30.3.2004 EN C 80/77 Official Journal of the European Union
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission: European Road Safety Action Programme: Halving the number of road accident
victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility’
(COM(2003) 311 final)
(2004/C 80/21)
On 2 June 2003 the European Commission decided to consult the European 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 24 November 2003. Therapporteur was Mr Simons.
At its 404th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 2003), the European Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion with 112 votes in favour and two abstentions.
1. Introduction
1.1. The purpose of this Communication is to give effect to
the target set in the White Paper on European Transport Policy
of halving the number of road deaths by 2010.
1.2. The Action Programme aims at:
— encouraging road users to improve their behaviour,— making vehicles safer, and— improving road infrastructure.
1.3. In its programme the Commission describes specific
measures ranging from the drafting of technical guides to the
collection and analysis of data on accidents. By way of
example, the following list contains only those measures onwhich the Committee has been asked, or will shortly be asked,
to give its opinion:
— Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to compulsory use of safety belts in vehicles of less than3,5 tonnes (
1);
— Training of professional drivers for the carriage of goods
or passengers by road (2):
— Minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-
European Road Network (3);
(1) COM(2000) 815 final — 2000/0315 (COD), OJ C 260,
17.9.2001, p. 30.
(2) COM(2001) 56 final — 2001/0033 (COD), OJ C 260, 17.9.2001,
p. 90.
(3) COM(2002) 769 final, 2002/0309 (COD) OJ C 220, 16.9.2003,
p. 26.— Information and Communications Technologies for Safe
and Intelligent Vehicles (4) (TEN/164, work in progress);
— Road transport controls (5) (TEN/166, work in progress);
— Driving licences (6) (TEN/167, work in progress);
— Motor vehicles with regard to the seats, their anchorages
and head restraints (7) (INT/198, work in progress);
— Anchorages for motor-vehicle safety belts (8) (INT/199,
work in progress);
— Safety belts and restraint systems of motor vehicles (9)
(INT/200, work in progress).
1.4. Finally, the Commission calls on everyone in authority,
with decision-making powers, or acting in an economic, social
or representative function to subscribe to a European Safety
Charter, whereby in addition to complying with universalprinciples each signatory undertakes to implement specificactions. The commitments given will be publicised and
compliance with them monitored.
2. General comments
2.1. The Committee feels that at this stage it can deliver
only a short opinion outlining the framework in which the
concrete measures are to be implemented. As soon as theCommission produces more detailed proposals for achieving
the objective, the Committee will obviously give its opinion
on those.
(4) COM(2003) 542 final.
(5) COM(2003) 628 final.
(6) COM(2003) 621 final.
(7) COM(2003) 361 final — 2003/0128 (COD).
(8) COM(2003) 362 final — 2003/0136 (COD).
(9) COM(2003) 363 final — 2003/0130 (COD).
C 80/78 EN 30.3.2004 Official Journal of the European Union
2.2. The Committee regards the Commission’s action pro-
gramme as a strong political signal to the Member States to
focus their efforts on achieving the objective of the programme,
despite any shortcomings it may have. The Council’s resolutionof 5 June shows that this signal has been understood. It is nowa matter of practical implementation.
2.3. The Committee fully supports the Commission’s con-
cern to reduce the number of road accident victims, but would
make a number of comments aimed at improving the feasibilityof the action programme.
2.4. For instance, the Committee finds no reference to its
opinions of 1997 (
1) and 2000 (2) and above all no assessment
of the second EU road safety programme. The Committeethinks that valuable lessons can be learnt from past experi-
ences.
2.5. The Committee considers the Commission’s objective
of halving the number of road fatalities by the year 2010
compared with the 2000 figures to be somewhat ambitious.
In our view this would be feasible if there were a specific targetto work towards, e.g. 20 000 fewer fatalities by 2010, rather
than the vague and unqualified notion of ‘halving’.
