ISO/TR 17427-9:2015

Intelligent transport systems - Cooperative ITS - Part 9: Compliance and enforcement aspects

ISO 17427-9:2015 identifies potential critical compliance and enforcement aspects issues that C-ITS service provision may face or introduce; to consider strategies for how to identify, control, limit or mitigate such issues. The objective of this Technical Report is to raise awareness of and consideration of such issues and to give pointers, where appropriate, to standards deliverables existing that provide specifications for all or some of these aspects. This Technical Report does not provide specifications for solutions of these issues.

Systèmes intelligents de transport — Systèmes intelligents de transport coopératifs — Partie 9: Conformité et aspects relatifs à l'application

General Information

• Status: Published
• Publication Date: 21-Oct-2015
• ICS: 03.220.01 - Transport in general
• ICS: 35.240.60 - IT applications in transport
• Technical Committee: ISO/TC 204 - Intelligent transport systems
• Drafting Committee: ISO/TC 204/WG 18 - Cooperative systems
• Current Stage: 6060 - International Standard published
• Start Date: 22-Oct-2015
• Completion Date: 13-Dec-2025

Overview

ISO/TR 17427-9:2015 - "Intelligent transport systems - Cooperative ITS - Part 9: Compliance and enforcement aspects" is an informative Technical Report that identifies potential compliance and enforcement issues arising from the deployment of Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS). It is intended to raise awareness, guide consideration of risks and options, and point to existing standards deliverables where specifications may exist. This document is not a prescriptive specification or a solutions standard.

Key topics and technical focus

• Scope and purpose: Defines the remit for assessing compliance (assurance that equipment/services meet declared parameters) and enforcement (regulatory measures to ensure observance).
• Terms and definitions: Clarifies terminology relevant to C-ITS service provision (e.g., application, application service, type approval, GNSS, jurisdiction).
• Use and guidance: How to use the Technical Report alongside other ISO/TR 17427 parts and complementary standards (ISO 21217, CEN/SAE/IEEE/ETSI deliverables).
• C-ITS-specific issues: Discusses compliance and enforcement considerations across:
  • Private vehicles
  • Commercial vehicles
  • Surveillance devices
  • Comparative systems
• International approaches: Summarizes differing national/regional perspectives (United States, Europe, Australia, other countries) and how legal/regulatory regimes affect C-ITS enforcement.
• Policy options: Outlines strategic choices for jurisdictions and stakeholders (e.g., continue current approach, amend road rules, create manufacturer guidelines, track technology evolution).
• Integration with certification/type approval: Emphasizes role of conformity assessment and type approval processes to build public trust in C-ITS deployments.

Practical applications and target users

ISO/TR 17427-9 is valuable for:

• Transport and road authorities planning C-ITS deployment and enforcement policy
• Regulators and policymakers evaluating liability, legal frameworks, and evidence use from C-ITS data
• Vehicle manufacturers and system integrators assessing compliance risks and type approval implications
• Enforcement agencies considering the use of C-ITS-derived information for regulatory actions
• Standards developers and test houses aligning technical specifications with enforcement needs
• Privacy and legal advisors reviewing interplay between enforcement, personal data, and public acceptance

Related standards and cross-references

• ISO 17427 series (Parts 1–14) for broader C-ITS framework
• ISO 21217 for system architecture references
• Industry standards and communications specs from CEN, SAE, IEEE, ETSI
• ISO/TR 17427-11 (conformity/certification considerations) and other ISO/TRs on privacy, liability, and risk

Keywords: ISO/TR 17427-9:2015, Cooperative ITS, C-ITS compliance, enforcement aspects, intelligent transport systems, type approval, C-ITS policy.

