No C 194/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 7. 89 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 85/3/EEC on the 
weights, dimensions and certain other technical characteristics on certain road vehicles (l) 
(89/C 194/11) 
On 26 January 1989, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 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 10 May 1989. The rapporteur was 
Mr Cavazzuti. 
At its 266th plenary session (meeting of 1 June 1989), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 93 votes to 36, with 12 abstentions (vote recorded). 
1. The Committee was extremely surprised to learn 
of the proposal to extend the exemption of the United 
Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland from application 
of Directive 85/3/EEC for a further seven and a half 
years in addition to the four years which have already 
elapsed since the Directive was originally approved. 
This will amount to exemption for almost twelve years 
(from March 1985 to 31 December 1996). 
2. The Committee is not entirely convinced by the 
arguments put forward by the Commission in the draft 
Directive. 
2.1. The second Commission report to the Council 
on the circumstances justifying the exemption of Ireland 
and the United Kingdom from some provisions of 
Directive 85/3/EEC on the weights and dimensions of 
certain commercial vehicles states (as in the first report, 
February 1987) that: 
2.2. (Point 1.2, first indent): 
'Design standards for bridges in the United 
Kingdom and Ireland are similar to those in the 
other Member States of the Community. Modern 
bridges in both countries are, therefore, sufficiently 
strong to carry the EC maximum authorized 
weights.' 
2.3. (Point 1.2, second indent): 
'Older bridges that were assessed according to the 
standard UK assessment Code BD 21/84 are equiv­
alent to bridges in other Member States that carry 
the EC maximum authorized weights.' 
(') OJ No C 45, 24. 2. 1989, p. 14. 3. The report also states (point 1.2, third indent), 
however, that: 
'As only a small proportion of old bridges in the 
UK and Ireland were assessed at that time, a stra­
tegic plan of assessment and possible strengthening 
should be drawn up in order to enable the Com­
mission to make a proposal.' 
The above statements and, more generally, the rest of 
the report accompanying the draft Directive, prompt 
the Committee to raise a number of questions and make 
various comments. 
3.1. First and foremost, the Committee is under the 
impression that prior to approval of Directive 85/3/ 
EEC the Commission did not carry out the necessary 
checks to ascertain that the Community's road infra­
structure, particularly bridges, was capable of with­
standing the traffic of vehicles with the characteristics 
outlined in the Appendix to the Directive. The Com­
mittee does however recognize that, as is 'normal' prac­
tice, the Commission drew on information supplied by 
the Member States. Such information is not always 
accurate. 
3.2. The Committee agrees with the statements con­
tained in point 1.4 (paragraphs 2, 5 and 6) of the report 
accompanying the draft Directive, in spite of the fact 
that they do not provide the necessary scientific basis 
for the proposed decisions (they contain no technical 
or statistical data defining the quantitative, qualitative, 
temporal and environmental aspects of the issue). 
3.3. The Commission should have brought forward 
its proposals in respect of pneumatic suspension, as 
this could have avoided further extending the lengthy 
exemption as provided for in the present draft Directive. 
31.7.89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 194/27 
4. In other words, the report leads the Committee 
to the conclusion that the solidity and bearing capacity 
of bridges are entirely comparable throughout the 
Member States. 
5. Under these circumstances the Committee does 
not agree with the decision to allow treatment to vary 
from country to country, even if this was provided for 
under Directive 85/3/EEC. 
6. This conflicts with the principle of using the same 
weights and measures in all cases where circumstances 
are similar, a principle by which the Committee sets 
great store. 
The Committee would also point out that this exemp­
tion a) is a disincentive to action and b) perpetuates a 
widespread distortion of competition. 
Done at Brussels, 1 June 1989. 7. The Committee nevertheless believes that every­
thing possible should be done at both the national and 
Community level to allay the fear held by public opinion 
in various countries of the effects on the environment 
and safety, particularly by providing assistance for the 
necessary infrastructure improvements. 
