WRITTEN QUESTION E-0066/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Delays in rescue operations after road accidents because of secrecy surrounding technical innovations in cars

1. Is the Commission aware that car manufacturers usually keep secret new ways in which they protect their products from collision (e.g. stronger bodywork, airbags and seat belt tightening devices), with the result that firemen and other emergency services often do not know how to remove trapped occupants from wrecked vehicles without delay?

2. Does the Commission agree that the secrecy referred to in question 1 is probably due to the fact that manufacturers want to keep the technical innovations in their products concealed from competitors as far as possible, but that this is pointless because no manufacturer can prevent his competitors from buying the car and stripping it down?

3. Does the Commission agree that maintaining secrecy can lead to a loss of life and to an increase in permanent injury as a result of delays in medical treatment?

4. What does the Commission think it can do to help set up, as soon as possible, a central database so that the fire services and other emergency services in all Member States are informed by car manufacturers and importers as soon as possible, and in as much detail as possible, of how cars involved in accidents can be opened without delay?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

The Commission agrees with the honourable Member that the speed of rescue operations is a vital factor in minimising the consequences of injuries suffered in road accidents.

However, the Commission is not aware of any fact, real or alleged, that would indicate a desire or a policy for secrecy in this area on the part of car manufacturers. As the honourable Member points out, it is standard practice among manufacturers to dismantle the vehicles of competitors in order to discover the latest developments.

With regard to the protection of secrets or innovations, manufacturers tend to adopt the following approach: when a manufacturer wants to safeguard an innovation that improves the service to customers (which applies to the safety devices mentioned by the honourable Member) and gain or maintain a competitive edge, he patents it.

As for the possibility of speedy rescue for the occupants of a vehicle after an accident, the following may be assumed:

- either the accident occurs with a degree of severity covered by the two directives on side impact and front impact Directive 96/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1996 on the protection of occupants of motor vehicles in the event of a side impact and amending Directive 70/156/EEC(1), and Directive 96/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on the protection of occupants of motor vehicles in the event of a frontal impact and amending Directive 70/156/EEC(2) and in this case the requirement is for the occupants to be extricated without the aid of tools (by opening the doors, freeing the lower limbs from the pedals, unbuckling the seat belt, while the airbag offers no obstacle to extrication, regardless of whether or not it opens during the accident);

- or the accident is very severe and the wrecked state of the vehicle requires the use of special tools such as hydraulic cutters or electric saws to cut the bodywork, as well as cutters or knives to cut the safety belts, if need be.

According to the information available to the Commission, there are no examples of technical innovation that would prevent the use of such tools and procedures.

(1) OJ L 169, 8.7.1996.

(2) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.