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
Date: 2011-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, economic consequence, fraud, road transport, social impact, speed control, traffic control, transport safety, working conditions

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 tachograph in road transport 

{COM(2011) 451 final} 
{SEC(2011) 947 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
This report commits only the Commission’s services involved in its preparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 5 

Identification ................................................................................................................ 5 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 5 

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. 

2.1. 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 8 

Background information: EU social legislation in the field of road 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 are 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 indicator 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 tachograph 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 

2 

   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 roadside checks for compliant drivers............................... 22 

2.3.3.4.  Tachograph is not sufficiently facilitating drivers’ 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. 

2.6. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? ........................................... 25 

Does the EU have the right to act and is there a clear EU added value? ................... 26 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 27 

General Objective....................................................................................................... 27 

Specific Objectives..................................................................................................... 28 

Operational Objectives............................................................................................... 28 

Consistency of the objectives with fundamental rights.............................................. 29 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 29 

List of retained policy measures ................................................................................ 29 

Identification of policy packages ............................................................................... 35 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 37 

Impact on the compliance with social legislation ...................................................... 37 

Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 41 

5.2.1. 

Impact on the functioning of the internal market and competition............................ 41 

5.2.2. 

Impact on competitiveness......................................................................................... 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, health and lifestyle of drivers................................... 47 

EN 

3 

   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. 

5.5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

7. 

Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 50 

Impact in third countries ............................................................................................ 51 

Comparing the packages ............................................................................................ 51 

Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 51 

Efficiency ................................................................................................................... 51 

Coherence................................................................................................................... 53 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 53 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 57 

EN 

4 

   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  social  rules  in  road  transport.  The  Impact 
Assessment report has been prepared by the Directorate General for Mobility and Transport 
(DG MOVE). It is the basis for a Communication and a proposal to the European Parliament 
and the Council to repeal and replace Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on the recording 
equipment (reference n° MOVE/2008/008). 

1.2. 

Organisation and timing 

For the preparation of this initiative, DG MOVE set up an Impact Assessment Steering Group 
in which the following DGs took part: SG, ENTR, EMPL, JRC, JUST, SANCO. Two other 
DGs  –  INFSO  and  ECFIN  –  were  invited  to  participate,  but  were  unable  to  do  so.  DG 
MARKT  was  kept  informed  as  they  requested.  The  steering  group  held  five  meetings 
(2 March,  30  July,  6  October,  12  November  2010  and  17  February  2011).  The  steering 
group’s comments were taken into account 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 Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 for all issues related to recording 
equipment. The  Committee  normally  meets once a  year. The  main stakeholders take part in 
this  committee  as  observers.  They  include  inspection  and  police  organisations  as  well  as 
manufacturers. In addition to this on-going exchange, DG MOVE has taken several initiatives 
to help prepare this Impact Assessment. 

SMART Project 

This  was  an  extensive  two  year  long  consultation  commissioned  by  the  European 
Commission, ending in March 2009. The project brought together the main stakeholders and 
asked them to recommend possible improvements to the security and the user-friendliness of 
the  digital  tachograph.  Some  of  their  recommendations  were  implemented  in  20091:  the 
tachograph  technical  specifications  were  amended  by  committee  procedure  (‘comitology’:  a 
regulatory  procedure  with  scrutiny).  Other  recommendations  are  considered  in  this  impact 
assessment (IA).  

1.3.1. 

Joint Research Centre 

In September 2009, DG MOVE asked the Joint Research Centre (JRC) to assess the present 
vulnerability and verifiability of the digital tachograph. The JRC reported in February 2010. 
The  JRC  also  reported  to  the  Commission  the  following  month  on  technical  scenarios  for 
further developing the 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 

5 

   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.  Given  the  technical  nature  of  the  topic, 
participation  was  relatively  large:  73  contributions,  mostly  of  high  quality,  were  received 
from various stakeholders.  

Most stakeholders wanted to see the digital 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 recording equipment are necessary. The type approval 
process  for  the  tachograph  was  considered  satisfactory.  Almost  all  stakeholders  also  stated 
that  the  level  of  security  should  be  maintained  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, merging 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  for  consultation,  as  laid  down  in  the  Impact 
Assessment Guidelines. The individual contributions are available, together with a summary 
of the consultation, on the following website: 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/consultations/2010_03_01_tachographs_en.htm.  

1.3.3. 

Social partners 

In  line  with  the  Commission  Impact  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 review of the digital tachograph 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  consideration,  and  to  also  ensure  that  all  interests  and  viewpoints 
were properly represented, the contractor set up an Expert Panel including representatives of 
road transport associations, road transport unions, enforcement and type-approval authorities, 
card  issuing  authorities,  vehicle  manufacturers,  and  tachograph  manufacturers.  The  Expert 
Panel reviewed the documents prepared by the contractor and attended a workshop at which 
the contractor’s draft final report 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 

6 

   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  adapted  to  clarify  the  intervention  logic  and  provide  a  more 
appropriate set of objectives.  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

A  table  3  has  been  added  mapping  the  proposed  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  operational  objectives  in 
more concrete terms 

Policy package 3 has been redesigned to present a possible lower cost alternative and 
the IA has been adapted accordingly 

It has been underlined that the policy packages are designed to achieve all objectives 
and represent genuine alternative policy options 

Annex IX has been added explaining the legislative proposals to be put forward and 
for which further impact assessments are foreseen. 

Secondly, the report has been adapted to strengthen the presentation 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 rights and privacy concerns have 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 stakeholder consultation have been adapted to clearly indicate 
the relevant stakeholder 

Finally,  the  report  has  been  adapted  to  strengthen  the  section  on  future  monitoring  and 
evaluation, to ensure the presence of an adequate evidence base for future initiatives. 

EN 

7 

   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 legislation in the field of road transport and 
the tachograph system 

Since  1969,  the  European  Union  (EU)  has  laid  down  social  legislation  in  the  field  of  road 
transport. The aim is to improve road safety and drivers’ working conditions,  and to ensure 
fair  competition  among  transport  companies.  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  legislation.  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,  hereinafter  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, reliable 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  standards,  establishes  the  rules  on  the  use,  type 
approval,  installation  and  inspection  of  tachographs.  It  therefore  creates  a  range  of  legal 
obligation to manufacturers, authorities but also to transport operators and drivers.  

For the time being, two types of recording equipment are in use. The analogue tachograph has 
been in use since 1985 and is still used in vehicles registered before 1 May 2006. It records 

3 

4 

5 

Directive 2002/15/EC sets additional limits on drivers’ weekly working time and contains provisions on 
breaks and night time working. 
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 carried out at roadside checks and 
by authorised workshops. Furthermore, the Commission services issue regularly Guidelines aiming at 
harmonising the way the social legislation is implemented and controlled by Member States.  
Article 15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 

EN 

8 

   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  –  was  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  tachograph  by  providing  a  tamper-proof  way  of 
recording  driving  data  is  a  great  improvement  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 contracting parties of the European Agreement on Road 
Transport  (hereinafter  "AETR"),  which  account  for  another  22  countries  outside  the  EU  in 
Europe and in the Commonwealth of Independent States. 

Facts and figures on tachographs 

The Tachograph Regulation directly 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  are  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 vehicles 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 2006, the digital tachograph is now fitted to 
more than 1.5 million vehicles; the rest 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  vehicle's  motion  and  sends  this  information  to  the  vehicle  unit 
and  of  a  cable  connecting  vehicle  unit  and  motion  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 more detailed description of the tachograph can be found in 
Annex I. 

Since  its  adoption,  the  Tachograph  Regulation  has  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, concerning manual inputs of time spent 
not driving, and rounding up of the time to the next minute. It is estimated by the Commission 

6 

7 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 

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. 
The 'smart driver card' is a card with a micro-chip that can store the data needed to check the driving 
and resting time of the driver. 
See in this respect section 4 of Annex 1. 
Sixth amendment to the AETR agreement, ECE/TRANS/SC.1/386/Add.1. 
See NEA, Road Freight Transport Vademecum, 2009. 
ACEA statistics on commercial vehicles. 
ACEA statistics on commercial vehicles. 
According to tachograph manufacturers. 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1266/2009 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
that the new measures, which will enter into force in October 2011, account for a reduction of 
 234.5 million a year. Most importantly, however, the amendment 
administrative burden of €
considerably reduces the vulnerability of the digital tachograph 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 available. 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 introduced only in 2006. There is 
only  one  report  since  the  introduction  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 vehicles16 are 
found breaching the social rules. Roughly one fourth of the latter – are found breaching the 
Tachograph Regulation in particular, for instance by driving without a card, using the card of 
another driver or having physically manipulated the equipment. 

Figure 1 presents the categories of offences detected at roadside checks. 45% of them relate to 
breaches of social legislation17. More complete yearly data reported 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 

16 
17 

18 

19 

20 

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). 
Own calculations based on Euro Control route, Annual report 2009 
This figure can be split between the breach of the driving and working time provisions (34%) and the 
breach of the Tachograph Regulation (11%). 
25th  report  from  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  the  social  legislation  relating  to  road 
transport (SEC(2011)52 final). 
TISPOL and ECR are European association of police and enforcement organisations carrying out road 
inspections and checks.  
Information provided on an informal basis to the Commission. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Offences per category

12%

34%

18%

11%

11%

9%

5%

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  perspective  of  Directive  2006/22/EC  which  requires  from 
Member States to control as a minimum only 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 the 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 operational 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 the latter lead to much 
more severe consequences, as most likely, numerous infringements are committed against the 
driving times once the device is manipulated; therefore, there is a high efficiency by attacking 
infringements against the tachograph regulation.  

21 
22 
23 

24 

25 

See Art. 2(3) of Directive 2006/22/EC. 
See Art. 9 of Directive 2006/22/EC. 
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. 
Indeed, local evidence from Denmark show that up to 40% of drivers are breaching social legislation 
(http://www.dr.dk/Regioner/Vest/Nyheder/MidtVest/2010/03/16/071601.htm). 
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 the 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 

11 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The breach of the social legislation 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 periods and of the maximum driving times can 
lead to more fatigued drivers. In a recent study27, fatigue of truck drivers 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 the 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 vigilance, from slight fatigue to sleeping, and fatigue is often linked to other 
causes such as being inattentive". An American study28 confirms this assumption, by saying 
that  "the  incidence  of  driver  fatigue  in  underrepresented  […]  with  regards  to  truck  drivers. 
Research has suggested that truck driver fatigue is a contributing factor in 30 to 40 percent of 
all heavy truck accidents". 

