No C 206/60 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 8. 84 
Points 2 and 3 — Specific comments 
On the initiative of the Rapporteur, the Committee unanimously agreed, for reasons of presen­
tation, to drop the draft opinion's specific comments on (a) the proposal for a Regulation insti­
tuting integrated Mediterranean programmes, and (b) the proposal for a Regulation on fisheries 
and aquaculture. 
Opinion on the implementation of a Community programme on road safety 
(84/C 206/17) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 95 of 6 April 1984, page 2. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 2 April 1984 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community on 
the abovementioned matter. 
Procedure: 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion by a unanimous vote at its 
156th meeting on 11 April 1984, in the light of the report by Mr Masprone. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 217th plenary session, meeting of 24 May 1984, the Economic and Social Com­
mittee adopted the following opinion by a unanimous vote 
1. The Committee welcomes and broadly approves 
the Commission document. 
2. It is pleased to note that thanks to a series of 
measures at national and regional level there has 
been a drop in recent years in the alarmingly high 
number of road accidents in the Member States of 
the European Community. 
3. Some of these measures stem from non-binding 
recommendations issued by international organiz­
ations. 
4. However, the Community should also act in this 
area wherever a common approach is warranted in 
the interests of Community integration and is more 
effective than action at other levels. 5. The Community should tackle questions which 
are particularly urgent and important in connection 
with the improvement of traffic safety and which the 
Community can solve particularly quickly and 
effectively — thanks to its far-reaching legal and 
institutional resources. Naturally, however, the 
interests affected should be borne in mind and com­
mon objectives in the international sphere should 
not be prejudiced. 
6. The Committee was pleased at the time to note 
the Commission communication of 8 February 1971 
on the main lines of a Community contribution to 
improving road safety (Doc. COM(71)237), which 
contained, inter alia, an analysis of the relevant 
work carried out by various international organiz­
ations as well as a list of the urgent measures which 
could possibly be taken at Community level in the 
field of road safety. 
6.8.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/61 
7. It also notes with satisfaction that the Com­
munity has already endeavoured on various oc­
casions in the past to adopt measures which would 
contribute towards a drop in the number of road 
accidents, viz.: the regulating of professional 
drivers' hours, the introduction of tachographs, the 
annual testing of certain categories of vehicles' 
roadworthiness, provisions relating to driving li­
cences, the introduction of vehicle construction 
standards and a large number of type-approval 
Directives which have a direct influence on ve­
hicles' safety features. 
8. It nevertheless regrets that despite the import­
ance of the matter the Commission has waited until 
now before setting out its intentions in a compre­
hensive programme and — so that this programme 
can be implemented — asking the Council for 
express authorization: 
'— to draw up a first programme of road safety in 
accordance with the above guidelines by 
31 December 1984, 
— to submit first-priority proposals within a period 
of one year from that date, 
— to set up a committee of experts on road safety 
in order to assist the Commission in this area.' 
9. The Committee calls on the Commission and 
the Council, at the same time as taking an active 
interest in the work of non-governmental organiza­
tions and private institutions or associations to 
check whether the concrete recommendations drawn 
up by inter-governmental organizations can be 
translated into Community law. 
10. It urges the Commission and the Council to 
work into the Commission document the measures 
and criteria contained in the European Parliament's 
resolution of 13 March 1984 and in the following 
comments of the Economic and Social Committee. 
11. In many fields of international activity it is 
possible to establish a general framework for con­
structive cooperation and work-sharing, which 
should be built up and put on a more systematic 
footing. Wherever the Community succeeds by vir­
tue of its far-reaching legislative powers in imple­
menting measures which have been advocated by 
other bodies, it can become the focal point for solu­
tions that cover a wider geographical area. The 
increase in traffic and the growing burden of res­
ponsibility which this entails must at any rate force 
the Community to pay more attention to road-
safety. 12. In conclusion, it therefore welcomes the fact 
that the Commission has made a start on the system­
atic planning of road safety measures at Com­
munity level. 
Specific comments 
1. However, it is regrettable that issues which were 
topical and which were considered to have a par­
ticularly high priority 13 years ago when the Com­
mission's communication of 8 February 1971 and 
the contribution from the EP's Transport Committee 
were published, are still the ones being raised today, 
viz.: speed limits, conditions governing the award 
and confiscation of driving licences, alcohol in the 
blood stream, testing of motor vehicles' roadworthi­
ness, road markings and the coordination of acci­
dent research. 
2. The Commission's programme should also 
include measures in these areas in so far as no ac­
tion has been taken so far, and should also make 
provision for the requisite financial and manpower 
resources, if at all possible. 
3. This also raises the question as to whether the 
programme sketched out by the Commission with 
regard to user behaviour, vehicles' technical equip­
ment, infrastructure and research/studies should not 
also include: development, as part of the overall 
approach, of common standards aimed at contin­
uous improvement of the safety levels of all road 
vehicles, development and extension of traffic con­
trol systems (electronic road traffic aids) and coop­
eration in the field of research. For example, 
although the main aim of electronic aids is to 
improve the flow of traffic and make the best poss­
ible use of infrastructure, it cannot be denied that 
road safety is also a leading consideration. 
4. Another problem — urban traffic safety — 
should also be examined at Community level even 
though it might seem at first sight to be a matter for 
only the national and local authorities. The fact that 
the Community seeks to improve living and working 
conditions, the protection and safeguarding of the 
No C 206/62 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 8. 84 
environment and the Community's energy balance 
sheet means that this problem also acquires a Com­
munity-wide dimension. 
5. Inner-city and commuter traffic unfortunately 
accounts for 70 % of some road accidents, viz. 70 % 
of all accidents in which persons are injured take 
place in built-up areas, more than 70 % of all per­
sons killed in road accidents are not car occupants 
but either pedestrians, cyclists, moped riders or 
motor cyclists, and 70 % of all the fatalities are chil­
dren under the age of 18 or adults over the age of 65. 
Car occupants today are so well protected by seat-
belts and head restraints in urban traffic that they 
hardly suffer any injuries at all when involved in accidents. An optimum standard of safety is now 
provided for vehicles in urban traffic. 
6. The time has now come for the legislator to 
make the environment in which motor vehicles and 
pedestrians have to move about so safe that people 
who do not enjoy the protection of a car also have a 
better chance of survival. Imposing more severe 
fines and other types of penalties is no solution. The 
only thing which will help is to keep pedestrians 
and road traffic apart. 
7. The Economic and Social Committee reserves 
the right to deal with this question in greater detail 
at a later date, if it so wishes. 
Done at Brussels, 24 May 1984. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
Opinion on the Community action programme on the management of waste (avoidance, 
recycling, disposal) Community waste management programme 
(84/C 206/18) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 26 October 1983, the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth 
paragraph of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure decided to issue an opinion on the 
abovementioned matter. 
Procedure: 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs 
which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its 
opinion on 26 and 27 April 1984, in the light of the report by Mr Kolble. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 217th plenary session' meeting of 24 May 1984, the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following opinion. 
1. Scope of the study 
1.1. The volume of waste produced in the Com­
munity has been increasing steadily. Even if the 
economy remains stagnant in the next few years, the 
production of waste and its concentration in parti­
cular areas may increase further unless suitable, ade­quate counter-measures are taken. In addition, the 
pressing, intensified efforts to prevent pollution of 
the atmosphere and water will inevitably produce 
considerable quantities of various types of waste. 
1.2. This trend underlines the need for decisive 
Community action to tackle the range of problems it