EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO 
Bryssel, 23.07.1996 
KOM(96) 244 lopull. 
KOMISSION KERTOMUS 
VÄHEMMÄN KUIN 3,5 TONNIA PAINAVIEN AJONEUVOJEN 
TURVAVÖIDEN PAKOLLISTA KÄYTTÖÄ KOSKEVAN JÄSENVALTIOIDEN 
LAINSÄÄDÄNNÖN LÄHENTÄMISESTÄ 16 PÄIVÄNÄ JOULUKUUTA 1991 
ANNETUN DIREKTIIVIN 91/671/ETY SOVELTAMISESTA 

I. JOHDANTO 
Komissio antaa 16 päivänä joulukuuta 1991 annetun direktiivin 91/671/ETY 7 
artiklan mukaisesti kertomuksen mainitun direktiivin soveltamisesta erityisesti parempaa 
turvallisuutta ja tehokkaampaa yhdenmukaistamista koskevien yksityiskohtaisten 
toimenpiteiden vahvistamisen mahdollisuuden arvioimiseksi. 
Heti alkuun komissio ilmoittaa, että kertomus esitetään jonkin verran myöhässä, 
sillä määräpäiväksi oli määrätty 1 päivä elokuuta 1994. Tästä viivästyksestä ei kuitenkaan 
voida syyttää yksinomaan komission yksiköitä. Laatiakseen tilannetta tarkoin kuvaavan 
kertomuksen komission yksiköillä olisi oltava käytettävissään direktiivin saattamista osaksi 
kaikkien jäsenvaltioiden kansallista lainsäädäntöä koskevat tekstit pian direktiivin 
voimaantulopäivän eli 1 päivän tammikuuta 1993 (8 artikla) jälkeen. Kuten liitteen I 
taulukossa esitetään, vaikka suurin osa maista on ottanut tarvittavat säännökset käyttöön 
joko ennen 1.1.1993 tai vähän sen jälkeen, kaksi maata on siirtänyt siirtänyt direktiivin 
saattamista osaksi kansallista lainsäädäntöään. 
Direktiivin saattamista osaksi kansallista lainsäädäntöä koskevan viivästymisen 
johdosta ja sen vuoksi, että uusia maita oli juuri liittymässä Euroopan unioniin, komissio 
piti suotavana odottaa uusien jäsenvaltioiden liittymistä voidakseen sisällyttää ne 
kertomukseen ja näin esittää koko yhteisön tilanteesta mahdollisimman täydellisen 
selvityksen. 
Eri maiden kansallisen lainsäädännön vertailtavuus ja ajankohtaisuus ovat 
ennakkoedellytys kaikelle tilanteen realistiselle ja objektiiviselle analyysille, jonka pohjalta 
voitaisiin mahdollisesti tehdä aloitteita tulevaisuutta varten. 
Tämä on siis esitetyn kertomuksen tavoite. 
A 
LOPPUPÄÄTELMÄT 
Turvavöiden käyttö ja lasten turvajärjestelmien käyttö ovat ajoneuvojen matkustajien 
tärkeimmät suojelukeinot matkustajien kansallisuudesta tai ajopaikasta riippumatta. On 
myös pidetty tärkeänä, että on olemassa yhtenäistä käytäntöä edistävä yhteisön 
lainsäädäntö. 
Tässä tarkoituksessa direktiivin 91/671/ETY hyväksyminen oli merkittävä askel 
tieturvallisuuden parantamiseksi. 