The Handbook on estimation of the external 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 professional 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 the simplifying assumption that other costs of 
accidents  (injuries,  damage  to  the  infrastructure,  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  transport  companies  operate  in  a  highly  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  regional  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 assumed that the higher the share of wage costs 
in the total costs, the larger the incentive not to comply with social legislation.  

As described above, between 5% and 9% of the drivers 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  local  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 
27 
28 

29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

See section 1.3.4. 
IRU, European Truck Accident Causation Study, 2006. 
National Transportation Safety Board, Factors That Affect Fatigue in Heavy Truck Accidents – Safety 
Study, 1995 
CE Delft, Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector, 2008 
Details of the calculation are attached in Annex V. 
CARE Database. 
Road Freight Transport Vademecum, Issue N°1, DG MOVE  
EU-15 describes the EU Member States before the 2004 enlargement. EU-12 are the EU Member States 
that joined since 2004. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(for example, by how many hours the maximum driving time has been overrun), 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 pertaining to maximum driving times […], the 
provision  which  obliges  the  drivers  to  take  a  regular  weekly  rest  period".  Non-compliance 
with  legislation  affects  the  working  conditions  of  the  drivers.  This  has  also  important 
consequences on health and lifestyle of professional drivers. 

Several reviews and empirical studies demonstrate various negative overall health effects of 
extended working hours: Long working hours are associated with poor perceived health, more 
illnesses, or even increased mortality34. In the road transport, stress, exhaustion and unsuitable 
position  body  can  lead  to  several  distinct  health  problems  such  as  pycho-vegetative 
impairments  (gastrointestinal  disorders,  musculoskeletal  fatigue…).  35  In  the  case  of  drivers 
engaged  in  long  distance  international  transport,  respect  of  the  social  legislation  is  essential 
also  for  maintaining  the  proper  balance  between  social  and  professional  life.  All  these 
problems are obviously exacerbated by non-respect 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 data 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 enterprises (SMEs), which are obliged to record and 
report specific information. The 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  functionalities,  to  facilitate  the  drivers' 
work and support the efficiency of the road transport industry. 

Although the introduction of the digital tachograph and the subsequent technical adaptations 
have already substantially reduced the administrative burden (see Section 4 of Annex I), the 
system  still  entails  important  administrative  costs.  The  High  Level  Group  of  Independent 
Stakeholders on Administrative Burden, commonly called the "Stoiber group", estimated the 
administrative cost of compliance with Regulation 561/2006 to € 3.102 bil lion, out of which € 
3 billion (or 97%) were qualified as administrative 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 

35 

36 

37 
38 

Deloitte Study (December 2010) to support an Impact Assessment on Further action at European level 
regarding Directive 2003/88/EC and the evolution of working time organisation. 
ECO-LOGICA LIMITED, John Whitelegg, Health of professional drivers, A report for Transport and 
General Workers Union, Lancaster, 1995. 
See  contributions  of  transport  companies,  industry  associations  or  tachograph  manufacturers  (IRU, 
UEAPME or Continental) and the Joint Statement of the social partners in road transport 
Cap Gemini, EU project on baseline measurements and reduction of administrative costs, 2009 
Regulation (EU) No 1266/2009. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
savings in administrative costs amounting to € 234.5 million a year 39, 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  insufficient  effectiveness  of  the  tachograph 
system in preventing offences to the social legislation in road transport and the low efficiency 
of the system, including the untapped potential 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 vulnerable 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 encrypted signal sent by the motion sensor to the digital tachograph. 
There  are  even  commercially  available  products  based  on  such  magnets  or  ‘exotic  devices’ 
and specifically designed to tamper with tachograph signals. The most typical of these frauds, 
through  simple  magnets,  are  well  known  in  the  sector  and  were  even  explained  and 
commented on popular television programmes in several Member States44. Although there is 
no  quantified  data  on  the  volume  of  such  frauds,  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 the 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  (such  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 
40 
41 
42 

43 
44 
45 
46 

Cf. part 2.1. above 
Ibid. 
Notably the findings of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burden. 
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. 
See Annex VI for more details. 
In the Netherlands, Italy and France  
See footnote 14. 
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 

EN 

14 

   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 after installation. Seals 
are  intended  as  a  means  of  detecting  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  performance  level  at  the  European  level  or  to 
comply  with  a  specific  standard.  Consequently,  the  quality  of  seals  varies  largely  between 
countries. In some cases, the seals are easily forged and mechanically 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.  Misunderstandings  between 
operators and enforcement officers have also been reported. The legislation does not require 
sealing of all devices, but many enforcement officers are not well informed of that fact. It has 
been  reported  to  the  Commission  that  new  devices  that  are  exempted  from  sealing  are 
sometimes ‘sealed’ to avoid fines from non informed 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 obsolescence of the prescribed security mechanisms. The strength of a 
number  of  security  mechanisms  provided  for  in  the  Tachograph  Regulation50  is  below  the 
level currently requested for certification at the ITSEC High level (ITSEC is the international 
body in charge of certifying EU security standards; 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 security certification authorities. 

In  practical  terms,  the  encryption  standards  currently  applicable  to  the  digital  tachograph 
contain  a  number  of  vulnerabilities,  which  may  in  future  allow  the  manipulation  of 
downloaded  data  and  of  data  stored  on  driver  cards.  Moreover,  the  encryption  of  the  data 
recorded by the digital tachograph system is based on certain digital keys. When the digital 
key  used  in  the  digital  tachograph  is  disclosed,  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 legislation 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 
48 
49 
50 

51 
52 

Requirement 251 and following of Annex IB to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85. 
JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010. 
JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010. 
Appendices  10  and  11  of  Annex  IB  to  the  Tachograph  Regulation  contain  the  minimum  strength 
requirements and specifications concerning the security mechanisms of the tachographs. 
Information provided in an informal way to the Commission. 
Cf. Point Vulnerabilities of encryption technology above. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
use  their  card.  The  latest  tachograph  legislation53  requires  Member  States  to  exchange 
electronically information in order to ensure that the tachographs are properly used to apply 
the  social  road  transport  rules.  The  Commission  adopted  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  Recommendation  provides  the  necessary  guidelines  to 
implement this new requirement. However, two Member States (Portugal and Denmark) are 
still  not  connected  to  the  system.  Moreover,  the  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  performer  (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 persons 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  controllers  for  in  depth  inspection, 
when fraud is suspected by enforcers. They are also responsible for affixing the seals. It is not 
possible to have security without trusted workshops. 

Workshops  accredited  for  digital  tachograph  calibration  and  maintenance  were  historically 
selected from the network of analogue tachographs workshops, with a particular attention to 
exclude the fraction of them involved in the past in frauds affairs (estimated around 30%).56 
Still,  the  trustworthiness  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  commercial  relation  with  a  transport  company 
after the accreditation phase is over. Cases of transport operators 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 which creates room for confusion. 60 

Frauds by workshops are difficult to catch during workshops audits. More efficient are checks 
made directly after a calibration session, where an inspector asks for a second session in the 
workshop,  for  calibration  crosscheck.  The  Netherlands  reported  that  they  are  organizing 

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1266/2009. 
Recommendation 2010/19/EU. 
Cf. TACHOnet statistics February 2011, 

53 
54 
55 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/social_provisions/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 Transport 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 
CORTE contribution to stakeholder consultation. 
JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010. 

59 
60 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
randomly that kind of check, by calling the closest controller in the area, for an instantaneous 
second check. Thus the quality and frequency of the audits seems 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 controls 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 carried out by the Joint Research Centre.64 However, despite 
the adopted recommendation, the assessment undertaken 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 execution of their duties, including regarding the 
checking of the digital tachographs. Preferably this training should be available to all control 
and  enforcement  officers  involved  in  these  tasks,  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 enforcement 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 complicated by the involvement of several 
bodies with different roles. Another factor contributing to this situation 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  their  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 hours on initial training on digital tachographs and 
14  hours  on  the  follow-up  training.  The  study  indicated  that  in  several  Member  States, 
untrained officers may be involved in roadside checks of digital tachographs. 

The training of enforcement officers, and foremost the coordination and cooperation between 
the  different  enforcement  bodies  in  the  field  of  training,  is  of  great  importance,  given  the 
complexity of the road transport legislation, the highly technical aspects of road transport and 

61 
62 
63 

64 

65 

66 

Ibid. 
Information provided in an informal way to the Commission. 
Commission  Recommendation  C  (2009)  108,  providing  guidelines  for  best  enforcement  practice  on 
countermeasures to detect and prevent the use of manipulation devices. 
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. 
Price Waterhouse Cooper, Analysis of the technical and organisational measures employed by Member 
States in the application of Directive 2006/22/EC, 2009. 
In a number of Member States, the police (usually under the responsibility of the Ministry of Interior) 
are in charge of the enforcement of the Transport Acquis. In some Member States, 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 

17 

   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  the  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  and  effectiveness  of  trainings  seem  in  some  cases  to  be  the 
result of a conscious policy of the Member States. It appears – according to the study – that 
there are Member States where the training of enforcement officers is being given such a low 
priority  that  it  is  virtually  non-existent.  The  fact  that  in  many  countries  there  is  no  fixed 
budget  for  training  might  give  an  indication  of  their  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 training authorities in the various Member States 
have developed a relatively advanced level of cooperation in their respective 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 enforcement in worst performing States. 

As  a  conclusion,  elements  gathered  indicate  that  due  to  the  diversity  and  multiplicity  of 
enforcement officers, the lack of harmonisation of the requirements on both the training and 
the  organisation  of  enforcement  officers  translates  into  large  differences  in  the  quality  of 
preparation  and  of  effectiveness  of  roadside  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  record  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  indicated  during  the  consultation  process  and 
within the Expert Panel that the loss of this information on the start and end of journeys has 
been a detrimental aspect of the switch from analogue to digital tachographs. 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 rules in road transport, as defined by the said 
Regulation  itself  and  the  Tachograph  Regulation.  Notably,  the  legislation  requires  that  the 

67 
68 

Ibid. 
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 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
penalties  concerning  such  infringements  are  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 Member States. However, there is no definition 
in the Regulation of what should be considered a serious infringement. 

