Opinion on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to the frontal impact resistance of motor vehicles and amending Directive 70/156/EEC ()

(95/C 256/07)

On 14 March 1995 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Industry, commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 7 June 1995. The Rapporteur was Mr Bagliano.

At its 327th Plenary Session (meeting of 5 July 1995), the Economic and social Committee adopted the following Opinion by a majority vote with sixteen abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The draft Directive on frontal impact resistance of motor vehicles forms part of the regulation of Community vehicle-type approval, covered by framework Directive 70/156/EEC (). That Directive referred to specific Directives for collision tests, as for other vehicle technical characteristics.

1.2. The problem of collisions involving cars, particularly concerning the risk of cars being trapped beneath the rear end of large vehicles, such as lorries and buses, was addressed as far back as 1970. A specific response was given in Directive 70/221/EEC which stipulated that vehicles must be fitted with special rear-end devices or structures to protect car passengers by preventing cars from being trapped beneath the larger vehicles.

1.3. Subsequent to 1970, specifications for steering wheel displacement in the passenger compartment, as well as criteria for the absorption of energy generated by a frontal impact with a 'barrier' (at 50 km/h) were only introduced with the 1974 Directive (74/297/EEC) (). These criteria relate to the performance of vehicle materials, and might be described as 'geometric' (e.g. steering wheel displacement is 'measured' in centimetres); the (rigid) collision barriers consist of a structure, usually of reinforced concrete (weighing at least 70 tonnes), with a flat impact surface angled at 0°.

1.4. In 1991, Directive 91/662/EEC (), amending Directive 74/297/EEC, introduced the first 'biomechanical' criterion, taking account of the effects of head-on collision on the driver's head.

1.5. Experience, together with technical and scientific advances, have progressively refined methodologies and measuring instruments. As a result, impact tests which are more representative of real accidents can be carried out.

1.6. The draft Directive aims to bring frontal impact tests up to date with technological and scientific progress, underpinning the 1991 Directive in this area, and amending the framework Directive - 70/156/EEC - to include 'frontal impact' in the list of tests required for type approval of the vehicle.

2. Scientific and technological progress

2.1. In drawing up the present draft Directive, the Commission has examined the tests and results so far available, carried out by:

- the European Experimental Vehicle Committee (EEVC), made up of national research laboratories and representatives of the industry; and

- the Group of Experts on Passive Safety (GRPS), set up under Working Group 29 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

2.2. The EEVC's work should be completed this spring, while the GRPS's findings have been transposed into a UNECE Regulation incorporating the results of an initial phase of work, which will come into force as soon as it is approved by the UN in New York, as the Commission states in point 5.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

3. The draft Directive

3.1. The aim, which may be thoroughly endorsed, is to reduce the number of serious injuries and deaths in head-on collisions. This is to be achieved by setting increasingly efficient standards, particularly for:

- checking the capacity of vehicle structures to absorb impact energy;

- the increasingly faithful reproduction of actual traffic accident conditions in tests.

3.2. The test, to determine the capacity of vehicle structures to absorb impact energy, involves bringing a full-scale vehicle into collision with a rigid barrier at a given velocity, in order to record the injuries suffered by the occupant using new biomechanical parameters measured on on-board dummies fitted with appropriate electro-mechanical equipment.

3.3. The proposal contains a legal section, fixing dates for implementation, and a second, technical part (Annexes I, II and III) describing test procedures and specifying the instruments to be used.

4. Two stages are planned.

4.1. In the 'first stage', use of a 30° angled rigid barrier, fitted with anti-slide devices (preventing the vehicle from sliding sideways on impact) and with an impact velocity of 50 km/h would become mandatory:

- from 1 October 1995 for approval of new vehicle types, and

- from 1 October 2000 for all new vehicles registered.

4.2. The 'second stage' provides for stricter standards, using an offset deformable barrier, coming into contact with 40% of vehicle width, and with an impact velocity of between 56 and 60 km/h:

- from 1 October 1998 for approval of new vehicle types, and

- from 1 October 2003 for all new vehicles registered, 'subject to a report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council, to be made no later than 1 October 2001 on the operation of the Directive and the industrial feasibility of the above date'.