Vaikka tämä direktiivi saatiin aikaan ennen Maastrichtin sopimuksen hyväksymistä, näin 
jälkikäteen on mahdollista sanoa, että se muodosti konkreettisen esimerkin kahden 
periaatteen välisestä hyvästä tasapainosta jo ennen mainittujen periaatteiden käyttöön 
ottamista mainitussa sopimuksessa: 
yhteisön toimivallan vahvistaminen 75 artiklan muuttamisen jälkeen yhteisön 
liikenneturvallisuuden alalla, johon kuuluu myös tieturvallisuus; 
toissijaisuusperiaate, joka otettiin käyttöön 3 b artiklassa ja joka otetaan uudelleen 
huomioon direktiivissä, jossa annetaan jäsenvaltioille mahdollisuus myöntää 
poikkeuksia kansallisten erityispiirteidensä huomioon ottamiseksi. 
Ottaen huomioon uuden direktiivin1, jossa tehdään pakolliseksi tiettyjen pienlinja-autojen 
ja linja-autojen luokkien varustaminen turvavöillä, komissio aikoo tutkia mahdollisuutta 
laajentaa direktiivin 91/671/ETY soveltamisalaa vaatimalla turvavöiden käyttöä näissä 
ajoneuvoissa. 
Moottoriajoneuvojen turvavöistä ja turvajärjestelmistä annetun neuvoston 
direktiivin 77/541/ETY mukauttamisesta tekniikan kehitykseen 17 päivänä 
kesäkuuta 1996 annettu komission direktiivi 96/36/EY (sitä ei ole vielä julkaistu 
virallisessa lehdessä). 
y/<x 
LIST OF CONTENTS 
I. Introduction 
II. Background 
III. Analysis of the implementation of Directive 91/671/EEC by the Member States 
III. 1 The exemptions covered by Article 4 
m.2 The exemptions covered by Article 5 
III.3 The exemptions covered by Article 6 
IV. Possible future developments 
V. Conclusions 
I. INTRODUCTION 
Article 7 of Directive 91/671/EEC of 16 December 1991 provides that the Commission 
shall submit a report on the implementation of that Directive for the particular purpose 
of establishing whether or not more stringent safety measures and much closer 
harmonization are needed. 
The Commission would point out straight away that this report is somewhat late since 
its deadline had been set at 1 August 1994. Nevertheless, this delay cannot solely be 
attributed to the Commission's departments. Indeed, in order to write a report that 
exactly reflected the situation the latter had to have in their possession the transposition 
texts from all of the Member States by dates that were close to the date of entry into 
force of the Directive, namely 1 January 1993 (Article 8). However, as can be seen 
from the table in Annex I, although the vast majority of the countries introduced the 
provisions needed either before 1 January 1993, or shortly afterwards, two countries 
transposed the Directive after a relatively significant time lapse. 
Owing to this delay in transposition and given the fact that new countries were on the 
point of acceding to the European Union, the Commission considered it appropriate to 
await the entry of those new Member States in order to be able to include them in the 
report and thus present as exhaustive a table as possible showing the situation throughout 
the Community. 
A comparative, updated report on the various national regulations was indeed required 
before any realistic and objective analysis could be made of the situation in order to 
provide openings for the future. 
That is the aim of this report. 
IL BACKGROUND 
1. One of the aims of the common transport policy is effectively to reduce the 
number of traffic accidents and casualties, and one of the forms of action which 
could help to achieve that aim was to make it mandatory to wear safety belts 
throughout the Community in all of the seats fitted to vehicles weighing less than 
3.5 tonnes. 
Directive 91/671 /EEC of 16 December 1991 emerged against this backdrop. It 
may be considered to be a remarkable opening towards a Community road-safety 
policy which affects an area to which the various Community bodies had been 
directing their attention since 1984. 
2. Thus, in a Resolution of 13 March 1984,l Parliament recalled that the compulsory 
use of safety belts on all roads, whether rural or urban, should take first priority 
among the measures to be taken. In another Resolution of 18 February 1986,2 
it stressed the need for making the wearing of belts compulsory for all 
passengers, including children, except in public service vehicles. 
