EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 19.7.2011 
SEC(2011) 948 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT on measures enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
tachograph system Revision of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 
Accompanying the document 
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF 
THE COUNCIL 
amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 to enhance the security, effectiveness 
and efficiency of the tach ograph in road transport 
{COM(2011) 451 final} 
{SEC(2011) 947 final}  
 
EN 1   EN This report commits only the Commission’s serv ices involved in its preparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 5 
1.1. Identification ............................................................................................................ .... 5 
1.2. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 5 1.3. Consultation for the Impact Assessment...................................................................... 5 1.3.1. Joint Research Centre................................................................................................... 5 
1.3.2. Stakeholders consultation............................................................................................. 6 1.3.3. Social partners......................................................................................................... ..... 6 
1.3.4. External contractor and Expert Panel........................................................................... 6 1.4. Results of the consultation of the Impact Assessment Board ...................................... 6 2. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 2.1. Background information: EU social legislati on in the field of ro ad transport and the 
tachograph system........................................................................................................ 8 
2.2. What are the issues or problems that may require action?......................................... 10 2.2.1. Problem 1: Social rules ar e still too often breached................................................... 10 
2.2.1.1. Road safety........................................................................................................... ...... 12 
2.2.1.2. Internal market ....................................................................................................... .... 12 
2.2.1.3. Working conditions.................................................................................................... 13 
2.2.2. Problem 2: The tachograph system is not sufficiently efficient................................. 13 
2.3. What are the underlying drivers of the problems?..................................................... 14 2.3.1. The tachograph system is still vulnerable to manipulation and fraud........................ 14 2.3.1.1. Seals do not properly perform as an i ndicator of tachograph manipulation .............. 14 
2.3.1.2. Vulnerabilities of encryption technology................................................................... 15 2.3.1.3. Misuse of driver cards................................................................................................ 15 
2.3.1.4. Fraudulent or negligent workshops............................................................................ 16 2.3.2. Effectiveness of the controls and the dissuasive effect of sanctions.......................... 17 
2.3.2.1. Non harmonised training of enforcement officers ..................................................... 17 2.3.2.2. Scope of data from the digital tachog raph available to enforcement officers............ 18 
2.3.2.3. Sanctions policy ...................................................................................................... ... 18 
2.3.3. The use of the tachograph system is not sufficiently optimised ................................ 20 
 
EN 3   EN 2.3.3.1. Inadequate provisions of the Tachograph Regulation................................................ 20 
2.3.3.2. Technical limitations of digital tachograph devices................................................... 21 2.3.3.3. Insufficient efficiency of roadsi de checks for comp liant drivers............................... 22 
2.3.3.4. Tachograph is not sufficiently facilitating driv ers’ work........................................... 23 
2.4. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? .................................................. 24 2.4.1. Drivers................................................................................................................. ....... 24 
2.4.2. Firms using the tachograph ........................................................................................ 24 2.4.3. Member States and inspection authorities.................................................................. 25 2.4.4. Tachograph manufacturers......................................................................................... 25 2.4.5. Citizens/road users ..................................................................................................... 25 
2.4.6. EU industry ............................................................................................................. ... 25 
2.5. How would the problem evolve , all things being equal?........................................... 25 
2.6. Does the EU have the right to act and is there a clear EU added value? ................... 26 3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 27 
3.1. General Objective....................................................................................................... 27  
3.2. Specific Objectives..................................................................................................... 28  
3.3. Operational Objectives............................................................................................... 28 
3.4. Consistency of the objectives with fundamental rights.............................................. 29 
4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 2 9 
4.1. List of retained policy measures ................................................................................ 29 4.2. Identification of policy packages ............................................................................... 35 5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 37 5.1. Impact on the compliance with social legislation ...................................................... 37 5.2. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 41 5.2.1. Impact on the functioning of the internal market and competition............................ 41 5.2.2. Impact on comp etitiveness......................................................................................... 42 
5.2.3. Impact on the administrative burden and the SMEs .................................................. 43 5.2.4. Budgetary impact on public authorities ..................................................................... 44 5.2.5. Impact on specific regions ......................................................................................... 46 5.3. Social impacts ............................................................................................................ 47 
5.3.1. Impact on working conditions, hea lth and lifestyle of drivers................................... 47 
 
EN 4   EN 5.3.2. Impact on road safety................................................................................................. 48  
5.3.3. Impact on crime and security ..................................................................................... 49 
5.3.4. Impact on fundamental rights..................................................................................... 50 5.4. Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 50 5.5. Impact in third countries ............................................................................................ 51 6. Comparing the packages ............................................................................................ 51 6.1. Effectiveness ............................................................................................................. . 51 
6.2. Efficiency ................................................................................................................ ... 51 
6.3. Coherence................................................................................................................. .. 53 
6.4. Conclusion................................................................................................................ .. 53 
7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 57 
 
EN 5   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Identification 
This impact assessment examines options to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
tachograph system used to enforcing the soci al rules in road tr ansport. The Impact 
Assessment report has been prepared by the Dir ectorate General for M obility and Transport 
(DG MOVE). It is the basis for a Communicati on and a proposal to the European Parliament 
and the Council to repeal and replace Council Regulation (E EC) No 3821/85 on the recording 
equipment (reference n° MOVE/2008/008). 
1.2. Organisation and timing 
For the preparation of this in itiative, DG MOVE set up an Im pact Assessment Steering Group 
in which the following DGs took part: SG, EN TR, EMPL, JRC, JUST, SANCO. Two other 
DGs – INFSO and ECFIN – were invited to pa rticipate, but were unable to do so. DG 
MARKT was kept informed as they requeste d. The steering group held five meetings 
(2 March, 30 July, 6 October, 12 Novemb er 2010 and 17 February 2011). The steering 
group’s comments were taken into ac count in the impact assessment. 
1.3. Consultation for the Impact Assessment 
DG MOVE has been in continuous  contact with Member States  and stakeholders through the 
Committee set up by Council Regula tion (EEC) No 3821/85 for all i ssues related to recording 
equipment. The Committee normally meets once a year. The main stakehol ders take part in 
this committee as observers. They include in spection and police orga nisations as well as 
manufacturers. In addition to this on-going ex change, DG MOVE has taken several initiatives 
to help prepare this Impact Assessment. 
SMART Project 
This was an extensive two year long co nsultation commissioned by the European 
Commission, ending in March 2009. The project brought to gether the main stakeholders and 
asked them to recommend possible improvements to  the security and the user-friendliness of 
the digital tachograph. Some of their r ecommendations were implemented in 20091: the 
tachograph technical specifi cations were amended by committee procedure (‘comitology’: a 
regulatory procedure with scru tiny). Other recommendations are considered in this impact 
assessment (IA).  
1.3.1.  Joint Research Centre 
In September 2009, DG MOVE asked the Joint Res earch Centre (JRC) to assess the present 
vulnerability and verifiability of the digita l tachograph. The JRC reported in February 2010. 
The JRC also reported to the Commission th e following month on tec hnical scenarios for 
further developing th e digital tachograph. 
                                                 
1 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1266/2009 of 16 December 2009 adapting for the tenth time to 
technical progress Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, OJ 
L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 3–23. 
 
EN 6   EN 1.3.2.  Stakeholders consultation 
For the purpose of this impact assessment,  DG MOVE carried out a public stakeholder 
consultation from December 2009 to March 2010. Gi ven the technical nature of the topic, 
participation was relatively large: 73 contribu tions, mostly of high qu ality, were received 
from various stakeholders.  
Most stakeholders wanted to see the digita l tachograph improved, but not replaced by some 
different type of recording equipment. Nearly  all stakeholders were  of the opinion that 
harmonised criteria at EU level for the record ing equipment are necessary. The type approval 
process for the tachograph was considered satisf actory. Almost all stakeholders also stated 
that the level of security should be mainta ined or even enhanced. Several ideas were 
expressed and subsequently examined in the IA to reduce the cost of the recording equipment 
and/or make a better use of it - for example, me rging the driver card with the driving licence, 
automatically recording the vehicle’s weight, etc. However, some of the proposals submitted 
by stakeholders were discarded at the pre-screening (see chapter 4.2.). 
This consultation met the minimum standards fo r consultation, as laid down in the Impact 
Assessment Guidelines. The individual contributi ons are available, together with a summary 
of the consultation, on the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/ro ad/consultations/2010_03_01_tachographs_en.htm .  
1.3.3.  Social partners 
In line with the Commission Im pact Assessment Guidelines, the sectoral social dialogue 
committee on road transport was consulted on 26 May 2010. The European social partners 
subsequently agreed a joint statement on the re view of the digital t achograph regulation, and 
this was taken into consideration when drafting this impact assessment.2 The social partners 
recognise the importance of the tachograph as tool for the implementation of the social 
legislation. They underline the importance to  combat fraud and manipulation and see 
therefore a need to dedicated specifications  and adaptations to technical progress.  
1.3.4.  External contractor and Expert Panel 
A contractor carried out a preparatory study for this IA. Given the highly technical nature of 
some of the issues under consid eration, and to also ensure th at all interests and viewpoints 
were properly represented, the contractor set up an Expert Panel including representatives of 
road transport associations, road transport uni ons, enforcement and type-approval authorities, 
card issuing authorities, vehi cle manufacturers, and tachogra ph manufacturers. The Expert 
Panel reviewed the documents prepared by the contractor and attende d a workshop at which 
the contractor’s draft final repo rt was reviewed and discussed. 
1.4. Results of the consultation of  the Impact Assessment Board 
Following the submission of a draft report to the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 
16 March 2011 and a hearing with  the IAB (which took place on 6 April 2011), the IAB sent 
                                                 
2 The Joint Statement on the Review  of the Tachograph Regulation by IRU and ETF can be found on the 
following website: http://ec.europa.eu/employment _social/dsw/public/actRetrieveText.do?id=8903 
 
EN 7   EN its opinion on 8 April 2011, asking DG MOVE to take into account the comments submitted 
and discussed in the hearing. 
Firstly, the report has been ad apted to clarify the interven tion logic and provide a more 
appropriate set of objectives.  
– A table 3 has been added mapping the pr oposed measures with the different 
objectives 
– The part on the sanctions regime has been more elaborated (section 2.3.2.) 
– Chapter 3 has been revised, in particular to formulate the opera tional objectives in 
more concrete terms 
– Policy package 3 has been redesigned to pres ent a possible lower cost alternative and 
the IA has been adapted accordingly 
– It has been underlined that the policy packages are designe d to achieve all objectives 
and represent genuine alternative policy options 
– Annex IX has been added explaining the le gislative proposals to be put forward and 
for which further impact assessments are foreseen. 
Secondly, the report has been adap ted to strengthen the presenta tion of expected benefits and 
costs for each of the policy options.  
– It has been explained why the assessment of  impacts remains rather descriptive (see 
also section 2.2.1.) 
– The impacts on the costs for road have been clarified  
– The costs and benefits of each  policy package have been presented in a clearer way 
by adding table 8 
– The calculations related to the reduction of administrative by redefining the scope 
have been added in Annex III. 
– The impact on fundamental righ ts and privacy concerns ha ve been more elaborated 
in section 5.3.4. 
Thirdly, the report has been adapted to provide clear references to stakeholder input received 
in consultation throughout the main text of the report.  
– A link to the Joint statement of IRU and ETF  has been provided and a short summary 
given (section 1.3.4.) 
– The references to the stake holder consultation have been adapted to clearly indicate 
the relevant stakeholder 
Finally, the report has been adapted to stre ngthen the section on future monitoring and 
evaluation, to ensure the presence of an ade quate evidence base for future initiatives. 
 
EN 8   EN – Chapter 7 has been revised in order to reflect the adapted operational objectives 
– Chapter 7 has been clarified to explain how  the monitoring will be carried out and 
what the Commission intends to do in order to  have the necessary data for evaluation 
and monitoring. 
The executive summary of the IA has also been  adapted to reflect the mentioned changes. 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Background information: EU social legislat ion in the field of road transport and 
the tachograph system 
Since 1969, the European Union (EU) has laid dow n social legislation in the field of road 
transport. The aim is to improve road safety and drivers’ working c onditions, and to ensure 
fair competition among transport companie s. Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 lays down 
maximum daily and weekly driving times and minimum daily and weekly rest periods for drivers. It is applicable  in all Member States.
3 The legislation applies to drivers of trucks with 
a maximum permissible mass of more than 3.5 tonnes and to drivers of buses or coaches 
carrying more than nine persons. 
The EU has developed a comprehensive policy on inspecting and checking compliance with 
social road transport legislati on. This policy relies on two main pillars. The first pillar is 
Directive 2006/22/EC which lays down a minimum level of check at the roadside and at the 
premises of the undertakings to be carried out by Member States.4 The second pillar is 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, herein after referred to as ‘the Tachograph 
Regulation'. The basis for the control carried out during the checks as required by Directive 
2006/22/EC is in practice the data on driving, working and resting time5 which have to be for 
each operator and each driver trustworthy, reliabl e and verifiable by enforcement officers of 
all Member States. These data  are recorded by "tachographs",  which are on-board recording 
equipment fitted to the vehicles regulated by the provisions of the Tachograph Regulation.  
In this context, the tachograph plays a crucial role  in enforcing social rules in road transport. 
The Tachograph Regulation sets technical standa rds, establishes the rules on the use, type 
approval, installation and inspect ion of tachographs. It theref ore creates a range of legal 
obligation to manufacturers, authorities but al so to transport operators and drivers.  
For the time being, two types of recording equi pment are in use. The analogue tachograph has 
been in use since 1985 and is still used in ve hicles registered before 1 May 2006. It records 
                                                 
3 Directive 2002/15/EC sets additional limits on drivers’ weekly working time and contains provisions on 
breaks and night time working. 
4 Directive 2006/22/EC also contains obligations on the equipment of control officers. It also categorises 
the infringements against the tachograph regulation in three categories (very serious infringements, 
serious infringements, minor infringements). In addition, the Commission has issued guidelines for best 
enforcement practice concerning checks  of recording equipment to be ca rried out at roadside checks and 
by authorised workshops. Furthe rmore, the Commission services issue regularly Guidelines aiming at 
harmonising the way the social legislation is implemented and controlled by Member States.  
5 Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 
 
EN 9   EN the activities of the driver (driving, rest/break, availability, other work) on a waxed paper disc 
called ‘record sheet’. 
The second type – the digital tachograph – wa s introduced via a new Annex IB to Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85.6 It is obligatory in vehicles registered after 1 May 2006. The 
driver’s activities are recorded and the data  are stored after encryption in the recording 
equipment and on a personalised ‘smart driver card’.7 It is widely agreed within the 
enforcement community that the digital tac hograph by providing a tamper-proof way of 
recording driving data is a great improveme nt over the analogue tachograph in terms of 
effective enforcement and reducing the risk of fraud8.  
Since June 2010, the digital tachograph is also mandatory9 for new vehicles used in 
international transport by the non-EU contracti ng parties of the European Agreement on Road 
Transport (hereinafter "AETR") , which account for another 22 c ountries outside the EU in 
Europe and in the Commonwealth of Independent States. 
Facts and figures on tachographs  
The Tachograph Regulation di rectly affects some 600  000 road haulage operators and 330  000 
road passenger carriers, nearly  all of which are small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). 
Only 1  % of the EU's road haulage operators ar e companies with more than 50 employees. 
The share of micro-companies with less than 10 employees is 80  % or more in almost all EU 
Member States10. Around six million vehicles are fitted with tachographs as of the end of 
2010.11 On average, around 400 000 new commercial ve hicles are registered each year in the 
EU and EFTA; since 2006, all these new vehicles  have to be equipped with the digital 
tachograph.12 Four years after its introduction in 2 006, the digital tachogra ph is now fitted to 
more than 1.5 million vehicles; the re st still have analogue tachographs.13 
The tachograph consists of a vehicle unit which is normally placed in the vehicle cabin, of a 
motion sensor which detects vehi cle's motion and sends this information to the vehicle unit 
and of a cable connecting vehicle unit and mo tion sensor. For the digital tachograph, the 
driver uses a driver card; workshops need a workshop card to carry out the inspection and calibration of the tachograph. A mo re detailed description of the tachograph can be found in 
Annex I. 
Since its adoption, the Tachograph Regulation ha s been adapted to technical progress ten 
times, the last time in 2009.
14 This latest amendment addressed some of the criticisms made 
against the user friendliness of  the digital tachograph, concer ning manual inputs of time spent 
not driving, and rounding up of the time to the next minute. It is estimated by the Commission 
                                                 
6 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1360/2002 of 13 June 2002 adapting for the seventh time to technical 
progress Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, OJ L 207, 
5.8.2002, p. 1–252. 
7 The 'smart driver card' is a card with a micro-chip  that can store the data n eeded to check  the driving 
and resting time of the driver. 
8 See in this respect section 4 of Annex 1. 
9 Sixth amendment to the AETR agr eement, ECE/TRANS/SC.1/386/Add.1. 
10 See NEA, Road Freight Tr ansport Vademecum, 2009. 
11 ACEA statistics on commercial vehicles. 
12 ACEA statistics on commercial vehicles. 
13 According to tachograph manufacturers. 
14 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1266/2009 
 
EN 10   EN that the new measures, which will enter into force in October 2011, account for a reduction of 
administrative burden of €  234.5 million a year. Most importantly, however, the amendment 
considerably reduces the vulnera bility of the digital tachogra ph to physical manipulations.15 
2.2. What are the issues or problems that may require action? 
2.2.1.  Problem 1: Social rules are still too often breached 
Quantitative historical data on frauds are not av ailable. Although there is a general obligation 
for Member States to submit statistics every two years on the application of the social legislation (Regulation (EC)  No 561/2006 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85), there 
was until recently no precise enough reporting format. Evidence on the causes of existing compliance problems and on the differences in application across Member States is based on consultation input rather than supported by hard quantitative data. The situation is however improving since the Commission adopted a new reporting format in 2008. Full fledged 
information will thus be available only end of this year (for the period 2009-2010). Moreover 
it should be borne in mind that  the digital tachograph was intr oduced only in 2006. There is 
only one report since the intr oduction of the new device, covering the period 2007-2008, 
which makes comparison of data impossible.  
However, according to some recent data available, on average 9% of controlled vehicles
16 are 
found breaching the social rules. Roughly one f ourth of the latter – are found breaching the 
Tachograph Regulation in particular, for instance  by driving without a ca rd, using the card of 
another driver or having physica lly manipulated the equipment. 
Figure 1 presents the categories of offences detect ed at roadside checks. 45% of them relate to 
breaches of social legislation17. More complete yearly data re ported to the Commission by the 
Member States show that around 300  000 offences concerning recording equipment were 
detected in the course of nine million roadside checks during the period 2007-200818 (latest 
data available). In other words, 3% of the trucks controlled were misusing or manipulating 
tachographs, which is grossly in line with above  figures. In some countries the figure may be 
higher as according to Tispol and Euro Contrôle Route (ECR) 19, the UK authorities detected 
fraud or manipulation of tachographs in 10-20  % of the roadside checks they carried out20. 
                                                 
15 These amendments improved resistance to magnetic fields (see Point 3.20 of the Annex to Regulation 
(EU) No 1266/2009) and introduced the requirement for the system to corroborate the vehicle motion information from the motion sensor by information derived from one or more sources independent from 
the motion sensor. In practice, the second source could be satellite, GSM-based positioning of the 
vehicle or moving parts of the vehicle (see Point 3.1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 1266/2009). 
16 Own calculations based on Euro Control route, Annual report 2009 
17 This figure can be split between the breach of the driving and working time provisions (34%) and the 
breach of the Tachograph Regulation (11%). 
18 25th report from the Commission on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road 
transport (SEC(2011)52 final). 
19 TISPOL and ECR are European association of police and enforcement organisations carrying out road 
inspections and checks.  
20 Information provided on an informal basis to the Commission. 
 
