6. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/27 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on vocational training for certain drivers 
of vehicles carrying dangerous goods by road 
(89/C 56/12) 
On 5 July 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 75 of the Treaty, 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 7 December 1988. The Rapporteur 
was Mr Corell Ayora. 
At its 261st plenary session (meeting of 14 December) the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
1. General comments 
1.1. Current regulations on the carriage of dangerous 
goods by road and compulsory training for drivers 
1.1.1. Safety training for drivers of vehicles carrying 
dangerous substances has been a longstanding and con­
stant concern of transport organizations, unions and 
haulage firms. 
1.1.2. In the wake of the accident at Los Alfaques 
(near Tarragona, in Spain) on 11 July 1978, compulsory 
training was introduced in a number of European 
countries for drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous 
national and international consignments in tanks, bat­
teries or receptacles and tank-containers with a total 
capacity of over 3 000 litres per transport unit. 
Training became mandatory as of 1 January 1980 in 
twenty European countries, including all the EEC Mem­
ber States apart from Greece and Ireland, under the 
European agreement concerning the international car­
riage of dangerous goods by road (ADR) of 30 Septem­
ber 1957. 
Greece became a signatory to the agreement on 27 June 
1988, which means that Ireland is now the only EEC 
Member State which does not yet apply international 
regulations on the carriage of dangerous goods by 
road(1). 
1.1.3. The contracting parties to the ADR agreement 
decided, in the Spring of 1987, to extend until 1996 the 
requirement that drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous 
substances from one country to another in package 
should undergo compulsory training. 
According to work carried out so far, the extension 
would appear to raise a number of delicate problems, 
because it is difficult to foresee the wide range of 
circumstances that exist in practice and because of the 
scale of the operation—training would cover all drivers 
of commercial vehicles in addition to all dangerous-
substance consignments. 
(') See appendix for the list of contracting parties to the ADR 
agreement. Packaged bulk shipments of dangerous substances very 
rarely make up full lorry loads (unlike consignments in 
tanks), however. Such packages are generally trans­
ported—by road, rail, air, sea and inland waterway 
—by ordinary distribution services, including postal 
services. 
1.1.4. The Committee would stress here that, in 
accordance with current international legislation, the 
intrinsic safety of dangerous goods transported in pack­
ages—as opposed to tanks, batteries or receptacles 
and tank-containers—lies essentially in the quality of 
the packaging required for each type of product and the 
use of appropriate vehicles, rather than in the driver's 
handling. Training should therefore take account of 
this. 
1.1.5. According to statistics on the carriage of pack­
ages, virtually no accidents arise from faulty packaging. 
The proportion of dangerous goods transported in 
packages is relatively small in relation to the total 
amount of dangerous goods transported by road, and 
carries few risks. 
Conversely, road transport of dangerous goods nor­
mally carried in tanks—gas (class 2) inflammable 
liquids (class 3), toxic substances (class 6.1) and corros­
ive substances (class 8)—account for more than three 
quarters of dangerous goods transported by road. 
Although these transports of dangerous goods are more 
common, and more dangerous, the level of safety is 
higher than that of general road transport in Europe, 
thanks to the effectiveness of the regulations in force, 
the professional competence of firms and drivers, and 
the quality of the equipment used. According to a survey 
of accident statistics carried out under the TOPAS (2) 
project in the Federal Republic of Germany, a conven­
tional road vehicle has on average one accident resulting 
in injury every million kilometres, whereas tankers are 
involved in such accidents only every 6,6 million kilo­
metres. Furthermore, an analysis of statistics in the 
United Kingdom has shown that thd risk of death as a 
result of being struck by lightning is four times greater 
(2) TOPAS = Tankfabrzeug mit optimierten passiven und acti-
ven Sicherheitssystem (Tanker with optimized passive and 
active safety system). 
No C 56/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 3. 89 
than death as a result of dangerous goods transported 
by road. 