In turn, in its draft Resolution on the implementation of a Community programme 
on road safety sent to the Council on 20 March 1984,3 the Commission 
recommended that various forms of action be taken on, in particular, the wearing 
of safety belts in both the front and rear (of the vehicle). The Council Resolution 
of 19 December 19844 gave a favourable reception to the Commission's initiative, 
stated the need to provide for Community action in the road-safety area, and 
invited the Commission to put forward proposals. 
Thus, on 26 October 1988, the Commission put forward a proposal 
(COM(88)544 final), which was amended on 14 November 1990 (COM(90)524 
final) on the basis of which the Council acted in 1991, having received the 
opinion of the European Parliament and of the Economic and Social Committee. 
3. It is a fact that, before Directive 91/671/EEC, the laws of several Member States 
already contained provisions making the wearing of belts in category Ml, and 
indeed category Nl, vehicles compulsory, but the content of those laws varied 
considerably from one country to another, ranging from the absence of any 
obligation to a general obligation in both the front and rear seats (six countries) 
via diverse and varied situations (obligation limited to the front seats or restricted 
to certain geographical circumstances (outside built up areas)). 
In addition the laws very often applied to differing vehicle categories or included 
different exemption clauses, which did not make it easy to ensure that one 
Member State recognized an exemption granted by another Member State, more 
particularly for medical reasons. 
OJ C 104, 16.4.1984, p. 38. 
OJC68, 24.3.1986, p. 35. 
OJ C 95, 6.4.1984, p. 2. 
OJC 341, 21.12.1984, p. 1. 
In the case of the carriage of children there were very few countries having 
introduced provisions making the use of restraint systems compulsory even if a 
certain number of these had already banned the carriage of children in the front 
of the vehicle or else authorized this subject to the use of a restraint device or 
safety belt. 
Basing itself on these findings and in view of the analysis of the transposition 
texts forwarded by the Member States, it is possible to state that 
Directive 91/671 /EEC has made the following possible: 
speeding up the introduction, in certain Member States, of more binding 
provisions as regards the wearing of belts and/or the use of restraint 
devices for children; 
upgrading the conditions under which belts and restraint devices for 
children may be used; 
promoting homogeneous, more safety-conscious behaviour on board 
vehicles in use throughout the European Union's highway network; 
promoting a citizens' Europe by making travel easier by removing all of 
the aggravations which can arise from differing regulations, particularly 
in the case of serious medical contra-indication, by presenting an 
exemption document whose recognition has been made uniform; 
to reduce the number of traffic accident casualties by simplifying and 
approximating the laws of the Member States; 
prompting vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers to seek 
additional means of protection such as those which supplement and boost 
the effectiveness of belts (for example Eurobags), to make their use 
widespread and to improve the efficiency of existing devices. 
It is however not possible to produce figures assessing the impact of the 
introduction of this Directive since the Commission does not have sufficient data 
in its possession on the rate of safety belt use or the use of retention systems for 
children in the Member States. 
Moreover, owing to the principle of subsidiarily, the system of penalties applying 
to non-compliance with the national provisions adopted in implementation of 
Directive 91/671/EEC and the measures required in order to implement these are 
the business of the Member States. 
in. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 91/671/EEC BY 
THE MEMBER STATES 
Although the Directive has enabled improvements to begin on safety on board vehicles 
at European-Union level by requiring (cf. Article 2): 
acceptance of the principle of the compulsory wearing, at all times, of safety belts 
in all seats so fitted (in the front and rear of the vehicle) of category Ml* and 
M2* vehicles (apart from the rear seats and vehicles having a maximum 
permissible weight of more than 3.5. tonnes and those incorporating 
specially-designed standee spaces), and Nl* vehicles {apart from the rear seats), 
acceptance of the principle of the compulsory use of restraint devices for children 
aged less than 12 years, 
acceptance of the principle of priority being given to the use of seats fitted with 
safety belts or restraint systems for children, 
it has nevertheless afforded the Member States a certain degree of flexibility in adapting 
to these requirements by allowing them to depart from these at three levels: 
(a) the use of restraint systems for children (Article 4); 
(b) for medical reasons (Article 5); 
(c) in order to meet specific situations and needs (Article 6). 
