23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/29 
3.4. Cooperation in respect of the checking and 
acceptance of security devices must take account of the 
legal provisions laid down by the public authorities and 
never lay behind such provisions. 
3.5. Finally, agreements between insurance companies 
on the drawing-up of model contracts must not, under any 
circumstances, impose conditions to which policy-holders 
have not consented in writing, especially when additions or 
modifications to contracts are involved. Steps should be taken to see that the rules governing 
competition in the insurance sector are applied to 
companies from non-EEC countries and that, when 
Community texts are applied, there is no distortion of 
competition between insurance firms to the detriment of 
EEC companies. 
4.4. The Committee suggests that the Commission 
examine the problems connected with insurance contracts 
which guarantee loans. 
4. Other aspects of relations between insurers and policy­
holders 4.5. Consumers are sometimes the victims of improper 
clauses drafted by certain insurers. Such cases often arise 
because the wording of policies is obscure and draws 
attention to other provisions which are attractive from the 
point of view of competition. The Committee therefore 
calls upon the Commission and the public authorities of the 
Member States to be constantly on the alert. 
4.1. The Committee thinks it would be useful to extend 
its reflections beyond the present proposal, as it feels that 
the latter has among its aims that of obliging insurers to 
supply the market with goods and services on the best 
terms, in the interests of the economy and consumers. 4.6. Finally, the Committee notes that insurance 
companies sometimes refuse, for various reasons, to insure 
certain risks, even with higher premiums. Such an attitude 
is the result of a legal uncertainty in cases where insurance 
is compulsory by law. Any refusal by an insurer should, at 
the very least, be justified in writing. 
4.2. Cooperation in respect of claims settlement 
procedures must lead to claims being settled more rapidly. 
A suggestion may be made here that such cooperation take 
the form of clearing or compensation agreements. 
4.3. Insurance is an activity which is open to inter­
national competition, especially as regards marine insur­
ance, the insurance of large risks and re-insurance. Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending, with a view to fixing certain maximum 
authorized dimensions for road trains, Directive 85/3/EEC on the weights, dimensions and certain 
other technical characteristics of certain road vehicles (!) 
(90/C 182/11) 
On 7 December 1989 the Council 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 May 1990. The rapporteur was 
Mr Cavazzuti. 
At its 277th plenary session (meeting of 30 May 1990) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion by 104 votes to 31, with 8 abstentions. 
(!) OJ No C 316, 16. 12. 1989, p. 5. 
No C 182/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90 
1.1. The Committee would point out that it has already 
expressed its views on the length of road-haulage vehicles 
in its opinion (OJ No C 71 of 20 March 1989, p. 17) on 
Directive 89/461/EEC on the length of articulated vehicles, 
which amended Directive 85/3/EEC. 
1.2. The Committee would reiterate the principles 
underlying the above opinion, which continue to hold 
good, though account must be taken of the Council 
Decision of 18 July 1989 increasing the total maximum 
authorized length of articulated vehicles to 16.5 m. 
(Directive 89/461/EEC, OJ No L 226 of 3 August 1989, 
p. 7). 
1.3. These principles basically encapsulate five aims, 
viz. to ensure: 
— rational use of loading space in the shape of appropriate 
technical requirements, 
— adequate cabin space so as to improve drivers' working 
conditions, 
— the adoption of solutions guaranteeing maximum safety 
standards, 
— legal safeguards for all parties concerned to prevent 
rules being broken with impunity or circumvented, 
— the overall efficiency and productivity of the transport 
system. 
This approach also applies in the case of road trains. The 
proposed directive should have been incorporated into a 
broader framework. 
1.4. The Committee therefore acknowledges that the 
current Commission proposal is an improvement on the 
previous one, and stresses the need for more consistent 
action to bring about a reduction in road-haulage vehicle 
dimensions. 
1.5. The Committee concedes that the Commission is 
forced to operate under very difficult conditions. It has to 
contend with repeated moves by a number of governments 
to accommodate the trend towards ever-larger vehicles and 
with the Council's reluctance either to approve proposals 
for a sharp reversal in this trend or to incorporate this 
strategy into the overall context of a reshaped, integrated 
transport policy. 
