20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/17 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 85/3/EEC on the 
weights, dimensions and certain other technical characteristics of certain road vehicles (^ 
(89/C 71/05) 
On 1 June 1988 the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the Economic 
and Social Committee, under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 11 January 1989. The rapporteur 
was Mr Cavazzuti. 
At its 262nd plenary session (meeting of 26 January 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 43 votes to 11, with 7 abstentions. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. Directive 85/3/EEC of 19 December 1984(2), 
which was based on the principle of allowing Member 
States to exclude from their territory vehicles which did 
not comply with its provisions, laid down standards 
with regard to the weights, dimensions and certain 
other technical characteristics of certain road vehicles 
used in international traffic. The common standards 
with regard to dimensions stipulated inter alia that 
articulated vehicles are to be no longer than 15,5 metres. 
1.2. It should be noted that this is the overall length, 
within which the maximum semi-trailer length and the 
minimum driving cabin length are not specified. 
1.3. Directive 85/3/EEC, although very recent, has 
clearly proved to be insufficient, particularly as to 
dimensions, and the Committee finds this confusing. In 
its new proposal, the Commission fixes the maximum 
load length of a semi-trailer at 13,61 metres, increases 
the maximum total length of an articulated vehicle to 
16,5 metres, and requires that the coupling mechanism 
should comply with standard No 1726 of the Inter­
national Organization for Standardization (ISO). 
1.4. The Commission document also contains two 
draft Council statements. The first statement would 
give the Commission a specific mandate to propose 
practical measures relating to the maximum length of 
a road train in motion (at present that length is fre­
quently far in excess of the 18 metres laid down by 
Directive 85/3/EEC). 
The other statement would give the Commission the 
power to define and defend the Member States' com­
mon position with regard to standardizing the dimen­
sions of sea containers within ISO, in order to safeguard 
the existing Community legislation (length of 40 feet) 
(•) OJ No C 173, 2. 7. 1988, p. 12. 
(2) OJNoL2, 3. 1. 1985, p. 14. in the face of requests from the United States and Japan 
that the maximum length be extended to 45 and 48 feet 
respectively. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The overall context 
2.1.1. The Committee thinks that the Commission 
should assess the results of a transport policy which 
has so far proved particularly responsive to the press­
ures which tend towards a systematic increase in the 
carrying capacity and dimensions of commercial road 
vehicles; from such an assessment the Commission 
could draw the conclusion that it is necessary to amend 
and supplement existing Community legislation in this 
field in a consistent, gradual and more appropriate way. 
This harmonization of the technical aspects is all the 
more necessary and urgent since the Council decided 
on 20 June 1988 on the creation of a road transport 
market free of any quantitative restrictions by 1 January 
1993. 
2.1.2. It should be remembered that one of the main 
aims of the common transport policy is the elimination 
of all distortions of competition both within each mode 
of transport and between different modes. 
The Commission should therefore make sure that all 
its transport proposals, including those on weights and 
dimensions, do not benefit road transport unduly at the 
expense of the other surface modes (rail and waterway), 
since this would have a negative effect on energy con­
sumption, pollution and above all on the amount of 
road traffic, reducing safety margins and increasing the 
number and seriousness of accidents. 
Road infrastructure—and rail infrastructure to some 
extent, through the effect of combined transport— 
would also suffer to a point where even fairly recent 
structures would require very extensive and costly 
No C 71/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89 
strengthening and exceptional maintenance work 
because of the density of heavy goods traffic, plus the 
fact that unit weights have already reached the carrying 
capacity limits established in the course of tests. 
The trends followed so far have not always had positive 
results—encouraging the increase in road transport at 
the expense of the railways and inland waterways. 
The Committee thinks that the time has come to draw 
the appropriate conclusions from the above, taking 
account particularly of environmental protection prob­
lems. 
2.1.3. When Community technical standards are 
drawn up, thought must also be given to the effect 
which these standards will have on the negotiations in 
progress with traditional Community transit countries 
and whether they will make the chance of agreement 
being reached even more remote. Transit countries 
weights and dimensions standards tend in fact to 
diverge more and more from the Community's, but it 
is not possible to accuse those countries of 'obstructing 
progress', since Community decisions continue to go 
in a single direction, not only without any previous 
consultation—even informal—but also systematically 
ignoring factors which ought to be carefully considered. 
2.2. The proposal for amendment of Directive 85/3/ 
EEC 
2.2.1. The Committee does not dispute the sound­
ness of the Commission's argument that it is especially 
important and urgent to put an end to practices which, 
although partly in accordance with existing Community 
legislation, seriously jeopardize road safety and the 
working conditions of drivers. In the constant effort to 
make better economic use of commercial road vehicles, 
the manufacturers of articulated vehicles resort to very 
sophisticated practices (shorter driving cabins with the 
driver's bunk on top, short-coupling mechanisms, 
smaller trailer wheels, thin walls etc.) in order to max­
imize loading space, while keeping within the overall 
dimensions (length, height, width) laid down by existing 
rules and measured when the vehicle is stationary. 
In this connection the Committee notes that it is the 
practice listed first (shorter cabins) which is particularly 
prejudicial to working conditions and safety. It wonders 
whether the other three practices could not also have 
positive effects on road safety. 
2.2.2. The Commission thinks its proposal has 
struck a balance between the interests of (a) transport 
operators, whose object is to be able to use vehicles with ever larger payloads and (in this case) dimensions 
and (b) workers, who want a guarantee of better work­
ing conditions and safety standards. 
Unfortunately, however, the proposal ends up in prac­
tice by giving satisfaction to only one side's concerns, 
since it fails to lay down a minimum size for cabins 
and above all does not consider the physical and psycho­
logical harm which such a proposal would cause by 
encouraging road transport. Heavier traffic and larger 
articulated vehicles would make the roads less safe for 
all users: articulated vehicles one metre longer certainly 
mean a deterioration in road safety. 