These three types of departure are analysed below. 
m.l Exemptions concerning the use of child restraint systems (Article 4 of the 
Directive) 
Article 4 of Directive 91/671/EEC allows Member States to depart from the requirement 
set out in Article 2(2) that children under 12 years of age and who are less than 150 cm 
shall use a restraint system that is suitable for both their weight and height. 
This exemption which, it must be stressed, only applies on national territory is in fact 
a twofold exemption. 
Indeed, this Article draws a distinction between exemptions for children aged 3 years or 
more (first indent) and exemptions for children less than 3 years old (second indent), a 
distinction that can again be seen in the Table set out in Annex III below (points 1 and 
2) which provides a summary of the exemptions granted by the Member States in 
pursuance of Article 4. 
A reminder of the meaning of these categories is given at the end of Annex II. 
6 
It should be pointed out that the exemption for children aged 3 years or more applies to 
both front and rear seats, whereas the exemption for children aged less than 3 years is 
restricted solely to the rear seats, which again means that children less than 3 years old 
must, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Directive, use a restraint system that has 
been tailored to their weight and size when they are carried in the front of the vehicle, 
this therefore excluding the possibility of using a safety belt or restraint system that has 
been approved for adults. 
Moreover, analysis of the national laws shows that all of the Member States meet the 
requirement (cf. Annex V which gives a comparison of the national laws concerning the 
seating for children on board vehicles). It should also be noted, as regards this Table, 
that Member States have adopted two different philosophies on this point and that these 
are roughly divided into equal parts: the one consisting of banning the seating of 
children in front, except where there are specific exemptions, and the other authorizing 
that seating at the front, together with the mandatory use of a restraint system for the 
under 3 years olds, or the wearing of seatbelts for more than 3 year olds. 
A distinction based on the age criterion has been included in all of the national laws. 
Analysis of those laws (cf. Annex III) enables the following to be stated: 
virtually all Member States authorize children over 3 years of age to use safety 
belts instead of a restraint system; 
Table III (point 2) sets out two different approaches as regards the younger than 
3 year olds: 
the "maximalist" approach adopted by a minority of States, who have 
established the principle of the compulsory use of a restraint system when 
children are carried, with however a certain number of exemptions in 
order to cater for specific situations; 
a "minimalist" approach (majority of States) revolving around that defined 
in Article 4(2) of the Directive, which provides for an obligation solely 
to use a restraint system where one is on board the vehicle. In this 
context this means (a) leaving it to the responsibility of the driver as to 
whether or not to fit a restraint device in the rear of his vehicle and (b) 
not penalizing any failure to fit any such device when a child is carried 
in the rear of the vehicle, in contrast to the logic of the preceding 
approach. Despite the absence of any obligation to fit a restraint device 
certain Member States having adopted that approach have also provided 
for exemptions in order to cover specific situations. 
NB: the absence of any regulation requiring the use of a restraint device 
does not necessarily mean the absence of any other constraint from any 
other source. The adoption of a certain form of behaviour in this area 
may indeed be the result of requirements or incentives arising, for 
example, from a vehicle insurance contract. 
Among the exemptions regarding the use of a restraint device or safety 
belt by children, the most widespread is that justified by the presence, in 
the rear of the vehicle, of a number of persons greater than the number 
of actual seats, followed by that exempting the carriage of children by 
taxis or chauffeur-driven hire vehicles, with, however, certain specific 
features indicated by a reference to footnotes. 
In exemptions concerning children some countries have also expressly 
referred to that for medical reasons, which has thus expanded the number 
of general medical exemptions concerning the wearing of safety belts. It 
is for this reason that they have been included in the table. Nevertheless, 
this does not mean that the other countries do not grant exemptions in 
such cases, since the latter can indeed be covered by the general 
exemption for medical reasons granted in pursuance of Article 5 of the 
directive. 