In 2009, Directive 2009/5/EC amending Annex III to Directive 2006/22 introduced a detailed 
categorisation of infringements to European social 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  serious  or  very  serious  infringements.  In 
particular, all infringements related to fraud and inability/unwillingness to produce data fell in 
the  category  of  very  serious  infringements.  Also  Regulation  1071/2009  on  the  admission  to 
the  occupation70  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 serious 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 the types of penalties, the level  of fines  and 
the categorisation of infringements. In particular: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The  financial  penalties  for  most  serious  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 categories of infringements; 

Only 15 Member States provide explicitly in their legislation for the possibility 
of immobilisation of the vehicle in breach of legislation72; 

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 forwarders, tour operators, etc…) which do 
not  ensure  that  contractually  agreed  transport  time  schedules  observe  social 

69 
70 

71 

72 

Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006. 
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 
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. 
The legal possibility to immobilise the vehicle can be essential for sanctioning 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.  Drivers,  whose  vehicles  are  not  immobilised  by  the 
enforcement officers, can then use the night to eliminate the proofs of fraud. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
legislation  rules.  Even  in  these  few  Member  States,  such  penalties  are  not 
applied in practice. 

•  While for infringements against the driving times and rest periods, it is rather 
clear which infringement has to be considered 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 discrimination between transport operators of different nationalities, 
or the type of situation where the driver contravenes the tachograph legislation following his 
employer company's instructions and, in some countries, the legislation 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  the  socio-economic  differences  that  make  the 
same fine proportionate and dissuasive in one country but not necessarily in the other." In the 
majority of cases, non harmonised sanctions distort the Internal Market and more importantly 
send  contradictory  and  misleading  signals  to  the  drivers  and  undertakings  concerning  the 
gravity of infringements and the social cost of non-compliance. 

2.3.3.  The use of the tachograph system is not sufficiently 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  number  of  underlying 
drivers behind this problem, while others have been 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  driving  the  vehicle  does  not 
constitute  the  driver’s  main  activity.  According  to  stakeholders  participating  in  the  Stoiber 
Group, "the restriction of this exemption 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  significantly  touch  road  safety  according  to  stakeholders.  For  this 
proposal the [Group] has estimated a reduction 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 exempted groups and could be covered 

73 

74 
75 

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. 
See for instance contributions of transport undertakings or trade unions (ZDH, TLN or ETF) 
Opinion of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens of 4-5 March 
2009 on transport. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
by exemptions without negative impact on safety, internal market or working conditions. As 
an indication of the cost reduction 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 exemptions 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  States  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  the  obligation  to  have  the  forms  signed  by  the 
employer or accepting copies of the attestation forms. 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  stakeholders  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 

77 

78 

79 
80 
81 

A  list  of  Member  State  where  the  form  is  mandatory  is  available  on  the  following  website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/social_provisions/doc/forms/2007_form_attestation_of_activities_upd
ate2010.pdf 
Commission  Decision  of  14  December  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  
Opinion of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens of 4-5 March 
2009 on transport. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 
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) 
Summary of stakeholder consultation responses,  

82 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/consultations/2010_03_01_tachographs_en.htm 

EN 

21 

   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, the 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 therefore gives a bigger chance to detect fraud, but 
the very long downloading time often pushes control officers to check only the driver's card. 

Single-use of the device 

Stakeholders87 indicated that the cost of using the tachograph  for  the purpose of controlling 
driving  time  could  be  reduced  if  the  tachograph  was  better  integrated  with  other  Intelligent 
Transport Systems (ITS) applications88 to avoid duplication of processes and exploit potential 
synergies. In particular, it would make sense that the secondary source of motion information 
was the satellite positioning used for other purposes by the drivers. Article 2(3) of Directive 
2004/52/EC  on  electronic  tolls  also  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  the  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, exploiting these synergies is currently rendered 
difficult  by  the  lack  of  a  standardised  interface  ensuring  interoperability  between  the 
tachograph and other ITS applications.  

2.3.3.3.  Insufficient efficiency of roadside checks for compliant drivers 

Roadside checks are carried out randomly, which inevitably implies stopping 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 takes 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 spent on these checks means important costs for the 
non-fraudulent firms and the authorities concerned. Filtering of roadside checks could be done 
through  a  wireless  signal  from  the  digital  tachograph  indicating  that  most  likely,  there  is  a 
problem of compliance with the legislation. This signal would allow control officers to assess 

83 

84 

Opinion of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens of 4-5 March 
2009 on transport. 
Price Waterhouse Cooper, Analysis of the technical and organisational measures employed by Member 
States in the application of Directive 2006/22/EC, 2009. 
Information provided by the UK authorities to the Commission services  
Ibid. 
Notably IRU; see the results of the stakeholder consultation  

85 
86 
87 
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. 
Study by Rapptrans on Specific action 4.1 of the ITS Action Plan, 2010. 
The  25th  report  of  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  the  social  legislation  relating  to  road 
transport  suggests  that  the  ratio  between  the  number  of offences detected  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. 

89 
90 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
whether it would be interesting to stop a certain vehicle for further control 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 the 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  risk  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 would 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 his activities. The stakeholders involved in the 
SMART project suggested the amendment of the specifications 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 report, "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 

92 
93 

SMART  DIGITAL  Tachograph  Project  (Support,  Maintain  And  Improve  the  Digital  Tachograph), 
2007. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 1: Synoptic table of problems, drivers and problematic areas 

Identified drivers 

Problematic areas 

Driver 1:  The tachograph  system  is  still  vulnerable  to 
manipulation and fraud 

Seals do not properly perform as an indicator of 
tachograph manipulation  

Vulnerabilities of encryption technology 

Misuse of driver card 

Fraudulent or negligent workshops 

Driver  2:  Effectiveness  of  controls  and  dissuasive 
effect of sanctions 

Non harmonised training of enforcement officers 

Scope of data from the digital tachograph available 
to enforcement officers 

Sanctions policy 

Driver  3:  The  use  of  the  tachograph  system  is  not 
sufficiently optimised  

Inadequate provisions of the Tachograph 
Regulation 

Technical limitations of the digital tachograph 

Insufficient efficiency of roadside checks for 
compliant drivers 

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 users of the tachograph. They are obliged to use it 
to  carry  out  transport  operations  falling  within  the  scope  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  561/2006. 
Their  working  conditions  and  standards  decline  if  their  firms  do  not  comply  with  social 
legislation.  If  opportunities  for  fraud  were  reduced,  employers  could  not  exert  pressure  on 
drivers to circumvent social legislation and drivers could fully enjoy their 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 would decline, due to distortion of competition.  

Poor  user-friendliness  of  the  tachograph  has  direct  consequences  on  firms  using  the 
tachograph. Finally, certain categories of undertakings, although not having transport as main 
activity  like  for  instance  craftsmen,  may  have  to  bear  an  unnecessary  administrative  burden 
by being obliged to install and use the digital tachograph. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
2.4.3.  Member States and inspection authorities 

Member  States  are  legally  obliged  to  enforce  social  legislation94,  and  must  therefore  have 
adequately  trained  enforcement  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  tachograph  equipment  are,  of  course,  directly 
affected  by  the  regulatory  environment  –  as  are  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 road traffic accidents involving vehicles weighing more than 3.5 tons, as 
injuries tend to be more severe 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  competitive  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 system as  a whole. The  gradual renewal of 
the fleet will have the effect of increasing the importance of the 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  equipped  with  a  digital  tachograph96,  including  almost  the 
whole long-distance fleet where, due to the high 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  mitigate  the  administrative 
the one hand, and will reduce the relevance 
burden (reduction of € 234.5 million a year) on 
and  importance  of  some  vulnerability  issues  identified  above  (resistance  to  manipulation  of 
the tachograph). On the other hand, time will aggravate the problems related to the encryption 
of  data.  In  a  recent  report  JRC  estimated  that  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 the 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 
95 

96 
97 

See Directive 2006/22/EC. 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/care/doc/safetynet/2007/bfs2007_sn-trl-1-3-
hgvs_buses.pdf. 
Estimates based on the renewal of the fleet. 
JRC, Possible scenarios for the technical evolution of the digital tachograph system, as defined in the 
regulation EEC 3821/85, 2010. 

EN 

25 

   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 possible 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  states,  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  tool  and  introducing  a  minimum  service  level  agreement.  This 
evolution  will  have  a  potentially  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 training of enforcement officers, as identified in 
the  problem  driver  "Training  of  enforcement  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 (see 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 ensure 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 international road freight is an increasing proportion of 
this  total.103  This  is  because  of  increasing  cross-border  trade  and  economic  growth,  which 
have  in  part  been  facilitated  by  EU  enlargement  and  the  liberalisation  of  the  road  haulage 
industry in Europe. Social legislation in the road transport field is harmonised at EU level, and 

98 
99 

100 

101 

EU energy and transport in figures, Statistical pocketbook 2010, p. 11. 
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. 
Although  Directive  2009/5/EC  requires  Member  States  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.  
In December 2010, 25 countries did not meet the minimum of 98 percent of answers; in February 2011, 
only 20 countries did not meet this threshold. See 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/social_provisions/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 cards that they issue, OJ L 9, 14.1.2010, p. 10–13. 
See  for  example  figure  3.1.6  in  European  Commission  (DG  TREN),  Road  Freight  Transport 
Vademecum, (March 2009). 

103 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
verifying  compliance  with  this  legislation  requires  recording  equipment  to  be  interoperable 
between Member States. Given the increasingly transnational 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  national  level  —  not  least  because  this  kind  of 
regulation has been carried out at EU level for the past 25 years. 

As regards sanctions, the Commission report on penalties104 showed the divergences between 
sanctions  applied  by  Member  States  for  infringements  against  the  tachograph  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 more international, the EU has already started to 
harmonise  the  definition  and  categorisation  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  compared  with  a  company  committing  a  similar 
infringement in a country Y. Hence, the manipulation of tachographs is already categorised by 
the  EU  legislation  as  one  of  "the  most  serious  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 degree of deterring effect of sanctions imposed 
by  Member  States  do  not  necessarily  lead  to  a  strict  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 highest 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  legislation  (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, contributing 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  Policy  to  attain  Treaty's  goals  like  improving 
transport  safety  (Article  91.1(c)  TFUE105),  social  progress  (Article  3.3  TEU106)  and 
establishing  an  internal  market  (Article  3.3  TEU).  The  Tachograph  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  accompany  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 Growth and Jobs in the European Union107 and 

104 
105 
106 
107 

COM(2009)225 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
Treaty on European Union 
Communication from the Commission, Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union, 
COM(2005) 97 final 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the Strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment108. The proposals should also 
contribute to the goal "to reduce administrative burden on companies, 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  drivers.  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 increase the efficiency of the checks of the social 
legislation in road transport. 

