NoC40/54 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 17.2.92
Opinionon:
—theproposalforaCouncilDirectiverelatingtoSpeedLimitationDevicesofCertain
CategoriesofMotorVehicles(*),and
—theproposalforaCouncilDirectiveontheInstallationandUseofSpeedLimitation
DevicesforCertainCategoriesofMotorVehiclesintheCommunity
(92/C40/17)
TheCouncildecidedon14August1991,inaccordancewithArticles75and100AoftheEEC
Treaty,toasktheEconomicandSocialCommitteeforanOpinionontheabovementioned
proposals .
TheSectionforTransportandCommunications ,whichwasresponsibleforthepreparatory
work,adopteditsOpinionon13November1991.TheRapporteurwasMrBleser.
Atits291stplenarysession(meetingof27November1991)theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionbyamajority,with8votesagainstand11
abstentions .
2.3.TheCommitteewelcomesameasurewhich,by
relyingonatamper-proof (mechanicalorelectronic)
devicemakesitpossibletoavoidhavingtostepuproad
checks.
2.4.However,theCommitteewondersaboutthe
limitedapplicationofsuchadevicetovehiclesincate­
goryN3(i.e.over12tonnes)whenotherroadtransport
directivesusedifferentweightlimits.TheCommittee
wouldliketoseesomeharmonisation heretoo.1.Introduction
1.1.TheCommission issubmittingtwoproposals
basedontwoEuropeanParliamentResolutionsof1984
and1986whichcallupontheCounciltotakestepsto
promoteroadsafety.
1.2.TwoMemberStatesalreadyusespeedlimiters.
Onthebasisoftheirexperience,theCommissionthinks
itwouldbeuseful,evenessential,toextendtheuseof
thistypeofdevicethroughouttheCommunityand
makeitcompulsory .
1.3.TheCommissionseesthreeadvantagesinusing
anapprovedspeedlimitationdeviceforvehiclesin
categoriesM3andN3:
a)greaterroadsafety;
b)lessairpollution,andthereforeabetterenviron­
ment;and
c)lowerfuelconsumption .2.5.Regardingthedevicedefinedinproposal
COM(91)240final,theCommitteeparticularlyurges
thatpoints7.1.2,7.1.4and7.1.5inAnnex1notbe
modified,asthesethreepointswillleadtothedevice
makinglifesaferfordrivers.
2.6.TheCommitteehasnotedthatthecostofthe
devicemustbesetatsuchalevelthatitsintroduction
wouldnotbeincompatiblewiththenormalmanage­
mentofatransportfirmandthat,onthecontrary,the
amortisationoftheinvestmentbysavingsonfuelshould
leadtoitsbeingingeneralusefairlyrapidly,soasnot
toleadtooperatingdisparitiesontheroadbetweenold
andnewvehicles.2.Generalcomments
2.1.TheCommitteewelcomesameasurewhich,
afterthefailurestointroducegeneralspeedlimitation
measuresatCommunitylevel,willhavetheadvantage
ofbeingageneral,Community-wide measure.
2.2.TheCommitteewelcomesanymeasuresaimed
atlimitingenvironmental nuisancesandsavingfuel.3.Conclusion
(!)OJNoC229,4.9.1991,p.5.3.1.Fromthepresentationandtheproposalsof
theCommissionittranspiresthattheuseofthis

17.2.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC40/55
device,ifitisadoptedbytheCouncil,willimprove
roadsafetyconsiderablyandwillbeafirstinthe
harmonisation ofvehiclespeedsintheCommunity ;
itwillalsoleadtolesspollutionfromthecombustion
ofgasoilbyengineswhilehelpingtokeepdown
supplycostsinthisarea.3.2.ForthereasonssetoutabovetheCommitteeis
infavourofthetwoproposeddirectivesCOM(91)
240finalandCOM(91)291finalandcallsuponthe
Commissiontogofurtherinthisareabyproposinga
seriesofmeasurestohelpimproveroadsafetyandthe
environment .
DoneatBrussels,27November1991.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
FrancoisSTAEDELIN
APPENDIX
totheOpinionoftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
Rejectedamendment
Thefollowingamendment,whichwastabledinaccordancewiththeRulesofProcedure,wasrejectedduring
theproceedings :
Deletepoints2.4,2.6and3.2andreplacethemwitha(new)point2.4,wordedasfollows:
'TheSectionwould,however,askthatthisobligationbelimitedtovehiclesplacedontheroadforthefirst
timeafter1January1990.
MakingtheDirectiveapplyretroactivelytovehiclesplacedontheroadafter1January1985,asproposedby
theCommission ,wouldentailexcessiveinvestmentandinstallationcostsformotorvehicleswhichwouldbe
morethanthreeyearsoldatthetimeofentryintoforceoftheDirective.
TheSectionalsoasksthatthedevicesbesettoamaximumspeedof90km/hforcategoryN3vehiclesand
110km/hforcategoryM3vehicles.
ThesettingsproposedbytheCommission (80km/hand100km/hrespectively )wouldhaveaverynegative
impactonthesafetyandflowofmotorwaytrafficandontransporteconomics.'
Voting
For:33,against:81,abstentions :10.