The ALRTA has laid out its arguments for and against widespread telematics adoption. Stating that in most cases only limited, carefully regulated adoption is necessary.
The Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association (ALRTA) has given a rundown of its take on a recent discussion paper put forward by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) about The Application of Telematics Conditions for Risk Management and Productivity Engagement.
The association has presented itself as wary of many of the proposed benefits of widespread telematics adoption and emphasising the need for adequate management of sensitive data and appropriate incentives for operators to adopt telematic systems.
The NHVR’s discussion paper takes a principled approach to telematics conditions noting the increased appetite of road managers for telematics information for network management purposes. Telematics data can also be used to monitor compliance with specific permit or notice conditions and more generally for compliance and enforcement.
While telematics systems can be beneficial for road transport business management, the ALRTA generally says views telematics (vehicle tracking) related access conditions as an unnecessary cost to operators that generate little or no direct safety benefit.
The association says the technology is no replacement for drivers yet, stating that the presence of a telematics system does not override the immediate decisions of drivers, road conditions, weather conditions or the actions other motorists, pedestrians or free ranging animals.
The ALRTA does however, concede that some operators are prepared to accept telematics as an access condition, provided that there are substantial access or productivity benefits. In this regard the access and productivity benefits do not arise from the presence of a telematics condition – these benefits would be present with or without a telematics condition.
The ALRTA also asserts that evidence to date suggests that telematics does little to protect public infrastructure or to assist real-time compliance and enforcement. Robust systems such as IAP have been costly, with next to no monitoring or enforcement.
Overall, the ALRTA argues that telematics conditions appear to be more about providing a level of public assurance than improving safety or productivity.
The ALRTA says it does however understand the case for using deidentified telematics data for general network monitoring which can provide insights about network usage and demand for infrastructure improvements.
The key to success in this area is to establish a uniform data standard and privacy protections such that the identities of individual vehicles, drivers and operators are protected
Telematics may also be useful for monitoring compliance with a very specific access condition. For example, a mass limit on a particular bridge or limits on the time of day that a route may be used. In these cases, there must be a very significant and specific risk that is being addressed and the data collected by the telematics system must be limited to that required to monitor the condition applied to address that risk. The operator should not be required to provide any more data than the minimum necessary.
It is also unreasonable for authorities to require that operators pay for data transformation, processing or analysis. Any further data manipulation must be the responsibility of, and be paid for by, the requesting, collecting or analysing authority.
If governments do intend to pursue an agenda of requiring telematics conditions for risk management or productivity enhancement the ALRTA has asserted that governments must offer attractive incentives to operators.
Such incentives might include reduced registration costs, improved network access (eg via a HVAMS type system), productivity enhancements (e.g. a mass increase), improved axle mass tolerances or the abolition or scaling back of state enforcement task forces.