3. The third specific policy objective is to reduce the costs related to the use of the recording 
equipment, notably by reducing the administrative 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 rate of infringements to the social legislation per 
vehicle  controlled  in  a  roadside  check  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 digital tachograph by 
20 % before 2020 compared to 2010 (based on the estimations provided by the 
Stoiber Group and the EU project on baseline measurements and reduction of 
administrative costs111). 

108 

109 

110 

111 

Communication of the Commission, Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: A strategy for 
the simplification of the regulatory environment, COM(2005) 535 final 
Communication of the Commission, An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era - Putting 
Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage, COM(2010)614. 
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 been falsified, or with a 
card of which the driver is not the holder, or which has been obtained on the basis of false declarations 
and/or forged documents." 
Cap Gemini, EU project on baseline measurements and reduction of administrative costs, 2009 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Some  data  concerning  road  transport  is  collected  at  an  EU  level  and  could  be  used  for 
monitoring  the  impact  of  the  proposed  regulation  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  will  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 aimed at reducing the number of drivers in fraud 
of social legislation and at integrating the tachograph with other ITS devices will need to take 
due account of the need to respect for private and family life (Art. 7), the right to protection of 
personal  data  (Art.  8)  and  the  freedom  to  conduct  a  business  (Art.  16).  Particular  attention 
should be given to the necessity and proportionality. Concerning sanctions, the fundamental 
rights provided for in Title VI Justice, in particular principles of legality and proportionality 
of criminal offences and penalties (Art. 49) and the right not to be tried or punished twice for 
the  same  offence  (Art.50)  are  also  important.  The  specific  objectives  as  defined  above, 
namely  the  improvement  of  road  safety,  internal  market  functioning  and  drivers'  working 
conditions,  could  constitute  general  interest  and  therefore  justify  potential  necessary 
limitations  of  the  identified  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  potential  to  address  the  numerous  problematic 
areas identified in the problems above. The following process 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  consultation  or  elsewhere  but  were  discarded  at  an  early 
stage  of  the  impact  assessment  as  unrealistic,  out  of  scope  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  between  the  retained  policy  measures  and  the 
problematic areas identified in the problem definition above. 

112 
113 

Cf. notably Eurostat statistics and EU energy and transport in figures. 
Internet consultation and SMART project. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The measures have been selected on the following 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, control officers, manual recordings etc). Second, the 
list  of  measures  also  had  to  take  into  account  the  suggestions  of  different  stakeholders  as 
expressed in the stakeholder consultation. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
Table 2: Mapping between problem drivers, problematic areas and content of policy measures 

Problematic  areas 
problem definition 

identified 

in 

the 

Policy measures 

Content of policy measures 

Driver 1: Vulnerability of the tachograph system 

Insufficient quality of seals  

Higher quality seals 

Vulnerabilities of encryption technology 

More secure encryption technology 

This  measure  would  consist  of  mandating  the  European  standardisation  bodies  to 
develop adequate standards for seals. 

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  the  evolving  threats.  The  roadmap 
would  be  presented  to  the  industry  –  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 licences and the certificate 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 workshop auditing across the EU, and 

• 

forbidding transport firms to calibrate their own vehicles 

114 

EN 

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  

31 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
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. 

Driver 2: Effectiveness of controls and dissuasive effect of sanctions 

Scope of data from the digital tachograph 
available to enforcement officers 

Improved  tachograph  functions 
manual 
(automatic 
recording) 

and 

This measure would imply: 

•  Clarifying  that  any  period  during  which  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 automatic recording of the vehicles precise 

location at the start and end of the working day through GNSS115. 

Sanctions policy 

Minimum 
harmonisation of sanctions 

degree 

of 

This  measure  would  require  Member  States  to  apply  sanctions  with  the  highest 
available level within the commercial transport 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 

32 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                 
Inadequate provisions of the Tachograph 
Regulation 

Modernised rules on the use 

This measure would imply: 

Driver 3: The use of the tachograph is not sufficiently optimised 

•  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  driving  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  ranging  from  50  to  100  km).  This  would 
concern  for  instance  certain  vehicles  propelled  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  mandatory  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 

33 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
•  Requiring that the tachograph is positioned in the driver's direct field of vision. 

EN 

34 

EN 

 
  
Furthermore, the different measure can be linked 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 

More secure encryption technology 

Better interface with the users 

Improved tachograph functions (automatic 
and manual recording) 

The wireless communication for roadside 
checks 

Harmonised interface with other ITS 
applications 

Make fraud with driver card more 
difficult 

More trustworthy workshops 

Better training of control officers 

Minimum degree of harmonisation of 
sanctions 

Modernised rules on the use 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

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  trustworthiness  of  the  system  depends  on  the  security  of 
many  of  its  elements.  For  example,  a  highly  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 levels of complexity of implementation. While 
certain  technical  measures  can  be  grouped  in  a  package  implemented  directly  by  the 
Commission through comitology (delegated/implementing acts), others more far reaching 
can  be  grouped  in  a  package  which  will  require  changes  adopted  by  the  European 
Parliament and the Council.  

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Besides  the  baseline  scenario  (PP0),  the  following  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 the 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 achievement of the objectives. 

–  Policy Package 1 (PP1) would be a technical package aiming simply at improvements of 
the current (physical)  tachograph device. It consists in updating to technical progress  the 
technical  specifications  of  the  existing  digital  tachograph  and  in  giving  a  mandate  to  the 
European Committee for Standardization (hereinafter "CEN") to standardise seals. It does 
not  require  a  change  of  the  regulation  by  the  ordinary  legislative  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 mandate to CEN. No legislative proposal would be 
needed.  PP1  would  contribute  to  achieve  the  objectives  in  the  following  ways:  higher 
quality  seals  and  more  secure  encryption  technology  would  improve  the  trustworthiness, 
higher  quality  seals  would  also  improve  efficiency  of  roadside  checks  (control  officers 
would  spot  easier  manipulations),  and  the  better  interface  with  users  would  reduce  costs 
related to the use of recording equipment. 

–  Policy Package 2 (PP2) would also be a package of technical measures but which would 
substantially widen the functionalities of the digital tachograph which would lead to a new 
type  of  digital  tachographs.  It  would  consist  of  the  measures  in  PP1  and  would  add  new 
functions to the digital tachograph like automatic recording 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 PP1. But it would also require a change of the 
regulation  by  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure  as  the  Commission  has  not  been 
empowered to change the functionalities of the tachograph but only to adapt its technical 
specifications to technical progress. PP2 would contribute to achieve the objectives in the 
following ways: automated recording of location 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-check  the  information  on  driving  times,  and  it 
would  reduce  costs  as  the  automated  recording  would  replace  the  current  manual 
recordings.  The  wireless  communication  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 rules on the use, more 
trustworthy workshops, making fraud with driver 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 end 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  described  below.PP3  would  require  a  change  of  the 
regulation by the ordinary legislative procedure. It would contribute as described above to 
the achievement f the objectives.  

–  Policy  Package  4  (PP4)  would  be  a  combination  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 adoption of a roadmap of implementing measures. It 
would also contribute to all of the objectives, as explained above. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
The table below sums up the measures included in each policy package. 

Table 4: Detailed content of Policy Packages 

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 +  

PP1 + 

PP2 + PP3  

The tachograph 
functions (automatic 
and manual 
recording)  

Workshops 

Driver cards 

Sanctions 

The wireless 
communication for 
roadside checks 

Interface with other 
ITS applications 

Training of control 
officers 

Rules on the use  

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

The analysis provided in this Impact Assessment report is based on the best available data and 
information  collected  by  the  Commission  from  stakeholders,  Member  States  and  the 
literature.  However,  data  remains  incomplete  across  the  sector,  in  particular  as  regards  the 
number and type of tachograph frauds. This is due 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 infringements country by country. 

5.1. 

Impact on the compliance with social legislation 

One of the most important impacts of the policy packages envisaged above is related to the 
compliance of professional drivers with social legislation. The assessment of such an impact 
is  a  key  element  because  enhanced  compliance  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  assessed  in  a  first  place;  the  subsequent  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) 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This  policy  package  addresses  mainly  the  issue  of  concealment  of  the  proof  of  non-
compliance with social legislation. In particular, standardisation of the requirements on seals 
at  a  relatively  high  level  will  facilitate  the  detection  of  manipulation  of  tachographs  by 
enforcement  officers  and  workshops,  and  in  particular  of  the  installation  of  exotic  devices 
which leave the seals broken. Similarly, constant updating of outdated encryption systems and 
minimum security standards will allow keeping within acceptably low limits (its elimination 
is  never  possible)  the  possibility  to  alter  the  data  encoded  by  the  tachograph  on  the  driver's 
card before they can be controlled. Finally, the warning about the overwriting of data on the 
driver's card will reduce the possibility for the drivers 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 legislation 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 years), the positive effect of PP1 on the compliance 
with  the  social  legislation  will  be  gradual,  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  (problem  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 breach 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 quantification of the effects impossible. 

PP2  (PP1  +  improved  tachograph  functions,  wireless  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  number  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  start  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  increasing  the  number  of  vehicles  which  can  be 
checked per enforcement officers. 

The exact potential increase in the number and pertinence of checks is difficult to establish on 
the basis of the available data. However, 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 detection of non-compliance 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 

38 

   EN 

 
the  impact  will  depend  on  the  willingness  of  Member  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  issue  of  effectiveness  of  controls  while  PP1 
concentrates  on  the  recording  equipment.  While  there  is  some  overlapping  (notably  seals 
standardised at a high quality level contribute to the effectiveness of inspections at roadside 
and in workshops), the added value of PP2 over PP1 is important. 

Like for PP1, given that technical improvements of the device take a rather 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,  cheaper  and  more  trustworthy  driver  cards, 
minimum degree of harmonisation of sanctions, better 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  fraud  in  workshops  can  be  an 
important problem, with over 30% of them having 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  (quality  problems  in  different  Member  States  are  known  to  the 
Commission  only  through  informal  discussions  with  stakeholders).  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 European legislation would be probably mainly 
affect this country. 