The other exemptions from the use of a restraint device or safety belt by 
children are relatively marginal in that they only relate to one or two 
countries. 
m.2 Exemptions for medical reasons (Article 5 of the directive) 
Among the various types of exemption provided for by the directive medical 
exemptions are the only ones whose validity is extended ipso facto throughout the 
European Union where validated by a medical certificate bearing the symbol 
described in Article 5. 
This is an automatic, comprehensive exemption which all Member States have 
had to adopt or introduce into their national legislation in order, in particular, to 
include the exemption symbol. 
Since that exemption is required in all of the Member States it proved pointless 
to conduct an exhaustive analysis of it. This is why it does not appear as such 
in the appended table. 
However, a point 1 entitled "owing to specific physical conditions", which also 
concerns situations where medical aspects or criteria come into play is set out in 
the table in Annex IV on exemptions granted in implementation of Article 6. 
It should be noted that the various cases covered (pregnant women, persons 
whose size precludes the wearing of belts, invalids) have been included under this 
heading, having been added to the general case of exemptions for medical reasons 
in certain national laws. 
Nevertheless this does not mean that these countries do not issue medical 
certificates for such exemptions conforming to those referred to in Article 5. In 
such cases, they are covered by the provisions of Article 5 and are thus valid 
throughout the Community. If, however, the medical certificates are not issued 
in conformity with Article 5, they will be valid only on national territory. The 
users concerned should therefore be aware of the limits to the validity of this type 
of certificate which will not benefit from the provisions of Article 5 in the other 
Member States. 
Similarly it does not mean that the countries where the corresponding boxes in 
point 1 of the table in Annex IV are not ticked do not issue medical certificates 
accompanied by the exemption symbol for those same cases. 
ffl.3 Exemptions issued for particular situations or needs (Article 6 of the directive) 
The table set out in Annex IV lists the various exemptions authorized by the 
Member States. 
These exemptions are grouped in four subcategories, thus applying the same 
distinction as that in Article 6 of the directive: 
1. exemptions owing to specific physical conditions; 
2. exemptions owing to specific circumstances; 
3. exemptions intended to enable certain activities to be performed 
efficiently; 
4. exemptions intended to ensure the proper performance of police, security 
or emergency service activities. 
It is above all important to point out again that all of these exemptions, which 
may be described as convenience exemptions, are only valid on national territory. 
It should be stated in general terms that they, or at least most of them, concern 
situations that are restricted in either territorial terms or in time which do not 
involve any frontier crossings. Thus these are more particularly exemptions 
intended to enable certain activities to be carried out efficiently (such as by 
postmen, delivery men, taxi drivers etc.), are intended to ensure that public 
safety or emergency services (such as the police, ambulance or fire services, ...) 
operate efficiently, and are thus exemptions which meet purely national needs. 
Conversely the first two categories of exemption referred to above cover 
situations which can be transposed to other Member States where the users 
concerned are caused to travel beyond their national territorial limits. This 
applies to the exemptions issued in order to take particular account of physical 
states as already mentioned in paragraph III.2 above. This also applies to 
exemptions granted in order to take account of specific circumstances (such as 
reversing, parking manoeuvres, the presence on board the vehicle of more 
persons than there are safety belts available). 
The consequences for these beneficiaries may be treated on the same basis as that 
in section 1. They may therefore find themselves facing the same problem as 
that mentioned in the sixth paragraph of III.2, although the risk is extremely 
limited owing to the very short duration of this type of situation. 
This being the case, even if certain among them are only encountered in a very 
restricted number of countries, all of the exemptions granted by the Member 
States follow the spirit of Article 6 of the directive, the heading of which was, 
in any case, sufficiently broad and flexible to enable a very broad range of 
situations to be covered. 
