Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Priorities in EU road safety - progress report and ranking of actions"

(2001/C 14/05)

On 20 March 2000 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 28 September 2000. The rapporteur was Mr Ghigonis.

At its 376th plenary session on 19 October 2000 the Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1. Introduction

1.1. In this new Communication on road safety, the Commission assesses the progress made since the Communication of April 1997(1). It points out that the decline in the number of road accident victims is levelling off and proposes, with a view to further promotion of road safety:

- six short and medium-term priorities for action:

- continue to work with and develop the European New Car Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP):

- campaigns and legislation on seat belts and child restraints;

- recommendation to the Member States on maximum blood/alcohol levels in traffic;

- legislation on speed limiters for light commercial vehicles;

- develop guidelines for management of "Black Spots" (places with a concentration of accidents) and the design of "forgiving" roadsides (i.e. less likely to cause injury in the event of an accident);

- legislation on car fronts which would be safer for pedestrians and cyclists.

- five fields of further research to establish whether possible measures satisfy the cost-effectiveness requirement:

- medical standards for driving licences;

- testing for driving licences;

- daytime running lights;

- effect of medicines on driver behaviour;

- post-accident care.

- three priority supporting measures:

- the CARE accident statistics database;

- an integrated information system;

- research into vehicle standards and telematics.

1.2. Finally, the Commission recommends that Member States, regional and local authorities establish a practice of calculating the costs and effects of road safety measures, that they increase investment in such measures and that they develop mechanisms which will enable the benefits of such measures to be felt more directly by those taking the decisions and bearing the costs of their implementation.

2. General comments

2.1. General aim

2.1.1. The Committee endorses the objectives of Community policy on road safety and welcomes this new initiative on the part of the Commission.

2.1.2. The Committee shares the Commission's view that the overall slowdown in the reduction of the number of road accident victims justifies new measures. In the absence of other quantitative targets, the minimum essential requirement is a constant trend in reducing the number of road accident victims. The Committee regrets that there does not appear to be an analysis of the causes of this slowdown, which would have made it possible to find appropriate solutions. A true commitment and an active approach on the part of all the European and national institutions concerned are needed in order to ensure that such progress will be achieved on a permanent basis.

2.2. The proposed approach

2.2.1. The Committee is pleased that the initiatives announced by the Commission respect the framework laid down in the previous Communication for the 1997-2001 Programme and meet the requirements identified by the Committee in its opinion of 10 December 1997(2) for the setting of priorities and for cost/benefit evaluation:

- the combination of legislative and non-legislative measures, selected on grounds of effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness ratio;

- objective, easy-to-apply criteria for prioritising possible measures;

- respect for the subsidiarity principle in a field where national and regional peculiarities can seriously influence the effectiveness of a measure;

- an effort, nonetheless, to achieve the highest possible level of harmonisation, in the interests of European citizens travelling between countries and of professional road users.

2.3. General criticisms and suggestions

2.3.1. In view of the point made in the Communication that applying best practice throughout the EU would significantly reduce the number of accidents and victims, the Committee regrets that a specific initiative to promote best practice has not been proposed. The Committee calls on the European Commission to confirm its commitment to actively promoting the spread of best practice.

2.3.2. The Committee notes that the CARE database, set up in 1993, is not yet being used to the full. The analyses mentioned in point 2.4 of the Communication show how useful such a database can be. However, the use made of it so far has been very limited. If all those concerned with road safety (authorities, industry, scientists, road users etc.) could have access to it, CARE would be a much more powerful instrument for road safety than it is at present.

2.3.3. The Committee takes the view that the lack of precise, relevant data constitutes in general terms a major obstacle to the development of advanced road safety policies. Improvements are possible and must be implemented with full respect for all the factors which, taken together, make it possible to develop such policies:

- data collection

- data processing

- data analysis

- information on the policy pursued.