Merging  the  card  with  the  driver's  licence  has  been  identified  in  the  course  of  the 
stakeholder's consultation116 as a solution for reducing fraud potential while at the same time 
limiting costs (issuing and purchasing of one instead of two documents). Driving licences and 
driver  cards  are  issued  in  credit  card  format  and  contain  very  similar  information  (driver’s 
details, photograph, etc). The driving licence directive117 already provides for the possibility 
of inserting a microchip in the standardised driving licence format. Moreover, both cards have 
a  limited  validity  period  of  five  years,  since  the  driving  licence  directive  stipulates  that,  as 
from  19  January  2013,  the  licences  of  truck  and  bus  drivers  will  be  valid  for  five  years. 

116 

117 

See for instance the contributions of certain Member States or transport undertakings (IE – Road Safety 
Authority, LU – Luxembourg Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, or FTA) 
Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving 
licences, OJ L 403, 30.12.2006, p. 18–60  

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Finally, the certificate for the initial and continuous 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  therefore  not  require  any  change  in  the  period  of 
validity of the current tachograph cards and therefore 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;  however,  this  detection  is  already  possible,  so  the  impact  would 
from that point of view not be huge. What contributes however to the reduction of fraud is the 
fact that driver's will be less inclined to let other 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 drivers 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 breaches 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 training 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 trained 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 France (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  comparison  to  PP1  are  mostly  not  overlapping 
between themselves, since they address complementary elements of the tachograph system, in 
this case roadside checks, sanctions and workshops. Their joint effect can therefore be, for the 
simplicity, assumed to be close to the sum of their individual effects. 

The overlap is higher but still limited between these measures and those contained in PP1. In 
particular, better and more reliable seals will make it more difficult to disguise fraud, which 
will  limit  the  impact  of  better  workshop  auditing.  On  the  other  hand,  the  effect  of  more 

118 

119 

120 
121 

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  
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 drivers 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 
Cf. Annex II for a more detailed economic analysis of the utility of non-compliance with legislation. 
Cf. part 2.3 above. 

EN 

40 

   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 measures that can be implemented more rapidly 
than  in  the  two  previous  policy  packages  and  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 possible measures identified, will allow the highest 
increase in compliance to social legislation in road transport. However, the joint effect of the 
package will be affected by a number of foreseeable overlaps. Most notably, more harmonised 
sanctions which better reflect the gravity of infringements will have a deterrent effect, but so 
will  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  targeted  checks  based  on  wireless  communication 
foreseen in PP2. The joint effect of the two measures 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. Better training of enforcement officers is essential 
for  their  ability  to  make  use  of  the  wireless  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 legislation 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 faster 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 compliance 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 market and the distortions of competition between 
road transport undertakings have been identified as one of the major problems in section 2.2 
above.  This  problem  results  directly  from  the  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 resting times. Therefore, the impact of the policy packages on the 
functioning of the internal market and competition will be proportional to their effectiveness 
in reducing the level of non-compliance with social rules. 

The  impact  of  the  policy  packages  on  the  costs  for  road  transport  will  be  marginal  if 
noticeable at all given the relatively low cost impact of the proposed measures in the overall 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
cost structure of road transport and possible benefits 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 costs) would be in the range of € 142 million to €-
515.5  million  depending  of  the  policy  package.  Considering  that  the  turnover  of  the  road 
transport sector was in the order of € 399 billion 122; the impact would therefore represent at 
most an efficiency gain representing 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  analysis  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  functioning  of  the  internal 
market, but also a strong uncertainty attached to it. Finally, PP4 will have the highest impact 
on  the  internal  market,  but  whether  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 proposed 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  use  of  ITS  applications),  it  can  increase  the 
competitiveness of the European tachograph manufacturing industry which is a world pioneer 
and  leader.123  Second,  it  can  affect  the  competitiveness  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,  European  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 communication 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 distortions between workshops 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  install  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  positive)  of  all  the  other  options  in  terms  of 
competitiveness. 

122 
123 

2007 figures, see EU Energy and transport in figures, 2010 
JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  effect  of  the  policy  packages  on  the  competitiveness  of  European  road  transport 
undertakings  against  those  established  in  neighbouring  countries  will  be  limited  for  two 
reasons.  First,  road  transport  is  nationally  fragmented  because  of  its  nature  and  because  of 
relatively protectionist legislation on cabotage; second, since 2010 the Tachograph Regulation 
applies equally to the other AETR countries, which 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 (SMEs) 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, whenever  possible and proportionate. Most of  the 
undertakings in the road transport sector are SMEs, and therefore this requirement seems of 
particular  importance  for  the  legislation  proposed  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 impact is limited geographically to one country 
(Germany).  The  measure  is  also  strongly  justified  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 the companies related to the introduction of the 
new equipment compensate largely the small costs for all the policy packages. This applies to 
all  sectors  using  vehicles  equipped  with  tachographs.  Consequently,  the  analysis  of  impacts 
does  not  differentiate  between  different  sectors,  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 administrative burden and the SMEs 

The  reduction  of  the  administrative  burden  related  to  the  use  of  the  tachograph  has  been 
identified as one of the major problems to be addressed 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  analogue  and  digital  tachograph), 
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.  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 

125 

Communication  from  the  Commission,  “Think  Small  First”  -  A  “Small  Business  Act”  for  Europe, 
COM(2008) 394 final 
Communication  from  the  Commission,  Review  of  the  "Small  Business  Act"  for  Europe,  COM(2008) 
394 final 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 5: Main impacts on administrative cost 

Measure 

Workshop auditing 

Merging driver cards with the driving licence 

Improved  tachograph  functions  requiring  automated  recording  of  the  precise 
location using GNSS 

Using wireless communication to filter roadside checks  

Review the scope of the use of tachographs 

TOTAL 

Administrative cost 
change (€ million) 

+20126 

-100 

- 349 

-34.5 

-52 

-515.5 

Moreover, the requirements induced as a consequence of the roadmap on encryption – notably 
the need to type-approve tachographs respecting the new encryption standards – would entail 
some  administrative  costs  for  tachograph  manufacturers.  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 burden presented above would therefore be mainly 
felt by SMEs.  

While PP1 does not contain measures which would have 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 difficult for small road transport businesses to 
handle the driver cards and to deal with checks than for bigger firms. 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  will  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  authorities  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 

127 
128 

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. 
SEC(2010)933. 
The increase of the administrative burden related to type approval is negligible. 

EN 

44 

   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 public budgets, the value of these impacts and 
the concerned administration level are indicated in the following table. 

Table 6: Main budgetary impacts on public authorities 

Measure 

Concerned administration level 

Budgetary impact 

the 
Harmonising 
workshop auditing 

requirements 

for 

National 

Wireless  communication 
checks 

for  roadside 

National 

Developing standards for seals 

European (CEN) 

Mandatory  participation  of  all  Member 
States in TACHOnet 

National 
Denmark) 

(Portugal 

and 

Sanctions 

National 

Minimum training standards 

National 

 €9 million 129 

0 - € 7 500 000  130 

Small 

? 

Positive but difficult to 
estimate131 

€30 million 132 

PP1 will only have a minor cost implication for the European Committee for Standardisation 
(CEN). PP2 – and in particular the measure on wireless 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 signal from the vehicle. As the 
purchase of this equipment will not be made mandatory by the legislation, and as potentially 
existing infrastructure for the control of  tolling schemes could be used for that purpose, the 
final  cost  will  depend  on  the  number  of  officers  who  will  receive  it  and  the  infrastructure 
already available, and will range 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 

130 

131 

132 

Rough estimation made under the assumption that the costs for auditing are of € 1000 per workshop (90 
000 workshops).  
This  figure  reflects  the  cost  of  equipping  an  adequate  number  of  enforcement  officers,  enforcement 
vehicles  and  fixed  infrastructure  gantries,  with  compatible  receivers  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 receivers (indicatively 150 enforcers’ vehicles, 350 
fixed on gantries and 1250 smart portables) could be sufficient. 
The foreseen overall increase of sanctions will result in increased revenues from fines. This will partly 
be offset by increased compliance as a result of increased cost of breaching the law. 
This is a gross estimation and is provided only for indicative purposes. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
According to a recent study133, the cost of a training officer can be estimated to be between 
cers  can  therefore  cost  around  €30  million. 
€ 900  and  € 1000.  Retraining  of  all  30  000  offi
However, as the measure foresees only issuing guidelines, the cost will depend on the number 
of  Member  States  which  will  comply.  Harmonised  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 States, 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  

  Member State  

Number of 
workshops 

Annual audit 
cost (€) 

Number of 
workshops 

Annual audit 
cost (€) 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 

209 
97 
6 
80 
143 
16 
132 
493 
4176 
125 
89 
1029 

459800 
213400 
13200 
176000 
314600 
35200 
290400 
1084600 
9187200 
275000 
195800 
2263800 

  Latvia 
  Lithuania 
  Luxembourg 
  Netherlands 
  Poland 
  Portugal 
  Romania 
  Slovakia 
  Slovenia 
  Spain 
  United Kingdom 

11 
38 
20 
968 
393 
45 
228 
22 
29 
452 
398 

24200 
83600 
44000 
2129600 
864600 
99000 
501600 
48400 
63800 
994400 
875600 

PP3 should also generate additional revenues for the national authorities from increased fines 
(measure  "sanctions").  This  effect  will  be  partly  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  foreseen  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 

134 

Price Waterhouse Cooper, Analysis of the technical and organisational measures employed by Member 
States in the application of Directive 2006/22/EC, 2009. 
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 the territory of the Member State that had detected 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of impacts of more harmonised sanctions (PP3 and PP4) for drivers which pass through the 
territory  of  some  countries  (in  comparison  to  "for  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  repressive:  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 sector 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, Lithuania, Czech Republic).136 

5.3. 

Social impacts 

5.3.1. 

Impact on working conditions, health and lifestyle of drivers 

This  section  analyses  the  impact  assessment  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  drivers  engaged  in  the  carriage  of  goods  and 
passengers  by  road  in  order  to  […]  improve  working  conditions  and  road  safety." 
Better  compliance  with  these  rules  should  therefore  lead  to  improved  working 
conditions for drivers.  