Standards Content (Sample)

TECHNICAL ISO/TR
REPORT 17427-9
First edition
2015-11-01
Intelligent transport systems —
Cooperative ITS —
Part 9:
Compliance and enforcement aspects
Systèmes intelligents de transport — Systèmes intelligents de
transport coopératifs —
Partie 9: Conformité et aspects relatifs à l’application
Reference number
©
ISO 2015
© ISO 2015, Published in Switzerland
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on the internet or an intranet, without prior
written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below or ISO’s member body in the country of
the requester.
ISO copyright office
Ch. de Blandonnet 8 • CP 401
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
www.iso.org
ii © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Contents Page
Foreword .iv
Introduction .vi
1 Scope . 1
2 Terms and definitions . 1
3 Abbreviations and acronyms . 2
4 How to use this Technical Report . 2
4.1 Acknowledgements . 2
4.2 Guidance . 2
4.3 ITS and ‘compliance and enforcement aspects’ . 3
4.3.1 Compliance . 3
4.3.2 Enforcement . 3
4.3.3 Compliance and enforcement within the context of C-ITS . 3
4.4 C-ITS compliance and enforcement aspects issues . 3
4.4.1 Private vehicles . 3
4.4.2 Commercial vehicles . 5
4.4.3 Surveillance devices . 7
4.4.4 Comparative systems . 7
5 What are the key compliance and enforcement aspects issues .10
5.1 General .10
5.1.1 Application to C-ITS .10
5.2 International approaches .10
5.2.1 United States.10
5.2.2 Europe .11
5.2.3 Australia .11
5.2.4 Other countries .12
6 Policy questions and options .12
6.1 Option 1: Continue current approach .12
6.2 Option 2: Amend current road rules .12
6.3 Option 3: Create guidelines or principles for manufacturers .12
6.4 Option 4: Examine technology options as they develop .12
7 Summary of findings.13
Bibliography .16
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www.iso.org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation on the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions related to conformity
assessment, as well as information about ISO’s adherence to the WTO principles in the Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) see the following URL: Foreword - Supplementary information
The committee responsible for this document is ISO/TC 204, Intelligent transport systems.
ISO 17427 consists of the following parts, under the general title Intelligent transport systems —
Cooperative ITS:
— Part 2: Framework overview [Technical Report]
— Part 3: Concept of operations (ConOps) for ‘Core’ systems [Technical Report]
— Part 4: Minimum system requirements and behaviour for core systems [Technical Report]
— Part 6: Core systems risk assessment methodology [Technical Report]
— Part 7: Privacy aspects [Technical Report]
— Part 8: Liability aspects [Technical Report]
— Part 9: Compliance and enforcement aspects [Technical Report]
— Part 10: Driver distraction and information display [Technical Report]
The following parts are under preparation:
— Part 1: Roles and responsibilities in the context of co-operative ITS architechtures(s)
— Part 5: Common approaches to security [Technical Report]
— Part 11: Compliance and enforcement aspects [Technical Report]
— Part 12: Release processes [Technical Report]
— Part 13: Use case test cases [Technical Report]
— Part 14: Maintenance requirements and processes [Technical Report]
iv © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

This Technical Report provides an informative consideration of ‘Compliance and Enforcement Aspects’
for Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS). It is intended to be used alongside ISO 17427-1,
ISO/TR 17465-1, other parts of the ISO 17465 series and ISO 21217. Detailed specifications for the
application context will be provided by other ISO, CEN and SAE deliverables, and communications
specifications will be provided by ISO, IEEE and ETSI.
Introduction
Intelligent transport systems (ITS) (2.7) are transport systems in which advanced information,
communication, sensor and control technologies, including the internet, are applied to increase safety,
sustainability, efficiency, and comfort.
A distinguishing feature of ‘ITS’ are their communication with outside entities.
Some ITS systems operate autonomously, for example, ‘adaptive cruise control’ uses radar/lidar/and/or
video to characterize the behaviour of the vehicle in front and adjust its vehicle speed accordingly. Some
ITS systems are informative, for example, ‘Variable Message Signs’ at the roadside, or transmitted into
the vehicle, provide information and advice to the driver. Some ITS systems are semi-autonomous, in
that they are largely autonomous, but rely on ‘static’ or ‘broadcast’ data, for example, GNSS (2.6) based
‘SatNav’ systems operate autonomously within a vehicle but are dependent on receiving data broadcast
from satellites in order to calculate the location of the vehicle.
Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) are a group of ITS technologies where service provision
is enabled by, or enhanced by, the use of “live”, present situation related, dynamic data/information
from other entities of similar functionality [for example from one vehicle to other vehicle(s)], and/or
between different elements of the transport network, including vehicles and infrastructure [for example
from the vehicle to an infrastructure managed system or from an infrastructure managed system to
vehicle(s)]. Effectively, these systems allow vehicles to “talk” to each other and to the infrastructure.
These systems have significant potential to improve the transport network.
A distinguishing feature of ‘C-ITS’ is that data is used across application/service boundaries.
It will be immediately clear to the reader that such systems present possibilities for ‘Compliance and
Enforcement’. However such issues are highly sensitive, bound closely with issues of personal privacy,
and may have a major impact on the whole public acceptance of cooperative ITS.
Further Technical Reports in this series are expected to follow. Please also note that these TRs are
expected to be updated from time to time as the C-ITS evolves.
vi © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