A large number of road accidents are attributable to a 
lack of training and experience on the part of some 
drivers. For this reason, the Committee deeply regrets 
that the draft Directive devotes itself to specific 
vocational training before the basic professional train­
ing requirements for all drivers, contained in Directive 
80/1263/EEC, have been supplemented and amended at 
Community level. 
1.1.6. The problem with hazardous waste lies not in 
the risks posed or the special measures required during 
transportation, but in the growing difficulty in dispos­
ing of it or storing it in a way which conforms to 
environmental protection criteria. The Committee 
therefore feels that, if there is to be an improvement in 
the ecological management of hazardous waste, it is 
not only drivers, but also haulage frims, who should 
receive training in the control, identification and notifi­
cation procedures involved in the transport of hazard­
ous waste, pursuant to Directives 78/319/EEC and 84/ 
631/EEC. 
The Committee welcomes the fact that, at its meeting 
of 22 September 1988, the ACP-EEC joint assembly 
voted against unwarranted movements of hazardous 
waste (Muntingh Resolution). The Committee also feels 
that universally binding rules should be included in the 
Convention currently being drawn up by the United 
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) on trans­
ports of hazardous waste, to ensure that it is disposed 
of ecologically. 
1.1.7. Moreover, Community imports and exports 
of specific chemical products listed in Appendix 1 to 
Regulation (EEC) No 1734/88 should, in consideration 
of the notification procedure laid down for these sub­
stances, be carried out only by haulage firms whose 
hauliers have received appropriate training or can prove 
that they are qualified. 
1.1.8. Requirements concerning the transport of pol­
lutants will be included in the new class 9 of the ADR 
agreement currently being prepared for publication in 
1990. The list contained in Annex 1(a) to the present 
draft Directive may duplicate the forthcoming class 9 
list. 
The Committee recognizes that the Commission should 
make provision for the vocational training of drivers 
of vehicles transporting pollutants. However, a draft 
Directive on compulsory training for drivers cannot 
be issued until criteria for classifying pollutants and 
methods of transporting, eliminating and storing them 
have been clearly covered by adequate international 
rules. 1.1.9. For all these reasons and in line with the 
principle of free movement of goods, particularly 
dangerous goods in the Community, it is imperative for 
the Commission to ensure that the Member States adopt 
regulations on national road transport, based on the 
same principles as those governing international ADR 
transport regulations, and that national rules be gradu­
ally aligned with the international agreement. 
1.2.0. To achieve this objective, the Commission 
must in future play a more prominent role in drawing 
up ADR regulations, by coordinating the positions of 
Member States with a majority vote in ADR nego­
tiations and encouraging them to press for harmoniza­
tion as a means of simplifying national, Community 
and international regulations. 
1.2.1. The Committee endorses the aims of the draft 
Directive, but would like Article 7(1) to contain a 
reference to current international ADR regulations, so 
as not to duplicate existing requirements or lists of 
dangerous substances. 
1.2.2. This is the only way of strengthening existing 
Community regulations, without making them more 
complex, at the same time as ensuring that the liberal­
ization of transport by 1993 goes hand in hand with 
the harmonization of terms of competition between 
hauliers in the different Member States. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Content of the proposed Directive 
2.1.1. Explanatory memorandum 
2.1.1.1. The Committee would point out that 
although only a limited number of drivers at present 
undergo compulsory training—i.e. drivers of vehicles 
transporting dangerous goods in tanks, batteries or 
receptacles and tank-containers with a total capacity 
of over 3 000 litres per transport unit—these drivers 
nevertheless handle over three-quarters of all dangerous 
goods transported by road. 
2.1.1.2. If compulsory training were to be extended 
to transports of packages, it would then have to cover 
all types of dangerous goods. If compulsory training for 
drivers does become a more widespread requirement, it 
must not result in a decline in standards of training. 