EN 11   EN Offences per category
34%
11%18%5%9%11%12% Driving and resting hours
Tachograph regulations 
Technical controls
Dangerous goods
Transport regulations
Overloading
Other
 
Figure 1: Offences per category 
Source: Euro Control Route, Annual Report, 2009. 
These figures must be put in the perspectiv e of Directive 2006/22/EC which requires from 
Member States to control as a minimum onl y 3 percent of days worked by the drivers.21 Given 
the possibility of risk rating-based targeted checks22, the total number of offences related to 
social legislation cannot be obtained by simply extrapolating to the total fleet the results 
obtained for controlled vehicles.23 However, it can be safely said that the total number of 
vehicles on the roads in breach of the social  legislation, including th e Tachograph Regulation, 
which are on the roads in a given week, is much higher than the number of offences actually detected at checks.
24 If we take the conservative operati onal assumption that 5% of the total 
fleet is in breach of social legislation and 2% in breach of Tachograph Regulations25, this 
would mean that 180 000 and 45 000 vehicles would be on average in breach of respectively 
EU social legislation and Tachograph Regulation. 
While breaches of the driving hours and rest periods legislation are more frequent than 
infringements against the tachograph regulation, it should be noted that th e latter lead to much 
more severe consequences, as most likely, numerous infringements are committed against the driving times once the device is manipulated; ther efore, there is a high efficiency by attacking 
infringements against the tachograph regulation.  
                                                
 
21 See Art. 2(3) of Directive 2006/22/EC. 
22 See Art. 9 of Directive 2006/22/EC. 
23 Furthermore, it should be noted that extrapolation is difficult as inspectors may select primarily 
"suspicious" trucks based on their experience (i.e. sample selection bias). This is balanced by the fact that the bias is known and the requirement laid down in Directive 2006/22/EC which stipulates that 
controls have to be carried out on a non-discriminatory basis. 
24 Indeed, local evidence from Denmark show that up to 40% of drivers are br eaching social legislation 
(http://www.dr.dk/Regioner/Vest/Nyheder/MidtVest/2010/03/16/071601.htm ). 
25 This conservative estimate assumes that the level of non-compliance with social legislation detected at 
roadside checks is two times higher than it is for th e whole fleet. We assumed an even higher level of 
non-compliance in particular  with Tachograph regulation, as many offences to this particular piece of 
legislation go undetected at roadside checks, which is not the case of social legislation as a whole. 
 
EN 12   EN The breach of the social legisl ation has a number of importance consequences on road safety, 
on the internal market for road transport and on drivers’ working conditions, as underlined 
also by the social partners in their Joint Statement26. 
2.2.1.1.  Road safety 
Non respect of the minimum breaks and rest pe riods and of the maximum driving times can 
lead to more fatigued drivers. In a recent study27, fatigue of truck driv ers has been identified 
as the main cause of 6% of accidents, 37% of which were fatal. This is in spite of the 
existence of the social rules in road transport. At the same time, it is said that the role of fatigue in accidents is probably understated by th e fact that, on the one hand, it's very difficult 
to prove that it has been the main cause of  the accident and, on the other hand, "there are 
various stages of vigila nce, from slight fatigue to sleeping, and fatigue is ofte n linked to other 
causes such as being inattentive". An American study
28 confirms this assumption, by saying 
that "the incidence of driver fatigue in underrepresented […] w ith regards to truck drivers. 
Research has suggested that truc k driver fatigue is a contributi ng factor in 30 to 40 percent of 
all heavy truck accidents". 
The Handbook on estimation of the exte rnal costs in transport sector29 contains estimations on 
the cost of accidents for Heavy Duty Vehicles (hereinafter " HDV"). On the basis of these 
estimations we conservatively estimated the cost of fatigue of professiona l drivers in terms of 
accidents to € 2.2 billion.30 Furthermore, it is estimated31 that fatalities involving buses 
represent 28% of those involving HDV. Under th e simplifying assumption that other costs of 
accidents (injuries, damage to the infrastr ucture, congestion, etc… ) involving buses are 
following the same relation to the same costs generated by HDV, the total cost of accidents 
for all commercial vehicles above 3.5 t would amount to € 2.8 billion.  
2.2.1.2.  Internal market 
Professional drivers and trans port companies operate in a hi ghly fragmented market and a 
fiercely competitive environment. Firms which do not comply with the legislation can gain a 
sizeable competitive advantage by cutting prices, as staff costs account for 30-40  % of the 
total operating costs.32 These costs vary a lot on regiona l basis. In EU-15 Member States33 
labour costs can reach 40-50% of the total costs. Driver wages in Bulgaria represent 17.5% of 
those in the Netherlands. It can be reasonably as sumed that the higher the share of wage costs 
in the total costs, th e larger the incentive not to comply with social legislation.  
As described above, between 5% and 9% of the driv ers could be in breach of social legislation 
at any time. Such a proportion of market participants enjoying an undue competitive 
advantage can upset the functioning of the loca l markets and of the internal market as a 
whole. Due to the lack of precise data on the severity of infringements to the social legislation 
                                                 
26 See section 1.3.4. 
27 IRU, European Truck Accident Causation Study, 2006. 
28 National Transportation Safety Board, Factors That Affect Fatigue in Heavy Truck Accidents – Safety 
Study, 1995 
29 CE Delft, Handbook on estimation of exte rnal costs in the tr ansport sector, 2008 
30 Details of the calculation are attached in Annex V. 
31 CARE Database. 
32 Road Freight Transport Vademecum, Issue N°1, DG MOVE  
33 EU-15 describes the EU Member States before the 2004 enlargement. EU-12 ar e the EU Member States 
that joined since 2004. 
 
EN 13   EN (for example, by how many hours the maximum dr iving time has been ov errun), it is however 
difficult to quantify the effects. 
2.2.1.3.  Working conditions 
Regulation 561/2006/EC aimed at "improving the social conditions for employees who are 
covered by it […] by means of the provisions pe rtaining to maximum driving times […], the 
provision which obliges the drivers to take a regular weekly rest period". Non-compliance 
with legislation affects the working condition s of the drivers. This has also important 
consequences on health and lifes tyle of professional drivers. 
Several reviews and empirical studies demonstrat e various negative overall health effects of 
extended working hours: Long working hours are a ssociated with poor perceived health, more 
illnesses, or even increased mortality34. In the road transport, st ress, exhaustion and unsuitable 
position body can lead to several distinct health problems such as pycho-vegetative impairments (gastrointestinal diso rders, musculoskeletal fatigue…).
 35 In the case of drivers 
engaged in long distance international transport, respect of the social le gislation is essential 
also for maintaining the prope r balance between social and professional life. All these 
problems are obviously exacerbated by non-re spect of the social legislation. 
Like in the case of the problem on the internal  market, quantification of the problem was not 
possible owing to the lack of precise da ta on the severity of infringements. 
2.2.2.  Problem 2: The tachograph system is  not sufficiently efficient  
As indicated above, the use of the tachograph is a legal requirement for a large number of 
firms, including small and medium-sized enterpri ses (SMEs), which are ob liged to record and 
report specific information. Th e tachograph system has been designed and has functioned so 
far primarily as a policing tool, but not as  a labour saving device. In this respect, 
stakeholders36 reported that there is room to improve the ease of operation of the tachograph, 
especially the digital tachograph, and its additional func tionalities, to facil itate the drivers' 
work and support the efficiency of the road transport industry. 
Although the introduction of the di gital tachograph and the subsequent technical adaptations 
have already substantially reduced the administ rative burden (see Sectio n 4 of Annex I), the 
system still entails important administrative  costs. The High Level Group of Independent 
Stakeholders on Administrative Burden, commonl y called the "Stoiber group", estimated the 
administrative cost of compliance with Regul ation 561/2006 to € 3.102 bil lion, out of which € 
3 billion (or 97%) were qualified as administra tive burden. Another internal estimation made 
by the European Commission37 indicates a slightly lower figure of € 2.7 billion . Since the 
Stoiber Group report notably does not take into account the effect of the latest amendment of 
the Tachograph Regulation,38 which, according to internal Commission estimates, brought 
                                                 
34 Deloitte Study (December 2010) to support an Imp act Assessment on Further action at European level 
regarding Directive 2003/88/EC and the evolution of working time organisation. 
35 ECO-LOGICA LIMITED, John Whitele gg, Health of professional drivers, A report for Transport and 
General Workers Union, Lancaster, 1995. 
36 See contributions of transport companies, industry associations or tachograph manufacturers (IRU, 
UEAPME or Continental) and the Joint Statemen t of the social partners in road transport 
37 Cap Gemini, EU project on baseline measuremen ts and reduction of administrative costs, 2009 
38 Regulation (EU) No 1266/2009. 
 
EN 14   EN savings in administrative costs amounting to € 234.5 million a year39, we retained the second 
figure as a probably closer indication of the administrative burden related to the social 
legislation. 
To conclude, the literature on the EU tachograph system40, public consultation and other 
contributions41 identify two main problems: the insu fficient effectiveness of the tachograph 
system in preventing offences to the social legi slation in road transport and the low efficiency 
of the system, including the untapped potenti al for reducing the administrative burden. 
2.3. What are the underlying drivers of the problems? 
The subsections below examine the root causes of these problems. 
2.3.1.  The tachograph system is still vu lnerable to manipulation and fraud 
2.3.1.1.  Seals do not properly perform as an indicator of tachograph manipulation 
Reports from national police forces, anti -fraud officers and research institutes42 show 
weaknesses of the tachograph in terms of  its capacity to resist tampering.43 Numerous police 
and enforcement authorities report cases of manipulation by magnets or ‘exotic devices’ 
which alter the electronic encryp ted signal sent by the motion sens or to the digital tachograph. 
There are even commercially available products  based on such magnets or ‘exotic devices’ 
and specifically designed to tamper with tachogr aph signals. The most typical of these frauds, 
through simple magnets, are well known in th e sector and were even explained and 
commented on popular television progr ammes in several Member States44. Although there is 
no quantified data on the volume of such fra uds, TISPOL and (ECR) have indicated to the 
Commission that these frauds  would represent around 30% of the offences related to 
tachographs.  
The new specifications adopted recently by the Commission to reduce th e vulnerability of the 
tachograph45 will render manipulation more complicated46, but not impossible. 
Manipulations of the tachograph can be detected at roadside checks as their use leaves a 
record of abnormal sequences of events (suc h as unrealistic deceleration or acceleration), 
broken seals of the motion sensor  or the record of 'events'  by the Vehicle Unit. Visual 
detection is difficult at roadside  checks as exotic devices and motion sensors are installed in 
areas of difficult access, but  is possible in workshops. 
                                                 
39 Cf. part 2.1. above 
40 Ibid. 
41 Notably the findings of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burden. 
42 See for instance JRC, Report on the attacks to security of the Digital Tachograph and on the risk 
associated with the introduction of adaptors to be fitted into light vehicles, 2007; JRC, Report on the 
vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010; 25th report from the Commission on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road transport, SEC( 2011)52; Price Waterhouse 
Cooper, Analysis of the technical and organisational measures employed by Member States in the 
application of Directive 2006/22/EC, 2009. 
43 See Annex VI for more details. 
44 In the Netherlands, Italy and France  
45 See footnote 14. 
46 JRC, Report on the attacks to security of the Di gital Tachograph and on the risk associated with the 
introduction of adaptors to be fitted into light vehicles, 2007 
 
EN 15   EN According to the requirements of Section V of Annex IB of the Tachograph Regulation,47 the 
motion sensor and the vehicle unit are sealed by approved workshop afte r installation. Seals 
are intended as a means of de tecting by visual inspection the tampering of the mechanical 
interface between the motion sensor and the gearbox. However, according to a JRC study,48 
seals are not requested to match a minimum perf ormance level at the European level or to 
comply with a specific standard. Consequently, the quality of seals va ries largely between 
countries. In some cases, the seal s are easily forged and mechanic ally fragile. Because of this, 
sealing is not completely fulfilling its expected  objective. Moreover, fake seals can be easily 
bought on the online free market, opening the door  to frauds. Misund erstandings between 
operators and enforcement officers have also been reported. The legisl ation does not require 
sealing of all devices, but many enforcement offi cers are not well informed of that fact. It has 
been reported to the Commission that new de vices that are exempted from sealing are 
sometimes ‘sealed’ to avoid fines from non inform ed controllers, which adds to the confusion 
and increases the difficulty in detecting fraud. 
2.3.1.2.  Vulnerabilities of encryption technology 
According to the already mentioned JRC study,49 the legislation does not accommodate a way 
to deal with the continuous progress made in cryptography and in cracking ciphers, and, 
consequently, with the obsoles cence of the prescribed security  mechanisms. The strength of a 
number of security mechanisms provi ded for in the Tachograph Regulation50 is below the 
level currently requested for certification at th e ITSEC High level (ITSEC is the international 
body in charge of certifying EU security standa rds; the Tachograph regulation requires these 
standards to be met by the equipment). This threatens the continued delivery of security 
certification for new digital tachograph equipment by securi ty certification authorities. 
In practical terms, the encrypt ion standards currently applicab le to the digital tachograph 
contain a number of vulnerabi lities, which may in future allow the manipulation of 
downloaded data and of data stored on driver  cards. Moreover, the en cryption of the data 
recorded by the digital tachograph system is ba sed on certain digital keys. When the digital 
key used in the digital tachograph is disclose d, the integrity and authenticity of the data 
certified by the key can no longer be trusted. 
2.3.1.3.  Misuse of driver cards 
According to ECR and TISPOL,51 around 40  % of all tachograph fraud relates to the 
fraudulent use of driver cards. The driver card is  an essential element of  the digital tachograph 
system as it is on that card that  all data relevant for the control of social legisl ation is stored. 
Fraud can include driving without a card, but this can be easily  detected at the roadside check. 
Driving when the card has been intentionally manipulated52 is more problematic to detect. 
A major problem is that drivers can easily declare their card lost or stolen and on this basis 
obtain multiple driver cards from different national  authorities. They can also let other drivers 
                                                 
47 Requirement 251 and following of Annex IB to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85. 
48 JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010. 
49 JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010. 
50 Appendices 10 and 11 of Annex IB to the Tachograph Regulation contain the minimum strength 
requirements and specifications concerning th e security mechanisms of the tachographs. 
51 Information provided in an informal way to the Commission. 
52 Cf. Point Vulnerabilities of encryption technology above. 
 
EN 16   EN use their card. The latest tachograph legislation53 requires Member States to exchange 
electronically information in order to ensure th at the tachographs are properly used to apply 
the social road transpor t rules. The Commission a dopted on 13 January 2010 a 
Recommendation54 praising Member States to use the TACHOnet messaging system to 
exchange information. The TACHOnet system includes information on the cards which are 
valid or declared lost or stolen. This Recomm endation provides the necessary guidelines to 
implement this new requirement. However, two Member States (Portugal and Denmark) are still not connected to the system. Moreover, th e regular statistics on  the functioning of the 
TACHOnet indicate that the many countries are unable to provide the information in a 
significant number of cases. The worse performe r (Lithuania) shows an  answer rate below 
70%.
55 As a result the exchange of information between card issuing authorities is not fully 
effective. 
Another relevant aspect is the impersonal character of the driver  card which facilitates fraud. 
It seems relatively easy to get access to driver  cards from other pers ons who do not directly 
need this card and who seem to be easily ready to  hand over their driver card to other drivers. 
2.3.1.4.  Fraudulent or negligent workshops 
Workshops, being on the front line  of the tachograph system, can play an important role in 
detecting manipulation. They are often supporting the contro llers for in depth inspection, 
when fraud is suspected by enforcers. They are al so responsible for affixing the seals. It is not 
possible to have security without trusted workshops. 
Workshops accredited for digital tachograph calib ration and maintenance were historically 
selected from the network of analogue tachogra phs workshops, with a particular attention to 
exclude the fraction of them involved in the past in frauds affairs (estimated around 30%).56 
Still, the trustworth iness of the workshops has been called into question by inspection 
authorities (TISPOL and ECR)57, and the stakeholder consultation recognised that there is 
room for improvement in this  respect (see in particular  the contribution by CORTE).58 The 
workshop can notably develop a privileged co mmercial relation with a transport company 
after the accreditation ph ase is over. Cases of transport ope rators having their own workshops 
to fit and calibrate tachographs seem to be a particular area of concern.59 The problem seems 
to be particularly pronounced in Germany. Ownership questions are not clearly regulated and 
harmonised at European level wh ich creates room for confusion. 60 
Frauds by workshops are difficult to catch during workshops audits. More efficient are checks 
made directly after a calibrati on session, where an inspector as ks for a second session in the 
workshop, for calibration crosscheck. The Nether lands reported that th ey are organizing 
                                                 
53 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1266/2009. 
54 Recommendation 2010/19/EU. 
55 Cf. TACHOnet statistics February 2011, 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/social_provisi ons/tachograph/doc/2011_02_tachonet_statistics.pdf .  
56 JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010 
57 Information provided in an informal way to the Commission 
58 Confederation of Organisations in Road Transpor t Enforcement (CORTE) was established in 2004 with 
the aim to bring together national bodies from various European countries having a responsibility and 
interest in the field of road transport. For the contribution to the stakeholder consultation, see http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/consultations/2010_03_01_tachographs_en.htm
 
59 CORTE contribution to stakeholder consultation. 
60 JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010. 
 
EN 17   EN randomly that kind of check, by ca lling the closest cont roller in the area, fo r an instantaneous 
second check. Thus the quality a nd frequency of the audits seem s important for the detection 
of fraud.61 Currently, according to TISPOL62, this quality and frequency is highly variable 
from one Member State to another, and this is reflected in the amount of fraud detected. 
2.3.2.  Effectiveness of the c ontrols and the dissuasive effect of sanctions 
In 2009, the Commission has adopted a recommendation63 providing guidelines for best 
enforcement practice on countermeasures to detect and prevent the use of manipulation 
devices as identified in research carr ied out by the Joint Research Centre.64 However, despite 
the adopted recommendation, the assessment unde rtaken by the Commission has shown that 
training of enforcement officers and sanctions are still issues  that need to be tackled. 
2.3.2.1.  Non harmonised training of enforcement officers 
Art. 11 (2) of the Directive 2006 /22/EC indicates that Member  States shall ensure that 
enforcement officers are well trained for the ex ecution of their duties, including regarding the 
checking of the digital ta chographs. Preferably this training should be available to all control 
and enforcement officers involved in these task s, and a certain degree of harmonisation at 
both national and international level is necessary in  order to contribute to a level playing field 
for all actors involved.  However, according to a recent study analysing the organisation of the 
enforcement of Directive 2006/22/EC65 there is a wide range of organisations with different 
training practices involved in the control and en forcement within the various Member States. 
First of all, control and enforcement differ  considerably in terms of operational and 
organisational responsibilities and are, in most cases, spread over many different 
institutions66. There are cases where these tasks are co mplicated by the involvement of several 
bodies with different roles. Anothe r factor contributing to this si tuation is the lack of a clear 
mandate for each entity.  
Despite the obligation set up in the legislation, only 20 out of 29 Authorities analysed in the 
report had completed in 2009 the training of th eir enforcement officers. The duration of 
training varies significantly: from 5 hours for the initial training in Estonia to 100 hours in 
Slovakia. On average, the officers spent 30 hour s on initial training on di gital tachographs and 
14 hours on the follow-up training. The study i ndicated that in several Member States, 
untrained officers may be involved in ro adside checks of di gital tachographs. 
The training of enforcement officers, and fo remost the coordination and cooperation between 
the different enforcement bodies in the field of  training, is of great importance, given the 
complexity of the road transpor t legislation, the highly technical aspects of road transport and 
                                                 
61 Ibid. 
62 Information provided in an informal way to the Commission. 
63 Commission Recommendation C (2009) 108, providing guidelines for best enforcement practice on 
countermeasures to detect and prevent the use of manipulation devices. 
64 JRC, Report on the attacks to security of the Di gital Tachograph and on the risk associated with the 
introduction of adaptors to be fitted into light vehicles, 2007. 
65 Price Waterhouse Cooper, Analysis of the technical and organisational measures employed by Member 
States in the application of Directive 2006/22/EC, 2009. 
66 In a number of Member States, the police (usually under the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior) 
are in charge of the enfo rcement of the Transport Ac quis. In some Member Stat es, there are branches of 
specialised police which are part of the Ministry of  Defence. Alongside the police, there are generally 
specially designated bodies falling under the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Transport, such as 
Labour and Transport Inspectorates. 
 