TECHNICAL REPORT ISO/TR 17427-9:2015(E)
Intelligent transport systems — Cooperative ITS —
Part 9:
Compliance and enforcement aspects
1 Scope
This Technical Report identifies potential critical compliance and enforcement aspects issues that
C-ITS service provision may face or introduce; to consider strategies for how to identify, control, limit or
mitigate such issues. The objective of this Technical Report is to raise awareness of and consideration
of such issues and to give pointers, where appropriate, to standards deliverables existing that provide
specifications for all or some of these aspects. This Technical Report does not provide specifications for
solutions of these issues.
2 Terms and definitions
2.1
application
app
software application
2.2
application service
service provided by a service provider accessing data from the in-vehicle system (within the vehicle), in
the case of C-ITS (2.4), via a wireless communications network, or provided on-board the vehicle as the
result of software (and potentially also hardware and firmware) installed by a service provider or to a
service provider’s instruction
2.3
compliance
assurance that equipment or a service behaves within a set of predetermined, declared and
accepted parameters
2.4
cooperative ITS
C-ITS
group of ITS technologies where service provision is enabled, or enhanced by, the use of ‘live’, present
situation related, data/information from other entities of similar functionality (for example, from one
vehicle to other vehicle(s)), and/or between different elements of the transport network, including
vehicles and infrastructure (for example, from the vehicle to an infrastructure managed system or
from an infrastructure managed system to vehicle(s))
2.5
enforcement
regulatory measures to ensure observance with certain requirements
2.6
global navigation satellite system
GNSS
several networks of satellites that transmit radio signals containing time and distance data that can be
picked up by a receiver, allowing the user to identify the location of its receiver anywhere around the globe
2.7
intelligent transport systems
ITS
transport systems in which advanced information, communication, sensor and control technologies,
including the internet, are applied to increase safety, sustainability, efficiency, and comfort
2.8
jurisdiction
government, road or traffic authority which makes and enforce regulations
EXAMPLE Country, state, city council, road authority, government department (customs, treasury,
transport), etc.
2.9
type approval
certificate of conformity granted to a product that meets a minimum set of regulatory, technical and
safety requirements, generally, by regulation required before certain products are allowed to be sold
Note 1 to entry: Often called ‘Homologation’.
3 Abbreviations and acronyms
ANPR automatic number plate recognition
C-ITS cooperative intelligent transport systems, cooperative ITS
ITS intelligent transport systems (2.7)
TR technical report
TTA Transport Ticketing Authority
4 How to use this Technical Report
4.1 Acknowledgements
Much of the inspiration for this Technical Report and its considerations and content originate from the
reports l “Cooperative ITS Regulatory Policy Issues” and “Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems
Policy Paper” National Transport Commission, Australia. And this source is acknowledged and thanked.
References [9] and [10].
Contribution from the European Commission project EETS is also acknowledged.
See Bibliography for further details.
4.2 Guidance
This Technical Report is designed to provide guidance and a direction for considering the issues
concerning compliance (2.3) and enforcement (2.5) aspects associated with the deployment of C-ITS
service provision. It does not purport to be a list of all potential compliance and enforcement aspects
factors, which will vary according to the application service (2.2) being provided, the regime of the
jurisdiction (2.8), the location of the instantiation, and to the form of the instantiation; nor does it
provide definitive specification for the solution of these issues. Rather, this Technical Report discusses
and raises awareness of the major compliance and enforcement aspects issues to be considered, and
provides guidance and direction for considering and managing compliance and enforcement aspects in
the context of future and instantiation specific deployments of C-ITS.
2 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