However, the Committee fears that this requirement 
will have the unintended effect of lowering the standard 
of drivers of tank-vehicles transporting dangerous sub-
6. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/29 
stances, which pose by far the greatest danger to both 
man and the environment. 
2.2. Text of the proposed Directive 
2.2.1. The Committee feels that it is unwise to limit 
application of the Directive according to the maximum 
permissible weight of the road vehicle as opposed to 
the maximum quantity of dangerous goods transported 
(Article 1). On the one hand this would be contrary to 
the principles of the international ADR regulations 
regarding exemptions from quantity limits (Marginal 
10.011). On the other hand, failure to recognize the 
principle of free limits would result in significant dis­
crimination between drivers transporting dangerous 
substances in light delivery vehicles, even private cars, 
and drivers using vehicles which exceed the maximum 
permissible limit of 3,5 tonnes. As the ADR experts 
pointed out when they adopted it, the present ADR 
text on the training of drivers transporting packages 
should be amended to take account of Marginal 10.011 
and the particular requirements concerning transport 
of Class 1 and Class 7 substances. 
2.2.2. The Committee notes that the dangerous sub­
stances listed in Article 2(8) differ from those listed in 
the ADR regulation. 
The list of dangerous substances given in Annex 1 
corresponds to all intents and purposes to the ADR list, 
but three other types of substance have been added: 
— the list of polluting goods (Annex la) which, aston­
ishingly, is based on the list of pollutants which 
endanger marine life. This list is therefore not 
indicative of the dangers inherent in pollutants 
transported overland by road, 
— an arbitrary list of hazardous waste (Annex lb) 
which lacks any indication of the selection criteria 
for disposal in accordance with environmental 
requirements, 
— other substances which experience has shown, or 
may show, to be of such a dangerous character 
that the provisions of the draft Directive should be 
applied (see Annex 1, last indent). 
The Committee is convinced that establishing a Com­
munity list for these three types of substance will inevi­
tably lead to a proliferation of requirements, as well as 
making them more complicated in both practical and 
legal terms. As a result, the effectiveness of existing 
regulations will be undermined. The Committee would 
make the same comments in respect of Article 2(9) and 
Article 6. 
2.2.3. Article 3 allows the introduction of waivers 
which are based on arbitrary criteria and have not been 
defined by international regulations. The Committee 
feels that such waivers could undermine the basic prin­ciple that a regulation guaranteeing transport safety and 
identical terms of competition amongst firms should be 
applied uniformly throughout the Community. 
2.2.4. The Committee feels that in Article 4, the 
term 'where appropriate' (last sentence of paragraph 1) 
should be deleted. Training for drivers should automati­
cally include practical experience. 
Article 4(2) exempts drivers with five years' or more 
experience. In the interests of safety, all drivers, includ­
ing those with previous experience, should undergo 
training; the Committee therefore recommends that 
Article 4(2) be deleted. 
2.2.5. The Committee feels that the validity of certifi­
cates of competence (Article 5) should be limited to 
three years, in line with current legal requirements in a 
number of Member States. Drivers of vehicles carrying 
dangerous substances would thus be required to under­
go specific training every three years. 
2.2.6. The Committee considers that the introduc­
tion by the Member States of the laws and regulations 
laid down in Article 7 of the Directive duplicates the 
mandate given by these same Member States to the 
UN's Economic and Social Council and its subsidiary 
bodies which, for the past thirty years, have been 
responsible for drawing up regulations on transports 
of dangerous goods. 
Responsibility should continue to rest with these inter­
national bodies, to avoid duplicating work and to 
ensure that a standard set of regulations is developed. 
2.3. Action to be taken at Community level 
2.3.1. The draft Directive is designed to tighten regu­
lations on the carriage of dangerous substances, by 
requiring drivers and hauliers to possess an appropriate 
professional qualification. The Committee feels that it 
is perfectly possible to achieve this objective without 
undermining existing ADR regulations. 