In  light  of  the  results  of  studies  referred  to  above,  it  can  reasonably  be  said  that 
improved  working  conditions  have  also  positive  spill  over  effects  on  health  and 
lifestyle of professional drivers. 

It  is  to  be  reminded  at  this  stage,  as  highlighted  above,  that  data  concerning 
compliance with the social legislation is scarce and, for this reason, the analysis of 
the  effects  of  the  policy  packages  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 compliance with social legislation 

The  enhanced  compliance  with  social  legislation  in  all  the  policy  packages  (except 
the baseline) will improve generally speaking the working conditions of professional 
drivers through shorter working and driving time. 

the  infringement.  (Cf.  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) 
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. 
For more detailed info, Cf. DG MOVE, Road Freight Vademecum, Issue N°1. 

135 

136 

EN 

47 

   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 disadvantage of being affected by the technical 
nature of their measures: the effects of the latter on working conditions will only be 
gradual  and  follow  the  pace  of  fleet  renewal.  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 technical 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  are  exclusively  associated  with  technical 
improvement of the device, they will be introduced only gradually. 

The  measure  on  the  more  suitable  positioning  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. Similarly, the warning about data starting to be 
overwritten  will  eliminate  the  need  for  the  driver  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  working  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 applicable to 6 million drivers and over 30 000 
enforcement  officers.  For  PP2  and  PP4,  the  indirect  impact  through  better 
compliance  with  social  legislation  is  dominant,  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, health and lifestyle, the impact assessment 
of the various policy packages on road safety has two components. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
First,  enhanced  compliance  with  the  social  legislation  helps  generally  speaking  to 
reduce  the  risks  of  drivers  becoming  involved  in  fatigue-related  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 effects of long working hours on accident risk 
indicate that the accident risk increases with an increase in hours worked per day and 
per week. This increase is exponential beyond 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  sector  –  indicate  the  importance  of  better 
compliance  of  drivers  with  social  legislation  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 convenient 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 measures contained in PP1 and PP2 are likely to 
take effect gradually as the existing fleet is replaced. Moreover, the effect of PP2 will 
be greater than the one of PP1. Technical changes to the tachograph – including its 
better positioning in the cabin (all policy packages) and better integration with other 
ITS  applications  (PP2and  PP4),  will  also  increase  road  safety  by  facilitating  the 
operation  of  electronic  devices  during  driving.  The  effect  of  the  non-technical 
measures in PP3 will be felt immediately and 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  safety.  It  should  however  be  acknowledged  that 
there  are  uncertainties  about  the  increase  of  the  compliance  rate  and  the  expected 
resulting  benefits,  as  fierce  competition  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 professional 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 the 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 

138 

Deloitte Study (December 2010) to support an Impact Assessment on Further action at European level 
regarding Directive 2003/88/EC and the evolution of working time organisation. 
Ibid. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
certain potential to correct the misleading signals 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  tachograph  with  other  ITS 
devices.  In  theory,  these  policy  measures  could  affect  the  following  fundamental 
rights: private and family life (Art. 7), the right to protection of personal data (Art. 8) 
and the freedom to conduct a business (Art. 16). 

As  regards  the  first  two  fundamental  rights,  as  indicated  in  section  3  above,  policy 
measures  have  been  designed  to  comply  with  the  relevant  fundamental  rights  and 
principles as embodied in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
More  precisely,  the  pre-screening  of  policy  measures  presented  in  section  4  above 
has  eliminated  the  policy  measures  likely  to  breach  the  Charter  of  Fundamental 
Rights. 

Concerning  the  automated  recording  of  location  data,  it  should  be  noted  that 
currently drivers using an analogue tachograph are required to record the place where 
they start and end their daily working period. As for the needs of control, having an 
indication  of  these  two  points  (and  not  of  the  exact  itinerary  taken  by  the  driver) 
already provide very useful information to check the plausibility of driving patterns 
observed  from  the  other  tachograph  data.  The  data  recorded  automatically  by  the 
tachograph  could  therefore  be  limited  to  these  two  locations,  which  would  also 
further reduce the risk of unreasonable interference 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 tachograph data by ITS applications, 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 from running workshops or vice-versa (PP3 
and PP4) can be seen as restricting their freedom to conduct a business (Art. 16). The 
limitation  of  this  fundamental  right  induced  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  would  induce  more  sustainable  modal  choices 
more. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
5.5. 

Impact in third countries 

Since June 2010, the digital tachograph has been 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.  Most  of  the  economic  impacts  identified 
above will also apply to those AETR countries once the legislation 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 measures, a full cost-benefit could not be performed. 
However,  a  tentative  partial  cost-benefit  is  provided  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  defined  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 

Increase the efficiency of the checks of the 
social legislation in road transport 

Reduce  the  cost  related  to  the  use  of  the 
recording  equipment,  notably  by  reducing 
the administrative burden related to its use 

6.2. 

Efficiency 

0  Medium 

Medium 

High 

High 

0 

0 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

0 

Medium (by 
€ 383.5 
million) 

Low (by € 
142 million) 

High (by € 
515.5 
million) 

Overall,  most  of  the  measures  contained  in  the  four  policy  packages  do  not  require  high 
investments from public authorities or private entities to achieve the objectives. 

EN 

51 

   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  undertakings  in  terms  of  administrative  costs 
savings. The total balance is therefore positive for the undertaking There are however other 
costs  to  be  born  by  the  enforcement  authorities  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 estimated at a maximum of € 7.5 million.  

–  "Improved tachograph functions (automatic and manual recording)" will require upgrading 
the  tachograph  with  a  functionality  whose  cost  is  estimated  by  the  industry  to  €5-10  per 
tachograph.  Similarly  as  above,  the  additional  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 undertakings 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 estimated on the basis of available data. 

–  the  enhanced  training  of  enforcement  officers.  The  cost  might  be  around  €30  million  if 

Member States follow the guidelines 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  full  deployment  of  PP3  can  therefore  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 workshop 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 deployment of PP4 can therefore be estimated at 
least  at  €46.5 million 
for  enforcement  authorities,  other  costs  born  by  road  transport 
undertakings being more than offset by the benefits in terms of administrative cost savings. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
6.3. 

Coherence 

As  shown  in  the  table  at  the  end  of  this  section,  the  analysis  seems  to  indicate  that  PP1 
presents  very 
the  different  economic,  social  and 
environmental impacts. 

limited/no  trade-offs  between 

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  effectiveness  of  the  three  options 
depend on the willingness of Member States to invest in order to exploit their full potential. 
The trade-offs are highest for PP4. 

6.4. 

Conclusion 

The following table sums up the expected costs and 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 

€383.5 million 

€ 7.5 million 

More  effective 
inspection tools) 

roadside 

+ 
inspections 

(more  effective 

PP3 

+ 

Reduction of administrative burden  

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 

€515.5 million 

€46.5 million 

+ 
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 

+ 

As the other benefits (such as reduction of road accidents or improved working 
conditions)  could  not  been  quantified,  table  9  only  includes  the  reduction  of 
administrative  burden  for  the  undertakings.  It  should  be  noted  that  these 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
savings indicated are figures after deduction 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 immediate and delayed in time effects. 

However, as shown by the analysis of coherence between the different policy 
packages,  PP4  also  presents  the  highest  trade-offs  between  the  positive 
economic and social impacts on the one hand side, and the budgetary impacts 
on  public  authorities  on  the  other.  In  terms  of  coherence,  policy  package  1 
ranks highest. 

Finally,  policy  package  4  is  also  the  most  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 legislative 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 

PP2 

PP3 

PP4 

- 

Fairly low 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

- 

No cost 

€7.5 million 

€ 39 million 

- 

High 

Trade-offs 

Trade-offs 

€46.5 million 

Highest trade-offs 

Taking  all  these  aspects  into  consideration,  and  despite  the  impossibility  to 
present  the  results  of  a  full  cost-benefit  analysis,  the  positive  impacts  of  PP4 
seem  to  compensate  by  far  its  costs.  Indeed,  the  administrative  burden 
reduction potential of PP4 alone reaches €515.5 million and is well above the 
total costs of its full implementation 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 

54 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 11: Summary table of impacts 

Impacts 

Policy package 1 

Policy Package 2 

Policy Package 3 

Policy Package 4 

Compliance 
legislation 

with 

social 

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  

Impact  of  PP1  +  large  potential 
improvement 

Impact  of  PP1  +  large  potential 
improvement 

Big  uncertainty  on  the  scale  of 
results  (trade-offs  with  budget 
implications) 

Big  uncertainty  on  the  scale  of 
results  (trade-offs  with  budget 
implications) 

Smaller  uncertainty  of  results 
than  for  PP2  and  PP3  (large 
trade-offs 
budget 
with 
implications) 

Economic impacts 

Functioning  of 
Market and competition 

the  Internal 

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 
manufacturers 

tachograph 

Very  positive  for  tachograph 
manufacturers 

Positive 
for 
manufacturers  

tachograph 

Very  positive  for  tachograph 
manufacturers 

Uncertain for workshops 

Uncertain for workshops 

Positive  for  undertakings  for 
the 
transport 
which 
principal activity 

is  not 

Positive  for  undertakings  for 
the 
transport 
which 
principal activity 

is  not 

Administrative  burden 
SMEs 

and 

Negligible 

Budgetary  impacts  on  public 
authorities 

Minor negative at EU level 

- €383.5 million 

- €142 million 

- €515.5 million 

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 levelSmall 
positive effect of sanctions 

Impact  of  PP1  +  potentially 
largest negative at national level 
but depending on the choices of 
other 
(trade-offs  with 
MS 

EN 

55 

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 

Impact on specific regions 

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, Romania, Lithuania, Czech Republic) 

Larger  effects  of  more  appropriate  sanctions  in  Member  States 
with low severity of sanction today 

Third countries 

Delayed but similar impacts on AETR countries. 

EN 

56 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Regular  evaluation  of  the  tachograph  regulation  seems  important  in  order  to  assess  the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the system put in place.  

The  level  of  attainment  of  the  operational  objectives  will  be  monitored  in  the  year  the 
proposed  legislation  enters  into  force  and  regularly  afterwards;  the  achievement  of  the  last 
objective will be monitored through consultation of stakeholders following the definition and 
putting in place of interoperability standards.  

