OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 and Council Directive 88/599/EEC on recording equipment in road transport
Date: 1995-02-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: land transport, road transport, transport policy, transport safety, vehicle parts













EUR-Lex - 51995AC0189 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995AC0189

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 and Council Directive 88/599/EEC on recording equipment in road transport  


Official Journal C 110 , 02/05/1995 P. 0019 





Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council  Regulation (EEC) No  3821/85 and Council Directive 88/599/EEC on recording equipment in road  transport ()(95/C 110/07)On 15  September 1994 the Council decided to consult the  Economic and Social Committee, under Article  75 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,  on the abovementioned proposal. The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's  work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 8  February 1995. The Rapporteur was Mr Green. At its 323rd Plenary Session (meeting of 22  February 1995), the Economic and Social Committee  adopted the following Opinion by a large majority vote in favour and one vote against, with one  abstention. 1. The Commission proposal The draft amendment seeks to require mandatory fitting of an  additional component involving the digital storage of data in the current tachograph system as used  by professional drivers. The aim is to improve the enforcement of, and compliance with, social  legislation relating to road transport, as laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No  3820/85. This  sets limits on driving time and requirements for drivers' rest periods. Enforcement of these provisions has proved inadequate for several reasons. In particular the  tachograph and speed recorder system used can easily be tampered with. The Commission proposal aims to modernize the compulsory speed recorder by adding on an extra  electronic unit. The original device, consisting of a sort of clock into which a paper disc is  inserted, will remain in use but it will now be 'modernized' by means of a driver smart card, which  will allow data to be stored electronically. The Commission may also, with the assistance of the consultative committee on technical adaptation,  approve alternative control systems which, for example, replace the traditional tachograph and its  record sheet by equipment which stores data in digital form. The Commission proposal is designed to make it easier to enforce the rules, and so encourage  enforcement agencies in the Member States to check up on vehicles using roads in their territories  and to get operators and drivers to carry out checks at the operator's base itself. Controlling maximum driving times will ensure that satisfactory social standards are maintained,  help to promote fair competition and enhance road safety. 2. General comments 2.1. Both the Commission White Paper on the Future Development of the Common  Transport Policy (COM(92) 494) and the report submitted by the Committee of Enquiry on road freight  transport in the Single European Market point out that non-compliance with regulations is the  greatest single problem in the road transport sector. This includes illegal infringements of the  rules on driving and rest periods. The Committee can therefore give its wholehearted support to  Commission efforts to improve this situation. 2.2. It is essential to step up checks if infringements are to be detected and if existing rules  are to be more effectively enforced. On this point the Committee would highlight the unfortunate  fact that, even with tighter checks in individual Member States, there will still be disparities  because the existing rules are interpreted in widely differing ways. Consequently, if tighter  checks are to have the desired effect, the Committee feels that the Commission should also address  these problems. It would therefore recommend that the rules on driving and rest periods be  streamlined when this proposal is being implemented, so as to facilitate greater practicability and  effectiveness. The hoped for harmonization of competition will, however, only be achieved if the scale and method  of checks are aligned throughout the Community. However, the proposal cannot be expected to achieve  this. Nor can it be expected to solve the problem that individual Member States handle retroactive  checks on firms going back as far as one year in widely differing ways. The varying size of haulage  firms further complicates these checks. 2.3. The Committee endorses the Commission's view that changes should be made as soon as possible  to the existing control apparatus (tachographs) in lorries by making greater use of information  technology. The use of a driver's card (smart card) seems a vital component in tightening up  checks. The proposed equipment to be connected to existing tachographs in practice still needs to prove its  technological validity and has so far only been subjected to factory testing. The Committee  therefore recommends the speedy introduction of a broader field trial involving a proportion (%) of  the total number of vehicles affected by the tachograph requirement in each Member State. That  would give both national authorities and haulage firms and drivers a chance to assess the scale of  the practical administrative burden and ascertain whether control and safety requirements are met.  This must be coordinated with the checks carried out, since only then can a proper assessment be  made of whether the standard of output data required to tighten up controls is achieved. Similarly a future amendment of the Council Regulation must be devised as a minimum set of rules.  Existing information indicates that it is already possible to install far more advanced equipment  which, in addition to the control procedures proposed by the Commission, is also capable of  producing a wide range of data for the haulage firm concerned, thereby making investment far more  attractive to many firms. The Commission has explained its choice of solution by stating that it does not consider it  economically justifiable to scrap existing tachographs. 