86 
per cent and single -unit vehicles 5.83 per c ent fewer crashes if they had been fitted with ABS 
(Hart, 2008).  Other studies from Europe during the early 90s were around 10 per cent 
(National Road Transport Commission & the Federal Office of Road Safety, 1994).  
NHTSA had previously studied the correl ation between ABS application on passenger cars 
and their associated crash rates, finding little or no net crash reduction associated with ABS 
(Hart, 2003).  This was reinforced by further statistical research by NHTSA in 2009 (Hart, 
2008).  However, extra polating this to heavy truck -related ABS experience is not appropriate, 
because “heavy trucks experience great variations in weight that could affect wheel slip and 
potentially have more complex dynamic modes during heavy braking” (Hart, 2003).  
In 2010, th e US Office of Evaluation and Regulatory Analysis within NHTSA followed up its 
original FMVSS 121 analysis for heavy vehicles with a statistical analysis, using data from a 
number of states, of crashes between 1998 and 2007.  The intent was to capture the expected 
effect of mandating the technology from the 1998 model years.  
The best estimate of a reduction in all levels of police -reported crashes for air braked tractor 
trailers (truck/trailer combination) for a tractor unit (prime -mover) fitted with ABS wa s found 
to be 3 per cent.  This represented a statistically significant 6 per cent reduction in the crashes 
where ABS is assumed to be potentially influential, relative to a control group, of about the 
same number of crashes, where ABS was likely to be irr elevant.  In fatal crashes there was 
found to be a non -significant 2 per cent reduction in crash involvement, resulting from a 4 per 
cent reduction in crashes where ABS should be potentially influential (Hart, 2008).  
The report noted that among the types o f crashes ABS has the potential to influence: large 
reductions in jack -knives, off -road overturns, and at -fault crashes with other vehicles (except 
front -to-rear crashes) were observed.  However, some increases in the number of 
involvements of hitting anim als, pedestrians, or bicycles, and rear -ending lead vehicles (for 
fatal crashes only) were also observed.  Regulation Impact Statement   80 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Within Australia, there has been a series of studies undertaken in the mid -nineties by the 
National Road Transport Commission (NRTC, now the National Transport Commission, 
NTC) and the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS, now the Vehicle Safety Standards 
Branch in the Department) relating to the regulatory case for an Australian Design Rule 
(ADR) for ABS on heavy vehicles.  
The NRTC/FORS Stages 1 (Nation al Road Transport Commission & the Federal Office of 
Road Safety, 1994) and 2 (National Road Transport Commission & the Federal Office of 
Road Safety, 1996) studies estimated potential reductions in crash rates by analysing 241 
fatal Australian truck crash es from the year 1990 and 1992 from national data as well as fatal 
and non -fatal crashes for the years between 1987 and 1993, depending on the state or territory 
that the data was sourced from.  
In Stage 1, FORS found that just under half of the fatal crash es involved braking or swerving 
and that eight per cent of all crashes in 1990 that involve articulated trucks would have been 
avoided if the trucks had ABS and a further two per cent of such crashes would be ‘reduced 
to injury crashes’.  These figures wer e five and eight per cent respectively for rigid vehicles, 
as well as six and seven per cent for buses.  The total for all vehicles was seven per cent 
avoided and three per cent reduced to injury (National Road Transport Commission & the 
Federal Office of Road Safety, 1996). These figures were subsequently reviewed by an expert 
panel and upheld.  The Australian Road Research Board (ARRB), acting as consultant to the 
NRTC, then analysed reported crashes (all injuries or property damage only) in NSW, 
Queensla nd and Victoria using the analysis from the fatal crashes.  When the data was 
extrapolated Australia -wide the medium estimates of effectiveness were 6.1 per cent of all 
articulated crashes being avoided if the trucks had ABS, 1.4 per cent for rigid vehicle s and 
7.4 per cent for buses (National Road Transport Commission & the Federal Office of Road 
Safety, 1994 & National Road Transport Commission & the Federal Office of Road Safety, 
1996).  These were the final results used to calculate benefits.  Potential  savings in property 
damage crashes only, while anecdotally considered to be significant, were unable to be 
determined.  At the time regulatory action was unable to clearly be justified on a benefit -cost 
basis.  Stage 2 was then undertaken in an effort to determine more accurate estimates of the 
costs and benefits.  
In Stage 2, it was found that just over three quarters of the fatal crashes involved braking or 
swerving and that 5.3 per cent of all crashes in 1992 that involve articulated trucks would 
have b een avoided if the trucks had ABS and a further three per cent of such crashes would 
be ‘reduced to injury crashes’.  These figures were 8.3 and 2.8 per cent respectively for rigid 
vehicles, as well as one and two per cent for buses.  The total for all veh icles was 6.2 per cent 
avoided and 2.9 per cent reduced to injury (National Road Transport Commission & the 
Federal Office of Road Safety, 1996).  Again the ARRB performed more detailed work that 
gave medium estimates of effectiveness of 6.4 per cent for a ll articulated crashes being 
avoided if the trucks had ABS, 8.3 per cent for rigid vehicles and 2.8 per cent for buses.  The 
variation in the results for rigid vehicles and buses when compared to Stage 1 was attributed 
to an increase in rigid vehicle crash es over the period as well as differences in state and 
territory reporting procedures.  Regulation Impact Statement   81 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  The NRTC commissioned further work in 2003 (Stage 3) through the Prime Mover Ratings 
Project that was concerned with ABS requirements for prime -movers.  It was assumed f rom 
the Stage 2 results that use of ABS on all parts of a heavy articulated truck would potentially 
reduce crash cost exposure by 6.1 per cent.  This value was taken from the Stage 2 study.  It 
was also assumed that a potential reduction in crash cost expo sure of 3.05 per cent (i.e. half) 
will result if ABS is fitted to the motive vehicle only.  
Summary  
Table 19 summarises the effectiveness rates from each of the various  studies .  It can be seen 
that although the rates contain a wide variation, there is a consistently demonstrable benefit 
of fitment of ABS to heavy vehicles in the order of no less than 1 per cent to no more than 10 
per cent.  
For the analysis in this RIS,  it was assumed t hat ABS (including as part on an RSC system) 
reduces the risk of a heavy vehicle injury crash (including fatal and serious injury crashes) by 
5.5 per cent  relative to basic pneumatic braking and 2 per cent relative to LP systems.  
  Regulation Impact Statement   82 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 19: Effectiveness of ABS for heavy vehicles  
Study  Vehicle type  Crash Type  Effectiveness ( per cent ) 
Billing, Lam & Vespa (1995)  B-train double 
tankers  Braking efficiency  Substantially improved  
Otte et al (1984)  Commercial 
vehicles  Occupant personal injuries  
Preventable or reducible  8.7 
Other preventable  7.2 
Other reducible  3.6 
Klusmeyer et al (1992)  
from NRTC Stage 1 (1994 )   7 
NHTSA (1995)  Articulated  Preventable  8.86 
Rigid  Preventable  5.83 
NHTSA (2010)  
 Prime -mover  Preventable police reported 
crashes  3 
Preventable fatal  2 
NRTC Stage 1 (1994)  Prime -mover  Preventable fatal  8.3 
Reducible to injury  2.3 
Rigid over 12t  Preventable fatal  5 
Reducible to injury  8 
Bus over 5t  Preventable fatal  6 
Reducible to injury  7 
All vehicles  Preventable fatal  7 
Reducible to injury  3 
   
Prime -mover  Preventable  6.1 
Rigid over 12t  Preventable  1.4 
Bus over 5t  Preventable  7.4 
NRTC Stage 2 (1996)  Prime -mover  Preventable fatal  5.3 
Reducible to injury  3 
Rigid over 12t  Preventable fatal  8.3 
Reducible to injury  2.8 
Bus over 5t  Preventable fatal  1 
Reducible to injury  2 
All vehicles  Preventable fatal  6.2 
Reducible to injury  2.9 
   
Prime -mover  Preventable  6.4 
Rigid over 12t  Preventable  8.3 
Bus over 5t  Preventable  2.8 
Robinson & Duffin (1993)    10 
Source: see text  Regulation Impact Statement   83 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 7  — TYPES OF STABILITY C ONTROL SYSTEMS FOR H EAVY VEHICLES  
Two different types of stability control systems  are available  for heavy vehicles . One is Roll 
Stability C ontrol or RSC, and the other is Electronic Stability Control or ESC.   Both are 
driver assistance technologies, designed to improve heavy vehicle stability  and control . 
Roll Stability Control (RSC ) 
RSC is designed to reduce the chance of a vehicle (or combination) rolling over.   Rollovers 
primarily occur when the lateral acceleration exceeds the rollover limit of a 
vehicle /combination .  Common causes include entering corners at  too high a speed, sudden 
steering manoeuvres to avoid other vehicles or obst acles and shifting of loads such as liquids 
in tanks.   Heavy vehicles are usually  much more prone to rollover than light vehicles, 
because they have a much higher gross mass together with an elevated centre of gravity . 
Truck RSC systems typically consist o f an electronic control unit , which  monitors data 
received from a lateral acceleration sensor, ABS wheel speed sensors , and load sensors , as 
well as the  driver’s control inputs to the braking system and to the engine, together with the 
engine output (e.g. torque  and speed ) and the vehicle speed .  These systems automatically 
reduce engine torque and apply the truck and any towed trailer brakes, whenever the system 
determines based on the truck lateral acceleration and wheel speed sensor data that the 
vehicle  is at risk of rolling over .  Measurement of the d river control inputs enables a better  
transition from driver commanded brake/engine input to automatically commanded inputs , 
including for the driver to brake more heavily than the automatic commanded input . 
Trailer RSC systems typically consist of an electronic control unit , which  monitors data 
received from a lateral acceleration sensor, ABS wheel speed sensors , and axle load sensors.   
These systems automatically apply the brakes on at least two wheels of each axle or axle 
group  of the trailer , whenever the system determines  based on the trailer lateral acceleration 
and wheel speed sensor data that the trailer is at risk of a rollover.   The axle load sensing  
function enables adjustment of the brake signal relative  to the load carried  by the trailer  
(electronic load proportioning) , during both system commanded and driver commanded 
braking .  However, trailer RSC systems can only apply trailer brakes to slow a combination, 
whereas prime mover RSC/ESC systems ca n apply both the truck and the trailer brakes.  
RSC systems for heavy vehicles  also include a learning function, to account for the 
considerable difference in the unladen and fully laden  mass of these vehicles  as well as 
significant variations in the load d istribution (including on each axle and the load 
height/centre of gravity) .  RSC systems are programmed with two pre -set lateral acceleration 
thresh old (trigger ) values.  When the level 1  (lower) threshold  is reached (or exceeded ) 
(commonly 0.25g), the sys tem will send a low -pressure test pulse to apply the brakes 
(ARTSA 2011).  From these test pulses, the system determines based on the difference in 
wheel slip (measured by ABS wheel speed sensors) on each side of the vehicle how close the 
wheels on the inside of the turn are to leaving the ground.  If it determines the wheels on the 
inside of the turn are close to lifting it will intervene to slow the vehicle/combination.  If it 
determines the  vehicle is not in danger of a rollover it will raise the level 1  lateral 
acceleration threshold a little , and will keep doing this until it determines the lateral Regulation Impact Statement   84 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  acceleration is approaching a value slightly below that at which it must brake the 
vehicle /combination to avoid a rollover .  Whenever the level 2 (higher) lateral acceleration 
threshold is reached (or exceeded) the system will intervene to slow the vehicle/combination.  
If the load condition changes (as indicated by axle load sensors) or the RSC system power is 
turned off (e.g. a t an ignition cycle), the lev el 1 threshold is reset and the learning process 
repeats (ARTSA 2011).   Engine torque data may  also be used in the estimation of vehicle 
mass for truck based RSC systems.  
Electronic Stability Control (ESC)  
ESC is designed to reduce the chance of a vehicle (or combination vehicle) understeering  
(ploughing out), oversteering ( spinning out) or rolling over.   Understeer or oversteer occur 
when there is not enough grip/friction between one or more tyres and the road to oppose 
lateral tyre forces.  When the front  tyres have utilised all available grip/traction the vehicle 
will tend to understeer (turn less sharply than the driver intends), and when the rear tyres 
have utilised all available grip/traction the vehicle will tend to oversteer (turn more sharply 
than t he driver intends).  
Truck and bus  ESC systems typically consist of an electronic control unit that monitor s data 
received from a steering -wheel -angle sensor, a combined yaw rate and lateral acceleration 
sensor, ABS wheel speed sensors , and load sensors , as well as the  driver’s control inputs to 
the steering and braking systems and to the engine, together with the engine output (e.g. 
torque and speed) and the vehicle speed.  
ESC systems for heavy trucks/buses perform all the same functions as RSC systems.  In 
addition, ESC systems automatically reduce engine torque and apply the truck and/or any 
towed trailer brakes , when the system determines based on the steering wheel angle and yaw 
rate sensor data that the vehicle is understeering  or oversteering .  Underst eer is typically 
corrected for by selective application of the inside rear brake(s) of the vehicle, while 
oversteer is typically corrected for by selective application of the outside front brake of the 
vehicle together with  automatic application of any towed trailer brakes.   The combination of 
steering wheel angle and vehicle speed data can also help  these systems detect rollover risk 
earlier than both truck and trailer based RSC systems  (except for any truck based RSC syste m 
including a steer ing-wheel -angle sensor) . 
 Regulation Impact Statement   85 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 8  — EFFECTIVENESS OF STA BILITY CONTROL SYSTE MS FOR HEAVY 
VEHICLES  
It was not  possible to determine the effectiveness of stability control systems for heavy 
vehicles statistically from Australian road crash data.  This is because the technology is still 
relatively new and there are not enough heavy vehicles  fitted with these systems in operation  
yet.  Nevertheless , there a re a number of US studies , which provide a good basis for 
estimating the effe ctiveness of these systems for heavy vehicles in Australia.  
Murray et al (2009) estimated RSC for heavy trucks  is 37 to 53 per cent effective in 
preventing rollovers.  The low effectiveness (37 per cent) was determined from feedback 
from operators, while t he high effectiveness (53 per cent) was determined from computer 
simulations of rollover crashes resulting from excessive entry speed into a curve.  
Woodroof fe et al (2009 ) estimated the effectiveness of ESC and RSC for tractor -semi -trailers 
in reducing rollover and loss of control crashes by road alignment (straight, curved) and road 
surface condition (wet, dry).  These estimates were determined from in -depth analysis of 113 
rollover cases and 46 loss of control cases (159 cases in total) from the US Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) database.   
Effectiveness ratings for both ESC and RSC were determined for each case using either 
computer simulation (22 cases) or expert pane l assessment (137 c ases).  O verall effectiveness 
estimates were established by a veraging  individual case ratings .  Table 20 summarises the 
effectiveness results by crash type, road alig nment and road surface condition from  this 
study.  
Table 20: Woodroof fe et al (2009) estimates of effectiveness (per cent) of ESC and RSC for t ractor -semi -trailers by 
crash type, road alignment and road surface condition  
Technology  Road 
Alignment  Surface 
Condition  LTCCS Cases  Effectiveness  (per cent)  
Rollover 
(R) Loss of 
Control 
(LoC)  Rollover 
(R) Loss of 
Control 
(LoC)  
ESC Straight  Dry 22 9 21.14  17.78  
  Not Dry  3 17 0.00 20.59  
 Curved  Dry 79 7 75.05  31.57  
  Not Dry  9 13 55.56  39.62  
RSC  Straight  Dry 22 9 16.36  0.56 
  Not Dry  3 17 0.00 1.76 
 Curved  Dry 79 7 71.15  14.00  
  Not Dry  9 13 45.56  11.54  
Total  Cases  159 Regulation Impact Statement   86 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Wang (2011 ) also estimated the effectiveness of ESC and RSC for truck tractors (prime 
movers) in reducing rollover and loss of control crashes.  This study used the same 159 
LTCCS cases as the study by Woodrooffe et al (2009).  However, the results  of this study 
were determined  by first weighting the individual case ratings according to relative likelihood 
of occurrence , before calculating  the average  effectiveness values.  Two cases were  also 
reclassified  from loss of control crashes to rollovers and the effectiveness  estimates were 
revised down  for six of the cases , following a review of all 159 cases.   Table 21 summarise s 
the effectiveness results by crash type, road alignment an d road surface condition from this 
study.  
Table 21: Wang (2011) estimates of effectiveness (per cent) of ESC and RSC for tractor -semi -trailers by crash type, 
road alignment and road surface condition  
Technology  Road 
Alignment  Surface 
Condition  LTCCS Cases  Effectiveness  (per cent)  
Rollover 
(R) Loss of 
Control 
(LoC)  Rollover 
(R) Loss of 
Control 
(LoC)  
ESC Straight  Dry 22 9 15.27  6.74 
  Not Dry  3 17 0.00 18.09  
 Curved  Dry 80 6 75.07  18.70  
  Not Dry  10 12 61.30  17.90  
Total Cases / Overall Effectiveness  159 47 14 
RSC  Straight  Dry 22 9 12.50  0.53 
  Not Dry  3 17 0.00 3.05 
 Curved  Dry 80 6 71.72  6.56 
  Not Dry  10 12 55.90  1.98 
Total Cases / Overall Effectiveness  159 44 3 
Given the 44 per cent rollover effectiveness determined for RSC  is close to the midpoint 
between the estimate  by Murray  et al (2009) , Wang (2011) decided to adopt this same 37 to 
53 per cent estimate for the rollover effectiveness of RSC .  Similarly, given  the 3 per cent 
incremental difference in the  effectiveness of ESC and RSC for  rollover crashes, Wang 
(2011) decided to adopt a 40 to 56 per cent estimate for the effectiveness of ESC for these  
crashes.   Finally, Wang (2011) determined overall effectiveness values for ESC and RSC by 
weighting the ind ividual effectiveness values for rollover and loss of control crashes, 
according to the annual average number of truck tractor (prime mover) crashes (fatal and 
non-fatal) of each type in the United States between 2006 and 2008.   Table 22 summarises 
the ESC and RSC effectiveness estimates adopted by Wang (2011) for rollover and loss of 
control crashes.  Regulation Impact Statement   87 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 22: Wang (2011) estimates of effectiven ess (per cent) of ESC and RSC for tractor -semi -trailers  (prime mover  
towing a semi -trailer ) by crash type  
Technology  Rollover  
(R) Loss of 
Control  (LoC)  Overall  
(R & LoC)  
ESC  40-56 14 28-36 
RSC  37-531 3 21-30 
1  Adopted f rom Murray et al 2009  
In its final regulatory impact  analysis for FMVSS 136  (NHTSA, 2015) , the US NHTSA 
estimated that ESC systems for truck tractors (prime movers)  would have an overall 
effectiveness of 25-32 per  cent in reducing rollover and loss of control  crashes , while RSC 
systems would be 17 -24 per cent effective overall in reducing these crashes .  NHTSA 
established these overall effectiveness estimates by weighting individual effectiveness values 
derived for each crash type (i.e. rollover, loss of control) from  the Wang (2011 ) study , 
according to the relative incidence of these crashes for truck tractors (prime movers)  in the 
United States.   The final values adopted by NHTSA were revised from those reported by 
Wang (2011) for two reasons.  Firstly, NHTSA include d an additional loss of control crash 
type (non -collision single -vehicle jackknife crashes) .  Secondly, because NHTSA added this 
additional loss of control crash type, they also  reweighte d the ratio of rollover to loss of 
control crashes .  Based on experie nce testing stability control systems on heavy  trucks and 
buses, NHTSA assumed the effectiveness of ESC and RSC by crash type would be similar on 
large buses as truck tractors (prime movers).  Table 23 summarises the ESC and RSC 
effectiveness estimates adopted  by NHTSA for rollover and loss of control crashes.  
Table 23: NHTSA estimates of e ffectiveness (per cent) of ESC and RSC for heavy vehicles  by crash type  
Technology  Rollover  
(R) Loss of 
Control  (LoC)  Overall  
(R & LoC)  
ESC  40-561 141 25-322 
RSC  37-531 22 17-242 
1  From Wang 2011  
2  Revised from Wang 2011  due to inclusion of an additional LoC crash t ype 
A Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) study by Budd and Newstead 
(2014) investigated the potential benefits of a number of crash avoidance technologies , 
including ESC,  for the heavy vehicle fleet in Australia.   This included estimates of the  
percentage of heavy vehicle injury crashes involving a rollov er or loss of control , from NSW, 
VIC, QLD, WA and SA road crash data for the period 2008 -2010 .  Table 24 summarises this 
data.  Regulation Impact Statement   88 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 24: Percentage of heavy vehicle injury crashes (all severities) involving a rollover or loss of control by 
vehicle /combination  type in five states of Australia (period 2008 -2010)  
Vehicle/Combination  Rollover  
(R) Loss of Control  
(LoC)  Total 
(R + LoC ) 
Prime Mover ± T railer  13 21 34 
Rigid Trucks (no trailer)  4 12 16 
Rigid Truck +  Trailer  8 16 24 
Road Train  19 33 52 
Bus> 4.5t or >=10 seats  1 4 5 
For the purposes of this RIS, overall effectiveness of ESC and RSC systems for heavy 
vehicles were estimated by weighting the individual effectiveness values adopted  for each 
crash type (i.e. rollover, loss of control) by NHTSA, according to the relative i ncidence  of 
these crashes in Australia by vehicle type using the above crash data from Budd and 
Newstead (2014) .  Table 2 5 details the se estimates  (including the calculation) of ESC and 
RSC overall effectiveness  (bold values used in analysis) by heavy vehi cle type for Australia . 
Table 25: Estimates  of overall effectiveness (per cent) of ESC and RSC by heavy vehicle type for Australia  
 ESC Effectiveness (per cent)  RSC Effectiveness (per cent)  
 Overall 
(R & LoC)  Calculation  Overall 
(R & LoC) Calculation  
Prime 
Movers  27 = [(13 × 48 ) + (21 × 14 )]/34 18.4 = [(13 × 45 ) + (21 × 2 )]/34 
Rigid 
Trucks  22.5 = [(4 × 48 ) + (12 × 14 )]/16 12.8 = [(4 × 45 ) + (12 × 2 )]/16 
Buses  20.8 = [(1 × 48 ) + (4 × 14 )]/5 10.6 = [(1 × 45 ) + (4 × 2 )]/5 
Trailers  n/a n/a 18.4 = [(13 × 45 ) + (21 × 2 )]/34 Regulation Impact Statement   89 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 9  — AVAILABLE STANDARDS FOR STABILITY CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR 
HEAVY VEHICLES  
International Standards – United Nations Regulation No.13  
International vehicle standards ( UN Regulations  and UN Global Technical Regulations ) are 
developed under the 1958 Agreement1 and the 1998 Agreement2 by the UN World Forum for 
the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (known as Working Party 29 or WP.29).  Australia 
is a signatory to both the 1958 and 19 98 agreements, and actively participates in WP.29.  
The recognised international standard for heavy vehicle braking is the UN Regulation No. 13 
(R13) – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles of categories M, N and O 
with regard to braking (U N, 2014).  This regulation covers general braking including 
compatibility between towing vehicles and trailers, as well as ABS and ESC/RSC systems, 
and the fitment of standard connectors to provide power to electronic brake systems on 
trailers.   To meet th e latest version of this regulation (UN R13/11), medium and heavy trucks 
and buses (with limited exceptions) must be equipped with ESC, and medium and heavy 
trailers with air suspension and no more than three axles must be equipped with at least RSC.  
The r ollover control function within RSC/ESC systems is tested on and off in one of two test 
types.  The directional control function within ESC systems is tested on and off in one of 
eight test types.  However, the test procedures and pass/fail criteria are no t defined in the 
regulation.  These are instead determined through agreement between the approval authority 
and the vehicle manufacturer.  
The ESC/RSC must also meet prescriptive/functional requirements, to help ensure that these 
systems will work effective ly for a wider range of instability scenarios than are simulated by 
the tests alone.  Further, the standard includes requirements for an optical warning signal to 
indicate ESC/RSC interventions to the driver as well as a warning signal to indicate any 
failure of these systems.  
Approval to UN R13/11 is now a requirement  for all new medium and heavy trucks, buses 
and trailers under the Regulation (EC) No. 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type -approval requireme nts for the general safety of 
motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended 
therefor  (European Union, 2009) .  The ESC and RSC requirements of UN R13/11 now apply 
on a mandatory basis to all new medium and heav y vehicles supplied to the European market.  
                                                 
1 The Agreement concerning the Adoption of Harmonized Technical United Nations Regulations for Wheeled 
Vehicles, Equipment and Parts whic h can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions 
for Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these United Nations Regulations of March 
1958.  
2 The Agreement concerning the Establishing  of Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, 
Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles . Regulation Impact Statement   90 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  National Standards – United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 136  
The US FMVSS No. 136 – Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles  
(NHTSA, 2016b) requires ESC to be fitted (with limit ed exemptions) to truck tractors (prime 
movers) and buses with a GVM over 11,793 kg (26,000 pounds).  It commenced as a 
mandatory standard for certain three -axle prime movers manufactured on or after 1 August 
2017 and will apply to all prime movers and bus es (with a GVM > 11,793 kg) manufactured 
on or after 1 August 2019.  
This standard includes a detailed series of clockwise and anticlockwise J -turn tests  and 
pass/fail criteria to ensure the ESC system achieves a minimum level of performance.  The 
J-turn te st course consists of a straight entrance lane connected to a curved lane section with a 
radius of 45.7 meters (150 feet).  T he straight section of the lane is 3.7 metres wide, and the 
curved section of the lane is 3.7 metres wide for prime movers  and 4.3 metres wide for buses .  
Figure 10 shows a J -turn test course configured for anticlockwise steering.  
 