10 
IV. POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 
A. In terms of exemptions 
Analysis of the various exemptions granted by the Member State on the 
basis of Directive 91/671/EEC illustrates the limits to the possible future 
developments in this area, since they touch upon aspects where national 
competence is clearly affirmed, as least as regards the exemptions 
deriving from Articles 4 and 6. 
Without challenging that national competence, which received formal 
support in the Maastricht Treaty via the introduction of the principle of 
subsidiarity (Article 3b) the following three points should nevertheless be 
stressed: 
A.l As regards the departures set out in Article 4, and more particularly those 
concerning the carriage of children less than three years old, the fact that 
there are two different approaches, as stated in paragraph III. 1, may cause 
problems in intra-Community traffic where a vehicle from a country in 
which there is an obligation only to use a device if it is available on board 
a vehicle travels, without a restraint device, in a country which has 
adopted the maximalist approach by requiring vehicle drivers to carry 
children within a suitable restraint system, without any precise exemption. 
In this particular instance one is again faced with the same set of problems 
as those mentioned in the sixth paragraph of III.2 in that such drivers, 
thinking in all good faith that the regulations in their country are identical 
in essence to those in the other countries of the European Union, could 
encounter some difficulties when driving in one of those countries. 
Although the Commission has so far had no knowledge of any actual 
instances of this it is in general advisable for users in one country to make 
themselves aware or be made aware of the differences in traffic rules in 
force in the other Member States when they need to travel there, whether 
as regards the use of restraint devices or other aspects such as speeds, 
blood alcohol levels, traffic signs, etc. Moreover, the Commission, 
which is aware of the difficulties inherent in those different regulations, 
conducted information campaigns jointly with the Alliance Internationale 
de Tourisme in 1991 and 1992, and intends to do so again. 
If any possible developments in the regulations concerning restraint 
systems were to bé envisaged these should point towards greater 
stringency in the use of such devices, thus moving closer to the principle 
of compulsory use referred to in Article 2(2) of the directive. 
11 
In order, moreover, to make comparisons of the use of restraint devices 
in the various states of the European Union, it will be necessary to have 
statistics on the subject which themselves alone would provide a precise 
overview of the situation in both the "maximalist" and "minimalist" 
countries. Only data of this type would enable an assessment to be made 
of the impact of those two approaches. It is appropriate, in this connection 
to point out that the (UN) Economic Commission for Europe sent out a 
questionnaire in early 1995 to all of those countries involved in the 
activities of the Committee on Internal Transport on precisely the use of 
restraint devices for children. Analysis of this questionnaire should thus 
make it possible to produce more precise data on the matter. Thus, and 
in order to avoid any duplication of effort, the Commission does not 
intend to launch a study on this matter, but proposes that the results of the 
UN study be awaited. 
Moreover, a general introduction of the compulsory use of restraint 
devices is closely linked with the technical improvements in the 
manufacture of the restraint devices themselves, or in the design of on­
board seats via the development of integral seats that can be converted or 
adapted to the carriage of children. 
A.2 No developments as regards exemptions from Article 5 seem worthy of 
consideration since this would be a routine exemption which, however, 
affords the Member States complete freedom in defining serious medical 
contra-indications regarding the wearing of a safety belt or the use of a 
child restraint system. It could not, moreover, be otherwise since 
everybody agrees that the drawing up of a detailed, precise and uniform 
list at European level of the serious medical contra-indications for the 
wearing of a safety belt or use of a child restraint system would be 
impossible to obtain. 
This being the case the introduction of provisions concerning the 
recognition of a medical exemption via the use of a uniform symbol has 
constituted a major simplification for users. 
A.3 It is not possible to envisage improvements at Community level with 
regard to the "convenience" exemptions from the wearing of belts set out 
in Article 6 since any move towards uniformity in this area would have 
no practical effect. 