Table 12: Monitoring  

Operational objectives 

Eliminate the "most serious infringements" against 
tachograph rules by 2020 

Double by 2020 the detection rate of infringements to 
the social legislation per vehicle controlled in a 
roadside check compared to 2008  

Reduce the administrative burden related to the use of 
the digital tachograph by 20 % before 2020 compared 
to 2010  

Monitoring 

The monitoring will be performed by using 
information that Member States have to 
communicate every two years to the 
Commission pursuant to Article 17 of 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 

The monitoring will be performed by using 
information that Member States have to 
communicate every two years to the 
Commission pursuant to Article 17 of 
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 

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 reporting 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 

57 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Annex I 

General presentation of the digital tachograph 

1. The introduction of the digital tachograph 

The  technical  specifications  for  the  tachograph  laid  down  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  the  paper-based  analogue  tachograph.  The  old 
analogue tachograph was easy to tamper with and was not able to give reliable enough data to 
check that drivers and companies complied with the social legislation. The digital 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 specifications was adopted in 2009. It improved the 
human  machine  interface  and  solved  the  ‘one  minute  issue’:  a  minute  is  no  longer 
automatically considered driving time if driving activity only lasted a few seconds during that 
minute.  Further  provisions  aimed  at  improving  protection  against  fraud  enter  into  force  in 
2012.  The  introduction  of  a  second  source  of  motion  detection  will  reduce  scope  for 
manipulating  the  tachograph.  In  addition,  the  tachograph’s  motion  sensor  will  be  better 
protected against malicious attacks 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 Member States to share information electronically. To this end, 
the Commission has adopted a Recommendation to Member States to use electronic exchange 
systems – mainly the ‘TACHOnet system’ – to check the cards.  

There  is  a  developing  global  market  in  tachograph  components  as  tachographs  are  used  or 
introduced  in  many  parts  of  the  world  and  cross-border  trade  in  these  components  occurs. 
Since  June  2010,  the  digital  tachograph  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  Europe  and  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Independent 
States. The EU can be considered a world leader in tachograph manufacturing but there is a 
need  to  keep  the  product  attractive,  both  within  the  EU  and  beyond,  and to  ensure  that  this 
remains the case. 

2. Main actors 

Introducing the digital tachograph system involved the following groups of stakeholders: 

–  End users: drivers and road transport companies (using driver cards and company cards). 

–  Enforcers (using control cards), which, depending 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 analysis tools and equipment that interfaces with 
the tachograph. 

–  Type-approval bodies. 

EN 

58 

   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 are installed in the vehicle (see Figure 1): 

–  The  vehicle  unit,  which  records,  stores,  displays  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 manufacturers 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 the 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 unit to the motion sensor. It allows data to 
be exchanged between the motion sensor and vehicle unit and delivers power to the motion 
sensor. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 1: Schemata of typical digital recording equipment  

In  addition,  smart  cards  used  by  drivers,  transport  companies,  workshops  and  enforcement 
officers are crucial to the digital 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 her. A driver must use the card for the whole of his or her 
daily  working  period.  The  card  must  be  presented  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 they are used by companies 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 premises 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 digital tachographs. Workshop cards are valid for 
one year. 

–  Control  cards  are  only  available  to  enforcement  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  involves  collecting  and  processing  personal  data.  This  data  capture 
and processing is subject to personal data protection rights under Article 8 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 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 sensor 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  specifications,  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 introduction of the digital tachograph 

Generally,  the  introduction  of  the  digital  tachograph  can  be  considered  a  success,  certainly 
bearing in mind the large variety of stakeholders involved in the system.  

The digital tachograph allows better enforcement of the social legislation, as it is much harder 
to  commit  and  conceal  fraudulent  manipulation  of  the  tachograph.  Quantitative  evidence  of 
digital  tachographs  reducing  fraud  is  limited.  However,  it  is  widely  thought  by  police, 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
enforcement authorities and road transport firms that digital tachographs 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  helped  reduce  administrative  costs  for  road  transport  firms.  An 
analysis carried out by the Enterprise DG141 supported this claim as follows: 

–  The use of analogue tachographs involved many manual operations, availability of paper 
records and a high frequency of tampering (when compared with digital tachographs). The 
introduction of digital tachographs 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  tachograph  (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  Department  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  are  also  non-measurable  benefits  from  greater 
security  and  the  freeing  of  office  space  previously  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 sizes associated with higher savings). 

Finally,  the  digital  tachograph  is  also  an  innovative  product  and  as  such  a  technological 
success.  The  EU  is  a  global  leader  in  this  field  and  other  countries  are  showing  a  growing 
interest in introducing this European technology to their own domestic road transport markets 
(for example Russia, Morocco and Argentina). 

In  conclusion,  although  the  introduction  of  the  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 
141 

JRC, Report on the vulnerability and controllability of the digital tachograph, 2010 
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 

61 

   EN 

 
€
                                                 
Annex II 

Economic approach to non-compliance with legislation 

Rules should be conceived in a way which makes the expected return on non-compliance with 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  3281/85  (or  successor  Regulations)  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  caught  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 subjective probability: offenders may differ 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 circumvent social legislation is the following: 

E(u) = (1-p)u - pP - c, where 

u = Benefit of non-compliance 
p  =  Probability  on  a  scale  from  zero  (no  possibility)  to  one  (certainty)  of  non-compliance 
being detected 
c = Costs associated with non-compliance, irrespective of whether non-compliance is detected 
or not, e.g. cost of buying a device to manipulate a tachograph 
P = Disutility of being caught, e.g. fine. 

This  suggests  that  policy  should  seek  to  minimise  deliberate  attempts  to  circumvent  social 
legislation through: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

142 

Increasing  the  costs  of  circumventing  social  legislation:  If  tachographs  can  be 
tampered  with  at  low  cost,  this  increases  the  risk  of  attempts  to  circumvent  social 
legislation. Regulation should seek to increase the costs of tampering with tachographs 
by prohibiting, as far as possible, the known means of tampering with them. 

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. 

Increasing  the  disutility  of  being  caught:  Policy  may  seek  to  reduce  the  expected 
benefits of doing so by increasing the fines and/or other penalties 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.  

Increasing  the  probability  of  fraudulent  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. 

Gary  Becker  (1968).  ‘Crime  and  Punishment:  An  Economic  Approach’.  The  Journal  of  Political 
Economy 76: pp. 169–217. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Annex III 

Administrative burden and Standard Cost Model 

Most  of  the  measures  recommended  will  have  no  or  only  a  marginal  influence  on  the 
administrative burden. Measures with a bigger impact 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 workshops approved by Member States. In Sweden, the costs 
of an audit are put at €2200. Base d on this rather high figure, complete 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 States, workshops are already audited on a regular 
basis.  

(2) 

Merging driver cards with the driving licence  

The  calculation  is  based  on  the  following  assumptions.  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 spends 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 € 15.50 143 and the weighted average price for a driver card is € 53. Even if 
the  price  for  the  driving  licence  would  increase  due  to  the  addition  of  driver  card's 
functionalities, there would be an overall reduction of costs for 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, which would no longer have to run two separate 
systems for issuing driving licences and driver cards, 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 assumptions. All drivers are obliged to record the 
place/country  where  they  start  and  end  the  daily  working  period;  this  is  assumed  to  take  6 
million drivers one minute, 230 days a year. The weighted 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 vehicle is around eight 
years144.  The  total  reduction  in  administrative  burden  resulting  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 

144 

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). 
NEA, Cost comparison and cost developments in the European road haulage sector, 2009. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
                                                 
reduce  the  administrative  burden  on  them  by  € 17  million .  Assuming  that  the  average 
weighted hourly rate for an enforcement officer is € 23.05, avoiding unnecessary inspections 
would save another € 25 million . The equipment costs of around €10 per vehicle would apply 
to all 6 million vehicles. Given the economic 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  covered  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 affected. Five out of 16 
possible exemptions are distance based, with distances varying between 50 and 100 km.  

In  particular,  Article  13(1)(d)  of  Regulation  (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  vehicles  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  for  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 materials, 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  required  by  Article  13,  in  order  to  prevent  any 
prejudice  against  the  objective  of  the  Regulation.  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  within  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  150  km.  Therefore,  the  expected  reduction  in 
administrative burden would amount to € 52 million .  

A variant would remove the discrimination between the different exemptions which currently 
use limits of 50 km or 100 km. This option would 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  categories  of  drivers,  who  are  currently 
limited by a 50 km exemption, would benefit from this doubling of the permitted distance. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
Standard Cost Calculation for costs related to road transport undertakings (excluding workshops)  

Type of 
obligation 

Description of 
required 
action(s) 

Application for 
individual 
authorisation or 
exemption  
Cooperation 
with audits and 
inspection by 
public 
authorities, 
including 
maintenance of 
appropriate 
records  

Inspection on 
behalf of public 
authorities  

Inspection on 
behalf of public 
authorities  

Inspection on 
behalf of public 
authorities  

Filing forms 
and tables 

Producing new 
data 

Inspecting and 
checking 
(including 
assistance to 
inspection by 
public 
authorities) 
Inspecting and 
checking 
(including 
assisting 
inspection by 
public 
authorities) 
Inspecting and 
checking 
(including 
assisting 
inspection by 
public 
authorities) 

Measure 
taken 

Driver card 

GNSS for 
automated 
recording of 
location 

Filtering 
roadside 
checks - 
companies 

Filtering 
roadside 
checks - 
enforcement 
officers 

Scope of the 
use of 
tachographs 

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 

16 

-120

-31 

0,2 

6.000.000 

1.200.000 

-11 

-100.800.000 

16 

-1

-0,26 

230 

6.000.000 

1.380.000.00
0 

1,25 

-349.000.000 

16 

-45

-12 

1 

1.500.000 

1.500.000 

-17.437.500 

23 

-45

-17 

1 

1.500.000 

1.500.000 

-25.931.250 

16 

-7

-2 

230 

105.000 

24.150.000 

-87 

-52.806.250 

EN 

65 

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-vehicle  platform  architecture, 
which would allow various applications to securely share common information and resources 
and, where useful, to interact in an integrated manner.145 There would be mutual benefits in 
having  a  digital  tachograph  design  compatible  with  such  an  open  in-vehicle  platform 
architecture.  Indeed,  the  tachograph  is  mandatory  equipment  in  most  commercial  vehicles, 
which  becomes  more  and  more  integrated  into  vehicles  at  ‘first  mount’  because  the 
data/signals recorded by the tachograph, their reliability and their security are also necessary 
for  other  in-vehicle  applications  (e.g.  automatic  gear  shifting).  An  open  in-vehicle  platform 
architecture  would  also  reduce  design,  manufacturing,  installation  and  operational  costs  for 
equipment manufacturer and transport firms, as the relevant functionalities 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 data from a variety of sources 
(i.e. more than the two sources already foreseen 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 development of these next generation digital tachographs 
may  enhance  competition  because  they  will  foster  the  appearance  of  new  products, 
applications  and  services  which  will  develop  new  markets.  New  manufacturers  could  be 
attracted  into  established  markets  and  introduce  new  products.  It  can  also  be  noted  that  the 
recently  published  final  report  of  a  study  commissioned  by  the  Commission  on  the 
development of an open in-vehicle platform architecture 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 part 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 transport, OJ L 207, 6.8.2010, p. 1–13 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Annex V 