Figure 10: J-turn test course (anticlockwise direction shown)  
In each J -turn test, the test driver accelerates the vehicle along the entrance lane  before 
crossing the start gate at a designated entrance speed .  The driver then attempts to keep all 
wheels of the vehicle within the test track by steering the vehicle through the curved section 
of track without braking .  The minimum entrance speed at which the ESC activates (i.e. 
intervenes) must be no greater than 48 km/h (equivalent to approximately 0.4 g lateral 
acceleration).  The ESC s ystem must be capable of decelerating  the vehicle to 47 km/h within 
3 seconds after entering the curve and to 45  km/h within 4 seconds after entering the curve, 
from  any entrance speed between 48 km/h and 1.3 times the minimum ESC activation speed.  
The ES C system must also automatically reduce the driver -requested engine torque by at 
least 10  per cent when the vehicle is driven through the J -turn at an entrance speed equal to 
the vehicle’s minimum ESC activation speed.  
Regulation Impact Statement   91 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  There are also prescriptive/functional requirements for the ESC system, to help ensure it is 
effective in a wider range of instability scenarios than are simulated by the J -turn alone, and 
vehicles are required to be equipped with an optical warning signal  to indicate any ESC 
failure to the driver.  Each of these requirements is similar to those used  in UN  R13.  
Vehicles may also be equipped (as an option) with an optical warning to indicate ESC 
interventions to the driver.  
A J-turn is the only dynamic mano euvre type specified in UN R13 as suitable for 
demonstrating the effectiveness of both the directional control function and the rollover 
control function of a heavy vehicle ESC system.  It is therefore possible, subject to agreement 
of a UN R13 approval au thority, that a manufacturer may use an FMV SS 136 J -turn test for 
the demonstration of ESC effectiveness required  for heavy trucks/buses  under UN R13.  
 Regulation Impact Statement   92 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 10  — COMPATIBILITY  
When braking as a combination of a towing vehicle and a towed vehicl e, trucks need to 
provide trailer braking systems with the right signal to ensure that the trailer(s) contribute a 
similar amount of braking effort.  
This compatibility of truck and trailer is specified in ADRs 35 and 38.  However, as these 
requirements con tain tolerance bands, consideration must always be given to in -service 
compatibility when different designs (including for example different brake technologies) are 
used together, or, more importantly, when new trucks and trailers are matched with older 
trucks and trailers that did not have to meet these requirements.  
While ADRs 35 and 38 can and do specify primary compatibility levels, in practice only the 
careful matching of truck and trailer(s) can ensure optimum braking performance. To this 
end, industr y codes and advisories play a vital role in the matching of vehicles with different 
levels of braking technology fitted, including when new a nd old vehicles are combined 
in-service.  
Industry experts from the ALRTA, ARTSA, ATA, CVIAA, HVIA and TIC have rece ntly 
worked together to develop a ‘Guide to Braking and Stability Performance for Heavy Vehicle 
Combinations’, which was released in May 2017.  The aim of this guide is  to assist the 
Australian road transport sector to achieve best practice in the braking and stability 
performance of heavy combination  vehicle s.  It includes rating tables that provide an 
indication of  the likely relative brake and stability performance wh en different brake 
technologies are used in truck and trailer combinations.  This is to help heavy vehicle 
operators achieve better compatibility , including improvements over time as new equipment 
is purchased, or in the case of trailers, refurbished.   The best braking and stability 
performance is achieved when EBS with ESC is used on trucks together with TEBS with 
RSC on trailers.  
ARTSA  has also worked with the ATA and with some state and territory governments to 
develop a Brake Code of Practice.  The code  deals with (amongst other things) issues of 
compatibility.  The ATA have also previously produced an Australian Air Brake Code of 
Practice and more recently Technical  Advisory Procedure s for Truck and Dog Trailer  
Combinations and ESC and RSC technologies . 
The codes and advisories above are a valuable part of the heavy commercial vehicle braking 
picture.  The efforts made by industry in this regard are commendable.  They are encouraged 
as a complement to regulated requirements , which due to the nature of th e ADRs (single 
vehicle type approval) are unable to fully deal with combinations (truck and trailer(s) 
operating together) . 
 Regulation Impact Statement   93 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 11 — SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CURRE NT VERSIONS  
OF ADRS 35 AND 38  
Changes to ADR 35 — overview  
ADR 35/06 will replace ADR 35/05 in order to mandate Electronic Stability Control (ESC) to 
be fitted to all prime movers (with no more than three axles) and heavy buses  (over 5 tonnes) .  
ESC will be required to have both directional and rollover control.  
The technical requirements for ESC will closely align with United Nations Regulation 13  
(UN R13) and performance requirements with US federal regulation FMVSS 136, which 
requires a J turn manoeuvre at 50km/h. Approvals to the U N R13 will also be accepted as  an 
alternative.  
While 12 and/or 24 volt systems will be permitted for all vehicles, prime movers designed for 
road train use will be required to have at least a 24 volt connector . 
There are a number of minor requirements added to support the correct opera tion of ESC and 
there are some relaxations to ease the regulatory burden.  
ADR 35 also covers light vehicles and there have been some incidental changes made around 
ESC and Brake Assist Systems for light vehicles. These changes are incorporated into this 
ADR version but in themselves are unrelated to the heavy vehicle changes.  
 
1) Minor changes for clarification have been made to the ADR.  
2) Changes to the numbering have been made to reflect the change of the first part from 
0 to 1.  
 
1. Legislative Provisions, 2. Function, 3. Applicability and 4. Definitions  
3) Part 0. Legislative Provisions  renumbered to begin ADR 35 at part 1.  
4) Changed title of part 2. Scope  to 2. Function  
5) Changed title of part 3. Applicability and Implementation to 3. Applicability  
6) Added clause 3.7.  to require category MB, MC, and NA vehicles to be certified to 
both ADR 88/ Electronic Stability Control Systems and ADR 89/ Brake Assist 
Systems. This is to align with the separation of these standards from ADR 31 — this 
harmonises with the same process made to UN R13 -H  by WP.29.  
7) Added clause 3.8., deemed to comply clause for NA vehicles types approved to UN 
R13 series 11.  
8) Added clause 3.9., deemed to comply clause for MD, ME, NB and NC vehicles types 
approved to UN R13 series 11.  Regulation Impact Statement   94 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  9) Applicability table upd ated.  
10) Definitions: clause 4.1.2. added as reference to Appendix 1 for definitions of off road 
vehicle; clause 4.1.4. added reference to Appendix 5, clause 1 for definitions of 
electric regenerative and endurance braking systems.  
5. Design Requirements  
11) Form er clause 4.1.1.1. removed. This was a reference to electronic stability control 
requirements for MB, NC and NA to meet former Appendix 2 (UN R13 -H 
requirements — removed as per harmonisation of ADR 31).  
12) Clause 5.1.4. has been changed to require automatic slack adjusters.  
13) Clause 5.1.5. requires vehicles in category MD, ME, NB and NC to be equipped with 
an antilock system.  Clause 5.1.6 requires each vehicle equipped with an ‘Antilock 
System; to meet the requirements of Appendix 2.  
14) Clause 5.1.7. reworded to also prohibit manual switching of an antilock system on 
category MD4 and ME vehicles, as per UN R13. Switching is allowed in 5.1.7.1. for 
category NB and NC vehicles that meet the off road requirements of Appendix 2.  
15) Clause 5.1.8 requires ME vehicles and N C prime movers to be equipped with a 
vehicle stability function.   Articulated omnibuses and route service omnibuses are 
excluded from this requirement in clause 5.1.8.1.  As are prime movers with four or 
more axles in clause 5.1.8.2 and off road vehicles i n clause 5.1.8.3 . 
16) Clause 5.1.9. requires vehicles required to have a vehicle stability function to meet the 
requirements of Appendix 3.  
17) For vehicles designed to tow trailers using air brakes — a new clause clause 5.1.12 
has been added:  
i. 5.1.12.1. requires t he pressure at full application of the brake control (in line 
with UN R13) to be between 650 kPa and 850 kPa at the control line coupling 
and between 650 kPa and 900 kPa at the supply line coupling. The  maximum 
control/supply pressures of 850  kPa and 900 kPa respectively are to alleviate 
industry concerns of higher than expected pressures at the couplings. This 
covers both pneumatic and electric control signals;  
ii. 5.1.12.3. adds a minimum and a maximum of 650 -900 kPa for the supply line 
pressure when there is no application of the service brake system;  
iii. 5.1.12.4 a brake torque is required to be developed on at least one axle in each 
axle group  of the towing vehicle (when unladen) before the control signal  to 
the trailer reaches 100kPa or the equivalent digita l demand value (in line with 
UN R13).  
18) Clause 5.1.14 includes changes to reflect removal of Figure 2 (unladen compatibility 
curve). Changes to 5.1.14.2 to clarify that both pneumatic and electric control lines 
need to meet the compatibility lines when fully  laden (Figure 1.), but do not require to 
have the same characteristic curves when both are equipped.  Regulation Impact Statement   95 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  19) Clause 5.3.7 has clarification and changes to the conditions for the independent 
release of trailer parking brakes.  
20) Clauses 5.7.2.1 and 5.7.2.2 were added  to allow rated volumes of brake chambers as 
per Table 4. This was added to remove disincentive to fit long stroke brake chambers 
which generally don’t use more air and can offer safety benefits (e.g. less susceptible 
to brake fade), and harmonises require ments with FMVSS 121 and CMVSS 121 (the 
requirements in the US/Canada for the past 20 years).  
21) Clause 5.8 has been added to provide electrical supply for trailer brake systems 
(vehicles over 4.5 tonnes). 5.8.1.1 has required current capacity of each of the first 
five contacts on an ISO 7638 connector (this differs by voltage of the connector, or if 
the vehicles is designed to be used in B -Double and/or Road train combinations). 
Footnote provides guidance that more than one supply/connector may be provided 
(such as both 12 volt and 24 volt supplies/connectors).  
i. Clause 5.8.2 additionally requires that vehicles designed to be used as a Road 
Train will need to provide 24 volt supply for trailer braking. This does not 
prevent a manufacturer from supplying an addit ional 12 volt power supply for 
the same purpose.  
22) Clause 5.9, Illumination of stop lamps, has been added to provide requirements on 
stop lamp activation. This includes clause 5.9.2  which requires automatically -
commanded braking to generate the signal to il luminate the stop lamps, but can be 
supressed when the retardation is less than 0.7 m/s2. Illumination is also required 
where the electric control signal message “illuminate stop lamps” is received; for 
example, when a trailer RSC system generates this mes sage. Clause 5.9.5 covers 
vehicles fitted with an endurance braking system or electric regenerative braking 
systems which must meet the new Appendix 5.  
6. Performance Requirements and 7. General Test Conditions  
23) Updates to references that reflect the change s in individual tests. Individual tests have 
been changed to allow test results from FMVSS 121 service and secondary brake 
effectiveness tests to be used.  
24) Clause 6.1 includes the addition of Table 5, to allow for certain FMVSS 121 brake 
test results to be used, as an alternative to the equivalent tests in Table 1.  
25) The sequence of testing (clause 6.2) has been modified by clause 6.2.1 to allow items 
3 to 8 to be tested at any time. This is with conditions on the temperature the brakes 
should be at and that a djustment of brakes between tests is not allowed (except by 
clause 8.2) — if deviating from the original test sequence.  
26) Clause 7.8 changes the average deceleration required to the minimum average 
deceleration as clarification.  
27) Clause 7.12 adds a maximum to lerance to test speeds of 5 km/h, in addition to the 
minimum tolerance of 1 km/h.  Regulation Impact Statement   96 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  28) Clause 7.15.1.1 adds a relaxation to clause 7.15.1 (requirement to take increased 
rolling resistance of combination into consideration) for item 6A of Table 5, as per the 
equivalent test in FMVSS 121.  
8. Particular Test Conditions  
29) Alternative tests from Table 5 are added to appropriate clauses where a test from 
Table 1 is referenced (clauses 8.3.1, 8.4.2, 8.6.1, 8.7.2).  
30) Clause 8.7, Laden Secondary Brake Test, has been rewritte n to provide clarity around 
the addition of the alternative test Item 7A from Table 5.  
31) Clause 8.12.2.1 (under 8.12 Service Brake Actuation Time Test) has been rewritten to 
clarify that the Variable Proportioning Brake System needs to be tested either with the 
vehicle fully laden or with the device set to the fully laden operating condition.  
32) Former clause 7.13.1.2 has been removed, which provided test conditions when a 
variable proportioning brake valve is used. This is no longer required as ABS will be 
fitted as standard, and compensates for lightly laden conditions where a load 
proportioning system is still fitted. Similarly, clause 8.13.2 removes the requirement 
for a separate test to be conducted at lightly laden test mass when a variable 
proportioning br ake system is fitted. Reference to variable proportioning is also 
removed from clause 8.14.1 and 8.14.2.  
9. Alternative Standards  
33) The alternative standards have been rewritten to reflect both changes for NA vehicles 
(harmonisation of ADR 31 and moving of E SC and BAS to the new ADRs 88 and 
89), and the need to update the acceptable alternative standards for other categories.  
34) The technical requirements from the 10 series up to and including the 11 series of UN 
Regulation 13 are deemed to be acceptable for cat egories MD, ME, NB and NC. 
Exceptions to this are for specific requirements where a vehicle is designed to be used 
in B-Double or Road Train combination, and must still meet relevant clauses of the 
ADR.  
35) Category ME over 12 tonne and NC prime movers are req uired to meet the stability 
control clauses of the ADR.  
36) Clause 9.2.4 allows for an additional hand control to selectively brake the service 
brake system of a towed trailer independently of the service or secondary brake 
system of the towing vehicle. This w as added due to raising the earliest allowable 
revision of UN R13 from 5 to 10.  
Tables and figures  
37) Table 1 restructured to provide clarification.  
38) Table 2 updated to include four -axle axle -groups.  
39) Table 3 updated to provide clarification.  
40) Figure 2 removed  Regulation Impact Statement   97 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  41) Table 4 added. This table provides a list of brake chamber rated volumes in line with 
that used in FMVSS 121.  
42) Table 5 added. This provides alternative tests to those in Table 1. This allows for test 
results from some FMVSS 121 tests to be used.  
Appendix 1  
43) A new Appendix 1 was added to provide definitions for off road vehicles as used to 
determine if stability control is required.  
44) The former Appendix 1 — Annex 1 has been moved to become Appendix 4 and 
expanded to provide clarity.  
Appendix 2  
45) The former  Append ix 2 has been deleted (incorporation of Annex 9 of  UN R13 -H, 
ESC requirements for MB, MC or NA). This is in line with the harmonisation in ADR 
31.  It has been replaced with a revision of the  former Appendix 1 for Antilock 
System requirements.  
46) Clause 1.1. 1. has been modified to include testing in accordance with part 7 and 
previous clause 1.1.3 has been removed due to this.  
47) New clause 1.1.3. added to require that antilock systems meet the tests set out in 
Table 6. This is a revision of the requirements of ADR 35/05 where it was not 
completely  clear what test procedures and to what levels of performance were 
required.  
48) New clause 1.1.4. allows the tests to be combined with the laden and lightly laden 
service brake tests of clauses 8.3. and 8.6.  
49) Clause  1.3, in cluding sub -clause 1.3.1, 1.3.2 (ISO 7638 connector wiring 
requirements) and 1.3.3 (ABS warning lamp) have been deleted from this appendix , 
with these matters now covered in a new Appendix 4. 
50) Clause 2 has been added. This covers switching provisions for AB S on category NB 
and NC vehicles designed for  off road users, to ensure base braking with the system 
off, automatic restarting of the system, optical warning that the system is deactivated, 
and guidance given in the user’s handbook of the consequences asso ciated with this 
function  (consistent with UN R13) . 
Appendix 3  
51) A new Appendix 3 has been added to provide vehicle stability function requirements 
for category ME vehicles and category NC prime movers.  
52) Clause 1, Definitions, provides definitions based on U N R13.  
53) Clause 2, provides functional requirements, based on UN R 13.  Regulation Impact Statement   98 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  54) Clauses 2.3 to 2.5 allow for the vehicle stability function to be disabled. Clause 2.3 
allows for manual disablement under a certain speed to prevent system activation in 
low speed manoeu vres, but will automatically be enabled once over that speed, or at 
the initiation of each new ignition cycle. Clause 2.4 allows for automatic disablement 
of the vehicle stability function where another mode or function has modified the 
drivetrain to incre ase traction. The disablement and re -instatement is required to be 
automatically linked to the mode/function that modifies the drivetrain. Clause 2.5 
requires that where the vehicle stability function has been disabled, that a constant 
optical warning sign al indicates that it is disabled.  
55) Clause 3 provides requirements for tell -tales and warning signals associated with the 
vehicle stability system.  
56) Clause 4 provides performance requirement for ME (GVM greater than 12 tonne) and 
NC prime movers. The performa nce requirements are in relation to the J -turn test 
procedure in Appendix 3 — Annex 1.  
57) Annex 1 is the modified J -turn test from FMVSS 136. Modifications are kept to a 
minimum so that the test functions as designed by the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Aut hority (NHTSA). The test is designed to check that the vehicle stability 
function activates at an appropriate level of lateral  acceleration (~0.4g for vehicles of 
this mass and design), and that the intervention through selective braking and engine 
torque  reduction is acceptable (as required in clause 4 — see above).  
Appendix 4  
58) As mentioned above, Appendix 4 covers the electrical requirements for vehicles 
equipped to tow another vehicle (greater than 4.5 tonne). These requirements include 
contact allocatio n in accordance with ISO 7638 connectors (clause 1), and electric 
control line requirements in line with ISO 11992 (clause 2), and is in line with similar 
clauses used in UN R13.  
Appendix 5  
59) Requires vehicles with endurance braking systems or category A ele ctric regenerative 
braking systems to illuminate the stop lamps when the retardation generated by these 
systems exceeds 1.3  m/s2 (consistent with UN R13) . 
  Regulation Impact Statement   99 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Changes to ADR 38 — overview  
ADR 38/05 will replace ADR 35/04 in order to mandate Electronic Stability Control in the 
form of Roll Stability Control (RSC) to be fitted to all TD heavy trailers (with the exception 
of some trailers, including converter dollies). It will also require all trailers over 4.5 tonnes to 
be equipped with an anti -lock brake  system (ABS) (with the exception of some trailers, 
including converter dollies).  This replaces the current provision that allows load 
proportioning brake systems as an alternative to ABS.  However, ‘if fitted’ requirements will 
remain.  
The technical requ irements for RSC will align with United Nations Regulation 13 (UN R13) 
and UN approvals will be accepted as an alternative.  
Trailers designed to tow another trailer (ie road train capable) will be required to supply 24 
volt connector for towed trailers. 12  volt power connectors may continue to be installed 
alongside, where the brake system supports both 12 and 24V.  
There are a number of minor requirements added to support the correct operation of RSC and 
there are some relaxations to ease the regulatory bur den. 
1) Minor changes for clarification have been made to the ADR.  
2) Changes to the numbering have been made to reflect the change of the first part from 
0 to 1.  
 
1. Legislative Provisions, 2. Function, 3. Applicability, 4. Definitions and 
5. Design  Requirement s 
3) Part 0. Legislative Provisions  renumbered to begin ADR 35 at part 1.  
4) Changed title of part 2. Scope  to 2. Function  
5) Changed title of part 3. Applicability and Implementation to 3. Applicability  
6) Definitions: clause 4.1.2 adds reference to definitions in cl ause 1 of Appendix 3 for 
stability control definitions.  
6. General design requirements for trailers over 4.5 tonnes ‘ATM’  
7) Clause 6.12 has been amended to require automatic slack adjusters on all trailers, 
irrespective of if fitted with ABS.  
8) Clause 6.16.1 c larifies that where a trailer is equipped with an electric control line, the 
electric Control Signal must be used instead of the pneumatic signal unless there is a 
failure with the electric control line and/or signal.  Regulation Impact Statement   100 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  7. Service Brake System  
9) New c lause s 7.1.2.2 and 7.1.2.3 have been added to allow rated volumes of brake 
chambers as per Table 2. This was added to remove disincentive to fit long stroke 
brake chambers which generally don’t use more air and can offer safety benefits (e.g. 
less susceptible to br ake fade), and harmonises requirements with FMVSS 121 and 
CMVSS 121 (the requirements in the US/Canada for the past 20 years).  
10) Clause 7.1.4 (formerly clause 6.4) has been amended by deleting  the reference to road 
trains and 125 tonne limit , because heavier  road train combinations than this are now 
being used in service.  
11) A new clause 7.1. 5 has been added to require a brake torque to be developed on at 
least one axle in each axle group of a trailer at UTM  before the control signal  to the 
trailer reaches 100kP a or the equivalent digital demand value (in line with UN R13).  
12) Clause 7.1. 6 has been modified to reflect the requirement to fit ABS and the removal 
of Variable Proportioning as an alternative to ABS and so must meet Figure 1. Where 
a trailer does not need  to fit ABS (converter dollies and non -standard low loaders) but 
is fitted with a variable proportioning brake system, then figure 2 must also be met.  
13) Clause 7.1. 8 requires trailers that are fitted with variable proportioning brake systems 
(including as pa rt of a vehicle stability function) to meet requirements in Appendix 1. 
Requirements for variable proportioning brake systems that used to reside in this 
section/part have been shifted to Appendix 1.  
14) Clause 7.2 has been created as a new sub section for Ele ctric ‘Control Line’, 
‘Antilock System’ and ‘Vehicle Stability Function’ requirements.  
i. 7.2.1 requires that all trailers be equipped with an ABS system on each axle 
group. Exceptions to this (clause 7.2.1.1) include converter dollies, or any 
trailer with an  axle group arrangement consisting of more than four tyres in a 
row (to cover certain low loaders), or more than 4 axles in an axle group.  
ii. Clause 7.2.2 requires category TD trailers to be fitted with a vehicle Stability 
Function that at a minimum has roll -over control (Appendix 3 covers these 
definitional requirements). Clause 7.2.2.1 allows converter dollies, or trailers 
to that are covered by clause 7.2.1.1  (see above) to be exempt from being 
equipped with  a Stability Function. If fitted, it allows it to be manually 
disabled provided that it does not adversely affect the function of ABS, or the 
power supply and electric control signal to towed trailers.  
iii. Clause 7.2.3 references requirements in Appendix 4 for trailers fitted with an 
electric control line.  
iv. Clause 7.2.4 references clause 3 of Appendix 4 to require trailers that are 
designed to tow other trailers to be able to provide through power via an ISO 
7638 connector to a towed trailer.  This ensures through wiring is provided for 
trailers (including co nverter dollies) which are not equipped with electronic 
brake systems, but are designed to tow trailers that are.  Regulation Impact Statement   101 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  8. Emergency Brake System 9. Parking Brake System  
No changes . 
10. General Performance Road Test Conditions  
15) Adjusted text to reflect laden and unladen requirements where Variable Proportioning 
Brake Systems are optionally used. This is covered in clauses 10.6.1. to 10.6.3.  
11. Service Brake Effectiveness Test Conditions  
16) Clause 11.1 removes reference to ATM up to 45 tonnes, and sets the speed for the 
service brake testing for all trailers to between 58 and 64 km/h, with exception of 
trailers having a design speed less than 58 km/h, in which case the speed must not be 
less than the manufacturer’s nominated design speed.  
17) Clause 11.9 moves the allowan ce of simulation for the service brake test from the 
alternative standards to this part.  
12. Dog Trailer Friction Utilisation, 13. Service Brake Fade Effectiveness Test, 
14. Emergency  Brake  System  Effectiveness  Test and 
15. Parking  Brake  Effectiveness  Test  
No changes.  
16. Time Response Measurement  
18) Clauses 16.3.2 and 16.3.3 adds requirements to test electric ‘Control Lines’ (in line 
with UN R13).  
19) Clauses 16.4.2 and 16.4.3 re -adds time for pressure release requirements from ADR 
38/03  
20) 16.10 includes testing re quirement for the electric control (when fitted) to meet the 
requirements of ISO  11992 -2:2003.  
17. Service Brake Fade Calculation, 18. Emergency Brake System Calculation, 
19. Parking  Brake  Calculation, 20.  Time  Response and 
21. Specification  of Brake  Syst em Components  
No changes.  
Alternative Standards  
21) The wording of the alternative standards requirements have been simplified and with 
redundant clauses removed. UN R13 incorporating the 11 series of amendments is the 
accepted alternative standard except for additional requirements under clauses: 7.1.4 
in the case of brake release timing for Pig Trailers that are not Converter Dollies; 
7.2.1 in the case of trailers with more than 3 axles in an axle group; 7.2.2 in the case 
of trailers with more than three axle s or trailers without air suspension , 7.2.3 in the 
case of equipped to tow another trailer (ATM greater than 4.5 tonnes), 9.2 to 9.4 for 
Australian unique parking brake requirements (prevents “parking on air”).  Regulation Impact Statement   102 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Tables and figures  
22) Table 1 — Updated to inclu de 4 axles.  
23) Table 2 — New table listing acceptable rated volume (allowance of rated volume 
brake chambers under clauses 7.1.2.2 and 7.1.2.3).  
24) Figure 2 — retained for those trailers that do not need to be fitted with ABS 
(converter dollies and certain low l oaders), but have been fitted with a variable 
proportioning brake system. Notes included to provide clarification and guidance on 
how to use the figure. Lower boundary has been moved slightly higher, and in 
accordance with UNR13/11, Annex 10, Diagram 2.  
25) Figure 5 — Figure 5 gives an example for the setup of the electric control line test rig.  
Appendices  
Appendix 1  
26) New appendix based on variable proportioning brake system requirements in the 
pervious ADR. Provides requirements for when fitted. Also includes requirements for 
electronic variable proportioning brake systems (ADR definition is broad enough that 
it defines both mechanical and electronic systems). Clause 1.3 add s requirements to 
prevent trailers with Antilock and Variable Proportioning from being u nder-braked 
when unladen (as Figure 2 does not apply for these) . 
Appendix 2  
27) Formerly Appendix 1. Antilock installation and testing requirements. Includes 
requirements to meet selected base braking requirements including where there is a 
failure of the ABS.  Clause 1.2 requires testing that the wheels do not lock during 
heavy braking (full application tests from 40 and 80km/h).  
Appendix 3  
28) Vehicle Stability Function requirements. These are definitional requirements in line 
with the UN R13 definitions. The func tional requirements have no performance tests. 
Provides an allowance to turn the system off for distinct purposes, such as an off road 
mode, during low speed operation.  
Appendix 4  
29) Stability function and/or Antilock electrical system requirements. This cov ers the 
standards for connectors, communication, and function. Also includes additional 
requirements for connectors on trailers designed to tow another trailer.  
30) Required minimum currents have been uprated.  
31) Clause 2 requires electric control lines to meet I SO 11992 requirements.  Regulation Impact Statement   103 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  32) Clause 3.1 requires that trailers designed to tow another trailer to be fitted with at least 
a ISO 7638 -1 connector to supply throughput of 24V electrical supply (this doesn’t 
preclude the 12V equivalent connector being installed sep arately). Clause 3.1.1 
relaxes this requirement for trailers such as lead trailers or A -trailers not designed for 
road train use (i.e. to allow B -double combinations to not be forced to 24V where 12V 
is adequate).  
 Regulation Impact Statement   104 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 12  — BENEFIT -COST ANALY SIS — METHODOLOGY  
The model used in this analysis was the Net Present Value (NPV) model.  The costs and 
expected benefits associated with a number of options for government intervention were 
summed over time.  The further the cost or benefit occurred from the  nominal starting date, 
the more they were discounted.  This allowed all costs and benefits to be compared equally 
among the options, no matter when they occurred.  
The analysis was broken up into the following steps : 
1. The number of registered prime movers, rigid trucks and buses in  Australia , were 
established for each year between 1996 and 201 6 inclusive, from  Australian Bureau of 
Statistics  Motor Vehicle Census (report series 9309.0)  data ( Australian Bureau of 
Statistics , 2017a) . 
2. The n ational population at 30 June of each year between 1996 and 2015 inclusive was 
established from Australian  Historical Population S tatistics  (Australian Bureau of 
Statistics , 2014) . 
3. The number of registered prime movers, rigid trucks  and buses per person in Australia, 
were es tablished for each year between 1996 and 201 6 inclusive, from the data 
determined in steps 1 and 2 above.  
4. The registration per person data from step 3 was used to establish trends in the number of 
registered prime movers, rigid trucks a nd buses per person in Australia, over the period 
1996 to 2016 inclusive.  
5. Australian Bureau of Statistics population projections from 2012 to 2101  (Australian 
Bureau of Statistics , 2013)  were used to establish a projected  national population at 
30 June of each year between 201 6 and 20 64 inclusive . 
6. The data established  in steps 4 and 5 above were  used to determine  projected numbers of 
registered prime movers, heavy rigid trucks  and buses in Austr alia, for each year between 
2016  and 20 64 inclusive . 
7. The p roportion of total kilometres travelled by prime movers and rigid trucks while 
towing a trailer, including in single trailer, B-double and Road  Train configurations, w ere 
determin ed using  vehicle use  data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the NTC 
(Australian Bureau of Statistics , 2017b ; NTC, 2016 ). 
8. The average number of trailers towed by prime movers and rigid trucks were  then 
deter mined  from the proportion s of these vehicles  towing o ne, two or three trailers  and 
total kilometres travelled data established in step 7 above.  
9. The number of heavy trailers in service was estimated by multiplying the number of 
registered prime movers and rigid trucks by the average number of trailers towed by 
prime movers and rigid trucks respectively.  Regulation Impact Statement   105 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  10. New prime mover, rigid truck, bus and trailer  sales in Australia for 2017  were estimated 
on the basis of data provided by TIC , BIC  and ARTSA.  
11. The number of prime movers, rigid trucks, buses and trailers leaving the fleet in 2017 
(vehicle attrition s) were determined by subtracting the increase in the number of vehicles 
in the fleet between 2016 and 2017 from the new vehicle sales in 2017, for each vehicle 
type (prime mover, rigid truck, bus, trailer etc.).  
12. The annual numbers of prime movers, rigid trucks, buses and trailers entering and leaving 
the fle et (i.e. vehicle sales and attrition s) in Australia were then estimated for each year 
between 2018 and 2070 inclusive, using  the proportions of new sales and attritions 
relative to the net increase of each vehicle type in the fleet, established in step 11 above.  
13. The number of prime mover, rigid truck and bus occupants killed and injured (including 
both serious and minor  injuries ) in single vehicle crashes (where los s of control was a 
factor) were established for each year between 2008 and 2014 inclusive, from data 
provided by BITRE.  
14. The average annual number of fatalities and injuries  (including both serious and minor 
injuries) in crashes involving the rollover and/o r loss of control  of a prime mover, rigid 
truck and/or bus, were then estimated for the period  2008 and 2014 inclusive .  These 
estimates were determined by  scaling the single vehicle crash data from step 13 above , 
using an average  ratio of fatalities /injuries  in all heavy vehicle rollover and/or loss of 
control crashes, to fatalities/ injuries in crashes  involving a single heavy vehicle only  
(where loss of control was a factor) .  The scaling factor /ratio  was determined using  data 
on heavy vehicle rollover and loss of control crashes from Budd and Newstead (2014) as 
well as  single  vehicle crash data from BITRE.  
15. The average annual number of fatalities and injuries  per regist ered prime mover, rigid 
truck and bus  in crashes involving the rollover and/or loss of control of these vehicles 
over the period 2008 -2014, were estimated  using the data obtained in steps 3 and 14 
above.  
16. The average annual number of injuries (of any severity) per registered prime mover, rigid 
truck and bus over the period 2008 -2014, were estimated  from BITRE data . 
17. BITRE heavy vehicle i njury crash data for the period 2008 -2014 was used to predict  the 
distribution of injury crashes by vehicle age for prime movers, rigid trucks and buses.  
18. The injury per registration estimates established in step 16 above, and the crashed vehicle 
age data obtained in step 17 above were used to predict the probability of injury (of any 
severity) by vehicle age in all crashes in Australia, for prime movers, rigid trucks and 
buses.  Regulation Impact Statement   106 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  19. The injury per registration estimates  established in  step 15 above , and the  crashed vehicle 
age data obtained in  step 17 above were used  to predict the probability  of fatalities and 
injuries by vehicle age  in rollover and lo ss of control crashes , for prime movers, rigid 
trucks and buses . 
20. Voluntary fitment rate s of ESC to new heavy trucks/buses , and ABS and RSC to new 
heavy trailers under  BAU were estimated for the period 20 19-2035 inclusive , based on 
advice  from various industry sources.  
21. Fitment rates of ESC to new heavy trucks/buses , and ABS and RSC to new heavy trailers 
were estimated  for each of the options  (2a, 2b, 6a, 6b and 6c)  for the period 20 19-2035 
inclusive .  These were higher than the BAU rate, with the actual rate for each option 
depending on the specifics  of the proposed intervention.   This accounted for the 
proportion of vehicles with and without stability control systems that enter and leave the 
fleet over this period . 
22. For each option (2a, 2b, 6a, 6b and 6c), reductions in the number of fatalities  and injur ies 
were determined for each year from 2020 to 2064, using the applicable techn ology 
effectiveness estimate outlined in Section 4 of this RIS, the fitment rates under each 
option for each year (see steps 17 and 18 above), the discrete probability mass functions 
established (see step 16 above) and the heavy vehicle registrations projected for each year 
(see step 5 above)1,2.  These calculations were done separately for e ach type of vehicle 
(i.e. prime mover, rigid truck or bus) and also accounted for the expected combinations of 
trucks and trailers.  
23. Total annual costs associated with the implementation of each option (2a, 2b, 6a, 6b and 
6c) were determined using the syste m development costs (per vehicle model), fitment of 
system costs  (per vehicle supplied), maintenance of system costs, policy implementation 
and maintenance costs (per year of regulatory intervention) and savings (in the case of 
options 6a, 6b and 6c) outlined in Section  4 of this RIS . 
24. The average cost s to society of a  fatality, serious injury and minor injury in heavy vehicle 
rollover and loss of cont rol crashes were estimated using the value of a statistical life year 
from Abelson, P. (2007), BITRE fatal road crash data, and injury cost data and other road 
crash cost data from BITRE (2009).  
                                                 