1.6. That does not absolve the Commission from its 
responsibilities — it alone is empowered under the Treaty 
to frame proposals for directives or regulations. The 
Commission is therefore continuing (as it has done in other 
sectors, with varying degrees of success) to frame the draft provisions it deems necessary. This is the only way of 
mobilizing attention and pressure (European Parliament, 
Economic and Social Committee, key economic and social 
groups, public opinion) for the purpose of achieving a new 
set of regulations and getting the new transport policy off 
the ground. Similarly, far-reaching changes will un­
doubtedly take a long time and the Commission cannot 
escape full responsibility for the current state of affairs and 
the gloomy future outlook. 
1.7. The present crisis would not have arisen if this 
course of action had been taken when road haulage 
dimensions started to be incompatible with ecological, 
energy conservation and safety requirements. 
1.8. It should also be repeated that a key aim of 
Community transport policy, looking ahead to 1992 and 
the creation of a Single Market, is to end any distortion or 
inequality of competition both within and between the 
various modes. The resulting development of combined 
transport would encourage complementarity and cooper­
ation. 
1.9. A number of provisions, enjoying narrow sectoral 
backing, give priority to road haulage, making it artificially 
more attractive than other methods of transport. These are 
not only inconsistent with the guidelines repeatedly 
advocated at Community and national levels but are bound 
to have a harmful impact on safety, protection of the 
environment and energy consumption, placing a severe 
strain on the population at large. 
1.10. Road-train dimensions must therefore also be 
appraised in the light of the above considerations. It must 
be remembered that ill-judged measures could compromise 
the credibility of Community policy, especially vis-a-vis 
non-member countries. This is particularly true in cases 
where negotiations on transit are persistently deadlocked, 
while transit conditions become increasingly precarious. 
1.11. Accordingly, the Committee feels that the Com­
mission, having decided to regulate loading space and curb 
to some extent the widespread trend towards ever-larger 
dimensions, could have taken bolder steps to reverse this 
development and seized the opportunity for a reduction 
(albeit a modest one) in the overall length of road trains. 
1.12. In this connection, the Committee urges that ISO 
(and similar) regulations standardize the dimensions of 
23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/31 
containers and swap bodies to achieve the desired 
limitation of road-haulage vehicle dimensions and ensure 
rational use of loading space. 
2.1. In addition, the current lack of clear-cut Com­
munity rules has encouraged the regrettable move by some 
hauliers towards reducing cabin space (e.g. the increasingly 
widespread use of 'top sleeper-cabins') to a minimum, to 
the prejudice of the driver's comfort, and introducing 
flexible coupling systems that 'extend' the road train when 
in motion. 
2.2. The aim of the Commission proposal seems to be to 
supplement Community regulations by specific measures 
designed to halt this trend and provide legal safeguards for 
all parties concerned. 
2.3. The solutions indicated as regards minimum cabin 
length, the minimum length and specifications of the 
coupling device and the consequent fixation of loading 
space provide a realistic and precise framework. 
The directive's legal provisions must spell out clearly the 
rules illustrated in the Commission report accompanying 
the proposal so as to ensure that the legal safeguards, which 
are one of the strong points of the Commission proposal, 
are sufficiently explicit to ensure effective application. 
2.4. Such measures can reconcile the interests of all 
parties concerned. Hauliers will benefit from detailed and 
balanced provisions ruling out wide discrepancies. Vehicle 
manufacturers will be able to draw on a more secure set of 
rules without being exposed to distortion of competition. 
The working and safety conditions of the workforce will be 
protected. Firms using road-haulage services can count on 
the efficient and rationally organized transport they 
require. 
2.5. Here it has to be admitted that the Commission 
proposal remedies the current lack of rules and regulations 
prompted by the policies of some governments, aggravated 
by de facto circumstances. 
2.6. The Committee advocates a less drastic approach, 
possibly including the introduction of selective measures, to the problems connected with the directive's entry into 
force and the transitional period allowed for road trains 
brought into service before a given data so as to take greater 
heed of the need to ensure financially viable deployment. 
Conclusion 
3.1. The Committee reiterates the need for swift action 
to adopt specific provisions complying with Community 
regulations so as to provide legal safeguards for all parties 
concerned and halt the persistent move towards ever-larger 
road-haulage vehicles. 
3.2. Accordingly, the Committee welcomes the Com­
mission proposal and supports the proposed technical 
measures as a key step towards reversing the trend towards 
ever-larger vehicles. The current trend produces distortion 
throughout the road-haulage market and endangers safety 
while increasing pollution and energy consumption. 