EN 18   EN the role of road transport in traffic safety. According to the abovementioned study, in the UK, 
only 258 officers are sufficient to carry out th e majority of both roadside and company 
checks. This figure is striking in comparison to the number of officers involved in checks in 
countries of similar size, such as France ( 3500) or Germany (5937). The study interprets the 
situation by saying that these few officers are able to execute their activity successfully 
because they are well trained and fully equipped.67 
The differences in the quality an d effectiveness of trainings s eem in some cases to be the 
result of a conscious policy of the Member St ates. It appears – according to the study – that 
there are Member States where the training of enforcement offi cers is being given such a low 
priority that it is vi rtually non-existent. The fact that in many count ries there is no fixed 
budget for training might give an indication of th eir actual awareness of the importance of 
training. Also, not all training programmes do include all the necessary elements, as for 
example fraud identification for tachographs is not covered by several authorities. 
At the same time, it must be noted that the tr aining authorities in the various Member States 
have developed a relatively advanced level of cooperation in their resp ective national context 
(8 of them are sharing knowledge on an ad-hoc basis, 19 on a regular basis) and in terms of 
international cooperation. Almost half of the training institutions  work together regularly with 
foreign organisations during roadside checks. This  sets the basis for exchange of best practice 
and for enhancing the quality of enfo rcement in worst performing States. 
As a conclusion, elements gathered indicate th at due to the diversity and multiplicity of 
enforcement officers, the lack of harmonisati on of the requirements on both the training and 
the organisation of enforcement officers translat es into large differenc es in the quality of 
preparation and of effectiveness of roadsi de and company checks on the compliance with 
social legislation in transport. 
2.3.2.2.  Scope of data from the digital tachograph available to enforcement officers  
With analogue tachographs, drivers have to re cord the start and end place of their working 
day. For digital tachographs, this  requirement has been replaced  by an obligation to record 
this information at the level of Member States , making this information practically useless for 
enforcement purposes. Enforcement officers in dicated during the cons ultation process and 
within the Expert Panel that th e loss of this information on th e start and end of journeys has 
been a detrimental aspect of the switch from analogue to digital tac hographs. This has been 
confirmed by a Report from the JRC68. Indeed, this information could be used to cross check 
the recordings of driving time and speed and detect more easily anomalies which suggest the 
existence of fraud. 
2.3.2.3.  Sanctions policy 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 requires Member  States to lay down rules on penalties 
applicable to infringements to European social ru les in road transport, as defined by the said 
Regulation itself and the Tachograph Regulati on. Notably, the legislation requires that the 
                                                 
67 Ibid. 
68 JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010. The report 
indicates: "Compared to analogue tachographs, controllers are bewailing the absence of clear 
information about the location of the daily work period start/end. A clear and mandatory indication of 
this would help controllers to rebuild the daily road fingerprints, central for fraud detection." 
 
EN 19   EN penalties concerning such infringements ar e effective, proportionate, dissuasive and non-
discriminatory.69 Article 21 of this Regulation states in addition that the possibility of 
immobilising the vehicle where serious infringements are detected should also be included within the common range of measures open to Me mber States. However, there is no definition 
in the Regulation of what should be considered a serious infringement. 
In 2009, Directive 2009/5/EC amen ding Annex III to Directive 2006/22 introduced a detailed 
categorisation of infringements to European soci al legislation in road transport according to a 
three step scale going from minor to very serious infringement. Most of the infringements to 
the Tachograph Regulation were qualified as se rious or very serious infringements. In 
particular, all infringements related to fraud a nd inability/unwillingness to produce data fell in 
the category of very serious infringement s. Also Regulation 1071/2009 on the admission to 
the occupation
70 which will apply with effect from 4 December 2011 classifies frauds of 
tachographs as one of "the most serious infringements". 
The Commission Report analysing the penalties for seri ous infringements against the social 
rules in road transport, as provided for in the legislation of the Member States71 shows that 
the rules on penalties applicable to serious infringements of the social legislation vary appreciably between Member States as regards th e types of penalties, the level of fines and 
the categorisation of infri ngements. In particular: 
• The financial penalties for most seri ous infringements have been found to 
stretch from € 58.23 in Malta to € 5 000 a nd more in Austria, Cyprus, Germany 
and Ireland. The amounts of the fines for the same infringement can vary by as 
much as 1:10 from one Member State to another; 
• Some Member States provide for differentiated, while others for non-
differentiated penalties, as the latter do not distinguish in their legislation 
between different types or cat egories of infringements; 
• Only 15 Member States provide explicitly in their legislation for the possibility 
of immobilisation of the vehicle in breach of legislation
72; 
• Seven out of 27 Member States provide for imprisonment in cases of serious 
infringements; 
• Only a few Member States provide for penalties to the operators in the 
transport chain (consignors, freight forw arders, tour operators, etc…) which do 
not ensure that contractually agreed transport time schedules observe social 
                                                 
69 Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006. 
70 Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied 
with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC, OJ L 300, 14.11.09, p. 51 
71 Report from the Commission analysing the penalties fo r serious infringements against the social rules in 
road transport, as provided for in the legi slation of the Member States, COM(2009)225. 
72 The legal possibility to immobilise the vehicle can be essential for sanctioni ng the fraud on Tachograph 
Regulation. The JRC report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph indicates a case study from France where trucks stopped during the night with evident indications of fraud can only 
be controlled in workshop the following day. Driv ers, whose vehicles are not immobilised by the 
enforcement officers, can th en use the night to eliminate the proofs of fraud. 
 
EN 20   EN legislation rules. Even in these few Member States, such penalties are not 
applied in practice. 
• While for infringements against the drivin g times and rest peri ods, it is rather 
clear which infringement has to be consid ered to be more serious than another, 
the categorisation of infringements varies  considerably between Member States 
for infringements against Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85. Some infringements 
are seen as serious infringements in one country, but not necessarily in another. 
The disparities between the sanctions applied in the Member States are a source of potential 
legal problems, such as discrimi nation between transport operator s of different nationalities, 
or the type of situation where the driver cont ravenes the tachograph le gislation following his 
employer company's instructions and, in some countries, the legislati on does not provide for 
the criminal liability of companies in general, but still provides for a penalty of a criminal 
nature against the driver. The report of the Commission73 makes it clear that "the differences 
in sanctions can only be partly explained by th e socio-economic differences that make the 
same fine proportionate and dissuasive in one count ry but not necessarily in the other." In the 
majority of cases, non harmonised sanctions dist ort the Internal Market and more importantly 
send contradictory and misleadin g signals to the drivers a nd undertakings concerning the 
gravity of infringements and the social cost of non-compliance. 
2.3.3.  The use of the tachograph system is not sufficie ntly optimised 
As explained in part 2.1 above, administrative burden related to the compliance to Regulation 
561/2006 amounts to € 2.7 billion. The Stoiber Group indicated a numb er of underlying 
drivers behind this problem, while others have be en suggested in the course of the stakeholder 
consultation74: 
2.3.3.1.  Inadequate provisions of the Tachograph Regulation 
Insufficient scope of exemptions 
According to Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 Member States may grant 
exemptions, among others, for vehicles or combination of vehicles with a maximum 
permissible mass not exceeding 7.5 tonnes used  for carrying materials, equipment or 
machinery for the driver’s use in the course of his work, if the vehicle is used within a 50 km 
radius from the base of the undertaking and on condition that drivi ng the vehicle does not 
constitute the driver’s main ac tivity. According to stakeholders  participating in the Stoiber 
Group, "the restriction of this ex emption possibility to a radius of 50 km is not appropriate as 
many of those companies in focus of this provision work in a bigger range around their 
company base than 50 km. The radius for this exemption could therefore be expanded to 150 
km as this would not significan tly touch road safety accordi ng to stakeholders. For this 
proposal the [Group] has estimated a re duction of burdens up to € 59 m."75 According to the 
Stoiber Group other companies are not covered by the abovementioned exemption but – with 
regard to road safety aspects – are comparable to the exempt ed groups and could be covered 
                                                 
73 Report from the Commission analysing the penalties fo r serious infringements against the social rules in 
road transport, as provided for in the legi slation of the Member States, COM(2009)225. 
74 See for instance contributions of transport undertakings or trade unions (ZDH, TLN or ETF) 
75 Opinion of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens of 4-5 March 
2009 on transport. 
 
EN 21   EN by exemptions without negative impact on safet y, internal market or working conditions. As 
an indication of the cost reductio n potential of such measure, the Group's report indicates that 
the savings just for German brewers would amount to € 15 million. 
At the same time, other distance-based exempti ons contained in Article 13 of the Regulation 
(EC) No 561/2006 vary between 50 and 150 km. Own analysis of the Commission indicates 
that these variations are not justified while  they complicate the enforcement of social 
legislation. 
Manual recording of data 
Member States have different approaches when  it comes to recording daily and weekly rest 
periods. Some consider periods where no activity has been recorded as "rest", some require 
however an attestation form to confirm this. As the tachograph currently records only driving 
times in an automated way, some Member Stat es impose the obligation to fill in forms on 
drivers when a driver is not working, e.g. in case of holidays, due to illness or the driver’s rest 
time exceeds 24 hours.76 The EU acquis provides for a form which has to be recognised by all 
Member States.77 According to the stakeholders in the Stoiber Group78, this obligation is 
burdensome especially as those forms have to be signed by the driver  and the employer and 
have to be kept in the truck for the last 28 days in original . The burden of this obligation 
would be reduced significantly by deleting th e obligation to have the forms signed by the 
employer or accepting copies of the attestation fo rms. According to the estimates of the Group 
this proposal represents savings of around € 184 million.79 
2.3.3.2.  Technical limitations of digital tachograph devices 
According to the stakehol ders in the Stoiber Group80, the devices for the digital tachograph 
currently allowed are technically outdated.  
Downloading speed 
The Internet stakeholder consultation81 indicated that the speed of regular downloading of 
data required by the legislation is an issue for the operators, although there is a feeling that 
"download speeds have increased considerably  over time as newer devices have been 
introduced into the market […] The importance of incorporating new technological advancements to further increase speeds on a rolling basis was stressed by many respondents."
82 Low downloading speed is inevitably a source of cost for road transport 
                                                 
76 A list of Member State where the form is ma ndatory is available on the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/social_provision s/doc/forms/2007_form_attestation_of_activities_upd
ate2010.pdf 
77 Commission Decision of 14 Decem ber 2009 amending Decision 2007 /230/EC on a form concerning 
social legislation relating to road transport activities, OJ L 330, 16.12.2009, p. 80–81  
78 Opinion of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens of 4-5 March 
2009 on transport. 
79 Ibid. 
80 Ibid. 
81 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/consultations/2010_03_01_tachographs_en.htm , see in particular the 
contribution of transport undertakings (IRU, SAV, IRHA, FTA or DTF) 
82 Summary of stakeholder consultation responses,  
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/consultations/2010_03_01_tachographs_en.htm  
 
EN 22   EN companies. According to the stakeholders in the Stoiber Group83, the burden linked to this 
issue is estimated to an amount of € 664 million. 
On the side of controls, downloading time is a crucial element in determining the scope of the 
check. Responses collected in a questionnaire from Member States84 indicate that, "with 
regards to roadside checks, th e time employed for downloading data  from a driver card ranges 
between 1 to 5 minutes.85 Downloading data from digital tachographs is more time-
consuming […] [and] could typically  range from 15 to 60 minutes."86 Data stored in the 
digital tachograph is more complete and theref ore gives a bigger chance to detect fraud, but 
the very long downloading time often pushes cont rol officers to check only the driver's card. 
Single-use of the device 
Stakeholders87 indicated that the cost of using the t achograph for the pur pose of controlling 
driving time could be reduced if the tachograp h was better integrated with other Intelligent 
Transport Systems (ITS) applications88 to avoid duplication of pr ocesses and exploit potential 
synergies. In particular, it would make sense th at the secondary source of motion information 
was the satellite positioning used for other purpo ses by the drivers. Article 2(3) of Directive 
2004/52/EC on electronic tolls al so explicitly refers to linkage between the on-board 
equipment used by electronic tolls and the digital tachograph. A recent study commissioned 
by the Commission recommended clearly that th e digital tachograph should be used as 
"essential core telematics element in the ITS station of the vehicle concerned"89.  
As explained by the abovementioned report, expl oiting these synergies is currently rendered 
difficult by the lack of a standardised in terface ensuring interoperability between the 
tachograph and other ITS applications.  
2.3.3.3.  Insufficient efficiency of roadsi de checks for compliant drivers 
Roadside checks are carried out randomly, whic h inevitably implies stopp ing a relatively high 
proportion of non-fraudulent vehicles.90 Unfortunately, stopping the vehicle in order to carry 
out checks on driving times and rest periods take s a lot of time (see above) and the number of 
non-fraudulent vehicles stopped is  quite high. In the absence of  appropriate mechanisms to 
filter and target the road side checks, time spen t on these checks means important costs for the 
non-fraudulent firms and the authorities concerne d. Filtering of roadside checks could be done 
through a wireless signal from the digital tac hograph indicating that most likely, there is a 
problem of compliance with the legislation. This  signal would allow control officers to assess 
                                                 
83 Opinion of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens of 4-5 March 
2009 on transport. 
84 Price Waterhouse Cooper, Analysis of the technical and organisational measures employed by Member 
States in the application of Directive 2006/22/EC, 2009. 
85 Information provided by the UK authorities to the Commission services  
86 Ibid. 
87 Notably IRU; see the results of  the stakeholder consultation  
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/consultations/2010_03_01_tachographs_en.htm. 
88 ‘Intelligent Transport Service’, meaning the use of Information and Communication Technologies 
(ICT) in transport. 
89 Study by Rapptrans on Specific action 4.1 of the ITS Action Plan, 2010. 
90 The 25th report of the Commission on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road 
transport suggests that the ratio be tween the number of offences det ected and the number of vehicles 
checked varies considerably from country to country. On average, the ratio is somewhat less that 20  %, 
meaning that 80  % of the vehicles stopped were found to have committed no offence. 
 
EN 23   EN whether it would be interesting to stop a certain  vehicle for further co ntrol during a roadside 
check. 
2.3.3.4.  Tachograph is not sufficiently facilitating drivers’ work 
Warning about data overwriting 
The SMART project report91 indicates that the issue of accidental over-writing driver card 
data is seen as an issue by stakeholders from th e sector. This point was in particular raised by 
CORTE and the International Road Union (IRU) . As explained by the operators, according to 
the Annex 1B specifications, the driver’s card has to  be able to store at least data from 28 days 
worth of driving. However activities of a day are supposed to lead to 93 changes to be recorded by the tachograph. In certain sectors where frequent stops or changes in activity such 
as city deliveries occur, these 93 changes can be easily used up before the end of the 28 days. 
In these circumstances the earliest  recorded data on the card ri sk to be overwritten and lost 
without any warning being given to  the driver. It should be noted  that it is not possible to 
define an overall minimum capacity which woul d guarantee that data are never overwritten. 
This poses a problem for legal compliance because  in the event of a check the driver may not 
have in his possession all required records of hi s activities. The stakeholders involved in the 
SMART project suggested the amendment of the sp ecifications so that the driver can receive 
a warning if the card has reached the limit of its memory and is about to start overwriting the 
data.
92 
Positioning of the tachograph in the vehicle 
According to the stakeholders as reported in the SMART repor t, "tachographs sometimes get 
placed in hard to reach areas in the driver's  compartment, resulting in bad ergonomics and 
usability."93 It might even be that the tachograph is  installed in the glove box, which makes it 
difficult to see for instance the driving time or to take action in case of a warning. It was 
recommended in the stakeholder consultation for instance by the trade unions (ETF) to solve this problem by indicating in the legislation that  the device should be placed in sight of the 
driver. 
                                                
 
91 SMART DIGITAL Tachograph Project (Support, Maintain And Improve the Digital Tachograph), 
2007. 
92 Ibid. 
93 Ibid. 
 
EN 24   EN Table 1: Synoptic table of probl ems, drivers and problematic areas 
Identified drivers Problematic areas 
Seals do not properly perform as an indicator of 
tachograph manipulation  
Vulnerabilities of encryption technology 
Misuse of driver card Driver 1: The tachograph system is still vulnerable to 
manipulation and fraud  
Fraudulent or negligent workshops 
Non harmonised training of enforcement officers 
Scope of data from the digital tachograph available 
to enforcement officers Driver 2: Effectiveness of  controls and dissuasive 
effect of sanctions  
Sanctions policy 
Inadequate provisions of the Tachograph 
Regulation 
Technical limitations of the digital tachograph 
Insufficient efficiency of roadside checks for 
compliant drivers Driver 3: The use of the tachograph system is not 
sufficiently optimised  
Tachograph is not sufficiently facilitating drivers' 
work 
 
2.4. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 
2.4.1.  Drivers 
Drivers of trucks and buses are the primary user s of the tachograph. They are obliged to use it 
to carry out transport operations falling with in the scope of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006. 
Their working conditions and st andards decline if their firm s do not comply with social 
legislation. If opportunities for fraud were redu ced, employers could not exert pressure on 
drivers to circumvent social legislation and dr ivers could fully enjoy th eir rights as laid down 
in the social legislation. 
2.4.2.  Firms using the tachograph 
Road transport firms are directly affected by competitors who gain an unfair advantage over 
them by circumventing social legislation. This means that the market shares held by firms 
which comply with the social legislation woul d decline, due to distortion of competition.  
Poor user-friendliness of th e tachograph has direct cons equences on firms using the 
tachograph. Finally, certain categories of undert akings, although not having transport as main 
activity like for instance craftsmen, may have  to bear an unnecessary administrative burden 
by being obliged to install a nd use the digi tal tachograph. 
 
EN 25   EN 2.4.3.  Member States and inspection authorities 
Member States are legally obliged  to enforce social legislation94, and must therefore have 
adequately trained enforcemen t staff. However, these national inspection authorities are 
adversely affected if the system is not user -friendly and functioning in a sub optimal way. 
2.4.4.  Tachograph manufacturers 
The current manufacturers of type-approved tac hograph equipment are, of course, directly 
affected by the regulatory environment – as ar e other firms interested  in developing such 
equipment. 
2.4.5.  Citizens/road users 
All road users are put at greater  risk of injury when road safety is compromised. This is 
particularly true of ro ad traffic accidents invol ving vehicles wei ghing more than 3.5 tons, as 
injuries tend to be more se vere than in other accidents95. 
2.4.6.  EU industry 
The European industries involved in ITS (the  automotive industry, ICT industry, digital map 
service providers, etc.) will find  it difficult to stay competitiv e on the world market if their 
technologies are not deployed. 
2.5. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?  
The problems identified concern the tachograph sy stem as a whole. The gradual renewal of 
the fleet will have the effect of  increasing the importance of th e problems related to the digital 
tachograph (for example the issue of data on the location of the day's start and end not being 
available to the controllers). It  is estimated that by 2020, 80% of the vehicles covered by the 
Tachograph Regulation will be equi pped with a digital tachograph96, including almost the 
whole long-distance fleet where, due to the hi gh yearly mileage, fleet renewal is faster. 
The enter into force of the provisions of Regulation 1266/2009 on user friendliness of the 
digital tachograph and its increased resistance to "attacks" will mitig ate the administrative 
burden (reduction of € 234.5 million a year) on the one hand, and will reduce the relevance 
and importance of some vulnerability issues id entified above (resistance  to manipulation of 
the tachograph). On the other ha nd, time will aggravate the problems related to the encryption 
of data. In a recent report JRC estimated th at without policy change, "[the security] 
mechanisms will shortly become obsolete and the overall [digital tachograph system] will 
suffer a decrease of its security level below th e level currently requested by the legislation."97 
At the same time, technological progress will probably reduce the problems related to the 
speed of data download both at company premises and during roadside checks. 
                                                 
94 See Directive 2006/22/EC. 
95 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/r oadsafety_library/care/doc/safetynet/2007/bfs2007_sn-trl-1-3-
hgvs_buses.pdf. 
96 Estimates based on the renewal of the fleet. 
97 JRC, Possible scenarios for the technical evolution of the digital tachograph system, as defined in the 
regulation EEC 3821/85, 2010. 
 