1 The effectiveness of the RSC on trailers towed by trucks with ESC was reduced to 6.75 per  cent (0.25 × 
27 per cent), to accoun t for the truck ESC intervening first in most scenarios to brake the towed trailer(s) 
before the RSC intervention threshold on the trailer(s) is reached.  
2 An effectiveness of 5.5 per cent was applied for each trailer equipped with ABS instead of a convent ional air 
brake system, and an incremental effectiveness of 2 per cent was applied for each trailer equipped with ABS 
instead of LP.  Regulation Impact Statement   107 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  25. The gross  annual financial benefits associated with implement ation of each option 
(2a,  2b, 6a,  6b and 6c) were determined by multiplying lives saved and reductions in the 
number of injured persons  by the casualty costs established in step 24 above .  All 
calculated annual benefit and cost values were discounted (back to 2016 — present 
values) and summed, to determine the net present value of the total costs to 
business/government, the net benefit to society, and the benefit -cost ratio.  A real discount 
rate of 7 per cent was assumed, this being in line with the Office of Best Practice 
Regulation Guidance Note on Benefit Cost Analysis (Australian Government, 2016) .  
Real discount rates of 10  per cent as well as 3  per cent were also used as part of a 
sensitivity check, for the recommended Option 6 c. 
 Regulation Impact Statement   108 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 13  — BENEFIT -COST ANALY SIS — DETAILS OF RES ULTS  
1. Establish t he number of registered prime movers, rigid trucks and buses in Australia, for 
each year between 1996 and 2016 inclusive, from Australian Bureau of Statistics Motor 
Vehicle Census (report series 9309.0) data (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017a).  
Table 26: Heavy vehicle registrations (1996 -2016 ) 
Date of Motor 
Vehicle Census  Prime Movers  (NC)  Rigid Vehicles  (NB & NC)  Buses  (MD & ME)  
31-Oct-96 58352  341037  58772  
31-Oct-97 59292  342412  61143  
31-Oct-98 62274  347214  64082  
31-Oct-99 63295  346823  65891  
31-Mar-01 62597  338411  67572  
31-Mar-02 63905  341483  70196  
31-Mar-03 64261  348673  70122  
31-Mar-04 66300  357617  71314  
31-Mar-05 69723  368520  72620  
31-Mar-06 71860  383546  75375  
31-Mar-07 74452  394542  77562  
31-Mar-08 79132  410910  80581  
31-Mar-09 81217  421702  84413  
31-Mar-10 82436  431288  86367  
31-Jan-11 85965  437762  87883  
31-Jan-12 87995  446406  90599  
31-Jan-13 90904  457145  93034  
31-Jan-14 93853  465122  94131  
31-Jan-15 94975  472324  95149  
31-Jan-16 96185  480238  96582  
  Regulation Impact Statement   109 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  2. Establ ish the national population at 30 June of each year between 1996 and 2015 
inclusive from Australian Historical Population Statistics ( Australian Bureau of Statistics , 
2014).  
Table 27: Heavy vehicle registrations (1996 -2015)  
Date  Population  
30-Jun-96 18,224,767  
30-Jun-97 18,423,037  
30-Jun-98 18,607,584  
30-Jun-99 18,812,264  
30-Jun-00 19,028,802  
30-Jun-01 19,274,701  
30-Jun-02 19,495,210  
30-Jun-03 19,720,737  
30-Jun-04 19,932,722  
30-Jun-05 20,176,844  
30-Jun-06 20,450,966  
30-Jun-07 20,827,622  
30-Jun-08 21,249,199  
30-Jun-09 21,691,653  
30-Jun-10 22,031,750  
30-Jun-11 22,340,024  
30-Jun-12 22,721,995  
30-Jun-13 23,119,257  
30-Jun-14 23,524,055  
30-Jun-15 23,940,552  
3. Establish the number of registered prime movers, rigid trucks and buses per person in 
Australia, for  each year between 1996 and 2016  inclusive, from the data determined in 
steps 1 and 2 above.  
4. Establish trends in the number of registered prime movers, rigid trucks and buses per 
person in Australia, over the period 1996 to 2016 inclusive.  Regulation Impact Statement   110 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 28: Number of registered h eavy vehicles per person  
Date  Prime Movers  (NC)  
per person  Rigid Vehicles (NB & NC)  
per person  Buses  (MD & ME)  
per person  
31-Oct-96 0.003202  0.015121  0.002930  
31-Oct-97 0.003218  0.014716  0.003225  
31-Oct-98 0.003347  0.014671  0.003319  
31-Oct-99 0.003365  0.014809  0.003444  
31-Mar-01 0.003290  0.014541  0.003503  
31-Mar-02 0.003315  0.014045  0.003551  
31-Mar-03 0.003296  0.013864  0.003642  
31-Mar-04 0.003362  0.013860  0.003597  
31-Mar-05 0.003498  0.013915  0.003616  
31-Mar-06 0.003562  0.014035  0.003643  
31-Mar-07 0.003641  0.014278  0.003736  
31-Mar-08 0.003799  0.014421  0.003793  
31-Mar-09 0.003822  0.014653  0.003869  
31-Mar-10 0.003800  0.014633  0.003973  
31-Jan-11 0.003902  0.014542  0.003982  
31-Jan-12 0.003939  0.014444  0.003989  
31-Jan-13 0.004001  0.014419  0.004055  
31-Jan-14 0.004060  0.014347  0.004094  
31-Jan-15 0.004037  0.014251  0.004072  
31-Jan-16 0.004018  0.014100  0.004045  
 
 
Figure 11: Registered prime movers (category NC vehicles) per person in Australia (1955 -2016 and 1996 -2016)  
y = 3.97057E -05x + 4.03608E -03
R² = 9.05224E -01y = 4.39267E -05x + 4.01766E -03
R² = 9.14926E -01
0.0E+005.0E-041.0E-031.5E-032.0E-032.5E-033.0E-033.5E-034.0E-034.5E-03
-65-55-45-35-25-15-5
Vehicles per person
Years prior to 31 Jan 2016
Prime movers (1955-2016) Prime movers (1996-2016)Regulation Impact Statement   111 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development   
Figure 12: Registered rigid vehicles (category NB and NC vehicles) per person in Australia (1996 -2016)  
 
Figure 13: Registered buses (category MD and ME vehicles) per person in Australia (1996 -2016)  
  
