22. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 347/5 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 4 (2): rewrite ad follows: 'In requesting 
the opinion of the committees mentioned in 
paragraph 1, the Commission may fix a time limit 
within which this opinion shall be delivered. The opin­ions of these committees shall be determined by a vote. 
Each member of the committees may demand that his 
opinion be recorded in the minutes.' 
A vote is necessary to make clear the view of the 
Committee. 
Done at Brussels, 21 October 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the Communication of the Commission on speed limits in the Community 
(87/C 347/03) 
On 6 March 1987 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee 
on the abovementioned Communication. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the matter, adopted its Opinion on 15 July 1987 in the light of the 
report by Mr Cavazzuti. 
At its 249th Plenary Session (meeting of 21 October 1987), the Committee adopted the 
following Opinion by 110 votes to 9, with 21 abstentions (vote recorded). 
1. Background 
1.1. The Committee recently decided it should draw 
up an own-initiative Opinion on the harmonization of 
road traffic rules in the Community. 
1.2. In the meantime the Commission issued a Com­
munication on speed limits in the Community. 
1.3. The Committee feels that this 'referral' should 
be used as an opportunity to give its views on the 
broader subject of the regulation of motor traffic on 
the Community's roads. the proposed draft Directive, its aim should be to stimu­
late constructive proposals from the relevant economic 
and social groups. 
2.2. The Committee considers that a suitable Direc­
tive is needed to ensure that the rules on speed limits in 
the EEC are as harmonized and generalized as possible. 
2.3. However, while appreciating the Commission's 
intentions, the Committee feels that the Communi­
cation is inadequate and cannot provide a sufficiently 
constructive base for a draft Directive on the subject. 
2. The Commission document 
2.1. Although the Commission document is present­
ed as a Communication and its contents seem to bear 
out this formal character, the Committee hopes that it 
will be seen more as an explanatory paper and sound­
ing-board. Rather than providing the groundwork for 2.4. In the light of this situation, the Committee has 
deemed it best not to use the traditional method of 
going through the Commission proposal giving criti­
cisms and suggestions; instead, it prefers to conduct its 
own analysis of this delicate and complex subject, and 
then to draw its conclusions and make appropriate 
proposals. 
No C 347/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 87 
3. General comments 
3.1. This analysis must begin with a consideration 
of the purpose of road networks in modern society. 
3.2. Private and public passenger transport by road 
must be possible in conditions of: safety, freedom, 
speed, economy, comfort, and smooth traffic flow. 
3.3. The aim with regard to goods transport by road 
is to ensure: safety, for both the driver and third parties, 
freedom, respect of labour legislation and work con­
tracts, speed, punctual delivery, full protection of the 
goods being transported, and overall economy. 
3.3.1. The transport of goods by road is compara­
tively dangerous, is polluting in terms of emissions 
and noise, and is a hindrance to other traffic, the 
environment and the general public. In some countries, 
over 80% of goods transport is carried out by road, 
although in others the distribution is much more bal­
anced. In view of these facts, the Committee feels that 
every effort must be made to make goods transport by 
rail and waterway more attractive and competitive, 
with special emphasis on combined forms of transport, 
as it has proposed on a number of occasions. Every 
possible step should be taken by the Community to 
encourage and support Member States which show a 
real commitment to such a policy. 
3.3.1.1. The transport of dangerous substances 
requires special caution. Particular care must be taken 
to ensure the safety of the vehicle, the competence of 
the driver, proper controls, suitable routing, and the 
reliability of the company. 
3.3.2. The extension and upgrading of the road net­
work, particularly in some regions of the Community, 
should play a major role in improving traffic conditions 
and especially traffic flow and safety. 
3.3.2.1. The need for a Community road classifi­
cation system, based on common technical criteria, is 
becoming increasingly clear. 
3.3.3. The Committee lays particular stress on the 
need to ensure that labour legislation is respected and 
uniformly applied in each Member State, not only as a 
matter of principle or out of a concern for social justice, 
but also because this is a vital safety factor and essential 
for reducing the risk of accidents. 3.4. The Committee also considers that traffic con-
ditions in and around many cities have become 
extremely bad, heightening energy consumption as well 
as pollution. 
3.4.1. The main aim here must be to make public 
transport as competitive and attractive as private trans­
port. All appropriate measures should be taken by 
the relevant local authorities, with substantial practical 
support from the Community. The Committee would 
not rule out the possibility of local authority measures, 
such as the introduction of bus lanes, to regulate traffic 
in built-up areas. 