EN 26   EN The progressing economic convergence of EU-12 with EU-15 countries98 will exacerbate the 
distortionary effect of the differences in sanctions99, unless the latter are changed to better 
reflect the new situation. Indeed, it won't be po ssible any more to justify lower sanctions by 
lower earnings and wages. At the same time, Directive 2009/5/EC which harmonises the categorisation of offenses across the Union should have an indirect positive impact on the harmonisation of sanctions (in some Member stat es, the re-categorisation of some offenses 
could imply the re-adjustment of sanctions).
100 
The data available to the Commission indicates that the use of the TACHOnet system is 
progressing at a rapid pace.101 This is notably the effect of the Recommendation on the use of 
TACHOnet issued by the Commission in January 2010102 inviting Member States to make a 
more frequent use of this to ol and introducing a minimum service level agreement. This 
evolution will have a potentia lly big (proportional to the rise in the use of TACHOnet) 
positive impact on the level of detection of fraud related to the misuse of driving cards. 
Finally, the exchange of best practice on the tr aining of enforcement officers, as identified in 
the problem driver "Training of enforcemen t officers" above, might have some positive 
impact on the quality of training. This impact could however be limited given notably the low 
commitment to quality training on the side of Member States (s ee analysis above). 
2.6. Does the EU have the right to act and is there a clear EU added value? 
This impact assessment is concerned with measures to enhance the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the tachograph system used to en sure compliance with the social legislation. It 
explores and analyses options for revising Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 which is based on 
Article 91 of the TFEU (former Article 71 of  the EEC Treaty).. The EU added value was 
assessed when this Regulation was introduced and the arguments which substantiate this 
added value still hold.  
These arguments are predicated upon the ever-increasing reality that road transport within the 
EU is transnational in nature. International road freight transport accounted for about one 
third (or 612 billion tkms) of total road freight  transport in the EU in 2006. Data compiled by 
the European Commission shows that internationa l road freight is an increasing proportion of 
this total.103 This is because of incr easing cross-border trade and economic growth, which 
have in part been facilitated by EU enlargem ent and the liberalisati on of the road haulage 
industry in Europe. Social legislat ion in the road transport field is harmonised at EU level, and 
                                                 
98 EU energy and transport in figures, Statistical pocketbook 2010, p. 11. 
99 See section 2.3.2, "Sanctions policy" and the Report from the Commission analysing the penalties for 
serious infringements against the social rules in road transport, as provided for in the legislation of the 
Member States, COM(2009)225. 
100 Although Directive 2009/5/EC requires Member St ates to comply with the new categorisation of 
offenses as soon as from the end of 2009, this directive has not directly consequences for the sanctions 
applied by Member States as the Directive concerns the categorisation of infringements and is used in several Member States primarily for the purpose of risk rating systems only.  
101 In December 2010, 25 countries did not meet the mini mum of 98 percent of answers; in February 2011, 
only 20 countries did not meet this threshold. See 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/social_p rovisions/tachograph/tachonet_en.htm. 
102 Commission Recommendation of 13 January 2010 on the secure exchange of electronic data between 
Member States to check the uniqueness of driver card s that they issue, OJ L 9, 14.1.2010, p. 10–13. 
103 See for example figure 3.1.6 in European Commission (DG TREN), Road Freight Transport 
Vademecum , (March 2009). 
 
EN 27   EN verifying compliance with this legislation requi res recording equipment to be interoperable 
between Member States. Given the increasingly tr ansnational nature of road freight transport 
in the EU and the harmonised nature of social  legislation, it would be counterproductive to 
revert to regulating recording equipment at na tional level — not least because this kind of 
regulation has been carried out at EU level for the past 25 years. 
As regards sanctions, the Co mmission report on penalties104 showed the divergences between 
sanctions applied by Member States for infri ngements against the ta chograph regulation. It 
appears that not in all Member States, the sanctions foreseen for the manipulation of 
tachographs are categorised among the severest. Therefore, the sanctioning system in the EU 
is not regarded as dissuasive by those who manipulate tachographs  in certain Member States. 
In a context where road transport is more and mo re international, the EU  has already started to 
harmonise the definition and cate gorisation of infringements in an attempt to ensure a level 
playing field so that a company which commits  an infringement in a country X has no 
competitive advantages or disadvantages co mpared with a company committing a similar 
infringement in a country Y. Hence, the manipul ation of tachographs is  already categorised by 
the EU legislation as one of "the most seri ous infringements" within the broader list of 
infringements to commercial road transport rules (see Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009). Such a 
classification without harmonising a minimum degr ee of deterring effect of sanctions imposed 
by Member States do not necessarily lead to a st rict respect of rules as companies react to 
actual sanctions and not to the categorisation of infringements. The review of the Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 to achieve its full effect could therefore introduce a minimum 
degree of harmonisation so that the manipulation of tachographs leads to the hi ghest sanctions 
applied in the specific Member State in relation to commercial road transport. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. General Objective 
The overall aims of road transport social le gislation (the rules on driving time and rest 
periods) are to improve road safety and drivers' working conditions and to ensure fair competition between transport companies, contri buting thereby to the good functioning of the 
Internal Market for transport services. The social  legislation in road transport is therefore an 
essential element of the Common Transport Polic y to attain Treaty's goals like improving 
transport safety (Article 91.1(c) TFUE
105), social progress (Article 3.3 TEU106) and 
establishing an internal mark et (Article 3.3 TEU). The Tac hograph Regulation is the main 
tool for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the social legislation in road transport, and 
the general goal of the proposals which accompa ny this IA includes the contribution to the 
abovementioned Treaty goals. 
At the same time, the intention of the Commission is also to contribute to the goals set up by 
the Communication on Better Regulation for Gr owth and Jobs in the European Union107 and 
                                                 
104 COM(2009)225 
105 Treaty on the Functioning  of the European Union 
106 Treaty on European Union 
107 Communication from the Commission, Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union, 
COM(2005) 97 final 
 
EN 28   EN the Strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment108. The proposals should also 
contribute to the goal "to reduce administrative burden on compan ies, and improve the quality 
of business legislation" set down in the Europe  2020 flagship initiative "An industrial policy 
for the globalisation era".109 
3.2. Specific Objectives 
Part 2.3 above has identified three problem driv ers. The specific objectives of the proposed 
initiatives reflect this problem definition and are the following. 
1. The first specific policy objective is to improve the trustworthiness of the recording 
equipment. 
2. The second specific policy objective is to increas e the efficiency of th e checks of the social 
legislation in road transport. 
3. The third specific policy objectiv e is to reduce the costs relate d to the use of the recording 
equipment, notably by reducing the admi nistrative burden related to its use. 
3.3. Operational Objectives 
In this context, the following operational objectives were chosen for their usefulness for 
indicating the level of  achievement of the specific objectives: 
• Eliminate the "most serious infringements"110 against tachograph rules by 2020 
(monitored by the Commission on the basis of the future reports submitted by 
Member States for the bi-annual report); 
• Double by 2020 the detection ra te of infringements to th e social legislation per 
vehicle controlled in a roadside ch eck compared to 2008 (monitored by the 
Commission on the basis of the future reports submitted by Member States for the bi-annual report); 
• Reduce the administrative burden related to  the use of the di gital tachograph by 
20 % before 2020 compared to 2010 (based on the estimations provided by the 
Stoiber Group and the EU project on base line measurements and reduction of 
administrative costs
111). 
                                                 
108 Communication of the Commission, Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: A strategy for 
the simplification of the regulatory environment, COM(2005) 535 final 
109 Communication of the Commission, An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era - Putting 
Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage, COM(2010)614. 
110 The most serious infringements are defined in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009: "2. Not 
having a tachograph and/or speed limiter, or using a fraudulent device able to modify the records of the 
recording equipment and/or the speed limiter or falsifying record sheets or data downloaded from the 
tachograph and/or the driver card; (…) 6. Driving with  a driver card that has be en falsified, or with a 
card of which the driver is not the holder, or which ha s been obtained on the basis of false declarations 
and/or forged documents." 
111 Cap Gemini, EU project on baseline measuremen ts and reduction of administrative costs, 2009 
 
EN 29   EN Some data concerning road transport is collect ed at an EU level and could be used for 
monitoring the impact of the proposed regula tion on the specific objectives listed above.112 
Further arrangements are foreseen in section 7 to  ensure a more accurate monitoring in future. 
3.4. Consistency of the objectives with fundamental rights 
Measures designed to meet the objectives wi ll need to be in compliance with relevant 
fundamental rights and principles as embodied in  the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union. In particular, the measures ai med at reducing the number of drivers in fraud 
of social legislation and at integrating the tac hograph with other ITS devi ces will need to take 
due account of the need to respec t for private and family life (Art . 7), the right to protection of 
personal data (Art. 8) and the freedom to cond uct a business (Art. 16). Particular attention 
should be given to the necessity and proportio nality. Concerning sanctions, the fundamental 
rights provided for in Title VI Justice, in partic ular principles of legality and proportionality 
of criminal offences and penalties (Art. 49) and the right not to be trie d or punished twice for 
the same offence (Art.50) are also important . The specific objectives as defined above, 
namely the improvement of road safety, inte rnal market functioning and drivers' working 
conditions, could constitute general interest and therefore justify potential necessary 
limitations of the identi fied fundamental rights. However, any limitation on the exercise of 
these rights will have to be made clear in the future tachograph regulation and respect the 
essence of these rights and freedoms. 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
The stakeholder consultation113 and the major reports on the topic allowed us to identify a 
broad set of individual measures having the pot ential to address the numerous problematic 
areas identified in  the problems above. The following pro cess was applied for generating from 
these possible policy measures the policy packages that will be analysed in later parts of the 
present report: 
• Identify the policy measures which can be discarded on the basis of a first, 
preliminary assessment (see Annex VII). These policy measures were proposed 
in the stakeholder consulta tion or elsewhere but were  discarded at an early 
stage of the impact assessment as unreal istic, out of scop e or not bringing 
sufficiently high benefits in comparison to their costs. 
• Draft a list of retained policy measures; 
• Package those measures into policy options constituting viable policy 
alternatives for achieving the objectives. 
4.1. List of retained policy measures 
The table below is providing a mapping betw een the retained policy measures and the 
problematic areas identified in  the problem definition above. 
                                                 
112 Cf. notably Eurostat statistics and EU energy and transport in figures. 
113 Internet consultation and SMART project. 
 
EN 30   EN The measures have been selected on the followi ng basis. First, the measures had to cover all 
the components of the tachograph system (which consists not only of the vehicle unit and the 
driver cards, but includes the workshops, contro l officers, manual recordings etc). Second, the 
list of measures also had to take into account the suggestions of diffe rent stakeholders as 
expressed in the stak eholder consultation. 
 
EN 31   EN Table 2: Mapping between problem drivers, pr oblematic areas and content of policy measures 
Problematic areas identified in the 
problem definition Policy measures Content of policy measures 
Driver 1: Vulnerability of the tachograph system 
Insufficient quality of seals  Higher quality seals This measure would consist of mandating the European standardisation bodies to 
develop adequate standards for seals. 
Vulnerabilities of encryption technology More secure encryption technology The measure would consist of creating a ten-year roadmap of 
amendments to the annexes of the Tachograph Regulation for updating 
the encryption requirements to th e evolving threats. The roadmap 
would be presented to the indust ry – and notably to tachograph 
manufacturers – for better planning and therefore better investment 
strategy. 
Misuse of driver cards Make fraud with driver card more 
difficult This measure would include: 
• Merging driver cards with the driving licen ces and the certificat e for the initial and 
continuous training of professional drivers114. This would require a change to both 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 and to the driving licence directive. 
• Mandatory and regulated participation of all Member States in TACHOnet. 
Fraudulent or negligent workshops  More trustworthy workshops This measure would include: 
• harmonising the requirements for work shop auditing across the EU, and 
• forbidding transport firms to calibrate their own vehicles 
                                                 
114 Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Co uncil of 15 July 2003 on the initial qualification and periodic t raining of drivers of certain road vehicles for 
the carriage of goods or passengers, OJ L 226, 10.9.2003, p. 4–17  
 
EN 32   EN  
Driver 2: Effectiveness of controls  and dissuasive effect of sanctions 
Non harmonised training of enforcement 
officers Better training of control officers  This measure would imply issuing guidelines on training standards and training 
practices for technical and enforcement staff. 
Scope of data from the digital tachograph 
available to enforcement officers Improved tachograph functions 
(automatic and manual recording)  This measure would imply: 
• Clarifying that any period during whic h no activity is recorded should be 
considered as rest time to avoid the need to use paper attestation forms (Art. 13(1) 
of Directive 2006/22/EC); 
• Requiring in the digital tachograph the au tomatic recording of the vehicles precise 
location at the start and end of the working day through GNSS115. 
Sanctions policy  Minimum degree of 
harmonisation of sanctions 
 This measure would require Member States to apply sanctions with the highest 
available level within the commercial transpor t for most serious breaches (in line with 
the categorisation of infringements provided  in the annex to Directive 2009/5/EC) of 
tachograph provisions. 
                                                 
115 Other variants for automated recording of location data have been discarded, see Annex VIII. 
 
EN 33   EN  
Driver 3: The use of the tachograph is not sufficiently optimised 
Inadequate provisions of the Tachograph 
Regulation Modernised rules on the use  This measure would imply: 
• For the exemption "to carriage by vehicles  or combinations of vehicles with a 
maximum permissible mass not exceeding 7. 5 tonnes used for carrying materials, 
equipment or machinery for the driver's use in the course of his work. These 
vehicles shall be used only within a 50  kilometre radius from the base of the 
undertaking, and on condition that drivin g the vehicles does not constitute the 
driver's main activity" in Article 13(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, 
extending the radius from 50 to 150 km; or 
• Aligning the range for other distance based exemptions in Article 13 of Regulation 
(EC) No 561/2006 to 100 km (currently ra nging from 50 to 100 km). This would 
concern for instance certain vehicles prope lled by electricity or certain vehicles 
used for the carriage of live animals. 
Technical limitations of the digital 
tachograph Harmonised interface with other 
ITS applications  Define a standardised interface between the tachograph and other ITS applications, 
making the interface available to all new equipment manufacturers. 
 
Insufficient efficiency of roadside checks 
for compliant drivers The wireless communication for 
roadside checks 
 This measure would imply the mandator y fitting of vehicles equipped with 
tachographs with devices emitting a signal on the presence or absence of anomalies 
indicating possible fraud or non compliance with social legislation. The signal would 
contain only basic information to reduce the risk that it  is affected by faults and that 
the privacy rights of drivers are affected. The signal would be readable – for instance 
in the form of green or red light – by  adequately equipped enforcement officers 
performing roadside inspections. 
 
Tachograph is not sufficiently facilitating 
drivers’ work Better interface with the users  This measure would imply: 
• Providing in the digital tachograph a warning before data is overwritten and 
 
EN 34   EN • Requiring that the tachograph is positioned  in the driver's direct field of vision. 
 
EN 35   EN Furthermore, the different measure can be linke d to the different objectives as shown in the 
following table. 
Table 3: Mapping between problem policy measures and objectives 
Policy measure Improve the 
trustworthiness of 
the recording 
equipment Increase the 
efficiency of the 
checks of the 
social legislation 
in road transport Reduce the cost 
related to the use 
of the recording 
equipment,  
Higher quality seals X X  
More secure encryption technology X   
Better interface with the users X  X 
Improved tachograph functions (automatic 
and manual recording) X X X 
The wireless communication for roadside 
checks  X X 
Harmonised interface with other ITS 
applications  X X 
Make fraud with driver card more 
difficult X X X 
More trustworthy workshops X X  
Better training of control officers  X X 
Minimum degree of harmonisation of 
sanctions X X  
Modernised rules on the use  X X 
 
4.2. Identification of policy packages 
It is proposed to form packages  of measures for the further assessment. Addressing at least 
several and not only individual components of the tachograph system (like vehicle units, 
cards, workshops, …) is needed for at least two reasons:  
– First in terms of security, the trustworthine ss of the system depends  on the security of 
many of its elements. For example, a highl y advanced encryption technology would be 
useless if exotic devices tampering data could be installed and remain undetected in spite 
of seals. 
– A second reason is related to the different le vels of complexity of implementation. While 
certain technical measures ca n be grouped in a package imp lemented directly by the 
Commission through comitology (delegated/imple menting acts), others more far reaching 
can be grouped in a package which will require changes adop ted by the European 
Parliament and the Council.  
 
EN 36   EN Besides the baseline scenario (PP0), the foll owing policy packages have been therefore 
designed in a way that ensures that each policy package is a true alternative option and is 
capable on a standalone basis to address all th e problems identified but in a different way. As 
can be seen in table 3, the measures contained in each of the policy packages at least 
contribute to the achieve ment of the objectives. 
– Policy Package 1 (PP1) would be a technical package aiming simply at improvements of 
the current (physical) tachograph device. It co nsists in updating to technical progress the 
technical specifications of th e existing digital tachograph an d in giving a mandate to the 
European Committee for Standardization (hereina fter "CEN") to standardise seals. It does 
not require a change of the regulation by th e ordinary legislativ e procedure but only 
comitology decisions that can be taken by the Commission. To implement PP1, the Commission would need in practice only to publish a roadmap specifying the preparatory 
work to be done and to decide to give a ma ndate to CEN. No legisl ative proposal would be 
needed. PP1 would contribute  to achieve the objectives in the following ways: higher 
quality seals and more secure encryption t echnology would improve the trustworthiness, 
higher quality seals would also improve effici ency of roadside checks (control officers 
would spot easier manipulations), and the be tter interface with us ers would reduce costs 
related to the use of recording equipment. 
– Policy Package 2 (PP2) would also be a pack age of technical measures but which would 
substantially widen the functiona lities of the digital tachograp h which would lead to a new 
type of digital tachographs. It would consis t of the measures in PP1 and would add new 
functions to the digital tachogr aph like automatic reco rding of the location at the start and 
end of the day or wireless communications. It  would require that the Commission adopts a 
roadmap of implementing measures like in PP 1. But it would also require a change of the 
regulation by the ordinary legislative pr ocedure as the Commi ssion has not been 
empowered to change the functionalities of th e tachograph but only to adapt its technical 
specifications to technical prog ress. PP2 would contribute to achieve the objectives in the 
following ways: automated recording of locati on data would make fraud more difficult and 
hence improve the trustworthiness, it would also  improve efficiency of roadside checks as 
control officers could more easily cross-ch eck the information on driving times, and it 
would reduce costs as the automated reco rding would replace the current manual 
recordings. The wireless comm unication would further improve efficiency of roadside 
checks which could be more targeted.  
– Policy Package 3 (PP3) would combine the technical measures of PP1 with measures 
aimed at improving the tachograph system as a whole: modernised ru les on the use, more 
trustworthy workshops, making fraud with driv er cards more difficult, minimum degree of 
harmonisation of sanctions and better training of control officers. The exclusion of the 
more costly technical measures of PP2 (such as automatic recording of the location of the 
vehicle at the start and the e nd of the day or wireless communication for roadside checks), 
which require considerable investment in equipment, makes PP3 a possibly lower cost 
alternative to PP2 and PP4 which is describe d below.PP3 would require a change of the 
regulation by the ordinary legisl ative procedure. It would contribute as described above to 
the achievement f the objectives.  
– Policy Package 4 (PP4) would be a combinat ion of technical and system improvement 
measures (PP2+PP3). Like in PP2 it would require a change of the regulation by the 
ordinary legislative procedure and the adopti on of a roadmap of implementing measures. It 
would also contribute to all of the objectives, as  explained above. 
 