y = 1.21355E -04x + 2.02693E -02
0.0E+005.0E-031.0E-021.5E-022.0E-022.5E-02
-20-18-16-14-12-10-8-6-4-20
Vehicles per person
Years prior to 30 Jan 2016
NB and NC rigid vehicles (1996-2016)
y = 4.37717E -05x + 4.17373E -03
R² = 9.44157E -01
0.0E+005.0E-041.0E-031.5E-032.0E-032.5E-033.0E-033.5E-034.0E-034.5E-03
-20-18-16-14-12-10-8-6-4-20
Vehicles per person
Years prior to 30 Jan 2016
Buses (1996-2016)Regulation Impact Statement   112 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  5. Establish a projected national population at 30  June of each year between 2016  and 20 64 
inclusive.  
6. Determine projected numbers of registered prime movers, heavy rigid trucks and buses in 
Austr alia, for each year between 2016  and 20 64 inclusive.  
Table 29: Projected population and heavy vehicle registrations for Australia (2016 -2064)  
Date  Population  Prime Movers  (NC)  Rigid Vehicles  (NB & NC)  Buses  (MD & ME)  
Jun-16 24,359,761  98,315  344,597  102,115  
Jun-17 24,781,121  101,104  353,565  104,966  
Jun-18 25,201,317  103,926  362,619  107,849  
Jun-19 25,619,895  106,777  371,751  110,762  
Jun-20 26,037,356  109,661  380,968  113,707  
Jun-21 26,452,147  112,570  390,247  116,676  
Jun-22 26,866,209  115,512  399,616  119,678  
Jun-23 27,279,046  118,485  409,067  122,711  
Jun-24 27,690,209  121,487  418,593  125,773  
Jun-25 28,099,273  124,516  428,187  128,861  
Jun-26 28,505,871  127,570  437,842  131,973  
Jun-27 28,909,776  130,648  447,554  135,109  
Jun-28 29,311,467  133,751  457,330  138,269  
Jun-29 29,710,682  136,877  467,164  141,453  
Jun-30 30,107,276  140,027  477,054  144,659  
Jun-31 30,501,192  143,199  486,997  147,886  
Jun-32 30,891,992  146,391  496,986  151,133  
Jun-33 31,279,725  149,602  507,019  154,399  
Jun-34 31,664,507  152,833  517,099  157,685  
Jun-35 32,046,518  156,085  527,226  160,990  
Jun-36 32,426,009  159,358  537,405  164,316  
Jun-37 32,803,245  162,652  547,638  167,663  
Jun-38 33,178,476  165,970  557,928  171,033  
Jun-39 33,551,974  169,313  568,281  174,427  
Jun-40 33,923,997  172,680  578,699  177,846  
Jun-41 34,294,733  176,074  589,185  181,291  
Jun-42 34,664,395  179,494  599,742  184,762  
Jun-43 35,033,159  182,943  610,374  188,261  
Jun-44 35,401,158  186,419  621,082  191,788  
Jun-45 35,768,470  189,925  631,866  195,344  
Jun-46 36,135,078  193,459  642,728  198,928  
Jun-47 36,500,971  197,021  653,666  202,540  
Jun-48 36,866,073  200,611  664,678  206,180  
Jun-49 37,230,321  204,229  675,763  209,846  
Jun-50 37,593,636  207,873  686,920  213,540  
Jun-51 37,955,917  211,543  698,146  217,259  
Jun-52 38,317,102  215,240  709,439  221,003  
Jun-53 38,677,154  218,961  720,799  224,773  
Jun-54 39,036,004  222,707  732,224  228,567  
Jun-55 39,393,623  226,478  743,713  232,386  
Jun-56 39,749,997  230,273  755,264  236,228  
Jun-57 40,105,126  234,092  766,879  240,094  
Jun-58 40,459,020  237,935  778,556  243,983  
Jun-59 40,811,695  241,802  790,295  247,896  
Jun-60 41,163,126  245,692  802,096  251,833  
Jun-61 41,513,375  249,606  813,959  255,793  
Jun-62 41,860,222  253,530  825,839  259,762  
Jun-63 42,203,789  257,465  837,739  263,742  
Jun-64 42,544,199  261,410  849,659  267,731  
  Regulation Impact Statement   113 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  7. Determine t he proportion of total kilometres travelled by prime movers and rigid trucks 
while towing a trailer, including in single trailer, B -double and Road  Train configurations . 
Table 30: Trailer configuration by kilometres travelled for prime movers and rigid trucks  
Trailer Configuration  Prime Movers  Rigid Trucks   
Kilometres 
Travelled  
('000)  Proportion of 
Kilometres 
Travelled  Kilometres 
Travelled  
('000)  Proportion of 
Kilometres 
Travelled  
No trailer  25,378.7  0.32%  7,567,629.6  80.56%  
Single trailer one axle  171,620.2  2.19%  516,020.8  5.49%  
Single trailer two axles  429,862.7  5.50%  405,489.8  4.32%  
Single trailer three axles  3,191,328.0  40.81%  492,777.9  5.25%  
Single trailer four or more axles  151,702.9  1.94%  374,785.6  3.99%  
B-double configuration  2,614,637.3  33.44%  0.0 n/a 
B-triple configuration  60,347.3  0.77%  0.0 n/a 
Road train configuration (with 
two trailers)  690,047.5  8.82%  36,482.8  0.39%  
Road train configuration (with 
three trailers)  337,756.6  4.32%  0.0 0.00%  
Other configuration  146,821.4  1.88%  754.9  0.01%  
Total  7,819,502.7  100%  9,393,941.4  100%  
8. Determine the average number of trailers towed by prime movers and rigid trucks from 
the proportions of these vehicles towing one, two or three trailers and total kilometres 
travelled data established in step 7 above.  
Table 31: Average number of trailers towed by  prime movers and rigid trucks  
Type of Truck  Average N umber  of Trailers  
Prime Mover  1.531  
Rigid Truck  0.198  
9. Estimate t he number of  heavy trailers in service by multiplying the number of registered 
prime movers and rigid trucks by the average number of trailers towed by prime movers 
and rigid trucks respectively.  
10. Estimate n ew prime mover, rigid truck, bus and trailer sales in Australi a for 2017 . 
11. Determine t he number of prime movers, rigid trucks, buses and trailers leaving the fle et in 
2017 (vehicle attritions).  
12. Determine t he annual numbers of prime movers, rigid trucks, buses and trailers entering 
and leaving the fleet (i.e. vehicle s ales and attritions) in Australia for each year between 
2018 and 20 64 inclusive.  
 Regulation Impact Statement    114 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 32: Estimated h eavy truck and bus registrations, sales and attrition — forward projections (2017 -2064)  
  Rigid T rucks (NB2)  Rigid T rucks (NC)  Prime Movers (NC)  Buses   (MD4)  Buses   (ME)  
Date  Registrations  Estimated 
New 
Vehicle  
Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  Registrations  Estimated 
New 
Vehicle  
Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  Registrations  Estimated 
New 
Vehicle  
Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  Registrations  Estimated 
New 
Vehicle  
Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  Registrations  Estimated  
New 
Vehicle  
Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  
Jun-17 174,661  7,349  2,891  178,904  7,471  2,961  101,104  5,634  2,845  104,966  3,136  285 27,291  1,260  519 
Jun-18 179,134  7,419  2,918  183,485  7,542  2,989  103,926  5,699  2,878  107,849  3,171  288 28,041  1,274  525 
Jun-19 183,645  7,483  2,944  188,106  7,607  3,015  106,777  5,760  2,909  110,762  3,204  291 28,798  1,287  530 
Jun-20 188,198  7,553  2,971  192,770  7,678  3,043  109,661  5,825  2,941  113,707  3,239  294 29,564  1,301  536 
Jun-21 192,782  7,604  2,991  197,465  7,730  3,064  112,570  5,876  2,967  116,676  3,266  297 30,336  1,312  540 
Jun-22 197,410  7,678  3,020  202,206  7,805  3,093  115,512  5,943  3,001  119,678  3,303  300 31,116  1,327  546 
Jun-23 202,079  7,745  3,046  206,988  7,873  3,120  118,485  6,006  3,033  122,711  3,336  303 31,905  1,341  552 
Jun-24 206,785  7,806  3,071  211,808  7,935  3,145  121,487  6,064  3,062  125,773  3,368  306 32,701  1,353  557 
Jun-25 211,524  7,862  3,092  216,663  7,992  3,168  124,516  6,119  3,090  128,861  3,397  309 33,504  1,365  562 
Jun-26 216,294  7,912  3,112  221,548  8,043  3,188  127,570  6,169  3,115  131,973  3,424  311 34,313  1,376  566 
Jun-27 221,092  7,959  3,131  226,462  8,091  3,207  130,648  6,217  3,139  135,109  3,449  314 35,128  1,386  571 
Jun-28 225,921  8,011  3,151  231,409  8,143  3,228  133,751  6,268  3,165  138,269  3,476  316 35,950  1,397  575 
Jun-29 230,779  8,059  3,170  236,385  8,192  3,247  136,877  6,316  3,189  141,453  3,502  318 36,778  1,407  579 
Jun-30 235,665  8,104  3,188  241,389  8,238  3,265  140,027  6,362  3,213  144,659  3,527  321 37,611  1,417  583 
Jun-31 240,577  8,148  3,205  246,420  8,283  3,283  143,199  6,407  3,235  147,886  3,551  323 38,450  1,427  587 
Jun-32 245,511  8,185  3,220  251,475  8,321  3,298  146,391  6,447  3,256  151,133  3,572  325 39,295  1,435  591 
Jun-33 250,468  8,222  3,234  256,552  8,358  3,313  149,602  6,487  3,276  154,399  3,593  327 40,144  1,444  594 
Jun-34 255,447  8,260  3,249  261,652  8,397  3,328  152,833  6,527  3,296  157,685  3,614  329 40,998  1,452  598 
Jun-35 260,450  8,299  3,264  266,777  8,436  3,344  156,085  6,568  3,317  160,990  3,636  331 41,857  1,461  602 
Jun-36 265,478  8,341  3,281  271,927  8,479  3,361  159,358  6,611  3,338  164,316  3,658  333 42,722  1,470  605 
Jun-37 270,533  8,386  3,298  277,105  8,524  3,379  162,652  6,656  3,361  167,663  3,682  335 43,592  1,480  609 
Jun-38 275,617  8,433  3,317  282,312  8,572  3,398  165,970  6,702  3,384  171,033  3,707  337 44,469  1,490  613 
Jun-39 280,731  8,484  3,337  287,550  8,624  3,418  169,313  6,751  3,409  174,427  3,733  339 45,351  1,500  618 
Jun-40 285,877  8,537  3,358  292,822  8,678  3,440  172,680  6,802  3,435  177,846  3,761  342 46,240  1,511  622 Regulation Impact Statement    115 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development    Rigid T rucks (NB2)  Rigid T rucks (NC)  Prime Movers (NC)  Buses   (MD4)  Buses   (ME)  
Date  Registrations  Estimated 
New 
Vehicle  
Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  Registrations  Estimated 
New 
Vehicle  
Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  Registrations  Estimated 
New 
Vehicle  
Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  Registrations  Estimated 
New 
Vehicle  
Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  Registrations  Estimated  
New 
Vehicle  
Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  
Jun-41 291,057  8,593  3,380  298,128  8,735  3,462  176,074  6,855  3,461  181,291  3,789  344 47,136  1,523  627 
Jun-42 296,273  8,652  3,403  303,470  8,795  3,486  179,494  6,910  3,489  184,762  3,819  347 48,038  1,534  632 
Jun-43 301,525  8,712  3,427  308,849  8,856  3,510  182,943  6,966  3,517  188,261  3,849  350 48,948  1,547  637 
Jun-44 306,814  8,775  3,451  314,267  8,920  3,535  186,419  7,023  3,546  191,788  3,880  353 49,865  1,559  642 
Jun-45 312,142  8,838  3,476  319,724  8,984  3,561  189,925  7,081  3,576  195,344  3,911  356 50,789  1,572  647 
Jun-46 317,508  8,901  3,501  325,220  9,048  3,586  193,459  7,139  3,605  198,928  3,942  358 51,721  1,584  652 
Jun-47 322,911  8,963  3,526  330,755  9,111  3,611  197,021  7,196  3,634  202,540  3,973  361 52,660  1,597  657 
Jun-48 328,351  9,024  3,550  336,327  9,173  3,636  200,611  7,252  3,662  206,180  4,004  364 53,607  1,609  662 
Jun-49 333,827  9,084  3,573  341,936  9,234  3,660  204,229  7,307  3,690  209,846  4,033  367 54,560  1,621  667 
Jun-50 339,338  9,143  3,596  347,581  9,294  3,684  207,873  7,362  3,717  213,540  4,063  369 55,520  1,632  672 
Jun-51 344,884  9,199  3,618  353,262  9,351  3,706  211,543  7,414  3,744  217,259  4,091  372 56,487  1,644  677 
Jun-52 350,463  9,255  3,640  358,976  9,408  3,729  215,240  7,466  3,770  221,003  4,119  374 57,461  1,655  682 
Jun-53 356,075  9,309  3,662  364,724  9,463  3,751  218,961  7,517  3,796  224,773  4,147  377 58,441  1,666  686 
Jun-54 361,719  9,362  3,683  370,505  9,517  3,772  222,707  7,567  3,821  228,567  4,174  379 59,427  1,677  691 
Jun-55 367,394  9,415  3,703  376,319  9,570  3,793  226,478  7,617  3,846  232,386  4,200  382 60,420  1,688  695 
Jun-56 373,101  9,466  3,724  382,164  9,623  3,814  230,273  7,666  3,871  236,228  4,226  384 61,419  1,698  699 
Jun-57 378,838  9,518  3,744  388,041  9,675  3,835  234,092  7,714  3,895  240,094  4,253  387 62,424  1,709  704 
Jun-58 384,607  9,569  3,764  393,949  9,727  3,855  237,935  7,763  3,920  243,983  4,279  389 63,436  1,719  708 
Jun-59 390,406  9,620  3,784  399,889  9,779  3,876  241,802  7,811  3,944  247,896  4,304  391 64,453  1,730  712 
Jun-60 396,235  9,670  3,804  405,860  9,830  3,896  245,692  7,858  3,968  251,833  4,330  394 65,477  1,740  716 
Jun-61 402,096  9,721  3,824  411,863  9,882  3,917  249,606  7,906  3,992  255,793  4,356  396 66,506  1,750  721 
Jun-62 407,965  9,736  3,830  417,875  9,897  3,923  253,530  7,927  4,003  259,762  4,366  397 67,538  1,755  722 
Jun-63 413,843  9,752  3,836  423,896  9,913  3,929  257,465  7,948  4,013  263,742  4,377  398 68,573  1,759  724 
Jun-64 419,731  9,768  3,842  429,927  9,930  3,936  261,410  7,970  4,024  267,731  4,388  399 69,610  1,763  726 Regulation Impact Statement   116 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 33: Estimated heavy trailer  registrations, sales and attrition — forward projections (2017 -2064)  
Date  Trailers  (TC > 4.5 tonnes GTM ) Trailers (TD)  
Registrations  Estimated New 
Trailer  Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  Registrations  Estimated New 
Trailer  Sales  Estimated 
Attrition  
Jun-17 34624  1300  422 190273  6991  1821  
Jun-18 35510  1312  426 195501  7067  1839  
Jun-19 36404  1324  429 200783  7139  1857  
Jun-20 37307  1336  433 206123  7215  1875  
Jun-21 38216  1345  436 211508  7274  1889  
Jun-22 39133  1358  440 216952  7354  1909  
Jun-23 40059  1370  444 222453  7428  1927  
Jun-24 40992  1381  448 228005  7496  1944  
Jun-25 41931  1390  451 233606  7559  1959  
Jun-26 42877  1399  454 239250  7617  1973  
Jun-27 43828  1408  457 244937  7672  1986  
Jun-28 44785  1417  460 250668  7732  2000  
Jun-29 45748  1425  462 256442  7787  2013  
Jun-30 46717  1433  465 262257  7841  2026  
Jun-31 47690  1441  467 268111  7892  2038  
Jun-32 48668  1448  470 274000  7938  2049  
Jun-33 49651  1454  472 279924  7983  2060  
Jun-34 50638  1461  474 285882  8029  2070  
Jun-35 51630  1468  476 291877  8076  2081  
Jun-36 52627  1475  478 297909  8125  2093  
Jun-37 53629  1483  481 303980  8177  2105  
Jun-38 54636  1491  484 310093  8231  2118  
Jun-39 55650  1500  487 316249  8288  2132  
Jun-40 56670  1510  490 322450  8348  2147  
Jun-41 57697  1520  493 328698  8410  2162  
Jun-42 58731  1530  496 334994  8474  2177  
Jun-43 59772  1541  500 341341  8540  2194  
Jun-44 60821  1552  503 347738  8608  2210  
Jun-45 61877  1563  507 354187  8676  2227  
Jun-46 62940  1574  511 360688  8744  2244  
Jun-47 64012  1585  514 367239  8812  2260  
Jun-48 65090  1596  518 373841  8878  2277  
Jun-49 66176  1607  521 380492  8944  2293  
Jun-50 67268  1617  524 387191  9008  2308  
Jun-51 68367  1627  528 393937  9070  2324  
Jun-52 69473  1637  531 400730  9131  2338  
Jun-53 70586  1646  534 407567  9191  2353  
Jun-54 71705  1656  537 414450  9250  2367  
Jun-55 72830  1665  540 421376  9308  2382  
Jun-56 73961  1674  543 428345  9365  2396  
Jun-57 75098  1683  546 435357  9422  2409  
Jun-58 76242  1692  549 442413  9479  2423  
Jun-59 77391  1701  552 449511  9535  2437  
Jun-60 78547  1710  555 456652  9591  2451  
Jun-61 79709  1719  558 463835  9647  2464  
Jun-62 80872  1722  558 471035  9669  2469  
Jun-63 82037  1725  559 478253  9692  2474  
Jun-64 83205  1728  560 485490  9716  2479  
  Regulation Impact Statement   117 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  13. Establish t he number of prime mover, rigid truck and bus occupants killed and injured 
(including both serious and minor injuries) in single vehicle crashes (where loss of control 
was a factor) for each year between 2008 and 2014 inclusive.  
Table 34: Occupant fatalities and injuries in crashes of a single heavy vehicle (2008 -2014)  
Year  Prime Movers  (NC)  Rigid Trucks  (NB2 & NC)  Buses  (MD4 & ME)  
 Fatalities  Serious 
Injuries  Minor 
Injuries  Fatalities  Serious 
Injuries  Minor 
Injuries  Fatalities  Serious 
Injuries  Minor 
Injuries  
2008  11 148 103 3 103 77 1 59 24 
2009  16 144 111 4 81 80 4 27 23 
2010  13 180 158 5 106 88 2 36 29 
2011  19 239 173 5 115 115 1 28 72 
2012  21 203 127 4 123 93 1 23 52 
2013  9 199 116 2 123 105 0 13 23 
2014  15 57 183 7 56 135 0 12 64 
Total  
2008 -2014  104 1170  971 30 707 693 9 198 287 
Annual 
Average 
2008 -2014  15 186 139 4 109 99 1 31 41 
14. Estimate t he average annual number of fatalities and injuries (including both serious and 
minor injuries) in crashes involving the rollover and/or loss of control of a prime mover, 
rigid truck and/or bus for the period 2008 to 2014 inclusive.  
Table 35: Estimated fatalities and injuries in crashes involving the rollover and/or loss of control of a heavy 
vehicle (2008 -2014)  
 Prime Movers  (NC)  Rigid Trucks  (NB2 & NC)  Buses  (MD4 & ME)  
 Fatalities  Serious 
Injuries  Minor 
Injuries  Fatalities  Serious  
Injuries  Minor 
Injuries  Fatalities  Serious 
Injuries  Minor 
Injuries  
Total  
2008 -2014  235 1824  1297  68 1102  926 20 309 383 
Annual 
Average 
2008 -2014  34 289 185 10 169 132 3 48 55 
15. Estimate t he average annual number of fatalities and injuries per registered prime mover, 
rigid truck and bus in crashes involving the rollover and/or loss of control of these 
vehicles over the period 2008 -2014.  
Table 36: Estimated annual fatalities and injuries per registration in crashes involving the roll over and/or loss of 
control of a heavy vehicle (2008 -2014)  
 Prime Movers  (NC)  Rigid Trucks  (NB2 & NC)  Buses  (MD4 & ME)  
 Fatalities  Serious 
Injuries  Minor 
Injuries  Fatalities  Serious 
Injuries  Minor 
Injuries  Fatalities  Serious 
Injuries  Minor 
Injuries  
Annual 
Average 
2008 -2014  0.00039  0.00340  0.00215  0.00003  0.00053  0.00041  0.00013  0.00218  0.00237  Regulation Impact Statement   118 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  16. Estimate the average annual number of injuries (of any severity) per registered prime 
mover, rigid truck and bus in all heavy vehicle injury crashes over the period 2008 -2014.  
Table 37: Estimated annual injuries per registration in heavy vehicle crashes (2008 -2014)  
 Prime Movers (NC)  Rigid Trucks (NB2 & NC)  Buses (MD4 & ME)  
Annual 
Average 
2008 -2014  0.02116  0.00756  0.04386  
17. Establish the  distribution of injury crashes by vehicle age for prime movers, rigid trucks 
and buses  from BITRE data . 
Table 38: Distribution of injury crashes by vehicle age in Australia for prime movers, rigid trucks and buses  
 Prime Movers  (NC) Rigid Trucks  (NB2 & NC)  Buses  (MD4 & ME)  
Age of 
Vehicle  Crash 
Frequency  Percentage  Cumulative 
Percentage  Crash 
Frequency  Percentage  Cumulative 
Percentage  Crash 
Frequency  Percentage  Cumulative 
Percentage  
0 144 2.71 2.71 152 1.76 1.76 81 2.33 2.33 
1 428 8.05 10.76  509 5.89 7.65 247 7.12 9.45 
2 476 8.96 19.72  643 7.44 15.09  250 7.20 16.65  
3 530 9.97 29.69  606 7.01 22.11  253 7.29 23.94  
4 465 8.75 38.44  644 7.45 29.56  231 6.66 30.60  
5 450 8.47 46.90  643 7.44 37.00  211 6.08 36.68  
6 398 7.49 54.39  626 7.25 44.25  178 5.13 41.80  
7 338 6.36 60.75  548 6.34 50.59  177 5.10 46.90  
8 301 5.66 66.42  461 5.34 55.93  164 4.72 51.63  
9 200 3.76 70.18  439 5.08 61.01  171 4.93 56.55  
10 213 4.01 74.19  409 4.73 65.74  149 4.29 60.85  
11 179 3.37 77.55  321 3.72 69.46  127 3.66 64.51  
12 150 2.82 80.38  257 2.97 72.43  133 3.83 68.34  
13 167 3.14 83.52  252 2.92 75.35  116 3.34 71.68  
14 148 2.78 86.30  228 2.64 77.99  129 3.72 75.40  
15 135 2.54 88.84  214 2.48 80.46  82 2.36 77.76  
16 84 1.58 90.42  174 2.01 82.48  75 2.16 79.92  
17 69 1.30 91.72  175 2.03 84.50  83 2.39 82.31  
18 62 1.17 92.89  137 1.59 86.09  74 2.13 84.44  
19 54 1.02 93.90  165 1.91 88.00  73 2.10 86.55  
20 45 0.85 94.75  150 1.74 89.73  74 2.13 88.68  
21 38 0.71 95.47  115 1.33 91.06  58 1.67 90.35  
22 37 0.70 96.16  111 1.28 92.35  49 1.41 91.76  
23 38 0.71 96.88  101 1.17 93.52  55 1.58 93.34  
24 23 0.43 97.31  110 1.27 94.79  51 1.47 94.81  
25 24 0.45 97.76  84 0.97 95.76  45 1.30 96.11  
26 23 0.43 98.19  65 0.75 96.52  22 0.63 96.74  
27 25 0.47 98.66  52 0.60 97.12  21 0.61 97.35  
28 15 0.28 98.95  52 0.60 97.72  16 0.46 97.81  
29 12 0.23 99.17  39 0.45 98.17  10 0.29 98.10  
30 8 0.15 99.32  33 0.38 98.55  14 0.40 98.50  
31 5 0.09 99.42  19 0.22 98.77  7 0.20 98.70  
32 7 0.13 99.55  22 0.25 99.03  3 0.09 98.79  
33 7 0.13 99.68  24 0.28 99.31  5 0.14 98.93  
34 3 0.06 99.74  10 0.12 99.42  9 0.26 99.19  
35 5 0.09 99.83  16 0.19 99.61  6 0.17 99.37  
Total  5,315   8,640    3,471   Regulation Impact Statement   119 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  18. Establish the probability of injury  by vehicle age in all crashes  in Australia , for prime 
movers, rigid trucks and buses.  
Table 39: Probability of injury by vehicle age in Australia for prime movers, rigid trucks and buses  
Age of 
Vehicle  Prime Movers  (NC)  Rigid Trucks  (NB2 & NC)  Buses  (MD4 & ME)  
0 0.00057  0.00013  0.00102  
1 0.00170  0.00045  0.00312  
2 0.00189  0.00056  0.00316  
3 0.00211  0.00053  0.00320  
4 0.00185  0.00056  0.00292  
5 0.00179  0.00056  0.00267  
6 0.00158  0.00055  0.00225  
7 0.00135  0.00048  0.00224  
8 0.00120  0.00040  0.00207  
9 0.00080  0.00038  0.00216  
10 0.00085  0.00036  0.00188  
11 0.00071  0.00028  0.00160  
12 0.00060  0.00022  0.00168  
13 0.00066  0.00022  0.00147  
14 0.00059  0.00020  0.00163  
15 0.00054  0.00019  0.00104  
16 0.00033  0.00015  0.00095  
17 0.00027  0.00015  0.00105  
18 0.00025  0.00012  0.00094  
19 0.00021  0.00014  0.00092  
20 0.00018  0.00013  0.00094  
21 0.00015  0.00010  0.00073  
22 0.00015  0.00010  0.00062  
23 0.00015  0.00009  0.00070  
24 0.00009  0.00010  0.00064  
25 0.00010  0.00007  0.00057  
26 0.00009  0.00006  0.00028  
27 0.00010  0.00005  0.00027  
28 0.00006  0.00005  0.00020  
29 0.00005  0.00003  0.00013  
30 0.00003  0.00003  0.00018  
31 0.00002  0.00002  0.00009  
32 0.00003  0.00002  0.00004  
33 0.00003  0.00002  0.00006  
34 0.00001  0.00001  0.00011  
35 0.00002  0.00001  0.00008  
19. Establish the probability  of fatalities and injuries by vehicle age in rollover and loss of 
control crashes, for prime movers, rigid trucks and buses.  
 Regulation Impact Statement    120 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 40: Probability of fatality and injury by vehicle age in rollover and loss of control crashes in Australia for prime movers, rigid trucks and buses  
 Prime Movers  (NC)  Rigid Trucks  (NB2 & NC)  Buses  (MD4 & ME)  
Age of 
Vehicle  Fatality  Serious Injury  Minor Injury  Fatality  Serious Injury  Minor Injury  Fatality  Serious Injury  Minor Injury  
0 0.000011  0.000092  0.000058  0.000001  0.000009  0.000007  0.000003  0.000051  0.000055  
1 0.000032  0.000274  0.000173  0.000002  0.000031  0.000024  0.000009  0.000155  0.000168  
2 0.000035  0.000305  0.000193  0.000002  0.000040  0.000031  0.000009  0.000157  0.000170  
3 0.000039  0.000340  0.000214  0.000002  0.000037  0.000029  0.000010  0.000159  0.000172  
4 0.000034  0.000298  0.000188  0.000002  0.000040  0.000031  0.000009  0.000145  0.000157  
5 0.000033  0.000288  0.000182  0.000002  0.000040  0.000031  0.000008  0.000133  0.000144  
6 0.000029  0.000255  0.000161  0.000002  0.000039  0.000030  0.000007  0.000112  0.000121  
7 0.000025  0.000217  0.000137  0.000002  0.000034  0.000026  0.000007  0.000111  0.000121  
8 0.000022  0.000193  0.000122  0.000002  0.000028  0.000022  0.000006  0.000103  0.000112  
9 0.000015  0.000128  0.000081  0.000002  0.000027  0.000021  0.000006  0.000107  0.000117  
10 0.000016  0.000136  0.000086  0.000001  0.000025  0.000020  0.000006  0.000094  0.000102  
11 0.000013  0.000115  0.000072  0.000001  0.000020  0.000015  0.000005  0.000080  0.000087  
12 0.000011  0.000096  0.000061  0.000001  0.000016  0.000012  0.000005  0.000084  0.000091  
13 0.000012  0.000107  0.000068  0.000001  0.000016  0.000012  0.000004  0.000073  0.000079  
14 0.000011  0.000095  0.000060  0.000001  0.000014  0.000011  0.000005  0.000081  0.000088  
15 0.000010  0.000086  0.000055  0.000001  0.000013  0.000010  0.000003  0.000052  0.000056  
16 0.000006  0.000054  0.000034  0.000001  0.000011  0.000008  0.000003  0.000047  0.000051  
17 0.000005  0.000044  0.000028  0.000001  0.000011  0.000008  0.000003  0.000052  0.000057  
18 0.000005  0.000040  0.000025  0.000000  0.000008  0.000007  0.000003  0.000046  0.000050  
19 0.000004  0.000035  0.000022  0.000001  0.000010  0.000008  0.000003  0.000046  0.000050  
20 0.000003  0.000029  0.000018  0.000001  0.000009  0.000007  0.000003  0.000046  0.000050  
21 0.000003  0.000024  0.000015  0.000000  0.000007  0.000006  0.000002  0.000036  0.000040  
22 0.000003  0.000024  0.000015  0.000000  0.000007  0.000005  0.000002  0.000031  0.000033  
23 0.000003  0.000024  0.000015  0.000000  0.000006  0.000005  0.000002  0.000035  0.000037  
24 0.000002  0.000015  0.000009  0.000000  0.000007  0.000005  0.000002  0.000032  0.000035  
25 0.000002  0.000015  0.000010  0.000000  0.000005  0.000004  0.000002  0.000028  0.000031  
26 0.000002  0.000015  0.000009  0.000000  0.000004  0.000003  0.000001  0.000014  0.000015  
27 0.000002  0.000016  0.000010  0.000000  0.000003  0.000002  0.000001  0.000013  0.000014  
28 0.000001  0.000010  0.000006  0.000000  0.000003  0.000002  0.000001  0.000010  0.000011  
29 0.000001  0.000008  0.000005  0.000000  0.000002  0.000002  0.000000  0.000006  0.000007  
30 0.000001  0.000005  0.000003  0.000000  0.000002  0.000002  0.000001  0.000009  0.000010  
31 0.000000  0.000003  0.000002  0.000000  0.000001  0.000001  0.000000  0.000004  0.000005  
32 0.000001  0.000004  0.000003  0.000000  0.000001  0.000001  0.000000  0.000002  0.000002  
33 0.000001  0.000004  0.000003  0.000000  0.000001  0.000001  0.000000  0.000003  0.000003  
34 0.000000  0.000002  0.000001  0.000000  0.000001  0.000000  0.000000  0.000006  0.000006  
35 0.000000  0.000003  0.000002  0.000000  0.000001  0.000001  0.000000  0.000004  0.000004  Regulation Impact Statement   121 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  20. Determine the v oluntary fitment rate s of ESC to new heavy trucks/buses, and ABS and 
RSC to new heavy trailers under  BAU for the period 20 19-2035 inclusive.  
21. Estimate f itment rates of ESC to new heavy trucks/buses, and ABS and RSC to new 
heavy trailers and all registered heavy trailers for each of the options  (2a, 2b, 6a, 6b and 
6c) for the period 20 19-2035 inclusive . 
Table 41: ESC fitment rates (per cent) for new heavy trucks under each option  (2019 -2035)  
 New Vehicles  
Year  Prime M overs  (NC)  Rigid Trucks (NC)  Rigid Trucks (NB2)  
 BAU  Opt.6 a/6b/6c  Opt.2a Opt.2b BAU  Opt.6 a/6b Opt.2a Opt.2b BAU  Opt.6a Opt.2a Opt.2b 
2019  32.5 32.5 32.5 32.5 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 
2020  35.0 49.1 77.0 35.0 32.5 47.3 77.0 32.5 32.5 47.3 77.0 32.5 
2021  37.5 65.8 77.0 37.5 35.0 64.5 77.0 35.0 35.0 64.5 77.0 35.0 
2022  40.0 82.4 40.0 40.0 37.5 81.8 37.5 37.5 37.5 81.8 37.5 37.5 
2023  42.5 99.0 77.0 42.5 40.0 99.0 77.0 40.0 40.0 99.0 77.0 40.0 
2024  45.0 99.0 45.0 45.0 42.5 99.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 99.0 42.5 42.5 
2025  47.5 99.0 77.0 47.5 45.0 99.0 77.0 45.0 45.0 99.0 77.0 45.0 
2026  50.0 99.0 50.0 54.0 47.5 99.0 47.5 47.5 47.5 99.0 47.5 47.5 
2027  52.5 99.0 77.0 56.7 50.0 99.0 77.0 54.0 50.0 99.0 77.0 54.0 
2028  55.0 99.0 55.0 59.4 52.5 99.0 52.5 56.7 52.5 99.0 52.5 56.7 
2029  57.5 99.0 77.0 62.1 55.0 99.0 77.0 59.4 55.0 99.0 77.0 59.4 
2030  60.0 99.0 60.0 64.8 57.5 99.0 57.5 62.1 57.5 99.0 57.5 62.1 
2031  62.5 99.0 77.0 67.5 60.0 99.0 77.0 64.8 60.0 99.0 77.0 64.8 
2032  65.0 99.0 65.0 70.2 62.5 99.0 62.5 67.5 62.5 99.0 62.5 67.5 
2033  67.5 99.0 77.0 72.9 65.0 99.0 77.0 70.2 65.0 99.0 77.0 70.2 
2034  70.0 99.0 70.0 75.6 67.5 99.0 67.5 72.9 67.5 99.0 67.5 72.9 
2035  72.5 99.0 77.0 72.5 70.0 99.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 99.0 70.0 70.0 
Table 42: ESC fitment rates (per cent) for new heavy b uses under each option  (excluding articulated and route 
service buses)  (2019 -2035)  
 New Vehicles  
Year  Buses (ME)  Buses (MD4)  
 BAU  Opt.6 a/6b/6c  BAU  Opt.6 a 
2019  85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 
2020  87.5 88.5 87.5 88.5 
2021  90.0 92.0 90.0 92.0 
2022  92.5 95.5 92.5 95.5 
2023  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2024  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2025  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2026  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2027  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2028  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2029  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2030  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2031  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2032  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2033  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2034  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
2035  95.0 99.0 95.0 99.0 
  Regulation Impact Statement   122 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 43: RSC fitment rates (per cent)  for new heavy trailers and all registered heavy trailers under each option  
(2019 -2035)  
 New Heavy Trailers  All Registered Heavy Trailers  
Year  Trailers ( TC > 4.5 tonnes GTM)  Trailers (TD)  Trailers ( TC > 4.5 tonnes GTM)  Trailers (TD)  
 BAU  Opt.6  BAU  Opt.6  BAU  Opt.6  BAU  Opt.6  
2019  40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 17.9 17.9 17.8 17.8 
2020  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 18.8 18.8 18.6 20.5 
2021  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 19.6 19.6 19.4 23.0 
2022  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 20.4 20.4 20.2 25.5 
2023  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 21.2 21.2 21.0 27.9 
2024  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 22.0 22.0 21.7 30.2 
2025  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 22.7 22.7 22.4 32.3 
2026  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 23.4 23.4 23.0 34.4 
2027  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 24.1 24.1 23.7 36.5 