3.5. The only theoretical limitation on the right to 
private and public transport in the conditions outlined 
above should be that everyone must be equally entitled 
to enjoy these conditions, and that everyone must 
behave in a manner which will not interfere with the 
rights of fellow road users. 
4. Speed: the consequences 
4.1. The regulation of Community road traffic (a 
basic factor in the movement of passengers and goods 
today) must thus take account of these problems. Effec­
tive regulation will have to satisfy a variety of tasks 
and goals, one of the most important being safety. 
4.2. Of the three negative effects of motor vehicle 
use — energy consumption, environmental pollution, 
and accidents — the Committee is inclined to consider 
the last one as the main yardstick for its proposals on 
speed limits. 
4.3. This is partly because the other two elements 
are of secondary importance in the case of road traffic, 
apart from a few exceptions of limited duration and 
scale. Also, other Community policies can and must 
find suitable solutions to these problems, as they are 
doing already. It should be noted here that motor 
vehicles, particularly on motorways, are only one of a 
number of fuel consumers. They are also one source of 
air pollution, alongside industrial plants, power sta­
tions, and heating installations. It should be stressed 
that there are a number of ways to reduce pollution 
22. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 347/7 
from motor vehicles (regular roadworthiness tests, use 
of anti-pollution equipment, reduction of lead in pet­
rol). The Committee has already issued Opinions on a 
number of these topics (1). 
4.4. The Committee would nonetheless make the 
following observations on the pollution and greater 
energy consumption caused by high speeds: 
4.4.1. Speed and motor vehicle emissions 
Road traffic plays a relatively minor role in overall 
pollution: 
— However, the pollutants in exhaust gases need to 
be further reduced through the use of appropriate 
fuels and exhaust systems and of anti-pollutant and 
anti-noise technology in general. This will achieve 
much better results than modest reductions in speed 
will. 
— Moreover, excessively slow or irregular traffic flows 
are one cause of the increasing levels of pollution, 
particularly in built-up areas and tunnels. 
— The efficiency of the drive system of all vehicles 
should be checked regularly before they are allowed 
on the road; this is a fundamental preventive 
measure (2). 
— More generally, the new stricter rules on traffic 
pollution adopted in principle by the Council on 21 
July 1987, and other decisions still to be taken in 
this area, must be accompanied by the adoption and 
above all the stringent and prudent application of 
legislation which is consistent and fair in dealing 
with all the other sources of pollution (industrial 
smoke and residues, heating gases, agricultural 
inputs and residues etc.), as mentioned under 4.3 
above. The Committee would refer here to the 
proposals which have been before the Council for 
some time(3). 
(') See for example the Opinions on: Particulate emissions -
diesel engines; Sulphur content of fuels; Lead content of 
petrol; Chlorofluorocarbons; Air pollution from industrial 
plants; Asbestos. For Committee Opinions see also 'European 
Environment Policy: Air, water, waste management'. 
(2) See ESC Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive 
amending Directive 77/143/EEC on the approximation of the 
laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests 
for motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ No C 333, 
29. 12. 1986, p. 7). 
(?) See for example, the Commission proposal on the limitation 
of emissions of pollutants into the air from large combustion 
plants, presented in 1983. 4.4.2. Speed and fuel consumption 
The following points may be made regarding energy 
consumption: 
— Technical progress over the last ten years, encour­
aged partly by the rise in oil prices, has led to 
outstanding and unprecedented reductions in con­
sumption, other conditions being equal. 
— This has been partly thanks to developments in the 
design of racing cars; motor-racing has also played 
a key role in improving cars' resistance to frontal 
and lateral impacts. 
— The level of energy saving achieved by technical 
progress in the road transport sector has not been 
matched by the results or scale of commitment in 
other sectors (domestic, agricultural, industrial). 
— A greater and more coherent commitment is needed 
in all energy-using sectors; this should include tech­
nical improvements to save energy (particularly 
dwindling sources such as oil), especially in homes 
and offices, and a new and stronger commitment 
to new, alternative and renewable energy sources. 
4.5. Speed and road safety 
The Community has already adopted measures to pro­
mote road safety (partly at the instigation of the Com­
mittee), culminating in the designation of 1986 as Road 
Safety Year (4). 
4.5.1. The Committee has also drawn up a number 
of comments and specific proposals on the subject, 
outlined in an Opinion issued on 24 May 1984 (5). This 
included the point that 70% of road traffic injuries are 
caused by accidents in built-up areas, where traffic 
is particularly slow and highly regulated but where 
different types of road users, including pedestrians, are 
found together. 
(4) See ESC Opinion on European Road Safety Year (OJ No 
C 101, 28. 4. 1986, p. 8). 