4.3 ITS and ‘compliance and enforcement aspects’
Whilst they share the common framework of being regulatory measures, ‘compliance’ and ‘enforcement’
within the context of C-ITS are two very different, though in some cases closely linked, paradigms.
4.3.1 Compliance
Compliance is defined by the Oxford English dictionary as ‘the state or fact of according with or meeting
rules or standards’.
4.3.2 Enforcement
Enforcement is defined by the Oxford English dictionary as ‘the act of compelling observance of or
compliance with a law, rule, or obligation’.
4.3.3 Compliance and enforcement within the context of C-ITS
Within the context of C-ITS, the term ‘compliance’ may therefore simply be applied to the assurance that
equipment or a service behaves within a set of predetermined, declared and accepted parameters.
‘Enforcement’ may be considered to be regulatory measures to ensure observance with certain
requirements.
While this at one end of the spectrum may imply that those who provide defective equipment or services
(non-compliance) will face unpleasant consequences, so as to encourage them not to so by default, at
the other end of the spectrum enforcement may also, and in a different paradigm, mean that specific
C-ITS services, or information from C-ITS services, could be developed to penalise drivers that err from
driving regulations.
4.4 C-ITS compliance and enforcement aspects issues
That compliance, and enforcement of compliance, for equipment and to defined systems specification
is required is probably doubted by few, including drivers. Indeed, compliance assurance through
certification (see ISO/TR 17427-11) and/or type approval (2.9) of equipment and application (2.1)
systems, will help to provide confidence to drivers. Type approval regulations will also provide assurance
to drivers. Such measures will normally therefore encourage the take-up of systems so approved.
However, particularly in a situation where the driver will have need or requirement to purchase
equipment and/or subscribe to ITS service provision, to then find that this equipment will/may
subsequently be used in enforcement measures to penalise him for violation of driving regulations will
be a sure deterrent to dissuade him from buying/subscribing and using C-ITS application services. If
the equipment is mandated, it will be a sure way to encourage the driver to switch the system off or
otherwise disable it.
At some time in the future, if drivers become more used to being automatically controlled, or it becomes
socially acceptable as a norm, the use of C-ITS systems for enforcement to driving regulations may
become acceptable, but it seems highly likely that this is not the case at the time of developing this
Technical Report.
Jurisdictions will therefore have to make a decision as to whether to try to enforce such measures to
enforce regulations, which may well seriously affect their electability, or leave the choice of use to the
market place. In this latter case, there is a high probability of drivers not using C-ITS systems, and
the safety of life improvements, and improvements to the efficiency of the traffic system, achievable
through the use of C-ITS, being lost as a result.
4.4.1 Private vehicles
The issues and potential effects were summed up in the US Privacy Policy Framework:
“were a National…. (C-ITS)……Program to be proposed that would use …(C-ITS)…. as a surveillance tool
for law enforcement purposes, ‘concerns with regard to privacy and civil liberties would be raised by the
public and its representatives and advocates, which would threaten the implementation of such a Program.
The primary purposes of ….(C-ITS)…are to enhance transportation safety and mobility through improving
driver situational awareness, to help avoid and/or mitigate crashes and to use technology to optimize
anonymous traffic monitoring and control strategies. The program is being developed, and policy-makers
are making decisions, with these purposes in mind. To expand the program beyond these purposes to include
punitive uses of the….(C-ITS) system for enforcing traffic or other laws would cast doubt regarding the true
intent of the initiative. If a National Program were used to facilitate or automate enforcement, many would
likely seek ways to disable the ….(C-ITS)… communications system on their vehicles, or to purchase or retain
an older, non-equipped vehicle. This would negatively impact not only their safety, but also the safety of
other road users, because a ….(C-ITS)….-disabled or non-equipped vehicle and would no longer be sending or
[14]
receiving safety data.”’
A further consideration is that there will be a long period during which more technologically advanced
cars share the road with those that do not have C-ITS devices. Does compliance and enforcement activity
need to take a different approach to these different groups? Would more advanced cars be held to a
higher standard (because their breaches could potentially be more easily detected) and will this
discourage the take-up of advantageous technology? Some stakeholders already report public concern
[9]
that they could be fined for speeding based on roadside detection of C-ITS signals from the vehicle,
and there seems to be widespread fear of misuse.
As an example, police in Washington have set up a ‘net’ of ANPR detectors, tracking movements around
the city, which have apparently moved from initially capturing wanted criminals or unregistered
vehicles to a range of other purposes.
“Police also have begun using them as a tool to prevent crime. By positioning them in nightclub parking lots,
for example, police can collect information about who is there. If members of rival gangs appear at a club,
police can send patrol cars there to squelch any flare-ups before they turn violent. After a crime, police can
gather a list of potential witnesses in seconds.
Beyond the technology’s ability to track suspects and non-criminals alike, it has expanded beyond police
work. Tax collectors in Arlington bought their own units and use the readers to help collect money owed
to the county. Chesterfield County, in Virginia, uses a reader it purchased to collect millions of dollars in
[22]
delinquent car taxes each year, comparing the cars on the road against the tax rolls”.
There have also been some examples in the US of private use, for example, by banks searching for
[23]
delinquent borrowers.
It seems clear that in respect of the private car driver, enforcement would likely be a disincentive to
take-up of the technology. Do limits need to be placed on the use of data from safety systems in order
not to penalise those who take them up? The principle that ITS policy should ‘be consistent with broader
transport network objectives’ needs to be taken into account in considerations of the use of C-ITS
technology for enforcement.
Most concerns centre around keeping of information about members of the public who have not
committed an offence. Many existing systems such as point-to-point are explicitly designed not to
retain information if there is no suspected offence, in order to avoid this concern. Regimes are in place
to limit the use of data from other systems, such as tolling. Surveillance device legislation in various
states provides rules around the use of tracking devices, including for enforcement purposes.
In addition, there is a question over how C-ITS data would be used in the aftermath of a crash. Data
could be captured within the vehicle or elsewhere within the system (e.g. by a roadside unit). There
may be value in making this data available in order to analyse crash causation, which could be
extremely valuable in helping to set appropriate speed limits on particular stretches of road or improve
road infrastructure. However, this data could also be used to convict a driver, for example, of negligent
driving. If historical data is retained then this could also be used (e.g. to show that a driver had a history
of driving in a reckless manner).
4 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