EN 37   EN The table below sums up the measures included in each policy package. 
Table 4: Detailed content of Policy Packages 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
The analysis provided in this Impact Assessment report is based on the be st available data and 
information collected by the Commission from stakeholders, Member States and the 
literature. However, data remains incomplete acr oss the sector, in part icular as regards the 
number and type of tachograph frauds. This is du e in particular to the standard format used by 
Member States to submit information for the bi  annual reports on the application of social 
legislation (see in this respect section 2.2.1. and chapter 7). In addition, some information being by nature confidential has been submitted to the Commission on an informal basis only. This situation is mainly due to the absence of an official channel for collecting-reporting-
compiling misuses and infri ngements country by country. 
5.1. Impact on the compliance with social legislation 
One of the most important imp acts of the policy pack ages envisaged above is related to the 
compliance of professional driver s with social legislation. The assessment of such an impact 
is a key element because enhanced complian ce with social legislation has a number of 
consequences across the three economic, social and environmental pillars such as internal 
market, working conditions of drivers and road safety. For this reason, the compliance with 
social legislation will be a ssessed in a first place; the subs equent effects of increased 
compliance will be analysed in a second stage using the traditional three-pronged approach. 
PP1 (encryption technology, seals,  interface with the users)  Policy Package 1 
(PP1) 
 Policy Package 2 
(PP2) 
 Policy Package 3 
(PP3)  
 Policy Package 4 
(PP4)  
 
Legal 
instrument(s) Roadmap on 
adaptation of 
technical 
specifications Roadmap on 
adaptation of 
technical 
specifications 
Review of Regulation 
3821/85 to add new 
functional 
requirements  
 Review of Regulation 
3821/85 only to add 
new rules on the use 
and inspection of 
tachographs Roadmap on 
adaptation of 
technical 
specifications 
Review of Regulation 
3821/85  
Content of 
Policy 
Packages  
Encryption 
technology 
Seals  
Interface with the 
users PP1 +  
The tachograph 
functions (automatic 
and manual 
recording)  
The wireless 
communication for 
roadside checks 
Interface with other 
ITS applications PP1 + 
Workshops 
Driver cards 
Sanctions 
Training of control 
officers 
Rules on the use  PP2 + PP3  
 
EN 38   EN This policy package addresses mainly the issue of concealment of the proof of non-
compliance with social legislation. In particul ar, standardisation of the requirements on seals 
at a relatively high level will facilitate the detection of manipulatio n of tachographs by 
enforcement officers and workshops, and in part icular of the installation of exotic devices 
which leave the seals broken. Similarly, consta nt updating of outdated encryption systems and 
minimum security standards will allow keeping w ithin acceptably low limits (its elimination 
is never possible) the possibility to alter th e data encoded by the t achograph on the driver's 
card before they can be controlled. Finally, th e warning about the overwriting of data on the 
driver's card will reduce the possibility for the driv ers to explain lack of data essential for the 
control by inattention.  
The enhanced technical performance of the device in PP1 will increase the cost for the driver 
of circumventing social legislation and also will improve the detection of frauds. It can 
therefore be concluded that the compliance with social legislat ion is likely to improve under 
PP1 compared to PP0. 
Given that technical improvements of the device  take a rather long time due to the long 
lifetime of vehicles (average lifetime of 8 y ears), the positive effect of PP1 on the compliance 
with the social legislation will be gradua l, except for improved seals which would be 
implemented quickly through the inspection of the equipment carried out every two years. 
Nevertheless, it can be said that PP1 will increase compliance only for those vehicles which 
are in fraud on the Tachograph Regulation (p roblem of concealing the proof of non-
compliance), which would represent – according to the estimations in part 2.2 – less than half 
of all the vehicles in bre ach of social legislation. 
Envisaged policy measures leave relatively high flexibility to the concerned actors (for 
instance it is left to CEN to define the necessary  level of quality of seals) and concerning the 
exact content of the initiative (for example in the definition  of the roadmap for progress on 
encryption), which makes quantificat ion of the effects impossible. 
PP2 (PP1 + improved tachograph functions, wi reless communication for roadside checks, 
harmonised interface with other ITS applications) 
In addition to those contained in the PP1, this  policy package contains two measures which 
will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the roadside inspections. Wireless communication of basic data from the truck to the enforcement officer, with no need to stop 
the vehicle, will in principle increase the nu mber of non-compliant drivers which can be 
detected per control officer, as time-consuming checks will be mostly targeted to vehicles 
presenting an anomaly. 
The automatic recording of the place of star t and end of the working day – according to 
opinions collected from enforcement organisations – will shorten the time necessary to check compliance with legislation, therefore also incr easing the number of vehicles which can be 
checked per enforcement officers. 
The exact potential increase in the number and pe rtinence of checks is difficult to establish on 
the basis of the available data. Ho wever, given that the average ratio  is of 9 vehicles in breach 
of the social legislation out of 100 controlled  (see part 2.2), the impact of the wireless 
communication in terms of de tection of non-complia nce can be great and, depending on the 
performance and use of the tool, can range from a small- up to a tenfold increase. Of course, 
 
EN 39   EN the impact will depend on the willingness of Memb er States to equip their control officers 
with necessary receivers. 
The additional measures contained in PP2 seem  mostly complementary to the ones already 
contained in PP1. Indeed, they address the i ssue of effectiveness of controls while PP1 
concentrates on the recording equipment. While  there is some overlapping (notably seals 
standardised at a high quality le vel contribute to the effectivene ss of inspections at roadside 
and in workshops), the added valu e of PP2 over PP1 is important. 
Like for PP1, given that technical improvements of  the device take a rath er long time due to 
long lifetime of vehicles (average lifetime of  8 years), the positive effect of PP2 on the 
compliance with the social legislation will be gradual. 
PP3 (PP1 + more trustworthy workshops, cheap er and more trustworthy driver cards, 
minimum degree of harmonisation of sanctions, be tter training of control officers, modernised 
rules on the use) 
Additional measures contained in this package – in comparison to PP1 – address the issue of 
concealing evidence of fraud and, at the same time, help enhancing the quality and 
effectiveness of controls. 
Experience with the analogue tachograph has proven that fra ud in workshops can be an 
important problem, with over 30% of them havi ng been involved in fraudulent operations (see 
part 2.3 above). Moreover, workshops can be of  essential help to fraudulent drivers and 
operators, since they are in a position to facilitate the elimination of uncomfortable recordings. At the same time, the effectiveness of better audits is difficult to evaluate on the 
basis of available evidence (qua lity problems in different Memb er States are known to the 
Commission only through informal  discussions with stakehol ders). The Commission must 
conclude that the effect of this measure can  range from small to a considerable effect. 
The effects of the separation of  transport companies from the workshops are much clearer to 
foresee, since the incentives for the workshop not to play its supervisory role over own trucks 
are more than clear. However, such collusion has been reported to the Commission only about 
Germany and the effects of a formal ban in Eu ropean legislation would be probably mainly 
affect this country. 
Merging the card with the driver's licence ha s been identified in the course of the 
stakeholder's consultation
116 as a solution for reducing fraud potential while at the same time 
limiting costs (issuing and purchasin g of one instead of two documents). Driving licences and 
driver cards are issued in credit card format  and contain very simila r information (driver’s 
details, photograph, etc). Th e driving licence directive117 already provides fo r the possibility 
of inserting a microchip in th e standardised driving licence fo rmat. Moreover, both cards have 
a limited validity period of five years, since th e driving licence directiv e stipulates that, as 
from 19 January 2013, the licences of truck and bus drivers will be valid for five years. 
                                                 
116 See for instance the contributions of certain Member States or transp ort undertakings (IE – Road Safety 
Authority, LU – Luxembourg Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, or FTA) 
117 Directive 2006/126/EC of the Eur opean Parliament and of the Counc il of 20 December 2006 on driving 
licences, OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 18–60  
 
EN 40   EN Finally, the certificate for the initial and c ontinuous training of  professional drivers118, which 
is also issued for five years,119 could also be integrated into  this document, thereby reducing 
costs even more. Merging cards would therefor e not require any change in the period of 
validity of the current tachograph cards and ther efore of their durability  (as they are handled 
on a daily basis unlike driving licence cards). Merging driver  cards with driving licences 
would facilitate detection at the roadside check of drivers using a card that does not belong to 
them or using two cards; howev er, this detection is already possible, so the impact would 
from that point of view not be huge. What contri butes however to the reduction of fraud is the 
fact that driver's will be less inclined to let ot her drivers use their driving licence to fraud the 
tachograph system. 
Similarly, given the fact that only two Member States are still not connected to TACHOnet 
and that exchange of data increases from month to month, making the use of TACHOnet 
mandatory will have a limited though positive effect  on the detection of driver's card fraud. 
Sanctions have a strong deterrent effect on dr ivers envisaging the breach of legislation, and 
are a potentially very effective tool in limiting the utility of non-compliance.120 However, due 
to subsidiarity considerations, the level of  harmonisation of sanctions foreseen by the 
Commission is relatively modest . The Member States will indeed retain the right to fix the 
level of highest fines (which currently can be  as low as €58.23 – see part 2.3 above). Also, 
requirements for sanctions for less serious breach es of social legislation will not be regulated. 
The effect of the measure will therefore be limited, but it could be seen as a first step on the way towards more approximation in the future. 
Finally, given the variations in the quality of training observed today (cf. part 2.3 above), the 
impact of more harmonised and overall higher tr aining standards for enforcement officers can 
be expected to be high. The potential of this  measure can be estimated on the basis of the 
example of the UK, where apparently better trai ned 258 officers are able to perform the same 
tasks as sufficient to carry out a comparable number of checks to those performed by much 
more numerous officers in Fran ce (3500) or Germany (5937).
121 However, the impact of the 
measure is made uncertain by the fact that it  will take the form of guidelines and will 
therefore not impose the obligation of  better training on Member States. 
The measures added to policy package 3 in co mparison to PP1 are mostly not overlapping 
between themselves, since they address compleme ntary elements of the tachograph system, in 
this case roadside checks, sanctions and workshop s. Their joint effect can therefore be, for the 
simplicity, assumed to be close to th e sum of their individual effects. 
The overlap is higher but still limited between th ese measures and those contained in PP1. In 
particular, better and more reliab le seals will make it more di fficult to disguise fraud, which 
will limit the impact of better workshop auditi ng. On the other hand, the effect of more 
                                                 
118 Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on the initial 
qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or 
passengers, OJ L 226, 10.9.2003, p. 4–17  
119 Article 8 of Directive 2003/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2003 on 
the initial qualification and periodic training of driver s of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods 
or passengers, amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repealing Council Directive 76/914/EEC, OJ L 226, 10.9.2003, p. 4–17 
120 Cf. Annex II for a more detailed economic analysis of the utility of non-compliance with legislation. 
121 Cf. part 2.3 above. 
 
EN 41   EN reliable seals will be reinforced by the higher quality of training of the officers which inspect 
them. Overall, measures contained in PP3 are largely complementary and the added value of 
PP3 over PP1 is considerable.  
Moreover, PP3 contains many non-technical measur es that can be implemented more rapidly 
than in the two previous policy packages an d its effects on the compliance with social 
legislation will be felt sooner than in PP1 and PP2.  
PP4 (PP2 + PP3) This package, which encompasses all the possibl e measures identified, will allow the highest 
increase in compliance to social legislation in ro ad transport. However, the joint effect of the 
package will be affected by a number of fores eeable overlaps. Most not ably, more harmonised 
sanctions which better reflect the gravity of infringements will have a deterrent effect, but so will the knowledge of the existence of targ eted checks based on wireless communication 
foreseen in PP2. The joint effect of the two meas ures will therefore be lower than the sum of 
their individual effects.  
At the same time, other measures contained in PP3 will have a reinforcing effect on PP1 (as 
seen in the analysis of PP3 above) and PP2. Bette r training of enforcement officers is essential 
for their ability to make use of the wirele ss communication at roadside checks. Evidence 
available to us is not sufficient to determine which of the two effects (reinforcement or 
overlap) will dominate. 
Conclusion In light of the above, it can be concluded that  PP2 and PP3 are more effective than PP1 in 
increasing the level of compliance with social le gislation in road transport. Given the scarcity 
of quantitative data and the difficulty to estimate precisely the effects of several foreseen measures such as training of enforcement officers or approximation of sanctions, it is 
impossible to conclude which package out of PP2 and PP3 will bring the highest increase in 
compliance level. However, since the non technical measures of PP3 will have a more immediate effect than both PP1 and PP2, it can  be safely said that PP3 will increase 
compliance with social legislation fa ster than the two first packages. 
PP4, which includes all the proposed measures, is likely to bring the most pronounced and 
balanced in time effect on the comp liance with the social legislation. 
5.2. Economic impacts 
5.2.1.  Impact on the functioning of the internal market and competition 
The suboptimal functioning of the internal mark et and the distortions of competition between 
road transport undertakings have  been identified as one of th e major problems in section 2.2 
above. This problem results directly from th e fact that many undertakings and drivers are 
gaining competitive advantage from the fact that  they don't comply with European social 
legislation on driving and resti ng times. Therefore, the impact  of the policy packages on the 
functioning of the internal market and competitio n will be proportional to their effectiveness 
in reducing the level of non-co mpliance with social rules. 
The impact of the policy packages on the co sts for road transport will be marginal if 
noticeable at all given the relatively low cost impact of the proposed measures in the overall 
 
EN 42   EN cost structure of road transport and possible be nefits for undertakings through the reduction of 
administrative burden. The cost impact for road transport undertaking is more than offset by 
the benefits for them in terms of reduced administrative burden. Section 5.2.3 has estimated 
that such benefits (after the deduction of co sts) would be in the range of € 142 million to €-
515.5 million depending of the policy package. C onsidering that the turnover of the road 
transport sector was in the order of € 399 billion122; the impact would therefore represent at 
most an efficiency gain represen ting 0.13% of the turnover of the sector. This is modest and is 
likely to impact positively the profit margin of the sector rather than decreasing road haulage 
costs for end-users.  
Following the introductory an alysis presented above PP2  and PP3  will have a stronger 
positive impact on the functioning of  the internal market than PP1 . PP3 and the non-technical 
measures it contains have a high potential for enhancing the functio ning of the internal 
market, but also a strong uncertain ty attached to it. Finally, PP4  will have the highest impact 
on the internal market, but whet her it will be equal, higher or  lower than the sum of the 
impacts of all the measures that constitute it cannot be determined in a certain way on the basis of available evidence. 
5.2.2.  Impact on competitiveness 
There are two ways in which pr oposed legislation can impact the competitiveness in Europe. 
First, through increasing the scope of applications and the technical complexity of the tachograph (for example by facilitating the us e of ITS applications), it can increase the 
competitiveness of the European tachograph ma nufacturing industry which is a world pioneer 
and leader.
123 Second, it can affect the competitivene ss of road transport undertakings and 
workshops. In this respect: 
PP1, which requires a technological and technical upgrade of the tachograph, can increase the 
competitiveness of the tachograph manufacturers.  In particular, Eur opean manufacturers are 
likely to benefit most from the changes first introduced on their home market.  
The technological upgrade brought by PP2  is considerably higher than the one of PP1 . 
Especially the measure on wireless communicati on will create a new market for compatible 
equipment for enforcement officers, while the creation of an open interface with other ITS 
applications will open the perspective of new business for solutions exploiting the synergies between the latter and the tachograph. 
The measures on workshops contained in PP3
, and notably the explicit ban on running a 
workshop business by transport operators might negatively affect the competitiveness of concerned undertakings. However, eliminating di stortions between works hops related to illicit 
business practices will have an overall positive effect on the competitiveness of the sector. Also the amended/extended exemptions from the obligation to inst all a tachograph for 
companies for which transport is not a primary business will positively affect their competitiveness. These impacts come on top of those of the measures already contained in 
PP1. 
PP4
 will combine and sum the effects (mostly positiv e) of all the other options in terms of 
competitiveness. 
                                                 
122 2007 figures, see EU Energy and transport in figures, 2010 
123 JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010 
 
EN 43   EN The effect of the policy packages on the competitiveness of European road transport 
undertakings against those esta blished in neighbouri ng countries will be limited for two 
reasons. First, road transport is nationally frag mented because of its nature and because of 
relatively protectionist legislation on cabot age; second, since 2010 the Tachograph Regulation 
applies equally to the other AETR countries, wh ich include most of EU 's closest neighbours. 
In line with the Small Business Act124 and its recent review125, it is important to ensure that 
the impacts on small and medium enterprises (S MEs) are thoroughly analysed in the impact 
assessment and taken into account in all relevant  legislative and policy proposals, with a clear 
indication of quantified effects on SMEs, when ever possible and proportionate. Most of the 
undertakings in the road trans port sector are SMEs, and theref ore this requirement seems of 
particular importance for the legislation pr oposed here. The competitiveness assessment 
provided above does not seem to indicate major negative impacts for SMEs – apart from the 
potential impact on workshops also running transport companied. However, according to 
information on the approved workshops, this im pact is limited geographically to one country 
(Germany). The measure is also strongly justif ied by the conflicts of interest which could 
push concerned workshops not to play their role of inspectors in relation to their own drivers. 
As explained in section 5.2.1. the benefits for th e companies related to the introduction of the 
new equipment compensate largely the small cost s for all the policy packages. This applies to 
all sectors using vehicles equipped with tachog raphs. Consequently, the analysis of impacts 
does not differentiate between different sector s, as for example postal operators or online 
services which would also benefit from the proposal. 
The impact on SMEs in terms of administrative burden is more relevant and is analysed under 
a separate heading below. 
5.2.3.  Impact on the administrati ve burden and the SMEs 
The reduction of the administra tive burden related to the use of the tachograph has been 
identified as one of the major problems to be ad dressed in part 2 above. In order to determine 
the potential of each policy package to address this problem, we started by analysing the 
individual impacts of all the considered measures. 
The details behind the calculations of the impact  on administrative cost and administrative 
burden, including the respective Standard Cost Model, are attached in Annex III. To simplify matters (and notably to avoid the distinction between the an alogue and digital tachograph), 
the calculations were made with a time horiz on of after 2020 when the whole fleet, i.e. 6 
million vehicles, will be equipped with digi tal tachographs. The measures with most 
important impacts and the value of these impacts are indicated in the following table. 
The costs related to the necessary  equipment is already included in the estimated reduction of 
administrative burden (see Annex III) 
                                                
 
124 Communication from the Commission, “Think Small First” - A “Small Business Act” for Europe, 
COM(2008) 394 final 
125 Communication from the Commission, Review of the "Small Business Act" for Europe, COM(2008) 
394 final 
 
EN 44   EN Table 5: Main impacts on administrative cost 
Measure Administrative cost 
change (€ million) 
Workshop auditing +20126 
Merging driver cards with the driving licence -100 
Improved tachograph functions requiring automated recording of the precise 
location using GNSS - 349 
Using wireless communication to filter roadside checks  -34.5 
Review the scope of the use of tachographs -52 
TOTAL -515.5 
 
Moreover, the requirements induced as a cons equence of the roadmap on encryption – notably 
the need to type-approve tachographs respecti ng the new encryption standards – would entail 
some administrative costs for tachograph ma nufacturers. However, these costs would be 
negligible (The Impact assessment on type approval for agricultural vehicles127 puts the cost 
of a type approval at €15 000). 
The above figures would entail that PP1  would lead to no reduction in administrative 
burden128, PP2  would allow reducing the administrative burden by € 383.5 million, PP3 
by € 142 million and PP4  by € 515.5 million.  
A large majority of road transport companies – and users of the tachographs – are SMEs. The 
impacts of reduction of the administrative burde n presented above would therefore be mainly 
felt by SMEs.  
While PP1  does not contain measures which would ha ve a specific impact on SMEs, it is the 
case for PP2 , PP3  and, by consequence, PP4 . As bigger firms are able to benefit from 
economies of scale, it is by comparison more di fficult for small road transport businesses to 
handle the driver cards and to de al with checks than for bigger fi rms. Merging the driver card 
with the driving licence (PP3  and PP4)  and filtering roadside checks (PP2  and PP4 ) will 
therefore improve the position of SMEs. It wi ll also be SMEs, for instance craftsmen, who 
benefit most from reconsidering when the tachograph needs to be used (PP3  and PP4) . 
5.2.4.  Budgetary impact on public authorities 
The proposed legislation – depending on the Policy Package chosen – will have more or less 
important budgetary implications  on public authoritie s at the different levels. In order to 
assess these implications, we proceed in the same  manner as for the analysis of the effects on 
                                                 
126 The calculation in Annex III lead to the figure of € 20 million, but they are made under the unrealistic 
assumption that no audits are performed today. The additional cost of better auditing should therefore 
be in reality lower than this amount. 
127 SEC(2010)933. 
128 The increase of the administrative burden related to type approval is negligible. 
 
