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

(95/C 256/06)

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 with six votes against and thirteen abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The proposal for a Directive on the side-impact resistance of motor vehicles concerns the Community vehicle type approval enshrined in the 1970 framework Directive (70/156/EEC) (). The latter Directive did not, however, provide for side-impact safety tests or measures.

1.2. The aim of the current proposal is to make up for this deficiency and supplement the framework Directive in the light of the most up-to-date research.

2. The importance of scientific and technical progress

The Commission took into account the conclusions of Working Group 29 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, and those reached by the group of experts on passive safety (GRSP). The European Experimental Vehicles Committee (EEVC) also contributed with in-depth research and full-scale tests.

3. The Commission 'proposal' for a Directive

3.1. The proposal introduces a procedure for testing the side impact resistance of motor vehicles. The aims of the Directive are to be commended, since they tie in with a set of measures to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in side-impact road accidents.

3.2. The test involves crashing a trolley-mounted mobile barrier at a speed of 50 km/h into the side of the car. The aim is to assess, by means of biomechanical criteria, the extent of any injuries to the passenger. It involves the use of an instrumentation-equipped dummy (i.e. equipped with suitable electro-mechanical instruments) seated inside the car.

3.3. The 'proposal' consists of a legislative section, with the relevant application dates, and a second, technical section (Appendix I, II), which describes the type of test and the apparatus to be used.

4. Two enforcement stages are envisaged.

4.1. In the first stage, a deformable mobile barrier, with a ground clearance of 260 mm must be used:

- as of 1 October 1995 for the approval of new vehicle types;

- as of 1 October 2000 for all new vehicles.

4.2. A second stage uses the same test, but with a ground clearance of 300 mm.

Application dates are as follows:

- as of 1 October 2001 for all new vehicle types;

- as of 1 October 2004 for all new vehicles, subject to the Commission report to the European Parliament and the Council - due to be submitted by 1 October 2002 - on the implementation of the Directive and on the ability of industry to respect the deadline.

Car manufacturers may bring forward application of the second stage to 1 January 1998.

5. Comments

5.1. The proposal is particularly welcome since it addresses one of the serious loopholes in the safety measures designed to reduce the number of road accident victims.

It is thus all the more urgent.

5.2. The proposal takes account of safety research findings and trends in Europe and the United States.

It differs, however, from US test requirements (trajectory, speed, dummy, ground clearance), in particular because of the distinct vehicle characteristics in the two areas.

The Economic and Social Committee notes the complexity of the issue, and the considerable effort made by the Commission since 1985, when the ERGA (Evolution of Regulations-Global Approach-Passive Safety) ad hoc group was set up.

5.3. The Commission proposal sets mobile barrier ground clearance - which constitutes the crucial part of the test - at 260 mm for the first stage, and 300 mm for the second.

Given that the ERGA group recommended a barrier clearance of 300 mm in 1989, the Economic and Social Committee regrets that the Commission's choice for the first stage has not been checked or backed up by similar or equivalent specific tests.

The Committee also notes that the Commission admits that there are no experimental research findings to confirm the need for a ground clearance of 260 mm, as envisaged by the proposal for the first stage.

5.4. The Commission therefore felt it necessary to take into account the discussions held and decisions taken in Geneva by Working Group 29 on the ECE/UN regulation. On the basis of these decisions, Member States reached a common stance on ground clearance (260 mm).

The measure was also justified by the pressing need to take at least a significant step forward (first stage 260 mm) immediately, rather than draw out the negotiations and the time needed for the proposal to pass through the Council and the Parliament, as well as the fact that there were no differences in aim or methodology between the two stages which might produce anomalous results. The second stage is, if anything, an improvement on the first, but does not contradict it in any way. What changes between the two stages is a system calibration parameter (the barrier height), but the test method is identical.

The Economic and Social Committee can merely note the situation, which - it must be said - the Commission has already described with commendable clarity; nevertheless, the Committee does not intend to hide its concern about this matter.

5.5. Given the Commission's genuine efforts to address this important issue, the Economic and Social Committee would recommend that the undoubted linkage between frontal impact and side impact be included amongst the factors involved when assessing the effects of impact.

Research and tests in this area would further our understanding of the situation and provide a more detailed, realistic picture of vehicle body impact resistance.

The Commission report - to be presented to the Council and the Parliament by 1 October 2002 - might take these suggestions into account.

6. Conclusions

6.1. The Economic and Social Committee endorses the aims of the proposal. It feels, however, that every effort must still be made to improve and step up research and tests, in an attempt to produce more compatible assessments.

In any event, the Committee would emphasize the urgent need for efficient measures in this area, in which, according to current knowledge and experience, the Commission has set a ground clearance of 300 mm.

6.2. If, however, the Commission intends to take account of the highly critical comments in point 5.3 above and consider scrapping the first stage, the Committee strongly recommends that the application date for the side-impact safety test (mobile barrier with a ground clearance of 300 mm) 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 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 2002.

Done at Brussels, 5 July 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No C 396, 31. 12. 1994, p. 1.

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

APPENDIX to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following amendment, which obtained at least a quarter of the votes cast, was rejected during the discussion:

Amendment tabled by Mr Moreland

Point 6

Change conclusion as follows:

'The Economic and Social Committee endorses the aim of the draft Directive, but acknowledging that the benefits will be gained from Stage two. Since its value in safety terms is unknown, the Committee believes Stage one should be removed from the draft Directive and that Stage two (300 mm) should be introduced by 1 October 1998 given that industry has already had six years to prepare for its introduction.'

Reason for amendment

Stage one will have very limited value.

Result of vote

For: 46, against: 52, abstentions: 12.