2.3.4. The Committee points out that the behaviour of road users depends to a large extent on knowledge and attitudes acquired at a very early age. Education in road safety, especially at primary school, is a basic prerequisite for success, and Community standards could be drawn up for this.

3. Specific comments on the initiatives proposed

3.1. Priorities for action

3.1.1. The Committee endorses the Commission approach, which involves incorporating non-legislative measures more in a coherent road safety policy.

3.1.2. Indeed, the information derived from the EuroNCAP Programme is more useful than a legislative approach in promoting the marketing of the safest vehicles, and the campaigns, like the information for road users, influence the human factor which is decisive for road safety.

3.1.3. The Committee also endorses the initiatives to promote improvement of infrastructure with a view to road safety ("Black Spots", "forgiving" roadsides). Accident prevention and impact reduction in the event of accident should be included in these types of infrastructure improvement based on road safety. The Committee takes the view that infrastructure managers, just like vehicle manufacturers through the EuroNCAP Programme, could be guided in this direction through the publication of comparative data on the safety of road infrastructure.

3.1.4. The Committee attaches great importance to continuing the measures taken to combat drink-driving. It regrets the Commission's claim that it is apparently impossible for uniform maximum blood alcohol levels to be adopted, although it does not underestimate the difficulties involved in reaching agreement on this. It reiterates the proposal it made in its earlier opinion(3) for the adoption of a directive setting the maximum blood alcohol level at 0,5 mg/ml; this rate would not of course affect stricter measures taken by some Member States.

3.1.5. The Committee endorses the initiatives for legislative measures on the use of seat belts and child restraints. Given that this type of measure should not systematically exclude categories of vehicle or transport categories, the Committee recommends that, for example, in the case of public transport, taxis and commercial vehicles, legal provisions should take account of the operational and commercial aspects.

3.1.6. The Committee supports in principle extending the fitting of speed limiters to other commercial vehicles. However, it would point out that in the long term variable speed limits, depending for example on weather conditions and traffic intensity, are preferable to fixed limits. Technical progress would make possible the introduction of such systems for all categories of road vehicle in the near future. Current speed limiters are not capable of operating in such a system. Extension of the use of compulsory speed limiters should therefore be gradual, and special attention should be given to possible untoward effects, such as increased use of vehicles with a gross weight just below the limit, involving more vehicle-kilometres, higher levels of emissions and higher road safety risks.

3.2. Further research

The Committee welcomes the subjects proposed for further research. The effects of medicines and drugs on drivers' behaviour, in particular, should be studied as a matter of priority. Despite the usefulness of certain practical measures (warnings, comparative data), the constantly growing use of such substances leads the Committee to recommend binding measures to penalise people driving while under the influence of medicines and drugs. Such measures mean that information must be provided as of now about their effects for all parties concerned (pharmaceutical companies, doctors, chemists, users).

3.3. Supporting measures

3.3.1. In the Committee's view, the rapid development of the CARE database is a key factor for any prioritisation and any road safety policy based on the cost-efficiency principle. That is why the Committee mentioned it above in the section General criticisms and suggestions.

3.3.2. The Committee endorses the two other supporting measures - an integrated information system and research into vehicle standards and telematics. However, it feels that this research should also cover road infrastructure. Standards on construction and maintenance of road infrastructure should be more geared to road safety; telematics would be very useful for improving respect for the rules of the road and for communicating to road users any information likely to encourage safety-orientated behaviour.

4. Conclusion

In general, the Committee supports any action likely to improve road safety. In particular, it is pleased that the Council of Transport Ministers adopted a resolution on 26 June 2000 on strengthening road safety, which indeed accords with the measures advocated in this opinion.

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committtee

Göke Frerichs

(1) Promoting road safety in the EU, COM(1997) 131 final; ESC opinion - OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 66.

(2) Promoting road safety in the EU, COM(1997) 131 final; ESC opinion - OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 66.

(3) ESC Opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Promoting road safety in the EU - the programme for 1997-2001, OJ C 73, 9.3.1998.