There may be potential to counter-weight the increased surveillance made possible by C-ITS with
incentives and rewards for its use where compliant behaviour is demonstrated (for example, reduced
insurance costs).
While the advent of C-ITS provides opportunities for compliance and enforcement, it may be far more
beneficial, rather than seek to use these enforcement opportunities, to promote opportunities to assist
drivers in achieving compliance with road laws, for example, through intelligent speed warnings, which
can assist and encourage drivers to keep to the speed limit, or by physically speed control at risk or danger
zones (such as school crossings, blind spots, etc.) using the justification and incentive that the technology
helps prevent violation of regulations and therefore assist avoiding enforcement and its penalties.
4.4.2 Commercial vehicles
It is important here to separate out private road usage from commercial road usage. For, while
enforcement of private vehicle drivers may prove unpopular, enforcement that commercial vehicles
respect the road rules is likely to be very popular with the population at large, and regulatory control is
far more accepted in the commercial vehicle sector.
Automatic reporting, and in some cases control, by C-ITS application systems, can also be very popular
with fleet operators, because it may allow better and less bureaucratic access to the road network,
especially for large vehicles. For example, many of these opportunities have already been tested and
are in growing use in Australia, under its ‘Intelligent Access Programme’ (IAP).
The IAP is a certified intelligent transport system recognized in law and developed in partnership
between all Australian road agencies. The IAP has been operational since 2008. The IAP was developed by
Australian Governments in response to current and emerging policy challenges, including the following:
— a growing population, public and private transport and freight task;
— community expectations about the use, availability and safety of the road network;
— road safety through the interaction of people, vehicles and infrastructure;
— sustainability and environmental impact in managing greenhouse emissions;
— security and associated responses in transport.
In common with many countries, Australia faces constrained infrastructure budgets, being impacted
by an ever increasing maintenance demand, including in urban areas a declining ability to build new
infrastructure. At the same time there are expectations of increased and unrestrained mobility of people,
goods and assets including, pressure from the road transport industry to permit operation of larger,
heavier vehicles. Increases in freight volumes have been higher than truck travel growth rates because
of the trend towards larger trucks and higher payloads. Heavier articulated trucks are replacing small
rigid trucks. Along with freight issues, Australia is facing challenges in increasing traffic congestion
resulting from the interaction of demand and lack of capacity in the movement of people, goods and
assets; road safety issues through the interaction of people, vehicles and infrastructure and a drive to
dramatically decrease road casualties; sustainability and environmental impact issues in managing
greenhouse emissions; security and associated responses in transport. Whilst traditional reforms have
served Australia well, authorities required smart solutions to move forward. The IAP is an effective,
[20]
efficient, non-intrusive approach that delivers unparalleled assurance and productivity gains.
One of the many benefits of the IAP is its ability to accurately monitor compliance. In turn, road
authorities and the road transport industry will have new opportunities to optimize vehicle operations
safely, efficiently and productively. Another important feature of the IAP is its ability to combine
regulatory and commercial fleet management services.
For further information on The Intelligent Access Program, its “Overview Guideline” provides an
[21]
explanation of the IAP and the role of program participants.