Manufacturers would have the option of bringing the date forward to 1 October 1996 for new vehicle types.

4.3. In the conclusions to its report, the Commission claims that the interim 'first stage' (based on the current standard in the United States), is a significant advance upon the existing European standard and that 'when [the second stage is] implemented it will greatly enhance the safety of vehicles'.

5. Comments

5.1. The draft Directive can only be welcomed. It takes into account the results and trends emerging from safety studies and research in Europe and the United States. This applies especially to the 'second stage' which introduces more sophisticated methodologies - and therefore test criteria which are more representative of traffic accidents - thereby making a decisive contribution to safety.

5.2. However, the results of the EEVC's work on the 'second stage' offset deformable barrier test - currently being confirmed - cast some doubt on the real value of the 'first stage', which is seen as interim.

Nevertheless, it should also be stressed that while the main aim of the 'first stage' is the immediate introduction of measures which are unquestionably effective for a substantial number of vehicles, it is not incompatible with the aim or methodology of the 'second stage' and does not have conflicting effects on the manufacture of the vehicles concerned. In particular, the 'first stage' requirements do not hamper future vehicle design to fit in with the 'second stage' requirements (within the deadlines proposed by the Commission).

5.3. From the legislative point of view, however, the lack in Annex III of all the necessary requirements for the 'second stage', renders the draft Directive incomplete. As a result, the 'second stage' cannot be adopted earlier.

As the principal technical requirements of the second stage test have been validated since the publication of the Commission's proposal, the ESC therefore urges the Commission to write them into this Directive, in order to bring the 'second stage' into force within the deadline set.

The ESC therefore urges the Commission to draft the necessary instruments as soon as possible, in order to bring the 'second stage' into force within the deadlines set.

5.4. The Economic and Social Committee also acknowledges the sense of responsibility displayed by the Commission in committing itself to submitting a report to Parliament by 1 October 2001 on both the operation of the Directive and the feasibility for industry of meeting the 1 October 2003 deadline.

The Committee has no doubt that the challenges thrown up by this diligence (in checking the 'first stage' results) and reservation (an assessment of 'stage two' feasibility) will be successfully met due to the contribution of all, including manufacturers, who have been moving determinedly in this direction for some time.

The Commission itself recognizes that many manufacturers have already incorporated offset deformable barrier tests into their development programmes for new models.

6. Conclusions

6.1. The Economic and Social Committee endorses the overall aim and requirements of the draft Directive.

However, it believes that while the 'first stage' may be acceptable - on the basis of necessity, the 'second stage' requirements not being ready - as a direct response by the Community legislator to an acute road safety problem, the 'second stage' constitutes a legislative instrument capable of achieving the aim of making road traffic safer, and significantly reducing the number of road accident deaths and injuries.

The Committee therefore calls for all requisite steps to be taken swiftly in respect of the 'second stage' to ensure that the Commission's deadlines are adhered to.

6.2. If, however, the Commission intends to take account of the doubts and comments expressed in paragraph 5 above and consider scrapping the first stage, the Committee strongly recommends that the application date for the frontal impact safety test (offset deformable barrier coming into contact with 40% of vehicle width) should be:

- not before 1 October 1998 for the approval of new vehicle types; and

- not before 1 October 2003 for all new vehicles.

6.3. The Economic and Social Committee is fully aware of the importance of the test requirements concerning vehicle resistance to collisions.

These requirements relate directly to the safety of vehicles and, therefore, to users' lives.

The Committee therefore intends to consider these problems further and to participate in discussions and socio-economic assessments of the initial application of the standards which are to be adopted as soon as possible.

Consequently, the Economic and Social Committee would ask to be provided with a copy of the Report to be submitted by the Commission by 1 October 2001.

Done at Brussels, 5 July 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 396, 31. 12. 1994, p. 34.

() OJ No L 42, 23. 2. 1970, p. 1.

() OJ No L 165, 20. 6. 1974, p. 16.

() OJ No. L 366, 31. 12. 1991, p. 1.