C 80/6 EN 30.3.2004 Official Journal of the European Union
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 74/408/EEC relating to
motor vehicles with regard to the seats, their anchorages and head restraints’
(COM(2003) 361 final — 2003/0128 (COD))
(2004/C 80/02)
On 3 July 2003 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.
The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 November 2003. The rapporteur was
Mr Ranocchiari.
At its 404th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 2003), the European Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 102 votes to one, with one abstention.
1. Introduction
1.1. The proposal under examination is part of the general
regulatory framework concerning type-approval of vehiclesand associated devices.
1.2. The installation of seats, their anchorages and head
restraints is a technical aspect of particular importance whichmust be governed at Community level.
1.3. The simultaneous presentation of three proposals for
a directive (
1) is founded on the basic principle of total
harmonisation, by means of a single set of Community rules
and a single approval procedure, followed by simultaneous
entry into force throughout the Union.
1.4. The need for these type-approval rules arises from the
installation and use of safety belts in a broader range of
vehicles.
1.5. The compulsory use of safety belts has so far been
limited to passenger cars (Category M 1) and to the front seats
only of lighter goods vehicles i.e. maximum weight below
3,5 tonnes (N 1). Heavier goods vehicles (N 2and N 3), on the
other hand, were excluded, together with minibuses and buses
(M 2and M 3).
1.6. Only recently has compulsory use of safety belts been
extended to all categories of motor vehicles for the carriage of
goods and of passengers (2).
(1) COM(2003) 361 final, the subject of the present opinion, is
accompanied by COM(2003) 362 final on anchorages for safetybelts and COM(2003) 363 final on safety belts and restraintsystems.
(
2) Directive 2003/20/EC of 8.4.2003, in OJ L 115, 9.5.2003.1.7. Since to date there has been no real Community type-
approval for vehicles other than passenger cars, the Member
States have been able to decide whether or not to apply atnational level the three directives in force, which the presentproposals set out to amend.
1.8. The provisions concerning heavier vehicles require not
only installing 2- or 3-point safety belts, but also entail fixing
them to the seats instead of the body structure of the vehicleas is the case with passenger cars. For this reason, compliancemust be ensured with all three directives together.
2. Comments by the Committee
2.1. The EESC welcomes the legislative approach which
seeks total harmonisation, in line with Treaty Article 95.
2.2. The measures set out in the proposal under examin-
ation respond to the need to ensure passenger safety, and are
quite rightly included in the European Road Safety ActionProgramme (
3).
2.3. The directive which the proposal wishes to amend
already contains all the necessary technical and administrative
rules for type-approval of vehicles of categories other than M 1.
2.4. The real innovation is the ban on placing side-facing
seats in new vehicle types (from 1 July 2004) and new vehiclesof all categories (M
1,M 2, and M 3class III or B), with the
exception of city buses (from 1 January 2006).
(3) Communication from the Commission COM(2003) 311 final,
2.6.2003, on which the EESC is currently drawing up an opinion.
30.3.2004 EN C 80/7 Official Journal of the European Union
2.5. It was decided to introduce this prohibition following
research carried out by external experts, which concluded that
‘longitudinal seating should not be permitted in those classes
of vehicles where standees are not allowed’ (1).
2.6. The rules quite properly provide for a number of
exemptions from the prohibition (motor caravans where
seating is for use when stationary, ambulances, etc.). Some
criticism however persists, focusing on two aspects:
— the disappearance of ‘cosy corners’ from luxury coaches;
— excessively tight deadlines for implementation of the
rules.
2.7. Safety is a universal value which must be promoted by
all those concerned. No effort should be spared, either
economically or technically, in achieving this objective. Thisdoes not however appear to be fully reflected in the provisionsof the directive, which in practice ban the comfort- or class-
based solutions which are needed, for example, for long-
distance international coaches.
2.8. While convinced of the need for maximum compliance
with safety criteria, the Committee harbours some doubtsregarding the real value of such a ban, and regrets thatstatistical data have not been provided on the number of
accidents involving coaches equipped with this type of seating
and on the ensuing consequences for passengers.
(1) Results of research conducted by Cranfield Impact Centre
(July 2001).
Brussels, 10 December 2003.
The President
of the European Economic and Social Committee
Roger BRIESCH2.9. The Committee also believes that the decision to
impose a prohibition arises from the basic approach used in
the research, focusing exclusively on the best type of safety
belt to be fitted to this type of seat, as well as on theunavailability of an immediate technical or manufacturingsolution. In fact, research is currently under way in several
Member States aimed at ensuring that side-facing seats enjoy
the same levels of safety as for forward-facing seats.
2.10. The Committee would prefer the ban’s entry into
force be delayed, leaving a sufficient time margin for theindustry in the event that, in the meantime, satisfactory
technical solutions are not identified.
2.11. More specifically, the Committee calls for the penulti-
mate paragraph of point 3 of the explanatory memorandum
of the proposal to be corrected, since Directive 91/671/EEC has already been amended by Directive 2003/20/EC of
8.4.2003, referred to in the introduction to the present
opinion.
3. Conclusions
3.1. Apart from the above-mentioned doubts concerning
side-facing seats and the deadline for implementing the ban,the Committee fully supports the proposal’s aim of introducing
ever-higher levels of safety, even where the planned measures
may involve higher costs, as could for example be the casewith coaches. The objective of saving human lives should be
pursued with the most effective means, always resulting from
targeted research, especially if progress is to be made inachieving the aim of the European Road Safety Action
Programme of halving the number of road accident victims in
the European Union by 2010.