(5) See ESC Opinion on the draft Council Recommendation on 
the implementation of a Community Programme on road 
safety (OJ No C 206, 6. 8. 1984, p. 60). 
* 
No C 347/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 87 
4.5.2. This does not mean that the speed of motor 
vehicles has no influence on safety, but that other 
factors are at least equally important. 5.2. However, a few clearcut conclusions may be 
drawn on the basis of the data available. 
4.5.3. An effective safety policy thus requires coordi­
nated and tailor-made measures, the aim being to 
reduce the likelihood of accidents. Carefully planned 
measures to regulate road traffic can help achieve this 
aim. 
Many factors affect safety: driver behaviour, the design 
and efficiency of vehicles, the particular features of the 
carriageway, and its state of repair. 5.2.1. In most of the countries under consideration, 
the number of people injured in road accidents has 
fallen despite the marked rise in the number of vehicles 
on the road. 
5.2.2. The number of fatalities has decreased even 
more, or at least has risen less than the number of 
injuries. 
4.5.3.1. The driver has both an active and passive 
relationship to safety. As well as on improvement in 
the standard of driving instruction and on the education 
of road users, particular emphasis must be laid on 
specific safety measures such as compulsory wearing of 
seat-belts. 
4.5.3.2. For vehicles, there must be greater encour­
agement of accident prevention measures (design fea­
tures, state of repair, regular servicing) and of research 
into the biomechanics of injuries. This has produced 
important results in the recent past (e.g. Ralph Nader's 
initiatives involving motor manufacturers in the USA 
and the EEC Commission's recent ERGA safety pro­
gramme). 
4.5.3.3. Ambient road safety conditions are also very 
important. (By ambient safety we mean all those 
elements which affect driver behaviour, ranging from 
road maintenance to road signs and over-use of adver­
tising hoardings.) The most effective techniques must 
be used to provide automatic information for the road 
user. 5.2.3. Consideration of the number of accident-
related deaths as a proportion of the number of vehicles 
in circulation yields a figure of around 400 deaths per 
million vehicles. 
5.2.4. Consideration of the available data in the light 
of the national speed limits shows that there is no 
significant relation (either in absolute terms or in trends 
over time) between speed limits on motorways and 
accident/death rates. 
5.2.5. As a rule motorways are safer than other 
roads. The number of deaths per vehicle/km (mortality 
rate) on motorways in the Community and the United 
States is between two-thirds and one-seventh lower 
than on other roads. 
5.3. It may further be noted that paradoxically there 
is a relatively low risk of personal injury in some 
countries which have not yet introduced compulsory 
use of seat-belts. 
4.6. In this connection roads may be divided into 
three main categories: 
— urban roads sub-caterory, 
— major through-roads, 
— non-urban roads sub-category, 
— expressways, 
— motorways. 5.4. Lastly, in view of the complexity of the subject, 
it might be useful to set up a uniform European data 
bank on road accidents covering statistics, the findings 
of surveys, and information and studies on road safety 
and safety in the transport sector in general. This would 
also provide useful back-up for Community policies in 
this field. 
6. Committee proposals 
5. Statistics 
5.1. The relative lack of comparable, detailed, up-
to-date and reliable statistics makes a thorough examin­
ation of safety levels and trends extremely difficult. In order to achieve the goals outlined in point 3 above, 
and in the light of the situations outlined in points 4 
and 5 and of the appended statistics, the Committee 
considers that the draft Directive to be submitted by 
the Commission should include provisions along the 
lines of the following: 
22. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 347/9 
6.1. Built-up areas 
6.1.1. The maximum speed for all motor vehicles 
apart from buses, coaches and goods vehicles above 3,5 
tonnes (tare + maximum load) should be 60 km/hour. 
6.1.2. Maximum speed for buses and coaches: 
50 km/hour. 
6.1.3. Maximum speed for goods vehicles above 3.5 
tonnes: 40 km/hour. 
6.1.4. On major through-roads with special features, 
the relevant authority may authorize speed limits above 
those given in points 6.1.1, 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 up to a 
maximum of 90, 70 and 60 km/hour respectively. 
6.2. Non-urban roads 
6.2.1. For all motor vehicles apart from buses, 
coaches and goods vehicles above 3,5 tonnes, the 
maximum speed should be 100 km/hour. 
6.2.2. For buses and coaches, the maximum speed 
should be 80 km/hour. 
6.2.3. For goods vehicles above 3,5 tonnes, the 
maximum speed should be 70 km/hour. 