2.4. The estimated cost of acquiring and using the equipment proposed by the Commission, as set out  in the business impact assessment form, seems to be too low. Apart from anything else, there is no  provision for the costs of data management and training. The direct costs of fitting, plus the loss  of profit during fitting, are also excluded from the Commission's estimates. According to the Commission's calculations, acquiring and fitting the extra equipment outlined in  the proposal will involve a one-off cost of ECU 1,5 billion, plus on-going annual expenditure of  ECU 200 million. The Committee is inclined to think that these figures are too low. 2.5. Similarly, it must be said that the proposal will have no appreciable positive impact on  competition, as there will still be a whole range of vehicles which are not covered by the  Regulation and there will be a long transitional period during which drivers from third countries  will not be subject to the same, stricter requirements. According to our information, the relevant  provisions of the AETR Convention require non-EU signatory countries to use the same control  equipment as EU haulage firms. This would hardly be feasible under the proposed time schedule. The  Commission wishes the proposal to be implemented within the ambit of the EU but it should work for  a change in the AETR Convention (to be scheduled to coincide with the deadlines laid down in the  proposal) to ensure that non-EU vehicles meet the same control equipment requirements as EU  vehicles. 2.6. Safe and rapid transport between Member States is one of the key elements in the  implementation of the internal market. It is therefore important that obstacles to trade be  minimized. The chief objective of any control system must therefore be to make controls as  effective as possible, while at the same time eradicating or at least minimizing any disruption of  transport operations. 3. Specific comments 3.1. Much of the wording covering the use of the driver card is unclear. On  the one hand, there is great emphasis on the fact that the driver card is a personalized document,  which at some point in the future is also intended to serve as a driving licence, which drivers  would be required to guard against theft, etc. On the other hand, several of the provisions (eg. Annex 1(A), II (c)1 and 2) stipulate that the  driver card is to remain inserted in the recording equipment whenever the driver is forced to leave  it unguarded. The Committee feels that a clear line should be taken on this problem. The new equipment will constantly require the driver to enter a large number of details manually to  ensure that the collected data indicates the driver's driving time, additional work and 'standby'  periods, interruptions and rest periods. Under the current proposal, the driver still has to enter data by hand on the record sheet but such  data is not simultaneously electronically stored. The Committee finds this unsatisfactory. Careful consideration should also be given to whether the data stored on the driver's card should  be generally accessible or whether this would be inconsistent with existing legislation on personal  data protection. Article  1(4) point 5 leaves it up to Member States to decide whether the driver data stored on the  smart card should be archived by undertakings. It would seem more logical and more in line with the  trend to make archiving compulsory. Annex 1(A) II (c) 1 states that only the 'essential data' shall be stored on the driver card. This  is not specific enough; the data required should be spelt out. 3.2. Articles 2, 3 and 4 lay down the deadlines for fitting the new equipment on new vehicles  (1998) and on vehicles already in service (2000). They also specify which vehicles are exempted  from fitting the new equipment. The Committee feels that there is too great a gap between the deadlines, and this will produce  severe distortions in competition between operators with new vehicles and those with old ones. If  would therefore recommend reducing the proposed time lag to one year. The Committee would also suggest that the deadline should be flexible so that fitting of the new  equipment can be scheduled to coincide with mandatory vehicle inspections. This will rule out extra  costs, such as loss of profits on individual vehicles. 3.3. Annex 1(A) III (c) 4 contains provisions for the fitment of an external warning signal visible  to all other road users. The Committee has reservations about such control methods. It is  questionable whether involving other road users and the population at large in the supervision of  road haulage would be consistent with principles of legal certainty in the Member States. 3.4. Article  1(6) also lays down that in certain circumstances a driver may continue to drive  without a driver card for up to fifteen days, which would trigger the warning signal. The  exemptions and dispensations allowed under Council Regulation No  3820/85 would also result in the  signal being triggered, giving observers a false impression of the circumstances. This could very  easily lead to misunderstandings which would be detrimental rather than beneficial to road safety. 4. Conclusion The Committee welcomes the Commission's aims in amending Council Regulation (EEC)  No  3821/85 and Council Directive 88/599/EEC on recording equipment in road transport. However, the  current draft contains a number of points which require further scrutiny. Particularly from a  financial and administrative angle, the proposed equipment should be tested in both national and  international road haulage throughout the Community, provided this does not delay implementation of  a new system. Done at Brussels, 22  February 1995. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() OJ No C  243, 31. 8. 1994, p. 8.