710 Lut z
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
No tachochips please!
THE tachograph seems condemned to continue as a subject of controversy.
Its easy acceptance by drivers, once the Government grasped the nettle in 1979, ought to have marked the end of the 10-year row. But it was only the end of the beginning.
Since then there have been arguments over interpretation of exemptions in the EEC Regulation, such as the "doorto-door" selling case decided in Luxembourg last month. Even the content of the two-year test provoked a furious outbutst from the trade associations. And last month jail sentences were handed out for conspiraracy to falsify tachograph records.
However, of greater importance in the longer term is the debate proceeding (relatively) quietly about the design of the instrument itself. This mostly takes place in private, between manufacturers on one hand and Transport Ministries and the EEC Commission on the other. But it surfaces into the public gaze from time to time.
The most recent occasion has been an argument, conducted in the pages of the RHA's journal Roadway. Brian Fish, chairman of the Association's working party on costs, criticised the existing design as "mechanical, cumbersome and inefficient". He claimed that in consequence it was "one more burden on the road transport industry". He wanted it replaced by something which would provide management information for analysis without any human intervention. Presumably this would be electronic.
Inevitably this attracted a riposte from Lucas Kienzle's Fred Kay. (His comments when he saw that this was illustrated with a photograph of a VeederRoot tachograph are best left to the imagination.) He pointed out that the electronic tachographs (in reality, mechanical tachographs with electronic drive) had been on the market for ten years. There had been little pressure from the industry to install them, because they are more costly. He implied that, since any fully electronic system would be considerably more expensive, the industry as a whole would not want this.
At first glance the present instrument does seem bizarre in the electronic age. A stylus scratching a wax covering from a cardboard disc might have been a good idea when the basic instrument was invented in the 'thirties. But its survival into the forthcoming era of the paperless office would be an anachronism. Or would it?
The big fleet operator wants to analyse the information on the charts for managemnt purposes. It is indeed irritating to him that in most cases this can only be done by scrutiny by the human eye, with all the possibility of error inevitable in such a situation, especially where large numbers of charts are involved.
But big fleets are very much the exception. Nearly two-thirds of British fleets number five vehicles or fewer. Not many of these are going to want anything sophisticated, even at the same price as the "steam-age" instruments now in use, let alone at even greater cost.
In considering any system which does away with the present disc it is necessary to remember the legal reason for making tachographs compulsory. This was not to provide management with information to permit more efficient fleet operation. It was to facilitate the better enforcement of the drivers' hours rules. Any attempts to modify the present specification which do not take this into account are going to have a hard time.
The very effective, but totally inaccurate, epithet "the spy in the cab" has vanished from the current vocabulary. But that is because drivers can see precisely what is being recorded. A black box type of tachograph which did not show this would immediately resurrect these fears. Indeed, it would go back to the bad old days when some operators were said to have fitted recorders to their vehicles without their drivers' knowledge.
Moreover information on the chart is not just a matter between the driver and his transport manager. It is liable to be used as evidence in the Courts. In some cases, as we have recently seen, it can lead to prison sentences. In those circumstances there must be no room for doubt about what is recorded.
Expert witnesses in the tachograph field already exist. And they have their place. When they are talking about things which can be seen they can be challenged. But to put an electronic gadget between the driver and the evidence on which he is being charged will inevitably generate suspicion and fears of injustice.
That consideration is important — even where the only matter at issue is the relatively trivial one of whether or not the rules on driving and rest periods have been broken. But where accidents are involved it is vital. Increasing use is now being made in such cases of second-by-second analysis of charts from the vehicles involved — coaches, as well as lorries. It is relatively easy to demonstrate that a chart came from a particular vehicle.
But it would not be at all difficult to bamboozle a jury if the information were only recorded electronically. And tachograph evidence has also been used in other criminal cases, such as bank robberies. Where big-time criminals are involved it is not difficult to foresee fake electronic records being produced. This could be done very easily on a simple home computer.
EEC Regulation 1463/70 contains a very detailed specification for the tachograph. And it lays down a type-approval system which must be followed before any instrument can be accepted for its purposes.
But the much-criticised Brussels legislators anticipated that there would be pressure for adaptation to take account of technical progress. And they quailed at the prospect of subjecting this engineering material to the complexities of the full EEC legislative machine.
So they provided for a technical committee, chaired by a Commision official, which consists of representatives of all EEC governments. It has the unusual power to change the specification without any further legislative process.
However, the Committee did not meet even once during the first 10 years of its existence. And at its first meeting earlier this year the members showed little enthusiasm for a change.
But while small operators might be happy with the existing instrument, the bigger companies are increasingly going to want something more sophisticated. Already there are bolt-on additions which record electronically or magnetically the information which is also on the traditional chart. Tachograph manufacturers are co-operating in providing the necessary technical changes to the instruments to facilitate this process. That seems the likely way forward.
So the present tachograph seems likely to continue in use well into the 21st century. Perhaps by then it will have acquired the aura of nostalgic affection which today attaches to vintage buses or railway steam locomotives.