In the absence of binding provisions on the size and 
characteristics of cabins, there is a danger that the 
harmful situation which the Commission has rightly 
sought to rectify will resurface. By opting for the 
indirect solution and restricting the maximum length 
of semi-trailers' loading areas, the Commission pro­
vides no guarantee that the remaining space will be used 
for a cabin meeting drivers' legitimate requirements. 
2.2.3. The Committee finds it unacceptable that, for 
the sake of a continual increase in the payload of 
commercial road vehicles, more and more concessions 
should be made as regards social regulations and safety. 
Therefore, the Committee thinks that this proposal 
would not necessarily improve safety or drivers' work­
ing conditions; the other negative aspects mentioned 
are equally important. 
2.2.4. The Committee would therefore urge the 
Commission to draw up, as soon as possible, a practical 
proposal laying down the minimum dimensions and the 
characteristics of the driving cabin, so as to ensure that 
the proposal achieves the objective of improving the 
safety and the comfort of drivers. 
However, the Committee acknowledges that these stan­
dards, which basically must fit in with the Community's 
more general social legislation for transport, would 
clearly not be retroactive and could be introduced defi­
nitively only after a reasonable transition period to 
enable vehicle manufacturers and operators to adapt. 
2.2.5. The Committee would also emphasize that it 
is unacceptable for the Commission to propose harmon­
ization measures aimed at the free movement of vehicles 
in the Community without at the same time addressing 
the problems linked to social harmonization (cabin 
size). 
20. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 71/19 
2.3. The two draft Council statements 
2.3.1. The Committee notes that this is the first time 
a Commission proposal has been accompanied by draft 
statements of the Council's intentions, which are of a 
highly political nature and simply announce the very 
general outlines of action which the Community intends 
to take in the future. 
2.3.2. The Committee has serious reservations about 
this procedure, and wonders whether it is wise to 
include in one document several proposals which, 
although coming under the same general heading, have 
neither the same specific purpose nor the same legal 
status or scope. Attention is drawn to the fact that, 
even if the two statements are adopted by the Council, 
they will have no binding legal force and will therefore 
have to be followed by appropriate Community legis­
lation. 
2.3.3. With regard to the content of the first state­
ment, the Committee considers that it should continue 
to be the Commission's aim to ensure that the spirit 
and letter of the common standards laid down by 
Directive 85/3/EEC are respected by everybody and not 
just in individual cases. These standards should apply 
to road vehicles in all conditions of use. 
2.3.4. With regard to the content of the second state­
ment, the Committee approves the Commission's con­
cerns and calls on it to firmly oppose at the ISO an 
inordinate increase in sea-containers' dimensions. The 
Council must therefore give the Commission a mandate 
to coordinate the Member States' positions and rep­
resent them at ISO meetings. 
Done at Brussels, 26 January 1989. 3. Conclusions 
The Committee notes the Commission's good inten­
tions, but regards this proposal as insufficient. It there­
fore calls on the Commission to revise and supplement 
it, and at all events to acknowledge the need to achieve 
the following aims: 
— to take a lead, both inside and outside the Com­
munity, in revising the trend which has led to con­
stant and ill-considered sharp increases in road 
vehicles' weights and dimensions, 
— to lay down minimum dimensions for the cabins of 
all the vehicles listed in Annex I to Directive 85/3/ 
EEC (motor vehicles—articulated vehicles and road 
trains), taking account of any data agreed on by the 
social groups concerned; in any case account will 
have to be taken of ergonomic and safety impera­
tives, 
— not to provide any further incentives for using road 
transport in preference to other modes, especially 
over medium and long distances, 
— to put the transport regulations of the EEC (which 
is the world's largest trading area and a bench-mark 
for all its trading partners) on a more authoritative 
and dynamic footing which opens up new vistas 
and makes these regulations less subject to other 
influences than they have been, 
— not to raise further doubts about the soundness and 
certainty of Community law. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
No C 71/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 3. 89 
APPENDIX 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendments 
The following amendments, tabled on the basis of the Section Opinion and in accordance with the rules of 
procedure, were rejected in the course of the debate. 
Point 2.1.2 
Amend the paragraph as follows from beginning of second sub-paragraph to the end: 
'The Commission should ensure that proposals for transport legislation including the present proposal take 
due account of the principle of fair and equal opportunities to compete both within each mode and between 
modes. Obviously the promotion of safety and protection of the environment should be part of policy.' 
Reason 
The present text implies that proposals such as weights and dimensions would seriously reduce safety margins. 
Furthermore it implies that road transport should be penalized in favour of other modes. The Committee 
has always tried to maintain a balance between the various modes on the basis of fair competition. The 
amendment expresses this principle. 
Results of voting 
For: 17, against: 26, abstentions:5. 
Point 2.2.2 
Amend second sub-paragraph to read: 
'Unfortunately, the proposal fails to lay down a minimum size for cabins.' 
Delete the remainder. 
Reason 
This amendment is linked to paragraph 2.1.2. The present text goes too far by drawing a conclusion that the 
question of cabin size is linked directly to a deterioration in road safety. There is no evidence to confirm 
this. In addition the Commission's proposal aims to allow for more space for the driver's cabin. 
Results of voting 
For: 18, against: 32, abstentions: 2. 
Point 2.2.3 
Delete. 
Reason 
The present text refers to payload which is not an issue in the context of cabin sizes. The major point in this 
paragraph could be stated as an addition to paragraph 2.2.4. 
Results of voting 
For: 2, against: 34, abstentions: 0.