2028  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 24.7 24.7 24.2 38.3 
2029  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 25.2 25.2 24.8 40.2 
2030  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 25.7 25.7 25.3 41.9 
2031  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 26.2 26.2 25.7 43.5 
2032  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 26.7 26.7 26.2 45.1 
2033  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 27.2 27.2 26.6 46.5 
2034  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 27.6 27.6 27.0 47.9 
2035  40.0 40.0 40.0 92.5 28.0 28.0 27.4 49.3 
Table 44: ABS fitment rates (per cent) (including where part of RSC) for new heavy trailers  and all registered 
heavy trailers  under each option  (2019 -2035)  
 New Heavy Trailers  All Registered Heavy Trailers  
Year  Trailers ( TC > 4.5 tonnes GTM)  Trailers (TD)  Trailers ( TC > 4.5 tonnes GTM)  Trailers (TD)  
 BAU  Opt.6  BAU  Opt.6  BAU  Opt.6  BAU  Opt.6  
2019  52.5 52.5 52.5 52.5 46.0 46.0 45.9 45.9 
2020  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 46.3 48.0 46.2 47.7 
2021  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 46.6 49.9 46.5 49.4 
2022  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 46.9 51.8 46.7 51.0 
2023  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 47.1 53.5 47.0 52.6 
2024  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 47.4 55.3 47.2 54.1 
2025  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 47.6 56.9 47.5 55.5 
2026  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 47.9 58.5 47.7 56.9 
2027  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 48.1 60.0 47.9 58.2 
2028  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 48.3 61.4 48.1 59.5 
2029  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 48.4 62.8 48.2 60.7 
2030  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 48.6 64.1 48.4 61.8 
2031  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 48.7 65.3 48.5 62.9 
2032  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 48.9 66.5 48.6 63.9 
2033  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 49.0 67.6 48.7 64.9 
2034  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 49.1 68.7 48.8 65.8 
2035  52.5 100.0  52.5 95.0 49.2 69.7 49.0 66.7 
22. For each option (2a, 2b, 6a, 6b and 6c), determine the reductions in the number of 
fatalities and injured persons  for each year from 2020 to 2064 . 
 Regulation Impact Statement    123 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 45: Fatalities prevented due to a focused advertising camp aign – Option 2a 
Year  Vehicle Age  Lives 
Saved  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 
0 0.15                                    0.15 
1 0.15 0.47                                   0.62 
2 0.00 0.46 0.55                                  1.01 
3 0.14 0.00 0.53 0.61                                 1.28 
4 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.59 0.57                                1.58 
5 0.12 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.55 0.57                               1.72 
6 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.54 0.52                              1.98 
7 0.11 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.46                             2.00 
8 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.44 0.41                            2.16 
9 0.09 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.40 0.30                           2.08 
10 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.29 0.32                          2.15 
11 0.07 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.31 0.27                         2.13 
12 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.23                        2.07 
13 0.05 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.22 0.25                       2.06 
14 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.23                      2.01 
15  0.00 0.17 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.22 0.22                     1.89 
16   0.00 0.19 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.21 0.14                    1.70 
17    0.00 0.18 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.14 0.13                   1.51 
18     0.00 0.18 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.12 0.11                  1.36 
19      0.00 0.16 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.11                 1.20 
20       0.00 0.14 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.10                1.08 
21        0.00 0.13 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.08               0.93 
22         0.00 0.09 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.08 0.08              0.85 
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …  … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 
43                              0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 
44                               0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 Regulation Impact Statement    124 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 46: Serious injuries  prevented due to a focused advertising campaign – Option 2a  
Year  Vehicle Age  SI 
Prevented  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 
0 1.51                                    1.51 
1 1.45 4.73                                   6.18 
2 0.00 4.57 5.58                                  10.15  
3 1.34 0.00 5.39 6.10                                 12.82  
4 0.00 4.20 0.00 5.88 5.77                                15.85  
5 1.20 0.00 4.95 0.00 5.57 5.77                               17.50  
6 0.00 3.78 0.00 5.40 0.00 5.57 5.38                              20.13  
7 1.05 0.00 4.45 0.00 5.11 0.00 5.19 4.73                             20.53  
8 0.00 3.30 0.00 4.85 0.00 5.10 0.00 4.55 4.23                            22.04  
9 0.88 0.00 3.89 0.00 4.59 0.00 4.76 0.00 4.07 3.26                           21.44  
10 0.00 2.76 0.00 4.23 0.00 4.58 0.00 4.17 0.00 3.14 3.37                          22.25  
11 0.69 0.00 3.26 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.26 0.00 3.73 0.00 3.25 2.83                         22.02  
12 0.00 2.17 0.00 3.54 0.00 3.99 0.00 3.74 0.00 2.87 0.00 2.72 2.39                        21.41  
13 0.48 0.00 2.56 0.00 3.35 0.00 3.71 0.00 3.34 0.00 2.97 0.00 2.29 2.61                       21.30  
14 0.00 1.51 0.00 2.77 0.00 3.34 0.00 3.25 0.00 2.57 0.00 2.49 0.00 2.50 2.37                      20.81  
15  0.00 1.79 0.00 2.62 0.00 3.10 0.00 2.90 0.00 2.66 0.00 2.09 0.00 2.28 2.23                     19.68  
16   0.00 1.93 0.00 2.62 0.00 2.72 0.00 2.24 0.00 2.22 0.00 2.28 0.00 2.14 1.55                    17.70  
17    0.00 1.83 0.00 2.43 0.00 2.42 0.00 2.31 0.00 1.87 0.00 2.08 0.00 1.49 1.41                   15.85  
18     0.00 1.83 0.00 2.13 0.00 1.87 0.00 1.93 0.00 2.04 0.00 1.95 0.00 1.35 1.22                  14.32  
19      0.00 1.70 0.00 1.90 0.00 1.93 0.00 1.62 0.00 1.86 0.00 1.36 0.00 1.17 1.24                 12.78  
20       0.00 1.49 0.00 1.47 0.00 1.61 0.00 1.77 0.00 1.74 0.00 1.23 0.00 1.19 1.10                11.60  
21        0.00 1.32 0.00 1.51 0.00 1.35 0.00 1.61 0.00 1.21 0.00 1.07 0.00 1.06 0.91               10.04  
22         0.00 1.03 0.00 1.26 0.00 1.47 0.00 1.51 0.00 1.10 0.00 1.09 0.00 0.87 0.89              9.22 
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …  … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 
43                              0.00 0.08 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.22 
44                               0.00 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.23 Regulation Impact Statement    125 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 47: Fatalities prevented due to a broad  advertising campaign – Option 2 b 
Year  Vehicle Age  Lives 
Saved  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 
0 0.00                                    0.00 
1 0.00 0.00                                   0.00 
2 0.00 0.00 0.00                                  0.00 
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                                 0.00 
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                                0.00 
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                               0.00 
6 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                              0.01 
7 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                             0.06 
8 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                            0.13 
9 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                           0.20 
10 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                          0.28 
11 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                         0.36 
12 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                        0.44 
13 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                       0.52 
14 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                      0.60 
15  0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                     0.64 
16   0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                    0.62 
17    0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                   0.59 
18     0.10 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                  0.53 
19      0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                 0.48 
20       0.09 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                0.43 
21        0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00               0.38 
22         0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00              0.34 
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …  … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 
43                              0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 
44                               0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Regulation Impact Statement    126 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 48: Serious injuries prevented due to a broad  advertising campaign – Option 2 b 
Year  Vehicle Age  SI 
Prevented  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 
0 0.00                                    0.00 
1 0.00 0.00                                   0.00 
2 0.00 0.00 0.00                                  0.00 
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                                 0.00 
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                                0.00 
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                               0.00 
6 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                              0.13 
7 0.17 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                             0.56 
8 0.19 0.55 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                            1.17 
9 0.20 0.58 0.64 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                           1.93 
10 0.21 0.63 0.69 0.70 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                          2.68 
11 0.23 0.67 0.73 0.75 0.66 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                         3.48 
12 0.24 0.71 0.78 0.80 0.70 0.66 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                        4.30 
13 0.26 0.76 0.83 0.85 0.75 0.70 0.61 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                       5.12 
14 0.27 0.80 0.89 0.91 0.80 0.75 0.65 0.53 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                      5.93 
15  0.85 0.94 0.97 0.85 0.80 0.70 0.57 0.48 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                     6.37 
16   0.99 1.02 0.91 0.85 0.74 0.61 0.51 0.36 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                    6.23 
17    1.08 0.96 0.90 0.79 0.65 0.54 0.39 0.38 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                   5.90 
18     1.02 0.96 0.84 0.69 0.58 0.41 0.40 0.32 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                  5.38 
19      1.01 0.89 0.73 0.62 0.44 0.43 0.34 0.27 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                 4.91 
20       0.94 0.77 0.65 0.47 0.46 0.36 0.28 0.29 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00                4.40 
21        0.82 0.69 0.50 0.49 0.38 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00               3.92 
22         0.73 0.53 0.51 0.41 0.32 0.33 0.28 0.25 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00              3.46 
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …  … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 
43                              0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 
44                               0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Regulation Impact Statement    127 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 49: Fatalities prevented due to implementation of a mandatory standard (broad scope) under the MVSA  – Option 6a 
Year  Vehicle Age  Lives 
Saved  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 
0 0.06                                    0.06 
1 0.12 0.18                                   0.29 
2 0.18 0.36 0.21                                  0.75 
3 0.24 0.55 0.42 0.23                                 1.45 
4 0.24 0.75 0.64 0.47 0.21                                2.32 
5 0.25 0.76 0.87 0.71 0.43 0.21                               3.23 
6 0.25 0.76 0.88 0.97 0.66 0.43 0.19                              4.13 
7 0.24 0.76 0.88 0.97 0.89 0.65 0.39 0.17                             4.96 
8 0.24 0.76 0.88 0.97 0.90 0.89 0.60 0.34 0.15                            5.73 
9 0.24 0.75 0.87 0.97 0.90 0.89 0.82 0.52 0.31 0.11                           6.38 
10 0.24 0.75 0.87 0.96 0.89 0.89 0.82 0.71 0.47 0.23 0.12                          6.95 
11 0.24 0.74 0.86 0.96 0.89 0.89 0.82 0.71 0.64 0.35 0.24 0.10                         7.42 
12 0.23 0.73 0.85 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.71 0.64 0.47 0.36 0.20 0.08                        7.81 
13 0.23 0.72 0.84 0.94 0.87 0.87 0.81 0.71 0.64 0.47 0.49 0.31 0.17 0.09                       8.17 
14 0.22 0.71 0.83 0.93 0.86 0.87 0.80 0.70 0.63 0.47 0.49 0.42 0.26 0.19 0.08                      8.47 
15  0.69 0.81 0.91 0.85 0.86 0.79 0.70 0.63 0.46 0.49 0.42 0.35 0.29 0.17 0.08                     8.51 
16   0.80 0.89 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.69 0.62 0.46 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.39 0.26 0.16 0.05                    8.05 
17    0.87 0.82 0.83 0.77 0.68 0.62 0.46 0.48 0.41 0.35 0.39 0.35 0.24 0.11 0.05                   7.44 
18     0.80 0.81 0.76 0.67 0.61 0.45 0.48 0.41 0.35 0.39 0.35 0.33 0.16 0.09 0.04                  6.71 
19      0.79 0.74 0.66 0.60 0.45 0.47 0.40 0.34 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.22 0.14 0.08 0.04                 6.01 
20       0.72 0.64 0.59 0.44 0.47 0.40 0.34 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.22 0.20 0.13 0.08 0.03                5.31 
21        0.63 0.57 0.43 0.46 0.39 0.34 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.12 0.07 0.03               4.67 
22         0.56 0.42 0.45 0.38 0.33 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.06 0.03              4.12 
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …  … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 
43                              0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.16 
44                               0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.12 Regulation Impact Statement    128 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 50: Serious  injuries prevented due to implementation of a mandatory standard (broad scope) under the MVSA  – Option 6a 
Year  Vehicle Age  SI 
Prevented  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 
0 0.56                                    0.56 
1 1.14 1.75                                   2.89 
2 1.74 3.57 2.06                                  7.38 
3 2.37 5.46 4.20 2.25                                 14.28  
4 2.38 7.42 6.43 4.58 2.12                                22.93  
5 2.37 7.43 8.73 7.00 4.32 2.12                               31.98  
6 2.37 7.42 8.74 9.50 6.61 4.31 1.97                              40.92  
7 2.35 7.39 8.72 9.50 8.97 6.59 4.01 1.73                             49.27  
8 2.33 7.35 8.68 9.47 8.97 8.95 6.13 3.52 1.54                            56.94  
9 2.31 7.28 8.62 9.42 8.93 8.94 8.32 5.37 3.14 1.19                           63.52  
10 2.28 7.21 8.54 9.35 8.88 8.90 8.30 7.29 4.80 2.42 1.23                          69.18  
11 2.25 7.11 8.45 9.25 8.81 8.84 8.26 7.27 6.51 3.69 2.50 1.03                         73.95  
12 2.20 7.00 8.33 9.14 8.71 8.76 8.20 7.23 6.49 5.01 3.81 2.09 0.87                        77.84  
13 2.16 6.87 8.20 9.01 8.60 8.66 8.12 7.17 6.44 4.99 5.17 3.19 1.76 0.94                       81.29  
14 2.10 6.72 8.04 8.85 8.48 8.55 8.03 7.10 6.39 4.96 5.15 4.33 2.69 1.92 0.86                      84.15  
15  6.55 7.86 8.67 8.33 8.41 7.92 7.01 6.32 4.91 5.11 4.30 3.65 2.93 1.75 0.80                     84.53  
16   7.66 8.47 8.16 8.26 7.79 6.91 6.24 4.86 5.06 4.27 3.63 3.97 2.67 1.64 0.56                    80.14  
17    8.24 7.97 8.09 7.65 6.80 6.15 4.80 5.00 4.23 3.59 3.94 3.61 2.49 1.14 0.51                   74.21  
18     7.75 7.89 7.48 6.67 6.04 4.73 4.94 4.18 3.56 3.91 3.59 3.38 1.74 1.03 0.44                  67.32  
19      7.68 7.30 6.52 5.92 4.65 4.86 4.12 3.51 3.86 3.55 3.35 2.35 1.58 0.90 0.45                 60.60  
20       7.10 6.36 5.79 4.56 4.77 4.05 3.46 3.81 3.51 3.32 2.33 2.13 1.36 0.91 0.40                53.87  
21        6.18 5.64 4.46 4.68 3.98 3.40 3.75 3.46 3.28 2.31 2.12 1.85 1.39 0.81 0.33               47.62  
22         5.48 4.35 4.57 3.89 3.34 3.68 3.41 3.23 2.28 2.09 1.83 1.88 1.23 0.66 0.32              42.24  
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …  … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 
43                              0.39 0.31 0.19 0.26 0.28 0.12 0.21 1.76 
44                               0.30 0.19 0.25 0.27 0.12 0.20 1.33 Regulation Impact Statement    129 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 51: Fatalities prevented due to implementation of a mandatory standard (medium scope) under the MVSA  – Option 6b 
Year  Vehicle Age  Lives 
Saved  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 
0 0.05                                    0.05 
1 0.11 0.17                                   0.28 
2 0.17 0.34 0.19                                  0.70 
3 0.23 0.52 0.39 0.21                                 1.35 
4 0.23 0.70 0.60 0.44 0.20                                2.16 
5 0.23 0.71 0.81 0.67 0.40 0.19                               3.01 
6 0.23 0.71 0.81 0.91 0.61 0.40 0.18                              3.85 
7 0.23 0.71 0.82 0.91 0.83 0.60 0.36 0.15                             4.62 
8 0.23 0.71 0.82 0.91 0.83 0.82 0.55 0.31 0.14                            5.33 
9 0.23 0.71 0.82 0.91 0.83 0.82 0.75 0.48 0.28 0.10                           5.93 
10 0.23 0.70 0.81 0.91 0.83 0.82 0.75 0.65 0.43 0.20 0.11                          6.45 
11 0.23 0.70 0.81 0.90 0.83 0.82 0.75 0.65 0.59 0.31 0.22 0.09                         6.90 
12 0.22 0.69 0.80 0.90 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.65 0.59 0.42 0.33 0.18 0.08                        7.26 
13 0.22 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.82 0.81 0.75 0.65 0.59 0.42 0.45 0.28 0.16 0.09                       7.59 
14 0.22 0.67 0.78 0.88 0.81 0.81 0.74 0.65 0.59 0.42 0.45 0.38 0.24 0.17 0.08                      7.87 
15  0.66 0.77 0.86 0.80 0.80 0.74 0.64 0.58 0.42 0.45 0.38 0.32 0.27 0.16 0.07                     7.91 
16   0.75 0.85 0.79 0.79 0.73 0.64 0.58 0.42 0.44 0.38 0.32 0.36 0.24 0.15 0.05                    7.48 
17    0.83 0.77 0.78 0.72 0.63 0.57 0.41 0.44 0.38 0.32 0.36 0.33 0.22 0.10 0.04                   6.90 
18     0.76 0.76 0.71 0.62 0.57 0.41 0.44 0.37 0.32 0.36 0.32 0.30 0.15 0.08 0.04                  6.21 
19      0.75 0.69 0.61 0.56 0.41 0.43 0.37 0.32 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.20 0.13 0.07 0.03                 5.55 
20       0.68 0.60 0.55 0.40 0.43 0.37 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.20 0.17 0.11 0.07 0.03                4.89 
21        0.59 0.54 0.39 0.42 0.36 0.31 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.06 0.03               4.29 
22         0.53 0.39 0.41 0.36 0.30 0.34 0.31 0.30 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.09 0.05 0.02              3.77 
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …  … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 
43                              0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.14 
44                               0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.10 Regulation Impact Statement    130 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 52: Serious injuries prevented due to implementation of a mandatory standard (medium scope) under the MVSA  – Option 6b 
Year  Vehicle Age  SI 
Prevented  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 
0 0.50                                    0.50 
1 1.02 1.55                                   2.57 
2 1.56 3.16 1.80                                  6.52 
3 2.12 4.83 3.67 1.99                                 12.60  
4 2.13 6.55 5.61 4.06 1.85                                20.19  
5 2.13 6.58 7.61 6.21 3.76 1.84                               28.13  
6 2.13 6.59 7.64 8.42 5.75 3.74 1.69                              35.97  
7 2.12 6.58 7.65 8.45 7.80 5.71 3.44 1.48                             43.23  
8 2.11 6.56 7.64 8.44 7.82 7.75 5.26 3.01 1.33                            49.91  
9 2.09 6.52 7.61 8.41 7.81 7.77 7.13 4.59 2.70 0.98                           55.62  
10 2.07 6.47 7.56 8.37 7.79 7.76 7.14 6.22 4.13 1.99 1.03                          60.52  
11 2.04 6.40 7.50 8.31 7.75 7.73 7.13 6.23 5.59 3.04 2.09 0.87                         64.67  
12 2.01 6.31 7.42 8.22 7.69 7.68 7.10 6.21 5.59 4.12 3.19 1.77 0.74                        68.05  
13 1.97 6.21 7.32 8.12 7.61 7.62 7.05 6.18 5.57 4.12 4.33 2.70 1.50 0.81                       71.12  
14 1.93 6.09 7.20 8.00 7.52 7.54 6.99 6.14 5.54 4.11 4.32 3.65 2.28 1.65 0.74                      73.73  
15  5.96 7.06 7.86 7.41 7.44 6.92 6.09 5.50 4.09 4.31 3.65 3.09 2.52 1.50 0.69                     74.09  
16   6.90 7.70 7.28 7.33 6.83 6.02 5.44 4.06 4.28 3.63 3.09 3.42 2.29 1.40 0.46                    70.14  
17    7.51 7.13 7.20 6.73 5.94 5.38 4.03 4.25 3.60 3.07 3.40 3.10 2.14 0.94 0.41                   64.83  
18     6.96 7.05 6.60 5.84 5.30 3.99 4.20 3.57 3.04 3.38 3.09 2.89 1.44 0.83 0.36                  58.57  
19      6.88 6.46 5.74 5.21 3.93 4.15 3.53 3.02 3.35 3.07 2.88 1.95 1.27 0.74 0.35                 52.53  
20       6.31 5.61 5.11 3.87 4.09 3.48 2.98 3.32 3.04 2.86 1.94 1.72 1.12 0.72 0.31                46.49  
21        5.48 5.00 3.81 4.03 3.43 2.94 3.27 3.01 2.83 1.93 1.71 1.52 1.09 0.63 0.26               40.91  
22         4.87 3.73 3.95 3.37 2.89 3.22 2.97 2.80 1.91 1.70 1.51 1.48 0.95 0.52 0.25              36.12  
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …  … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 
43                              0.32 0.24 0.15 0.21 0.22 0.10 0.17 1.41 
44                               0.24 0.15 0.20 0.22 0.10 0.16 1.06 Regulation Impact Statement    131 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 53: Fatalities prevented due to implementation of a mandatory standard (narrow scope) under the MVSA  – Option 6c 
Year  Vehicle Age  Lives 
Saved  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 
0 0.05                                    0.05 
1 0.10 0.15                                   0.26 
2 0.16 0.31 0.18                                  0.65 
3 0.21 0.48 0.36 0.20                                 1.25 
4 0.22 0.65 0.55 0.41 0.18                                2.00 
5 0.22 0.66 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.18                               2.79 
6 0.22 0.66 0.75 0.84 0.56 0.36 0.16                              3.56 
7 0.22 0.66 0.75 0.85 0.76 0.55 0.33 0.14                             4.27 
8 0.22 0.66 0.76 0.85 0.76 0.75 0.50 0.29 0.13                            4.92 
9 0.22 0.66 0.76 0.85 0.77 0.76 0.68 0.43 0.26 0.09                           5.47 
10 0.22 0.66 0.76 0.85 0.77 0.76 0.68 0.59 0.39 0.18 0.09                          5.95 
11 0.21 0.66 0.75 0.85 0.77 0.76 0.69 0.59 0.53 0.27 0.19 0.08                         6.35 
12 0.21 0.65 0.75 0.84 0.76 0.76 0.69 0.59 0.54 0.37 0.29 0.16 0.07                        6.68 
13 0.21 0.64 0.74 0.84 0.76 0.75 0.68 0.59 0.54 0.37 0.40 0.25 0.14 0.08                       6.99 
14 0.20 0.63 0.73 0.83 0.75 0.75 0.68 0.59 0.54 0.37 0.40 0.34 0.21 0.16 0.07                      7.27 
15  0.62 0.72 0.82 0.75 0.74 0.68 0.59 0.54 0.37 0.40 0.34 0.29 0.24 0.14 0.07                     7.30 
16   0.71 0.80 0.74 0.74 0.67 0.59 0.53 0.37 0.40 0.34 0.29 0.33 0.22 0.13 0.04                    6.90 
17    0.79 0.73 0.73 0.66 0.58 0.53 0.37 0.40 0.34 0.29 0.33 0.30 0.20 0.09 0.04                   6.35 
18     0.71 0.71 0.66 0.57 0.52 0.37 0.39 0.34 0.29 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.13 0.07 0.03                  5.70 
19      0.70 0.65 0.57 0.52 0.36 0.39 0.34 0.29 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.18 0.11 0.07 0.03                 5.08 
20       0.63 0.56 0.51 0.36 0.39 0.33 0.29 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.18 0.15 0.10 0.06 0.02                4.46 
21        0.55 0.50 0.36 0.38 0.33 0.28 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.09 0.05 0.02               3.90 
22         0.49 0.35 0.38 0.32 0.28 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.02              3.41 
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …  … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 
43                              0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.12 
44                               0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.09 Regulation Impact Statement    132 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles     
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 54: Serious injuries prevented due to implementation of a mandatory standard (narrow scope) under the MVSA  – Option 6c 
Year  Vehicle Age  SI 
Prevented  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 
0 0.44                                    0.44 
1 0.90 1.34                                   2.24 
2 1.37 2.73 1.53                                  5.63 
3 1.86 4.18 3.12 1.73                                 10.89  
4 1.87 5.67 4.77 3.53 1.57                                17.40  
5 1.88 5.71 6.46 5.40 3.19 1.55                               24.20  
6 1.89 5.74 6.52 7.32 4.87 3.16 1.40                              30.89  
7 1.89 5.75 6.55 7.36 6.60 4.82 2.86 1.22                             37.05  
8 1.88 5.75 6.57 7.38 6.64 6.53 4.36 2.48 1.11                            42.71  
9 1.87 5.74 6.56 7.38 6.67 6.57 5.91 3.79 2.26 0.76                           47.51  
10 1.86 5.71 6.55 7.37 6.67 6.59 5.95 5.14 3.44 1.56 0.83                          51.64  
11 1.84 5.67 6.52 7.33 6.66 6.59 5.97 5.16 4.66 2.37 1.68 0.71                         55.15  
12 1.81 5.61 6.47 7.28 6.63 6.57 5.97 5.18 4.68 3.21 2.56 1.44 0.60                        58.02  
13 1.79 5.54 6.41 7.22 6.59 6.54 5.95 5.17 4.68 3.24 3.46 2.19 1.23 0.68                       60.69  
14 1.75 5.45 6.33 7.13 6.54 6.50 5.93 5.16 4.67 3.25 3.48 2.96 1.87 1.38 0.62                      63.02  
15  5.35 6.23 7.03 6.47 6.44 5.89 5.13 4.66 3.25 3.49 2.97 2.53 2.11 1.25 0.57                     63.37  
16   6.12 6.90 6.38 6.37 5.84 5.10 4.63 3.25 3.48 2.97 2.54 2.85 1.91 1.16 0.37                    59.87  
17    6.76 6.27 6.28 5.77 5.05 4.59 3.24 3.47 2.96 2.53 2.85 2.58 1.77 0.75 0.31                   55.20  
18     6.15 6.17 5.69 5.00 4.55 3.22 3.45 2.95 2.52 2.85 2.58 2.40 1.14 0.63 0.28                  49.58  
19      6.05 5.60 4.93 4.49 3.20 3.43 2.93 2.51 2.83 2.57 2.39 1.54 0.96 0.57 0.25                 44.26  
20       5.49 4.84 4.42 3.17 3.40 2.91 2.49 2.81 2.56 2.39 1.54 1.30 0.87 0.52 0.22                38.91  
21        4.75 4.34 3.13 3.36 2.87 2.47 2.78 2.54 2.37 1.53 1.30 1.18 0.79 0.44 0.19               34.05  
22         4.25 3.09 3.31 2.84 2.44 2.75 2.52 2.35 1.53 1.30 1.18 1.06 0.67 0.38 0.18              29.85  
… … … … … … … … … … … … … …  … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 
43                              0.24 0.18 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.07 0.12 1.04 
44                               0.17 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.07 0.12 0.79 Regulation Impact Statement   133 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  23. Determine the total annual costs associated with the implementation of each option (2a, 
2b, 6a, 6b and 6c).  
Table 55: Truck development  costs – implementation of regulation (broad scope) (2019 -2035) – Option 6a 
 Option 6a  
Year  Prime Movers (NC)  Rigid Trucks (NB2  & NC ) 
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - - - - 
2020  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  $11,900,000  $19,397,000  $26,894,000  
2021  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  $11,900,000  $19,397,000  $26,894,000  
2022  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  $11,900,000  $19,397,000  $26,894,000  
2023  - - - - - - 
2024  - - - - - - 
2025  - - - - - - 
2026  - - - - - - 
2027  - - - - - - 
2028  - - - - - - 