8. In the light of the above, the Committee is unfor­
tunately obliged to reject the proposed Directive and 
ask the Commission to draw up a new proposal if 
appropriate. 
9. The Committee believes the problems caused to 
Member States by increasing gross vehicle weight 
underline the need to support the proposal for a Com­
munity transport infrastructure fund and to make 
immediate use of available Community funds for this 
purpose. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
No C 194/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 7. 89 
APPENDIX \ 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following Members, present or represented, voted in favour of the Opinion: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Amato, Aparicio Bravo, Arena, Ataide Ferreira, Bagliano, Beltrami, Bento Goncalves, Beretta, 
Berger, Bleser, Boisseree, Bos, Bredima Savopoulou, Briganti, Broicher, Calvet Chambon, Cavazzuti, Ceballo 
Herrero, Alves Conde, Corell Ayora, Cortois, van Dam, von der Decken, Delhomenie, Delia Croce, De 
Tavernier, Donck, Dos Santos, Drilleaud, Droulin, van Eekert, Etty, Eulen, Flum, Forgas, Frandi, Fresi, 
Gayetot, Germozzi, Geuenich, Glesener, Gomez Martinez, Haas, Hilkens, Horsken, Houthuys, Jaschick, 
Kazazis, Kirchfeld, Kroger, Laka Martin, Landaburu, Lappas, Liverani, Machado von Tschusi, Mainetti, 
Margalef Masia, Mayayo Bello, Meyer Horn, Morselli, Mourgues, Muhr, Muniz Guardado, Neto Da Silva, 
Nielsen B., Nielsen P., Nierhaus, Orsi, Panizo-Arcos, Pardon, Pelletier, Perrin-Pelletier, Petersen, Petropoulos, 
Proenca, Pronk, Quevedo Rojo, Riera Marsa, Rolao Goncalves, Romoli, Rouzier, Santillan Cabeza, Schmitz, 
Schoepges, Spijkers, Staedelin, Telles, Vallejo Calderon, Vanden Broucke, Velasco Mancebo, Vercellino, 
Yverneau, Zufiaur Narvaiza. 
The following Members, present or represented, voted against the Opinion: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Aspinall, Boddy, Campbell, Carroll, Christie, Coyle, Decaillon, Dodd, Elstner, Flather, 
Freeman, Giacomelli, Hancock, Jenkins, Kaaris, Kelly, Kenna, Maddocks, Moreland, Murphy, de Normann, 
Pearson, Poeton, Rea, Robinson, Roseingrave, Schade-Poulsen, Smith A. R., Smith L. J., Solari, Spiers, 
Tamlin, Tixier, Tukker, Williams, Whitworth. 
The following Members, present or represented, abstained: 
Mr/Mrs/Miss: Alexopoulos, Arets, Bordes Pages, Gardner, Hovgaard Jakobsen, Low, Lustenhouwer, Margot, 
Marvier, Muller, Noordwal, Schnieders. 
APPENDIX 2 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendment, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, was defeated during the debate: 
Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8 
Replace these paragraphs as follows: 
'4.1. The Committee stresses the need to remove derogations to Directive 85/3/EEC which distort the 
working of the market for road haulage. Nevertheless the Committee recognizes that both the United 
Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have in recent years raised maximum gross vehicle weights in their 
respective Member States in the face of hostile public opinion and that a further increase may run into 
problems of national parliamentary approval. 
4.2. While the Committee believes the derogation should be removed as soon as possible all should be 
done at both the national and Community level to allay the fear held by public opinion in these countries on 
the environmental effects particularly by providing assistance for the necessary infrastructure improvements. 
5. The Committee believes the problems caused to Member States by increasing gross vehicle weight 
underlines the need to support the proposal for a Community transport infrastructure fund.' 
Explanation 
Public opinion in the Member States concerned is extremely hostile to increasing lorry weights in the two 
Member States. 
Result of vote 
For: 39, against: 73, abstentions: 7.