6.2.4. On expressways (i.e. dual carriageways with 
two or more lanes in each direction and crash barriers, 
but with no junctions and no turnoffs in front of 
oncoming traffic), the maximum speeds for the vehicles 
described in points 6.2.1, 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 should be 120, 
90 and 80 km/hour respectively. 
6.3. Motorways 
6.3.1. It is clear that speed is not a significant factor 
in the number of accidents on motorways (on the 
contrary, an excessively low speed on a motorway 
causes loss of concentration and hence heightens the 
risk of accidents). 
6.3.2. Though much lower speeds do sharply reduce 
the effects of accidents, it is certainly not established 
that, across the board, for every 1 % reduction in aver­
age speed, fatal accidents will automatically be reduced 
by 4%. The Committee suggests: 
6.3.3. A general maximum recommended speed of 
130 km/hour. The relevant authority should have the 
power to fix other obligatory speed limits at black 
spots. 6.3.4. The limits proposed in point 6.3.3 for black 
spots should be indicated by clearly visible automatic 
signals so that they can be adjusted to the changing 
conditions. These signs should come into use as soon 
as possible. 
6.3.5. The maximum speed for buses and coaches 
should be 100 km/hour. 
6.3.6. The maximum speed for goods vehicles of 
over 3,5 tonnes should be 90 km/hour. 
6.4. Minimum speeds 
6.4.1. Driving too slowly for the type of road con­
tributes to traffic congestion and is a source of constant 
danger. 
6.4.2. The Committee trusts that the relevant autho­
rities will step up the implementation of existing rules 
regarding traffic congestion in all circumstances. How­
ever, for certain types of road appropriate minimum 
speeds should be recommended. 
6.4.3. Two or three-wheel motor vehicles under 
125 cm3 are not to be allowed on motorways or express­
ways. 
7. Final remarks 
7.1. The Committee draws the Commission's and 
the Council's attention to the adverse effects which any 
decision to reduce current speed limits could have for 
the internal and external markets, hitting employment 
in a key sector of the Community economy which is 
already facing serious competition at world level. 
7.2. The relevant authority should have the power 
to set limits other than those proposed in points 6.1, 
6.2 and 6.3 in black spots which are either permanent 
or are caused by traffic conditions, the state of the road, 
or weather conditions. 
7.3. The provisions contained in points 6, 7.1 and 
7.2 above should be phased in, starting with their 
earliest possible introduction on 'European' routes. 
7.4. The Committee considers that the effectiveness 
of the rules and driving standards are directly linked 
No C 347/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 87 
to — and indeed depend on — phased but prompt 
harmonization of dissuasive and coercive measures, e.g. 
— gearing penalties more closely to the seriousness of 
the offence, regardless of nationality, 
— special safety measures for infant and child passen­
gers, 
— introduction of particularly severe measures for dri­
vers who are temporarily incapacitated for whatever 
reason: drunkenness, drugs, dogs in the passenger 
compartment, etc., 
— possible introduction of a penalty-points system on 
driving licences. 
Done at Brussels, 21 October 1987. 7.5. In all circumstances and situations, every driver 
and road user must exercise due caution. Awareness of 
this and respect for the rights of others and for life 
are the two abiding criteria for assessing road-user 
behaviour. Courses to educate road users, beginning at 
primary-school level, are needed to instill this sense of 
responsibility throughout the population. 