EN 45   EN administrative burden, which is first to identify the impacts of single measures, and then to 
compile these costs for each Policy Package. 
The measures with most important impacts on p ublic budgets, the value of these impacts and 
the concerned administration level ar e indicated in the following table. 
Table 6: Main budgetary impacts on public authorities 
Measure Concerned administration level Budgetary impact 
Harmonising the requirements for 
workshop auditing National  €9 million129 
Wireless communication for roadside 
checks National 0 - € 7 500 000 130 
Developing standards for seals European (CEN) Small 
Mandatory participation of all Member 
States in TACHOnet National (Portugal and 
Denmark) ? 
Sanctions National Positive but difficult to 
estimate131 
Minimum training standards National €30 million132 
 
PP1 will only have a minor cost implication fo r the European Committee for Standardisation 
(CEN). PP2  – and in particular the measure on wire less communication for roadside checks, 
will imply additional costs to national administrations related to equipping the enforcement officers with devices necessary for receiving and decoding the signa l from the vehicle. As the 
purchase of this equipment will not be made mandatory by the legisla tion, and as potentially 
existing infrastructure for the control of tollin g schemes could be used for that purpose, the 
final cost will depend on the number of officer s who will receive it and the infrastructure 
already available, and will ra nge between 0 and € 7 500 000.  
PP3
 will imply costs for administration related to the mandatory participation of Member 
States to the TACHOnet system (unknown, but concerning only Portugal and Denmark) and 
to the enhanced training of enforcement officers.  The latter cost might be significant for those 
Member States where currently training of enforcement officers is given low priority. 
                                                 
129 Rough estimation made under the assumption that the costs for auditing are of € 1000 per workshop (90 
000 workshops).  
130 This figure reflects the cost of equipping an ad equate number of enforcement officers, enforcement 
vehicles and fixed infrastructure gantries, with compatible receive rs of signals generated by the 
tachograph. The calculation is based on an average cost  of 4.000 € (estimated by JRC) for a receiver, 
being either fixed, or mobile. Given the way controls are generally organised, it is not necessary that 
every control officer is equipped with this equipment.  Based on the figures in Price Waterhouse Cooper, 
Analysis of the technical and organisational measures employed by Member States in the application of 
Directive 2006/22/EC, 2009, it is assumed that 1750 r eceivers (indicatively 150 enforcers’ vehicles, 350 
fixed on gantries and 1250 smart portables) could be sufficient. 
131 The foreseen overall increase of sanctions will result in increased revenues from  fines. This will partly 
be offset by increased compliance as a resu lt of increased cost of breaching the law. 
132 This is a gross estimation and is provided only for indicative purposes. 
 
EN 46   EN According to a recent study133, the cost of a training officer can be estimated to be between 
€ 900 and € 1000. Retraining of all 30 000 offi cers can therefore cost around €30 million. 
However, as the measure foresees only issuing guidelines, the cost wi ll depend on the number 
of Member States which will comply. Ha rmonised and enhanced rules on the auditing 
workshops will increase their costs, which we  estimate at approximately €10 million. This 
burden will be unevenly spread  across different Member Stat es, depending on the number of 
workshops – which can be very different even for countries of similar size, like France (493) 
and Germany (4176), the level of retribution of auditors and other costs, and finally the 
current level of quality of auditing. For illustrative purposes, the table below provides an estimation of the total costs of auditing of  the workshops in each Member State. 
Table 7: Number of workshops and cost of audits per country (data missing for Austria, Malta, Greece 
and Sweden) 
Member State  Number of 
workshops Annual audit 
cost (€)  Member State  Number of 
workshops Annual audit 
cost (€) 
Belgium 209 459800  Latvia 11 24200 
Bulgaria 97 213400  Lithuania 38 83600 
Cyprus 6 13200  Luxembourg 20 44000 
Czech Republic 80 176000  Netherlands 968 2129600 
Denmark 143 314600  Poland 393 864600 
Estonia 16 35200  Portugal 45 99000 
Finland 132 290400  Romania 228 501600 
France 493 1084600  Slovakia 22 48400 
Germany 4176 9187200  Slovenia 29 63800 
Hungary 125 275000  Spain 452 994400 
Ireland 89 195800  United Kingdom 398 875600 
Italy 1029 2263800     
 
PP3 should also generate additional revenues for the national authorities from increased fines 
(measure "sanctions"). This effect will be part ly offset by higher compliance as a result of 
increased cost of breaching the law. 
Finally, PP4  will induce the highest costs for public administrations as it will sum the costs 
identified under all the options. 
5.2.5.  Impact on specific regions 
As identified in the problem definition, some countries present socioeconomic characteristics 
which increase the incentives for companies and drivers to breach social legislation. These are 
the countries with high driver  wages (mainly EU-15 countries , in comparison with EU-12). 
The impact of the proposed legislation for undertakings and drivers coming from these 
countries can be expected to be higher. 
Given the principle of extraterritoriality fore seen by article 19(2) of  Regulation (EC) No 
561/2006134, the current differences in the level of sanctions can play a role in the importance 
                                                 
133 Price Waterhouse Cooper, Analysis of the technical and organisational measures employed by Member 
States in the application of Directive 2006/22/EC, 2009. 
134 This principle means that when an infringement is detected by the competent authorities in a Member 
State and no penalty has already been imposed for that infringement, the competent authorities are enabled to impose a penalty even where the infringement has been committed on the territory of another 
Member State or of a third country. Due to the principle of non discrimination, the penalty has to be the 
same as if the infringement had been committed on th e territory of the Member State that had detected 
 
EN 47   EN of impacts of more harmonised sanctions (PP3  and PP4 ) for drivers which pass through the 
territory of some countries  (in comparison to "f or undertakings and drivers coming from 
these countries" mentioned above). This effect can be expected to be  higher for countries 
where today's sanctions can be seen as less re pressive: those whose legislation provides for 
fixed fines, those which do not foresee the possibility of immobilising the vehicle or 
imprisoning the driver, and finally those which do not foresee rising penalties for 
recidivists.135 
Finally, the impacts which affect the transport sect or will be felt stronger by Member States in 
which this sector is well developed (such as Germany, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands) and 
where it constitutes an important share of economic activity (notably Germany, Poland, the 
Netherlands, Romania, L ithuania, Czech Republic).136 
5.3. Social impacts 
5.3.1.  Impact on working conditions, he alth and lifestyle  of drivers 
This section analyses the impact assessm ent of the various policy packages on 
working conditions. It should be underlined  that working conditions s one of the 
objectives of the legislation on driving times and rest periods as stipulated in Article 
1 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006: "This Regulation lays down rules on driving 
times, breaks and rest periods for driver s engaged in the carriage of goods and 
passengers by road in order to […] improve  working conditions and road safety." 
Better compliance with these rules shoul d therefore lead to improved working 
conditions for drivers.  
In light of the results of studies referre d to above, it can reasonably be said that 
improved working conditions have also pos itive spill over effects on health and 
lifestyle of prof essional drivers. 
It is to be reminded at this stage, as highlighted above, that data concerning 
compliance with the social le gislation is scarce and, for th is reason, the analysis of 
the effects of the policy p ackages on working conditions, health and lifestyle is 
qualitative. 
The impact of the various policy packages on working conditions, health and 
lifestyle has been assessed following a two-step approach. 
Indirect effect of increased co mpliance with social legislation  
The enhanced compliance with social legisl ation in all the policy packages (except 
the baseline) will improve generally speak ing the working conditi ons of professional 
drivers through shorter wo rking and driving time. 
                                                                                                                                                         
the infringement. (Cf. Report from the Commission analysing the penalties for serious infringements 
against the social rules in road tr ansport, as provided for in the legislation of the Member States, 
COM(2009)225) 
135 The system of sanctions across the Member States is very complex, and it would be difficult to classify 
them on a simple scale from less to more repressive. For a more detailed analysis, refer to Report from 
the Commission analysing the penalties for serious infringements against the social rules in road 
transport, as provided for in the legislation of the Member States, COM(2009)225. 
136 For more detailed info, Cf. DG MOVE, Road Freight Vademecum, Issue N°1. 
 
EN 48   EN In light of the results of the analysis of impacts on the compliance with social 
legislation, PP2  and PP3 will have a stronger positive induced effect than PP1 . Both 
PP1 and PP2 have in this respect the disa dvantage of being aff ected by the technical 
nature of their measures: th e effects of the la tter on working conditions will only be 
gradual and follow the pace of fleet rene wal. PP3 and its non-technical measures  
have a high immediate potential, but its impact also bears the highest degree of 
uncertainty due to the scope of  discretion left to Member States in the application of 
the proposed measures. For this reason, as well as because the amount of quantified data available is small, it is difficult to  conclude which package out of PP2 and PP3 
will bring the highest benefits for drivers. PP4, which combines the measures contained in PP2 and PP3, is likely to  bring the most balanced in time and 
pronounced benefit on working conditions of drivers. 
Direct effect of technica l improvement of the device
 
The composition as such of each policy package will have a direct influence on 
working conditions, health and lifestyle thanks  to policy measures facilitating drivers' 
work and/or reducing the quantity of work for drivers. This is particularly the case of the technical measures introduced by PP1, PP2 (and therefore also present in PP3 
and PP4). However, since those effects ar e exclusively associated with technical 
improvement of the device, they will be introduced only gradually. 
The measure on the more suitable positioni ng of the tachograph inside the cabin 
contained in PP1 is expected to facilitate the operation of the device by the driver and 
also accessibility for control officers. Simila rly, the warning about data starting to be 
overwritten will eliminate the need for the dr iver to check this element himself. In 
addition to these elements, the measure "Wireless communication for roadside checks" contained in PP2 will reduce the number of unnecessary stops for compliant 
drivers and reduce the stress attached, thus bringing some small additional benefit to the measures contained in PP1. PP3 does not  seem to bring any direct benefits 
additional to the ones brought  by PP1 in terms of work ing conditions, health and 
lifestyle of drivers. Direct benefits of PP4 will be the same as of PP2. 
Conclusion
 
PP1 mostly affects the working conditions, health and lifestyle of the drivers and 
enforcement officers by optimising the user-friendliness of the tachograph. This impact will be relatively small, but app licable to 6 million drivers and over 30 000 
enforcement officers. For PP2 and PP 4, the indirect impact through better 
compliance with social legislation is dom inant, although PP2 will also slightly 
reduce stress exposure thanks to less frequent checks. 
5.3.2.  Impact on road safety 
It should be underlined that road safety is also one of  the main objectives of the 
social road transport legislation, as  explained above. The improvement of 
compliance with social legislation should normally lead to improvement of road 
safety, which can be explained as follows.  
As for the impact on working conditions, h ealth and lifestyle, the impact assessment 
of the various policy packages on road safety has two components. 
 
EN 49   EN First, enhanced compliance with the social  legislation helps ge nerally speaking to 
reduce the risks of drivers becoming involved in fatigue-re lated accidents and thus 
improves road safety.  
As indicated in a recent report  undertaken for the Commission137, both early and 
more recent studies and reviews on the eff ects of long working hour s on accident risk 
indicate that the accident risk increases w ith an increase in hours worked per day and 
per week. This increase is exponential be yond the 7th, 8th, or 9th hour worked per 
day. As a result, the accident risk after 12 hours of working is twice as high as after 8 
hours.138  
The above results – applied to the road s ector – indicate the importance of better 
compliance of drivers with social legislat ion for increasing road safety. The huge 
cost of accidents caused by tired drivers of  commercial vehicles  (see part 2.3 above) 
indicates considerable potential to reduce social costs in this field.  
Second, better placement and easier use of the tachograph in the cabin will help 
drivers to handle the device in a more c onvenient way, which would also reduce the 
risk of accidents due to distraction of the driver. 
It is not possible, on the basis of available evidence, to quantify the exact impact of 
each policy package. In line with the above analysis of the effects on compliance 
with social legislation, the effects of meas ures contained in PP1 and PP2 are likely to 
take effect gradually as the existing fleet is  replaced. Moreover, th e effect of PP2 will 
be greater than the one of PP1. Technical changes to the tachogr aph – including its 
better positioning in the cabin (all policy pack ages) and better integration with other 
ITS applications (PP2and PP4), will also increase road safety by facilitating the operation of electronic devices during driv ing. The effect of the non-technical 
measures in PP3 will be felt immediately a nd be potentially high, but very dependent 
on the way in is applied by Member States . Finally, PP4 is expected to bring the 
highest benefit in the field of road safe ty. It should however be acknowledged that 
there are uncertainties about  the increase of the compliance rate and the expected 
resulting benefits, as fierce competiti on on the European transport market may 
contribute to persistent non-compliance. 
5.3.3.  Impact on crime and security 
As indicated in section 2 above, statistically one out of twenty prof essional drivers is 
estimated not to comply with social legislation. This situation gives a general impression of impunity which is further exacerbated by the fact that many sanctions foreseen by national legislations are too low in the light of the gravity of the 
concerned infringements and th e social costs they induce 
Better enforcement of social legislation in road transport is key for addressing these 
issues. PP3 and PP4, which lead to sanctions that are more in line with the spirit of 
Directive 2009/5/EC which provides for the classification of infringements, have a 
                                                
 
137 Deloitte Study (December 2010) to support an Imp act Assessment on Further action at European level 
regarding Directive 2003/88/EC and the evolution of working time organisation. 
138 Ibid. 
 
EN 50   EN certain potential to correct the misleading si gnals on the social cost of infringements 
and reduce the impression of impunity. 
5.3.4.  Impact on fundamental rights 
PP2, PP3 and PP4 contain policy measures aimed at reducing the number of drivers 
in breach of social legislation and at integrating the tachogr aph with other ITS 
devices. In theory, these policy measures  could affect the following fundamental 
rights: private and family life (Art. 7), the ri ght to protection of personal data (Art. 8) 
and the freedom to conduc t a business (Art. 16). 
As regards the first two fundamental rights,  as indicated in s ection 3 above, policy 
measures have been designed to comply w ith the relevant fundamental rights and 
principles as embodied in the Charter of F undamental Rights of the European Union. 
More precisely, the pre-scr eening of policy measures pr esented in section 4 above 
has eliminated the policy measures likel y to breach the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights. 
Concerning the automated r ecording of location data, it should be noted that 
currently drivers using an analogue tachogra ph are required to r ecord the place where 
they start and end their daily working peri od. As for the needs of control, having an 
indication of these two point s (and not of the exact itin erary taken by the driver) 
already provide very useful information to check the plausibility of driving patterns observed from the other tachograph data. Th e data recorded automatically by the 
tachograph could therefore be limited to these two locations, which would also 
further reduce the risk of unreasonable interf erence with the right on the protection of 
personal data. Finally, it will be clarified that these data may only be used for control purposes.  
As regards the possible use of the tachogra ph data by ITS applica tions, it should be 
noted that these applications are not legally  required by the legislation. The use of the 
data by ITS applications would be made conditional on the the informed consent of 
the driver. 
The measure forbidding transport firms fr om running workshops or vice-versa (PP3 
and PP4) can be seen as rest ricting their freedom to c onduct a business (Art. 16). The 
limitation of this fundamental right indu ced by this policy measure is however 
restricted in scope and is seen as being one of the essential elements to reach the objective of improving of improving the compliance with social legislation. 
5.4. Environmental impacts 
Environmental impact of the various policy packages is limited to their effect on 
modal choices of users. Theoretically, it can be assumed that failure to comply with 
social legislation leads to artificially low prices for road transport, which could increase the reliance on road transport in cases where it is not the most sustainable 
modal choice. 
Therefore, improved compliance with social legislation would prevent road transport 
from being artificially cheap and woul d induce more sustainable modal choices 
more. 
 
EN 51   EN 5.5. Impact in third countries 
Since June 2010, the digital tachograph has b een mandatory for new vehicles used in 
international transport also by the non-EU contracting parties of the AETR, which 
accounts for another 22 countries outside  the EU in Europe and in the 
Commonwealth of Independent States. Mo st of the economic impacts identified 
above will also apply to thos e AETR countries once the legi slation is transposed into 
their legal systems. 
6. COMPARING THE PACKAGES  
Given the scarcity of available data and the difficulty of quantifying and monetizing precisely 
the costs and benefits of certain policy measur es, a full cost-benefit co uld not be performed. 
However, a tentative partial cost-benefit is provid ed in the table in the end of this section, 
which presents a summary of overview of all positive and negative economic, social and 
environmental impacts identified in part 5 above  for the four policy packages. The impacts are 
estimated against the baseline scenario. 
This section provides for an assessment of how each policy options will contribute to the 
realization of the policy objectives, as set in Section 3, in light of  the following evaluation 
criteria: 
• effectiveness – the extent to which options achieve the objectives of the proposal; 
• efficiency – the extent to which objectives can be achieved at least cost; 
• coherence –  the extent to which policy options are likely to limit trade-offs across 
the economic, social, and environmental domain. 
6.1. Effectiveness 
The following table gives a synthetic overview  of the policy options’ effectiveness with 
regard to the specific policy objectives define d in section 3, based on the assessment of 
impacts provided above.  
Table 8: Effectiveness of envisaged policy packages in relation to the objectives 
Objectives PP0 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 
Improve the trustworthiness of the recording 
equipment 0 Medium Medium High High 
Increase the efficiency of the checks of the 
social legislation in road transport  0 Low Medium Medium High 
Reduce the cost related to the use of the 
recording equipment, notably by reducing the administrative burden related to its use 0 0 Medium (by 
€ 383.5 
million) Low (by € 
142 million) High (by € 
515.5 
million) 
6.2. Efficiency 
Overall, most of the measures contained in the four policy packages do not require high 
investments from public authorities or pr ivate entities to achieve the objectives. 
 
EN 52   EN • PP1 will only have a minor cost  implication for the European Committee for 
Standardisation (CEN). 
• PP2 contains two additional measures implying costs: 
– "Wireless communication": will require all the vehicles concerned by  the obligation to 
install and use a tachograph (around 6 million) to buy additional equipment, the cost of which is estimated by manufacturers at € 5-10 per tachograph. This will be an additional 
cost for road transport undertakings. However this additional cost is more than compensated by the benefits for the same und ertakings in terms of administrative costs 
savings. The total balance is therefore positiv e for the undertaking There are however other 
costs to be born by the enforcement authorit ies in order for the measure to be fully 
effective. Enforcement officers (around 30 000) will indeed need to buy compatible 
equipment the cost of which is esti mated at a maximum of € 7.5 million.  
– "Improved tachograph functions (automatic and manual recording)" will require upgrading 
the tachograph with a f unctionality whose cost is estima ted by the industry to €5-10 per 
tachograph. Similarly as above, the additiona l corresponding costs for the undertakings 
have already been deducted in the calculation of administrative burden (see Annex III).  
The total additional cost required by PP2 are therefore only costs for enforcement authorities 
and amounts to € 7.5 million . There are overall no costs for u ndertakings since the balance is 
positive for them (i.e. compliance costs are more than compensated by administrative cost savings)  
• PP3
 will imply costs for administration related to: 
– the mandatory participation of Member States  to the TACHOnet system. This concerns 
only 2 Member States and could not be es timated on the basis of available data. 
– the enhanced training of enforcement offi cers. The cost might be around €30 million if 
Member States follow the guide lines provided by the Commission. 
– enhanced rules on the auditing workshops will  increase their costs by an estimated € 9 
million. 
The effect of higher fines is neutral, since it will lead to a transfer from private to public 
entities. 
The total cost required by the fu ll deployment of PP3 can theref ore be grossly estimated at 
over € 39 million, to be born by enforcement authorities.  Again as for PP2, there are also 
costs for road transport undertakings (as the additional cost for work shop will be ultimately 
passed to road transport undertakings), however  these costs are more than compensated by 
benefits in terms of administrative savings. 
• On the basis of the above, the cost of full de ployment of PP4 can therefore be estimated at 
least at €46.5 million for enforcement authorities, othe r costs born by road transport 
undertakings being more than offset by the bene fits in terms of administrative cost savings. 
 