2.6. The Committee considers broadly appropriate the
Commission’s approach based on a targeted Action Pro-gramme where the subsidiarity principle is rigorously applied
so that all those concerned at the different levels have a clearly
defined framework for action, because it ensures that theMember States are not given any opportunity to avoid
implementing or adequately implementing certain measures
by invoking the subsidiarity principle.
2.7. However, the target mentioned in point 2.4 was fixed
in 2001, i.e. before the European Union had taken the decision
about enlargement. The Committee therefore thinks that the
Commission should carry out a mid-term review in 2006containing a number of additional proposals since the annual
death toll in the new Member States is 12 000 and this figure
could be dramatically reduced by stepping up joint efforts.
2.8. The Commission notes that a series of measures are
necessary in order for its objective to be achieved. These range
from measures designed to improve the behaviour of roadusers themselves to making vehicles safer and improving roadinfrastructure by eliminating so-called black spots. Since by far
the majority of accidents seem to be due to human error, the
Committee believes that attention should be paid to improvingcompliance with existing rules that directly concern road users.
(1) OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 66.
(2) OJ C 14, 16.1.2001, p. 30.2.9. The Committee thinks the Commission’s proposal that
a European Safety Charter be signed with a view to introducing
specific measures will have a greater impact if the EU promotes
the implementation of those measures in some way.
3. Specific comments
3.1. The Committee agrees with the Commission that the
Member States are far too reticent regarding measures that
should be taken at Community level in the sphere of roadsafety. This is certainly regrettable given the seriousness of the
problem and the way responsibility for the various aspects of
road safety is shared by different authorities. The Commissiongives as an example of this the harmonisation of blood alcohol
limits, an issue that has already been under discussion for
12 years, even though a Commission report shows that alcoholis implicated in 25 % of fatal road accidents. The use of drugsis increasingly a factor.
3.2. In its 2001 opinion (
3) the Committee argued for
harmonisation of alcohol and drugs checks in the EU in the
interests of improved road safety. The Committee would onceagain strongly urge the Commission to take up this matter and
in particular ask the Council to finally take a proper decision.
3.3. Given the Committee’s observation in point 3.9 below
that four factors account for 37,5 % of fatal accidents and thattargeted action could therefore have a considerable impact, theCommission should set priorities. The Committee also believes
cost-effectiveness to be an important principle and that cost-
benefit analyses should be carried out for all the proposedmeasures included in the Commission’s Communication.
3.4. The Committee is of the view that it is important to
analyse accidents in detail so that the right measures can be
taken. To this end some kind of map of accidents and theircauses could be drawn up to shed some light. The Committee
would also point out that many measures would work better
or could be better enforced if there were EU-wide agreement,e.g. harmonised speed limits, blood alcohol limits or penalties.
(3) OJ C 14, 16.1.2001, p. 30.
30.3.2004 EN C 80/79 Official Journal of the European Union
3.5. The Committee supports the measures proposed by
the Commission for the Action Programme, which range from
harmonised enforcement legislation to continuing education
and information campaigns, and the introduction of a points-based driving licence. In particular the Committee underlinesthe importance of good driving instruction and further instruc-
tion in the form of refresher courses for both young and older
drivers. The Committee also points to a problem that hasbeen neglected, namely that of aggressive drivers. Particular
attention should be paid to such drivers as part of a road safety
programme. Obviously maximum use should be made of thebenefits of technical advances in vehicle design and consumer
education through the European New Car Assessment Pro-
gramme (EuroNCAP).
3.6. On the technical front, steps should be taken to
encourage the installation of certain warning devices in allvehicles which do not yet have them. To mention just a few
possibilities: for cars, warning indicators or sounds when seat
belts, including back-seat seatbelts, are not fastened, speed isexcessive or tires under-inflated might be considered; and for
lorries, reflective strips on the rear and sides.