According to Transport Certification Australia (TCA), IAP brings several benefits:
— to Jurisdictions;
— to Transport Operators;
— to Government and Road Agencies.
To jurisdictions because the ability of the IAP to accurately monitor vehicle compliance provides a new set
of opportunities for road authorities and the road transport industry to optimize heavy vehicle operations
in terms of safety, efficiency and productivity; to transport operators to negotiate improved road access.
In Australia, the IAP provides an opportunity for transport operators to achieve productivity gains,
better turnaround times and increased profits. It also creates the possibility for a transport operator
to develop an advantage over competitors. If a transport operator is enrolled in the IAP and a direct
competitor is not, the enrolled operator may be able to deliver a better service to their customers.
To road authorities, a means to better manage transport obligations for the growing transport
demands. Freight owners are increasingly relying on the IAP to fulfil their obligations under ‘Chain
of Responsibility’ legislation. With the IAP, freight owners have the assurance that their transport
operators are complying at all times with the conditions set by relevant road agencies.
The Australian IAP provides for more productive and compliant heavy vehicle operations that promote
sustainable road infrastructure, improve road safety and reduce environmental effects. The IAP will
help to reduce damage to the road infrastructure and allow road agencies to focus their enforcement
[21]
activities in more efficient areas and with greater flexibility.
The IAP provides restricted access and over-dimension vehicles with improved access to Australia’s
road network. In return, their compliance with approved access conditions is monitored using satellite-
based tracking technology and GSM/UMTS communications. This provides Roads and Maritime
Services and the community with greater assurance that the right heavy vehicles are operating on the
[20]
right roads.
In the Australian IAP, an in-vehicle unit is installed by a certified IAP service provider. The unit will
automatically record the date, time, and position of any heavy vehicle that is non-compliant with the
access conditions on the IAP permit. Information about any non-compliant travel may form the basis
of an investigation by Roads and Maritime Services. The IAP is mandatory for access and provides
enhanced route access for several types of commercial vehicle, including: vehicles operating under
higher ‘Mass’ Limits, B-Triples and AB-Triples, Quad Axle Group Permit Scheme vehicles and other
‘road trains’, high risk mobile Cranes, etc. The electronically measured ‘mass’ pressure that the axles
of a vehicle exert on the road pavement is also being used using ITS technology to control and manage
access of certain classes of ‘equipped’ vehicles to control and manage their access to parts of the road
network. Equipped and electronically monitored vehicles have greater access to the road network. This
is managed in accordance with ISO 15638-12. Work diaries have been mandated for commercial vehicle
drivers in Australia for many years, but the paper based system is administratively cumbersome, and
disliked by the Administrations, fleet operators and drivers alike. It is being replaced by an ‘electronic
work diary’ system, operated in accordance with ISO 15638-11. Heavy goods vehicles are also closely
monitored for speed violations, this is now increasingly achieved using ITS technology in accordance
with ISO 15638-16.
The issue is important from a road user perspective but also has a potentially significant impact on
road agencies’ structure and resourcing.
The conclusion that can be drawn is that, at this point in time, the use of C-ITS for enforcement of the
commercial freight network brings many advantages and seems likely to be politically acceptable, whilst
the use of enforcement for private vehicles is fraught with both political acceptability and privacy obstacles.
6 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