3.3. The Committee would stress that the governments 
of the Member States must also ultimately adopt measures 
culminating in domestic transport regulations consistent 
with Community guidelines and decisions. 
3.4. The Committee would also reiterate that these 
specific measures must be viewed in the broader context of 
goods transport and as a consistent component of an 
integrated policy in that field, transcending the unduly 
modal approach typical of the Commission's strategy. 
3.5. The Committee therefore calls for the adoption of 
national policies designed to promote combined transport 
and boost rail transport of goods, especially over long 
distances. 
Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
No C 182/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90 
APPENDIX 1 
The following Members, present or represented, voted for the opinion: 
ALEXOPOULOS, AMATO, ARENA, ATAIDE, BAGLIANO, BAZIANAS, BELTRAMI, BERGER, BERNS, 
BLESER, BOISSEREE, BORDES-PAGES, BREDIMA-SAVOPOULOU, BREYIANNIS, BRIGANTI, Vasco 
CAL, CAMPBELL, CARROLL, CAVAZZUTI, CEBALLO HERRERO, CEYRAC, CHRISTIE, COLLAS, 
COLOMBO, ALVES CONDE, CORTOIS, DECAILLON, von der DECKEN, DELLA CROCE, DE 
TAVERNIER, VAN DIJK, DODD, DOS SANTOS, DRILLEAUD, van EECKERT, ETTY, EULEN, FLUM, 
FORGAS, GAYETOT, GEUENICH, GOMEZ MARTINEZ, GREDAL, HAAS, HAGEN, HILKENS, 
HOUTHUYS, HORSKEN, HOVGAARD JAKOBSEN, JENKINS, JESUS SEQUEIRA, KAZAZIS, 
KIRCHFELD, KITSIOS, de KNEGT, KROGER, LAKA MARTIN, LAPPAS, LARSEN, LAUR, LIVERANI, 
LOW, MADDOCKS, MAINETTI, MARGALEF MASIA, MARGOT, MAYAYO BELLO, MERCIER, 
MEYER HORN, MORSELLI, MUHR, MURPHY, NIELSEN Bent, NIELSEN Preben, NIEUWENHUIZE, 
ORSI, PELLETIER Charles, PETERSEN, PETROPOULOS, QUEVEDO ROJO, RAFTOPOULOS, 
RANGONI-MACHIAVELLI, ROUZIER, SALMON, SANTILLAN CABEZA, SCHMITZ, SCHNITKER, 
SCHOEPGES, SCHWEITZER, SILVA, SMITH A.R., SMITH L.J., STAEDELIN, STORIE-PUGH, 
STRAUSS, TAMLIN, TIEMANN, TIXIER, VANDEN BROUCKE, VERCELLINO, WAGNER, WITH-
WORTH, YVERNEAU, ZUFIAUR NARVAIZA 
The following Members, present or represented, voted against the opinion: 
APARICIO BRAVO, BENTO GONCALVES, BERNASCONI, CORELL AYORA, COYLE, van DAM, 
DONK, GIACOMELLI, GREEN, KAARIS, KELLY, KENNA, LUSTENHOUWER, MACHADO VON 
TSCHUSI, MORELAND, MULLER, NOORDWAL, PANERO FLOREZ, PEARSON, PELLETIER Robert, 
PERRIN-PELLETIER, PROUMENS, REA, RIBIERE, ROLAO GONCALVES, ROSEINGRAVE, SCHADE-
POULSEN, TELLES, TERMES CARRERO, TUKKER, VIDAL 
The following Members, present or represented, abstained from voting: 
ARETS, BEALE, BOS, BROICHER, FLATHER, FRESI, GARDNER, HANCOCK 
APPENDIX 1 
The following amendment to the Section opinion, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, was 
defeated during the discussion: 
Point 1.11. 
Delete and replace by: 
'The Committee understands that the Commission intends to fix maximum dimensions, but regrets its 
failure to take account of existing practice. The Committee strongly recommends that a maximum length of 
18.75m be adopted to allow trains greater flexibility. 
The Committee would therefore ask the Council to fix the maximum length at 18.75m and thereafter 
inform the Commission that, since the dimensions and weights of all road-haulage vehicles have now been 
defined, there is no need for further proposals on this subject over the next few years.' 
Reason 
The current wording of point 1.11 does not reflect the views of the Section for Transport and Communications. 
Voting 
For: 40, 
Against: 90, 
Abstentions: 7.