2029  - - - - - - 
2030  - - - - - - 
2031  - - - - - - 
2032  - - - - - - 
2033  - - - - - - 
2034  - - - - - - 
2035  - - - - - - 
NPV  $5,248,447  $8,554,970  $11,861,492  $25,492,460  $41,552,711  $57,612,961  
Table 56: Truck development  costs – implementation of regulation (medium scope) (2019 -2035) – Option 6b 
 Option 6b  
Year  Prime Movers (NC)  Rigid Trucks (NC)  
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - - - - 
2020  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  
2021  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  
2022  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  
2023  - - - - - - 
2024  - - - - - - 
2025  - - - - - - 
2026  - - - - - - 
2027  - - - - - - 
2028  - - - - - - 
2029  - - - - - - 
2030  - - - - - - 
2031  - - - - - - 
2032  - - - - - - 
2033  - - - - - - 
2034  - - - - - - 
2035  - - - - - - 
NPV  $5,248,447  $8,554,970  $11,861,492  $5,248,447  $8,554,970  $11,861,492  
  Regulation Impact Statement   134 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 57: Truck development  costs – implementation of regulation (narrow scope) (2019 -2035) – Option 6c 
 Option 6c  
Year  Prime Movers  (NC)  
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - 
2020  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  
2021  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  
2022  $2,450,000  $3,993,500  $5,537,000  
2023  - - - 
2024  - - - 
2025  - - - 
2026  - - - 
2027  - - - 
2028  - - - 
2029  - - - 
2030  - - - 
2031  - - - 
2032  - - - 
2033  - - - 
2034  - - - 
2035  - - - 
NPV  $5,248,447  $8,554,970  $11,861,492  
Table 58: Bus development  costs – implementation of regulation (2019 -2035) – Option 6a 
 Option 6a  
Year  Buses (MD4 & ME)  
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - 
2020  $3,750,000  $6,112,500  $8,475,000  
2021  $3,750,000  $6,112,500  $8,475,000  
2022  $3,750,000  $6,112,500  $8,475,000  
2023  - - - 
2024  - - - 
2025  - - - 
2026  - - - 
2027  - - - 
2028  - - - 
2029  - - - 
2030  - - - 
2031  - - - 
2032  - - - 
2033  - - - 
2034  - - - 
2035  - - - 
NPV  $8,033,338  $13,094,341  $18,155,345  
  Regulation Impact Statement   135 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 59: Bus development  costs – implementation of regulation (2019 -2035) – Option s 6b and 6c  
 Options 6b and 6c  
Year  Buses (ME)  
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - 
2020  $3,625,000  $5,908,750  $8,192,500  
2021  $3,625,000  $5,908,750  $8,192,500  
2022  $3,625,000  $5,908,750  $8,192,500  
2023  - - - 
2024  - - - 
2025  - - - 
2026  - - - 
2027  - - - 
2028  - - - 
2029  - - - 
2030  - - - 
2031  - - - 
2032  - - - 
2033  - - - 
2034  - - - 
2035  - - - 
NPV  $7,765,560  $12,657,863  $17,550,166  
Table 60: Fitment costs – implementation of targeted  advertising campaign  (2019 -2035) – Option 2a 
 Option 2a  
 Prime Movers (NC)  Rigid Trucks (NB2 & NC ) 
2019    
2020  $3,669,676  $10,166,995  
2021  $3,481,538  $9,660,291  
2022  - - 
2023  $3,108,118  $8,667,965  
2024  - - 
2025  $2,707,494  $7,609,810  
2026  - - 
2027  $2,284,566  $6,500,019  
2028  - - 
2029  $1,847,436  $5,362,869  
2030  - - 
2031  $1,393,572  $4,189,908  
2032  - - 
2033  $924,401  $2,984,536  
2034  - - 
2035  - - 
NPV  $11,339,883  $31,958,166  
  Regulation Impact Statement   136 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 61: Fitment costs – implementation of broad advertising campaign (2019 -2035) – Option 2b 
 Option 2b  
 Prime Movers (NC)  Rigid Trucks (NB2 & NC ) 
2019  - - 
2020  - - 
2021  - - 
2022  - - 
2023  - - 
2024  - - 
2025  - - 
2026  $370,136  - 
2027  $391,640  $962,966  
2028  $413,673  $1,017,724  
2029  $435,806  $1,072,574  
2030  $458,082  $1,127,640  
2031  $480,542  $1,183,033  
2032  $502,890  $1,237,962  
2033  $525,449  $1,293,299  
2034  $548,274  $1,349,187  
2035  - - 
NPV  $1,589,470  $3,448,505  
Table 62: Truck f itment costs – implementation of regulation (broad scope) (2019 -2035) – Option 6a 
 Option 6a  
Year  Prime Movers  (NC)  Rigid Trucks  (NB2 & NC)  
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - - - - 
2020  $658,212  $1,234,147  $2,863,221  $1,797,311  $3,369,959  $7,818,305  
2021  $1,327,979  $2,489,961  $5,776,710  $3,618,776  $6,785,204  $15,741,674  
2022  $2,014,777  $3,777,706  $8,764,278  $5,480,713  $10,276,337  $23,841,102  
2023  $2,714,724  $5,090,108  $11,809,050  $7,371,675  $13,821,891  $32,066,786  
2024  $2,619,844  $4,912,208  $11,396,323  $7,115,256  $13,341,106  $30,951,365  
2025  $2,520,877  $4,726,644  $10,965,813  $6,848,829  $12,841,554  $29,792,405  
2026  $2,418,222  $4,534,167  $10,519,267  $6,573,561  $12,325,427  $28,594,991  
2027  $2,312,541  $4,336,014  $10,059,552  $6,291,376  $11,796,331  $27,367,487  
2028  $2,206,258  $4,136,734  $9,597,222  $6,009,416  $11,267,654  $26,140,958  
2029  $2,096,919  $3,931,724  $9,121,599  $5,720,393  $10,725,738  $24,883,711  
2030  $1,985,020  $3,721,913  $8,634,838  $5,425,745  $10,173,272  $23,601,991  
2031  $1,870,911  $3,507,957  $8,138,461  $5,126,476  $9,612,142  $22,300,170  
2032  $1,753,667  $3,288,126  $7,628,453  $4,819,800  $9,037,125  $20,966,130  
2033  $1,634,731  $3,065,121  $7,111,081  $4,509,965  $8,456,185  $19,618,348  
2034  $1,514,279  $2,839,274  $6,587,115  $4,197,471  $7,870,257  $18,258,997  
2035  - - - - - - 
NPV  $14,563,281  $27,306,153  $63,350,274  $39,697,675  $74,433,142  $172,684,888  
  Regulation Impact Statement   137 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 63: Truck f itment costs – implementation of regulation (medium scope) (2019 -2035) – Option 6b 
 Option 6b  
Year  Prime Movers  (NC)  Rigid Trucks  (NC)  
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - - - - 
2020  $658,212  $1,234,147  $2,863,221  $906,025  $1,698,796  $3,941,208  
2021  $1,327,979  $2,489,961  $5,776,710  $1,824,225  $3,420,422  $7,935,378  
2022  $2,014,777  $3,777,706  $8,764,278  $2,762,827  $5,180,301  $12,018,299  
2023  $2,714,724  $5,090,108  $11,809,050  $3,716,061  $6,967,615  $16,164,867  
2024  $2,619,844  $4,912,208  $11,396,323  $3,586,801  $6,725,251  $15,602,583  
2025  $2,520,877  $4,726,644  $10,965,813  $3,452,495  $6,473,427  $15,018,352  
2026  $2,418,222  $4,534,167  $10,519,267  $3,313,732  $6,213,248  $14,414,735  
2027  $2,312,541  $4,336,014  $10,059,552  $3,171,483  $5,946,530  $13,795,950  
2028  $2,206,258  $4,136,734  $9,597,222  $3,029,346  $5,680,025  $13,177,657  
2029  $2,096,919  $3,931,724  $9,121,599  $2,883,650  $5,406,844  $12,543,879  
2030  $1,985,020  $3,721,913  $8,634,838  $2,735,118  $5,128,346  $11,897,764  
2031  $1,870,911  $3,507,957  $8,138,461  $2,584,257  $4,845,481  $11,241,516  
2032  $1,753,667  $3,288,126  $7,628,453  $2,429,661  $4,555,615  $10,569,026  
2033  $1,634,731  $3,065,121  $7,111,081  $2,273,473  $4,262,763  $9,889,609  
2034  $1,514,279  $2,839,274  $6,587,115  $2,115,945  $3,967,397  $9,204,360  
2035  - - - - - - 
NPV  $14,563,281  $27,306,153  $63,350,274  $20,011,598  $37,521,747  $87,050,452  
Table 64: Truck f itment costs – implementation of regulation ( narrow  scope) (2019 -2035) – Option 6c 
 Option 6c  
Year  Prime Movers  (NC)  
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - 
2020  $658,212  $1,234,147  $2,863,221  
2021  $1,327,979  $2,489,961  $5,776,710  
2022  $2,014,777  $3,777,706  $8,764,278  
2023  $2,714,724  $5,090,108  $11,809,050  
2024  $2,619,844  $4,912,208  $11,396,323  
2025  $2,520,877  $4,726,644  $10,965,813  
2026  $2,418,222  $4,534,167  $10,519,267  
2027  $2,312,541  $4,336,014  $10,059,552  
2028  $2,206,258  $4,136,734  $9,597,222  
2029  $2,096,919  $3,931,724  $9,121,599  
2030  $1,985,020  $3,721,913  $8,634,838  
2031  $1,870,911  $3,507,957  $8,138,461  
2032  $1,753,667  $3,288,126  $7,628,453  
2033  $1,634,731  $3,065,121  $7,111,081  
2034  $1,514,279  $2,839,274  $6,587,115  
2035  - - - 
NPV  $14,563,281  $27,306,153  $63,350,274  
  Regulation Impact Statement   138 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 65: Bus f itment costs – implementation of regulation (2019 -2035) – Option 6a 
 Option 6a  
Year  Buses (MD4 & ME)  
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - 
2020  $32,537  $39,044  $45,551  
2021  $65,621  $78,745  $91,869  
2022  $99,527  $119,433  $139,338  
2023  $134,062  $160,874  $187,687  
2024  $135,323  $162,388  $189,452  
2025  $136,489  $163,786  $191,084  
2026  $137,567  $165,080  $192,594  
2027  $138,584  $166,301  $194,018  
2028  $139,685  $167,622  $195,559  
2029  $140,718  $168,862  $197,006  
2030  $141,707  $170,048  $198,389  
2031  $142,667  $171,201  $199,734  
2032  $143,518  $172,221  $200,925  
2033  $144,361  $173,233  $202,105  
2034  $145,211  $174,254  $203,296  
2035  - - - 
NPV  $874,546  $1,049,455  $1,224,365  
Table 66: Bus f itment costs – implementation of regulation (2019 -2035) – Option s 6b and  6c 
 Options 6b and 6c  
Year  Buses (ME)  
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - 
2020  $26,280  $31,536  $36,792  
2021  $53,001  $63,602  $74,202  
2022  $80,388  $96,465  $112,543  
2023  $108,281  $129,937  $151,593  
2024  $109,300  $131,159  $153,019  
2025  $110,241  $132,289  $154,337  
2026  $111,112  $133,334  $155,556  
2027  $111,933  $134,320  $156,706  
2028  $112,823  $135,387  $157,952  
2029  $113,657  $136,389  $159,120  
2030  $114,455  $137,346  $160,237  
2031  $115,231  $138,277  $161,324  
2032  $115,918  $139,102  $162,285  
2033  $116,599  $139,919  $163,239  
2034  $117,286  $140,743  $164,201  
2035  - - - 
NPV  $706,364  $847,637  $988,910  
  Regulation Impact Statement   139 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 67: Trailer f itment costs – implementation of regulation (2019 -2035) – Option s 6a, 6b, 6c  
 Options 6a, 6b and 6c  
Year  Trailers (TC > 4.5 tonnes GTM & TD)  
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - 
2020  $1,935,059  $2,877,361  $4,387,861  
2021  $1,950,757  $2,900,653  $4,423,397  
2022  $1,971,978  $2,932,164  $4,471,465  
2023  $1,991,655  $2,961,377  $4,516,029  
2024  $2,009,873  $2,988,420  $4,557,284  
2025  $2,026,655  $3,013,326  $4,595,280  
2026  $2,042,131  $3,036,289  $4,630,314  
2027  $2,056,694  $3,057,894  $4,663,278  
2028  $2,072,529  $3,081,393  $4,699,129  
2029  $2,087,349  $3,103,383  $4,732,677  
2030  $2,101,497  $3,124,374  $4,764,703  
2031  $2,115,241  $3,144,763  $4,795,811  
2032  $2,127,337  $3,162,702  $4,823,184  
2033  $2,139,331  $3,180,488  $4,850,323  
2034  $2,151,448  $3,198,458  $4,877,742  
2035  - - - 
NPV  $15,111,248  $22,467,836  $34,263,231  
Table 68: Trailer maintenance costs  (outer regional and remote areas)  – implementation of regulation 
(2019 -2035) – Option s 6a, 6b and 6c 
 Options 6a, 6b and  6c 
Year  Trailers (TC > 4.5 tonnes GTM & TD)  
 Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - 
2020  $1,182,597  $1,406,332  $1,757,915  
2021  $1,257,131  $1,494,966  $1,868,708  
2022  $1,332,469  $1,584,558  $1,980,697  
2023  $1,408,553  $1,675,036  $2,093,795  
2024  $1,485,327  $1,766,334  $2,207,918  
2025  $1,562,735  $1,858,388  $2,322,985  
2026  $1,640,728  $1,951,136  $2,438,920  
2027  $1,719,271  $2,044,539  $2,555,674  
2028  $1,797,052  $2,137,035  $2,671,294  
2029  $1,875,278  $2,230,060  $2,787,575  
2030  $1,953,926  $2,323,588  $2,904,485  
2031  $2,032,506  $2,417,034  $3,021,293  
2032  $2,110,974  $2,510,348  $3,137,935  
2033  $2,189,343  $2,603,543  $3,254,429  
2034  $2,267,631  $2,696,643  $3,370,804  
2035  - - - 
NPV  $12,078,532  $14,363,659  $17,954,574  
  Regulation Impact Statement   140 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 69: Government costs  – implementation of advertising campaigns  (2019 -2035) – Option s 2a and 2b 
Year  Option 2a  Option 2b  
2019  - - 
2020  - - 
2021  $600,000  - 
2022  $600,000  - 
2023  - - 
2024  $600,000  - 
2025  - - 
2026  $600,000  $18,000,000  
2027  - $18,000,000  
2028  $600,000  $18,000,000  
2029  - $18,000,000  
2030  $600,000  $18,000,000  
2031  - $18,000,000  
2032  $600,000  $18,000,000  
2033  - $18,000,000  
2034  $600,000  $18,000,000  
2035  - - 
NPV  $2,361,669  $63,789,384  
Table 70: Government costs  – implementation of regulation (2019 -2035) – Option s 6a, 6b and 6c  
Year  Options 6a, 6b and 6c  
Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - 
2020  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2021  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2022  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2023  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2024  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2025  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2026  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2027  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2028  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2029  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2030  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2031  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2032  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2033  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2034  $100,000  $100,000  $100,000  
2035  - - - 
NPV  $743,477  $743,477  $743,477  
  Regulation Impact Statement   141 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 71: Savings  – implementation of regulation (2019 -2035) – Option s 6a, 6b and 6c  
Year  Options 6a, 6b and 6c  
Best Case  Likely Case  Worst Case  
2019  - - - 
2020  $6,564,823  $4,391,549  $2,218,274  
2021  $6,612,017  $4,423,011  $2,234,006  
2022  $6,678,352  $4,467,234  $2,256,117  
2023  $6,739,375  $4,507,916  $2,276,458  
2024  $6,795,398  $4,545,265  $2,295,133  
2025  $6,846,514  $4,579,343  $2,312,171  
2026  $6,893,185  $4,610,457  $2,327,728  
2027  $6,936,775  $4,639,517  $2,342,258  
2028  $6,984,802  $4,671,535  $2,358,267  
2029  $7,029,395  $4,701,264  $2,373,132  
2030  $7,071,741  $4,729,494  $2,387,247  
2031  $7,112,759  $4,756,839  $2,400,920  
2032  $7,148,192  $4,780,462  $2,412,731  
2033  $7,183,343  $4,803,895  $2,424,448  
2034  $7,128,986  $4,752,657  $2,376,329  
2035  - - - 
NPV  $51,018,411  $34,123,795  $17,229,180  
25. Determine  the average cost to society of a  fatality, serious injury and minor injur y in 
heavy vehicle rollover and loss of control crashes . 
Table 72: Determination  of average life years lost  in fatal single heavy vehicle crashes  
 Years  
Life expectancy – males 
(note: over 90 per cent of heavy vehicle occupant fatalities are male)  80 
Average age of heavy vehicle occupant fatality  46 
Average life years lost  34 
Table 73: Value of a Statistical Life Year  
 Value  
(2007 Dollars)  Value  
(2016 Dollars)  
Value of a Statistical Life Year  $151,000  $186,929  
  Regulation Impact Statement   142 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 74: Determination of the cost of a fatality  
Component  of Fatality Cost  Cost  
(2007 Dollars)  Cost  
(2016 Dollars)  
Value of a statistical life (VSL) — assuming an average of 
34 years of life lost  and using a 3 per cent discount rate  $3,286,635  $4,068,657  
Medical costs (hospital and ambulance)  $4,354  $5,390  
Coronial costs  $2,010  $2,489  
Premature funeral costs  $4,470  $5,534  
Legal costs  $23,324  $28,874  
Correctional services costs  $9,598  $11,881  
Recruitment and retraining  $10,856  $13,439  
Police costs  $1,922  $2,380  
Costs of fire and rescue services  $2,939  $3,638  
Total  $3,346,108  $4,142,281  
Table 75: Determination of the cost of serious and minor injuries  
Injury  Type  Cost  
(2007 Dollars)  Cost  
(2016 Dollars)  
Serious Injury  $218,922  $271,012  
Minor Injury  $2,148  $2,659  
Table 76: Determination  of other road crash costs  (i.e. repair, travel delay, lost productivity, salvage etc.)  
Vehicle & Injury  Type  Cost  
(2007 Dollars)  Cost  
(2016 Dollars)  
Prime Movers (NC)    
Fatality  $69,985  $86,638  
Serious Injury  $45,488  $56,311  
Minor Injury  $45,488  $56,311  
Rigid Trucks (NB2 & NC)   
Fatality  $48,861  $60,487  
Serious Injury  $25,419  $31,467  
Minor Injury  $25,419  $31,467  
Buses (MD4 & ME)    
Fatality  $44,634  $55,254  
Serious Injury  $22,848  $28,285  
Minor Injury  $22,848  $28,285  
  Regulation Impact Statement   143 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 77: Estimated cost per fatality, serious injury and minor injury in heavy vehicle rollover and loss of 
control crashes  
Vehicle & Injury Type  Cost of Injury  
(2016 Dollars)  Other Road Crash Costs  
(2016 Dollars)  Total Cost  
(2016 Dollars)  
Prime Movers (NC)     
Fatality  $4,142,281  $86,638  $4,228,918  
Serious Injury  $271,012  $56,311  $327,324  
Minor Injury  $2,659  $56,311  $58,971  
Rigid Trucks (NB2 & NC)     
Fatality  $4,142,281  $60,487  $4,202,768  
Serious Injury  $271,012  $31,467  $302,480  
Minor Injury  $2,659  $31,467  $34,127  
Buses (MD4 & ME)     
Fatality  $4,142,281  $55,254  $4,197,534  
Serious Injury  $271,012  $28,285  $299,297  
Minor Injury  $2,659  $28,285  $30,944  
26. Determine t he gross  and the net financial benefits , and the benefit -cost ratio for each 
option (2a, 2b, 6a, 6b and 6c). 
  Regulation Impact Statement   144 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 78: Benefits  – implementation of targeted advertising campaign (2019 -2035) – Option 2  
Year  Option 2a  Option 2b  
Gross  Benefits  Net Benefits  Gross  Benefits  Net Benefits  
2019  - - - - 
2020  $1,194,762  -$12,641,909  - - 
2021  $4,881,917  -$8,859,912  - - 
2022  $7,967,828  $7,367,828  - - 
2023  $10,095,249  -$1,680,835  - - 
2024  $12,465,916  $11,865,916  - - 
2025  $13,680,573  $3,363,268  - - 
2026  $15,755,410  $15,155,410  $108,158  -$18,261,978  
2027  $15,981,705  $7,197,119  $468,607  -$18,885,999  
2028  $17,212,404  $16,612,404  $957,202  -$18,474,195  
2029  $16,628,815  $9,418,510  $1,555,876  -$17,952,503  
2030  $17,258,331  $16,658,331  $2,148,319  -$17,437,403  
2031  $17,059,819  $11,476,339  $2,784,086  -$16,879,489  
2032  $16,588,529  $15,988,529  $3,425,741  -$16,315,111  
2033  $16,503,461  $12,594,523  $4,060,053  -$15,758,695  
2034  $16,114,090  $15,514,090  $4,692,260  -$15,205,200  
2035  $15,214,782  $15,214,782  $5,028,184  $5,028,184  
2036  $13,650,247  $13,650,247  $4,910,550  $4,910,550  
2037  $12,175,843  $12,175,843  $4,633,878  $4,633,878  
2038  $10,974,541  $10,974,541  $4,214,243  $4,214,243  
2039  $9,767,744  $9,767,744  $3,841,423  $3,841,423  
2040  $8,811,336  $8,811,336  $3,434,472  $3,434,472  
2041  $7,626,193  $7,626,193  $3,054,502  $3,054,502  
2042  $6,972,717  $6,972,717  $2,697,464  $2,697,464  
2043  $6,167,038  $6,167,038  $2,366,605  $2,366,605  
2044  $5,699,969  $5,699,969  $2,165,852  $2,165,852  
2045  $4,846,091  $4,846,091  $1,916,728  $1,916,728  
2046  $4,576,703  $4,576,703  $1,724,213  $1,724,213  
2047  $3,955,327  $3,955,327  $1,571,409  $1,571,409  
2048  $3,616,168  $3,616,168  $1,367,787  $1,367,787  
2049  $2,996,753  $2,996,753  $1,187,844  $1,187,844  
2050  $2,721,758  $2,721,758  $999,730  $999,730  
2051  $2,260,836  $2,260,836  $904,900  $904,900  
2052  $2,079,428  $2,079,428  $821,445  $821,445  
2053  $1,831,025  $1,831,025  $754,688  $754,688  
2054  $1,563,343  $1,563,343  $671,120  $671,120  
2055  $1,339,114  $1,339,114  $599,130  $599,130  
2056  $1,152,678  $1,152,678  $538,567  $538,567  
2057  $825,256  $825,256  $470,487  $470,487  
2058  $769,643  $769,643  $397,494  $397,494  
2059  $524,685  $524,685  $347,073  $347,073  
2060  $494,328  $494,328  $295,142  $295,142  
2061  $305,978  $305,978  $247,639  $247,639  
2062  $288,888  $288,888  $191,422  $191,422  
2063  $159,774  $159,774  $148,406  $148,406  
2064  $166,041  $166,041  $114,066  $114,066  
NPV  $114,526,362  $68,866,643  $16,514,747  -$52,312,612  
BCR  2.51 0.24 
  Regulation Impact Statement   145 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 79: Benefits  – implementation of regulation (broad scope) (2019 -2035) – Option 6a  
  Net Benefits  
Year  Gross Benefits  Best 
Case  Likely  
Case  Worst  
Case  
2019  - - - - 
2020  $448,271  -$16,792,622  -$33,690,024  -$55,212,308  
2021  $2,309,603  -$17,498,644  -$36,619,916  -$64,364,750  
2022  $5,873,614  -$16,547,498  -$37,952,349  -$72,073,149  
2023  $11,365,252  $4,383,958  -$7,936,117  -$37,131,636  
2024  $18,224,806  $11,554,580  -$500,385  -$28,882,404  
2025  $25,406,694  $19,057,623  $7,282,339  -$20,248,703  
2026  $32,503,643  $26,484,619  $15,002,001  -$11,644,714  
2027  $39,110,243  $33,428,552  $22,248,681  -$3,487,507  
2028  $45,184,133  $39,843,996  $28,965,229  $4,138,239  
2029  $50,395,447  $45,404,185  $34,836,944  $10,946,011  
2030  $54,881,895  $50,245,741  $39,998,196  $17,064,737  
2031  $58,676,822  $54,401,780  $44,480,564  $22,522,272  
2032  $61,781,657  $57,874,552  $48,291,596  $27,337,761  
2033  $64,576,482  $61,042,095  $51,801,808  $31,864,645  
2034  $66,933,087  $63,776,033  $54,881,859  $35,971,462  
2035  $67,268,058  $67,268,058  $67,268,058  $67,268,058  
2036  $63,710,906  $63,710,906  $63,710,906  $63,710,906  
2037  $58,927,294  $58,927,294  $58,927,294  $58,927,294  
2038  $53,298,079  $53,298,079  $53,298,079  $53,298,079  
2039  $47,863,785  $47,863,785  $47,863,785  $47,863,785  
2040  $42,418,840  $42,418,840  $42,418,840  $42,418,840  
2041  $37,390,051  $37,390,051  $37,390,051  $37,390,051  
2042  $33,066,643  $33,066,643  $33,066,643  $33,066,643  
2043  $29,247,506  $29,247,506  $29,247,506  $29,247,506  
2044  $26,433,787  $26,433,787  $26,433,787  $26,433,787  
2045  $23,488,027  $23,488,027  $23,488,027  $23,488,027  
2046  $21,056,695  $21,056,695  $21,056,695  $21,056,695  
2047  $19,019,066  $19,019,066  $19,019,066  $19,019,066  
2048  $16,735,304  $16,735,304  $16,735,304  $16,735,304  
2049  $14,651,398  $14,651,398  $14,651,398  $14,651,398  
2050  $12,684,412  $12,684,412  $12,684,412  $12,684,412  
2051  $11,306,055  $11,306,055  $11,306,055  $11,306,055  
2052  $10,038,525  $10,038,525  $10,038,525  $10,038,525  
2053  $8,929,766  $8,929,766  $8,929,766  $8,929,766  
2054  $7,798,627  $7,798,627  $7,798,627  $7,798,627  
2055  $6,826,030  $6,826,030  $6,826,030  $6,826,030  
2056  $5,993,439  $5,993,439  $5,993,439  $5,993,439  
2057  $5,131,323  $5,131,323  $5,131,323  $5,131,323  
2058  $4,266,986  $4,266,986  $4,266,986  $4,266,986  
2059  $3,530,302  $3,530,302  $3,530,302  $3,530,302  
2060  $2,867,461  $2,867,461  $2,867,461  $2,867,461  
2061  $2,288,488  $2,288,488  $2,288,488  $2,288,488  
2062  $1,732,114  $1,732,114  $1,732,114  $1,732,114  
2063  $1,319,345  $1,319,345  $1,319,345  $1,319,345  
2064  $995,587  $995,587  $995,587  $995,587  
NPV  $336,766,995  $265,942,398  $167,325,045  -$23,754,045  
BCR   4.75 1.99 0.93 
  Regulation Impact Statement   146 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 80: Benefits  – implementation of regulation ( medium scope) (2019 -2035) – Option 6b  
  Net Benefits  
Year  Gross Benefits  Best 
Case  Likely  
Case  Worst  
Case  
2019  - - - - 
2020  $412,144  -$6,356,205  -$16,440,229  -$29,723,078  
2021  $2,111,815  -$6,314,262  -$17,830,528  -$35,099,074  
2022  $5,346,744  -$4,762,343  -$17,752,966  -$39,110,921  
2023  $10,339,975  $7,040,075  -$2,076,181  -$22,218,901  
2024  $16,557,707  $13,441,961  $4,479,600  -$15,164,287  
2025  $23,057,486  $20,130,998  $11,332,755  -$7,787,109  
2026  $29,477,804  $26,745,064  $18,120,087  -$453,260  
2027  $35,424,569  $32,889,422  $24,444,788  $6,435,667  
2028  $40,894,979  $38,561,774  $30,295,940  $12,849,993  
2029  $45,570,021  $43,442,564  $35,362,886  $18,498,303  
2030  $49,595,722  $47,677,446  $39,789,649  $23,520,942  
2031  $53,010,249  $51,304,863  $43,613,576  $27,952,764  
2032  $55,809,140  $54,319,774  $46,833,709  $31,800,988  
2033  $58,371,258  $57,101,124  $49,823,320  $35,427,026  
2034  $60,569,443  $59,521,839  $52,454,585  $38,701,550  
2035  $60,895,810  $60,895,810  $60,895,810  $60,895,810  
2036  $57,605,134  $57,605,134  $57,605,134  $57,605,134  
2037  $53,203,021  $53,203,021  $53,203,021  $53,203,021  
2038  $47,955,971  $47,955,971  $47,955,971  $47,955,971  
2039  $42,941,119  $42,941,119  $42,941,119  $42,941,119  
2040  $37,913,080  $37,913,080  $37,913,080  $37,913,080  
2041  $33,299,273  $33,299,273  $33,299,273  $33,299,273  
2042  $29,330,570  $29,330,570  $29,330,570  $29,330,570  
2043  $25,815,882  $25,815,882  $25,815,882  $25,815,882  
2044  $23,298,261  $23,298,261  $23,298,261  $23,298,261  
2045  $20,627,730  $20,627,730  $20,627,730  $20,627,730  
2046  $18,411,672  $18,411,672  $18,411,672  $18,411,672  
2047  $16,552,423  $16,552,423  $16,552,423  $16,552,423  
2048  $14,463,600  $14,463,600  $14,463,600  $14,463,600  
2049  $12,570,222  $12,570,222  $12,570,222  $12,570,222  
2050  $10,789,705  $10,789,705  $10,789,705  $10,789,705  
2051  $9,573,183  $9,573,183  $9,573,183  $9,573,183  
2052  $8,478,923  $8,478,923  $8,478,923  $8,478,923  
2053  $7,512,593  $7,512,593  $7,512,593  $7,512,593  
2054  $6,556,456  $6,556,456  $6,556,456  $6,556,456  
2055  $5,741,488  $5,741,488  $5,741,488  $5,741,488  
2056  $5,039,405  $5,039,405  $5,039,405  $5,039,405  
2057  $4,312,321  $4,312,321  $4,312,321  $4,312,321  
2058  $3,574,984  $3,574,984  $3,574,984  $3,574,984  
2059  $2,978,815  $2,978,815  $2,978,815  $2,978,815  
2060  $2,426,160  $2,426,160  $2,426,160  $2,426,160  
2061  $1,933,959  $1,933,959  $1,933,959  $1,933,959  
2062  $1,448,401  $1,448,401  $1,448,401  $1,448,401  
2063  $1,103,890  $1,103,890  $1,103,890  $1,103,890  
2064  $832,165  $832,165  $832,165  $832,165  
NPV  $303,348,975  $272,890,428  $204,454,458  $75,054,473  
BCR   9.96 3.07 1.33 
  Regulation Impact Statement   147 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 81: Benefits  – implementation of regulation (narrow scope) (2019 -2035) – Option 6c  
  Net Benefits  
Year  Gross Benefits  Best 
Case  Likely  
Case  Worst  
Case  
2019  - - - - 
2020  $375,275  -$3,037,049  -$10,784,802  -$20,281,739  
2021  $1,909,991  -$2,241,861  -$10,618,430  -$21,828,520  
2022  $4,809,065  -$87,195  -$9,116,844  -$22,093,301  
2023  $9,293,629  $9,709,791  $3,845,088  -$7,100,380  
2024  $14,855,632  $15,326,686  $9,502,776  -$1,263,779  
2025  $20,657,304  $21,183,310  $15,406,001  $4,831,060  
2026  $26,384,112  $26,965,104  $21,239,642  $10,867,782  
2027  $31,653,914  $32,290,251  $26,620,664  $16,460,963  
2028  $36,504,611  $37,200,752  $31,585,596  $21,637,282  
2029  $40,628,481  $41,384,674  $35,828,190  $26,100,642  
2030  $44,180,274  $44,997,116  $39,502,547  $30,003,257  
2031  $47,203,157  $48,082,027  $42,651,965  $33,387,188  
2032  $49,686,782  $50,627,077  $45,266,966  $36,247,656  
2033  $52,008,548  $53,011,888  $47,723,373  $38,953,925  
2034  $54,042,580  $55,110,922  $49,895,119  $41,379,048  
2035  $54,358,453  $54,358,453  $54,358,453  $54,358,453  
2036  $51,340,222  $51,340,222  $51,340,222  $51,340,222  
2037  $47,330,479  $47,330,479  $47,330,479  $47,330,479  
2038  $42,475,697  $42,475,697  $42,475,697  $42,475,697  
2039  $37,892,681  $37,892,681  $37,892,681  $37,892,681  
2040  $33,294,715  $33,294,715  $33,294,715  $33,294,715  
2041  $29,109,865  $29,109,865  $29,109,865  $29,109,865  
2042  $25,507,236  $25,507,236  $25,507,236  $25,507,236  
2043  $22,306,200  $22,306,200  $22,306,200  $22,306,200  
2044  $20,093,072  $20,093,072  $20,093,072  $20,093,072  
2045  $17,705,998  $17,705,998  $17,705,998  $17,705,998  
2046  $15,711,240  $15,711,240  $15,711,240  $15,711,240  
2047  $14,034,088  $14,034,088  $14,034,088  $14,034,088  
2048  $12,144,600  $12,144,600  $12,144,600  $12,144,600  
2049  $10,445,001  $10,445,001  $10,445,001  $10,445,001  
2050  $8,855,549  $8,855,549  $8,855,549  $8,855,549  
2051  $7,804,438  $7,804,438  $7,804,438  $7,804,438  
2052  $6,886,980  $6,886,980  $6,886,980  $6,886,980  
2053  $6,065,561  $6,065,561  $6,065,561  $6,065,561  
2054  $5,288,206  $5,288,206  $5,288,206  $5,288,206  
2055  $4,633,977  $4,633,977  $4,633,977  $4,633,977  
2056  $4,064,925  $4,064,925  $4,064,925  $4,064,925  
2057  $3,475,776  $3,475,776  $3,475,776  $3,475,776  
2058  $2,867,682  $2,867,682  $2,867,682  $2,867,682  
2059  $2,414,879  $2,414,879  $2,414,879  $2,414,879  
2060  $1,974,378  $1,974,378  $1,974,378  $1,974,378  
2061  $1,571,029  $1,571,029  $1,571,029  $1,571,029  
2062  $1,157,821  $1,157,821  $1,157,821  $1,157,821  
2063  $883,274  $883,274  $883,274  $883,274  
2064  $664,960  $664,960  $664,960  $664,960  
NPV  $269,128,136  $263,929,636  $216,310,336  $139,745,579  
BCR   51.77  5.10 2.08 
 Regulation Impact Statement   148 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Summary  
Table 82: Summary of benefits, costs, lives saved and serious injuries  avoided under each option  
 Net Benefits 
($m) Cost to 
Business  
($m)  Cost to 
Govern ment 
($m)  Benefit -Cost 
Ratio  Number of 
Lives Saved  Serious 
Injuries  
Avoided  
Option 2a 
Best case  - - - -   
Likely case  69 43 2.4 2.51 41 432 
Worst case  - - - -   
Option 2b 
Best case  - - - -   
Likely case  -52 5.0 64 0.24 9 92 
Worst case  - - - -   
Option 6a  
Best case  266 70 0.7 4.75   
Likely case  167 169 0.7 1.99 148 1496  
Worst case -24 360 0.7 0.93   
Option 6b  
Best case  273 30 0.7 9.96   
Likely case  204 98 0.7 3.07 136 1292  
Worst case  75 228 0.7 1.33   
Option 6c  
Best case  264 4.5 0.7 51.8   
Likely case  216 52 0.7 5.10 124 1084  
Worst case  140 129 0.7 2.08   
 Regulation Impact Statement   149 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 14  — BENEFIT -COST ANALYSI S — SENSITIVITIES  
The following sensitivities were tested for the recommended option, Option 6 c: regulation 
(narrow  scope).  
a) Base case  
Table 83 Basic output  (discount rate of 7 per cent)  
b) Changes to discount rate  
Table 84 Discount rate of 3 per cent  
Table 85 Discount rate of 10 per cent  
 