4.4.3 Surveillance devices
C-ITS may be impacted by surveillance device legislation in various jurisdictions. Surveillance
regulations vary, but are present in most jurisdictions, set out conditions for law enforcement agencies
to use surveillance devices to track locations and to listen to conversations.
Certain potential C-ITS applications (for example, using C-ITS to measure individual vehicle trips in
order to manage traffic flows) may inadvertently be captured by this legislation. This has reportedly
been the reason that some jurisdictions have not used technology to track ‘Media Access Control’ (MAC)
[9]
addresses of Bluetooth devices to measure trip times.
Surveillance devices that track vehicle activities may also fall within various state legislations in
different jurisdictions. Under many privacy protection laws, the person under surveillance, or person
[24]
controlling the object being tracked, must provide their consent to that surveillance. For example, in
Western Australia, the Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) legislates that:
A person shall not attach, install, use, or maintain, or cause to be attached, installed, used, or maintained, a
tracking device to determine the geographical location of a person or object without the express or implied
consent of that person or, in the case of a device used or intended to be used to determine the location of an
[25]
object, without the express or implied consent of the person in possession or having control of that object.
A tracking device means any electronic device capable of being used to determine or monitor the
geographical location of a person or an object. This is sufficiently broad to include vehicle movements,
and is likely to capture vehicle tracking by state or territory road managers for the purposes of managing
traffic flows. Without trying to influence the decisions made by a jurisdiction, jurisdictions need to
examine their legislation to make sure that it is adequately worded and that their legal requirements in
respect of C-ITS are clear and explicit.
Point of purchase (or sign-up) is perhaps the appropriate time in which agencies usually obtain
individuals’ consent to track their vehicles for traffic management purposes. However, as with privacy,
individuals should be made aware of the implications of consent and arrangements should be in place to
ensure that the tracking devices do in fact only track those vehicles where consent has been obtained.
Further, in many jurisdictions, and for sound reason, telecommunications interception regulations
prohibit the interception of, and other access to, telecommunications, except where authorized in
special circumstances or for the purpose of tracing the location of callers in emergencies (or by warrant
for state security). The application of these regulations are usually limited to communications as they
travel across the communications network, and C-ITS communications are perhaps unlikely to be
captured, but, again, without trying to influence the decisions made by a jurisdiction, and bearing in
mind the use of collection, collation and use/re-use of data in the C-ITS paradigm, jurisdictions need to
examine their telecommunications interception legislation to make sure that it is adequately worded
and that their legal requirements in respect of C-ITS are clear and explicit, and that C-ITS service
provision is not accidentally trapped by a legislation written in a different era.
4.4.4 Comparative systems
4.4.4.1 ‘Automatic Number Plate Recognition’ (ANPR) technology
If signals from individual vehicles are able to be tracked, the system will have similarities to ANPR
technology. A Queensland study into the use of ANPR recommended that safeguards and controls
governing the use of automatic number plate recognition technology be clearly articulated in enabling
legislation, and should prescribe the following:
— access to data collected by ANPR devices is restricted to authorized agencies and users;
— the collection and retention of personal information is limited to that which is necessary to achieve
clearly articulated purposes;
— data relating to vehicles not found to be committing an offence shall be cleansed nightly from devices
to minimize the possibility of security breaches;
— data shall be transported securely between devices and repositories and stored with high-security
encryption and digital signatures;
— security systems shall be subject to regular audits to ensure they are adhered to;
— should additional and compelling public interests be served in the future by new applications of
ANPR, these should only be pursued after public consultation and scrutiny by Parliament the misuse
of ANPR data attracts severe penalties;
[26]
— affected individuals have access to a complaints scheme to seek redress if their rights are abused.
Similar recommendations may need to be examined in relation to C-ITS technology if detection devices
are used for compliance purposes, in particular ensuring that data is used for stated purposes, is secured
correctly and that there are appropriate offences for misuse. The role and organisational independence
of Certification Agencies will play an important role in such management. See also ISO 17427-9.
4.4.4.2 Automatic toll collection
Perhaps the closest automatic data collection systems relating to vehicles are automatic toll
collection systems.
EETS is the European Electronic Toll Service, a relatively recent European initiative for harmonization
of road tolling across the European Union. Reference [28] states “EETS provision requires to process
large numbers of transactions with appropriate security mechanisms against data loss and corruption as
well as data privacy breaches.”
EETS enables “Identification of an EETS Providers’ contract on the basis of a license plate: This could be a
kind of broadcast communication to EETS Providers supporting this service to ask whether an identified
license plate belongs to a service contract of these EETS Providers. This supports the identification of EETS
Users where no OBE communication could be established.
[28]
Compliance with European and local privacy legislation shall be ensured.”
Although how such compliance is assured is not specified.
The guide only states “Data protection authorities may define policies for the security and privacy in
a toll charging environment.” and ” The role related to the provision of the toll service is responsible of
providing the basic artefacts, mechanisms, organization structures, and information transfer tools needed
to run an EFC system.
Responsibilities related to this role include:………………. — implementing and adhering to the security and
[28]
privacy policies for the toll systems”
The EETS guide also offers the following:
— Operating enforcement, including:
…….
— handling enforcement cases while protecting the privacy of the actors having taken the role as driver;
[28]
— implementing and adhering to the security and privacy policies for the toll charging environments”
The EETS guide has a specific section on enforcement which state:
“6.2.2. Enforcement
The scope of enforcement covers detection, chasing and prosecution of toll violations. Enforcement would
appear to operate most effectively through national enforcement systems.
This guide considers liability questions between a Toll Charger and an EETS Provider in the case of an
offending vehicle covered by a valid EETS contract. Enforcement authorities should be able to determine
8 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