EN 53   EN 6.3. Coherence 
As shown in the table at the end of this s ection, the analysis seems to indicate that PP1 
presents very limited/no trade-offs  between the different economic, social and 
environmental impacts. 
In PP2, PP3 and PP4, there are important trade- offs between the budgetary impacts on public 
authorities and other important economic and social impacts. Indeed, as large flexibility is left 
to the Member States in the use of proposed tools, the effectivenes s of the three options 
depend on the willingness of Member States to inve st in order to explo it their full potential. 
The trade-offs are highest for PP4 . 
6.4. Conclusion 
The following table sums up the expected costs a nd benefits of the different policy packages. 
Table 9: Quantifiable costs and benefits of the individual policy packages 
 Measures Benefits Costs 
PP1 Increased reliability of the tachograph Minor Minor 
PP2 Increased reliability of the tachograph 
+ 
More effective roadside in spections (more effective 
inspection tools) 
+ 
Reduction of administrative burden  €383.5 million € 7.5 million 
PP3 Increased reliability of the tachograph 
+ 
Increased reliability of the driver cards 
+ 
More effective control in workshops 
+ 
More effective roadside inspections (better trained officers) 
+ 
Higher disincentives to cheat (sanctions) 
+ 
Reduction of administrative burden  €142 million €39 million 
PP4 Increased reliability of the tachograph 
+ 
Much more effective roadside inspections: inspection tools 
and training 
+ 
Increased reliability of the driver cards 
+ 
More effective control in workshops 
+ 
Higher disincentives to cheat (sanctions) 
+ 
Reduction of administrative burden €515.5 million €46.5 million 
As the other benefits (such as reducti on of road accidents or improved working 
conditions) could not been  quantified, table 9 only includes the reduction of 
administrative burden for the undertaki ngs. It should be noted that these 
 
EN 54   EN savings indicated are figures after deduc tion of the cost of compliance (e.g. the 
additional cost of 10 -20 € per tachograph) 
From an effectiveness point of view, policy package 4  seems by far most 
attractive. Indeed, it offers the highest potential level of achievement of the 
three specific goals, including both immedi ate and delayed in time effects. 
However, as shown by the analysis of coherence between the different policy 
packages, PP4 also presents the highe st trade-offs between the positive 
economic and social impacts on the one hand side, and the budgetary impacts 
on public authorities on the othe r. In terms of coherence, policy package 1  
ranks highest. 
Finally, policy package 4 is also the mo st expensive in terms of investment 
needed, while PP1 is the cheapest and the easiest to implement, since it can be 
adopted without going through the normal le gislative procedure. PP3 presents a 
medium level of achievement of objectives at a low cost. 
Table 10: Comparison of Policy Options 
 Weighted effectiveness Efficiency Coherence 
PP0 - - - 
PP1 Fairly low No cost High 
PP2 Medium €7.5 million Trade-offs 
PP3 Medium € 39 million Trade-offs 
PP4 High €46.5 million Highest trade-offs 
 
Taking all these aspects in to consideration, and desp ite the impossibility to 
present the results of a full cost-benef it analysis, the positive impacts of PP4 
seem to compensate by far its costs. Indeed, the administrative burden reduction potential of PP4 alone reac hes €515.5 million and is well above the 
total costs of its full implemen tation which amount to €46.5 million. 
In view of the above, it can be said  that the performed analysis suggest 
that Policy package 4 should  be the preferred option.  
 
EN 55   EN Table 11: Summary table of impacts 
 Impacts 
 Policy package 1 Policy Package 2 Policy Package 3 Policy Package 4 
Compliance with social 
legislation Small and delayed improvement  
limited to the fraud on the 
tachograph (1/4 of all offences 
to social legislation) Impact of PP1 + large potential  
improvement  
Big uncertainty  on the scale of 
results ( trade-offs  with budget 
implications) Impact of PP1 + large potential 
improvement  
Big uncertainty  on the scale of 
results ( trade-offs  with budget 
implications) Impact of PP1 + large potential  
improvement 
Smaller uncertainty  of results 
than for PP2 and PP3 ( large 
trade-offs  with budget 
implications) 
Economic impacts     
Functioning of the Internal 
Market and competition Small and delayed improvement  
limited to the fraud on the 
tachograph (1/4 of all offences 
to social legislation)  
Same assessment as for compliance with social legislation 
Competitiveness Positive  for tachograph 
manufacturers Very positive  for tachograph 
manufacturers Positive  for tachograph 
manufacturers   
Uncertain  for workshops 
Positive  for undertakings for 
which transport is not the 
principal activity Very positive  for tachograph 
manufacturers 
Uncertain  for workshops 
Positive  for undertakings for 
which transport is not the 
principal activity 
Administrative burden and 
SMEs Negligible - €383.5 million - €142 million - €515.5 million 
Budgetary impacts on public 
authorities Minor  negative at EU level Impact of PP1 +  Potentially 
negative (up to € 7 500 000) at 
national level but depending on 
the choices of MS ( trade-offs  Minor  negative at EU level Small 
positive  effect of sanctions Impact of PP1 + potentially 
largest negative  at national level 
but depending on the choices of 
MS ( trade-offs  with other 
 
EN 56   EN with other impacts) impacts) 
Small positive  effect of sanctions 
Social impacts     
Working conditions, health and 
lifestyle of drivers Positive but delayed  through 
increased user friendliness of 
the device Same assessment as for compliance with social legislation 
 
Road safety Positive but delayed through 
easier access while driving Same assessment as for compliance with social legislation 
Crime and security Minor impact Small positive  impact thanks to more appropriate fines 
Fundamental rights No impact Marginal negative  impact for on the freedom to conduct a business 
Environmental impacts Marginal positive 
Larger impact of all measures for undertakings from MS with high wages (EU-15). 
Larger impact for Member States with a large transport sector or high share of transport undertakings in the economy (Germany, 
Poland, Spain, Netherlands, Romani a, Lithuania, Czech Republic) Impact on specific regions 
 Larger effects of more appropriat e sanctions in Member States 
with low severity of sanction today 
Third countries Delayed but similar impacts on AETR countries . 
 
 
EN 57   EN 7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Regular evaluation of the tachograph regulatio n seems important in order to assess the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the system put in place.  
The level of attainment of the operational obj ectives will be monitored in the year the 
proposed legislation enters into force and regul arly afterwards; the achievement of the last 
objective will be monitored through consultation of stakeholders following the definition and 
putting in place of interope rability standards.  
Table 12: Monitoring  
Operational objectives Monitoring 
Eliminate the "most serious infringements" against 
tachograph rules by 2020 The monitoring will be performed by using 
information that Memb er States have to 
communicate every two years to the 
Commission pursuant to Article 17 of 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 
Double by 2020 the detection rate of infringements to 
the social legislation per vehicle controlled in a 
roadside check compared to 2008  The monitoring will be performed by using 
information that Memb er States have to 
communicate every two years to the 
Commission pursuant to Article 17 of 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 
Reduce the administrative burden related to the use of 
the digital tachograph by 20  % before 2020 compared 
to 2010  Use of technical upgrades of tachograph 
equipment will be monitored through 
discussions with interested parties and based on 
the estimations provided by the Stoiber Group 
and the EU project on baseline measurements 
and reduction of administrative costs 
 
For the purpose of this monitoring, more detailed  information and statistics are necessary. The 
Commission intends therefore to adapt the reporti ng format for the bi-annual reports foreseen 
in Art. 17 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006139 in order to have better  categorised data which 
will help monitoring and support future decision making.  
The evaluation and monitoring by the Commission will be possible at least every two 
years, after reception of  the statistical data from Member States. 
                                                 
139 Commission Decision of 22.IX.2008, C(2008)5123 
 
EN 58   EN Annex I  
General presentation of the digital tachograph  
1. The introduction of the digital tachograph 
The technical specifications  for the tachograph laid dow n in the Annexes to Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 have been adapted to technical progress ten times. The most 
important change was the introduction of the digital tachograph, which has been mandatory 
for all new vehicles since 2006, replacing th e paper-based analogue tachograph. The old 
analogue tachograph was easy to tamper with and wa s not able to give reliable enough data to 
check that drivers and companie s complied with the social legi slation. The di gital tachograph 
offers a more reliable way of monitoring compliance because it is more difficult to 
manipulate, and attempts to do so can generally be more easily detected.  
The latest update of the digital tachograph sp ecifications was adopted in 2009. It improved the 
human machine interface and solved the ‘one minute issu e’: a minute is no longer 
automatically considered driving time if drivi ng activity only lasted a few seconds during that 
minute. Further provisions aimed at improving pr otection against fraud enter into force in 
2012. The introduction of a seco nd source of motion detecti on will reduce scope for 
manipulating the tachograph. In addition, the tachograph’s motion sensor will be better 
protected against malicious attack s using magnets or other devices  to manipulate it. To ensure 
that each driver uses only one driver card, which is used to record the driver’s activities, one 
of the new provisions requires Memb er States to share informati on electronically. To this end, 
the Commission has adopted a Recommendation to Member States to use electronic exchange 
systems – mainly the ‘TACHOnet sy stem’ – to check the cards.  
There is a developing global ma rket in tachograph components as tachographs are used or 
introduced in many parts of the world and cr oss-border trade in these components occurs. 
Since June 2010, the digital t achograph has been mandatory for new vehicles used in 
international transport by the non-EU contracting parties of the AETR , which accounts for 
another 22 countries outside the EU in Euro pe and in the Commonwealth of Independent 
States. The EU can be considered a world lead er in tachograph manufact uring but there is a 
need to keep the product attractive, both with in the EU and beyond, and to ensure that this 
remains the case. 
2. Main actors 
Introducing the digital tachograph system involved the fo llowing groups of stakeholders: 
– End users: drivers and road transport compan ies (using driver cards  and company cards). 
– Enforcers (using control cards), which, depe nding on the Member State, may include the 
police and the Ministries of  Transport or Labour.  
– Companies manufacturing the vehicle unit, the motion sensor, the cards, card reading tools, 
calibration tools, downloading tools, data analys is tools and equipment that interfaces with 
the tachograph. 
– Type-approval bodies. 
 
EN 59   EN – Security management authorities. 
– Card-issuing authorities.  
– Workshops and fitters (using workshop cards). 
– Vehicle manufacturers. 
3. How the digital tachograph works 
The following parts of the digital tachograph ar e installed in the ve hicle (see Figure 1): 
– The vehicle unit, which records, stores, displa ys and prints data on driver activities. It 
receives data on the vehicle’s motion from the motion sensor. It is normally fitted in the 
vehicle cabin, so that drivers can access it. There are four manufact urers of type-approved 
vehicle units. 
– The motion sensor, which detects the motion of the vehicle and sends this information to 
the vehicle unit. The motion sensor shares a mechanical interface with some moving part 
of the vehicle (it is traditionally screwed into the vehicle’s gearbox), the movement of which is representative of the movement of th e vehicle as a whole and allows the inference 
of speed or distance. There are currently only two manufacturers of type-approved motion 
sensors. 
– A four-wire cable, which connects the vehicle un it to the motion sensor. It allows data to 
be exchanged between the motion sensor and vehicle unit and deliver s power to the motion 
sensor. 
 
 
EN 60   EN Figure 1: Schemata of typical digital recording equipment  
In addition, smart cards used by drivers, tr ansport companies, workshops and enforcement 
officers are crucial to the digi tal tachograph system. There are four kinds of tachograph cards: 
– Driver cards contain microchips that can store all the data required for checking 
compliance with Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on driving time. They store at least 28 
days’ data and are valid for five years. Each  driver may be issued with only one driver 
card, which is unique to him or he r. A driver must use the card  for the whole of his or her 
daily working period. The card must be presen ted to an enforcer on request. Companies 
must periodically download data to maintain complete records of their drivers’ activities. 
– Company cards are valid for five years and th ey are used by compan ies to download data 
from the digital tachograph unit in order to monitor drivers’ activities. In addition, they are 
used to generate records at the company’s pr emises for inspection by enforcement officers. 
They also allow companies to lock data in the tachograph to prevent downloading by 
others. 
– Workshop cards are made available by the card- issuing authorities to  approved workshops 
to allow them to fit and to calibrate the di gital tachographs. Works hop cards are valid for 
one year. 
– Control cards are only available to enforcem ent officers. They allow them to access the 
mass memory of digital tachographs and driver cards, and to print out relevant information. 
The use of tachographs involve s collecting and processing pers onal data. This data capture 
and processing is subject to personal data prot ection rights under Article  8 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Artic le 8 of the European Convention of Human 
Rights, and Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Directive 
95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection 
of individuals with regard to  the processing of personal data  and on the free movement of 
such data also applies. 
The EU tachograph market is currently served  by only two motion sens or manufacturers and 
four vehicle unit manufacturers, so competition is limited. It is conceivable that at some point 
in the future only one manufacturer will produce a motion sensor as defined in the latest adaptation of the technical sp ecifications, and will therefore have a monopoly. There is no 
clear evidence that this would lead to a problem, because the market remains open to competitors. In theory, however, competitive markets tend not to be so highly concentrated and the gains of competition – lower prices, higher quality – are lost when markets lack 
competition.  
4. Evaluation of the introductio n of the digital tachograph 
Generally, the introduction of the digital tachograph can be cons idered a success, certainly 
bearing in mind the large variety of st akeholders involved in the system.  
The digital tachograph allows better  enforcement of the social legi slation, as it is much harder 
to commit and conceal fraudulent manipulation of the tachograph. Quantitative evidence of 
digital tachographs reducing fr aud is limited. However, it is  widely thought by police, 
 
EN 61   EN enforcement authorities and road transport firms that digital t achographs reduce fraud.140 New 
vehicles are now required to be fitted with a digital tachograph, although older vehicles, still 
equipped with analogue tachographs, continue to be used. The introduction of the digital 
tachograph has therefore contributed to achieving the aims of the social legislation (improved 
road safety, better working conditions for drivers, and fair competition between transport companies). 
The digital tachograph also help ed reduce administrative costs for road transport firms. An 
analysis carried out by the Enterprise DG
141 supported this claim as follows: 
– The use of analogue tachographs involved ma ny manual operations, availability of paper 
records and a high frequency of tampering (whe n compared with digital tachographs). The 
introduction of digital tachogr aphs was estimated to have reduced administrative costs by 
€ 286 million a year, or roughly 10 percent of annual administrative costs.  
– The latest adaptation of the digital tachog raph (see 2.1.2.) addressed two other issues: 
manual inputs concerning time not spent driving,  and rounding up to the next minute. It is 
estimated that the new measures  account for a reduction of €  234.5 million a year, or 
roughly 8 percent of annual administrative costs.  
According to a study commissioned by the UK De partment for Transport, the savings are 
primarily in the costs of third party analysis of  data and in management staff. There are one-
off costs related to training drivers. There ar e also non-measurable benefits from greater 
security and the freeing of office space previous ly used to store charts. The extent of the 
savings depends on several factors, including the type of operation (fleet or passenger) and the 
size of the fleet (with larger fleet si zes associated with higher savings). 
Finally, the digital tachograph is also an in novative product and as  such a technological 
success. The EU is a global leader in this fi eld and other countries are showing a growing 
interest in introducing this European technology to their ow n domestic road transport markets 
(for example Russia, Morocco and Argentina). 
In conclusion, although the introduction of th e digital tachograph faced many technological 
and administrative challenges, it was ultimately successful. A new market for specific services has developed. The device has helped to  simplify enforcement of  social legislation 
and to reduce administrative costs.  
                                                
 
140 JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010 
141 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Action Programme 
for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the EU, Sectoral Reduction Plans and 2009 Actions, 
COM(2009) 544 final 
 
EN 62   EN  
Annex II  
Economic approach to non-compliance with legislation  
Rules should be conceived in a way which make s the expected return on non-compliance with 
Regulation (EEC) No 3281/85 (or successor Regul ations) less than the expected return on 
compliance. This conclusion follows from  the work of economist Gary Becker. 
In a seminal article, Becker (1968)142 presented the first formal economic theory of crime. In 
his model, Becker considers an offender’s choice about whether to commit a crime. The 
offender has a certain probability of being ca ught and convicted. If caught, offenders face 
punishment. They choose to commit crime if the expected utility is positive. The probability 
of being caught is a s ubjective probability: offenders may di ffer in the way they assess risks. 
Some may underestimate the odds of being caught while others may overestimate them. 
The expected utility of deliberate attempts to ci rcumvent social legislat ion is the following: 
E(u) = (1-p)u - pP - c, where 
u = Benefit of non-compliance 
p = Probability on a scale from zero (no possib ility) to one (certainty) of non-compliance 
being detected 
c = Costs associated with non-compliance, irre spective of whether non-co mpliance is detected 
or not, e.g. cost of buying a devi ce to manipulate a tachograph 
P = Disutility of being caught, e.g. fine. 
This suggests that policy should seek to minimi se deliberate attempts to circumvent social 
legislation through: 
(1) Increasing the costs of circumventing social legislation : If tachographs can be 
tampered with at low cost, this increases th e risk of attempts to circumvent social 
legislation. Regulation should seek to increas e the costs of tampering with tachographs 
by prohibiting, as far as possible, the known means of tampering with them. 
(2) Reducing the benefits of circumventing social legislation : Policy can do little to 
affect the competitive advantage which road transport companies or drivers perceive themselves to be gaining when circumventing social legislation. 
(3) Increasing the disutility of being caught : Policy may seek to reduce the expected 
benefits of doing so by increas ing the fines and/or other pena lties that can be levied for 
breaches of Regulation (EEC) No 3281/85. It is  at this point that the necessity of 
harmonised sanctions becomes crucial.  
(4) Increasing the probability of fr audulent operators being caught : This could be 
achieved through increasing the efficiency of  checks, i.e. the proportion of roadside 
checks in which non-compliance is detected. 
                                                
 
142 Gary Becker (1968). ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’. The Journal of Political 
Economy 76: pp. 169–217. 
 
EN 63   EN Annex III  
Administrative burden a nd Standard Cost Model  
Most of the measures recommended will have no or only a marginal influence on the 
administrative burden. Measures with a bigger imp act are described in more detail here. To 
simplify matters, the calculations  were made with a time horizon of after 2020 when the 
whole fleet, i.e. 6 million vehicles, will be  equipped with digital tachographs.  
(1) Auditing workshops 
There are currently around 9000 wo rkshops approved by Member States. In Sweden, the costs 
of an audit are put at €2200. Base d on this rather high figure, co mplete yearly auditing of all 
workshops in the EU would cost business some € 20 million . However, the total amount does 
not take into account that in some Member St ates, workshops are already audited on a regular 
basis.  
(2) Merging driver cards with the driving licence  
The calculation is based on the following assump tions. If all vehicles are equipped with 
digital tachographs, all drivers will have to apply and pay for a driver card every five years. It 
is assumed that the total time that a driver sp ends on the application procedure (filling in the 
form, supply a picture, getting the card, etc.) is  two hours. The weighted hourly rate for a 
driver in the EU is € 15.50143 and the weighted average price fo r a driver card is € 53. Even if 
the price for the driving licence would incr ease due to the addition of driver card's 
functionalities, there would be an overall reduction of costs fo r drivers. This measure would 
thus lead to a reduction  in the administrative burden of € 100 million . This amount does not 
include the extra savings by Member States, wh ich would no longer have to run two separate 
systems for issuing driving licences and driver ca rds, as these savings could vary greatly from 
one country to another. 
(3) Requiring automated recording of the vehicle’s precise location through GNSS 
The calculation is based on the following assumpti ons. All drivers are obliged to record the 
place/country where they start a nd end the daily working period; this is assumed to take 6 
million drivers one minute, 230 days a year. The wei ghted hourly rate for a driver in the EU is 
€ 15.50. The additional manufacturing costs of building a GNSS receiver into the equipment 
are estimated by manufacturers at € 5-10. The ec onomic lifetime of a ve hicle is around eight 
years144. The total reduction  in administrative burden resu lting from this measure would 
therefore be some € 349 million . 
(4) Using wireless communication to ‘filter’ roadside checks  
The calculation is based on the following assumptions . It is estimated that one third of the 4.5 
million roadside checks of vehicles every year  involve compliant businesses and could be 
avoided. Assuming that checks last 45 minutes, filtering out compliant businesses would 
                                                 
143 Hourly wages based on standardised Eurostat data (the four-yearly Labour Cost Survey and the annual 
updates of labour cost (ALC) statistics) used by the Commission for large scale measurement of 
administrative burdens (2008-2009). 
144 NEA, Cost comparison and cost developments in the European road haulage sector , 2009. 
 
EN 64   EN reduce the administrative burden on them by € 17 million . Assuming that the average 
weighted hourly rate for an enforcement of ficer is € 23.05, avoiding unnecessary inspections 
would save another € 25 million . The equipment costs of aro und €10 per vehicle would apply 
to all 6 million vehicles. Given the econom ic lifetime of a vehicle, the equipment costs  per 
year are some € 7.5 million . 
(5) Scope of the regulation  
The tachograph is the mandatory  monitoring equipment cove red by Regulation (EC) No 
561/2006. Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 561/ 2006 allows Member States to exempt 
certain categories of drivers or  types of transport operations from the driving hours rules and 
hence from the obligation to install and use a tachograph when certain conditions are met, 
provided the objectives of the Regulation (EC)  No 561/2006 are not aff ected. Five out of 16 
possible exemptions are distance based, with distances varying between 50 and 100 km.  
In particular, Article 13(1)(d) of Regulati on (EC) No 561/2006 provides the possibility to 
grant exemptions "to carriage by vehicles or combinations of vehicles with a maximum 
permissible mass not exceeding 7.5 tonnes used  for carrying materials, equipment or 
machinery for the driver's use in the course of  his work. These vehicl es shall be used only 
within a 50 kilometre radius from the base of the undertaking, and on condition that driving 
the vehicles does not constitute the driver's main activity."  
Under the Commission's Action Programme fo r Reducing Administrative Burdens in the 
European Union , the Stoiber group proposed to extend the radius of this possible exemption 
from 50 km to 150 km.  
This option would thus mean a change to Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 in order to allow 
Member States to exempt vehicles carrying mate rials, equipment or machinery for the driver's 
use in the course of his work within a radius of 150 km instead of 50 km. The impacts of such 
a measure on the aims of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 also have to be evaluated by Member 
States when granting such exemptions, as re quired by Article 13, in order to prevent any 
prejudice against the objective of the Regul ation. The Stoiber group evaluated the possible 
reduction of administrative burden at € 82 millio n. This was based on an assumption that 5% 
of the businesses using a digital tachograph are small and medium sized trade and craft 
businesses , and that 55% use their vehicles w ithin a radius of more than 50 km. In the 
meantime, the Zentralverband des Deutschen Handwerks (ZDH) estimated that 35% of these firms are active in a radius between 50 and 1 50 km. Therefore, the expected reduction in 
administrative burden would amount to € 52 million .  
A variant would remove the discrimination betw een the different exemptions which currently 
use limits of 50 km or 100 km. This option woul d help to simplify the Regulation and thereby 
make the exemptions easier to enforce. Compared to an extension to 150 km, some firms operating in a radius between 100 km and 150 km  might not benefit from the exemption. 
However, the reduction of administrative burden as  a result of this measure should be close to 
that of the first variant or be  even greater, as other categorie s of drivers, who are currently 
limited by a 50 km exemption, would benefit fr om this doubling of the permitted distance. 
 