Calculation of the cost of fatigue for HDV 

Cost of HDV accidents in the EU27 in 2010 (EUR of 2000) 
HICP growth between 2010 and 2000 
Cost of HDV accidents in the EU27 in 2010 (EUR of 2010) 
Fatigue as the most important cause of HDV accidents (as % of 
all accidents)146 
Fatigue as one of the main causes and aggravating factor of 
HDV accidents (as % of all accidents)147 

10.039.273.900 
26,52% 
12.702.036.655 

6% 

40% 

Estimated cost of fatigue (as cause of HDV accidents) in 
2010 (EUR of 2010) 
minimum 
maximum 
conservative estimate 

762.122.199 
5.080.814.662 
2.201.686.354 

146 
147 

IRU, European Truck Accident Causation Study, 2006 
National Transportation Safety Board, Factors That Affect Fatigue in Heavy Truck Accidents – Safety 
Study, 1995  

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
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: 

Annex VI 

•  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  processed  by  the  exotic  device  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  circuit  of  the  motion  sensor  which  allows 

modifying the speed signal sent by the motion sensor.  

•  Placing  of  a  strong  magnetic  field  nearby  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  Digital  Tachograph  and  on  the  risk  associated  with  the 
introduction of adaptors to be fitted into light vehicles, 2007. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex VII 

Pre-screening of possible measures addressing the different problematic areas 

The following measures were proposed in the stakeholder consultation or elsewhere but were 
discarded at an early stage of the impact assessment as too difficult to realise or not bringing 
sufficiently high benefits in comparison to their costs: 

1. 

Provide remote data communication functionalities for the digital tachograph 

These remote download functionalities 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  without  policy  changes.  In  order  to  keep  EU 
intervention to the necessary minimum, there appears to be no need for action at this level. 

2. 

Reduce data tariffs for remotely downloading data from digital tachographs 

Some  stakeholder  consultation  respondents  pointed  out  that  the  high  cost  of  data  transfer 
tariffs  (especially  roaming  charges)  make  the  adoption  of  wireless  technology  for  data 
downloading  costly.  Reducing  these  costs  would  incentivise  the  uptake  of  wireless 
technology,  and  make  remote  control  an  attractive  option.  This  might  reduce  the 
administrative  burden  and  increase  the  efficiency  of  inspections.  However,  the  reduction  of 
data transfer tariffs is likely to require changes to telecommunications rules, e.g. on roaming, 
which are beyond the scope of this impact assessment (which is concerned only with control 
of social rules in road transport Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85).  

3. 

Increase the speed of downloading from the digital tachograph 

Some respondents in the stakeholder consultation asked for faster downloading of data from 
the digital tachograph. However, market pressure has already led tachograph manufacturers to 
produce  equipment  with  a  significantly  higher  download  speed  than  the  first  digital 
tachographs  in  2006.  Today,  wireless  download  tools  are  already  available  which  solve  the 
problem of downloading time. Moreover a legally binding downloading speed would require 
the  EU  to  establish  who  is  responsible  for  what  (e.g.  card  issuing  authorities,  tachograph 
manufacturers,  manufacturers  of  downloading  equipment)  and  not  all  are  subject  to  type 
approval. In addition, according to the manufacturers, the bottleneck for improving download 
speed is not the type of connector. Replacing the current connector by (for instance) a USB 
connector  would  therefore  not  lead  to  significant  time  savings.  Finally,  Commission 
Regulation (EU) No 581/2010 on the maximum periods for the downloading of relevant data 
from  vehicle  units  and  from  driver  cards149  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  transitory  problem  which  does  not  require  further 
action. 

149 

OJ L 168, 2.7.2010, p. 6 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

Retrofitting of all vehicles with digital tachographs 

It could be considered that replacing the more unreliable analogue tachograph which is still in 
use in vehicles registered before 2006 by the digital 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  existing  analogue  tachograph  has  already  been 
taken,  the  main  reason  therefore  being  the  technical  difficulties  or  impossibilities  to  fit  the 
digital tachograph in these old vehicles. Consequently, 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 could provide an additional measure of time worked 
by  the  driver.  This  time  would  include  undertaking  tasks  other  than  driving.  In  particular, 
some drivers spend time at work loading and unloading their vehicle. Recorded variations in 
weight,  it  is  argued,  would  enable  the  tachograph  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  while  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  regulations  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 automated 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, secure digital tachographs 
which  do  not  require  seals  will  be  developed.  This  future  development  is  likely  to  be 
undermined  by  a  requirement  that  digital  tachographs  must  be  fitted  with  a  type-approved 
seal.  The  benefits  of  drawing  a  type-approval  procedure  for  seals  would  be  comparable  to 
developing  standards  through  European  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  however  raises  data  protection  and  fundamental 
right  concerns  as  it  would  require  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 involve an infringement of the social 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 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
8. 

Require certain ITS applications to be integrated into the tachograph 

In this measure, the design of a standard open in-vehicle platform integrating the tachograph 
and  other,  predefined  ITS  applications  would  be  imposed  by  the  legislation.  This  solution 
would be inefficient as users would have to pay for several integrated ITS applications they 
may  not  need.  Moreover,  there  would  be  liability  and  ownership  issues,  as  legally  the 
different  instruments  and  applications  in  a  vehicle  are  currently  owned  by  different  parties. 
Lastly,  such  a  measure  would  also  require  major  preparatory  technical  work,  which  would 
delay  the  introduction  of  improvements  to  the  functionalities  of  digital  tachographs.  Taking 
these  factors  into  account,  the  definition  of  a  standardised  open  interface  between  the 
tachograph  and  other  ITS  applications  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 cards 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 are 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 are not professional drivers is seen as a possible 
source of abuse, as professional drivers could use the cards of these persons 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  checked151.Finally,  this  concerns  mostly  users  of  analogue 
tachographs, as for users of digital tachographs, the driver card should be sufficient in most 
cases. 

11. 

Legislate on the access to tachograph 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 mandatory 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 

71 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Recording of location data 

Annex VIII 

With  analogue  tachographs,  drivers  have  to  record  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.  Enforcement  officers  indicated  during  the  consultation 
process and within the Expert Panel that the loss of this information on the start and end of 
journeys  has  been  a  detrimental  aspect  of  the  switch  from  analogue  to  digital  tachographs. 
The  loss  of  this  information  makes  it  less  likely  that  the  social  legislation  will  be  properly 
enforced and means that roadside checks take longer. It is recommended, therefore, that the 
regulation should require that the start and end place of working days be recorded.  

Vehicle  location  data  could  come  from  GNSS  or  from  GSM/UMTS  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  the  benefits  of  an  automatic  approach  to  the 
recording of location using GNSS would outweigh those of a manual approach.  

Additional manufacturing cost  

€5-10 per tachograph  

€5-10 per tachograph  

Automatic  

Manual  

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 Annex III shows that GNSS can lead to a reduction 
of €349 million in administrative burden.  

EN 

72 

   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 explaining (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  implementing  acts  would  be  adopted.  As  long  as  the 
implementing/delegated  acts  would  simply  implement  the  measures  as  described  in  the 
present IA, it seems not a priori necessary to carry 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 additional measures not covered by the present IA would 
be envisaged.  

With  analogue  tachographs,  drivers  have  to  record  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.  Enforcement  officers  indicated  during  the  consultation 
process and within the Expert Panel that the loss of this information on the start and end of 
journeys  has  been  a  detrimental  aspect  of  the  switch  from  analogue  to  digital  tachographs. 
The  loss  of  this  information  makes  it  less  likely  that  the  social  legislation  will  be  properly 
enforced and means that roadside checks take longer. It is recommended, therefore, that the 
regulation should require that the start and end place of working days be recorded.  

Vehicle  location  data  could  come  from  GNSS  or  from  GSM/UMTS  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  the  benefits  of  an  automatic  approach  to  the 
recording of location using GNSS would outweigh those of a manual approach.  

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
References 

Annex X 

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 

Price Waterhouse Cooper, Analysis of the technical and organisational measures employed by 
Member States in the application of Directive 2006/22/EC, 2009 

SMART  DIGITAL  Tachograph  Project  (Support,  Maintain  And  Improve  the  Digital 
Tachograph), 2007 

Armand  Biberich,  Société  Nationale  de  Contrôle  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 Transport Vademecum, 2009 

RappTrans, Report on ITS Action Plan, Action Area 4, Specific Action 4.1. 

Euro Contrôle Route, Annual report 2009 

Cap  Gemini,  EU  project  on  baseline  measurements  and  reduction  of  administrative  costs, 
2009 

ACEA, Statistics on commercial vehicles 

National Transportation Safety Board, Factors That Affect Fatigue in Heavy Truck Accidents 
– Safety Study, 1995  

IRU, European Truck Accident 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 implementation of the social legislation relating to 
road transport, SEC(2011)52 

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 

Communication  from  the  Commission,  Action  Programme  for  Reducing  Administrative 
Burdens in the EU, Sectoral Reduction Plans and 2009 Actions, COM(2009) 544 final 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
Communication  from  the  Commission,  Better  Regulation  for  Growth  and  Jobs  in  the 
European Union, COM(2005) 97 final 

Communication  of  the  Commission,  Implementing  the  Community  Lisbon  programme:  A 
strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment, COM(2005) 535 final 

Communication of the Commission, 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 
(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/better-
regulation/administrative-burdens/high-level-group/index_en.htm) 

transport 

2009 

on 

European Commission, Impact Assessment Guidelines, January 2009, SEC(2009) 92 

EN 

75 

   EN