26. 6. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/23 
3.9.2. Annex 2 is very long and it may be asked 
whether all the requirements listed are really necessary. 3.9.3. The sub-categories C + E and D + E should be 
added to group I in point 1.1 of Annex 3. 
Done at Brussels, 26 April 1989. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on speed limits for certain categories of 
motor vehicles in the Community (l) 
(89/C 159/09) 
On 26 Janu.iry 1989 the < <mncil decided, in accordance with Article 75 of the Treaty 
establishing the European E<^>nomic Community, to consult the Economic and Social Com­
mittee 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 12 April 1989. The rapporteur 
was Mr Cavazzuti. 
At its 265th plenary session (meeting of 26 April 1989), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a substantial majority, with one dissenting vote. 
1. The Committee endorses the Commission's aim 
of standardizing road traffic regulations in the Com­
munity. 
2. The Committee notes that the proposed Directive 
covers only certain aspects (introduction of differen­
tiated speed limits according to the characteristics of 
vehicles and roads) and agrees with this pragmatic 
approach. It basically endorses the Commission pro­
posal, but would make the following comments. 
3. It would ask the Commission to complete the rest 
of its work in this area as soon as possible by drafting 
general rules for road traffic and for cars. The Commit­
tee hopes that the points (both general and specific) 
made in its Opinion of 21 October 1987 (2) on speed 
limits will be given due consideration. 
(') OJ No C 33, 9. 2. 1989, p. 9. 
(2) OJ No C 347, 22. 12. 1987. 4. Although the Commission proposal concerned 
does not mention the 1987 Opinion as such, the Com­
mittee notes that the two are broadly similar. 
5. The explanatory memorandum is somewhat cur­
sory as it covers traffic of all kinds (goods vehicles, 
public transport and private vehicles). The fact that it 
is so sweeping means that, in addition to sounding 
slightly unconvincing, there are frequent inaccuracies, 
e.g. as regards the link between accidents and different 
types of road, and the factors determining the impact 
in an accident (points 5 and 6). 
6. To be effective, safety policy requires coordinated 
action, the objective being to reduce the likelihood of 
accidents. Sensible road traffic rules will help to achieve 
this. 
7. The Committee therefore hopes that the recitals 
will be reworded so as to give priority to this objective 
No C 159/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 6. 89 
and set out a more uniform, integrated approach to the 
various issues involved. 
8. The Committee would also draw attention to the 
fact that some specific aspects which are relevant to 
regulations on speed limits have not been mentioned in 
the Commission document, e.g. the need for a minimum 
speed limit in some situations; the need for the appropri­
ate authorities to identify and apply specific speed limits 
to 'black spots' in the road network. 
9. Whilst basically agreeing (in spite of some incon­
sistencies) with the proposal to introduce differentiated 
speed limits according to the type of road and category 
of vehicle, the Committee would recommend that 
'expressways' be dealt with separately—at present they 
are placed in the category of non-urban roads, whereas 
in actual fact they are similar to motorways. 
9.1. The Committee recommends that the rules to 
be introduced for category Ml vehicles (cars) should 
be applicable to category M2 and Nl vehicles. 
9.2. The Committee would call for the same speed 
limit (70 km) for category N2 and N3 vehicles on non-
Done at Brussels, 26 April 1989. urban roads; it would be better not to differentiate 
between these two types of vehicle here. 
10. The Commission should include relevant scien­
tific, technical and statistical data in support of its 
proposals on Community road traffic rules, particularly 
as regards traffic density on the various types of road, 
accident rates, the most common causes of accidents, 
the types of accident and the vehicles involved and/or 
responsible. 
11. Given the complexity of the problem and the 
lack of comparable data and surveys, the Committee 
would stress the need for a Community data bank on 
road accidents, providing standardized data on research 
carried out as well as more general information on 
safety in the road and transport sector. This would also 
be a useful stimulus for Community policies. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
26. 6. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/25 
APPENDIX 
Bus and lorry speeds (lcm/h) 
^~~^-^^ Type of road 
Category of vehicle"--^^ 
M2 = bus 4- 9 seats 
including driver's seat — 
5 tons 
M3 = bus + 9 seats 
including driver's seat + 
5 tons 
Nj = lorry — 3,5 tons 
N2 = lorry 3,5 - 12 tons 
N3 = lorry + 12 tons 
trailers, semi-trailers and 
caravans Commission proposal 
Motor 
100 
100 
100 
100 
80 Express 
80 
80 
80 
80 
80 road 
80 
80 
80 
80 
70 Built-
up area 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 ESC Opinion October 1987 
Motor 
100 
100 
90 
90 Express 
90 
As fo 
80 
80 As for cars 
80 
r cars 
70 
70 Built-
up area 
50 
40 
40