3.7. In addition to the above-mentioned behavioural and
vehicle-related factors, the Committee also thinks that more
attention should be paid when building and improvinginfrastructure to road safety aspects such as the occurrenceand identification of black spots and harmonisation of road
signs in the Member States. Information may be obtained by
drawing up a fatal accidents map showing in particular theblack spots, accompanied by an analysis of the causes of
accidents for each black spot. This map can then be compared
with the Charter so that measures can be taken where theyare needed. In addition, relevant information on successful
publicity campaigns must be disseminated, e.g. the ‘BOB’
(alcohol-free driver) campaign in Belgium. The Committee alsopoints to the successes of the ‘Euro-RAP’ (
1) organisation in
reducing the number of accident victims. Euro-RAP provides a
road map of various European countries indicating the level ofdanger on different roads, based on accidents that have actuallyoccurred.
3.8. The Commission devotes considerable attention to
measures that have been taken or are planned in relation to
commercial goods and passenger transport. Those measures in
theory promote the safety of road users, because professionaldrivers are by definition more often on the road and therefore
more likely to be involved in an accident. Sadly, the causes of
accidents have not yet been fully investigated. The Committeeis therefore pleased that analysis of road accidents is to be one
of the main tasks of a planned European Road Safety
Observatory.
3.9. The Committee would point out that of the
40 000 fatal accidents, 15 000 are caused by too much
alcohol, excessive speed or not wearing a seat belt, or a
combination of these factors. The most effective approachwould be to target these factors, along with additionalinformation on black spots.
(1) European Road Assessment Programme.3.10. In addition, the Committee notes that the mostprogress in terms of the Commission’s target of halving the
number of fatal road accidents by the year 2010 will be seen
in countries where the need for road safety measures iscurrently under-recognised. In countries that have alreadymade significant progress, it will be very difficult to make still
further improvements — but of course this does not mean
that nothing should be done.
3.11. The Commission proposes setting up a European
Road Safety Observatory within the Commission. The Com-mittee endorses this, but with the express proviso that it
operates independently and is adequately resourced.
3.12. The Committee would draw attention to the dangers
of using mobile phones in cars, and most certainly where a
handsfree kit is not used. It therefore calls for adequate controlson this.
3.13. Unlike other language versions, the title of the Dutch
version of the Communication omits to mention that it refers
to road accident victims. As the Dutch version could therefore
be read as covering air, sea and inland waterway accidents, theCommission should amend the title accordingly.
4. Summary and conclusions
4.1. The Committee warmly welcomes the Commission’s
European Road Safety Action Programme and offers somecomments and suggestions aimed at improving its feasibility.
4.2. It regrets that the Commission has not carried out an
assessment of the second road safety programme so that the
lessons learnt can be incorporated in this third programme. In
addition the Committee points out a number of missingobjectives and priorities.
C 80/80 EN 30.3.2004 Official Journal of the European Union
4.3. Given the accession of 10 new Member States to the
EU in 2004, the Committee thinks that a mid-term review
should be carried out in 2006 with proposals for additional
measures.
4.4. The Committee believes that the European Safety
Charter proposed by the Commission would have a much
better chance of succeeding if the measures mentioned are
accompanied by some form of EU support.
4.5. The Committee draws attention to the fact that
improvements will be noticed mainly in countries where
measures implemented to date have still not had a sufficient
impact. In countries where considerable progress has been
Brussels, 10 December 2003.
The President
of the European Economic and Social Committee
Roger BRIESCHmade in the past few years, the benefits could be relatively
small, but of course this does not mean that nothing should
be done.
4.6. In practical terms, the Committee proposes drawing
up fatal accident maps showing black spots in particular andanalysing the number of accidents that have taken place there
so that targeted measures can be taken.
4.7. The Committee supports the Commission proposal to
set up a European Road Safety Observatory, provided there isa guarantee that it will be independent and be adequately
resourced. It assumes that the Observatory would draw on the
knowledge of existing organisations such as Euro-RAP.