7.6. The Committee reserves the right to return to 
the subject of road traffic regulations and speed limits 
on the Community's roads when examining the draft 
Directive which it hopes the Commission will present 
very soon. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
22. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 347/11 
APPENDIX 1 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following members, present or represented, voted in favour of the Opinion: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss 
APARICIO BRAVO 
ARENA 
ARETS 
ATAIDE FERREIRA 
BAGLIANO 
BAZIANAS 
BELTRAMI 
BENTO GONgALVES 
BERETTA 
BERGER 
BERNASCONI 
BERNS 
BOISSEREE 
BRIGANTI 
BROICHER 
BURNEL 
LOBO BRANDAO R. CAL 
CASHMAN 
CAVAZZUTI 
CEBALLO HERRERO 
CEYRAC 
CLAVEL 
COLLAS 
ALVES CONDE 
CORELL AYORA 
CORTOIS 
CURLIS 
DASSIS 
von der DECKEN 
DELHOMENIE 
DELLA CROCE 
DODD 
DONCK 
DOS SANTOS 
DRAGO 
DRILLEAUD 
DUNET EULEN 
FLUM 
FRANDI 
FRESI 
GAYETOT 
GEUENICH 
GOMEZ MARTINEZ 
HOUTHUYS 
HORSKEN 
JASCHICK 
KENNA 
KROGER 
LAKA MARTIN 
LANCASTRE 
LANDABURU 
LAUR 
LOJEWSKI 
LOW 
MACHADO V. TSCHUSI 
MAINETTI 
MARGALEF MASIA 
MARTIN ALMENDRO 
MARTIN CASTELLA 
MASPRONE 
MEYER-HORN 
MORALES 
MORSELLI 
MULLER 
MUNIZ GUARDADO 
MURPHY 
NETO DA SILVA 
NIERHAUS 
NIEUWENHUIZE 
ORSI 
PARDON 
PELLETIER 
PERRIN-PELLETIER PETERSEN 
PETROPOULOS 
PROENgA 
PRONK 
QUEVEDO ROJO 
RAFTOPOULOS 
RAMAEKERS 
RANGONI-MACHIAVELLI 
RIERA MARSA 
ROLAO GONgALVES 
ROMOLI 
ROSEINGRAVE 
ROUZIER 
SAIU 
SALMON 
SALOMONE 
SANTILLAN CABEZA 
SCHMITZ 
SCHNIEDERS 
SCHOEPGES 
SILVA 
SOLARI 
SPEIRS 
SPIJKERS 
STAEDELIN 
TAMLIN 
TERMES CARRERO 
TIXIER 
VANDEN BROUCKE 
VELASCO MANCEBO 
VERCELLINO 
VIDAL 
WAGNER 
WICK 
WILLIAMS 
ZUFIAUR NARVAIZA 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the Opinion: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss 
CAMPBELL 
van DAM 
HANCOCK KAZAZIS 
MORELAND 
NOORDWAL de NORMANN 
TUKKER 
WHITWORTH 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss 
BODDY 
BOS 
CHRISTIE 
DE TAVERNIER 
van EECKERT 
ETTY 
FORJAS GARDNER 
GIACOMELLI 
GLESENER 
GORIS 
GREDAL 
HAGEN 
HAMMOND JENKINS 
MADDOCKS 
NIELSEN B. 
NIELSEN P. 
PEARSON 
PROUMENS 
SMITH L.J. 
No C 347/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 12. 87 
APPENDIX 2 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendment to the Section Opinion, tabled according to the Rules of Procedure, was defeated 
during the discussion: 
Point 6.3.3. 
To be replaced by the following: 
'A general maximum speed of 130 km/hour. The relevant authority should have the power to fix other lower 
obligatory speed limits at black spots.' 
Voting 
For: 45, against: 82, abstentions: 6. 
Opinion on 
— the proposal for a Council Decision establishing an action programme at Community 
level to promote the vocational rehabilitation and economic integration of people with 
disabilities, and 
— the proposal for a Council Decision adopting an action programme at Community level 
to promote the social integration and independent living of people with disabilities 
(87/C 347/04) 
On 7 August 1987 the Council, acting in pursuance of Article 128 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community, decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee 
on the abovementioned proposals. 
The Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Burnel as rapporteur-general to prepare 
the above work. 
At its 249th plenary session (meeting of 21 October 1987) the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion: 
1. General remarks 
1.1. The disabled are not demanding privileged or 
preferential treatment. They are just asking for the 
normal personal, social and economic rights enjoyed 
by the population at large. 
1.2. That is the thrust of earlier Opinions adopted 
by the Committee, which observes with interest that 
the two present proposals incorporate the key points 
of its recommendations as set out, in particular, in its 
own-initiative Opinion of 2 July 1981 on the situation 
and problems of the handicapped (l) and its Opinion of 
23 April 1986 on the draft Council Recommendation 
on the employment of disabled people in the European 
Community (2). 
(') OJ No C 230, 19. 9. 1981, p. 38 (Rapporteur Mr Davies). 
(2) OJ No C 189, 28. 7. 1986 (Rapporteur Mr Burnel). 1.3. The Committee has reiterated on several 
occasions its unanimous conviction that the economic, 
vocational and social integration of disabled people 
presupposes very broadly-based solidarity. Hence it laid 
stress on the involvement of socio-economic groups. 
1.4. Schemes to promote integration of the disabled, 
particularly at work, should be encouraged by support 
in funding the costs incurred by businesses, local autho­
rities, cooperative groups and associations, and by using 
imagination. Many improvements could result by 
listening closely to disabled people and their families 
and through simple common sense. 
1.5. Generally, it must be a source of concern that 
the number of disabled people is growing (there are 
now more than 30 million in the Community) despite 
fewer birth-related infirmities as a result of medical