   
Net Benefit  Cost to 
Business  Cost to 
Government  Benefit -Cost 
Ratio  Number 
of Lives 
Saved  Serious 
Injuries 
Avoided  
Best case  $264 m $4.5 m $0.7 m 51.8   
Likely case  $216 m $52 m $0.7 m 5.10 124 1084  
Worst case  $140 m $129 m $0.7 m 2.08   
 
Net Benefit  Cost to  
Business  Cost to 
Government  Benefit -Cost 
Ratio  Number 
of Lives 
Saved  Serious 
Injuries 
Avoided  
Best case  $520 m $3.7 m $1.1 m 109.8    
Likely case  $452 m $72 m $1.1 m 7.19 124 1084  
Worst case  $341 m $183 m $1.1 m 2.85   
 
Net Benefit  Cost to 
Business  Cost to 
Government  Benefit -Cost 
Ratio  Number 
of Lives 
Saved  Serious 
Injuries 
Avoided  
Best case  $167 m $4.5 m $0.6 m 33.7   
Likely case  $130  m $42 m $0.6 m 4.06 124 1084  
Worst case  $70 m $101 m $0.6 m 1.69   Regulation Impact Statement   150 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  c) Changes to effectiveness  
Table 86 Low effectiveness  
Table 87 High effectiveness  
d) Changes to business as usual fitment  rate 
Table 88 Low BAU fitment  
Table 89 High BAU fitment  
 
                                                 
6 Benefit -Cost ratio not applicable due to no net costs (i.e. savings are greater than costs).   
Net Benefit  Cost to 
Business  Cost to 
Government  Benefit -Cost 
Ratio  Number 
of Lives 
Saved  Serious 
Injuries 
Avoided  
Best case  $117 m $4.5 m $0.7 m  23.5   
Likely case $69 m  $52 m  $0.7 m  2.31 57 497 
Worst case  -$7.4 m $129 m $0.7 m  0.94   
 
Net Benefit  Cost to 
Business  Cost to 
Government  Benefit -Cost 
Ratio  Number 
of Lives 
Saved  Serious 
Injuries 
Avoided  
Best case  $388  m $4.5 m $0.7 m  75.7   
Likely case  $341 m $52 m $0.7 m  7.45 181 1585  
Worst case  $264  m $129 m $0.7 m  3.04   
 
Net Benefit  Cost to 
Business  Cost to 
Government  Benefit -Cost 
Ratio  Number 
of Lives 
Saved  Serious 
Injuries 
Avoided  
Best case  $309 m $8 m $0.7 m  36.3   
Likely case  $258 m $58 m $0.7 m  5.36 150 1304  
Worst case  $174 m $143 m $0.7 m  2.21   
 
Net Benefit  Cost to 
Business  Cost to 
Government  Benefit -Cost 
Ratio  Number 
of Lives 
Saved  Serious 
Injuries 
Avoided  
Best case  $184 m -$1.4 m $0.7 m  n/a6   
Likely case  $141 m $41 m $0.7 m  4.38 84 731 
Worst case  $79 m $103 m $0.7 m  1.76   Regulation Impact Statement   151 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 15  — NHVBS OPERATOR/MAI NTENANCE SURVEY JUNE  2015  
Summary  
 
An online and face -to-face survey was conducted in May/June 2015 with Australian heavy vehicle (Gross 
Vehicle Mass (GVM) and Aggregate Trailer Mass (ATM) of greater than 4.5 tonnes) operators and maintenance 
facilities, regarding the use and performance of advanced braking systems.  
The survey covered a broad cross -section of the operator industry, including those driving exclusively in 
remote areas, exclusively in regional/city areas, or some combination of these.  There was a variety of goods 
being carried, and road conditions encountered.  
Advanced braking systems were believed to be good on winding roads and/or high speed conditions as well as 
slippery conditions.  They were thought to be less effective on unsealed roads and there was some concern 
about the effect on these systems on other sys tems such as traction control.   
The main reason for purchase was to improve safety. Other considerations were it being standard fitment on a 
vehicle, to reduce tyre wear, improve resale value and to be a good corporate citizen.  
Regarding maintenance and r eliability, issues are clearly centred around trailers rather than trucks, where 
there are few problems occurring.  There may be scope for system suppliers to work with the industry to 
develop trailer installation guidelines. Regarding breakdowns, the more  sensitive components are 
sensors/sensor rings, wiring and plugs.  The frequency of failure however varies widely for operators.  
Overall, operators recognised that there are added costs in running and maintaining advanced braking 
systems, but that these ar e outweighed by the prevention of rollovers and other crashes.  
Regarding compatibility, there was less of an issue raised with this than expected. Solutions were being found 
in making adjustments to the systems.  With the industry developing a code of prac tice, information should 
also soon be available to operators on using different brake technologies in multi -vehicle combinations.  
Advanced braking systems offer the possibility of new ways of driver training, which are being used to various 
degrees by oper ators.  Operators indicated that driver attitude towards them would often change after 
avoiding a crash through the activation of a stability system.  
 
  Regulation Impact Statement   152 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Introduction  
 
This report is a summary of an online and face -to-face survey conducted in May/June 2015  with Australian 
heavy vehicle (Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) and Aggregate Trailer Mass (ATM) of greater than 4.5 tonnes) 
operators and maintenance facilities, regarding the use and performance of advanced braking systems.  
Under the National Road Safety Strate gy 2011 -2020 , the National Road Safety Action Plan 2015 -2017  and the  
National Heavy Vehicle Braking Strategy Phase II  (NHVBS II), the Department of Infrastructure and Regional 
Development (the Department) is considering the case for adopting the braking te chnology Electronic Stability 
Control (ESC) for new heavy vehicles1.  
Following the mandating of Antilock System (ABS)/ Variable Proportioning Brake System through the 
Australian Design Rules (ADRs) under the NHVBS I, the Department undertook to survey ind ustry regarding the 
advantages and disadvantages, including reliability, of using other advanced braking systems, to support the 
development of a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) under the NHVBS II.  
The initial online survey targeted operators and maintai ners Australia wide in conjunction with the peak 
industry bodies, the ALRTA2,  ARTSA3, ATA4, CVIAA/HVIA5 and TIC6 via an industry reference group. The 
Department received over 70 responses and from this process and a shorter but more direct face -to-face 
survey was then designed. Interested operators/maintainers were then sought both from the initial survey, as 
well as through further consultation with the peak industry bodies.  
Due to a variety of braking systems being considered and utilised, ranging from conventional brakes, through 
to ABS, ESC and Roll Stability Control (RSC) using EBS or TEBS, this report identifies all of these systems under 
the generic term advanced braking systems. There are further differences in functional ability within logic 
contr olled systems such as ESC as well as a variety of different proprietary names, so some assumptions have 
been made in grouping of the systems into similar types.  
Section 1 of this report outlines the nature of each operation in terms of types of haulage, ro ads, areas of 
operation, and operating conditions. This shows the diversity of operations for the 22 businesses that were 
interviewed.  
Section 2 summarises the responses to the questions asked regarding advanced braking systems. In doing so it 
captures th e experience of those that have implemented advanced braking systems (or have chosen not to) 
and any impacts, positive or negative, it has had on their operations.  
                                                 
1 National Road Safety Actio n Plan 2015 -2017 Pg. 5 Action 8 
http://transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/publications/files/National_Road_Safety_Action_Plan_ 2015 -2017.pdf  
2 Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association   
3 Australian Road Transport Suppliers Association Inc.  
4 Australian Trucking Association  
5 Commercial Vehicle Industry Association of Australia . Now also the Heavy Vehicle Industry Au stralia.  
6 Truck Industry Council  Regulation Impact Statement   153 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  While this report will form part of the RIS for considering the case for adopting ESC for ne w heavy vehicles 
under the ADRs, it is also useful for industry and government alike to inform about the penetration of 
advanced braking systems into the Australian fleet.  This is already happening outside of regulation, with 
industry adapting to the new technology in terms of running it alongside or along with older technology.  
However, it is important to note that the survey does not replace the normal regulatory consultation process, 
which will include public distribution of the draft RIS for feedback, prior to the relevant Minister being asked  
to make any decision.  
  Regulation Impact Statement   154 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  1. Diversity of Operations  
 
Interviews with heavy vehicle operators around Australia were conducted over a period of two months (May 
and June 2015), at the operators’ premises.  In total there were 22 companies interviewed, following on from 
the 70 respondents of the initial online s urvey.  
The candidates for interview were gathered in conjunction with the various peak industry bodies.  There was 
an initial prospective list of 25 operators.  As allowed for by the spread of locations and the time and travel 
logistics involved, 22 of th ese were able to be interviewed.  
The map below shows the operator locations for the interviews: 5 in Queensland, 7 in New South Wales, 4 in 
Victoria, 4 in Western Australia and 2 in the Northern Territory.  A mixture of different operating sectors, 
remote ness and fleet size was sought to try and capture the nature and diversity of operations across the 
country, including with regard to the area of operation.  For example, one operator uses a route between 
Darwin and Townsville and another operates through the areas around the Goldfields and Port Hedland in 
Western Australia.  
 
 
Figure 1: Locations of operators interviewed  
Regulation Impact Statement   155 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development   
1.1.  Operator and fleet details  
Details for those interviewed are shown in the table below.  This includes the number of different types  of 
heavy vehicles currently held in the operators’ fleets.  
Operator  Rigid Trucks  Prime Movers  Trailers  Converter 
Dollies  
A 1 46 68  
B 8 12 48 6 
C 3 12 22 3 
D 4 21 30 0 
E* 17 85 238 7 
F  18 29 8 
G 20 40 220 80 
H      
I 50 100 330 6 
J     
K  350 700 2 
L  7 42 9 
M 55 90 230 10 
N  9 25 14 
O 6 184 721 366 
P 7  76  
Q 1 6 19  
R 115 90 200 12 
S 3 81 252 6 
T  30 70 8 
U 7 91 115 2 
V 7 150 163  
Total  342 1541  3919  677 
         *Includes other depots except those of F  
Figure 2 below shows the combined distribution of these vehicles in this sector. The vehicles surveyed fall 
under the ADR NB2, NC, some TC and all TD categories of vehicles7  
  
                                                 
7 These align with vehicle categories that have already been required to have ESC and/or RSC by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe  
(UNECE) and the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  (NHTSA)).  Regulation Impact Statement   156 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Of the total number of vehicles identified, there were:  
 342 rigid trucks, 151 fitted wi th advanced braking systems.  
 1,541 prime movers, 575 fitted with advanced braking systems.  
 3,919 trailers, 1,080 fitted with advanced braking systems.  
Also there were:  
 395 trailers fitted with load proportioning valves.  
 883 trailers fitted with conventional braking systems.  
Not all operators were able to provide the fitment numbers for advanced braking systems within their fleets.  
 
Figure 2: Distribution of vehicles  
 
  
Regulation Impact Statement   157 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  1.2.  Nature of operations  
 
Most operators carried a variety of goods, while only a few had specialised operations (such as gas or logging).  
 
 
 
Operator  
Local 
Delivery  
Intrastate  
 
Interstate  
Notes  
A    60% Wollongong / Newcastle /Sydney, 20% NSW country, 20% other.  
B     
C     
D      
E    East seaboard. Majority of work out of Oakey is livestock.  
F     
G    Mostly within 400km radius of Perth.  
H    Specialising in remote delivery - community, mine sites.  
I     
J      
K     
L     
M     
N     
O    Usually within 100km of Port Headland within 100km of Kalgoorlie.  
P    All local Perth areas.  
Q    Wood planation around north west Melbourne.  
R     
S     
T     
U     
V     Regulation Impact Statement   158 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Table 1 below provides a breakdown of the level of remoteness of the areas worked in. This was done using 
the remoteness map of Australia8 as developed by the Australian Government Department of Health.  This in 
turn is based on The Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) Remoteness Structur e9. 
Table 1: Operational area by remoteness level  
Operator  Very 
Remote  
(%) Remote  
(%) Outer 
Regional  
(%) Inner 
Regional  
(%) Major 
Cities  
(%) Sealed 
Roads  
(%) Unsealed 
Roads  
(%) City 
/Town  State  
A   
10 30 60 98 2 Unanderra  NSW  
B  
10 45 35 10 90 10 Dubbo  NSW  
C 50 10 10 15 15 70 30 Dubbo  NSW  
D 5 10 55 20 10 95 5 Grafton  NSW  
E  
25 60 10 5 80 20 Oakey  QLD  
F  
20 50 30  
90 10 Rockhampton  QLD  
G  
10 35 40 15 70 30 Hope Valley  WA 
H      
60 40 Berrimah  NT 
I  
5 15 60 20 98 2 Sunshine  VIC 
J  
20 40 30 10 90 10 Karawatha  QLD  
K   
100   
80 20 Port of Brisbane  QLD  
L 5 95    
95 5 Berrimah  NT 
M 5 5 5 70 15 98 2 Carole Park  QLD  
N 20 40 40   
80 20 Narngulu  WA 
O 85 15    
90 10 West Perth  WA 
P    
1 99 100  Perth Int. 
Airport  WA 
Q   
20 80  
50 50 Heaslville  VIC 
R 15 25 30 20 10 95 5 North Ryde  NSW  
S 5 5 40 10 40 95 5 Camberwell  VIC 
T 10 10 40 25 15 80 20 Beringan  NSW  
U   
15 70 15 97 3 Bacchus Marsh  VIC 
V      
95 5 Girraween  NSW  
 
The data shows the variety of operating environments covered by the survey, with a mix of operators driving 
exclusively in remote areas, exclusively in regional/city areas, or some combination of these.  Importantly, it 
also indicates that for those drivin g on unsealed roads, they do so for only part of their operations.   
Of those operators that had vehicles driving on sealed roads, a few indicated that these can be poorly sealed 
secondary roads.  Some of these roads have one middle bitumen lane, so the le ft-hand -side of the vehicle 
predominantly runs on the unsealed portion.   
Table 2 below gives further details of the operating conditions regarding loading, traffic, road configurations 
and weather.   
                                                 
8 ASGC Remoteness Areas http://www.doctorconnect.gov.au/internet/otd/Publishing.nsf/Content/locator  
9 The Australian Standard Geographical Classification  (ASGC) Remoteness Structure 
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure#Anchor2  Regulation Impact Statement   159 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development   
Table 2: Types of operating conditions  
Operator  Loading  Traffic 
conditions  Road surface  Road configuration  Weather conditions  Includes 
Travelling Empty  
Local Traffic  
Heavy Traffic  
High Speed  
Secondary Roads  
Highway 
Conditions  
Flat Roads  
Hilly Roads  
Winding -Flat 
Roads  
Winding -Hilly 
Roads  
Ice/Snow 
Conditions Roads  
Slippery 
Conditions  
Wet Conditions  
A 
B 
C 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 
J 
K 
L 
M 
N 
O 
P 
Q 
R 
S 
T 
U 
V 
Total  15 10 11 12 14 10 8 15 12 13 8 12 16 
 
The feedback in this case again shows the variety of conditions encountered and includes travelling empty, 
both high speed highway and winding, hilly roads as well as ice/snow and other slippery /wet conditions.  
2. Advanced Braking Systems in Heavy Vehicle Operations  
 
This section gives a summary of feedback around the use of advanced braking systems in operators’ fleets. The 
questions focused on driver feedback, system reliability and any associated additional maintenance, as well as 
general views on advanced braking systems.  
  Regulation Impact Statement   160 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  2.1.  Effectiveness in various conditions  
The most common views were that advanced systems were particularly effective on roads other than straight 
flat roads (that i s; hilly roads, winding roads, undulations, change in camber, sweeping bends, downhill or 
combinations of these) and that it was not as effective off -road or on unsealed roads.  
Others mentioned a benefit when travelling at high speed and when empty. It wa s recognised that there was 
improved control in slippery conditions, although this was regarding stability rather than quicker stopping. A 
specific benefit was suggested where hanging carcasses are being transported, due to the perceived 
advantage of EBS/E SC in dealing with swinging loads. A minority indicated they did not fit ESC as they believed 
that it was not effective on unsealed roads.  A specific comment around the use of ESC on unsealed roads cited 
the inappropriate activation of traction control (a s traction control shares some of the same components as 
advanced braking systems, there are some systems that have both traction control and EBS/ESC combined in 
the same package).  
Overall, advanced systems were believed to be good on winding roads and/or high speed conditions as well as 
slippery conditions.  They were thought to be less effective on unsealed roads and there was some concern 
about the effect on these systems on other systems such as traction control.  
2.2.  Reasons for purchasing  
73 % of operators purchased advanced braking systems as they believed it improved safety. 41% indicated it 
was due to a regulatory requirement (for instance, requirements for carrying dangerous goods) 9% to trial 
their use, 5%  to lower the costs of tyre wear and 5%  because it was standard equipment with the vehicle they 
were purchasing.  Other reasons included contract requirements, wanting to be a good corporate citizen, and 
improved resale value.  
Overall, advanced braking systems were purchased for a number of reasons, most notably to improve safety.  
2.3 Driver training  
45% of operators provide some form of training on the advanced braking systems utilized in their fleet. Some 
instead provide information (pamphlets and other documents) while others do plan to st art training. Level of 
training varies widely from basic knowledge of connections and warning lights to more knowledge of the 
system activation and safety implications (e.g. driving too close to the limit). Some use the data from the 
braking systems to cou nsel on driving behaviour.  Others use live monitoring to counsel when an activation 
event occurs, while the incidence is still fresh in the driver’s mind.  
Advanced braking systems offer the possibility of new ways of training, from providing a basic knowl edge of 
their operation to live monitoring and continuous feedback of driver and vehicle performance.  The full range 
of training is being used by operators, to various degrees.  
  Regulation Impact Statement   161 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  2.4.  Crash avoidance  
Most operators felt that advanced braking systems have prevented crashes occurring, but were often unable 
to give specific details.  In many cases drivers were not coming forward with near -miss reports voluntarily, or 
were unaware of the automatic activations of braking systems at the time.  Some operators use  the historical 
data from braking systems to look for activations.  In some organisations this data is then used to track drivers’ 
performance and train and/or caution them.  
Due to variations in road surfaces and construction, it was reported that trailers  at the rear of longer 
combinations are on occasion becoming unsettled.  One operator noted that they used to receive calls from 
concerned public complaining of swinging or swerving trailers on road trains, but this has stopped since fitting 
TEBS.  
Another  operator cited an example of a driver that had to make an emergency stop in a road train. The driver, 
who was initially sceptical of advanced braking systems, was surprised that he was able to pull up straight on 
the road, without flat -spotting any wheels , and without tipping a trailer.  He felt that this would not have been 
possible with conventional brakes .  
In another example, an operator with a truck carrying a hanging load of carcasses struck a trailer that had 
rolled in front of him. His vehicle con tinued on.  After checking the EBS diagnostics he found that it had been 
activated and attributed this to his truck remaining upright – he believes it would have rolled otherwise as 
well.  
In a final example, an operator had a road train fully equipped wit h EBS that was pushed off the road shoulder 
into bushland.  The operator believed that if it had not been for the EBS, at least one of the trailers would have 
rolled.  In this case no trailer rolled.  
It is clear that advanced braking systems can and do pre vent crashes, with an added benefit that system 
activations can help with training and prevention of incidents occurring.  Concrete examples are available that 
show the ability for these systems to take -over in an emergency situation, with good results.  
2.5. Breakdowns, maintenance and system/component reliability  
The general consensus across operators was that trucks and prime movers have few issues with the operation 
and reliability of advanced braking systems.  This was thought to because where trucks an d prime movers are 
fitted with these systems, they have been fully designed into the vehicle.  
The focus of the reliability issues was with trailers, where the systems are more of an add -on product.  In this 
respect , the majority of operators  reported a n eed to do a pre -operation check of trailers when new, to fix 
wiring and sensor issues such as hanging wires susceptible to debris strikes; sections of wire that need stress 
relief to prevent fatigue failures; improperly mounted sensors.  
The majority of br eakdowns specific to advanced braking systems were around wiring and speed sensors/pole 
rings. ABS/EBS plugs were considered somewhat susceptible to corrosion of the pins and to case damage.  Regulation Impact Statement   162 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Some operators noted the benefits of the electronics in advanced  systems being able to provide a diagnostic 
feature.  This enables them to more readily pick up any issues with a braking system as compared to 
conventional brakes.  
When wiring or wheel/speed sensor damage does occur in operation, it is often due to debri s strikes such as 
those by rocks and animals. Corrugations can also cause damage to wiring and sensors through vibration.  
One operator in forestry work has had an issue on some trailers where the heat from the disc brake heated 
the debris cover plate, whi ch then funnelled heat along the axle and caused the wheel sensor wiring to melt 
through. He uses factory genuine heat shields to protect the sensors but has not had much success in 
preventing the issue.  
Another issue with EBS plugs relates to their depth for plugging in. In rural areas, where the combination stays 
together over long periods, a build -up of dirt can occur making it difficult to separate the connection. Drivers 
often then try to pry the plugs apart and in doing so damage them.  
The following f igure indicates which components of braking systems needed the most maintenance.  
 