To this end, a number of specific measures should be 
immediately undertaken, on an independent basis but 
nevertheless in line with the ADR: 
— As regards the first Council Directive of 4 December 
1980 (80/1263/CEE—JO No L 375 of 31 December 
1980) on the introduction of a Community driving 
licence: addition to Annex 2 (minimum require­
ments concerning safety and accidents) of a new 
requirement consisting of a basic theoretical train­
ing in safety measures to be taken in the event of 
an accident or emergency involving the transport 
of dangerous substances by road. Training should 
cover the following: 
No C 56/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 3. 89 
a) the main types of risk presented by the different 
dangerous substances in the ADR classification 
and by other dangerous substances which could 
endanger man and the environment; 
b) the prevention and safety measures required for 
each different type of risk; 
c) how to proceed in the event of an accident (first 
aid, traffic safety, basic knowledge of how to 
use protective equipment etc.); 
d) the meaning of labels and danger signs on 
vehicles and packages containing dangerous 
substances. 
— As regards Council Directive 74/561/EEC on access 
to the occupation of road haulage operator for 
goods in the field of national and international 
transport: addition to the minimum programme for 
professional training, contained in the Annex, of 
special provisions governing the carriage of danger­
ous goods by road. 
This additional provision should in particular cover 
training of drivers in the procedures concerning control 
and notification of transport of dangerous goods sub­
ject to Regulation (EEC) No 1734/88 and of special 
hazardous waste subject to Directive 84/631/EEC to 
ensure that international trade therein takes account of 
the need to protect man and the environment, and that 
hazardous waste is disposed of in sites which have been 
specially approved by the appropriate authorities as 
environmentally safe. 
Finally, if firms which market dangerous substances 
were to employ specialists, this would do much to 
reduce the hazards of handling dangerous substances. 
2.3.2. Top priority should be given by the Com­
mission to ensuring that the rules of the international 
Done at Brussels, 14 December 1988. ADR agreement on the carriage of dangerous sub­
stances by road, to which eleven EEC Member States 
are already contracting parties, out of a total of 21, 
should be applied in their entirety by all Member States 
to both national and international road consignments. 
In order to attain this objective: 
1. The Commission should propose that Member 
States apply and enforce ADR recommendations for 
both international and national consignments. 
2. The Commission should propose that ADR rules 
be applied in a standardized manner by the Member 
States. 
3. The Commission should not replace, as proposed 
by the draft Directive, the international bodies such 
as the UN, IMO, ADR and the international Regu­
lations concerning the carriage of dangerous goods 
by rail (RID) which are already responsible for 
laying down safety rules in the different modes of 
transport. 
This is imperative, as multiple rules on the same 
subject would be confusing and could therefore 
undermine safety standards. 
If existing rules are inadequate, the Commission 
should be instrumental in encouraging cooperation 
amongst Member States, so that they present com­
mon proposals to the competent international 
authorities. 
4. The EEC should ensure that Marginal 10.315 (com­
pulsory training for drivers of vehicles transporting 
dangerous substances) is applied in the Member 
States and that the necessary measures are taken to 
harmonize conditions of application by proposing 
standard training programmes, as indicated in the 
last recital of the proposed Directive. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
6. 3. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 56/31 
APPENDIX 
List of contracting parties to the European agreement on the international carriage of 
dangerous matters by road (ADR) 
30 September 1957 
Entered into force: 29 January 1968 
Entry into force of Annexes A and B: 29 July 1968 
Austria 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Greece (since 27 June 1988) 
Hungary 72/(!) 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Norway 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Federal Republic of Germany 
Democratic Republic of Germany 72/(]) 
United Kingdom 
Sweden 
Switzerland 
Czechoslovakia 72/(J) 
Yugoslavia 72/ (l) 
(*) 72: Country which has expressed reservations about the arbitration clause (Article 11 of the agreement). 
Czechoslovakia is not bound by Article 10.