whether an offending vehicle is an ‘EETS vehicle’ and therefore covered by the payment guarantee of the
responsible EETS Provider (see Article 7(2) of Decision 2009/750/EC). Annex II to Decision 2009/750/
EC foresees a direct communication link between the EETS on-board equipment and the fixed or mobile
[28]
roadside enforcement equipment for real-time compliance checking transactions.” (our underline).
This therefore addresses even more starkly the enforcement v privacy issues that face C-ITS, but
provides no solution.
“DIRECTIVE 2004/52/CE on Interoperability of Electronic Fee Collection Systems in Europe:
Recommendations on enforcement (including cross-border enforcement) for the European Electronic
Toll Service. Prepared by: Expert Group 3: EFC enforcement working to support the European
Commission DG TREN” back in 2005, offers the following:
“However, the reality is that in some countries, it is not possible to remove the lifting bars as public
authorities have not yet given operators the authority to implement the Compliance and Enforcement
measures necessary to recover payments due.”
It is significant that the word “privacy” does not appear at all in this Directive and “Data Protection”,
manages only one reference in the Directive:
“Ideally, it would be advisable to keep such black lists as up-to-date as possible and constantly available
for consultation by TSP’s. The Expert Group also recognise that creating and maintaining such lists at a
European level may raise significant legal and data protection issues which will need to be addressed.”
EETS also faces and confronts the issues regarding the movement of vehicles across jurisdiction
boundaries, and the need for data within a different jurisdiction:
“6.2.3. Cross border enforcement
The considerations below show that cross-border enforcement mechanisms cannot be included in the
arrangements for EETS; to do so would go beyond the scope of Directive 2004/52/EC.
Where it has not been possible for enforcement authorities to stop a vehicle which is registered in another
country and has committed violations, whether they relate to toll violations, speeding offences or any other
form of infraction, raises questions of how sanctions are taken against those vehicles from other countries.
In general, sanctions can only be exercised by identifying the vehicle using its registration mark and
identifying th
...