EN 65   EN Standard Cost Calculation for costs related to r oad transport undertakings (excluding workshops)  
Type of 
obligation Description of 
required 
action(s) Measure 
taken Rate 
(€ per 
hour)   
Time  
(minutes)Price 
(per 
action)  Freq  
(per 
year)  No  
of  
entities  Total number 
of actions  Equipment 
costs  
(per entity 
& per year)  Outsourcing 
costs  
(per entity 
& per year)  Total 
Administrative 
Costs 
Application for 
individual 
authorisation or exemption  Filing forms 
and tables Driver card 
16 -120 -31 0,2 6.000.000 1.200.000 -11   -100.800.000 
Cooperation 
with audits and 
inspection by 
public authorities, including 
maintenance of 
appropriate records  Producing new 
data GNSS for 
automated 
recording of 
location 
16 -1 -0,26 230 6.000.000 1.380.000.00
0 1,25   -349.000.000 
Inspection on 
behalf of public 
authorities  Inspecting and 
checking 
(including 
assistance to inspection by 
public 
authorities) Filtering 
roadside 
checks - 
companies 16 -45 -12 1 1.500.000 1.500.000     -17.437.500 
Inspection on behalf of public authorities  Inspecting and 
checking (including 
assisting 
inspection by public 
authorities) Filtering 
roadside checks - 
enforcement 
officers 23 -45 -17 1 1.500.000 1.500.000     -25.931.250 
Inspection on 
behalf of public 
authorities  Inspecting and 
checking 
(including assisting 
inspection by 
public authorities) Scope of the 
use of 
tachographs 
16 -7 -2 230 105.000 24.150.000 -87   -52.806.250 
 
 
EN 66   EN  
Annex IV  
Review of the tachograph and ITS  
Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), which are broadly defined as systems using ICT in 
transport, would benefit from the introduction of an open in-veh icle platform architecture, 
which would allow various applications to s ecurely share common information and resources 
and, where useful, to interact  in an integrated manner.145 There would be mu tual benefits in 
having a digital tachograph design compatible  with such an open in-vehicle platform 
architecture. Indeed, the tachograph is mandato ry equipment in most commercial vehicles, 
which becomes more and more integrated in to vehicles at ‘first mount’ because the 
data/signals recorded by the tac hograph, their reliability and thei r security are also necessary 
for other in-vehicle applications (e.g. automatic  gear shifting). An ope n in-vehicle platform 
architecture would also reduce design, manufac turing, installation and operational costs for 
equipment manufacturer and transport firms, as the relevant functionali ties could be provided 
to a vehicle at relatively little cost by benefiting from resources  shared with other instruments 
and applications. This would also  enhance global security, as da ta from a variety of sources 
(i.e. more than the two sources already fo reseen by Regulation 1266/2009/EC) of information 
would be available for the implementation of the social legislation, which can be cross-
checked for consistency. Finally, the developmen t of these next genera tion digital tachographs 
may enhance competition because they will  foster the appearan ce of new products, 
applications and services which will devel op new markets. New manufacturers could be 
attracted into established mark ets and introduce new products. It can also be noted that the 
recently published final report of a st udy commissioned by the Commission on the 
development of an open in-vehicle platform arch itecture in the context of the ITS action plan 
recommends making use of the opportunity provided by the revision of the tachograph 
specification to define the digital tachograph as the core telematics element in a (heavy) 
vehicle and an essential pa rt of the open in-vehicle platform architecture. 
                                                 
145 See Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the 
framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for 
interfaces with other modes of tran sport, OJ L 207, 6.8.2010, p. 1–13 
 
EN 67   EN Annex V  
Calculation of the cost of fatigue for HDV  
Cost of HDV accidents in the EU 27 in 2010 (EUR of 2000) 10.039.273.900 
HICP growth between 2010 and 2000 26,52% 
Cost of HDV accidents in the EU 27 in 2010 (EUR of 2010) 12.702.036.655 
Fatigue as the most important cause of HDV accidents (as % of 
all accidents)146 6% 
Fatigue as one of the main causes and aggravating factor of 
HDV accidents (as % of all accidents)147 40% 
  
Estimated cost of fatigue (as cause of HDV accidents) in 
2010 (EUR of 2010)   
minimum 762.122.199 
maximum 5.080.814.662 
conservative estimate 2.201.686.354 
 
                                                 
146 IRU, European Truck Accident Causation Study, 2006 
147 National Transportation Safety Board, Factors That Affect Fatigue in Heavy Truck Accidents – Safety 
Study, 1995  
 
EN 68   EN Annex VI  
Types of possible attacks to the tachograph  
A recent report of the Commission' s Joint Research Centre (JRC)148 analysed the various 
categories of threats: 
• Installation of "exotic devices" inserted in the cable between the motion sensor 
and the activity recorder (the so-called Vehicle Unit). The speed signal that is 
issued by the motion sensor is processe d by the exotic devi ce to generate an 
amended signal. Depending on the type of the exotic device (two major types exist), this manipulation allows to record a speed signal inferior to the speed of the 
vehicle or no speed signal at all.  
• Direct manipulation of the electronic ci rcuit of the motion sensor which allows 
modifying the speed signal sent by the motion sensor.  
• Placing of a strong magnetic field near by the motion sensor  installed on the 
gearbox which results in the motion sensor  failing to detect the motion of the 
vehicle. 
                                                
 
148 JRC, Report on the attacks to security of the Di gital Tachograph and on the risk associated with the 
introduction of adaptors to be fitted into light vehicles, 2007. 
 
EN 69   EN Annex VII  
Pre-screening of possible measures add ressing the different problematic areas  
The following measures were proposed in the st akeholder consultation or  elsewhere but were 
discarded at an early stage of the impact assess ment as too difficult to realise or not bringing 
sufficiently high benefits in comparison to their costs: 
1. Provide remote data communication func tionalities for the digital tachograph 
These remote download functional ities may reduce costs for road transport companies that are 
obliged to regularly download data from the driver cards and tachographs. However, these 
functionalities are already available on the market and fully compatible with the present Regulation. They can thus be provided wit hout policy changes. In order to keep EU 
intervention to the necessary minimum, there app ears to be no need for action at this level. 
2. Reduce data tariffs for remotely downl oading data from digital tachographs 
Some stakeholder consultation re spondents pointed out that the high cost of da ta transfer 
tariffs (especially roaming charges) make the adoption of wireless technology for data 
downloading costly. Reduci ng these costs would incentivise the uptake of wireless 
technology, and make remote  control an attractive op tion. This might reduce the 
administrative burden and increase the efficiency  of inspections. However, the reduction of 
data transfer tariffs is  likely to require change s to telecommunications rules, e.g. on roaming, 
which are beyond the scope of this impact assess ment (which is concerned only with control 
of social rules in road transport Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85).  
3. Increase the speed of downloadi ng from the digital tachograph 
Some respondents in the stakeholder consultatio n asked for faster downloading of data from 
the digital tachograph. However, market pressu re has already led tac hograph manufacturers to 
produce equipment with a sign ificantly higher download sp eed than the first digital 
tachographs in 2006. Today, wireless download t ools are already availa ble which solve the 
problem of downloading time. Moreover a lega lly binding downloading speed would require 
the EU to establish who is responsible for wh at (e.g. card issuing authorities, tachograph 
manufacturers, manufacturers of downloading e quipment) and not all are subject to type 
approval. In addition, according to the manufact urers, the bottleneck for improving download 
speed is not the type of conne ctor. Replacing the current conn ector by (for instance) a USB 
connector would therefore not lead to si gnificant time savings . Finally, Commission 
Regulation (EU) No 581/2010 on the maximum peri ods for the downloading of relevant data 
from vehicle units and from driver cards
149 has clarified that certain data do not need to be 
downloaded, thereby also reducing the downloading time. It can therefore be considered that 
the slow downloading speed has been a trans itory problem which does not require further 
action. 
                                                 
149 OJ L 168, 2.7.2010, p. 6 
 
EN 70   EN 4. Retrofitting of all vehicles with digital tachographs 
It could be considered that re placing the more unreliable analogue  tachograph which is still in 
use in vehicles registered before 2006 by the digi tal tachograph would contribute to achieve a 
more trustworthy collection of data. However, at the time of  introduction of  the digital 
tachograph, the decision not to replace the ex isting analogue tachogr aph has already been 
taken, the main reason therefore being the techni cal difficulties or impossibilities to fit the 
digital tachograph in these old vehicles. Conseque ntly, stakeholders have not considered such 
a measure which would have a drastic cost impact. 
5. Automatic recording of the vehicle’s weight 
Some stakeholders suggested that weight coul d provide an additional measure of time worked 
by the driver. This time would include undertaki ng tasks other than driving. In particular, 
some drivers spend time at work loading and unlo ading their vehicle. Recorded variations in 
weight, it is argued, would enable the tachog raph to record such loading and unloading 
activity as time worked by the driver. However,  this argument does not take into account the 
possibility that the driver may be resting wh ile other workers load and unload the vehicle. 
Consequently, while recording weight might be  technically feasible and might enable the 
tachograph to be useful in enforcing the re gulations on the weight and dimensions of 
vehicles150, it is irrelevant to the problems identified in this IA. Any benefit in respect of 
enforcing the rules on maximum weight through au tomated recording of the weight should be 
subject to a proper impact assessment. 
6. Draw up EU type-approval procedures for seals 
The establishment of requirements on seals in the regulation would lead to difficulties in 
keeping up with technical progress. It may also be that, in future, secu re digital tachographs 
which do not require seals will be developed. This future development is likely to be undermined by a requirement that digital tach ographs must be fitted with a type-approved 
seal. The benefits of drawing a type-approval procedure for se als would be comparable to 
developing standards through Euro pean standardisation bodies (which was retained as a 
viable measure – see part. 4.2), but  the costs would seem higher. 
7. Carry out all inspections of tachograph recordings via remote checks 
If this measure was adopted, the full set of  data recorded by the tachograph would be 
downloaded remotely and controlled. This howev er raises data protection and fundamental 
right concerns as it would requ ire to make available all information related to the driver. 
Drivers would no longer have the opportunity to explain to the control officers abnormal 
recordings which may well not invo lve an infringement of the soci al legislation (for example, 
when exemptions are used) before being sanctioned. This measure would be therefore disproportionate and excessively impacting on fundamental rights. 
                                                
 
150 Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain vehicles circulating within the 
Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum 
authorised weights in international traffic, OJ L 235, 17.09.1996, p. 59 
 
EN 71   EN 8. Require certain ITS applications to be integrated into the tachograph 
In this measure, the design of a standard open in-vehicle plat form integrating the tachograph 
and other, predefined ITS applications would be imposed by the legislation. This solution 
would be inefficient as users would have to pa y for several integrated ITS applications they 
may not need. Moreover, there would be liab ility and ownership issues, as legally the 
different instruments and applications in a ve hicle are currently owned by different parties. 
Lastly, such a measure would also require ma jor preparatory technical work, which would 
delay the introduction of improve ments to the functionalities of  digital tachographs. Taking 
these factors into account, the definition of a standardised open interface between the tachograph and other ITS applicat ions is retained for further analysis as more proportionate 
while providing similar benefits. 
9. Limit the number of days which can elapse before the card is declared lost, and 
require that driver ca rds are issued only to professional drivers 
While this measure might potentially improve  compliance, the costs it would impose on 
drivers and road transport firms are likely to be disproportionate. Reducing the reporting 
allowance would impose costs on drivers who ar e at the beginning or in the middle of their 
journeys. Additionally, in absence of the driver  card, drivers have to record their activities 
manually, thereby reducing the risk of abuse. 
The issuance of driver cards to persons who ar e not professional drivers is seen as a possible 
source of abuse, as professional drivers could us e the cards of these pers ons in order to avoid 
compliance with social legislation. However,  several firms employ persons who are not 
professional drivers but who need to be able to move the vehicles (such as maintenance 
workers), and hence require driver cards.  
10. Reduce the number of days of recordings to be carried by users of analogue 
tachographs 
The Stoiber Group proposed to reduce the number of  records to be carried by the driver from 
the current 28 days. However, if the number of  days were reduced, information concerning 
compliance with the requirements on weekly rest periods may be lost. In addition, the costs to 
enforcers would increase, and they  would then have to carry out more checks in order to meet 
the target number of days checked
151.Finally, this concerns mostly users of analogue 
tachographs, as for users of dig ital tachographs, the driver card  should be sufficient in most 
cases. 
11. Legislate on the access to tachograp h data for accident investigation 
The current EU legislation does not prevent access to tachograph data for accident 
investigation and a revision will not change this situation. It should however be noted that is 
very difficult to establish a direct link between causes of the accident and possible infringements against the social  legislation. Setting up a manda tory dedicated monitoring of 
accident causes by the public authorities would be disproportionate. 
                                                
 
151 Directive 2006/22/EC lays down a minimum level of checks to be carried out by Member States 
 
EN 72   EN  
Annex VIII  
Recording of location data  
With analogue tachographs, drivers have to re cord the start and end place of their working 
day. For digital tachographs, this  requirement has been replaced  by an obligation to record 
this information at the level of Member States only, making this information practically useless for enforcement purposes. Enforcemen t officers indicated dur ing the consultation 
process and within the Expert Pa nel that the loss of this information on the start and end of 
journeys has been a detrimental aspect of th e switch from analogue to  digital tachographs. 
The loss of this information makes it less likely  that the social legi slation will be properly 
enforced and means that roadside checks take l onger. It is recommended, therefore, that the 
regulation should require that the start and end place of working days be recorded.  
Vehicle location data could co me from GNSS or from GSM/UM TS base stations. Indeed, 
GSM/UMTS base stations triangulations have  an accuracy of 100-1000 Meters, and such a 
precision fit the purpose. So the use of GSM/ UMTS sim cards would deliver appropriate 
position for journeys star-end. The limitations he re are the annual fixed costs of a GSM card 
fee, topped by the GSM mobile communications  every time a position would have to be 
recorded. So, a simple GNSS receiver is probably more appropriate. 
The analysis presented below suggests that th e benefits of an automatic approach to the 
recording of location using GNSS would outweigh those of a manual approach.  
  Automatic  Manual  
Additional manufacturing cost  €5-10 per tachograph  €5-10 per tachograph  
Impact upon drivers It would reduce by a few 
minutes each day the amount of time which drivers spend inputting to their tachographs  It would increase by a few 
minutes each day the time which drivers spend inputting to their tachographs  
Impact upon enforcers  According to ECR, it would 
reduce the length of the average check by 20 minutes (in the period 2007-2008, 9.5 
million checks on drivers 
were made)
 Enforcers can have less expectation of consistent and accurate records if manual entries are made  
The analysis of administrative burden in A nnex III shows that GNSS can lead to a reduction 
of €349 million in administrative burden.  
 
EN 73   EN  
Annex IX  
Implementation of the recommended policy package  
The following steps would be taken in order to  implement the recommended policy package. 
In a first step, the Commission would submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the 
Council to revise the Tachograph Regulation. At  the same time, the Commission would adopt 
a Commission Communication expl aining (1) the roadmap for the technical implementation 
of the different measures, (2) the mandate to CEN on seals, (3) the vision for the future 
cooperation within AETR.  
In a second step, delegated and implemen ting acts would be adopted. As long as the 
implementing/delegated acts would simply imple ment the measures as described in the 
present IA, it seems not a priori necessary to ca rry out an additional IA (this goes for instance 
for the wireless communication or the integration of GNSS). If need be, such an IA would of 
course be carried out for delegated if additiona l measures not covered by the present IA would 
be envisaged.  
With analogue tachographs, drivers have to re cord the start and end place of their working 
day. For digital tachographs, this  requirement has been replaced  by an obligation to record 
this information at the level of Member States only, making this information practically 
useless for enforcement purposes. Enforcemen t officers indicated dur ing the consultation 
process and within the Expert Pa nel that the loss of this information on the start and end of 
journeys has been a detrimental aspect of th e switch from analogue to  digital tachographs. 
The loss of this information makes it less likely  that the social legi slation will be properly 
enforced and means that roadside checks take l onger. It is recommended, therefore, that the 
regulation should require that the start and end place of working days be recorded.  
Vehicle location data could co me from GNSS or from GSM/UM TS base stations. Indeed, 
GSM/UMTS base stations triangulations have  an accuracy of 100-1000 Meters, and such a 
precision fit the purpose. So the use of GSM/ UMTS sim cards would deliver appropriate 
position for journeys star-end. The limitations here  are the annual fixed costs of a GSM card 
fee, topped by the GSM mobile communications  every time a position would have to be 
recorded. So, a simple GNSS receiver is probably more appropriate. 
The analysis presented below suggests that th e benefits of an automatic approach to the 
recording of location using GNSS would outweigh those of a manual approach.  
 
EN 74   EN Annex X  
References  
JRC, Report on the attacks to security of the Digital Tachograph and on the risk associated 
with the introduction of adaptors to be fitted into light vehicles, 2007 
JRC, Report on the vulnerability and cont rollability of the digital tachograph, 2010 
Price Waterhouse Cooper, Analys is of the technical and orga nisational measures employed by 
Member States in the applica tion of Directive 2006/22/EC, 2009 
SMART DIGITAL Tachograph Project (Suppor t, Maintain And Improve the Digital 
Tachograph), 2007 
Armand Biberich, Société Nationale de Cont rôle Technique (LU), Recommendations to 
reduce the possible misuse and the benefits of misuse of driver cards in the digital tachograph 
scheme, 2010 
NEA, Road Freight Tran sport Vademecum, 2009 
RappTrans, Report on ITS Action Pla n, Action Area 4, Specific Action 4.1. 
Euro Contrôle Route,  Annual report 2009 
Cap Gemini, EU project on baseline measurem ents and reduction of administrative costs, 
2009 
ACEA, Statistics on commercial vehicles 
National Transportation Safety Bo ard, Factors That Affect Fati gue in Heavy Truck Accidents 
– Safety Study, 1995  
IRU, European Truck Ac cident Causation Study, 2006 
DG MOVE, Road Freight Vademecum, Issue N°1 DG MOVE, CARE database on road accidents DG MOVE, Impact assessment on Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe, SEC(2008)3083 
25th report from the Commission on the implementa tion of the social le gislation relating to 
road transport, SEC(2011)52 
Report from the Commission analysing the pena lties for serious infringements against the 
social rules in road transport, as provided for in the legislation of the Member States, 
COM(2009)225 
Communication from the Commission, Action  Programme for Reducing Administrative 
Burdens in the EU, Sectoral Reduction Plans and 2009 Actions, COM(2009) 544 final 
 
EN 75   EN Communication from the Comm ission, Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the 
European Union, COM(2005) 97 final 
Communication of the Commi ssion, Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: A 
strategy for the simplification of the re gulatory environment, COM(2005) 535 final 
Communication of the Comm ission, An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era 
- Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage, COM(2010)614 
Opinion of the High Level Group of Independent  Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens of 
4-5 March 2009 on transport ( http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/better-
regulation/administrative-burdens /high-level-group/index_en.htm ) 
European Commission, Impact Assessmen t Guidelines, January 2009, SEC(2009) 92