Figure 3: Components requiring the most maintenance  
36% of respondents indicated that they had policies to fix ESC/ABS faults immediately or before the truck 
leaves the yard.  
The rate of component failure or issues with advanced braking systems requiring repair before scheduled 
services varied greatly between respondents. Some had several issues per month while others have only had a 
few issues over years of operating. Th e sample size was too small to reliably determine a cause, especially 
given the range of variables including trailer design, operating conditions and maintenance decisions.  
Regulation Impact Statement   163 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Looking at the components most likely to need replacement, wheel sensors and EBS pl ugs, wheel sensor costs 
(including labour for replacement) is around $200 -$300, while an EBS plug is at least $35 (this can vary widely 
depending on what brand and casing is specified).  Some operators keep stock of sensors and wiring due to 
their remote l ocation (resulting in high lead times on parts).  
Regarding maintenance resources, over half of the respondents indicated that they used a mix of in -house and 
dealer or third party maintenance, a third conducted all maintenance in -house, and the remainder used a 
dealer or third party exclusively. One of those that used a third part exclusively had the maintenance 
conducted onsite by repair staff contracted from a local dealer. Most of those that used a combination of 
maintenance methods used the third party  or dealer for parts where they did not have the expertise or tools 
to conduct the maintenance. One example of this was a valve unit that needed reprograming by a dealer.  
It was also generally reported that there is extra time needed to download data for d iagnostics from the 
braking systems (up to 30 minutes).  Diagnostic software can have a large upfront cost and high monthly costs 
(one operator claimed $200 per month).  Pole rings can get clogged and need cleaning10.  Most operators 
indicated the need for an extra 30 to 60 minutes for scheduled maintenance time per vehicle to check and 
maintain components.  
Overall, operators recognised that there are added costs in running and maintaining advanced braking 
systems.  However, they accept this as they believe that they have been saved from larger costs in the 
prevention of rollovers and other crashes.  
Issues of reliability and maintenance are clearly centred on trailers rather than trucks. It is clear that the added 
complexity of advanced braking systems leads in some instances to an increased risk of breakdown in 
operation for trailers and in general a need for additional maintenance requirements (and more complex work 
that results in a need to contract out to a third party).  The more sensitive components are sensors/sensor 
rings, wiring and plugs.  The frequency of failure however varies widely for operators.   
A consistent finding was that a lot of potential for failure appears to come from the original build of the trailers 
with regards to how the braking sy stems are installed.  There may be scope for system suppliers to work with 
the industry to develop installation guidelines that could reduce some of these issues.  
The final conclusion, as reported by those operators using advanced brake systems, is also cl ear: that the 
added cost is worth it when put against the savings in preventing rollovers and other crashes.  
2.6.  Brake performance  
There was little feedback on the question of whether advanced braking systems generally improve brake 
performance over conventional systems  
 One operator reported perception issues with a basic EBS system on new prime movers from a particular 
brand, with the drivers feeling like the systems wouldn’t be able to control the combination well in an 
                                                 
10 One successful solution an operator has impl emented is to use silicone to fill gaps in pole rings to prevent iron -rich soil from clogging them up.  Regulation Impact Statement   164 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  emergency braking situation.   One operator questioned the availability of quality brake parts. They had 
difficulty trying to find genuine spares and were offered replacements that they felt would not be as durable.  
Overall, operators were fairly neutral on this aspect of advanced br aking systems.  
2.7.  Brake and tyre wear  
Some operators commented that brake and tyre wear appears to have improved with EBS/ESC. Conversely 
one operator reported higher wear on truck brakes. Similar comments were made by a number of operators 
regarding bot h trucks and trailers and with a wide range of positive and negative experiences.  Regarding tyre 
wear specifically, while one operator strongly agreed that tyres do not wear as quickly (in that they have 
noticed less flat spots), another felt that it was too hard to tell either way.  
It was apparent that different operators have had different experiences with brake and tyre wear. While 
driving style could play a part in this, system design and settings would also affect it, as would the basic brake 
configur ation that the systems were fitted to.  
2.8.  Automatic slack adjusters  
There were some issues with automatic slack adjusters reported. Some were being converted back to manual 
slack adjusters, including where in combination with ESC systems. In some instan ces auto slack adjusters have 
not been working, leading to uneven braking performance within combinations. Dirt build up was thought to 
be the main reason for this in these cases.  
One operator outlined an incident where auto slack adjusters locked up, cau sing extremely hot wheels. The 
driver tried to manually unlock them but was not able to. This same operator felt that service personnel pay 
less attention than they should to the brakes when auto slack adjusters are fitted.  
Converting back to manual slack adjusters increases the probability for brakes to be out of adjustment. A study 
by the National Research Council of Canada, Assessment of the Effect of Automatic Slack Adjusters , found 
manual slack adjusters were put out -of-service at a rate 150 per cent h igher than their population in the 
Ontario fleet11. 
While there were some incidences of problems with slack adjusters, overall they appeared to be working 
acceptably in the broader fleet.  
2.9.  Different combinations of brake technologies  
Where there was a c oncern about combining technologies it was mainly related to the compatibility of 
different EBS/ESC systems. Two operators reported issues with different brands of systems. Regarding 
different braking technologies, one operator had issues with conventional ly braked trailers behind EBS/ESC 
equipped trucks with disc brakes, with the prime mover doing more work when braking. Alternatively, another 
                                                 
11Assessment of the Effect of Automatic Slack Adjusters on Brake Adjustment  https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/roadsafety/tp14214es.pdf  Regulation Impact Statement   165 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  operator using EBS trailers behind conventionally braked prime movers reported that the trailer brakes were 
wearin g out quicker. One operator felt the issue with combinations was the difference in the delay of the 
brake signal (i.e. an EBS prime mover braking by wire and then relaying the signal over air to a conventionally 
braked trailer). Some operators avoided mism atching technologies in combinations to avoid any potential 
problems.  
However, 27% say they have had no issues, with one saying they are no worse off than conventional brakes 
and another saying that there is smoother braking even when using mismatched tec hnologies (when 
compared to solely conventional brakes). One of these operators initially did have problems but was able to 
readjust the conventional brakes to behave well in conjunction with an EBS equipped vehicle. Another 
operator felt there were no iss ues within their fleet in mixing disc brakes on prime movers with drum brakes 
on trailers, or vice -versa.  
There were different experiences with compatibility but for some, solutions were found in making adjustments 
to the systems involved.  In this respec t, the heavy vehicle industry is known to be developing a code of 
practice (advisory) that recognises the increased variety of braking systems available in the fleet and offers 
guidance on the best way to combine separate units together to optimise braking  performance (i.e. advice for 
drivers/operators).  This material will supplement other advisory material by the industry that gives guidance 
on setting up individual systems in (i.e. advice for designers/maintainers).  
2.10.  Load Proportioning (LP) systems  
There was little comment on the use of LP systems, other than when laden.  Trailers equipped with this 
feature appeared to perform worse than a conventional system when laden, possibly due to an increase in 
activation timing due to the extra valving. One o perator confirmed this in his case by temporarily by -passing 
the valve for test purposes.  
While this may be the case when laden, LP systems are primarily fitted to facilitate balanced braking when the 
combination is empty.  
2.11.  Traction control  
A small number of issues were reported whereby traction control seems to interact with EBS/ESC systems to 
temporarily de -rate the engine.  This is where the system detects wheel -slip when one set of wheels on one 
side of the vehicle is on the softer roadside verge , or otherwise when the vehicle is in slippery conditions.  
Although this is primarily a traction control issue, it can appear to be related to EBS/ESC due to the shared 
componentry and where there is a shared on/off control for both systems.  
  Regulation Impact Statement   166 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  3. Conclusions and recommendations  
3.1.  Conclusion  
The Operator Maintenance/Survey aimed to explore the advantages and disadvantages, as well as aspects 
such as reliability, of advanced braking systems (ABS, ESC or Roll Stability Control (RSC) using EBS or TE BS) in 
Australia. It employed a range of questions in a written survey, followed by face -to-face interviews.  
The survey covered a broad cross -section of the operator industry, including those driving exclusively in 
remote areas, exclusively in regional/cit y areas, or some combination of these.  There was a variety of goods 
being carried, and road conditions encountered.  This included short and long distances, travelling empty or 
full, high speed highway and winding, hilly roads, as well as ice/snow and oth er slippery/wet conditions.  
Advanced systems were believed to be good on winding roads and/or high speed conditions as well as slippery 
conditions.  Concrete examples are available that show the ability for these systems to take -over in an 
emergency situat ion, with good results.  They were thought to be less effective on unsealed roads and there 
was some concern about the effect of these systems on other systems such as traction control.  Where not 
required by regulation, the main reason for purchase was to  improve safety. Other considerations were it 
being standard fitment on a vehicle, to reduce tyre wear, improve resale value and to be a good corporate 
citizen.  
Advanced braking systems offer the possibility of new ways of training, from providing a basic knowledge of 
their operation to live monitoring and continuous feedback of driver and vehicle performance.  The full range 
of training is being used by operators, to various degrees.  
Regarding maintenance and reliability, issues are clearly centred around trailers rather than trucks, where 
there are few issues occurring. In addition, a lot of potential for failure appears to come from the original build 
of the trailers with regards to how the braking systems are installed.  There may be scope for system sup pliers 
to work with the industry to develop installation guidelines that could reduce some of these issues.  
It is clear that the added complexity of advanced braking systems leads in some instances to an increased risk 
of breakdown in operation for trailer s and in general a need for additional maintenance requirements (and 
more complex work that results in a need to contract out to a third party).  The more sensitive components 
are sensors/sensor rings, wiring and plugs.  The frequency of failure however va ries widely for operators.  
Overall, operators recognised that there are added costs in running and maintaining advanced braking 
systems.  However, they accept this as they believe that they have been saved from larger costs in the 
prevention of rollovers a nd other crashes.  
Regarding compatibility, there was less of an issue raised with this than expected and has been anecdotally 
reported in other forums. Solutions were being found in making adjustments to the systems involved.  In this 
respect, the heavy ve hicle industry is known to be developing a code of practice (advisory) that recognises the 
increased variety of braking systems available in the fleet and offers guidance on the best way to combine 
separate units together to optimise braking performance (i .e. advice for drivers/operators).  This material will Regulation Impact Statement   167 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  supplement other advisory material by the industry that gives guidance on setting up individual systems (i.e. 
advice for designers/maintainers).  
3.2.  Recommendations  
Subsequent to the conclusions to th is survey, the following are considerations for both the development of a 
RIS in line with NHVBS II and general feedback for the heavy vehicle industry.  
For the RIS, one key concern was the compatibility of varying levels of brake technologies in combinati ons of 
vehicles. The feedback from this survey indicated that this is less of an issue than previously thought and along 
with the industry developed code of practice, sufficient information should also be available to operators on 
using various brake techn ologies in combination. Operators should be aware that they may need to make 
adjustments to their braking systems to gain optimal performance for their vehicle combinations, and that 
conventionally braked vehicles may need to be adjusted to work in combina tion with newer brake 
technologies.  
Although not directly brought up in this survey, some of the issues of compatibility could be due to the 
difference in voltages and standards used in CAN bus communication. Due to both an ISO and SAE standard for 
CAN bus  communication, a previous ADR revision requiring 12 volt ABS power, and the availability of both 12 
and 24 volt systems in Australia, future revisions of the ADRs could be used to clarify some of the technical 
details and requirements.  
Of consideration to  industry, and directly related to advanced braking systems, driver understanding of how 
and why the system activates is a key component in gaining acceptance of these systems throughout the 
industry. From the responses given, operators indicated that driv er attitude towards advanced braking 
systems would often change after avoiding a crash through the activation of a stability system. When drivers 
understand why the system activates, they change their driving style to be more sympathetic towards the 
system  and inherently become safer drivers. Whether through mandating ESC or the gradual uptake of 
technology by industry, driver education for the systems they are using is an important consideration that 
industry should keep actively developing and implementin g. 
There are some concerns from operators around the durability and installation of components used in 
advanced braking systems. Some of these might be alleviated through an industry guide to wiring, specifically 
installation to avoid being damaged from bo th strikes and areas where fatigue failures can occur. Beyond this, 
component manufacturers should look carefully at the design of components such as wheel sensors and plugs 
to ensure that they can best meet the working environment of Australia.  
It is evid ent that automatic slack adjusters are a concern for some operators. While the ADRs require 
automatic slack adjusters for ABS equipped vehicles, some operators replace these with manual slack 
adjusters due to operational conditions. Although this is contra ry to the intended effect of mandating 
automatic slack adjusters, and the overall improvement in safety it provides, a well maintained manual slack 
adjuster will be more effective than an automatic type in areas where conditions foul up the automatic 
mecha nism. There were some concerns of automatic slack adjusters being thought to be self -maintaining and Regulation Impact Statement   168 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  requiring less servicing. There could be some scope for industry to educate mechanics, drivers, and operators 
on the need to properly maintain slack adjust ers and the importance of keeping automatic slack adjusters 
installed where there is no operational need for manual adjusters. Operators should continue to consider what 
is best for their fleet with regards to slack adjusters, but regardless of type, make sure they are properly 
maintained.  
  Regulation Impact Statement   169 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  References  
 
[1] Transport and Infrastructure Council (2014), National Road Safety Action Plan 2015 -2017  
http://transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/publications/files/National_Road_Safety_Action_Plan_20
15-2017.pdf  
[8] Australian Government Department of Health, ASGC Remoteness Areas  
http://www.doctorconnect.gov.au/internet/otd/Publishing.nsf/Content/locator  
[9] Australian Bureau of Statistics (2014), The Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) 
Remoteness  Structure  
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure#Anchor2  
 Regulation Impact Statement   170 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 16  — TECHNICAL LIAISON GR OUP (TLG)  
Organisation  
 
Manufacturer Representatives  
Australian Road Transport Suppliers Association  
Bus Industry Confederation  
Caravan Industry Association of Australia Ltd  
Commercial Vehicle Industry Association  of Australia  
Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries  
Federation of Automotive Product Manufacturers  
Heavy Vehicle Industry Association  
Truck  Industry Council   
 
Consumer Representatives  
Australian Automobile Association  
Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association  
Australian Motorcycle Council  
Australian Trucking Association  
 
Government Representatives  
Department of Infrastructure and  Regional Development, Australian Government  
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Tasmania  
Department of Infrastructure,  Planning  and Logistics , Northern Territory  
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, South Australia  
Department of Transport, Western Australia  
Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland  
National Heavy Vehicle Regulator  
New Zealand Transport Agency  
Roads and Maritime Services, New South Wales  
Transport for NSW, Centre for Road Safety, New Sou th Wales  
Transport Regulation, Justice & Community Safety, Australian Capital Territory  
VicRoads, Victoria  
 
Inter Governmental Agency  
National Transport Commission  
 Regulation Impact Statement   171 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 17  — NHVBS PHASE II INDUS TRY REFERENCE GROUP (IRG)  
NHVBS Phase II IRG Member Organisation s 
 
Industry (manufacturer)  Representatives  
Australian Road Transport Suppliers Association  
Bus Industry Confederation  
Commercial Vehicle Industry Association of Australia  
Truck Industry Council  
Heavy Vehicle Industry Australia  
 
Operator  Representatives  
Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters’ Association  
Australian Trucking Association  
 
Government Representatives  
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Australian Government  
National Heavy Ve hicle Regulator  
 
 Regulation Impact Statement   172 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 18  — ACRONYMS  AND ABBREVIATIONS  
ABS  Antilock Brake System  
ADR  Australian Design Rule  
ALRTA  Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association  
AMVCB  Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board  
ARRB  Australian Road Research Board  
ARTSA  Australian Road Transport Suppliers Association  
ATA  Australian Trucking Association  
BAU  Business as Usual  
BCR  Benefit -Cost Ratio  
BIC Bus Industry Confederation  
BITRE  Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics  
BTE  Bureau  of Transport Economics (now BITRE)  
CCA  Competition and Consumer Act 2010  
CEO  Chief Executive Officer  
CMVSS  Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard  
C’th Commonwealth  
CVIAA  Commercial Vehicle Industry Association Australia  
EBS Electronic Braking Systems  
EPA  Environment Protection Authority  
ESC Electronic Stability Control  
FCAI  Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries  
FMVSS  Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard  
FORS  Federal Office of Road Safety  
GTM  Gross Trailer Mass  
GVM  Gross Vehicle Mass  
HVIA  Heavy Vehicle Industry Association  
HVNL  Heavy Vehicle National Law  
HVSPP  Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme  
IRG Industry Reference Group  
ISO International Organization for Standardization  
LP Load Proportioning  
MUARC  Monash University Accident Research Centr e 
MVSA  Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989  
NHTSA  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  
NHVBS  National Heavy Vehicle Braking Strategy  
NPV  Net Present Value  
NRSS  National Road Safety Strategy 2011 -2020  
NRTC  National Road Transport Commission (now NTC)  
NTARC  National Truck Accident Research Centre  
NTC  National Transport Commission  
OBPR  Office of Best Practice Regulation  
PBS Performance Based Standards  Regulation Impact Statement   173 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  RBM  Regulatory Burden Measurement  
RIS Regulation Impact Statement  
RSC  Roll Stability Control  
SAE  Society  of Automotive Engineers  
SPECTS  Safety, Productivity & Environment Construction Transport 
Scheme  
SVSEG  Strategic Vehicle Safety and Environment Group  
TEBS  Trailer Electronic Braking Systems  
TIC Truck Industry Council  
TISOC  Transport and Infrastructure Seni or Officials’ Committee  
TLG  Technical Liaison Group  
UN United Nations  
US United States  
WP.29  World Forum for the Harmonisation of Vehicle RegulationsRegulation Impact Statement   174 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  APPENDIX 19  — GLOSSARY OF TERMS  
1958 Agreement  UN Agreement Concerning the Adoption of Harmonized 
Technical United Nations Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, 
Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be Used on 
Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition 
of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these United Nations 
Regulations of March 1958.  
Antilock Brake System (ABS)  A portion of a service brake system that automatically controls the 
degree of rotational wheel slip relative to the road at one or more 
road wheels of the vehicle during braking.  
Articulated Truck  A motor vehicle primarily  for load carrying, consisting of a prime 
mover that has no significant load carrying area but with a fifth 
wheel assembly which can be linked to one or more trailers.  
Axle  One or more shafts positioned in a line across a vehicle, on which 
one or more whee ls intended to support the vehicle turn.  
Axle Group  Either a single axle, tandem axle group, triaxle group, or close 
coupled axle group.  
Benefit -Cost Ratio (BCR)  The ratio of expected total (gross) benefits to expected total costs 
(in terms of their presen t monetary value) for a change of policy 
relative to business as usual.  
B-Double  A combination of vehicles consisting of a prime mover towing two 
semi -trailers.  
B-Triple  A combination of vehicles consisting of a prime mover towing 
three semi -trailers.  
Brak e Chamber or Actuator  A brake system component including an air chamber and a 
pushrod, to convert air pressure into mechanical actuation force.  
Bus (or Omnibus)  A passenger vehicle having more than 9 seating positions, 
including that of the driver.  
Certification  Assessment of compliance to the requirements of a 
regulation/standard. Can relate to parts, sub -assemblies, or a whole 
vehicle.  
Close Coupled Axle Group  Two axles with centres not more than 1.0 m apart (regarded under 
the ADRs as a single axl e); three axles with centres not more than 
2.0 m apart (regarded under the ADRs as a tandem axle group); or 
four or more axles with centres not more than 3.2 metres apart 
(regarded under the ADRs as a tri -axle group).  
Converter Dolly  A trailer with an axle  group and a fifth wheel coupling near the 
middle of its load -carrying surface, designed to convert a semi 
trailer into a dog trailer.  
Crash  Any apparently unpremeditated event reported to police, or other 
relevant authority, and resulting in death, injury  or property Regulation Impact Statement   175 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  damage attributable to the movement of a road vehicle on a public 
road.  
Discount Rate  A rate of interest used to translate costs which will be incurred and 
benefits which will be received across future years into present 
day values.  
Dog Traile r A trailer with two axle groups of which the front axle group is 
steered by connection to the drawing vehicle.  
Fatal Crash  A crash for which there is at least one death.  
Fifth Wheel Assembly  A fifth wheel coupling including any turn -table, mounting plate,  
sliding assembly, load cell and other equipment mounted between 
the towing vehicle chassis and the trailer skid plate, but not 
including any attachment sections.  
Fifth Wheel Coupling  A device, other than the skid plate and the kingpin (which are 
parts of a semi -trailer), used with a prime mover, semi -trailer or a 
converter dolly to permit quick coupling and uncoupling and to 
provide for articulation.  
Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM)  The maximum laden mass of a motor vehicle as specified by the 
manufacturer.  
Gross Trailer Mass (GTM)  The mass transmitted to the ground by the axle or axles of the 
trailer when coupled to a drawing vehicle and carrying its 
maximum load approximately uniformly distributed over the load 
bearing area, and at which compliance with the appro priate 
Australian Design Rules has been or can be established.  
Heavy Vehicle  Any passenger or goods vehicles greater than 4.5 tonnes GVM or 
any trailer greater than 4.5 tonnes GTM.  
Hospitalised Injury  A person admitted to hospital from a crash occurring in  traffic.  
Traffic excludes off -road and unknown location.  
Net Benefit  The sum of expected benefits (in monetary terms), less expected 
costs associated with a change of policy relative to business as 
usual.  
Net Present Value (NPV)  The difference between th e present economic value (determined 
using an appropriate discount rate) of all expected benefits and 
costs over time due to a change of policy relative to business as 
usual.  
Prime Mover  A motor vehicle built to tow a semi -trailer.  
Rigid Truck  A motor vehi cle with a GVM greater than 4.5 tonnes constructed 
with a load carrying area. Includes a rigid truck with a tow bar, 
draw bar or other coupling on the rear of the vehicle.  
Road Crash Fatality  A person who dies within 30 days of a crash as a result of injur ies 
received in that crash.  
Road Train  A combination of vehicles, other than a B -Double, consisting of a 
motor vehicle towing at least two trailers (counting as one trailer a 
converter dolly supporting a semi -trailer).  Regulation Impact Statement   176 
Improv ing the  Stability  and Control of Heavy Vehicles    
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development  Semi -trailer  A trailer that has one a xle group or a single axle towards the rear; 
and a kingpin and skid plate at the front for coupling to the fifth 
wheel assembly of a prime mover, another semi -trailer or a 
converter dolly.  
Service Brake System  The brake system, which in proportion to the s ignal from the brake 
control or, in the case of a trailer in proportion to the control 
signal, applies a restraining torque to the vehicle’s wheels in 
normal operation.  
Single Axle  Either one axle, or two axles with centres between transverse, 
parallel, ve rtical planes spaced less than 1.0 m apart.  
Slack Adjuster  A link between a brake chamber/actuator and a brake camshaft, 
which transforms force (from pressure within the brake chamber) 
into a brake torque via a brake camshaft.  These include a manual 
and/o r automatic mechanism for adjusting the initial clearance 
between the brake friction elements (e.g. brake shoes and drums), 
including to compensate for changes arising from wear.  
Tandem Axle Group  A group of at least two axles, in which the horizontal dist ance 
between the centrelines of the outermost axles is at least 1.0 metre, 
but not more than 2.0 metre.  
Triaxle Group  A combination of three axles in which the front and rear axles are 
not less than 2.0 m and not more than 3.2 m apart.  
Truck Tractor  A prim e mover.  
Tractor Semi -trailer  A prime mover towing a semi -trailer.  
Type Approval  Written approval of an authority/body that a vehicle type (i.e. 
model design) satisfies specific technical requirements.