However, since these are exemptions issued by certain Member States in 
order to take account of specific physical conditions, the Commission can 
only recommend that these states provide as much legal cover as possible 
for the recipients of those exemptions by issuing a medical certificate 
bearing the exemption symbol. 
12 
Exemptions for particular circumstances do not need to be applied 
generally at Community level, especially those concerning reversing or 
manoeuvring in order to park. In view of the brevity of these activities 
and of the fact that they are performed at extremely low speeds, and thus 
in themselves reduce the risk of an accident, harmonization would hold 
only very little appeal except that of reassuring users visiting a country 
where that exemption does not apply. One may, finally, point out that the 
wholesale use of inertia-reel belts nowadays enables drivers to carry out 
this type of manoeuvre completely without necessarily having to remove 
the belt. 
B. Other possible changes in the regulations 
Nowadays all lightweight vehicles ( < 3.5 tonnes) placed in service must be fitted 
with both front and rear safety belts in order to comply with Community law (cf. 
Table II below). 
It should, however, be noted that well before the mandatory fitting required by 
Community regulations, the vast majority of Member States had already made the 
fitting of safety belts mandatory in national terms where those vehicles had been 
registered on their territory. Thus, for example, the mandatory dates as regards 
category Ml vehicles spread from 1965 to 1979 for the front seats, and from 
1969 to 1992 for the rear seats, depending upon the country concerned. Since 
there is no obligation to retrofit at Community level it is thus for those states 
having required the fitting of belts more particularly to the rear seats relatively 
recently to take any action in this direction, where appropriate. 
There are nevertheless vehicle categories to which the fitting of safety belts is not 
yet a requirement, in particular motor coaches. 
The absence of this form of protection on board vehicles of this type has taken 
increasing prominence as a result of the dramatic traffic accidents affecting this 
category of vehicle. The most recent directive on this matter points to positive 
moves in this direction (cf. Table II), since all seats in all new motor coaches 
having European type approval will have to be fitted with safety belts before the 
end of the century. 
However, one must expect the effects of these provisions initially to be limited 
since they are closely linked with the replacement of the vehicle fleet. Indeed, 
owing to the technical problems besetting, in particular, the fitting of belt 
attachment points to vehicles that have not been designed to receive them, it 
would be disproportionately costly to fit them to coaches that are already in use. 
13 
V. CONCLUSIONS 
The wearing of safety belts and the use of restraint systems for children are 
essential protective factors as regards vehicle occupancy whatever the nationality 
of those occupants or on whose territory they are travelling. It was thus 
considered important to have Community regulations that contribute towards 
homogeneous behaviour. 
The adoption of Directive 91/671/EEC has, in this connection, been a significant 
step towards improving road safety. 
Although this Directive came into being before the adoption of the Maastricht 
Treaty it is possible to say, with hindsight, that it has been a de facto example, 
before being so de jure, of a useful balance between the two principles introduced 
by said Treaty, namely: 
an affirmation, following the amendment of Article 75, of Community 
competence as regards transport safety, and thus including road safety; 
the principle of subsidiarity introduced in Article 3b, which can be found 
at Directive level via the scope given to the Member States to grant 
exemptions in order to take account of specific national aspects. 
In the light of the new Directive5 mandating the fitment of seat belts to certain 
categories of minibuses and coaches, the Commission intends to examine 
extending Directive 91/671/EEC to require the wearing of seat belts on these 
vehicles. 
5 Commission Directive 96/36/EC, of 17 June 1996, adaptingtotechnicalprogress Council Directive 
77/541/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to safety belts and 
restraint systems of motor vehicles (not yet published in the Official Journal). 
14 
ANNEX I 
Transposition by the Member States 
of Directive 91/671/EEC of 16 December 1991 
Date of entry into force: 1.1.1993 
COUNTRY DATE WHEN TEXTS DATE OF ENTRY 
TRANSPOSED * _ INTO FORCE AT 
NATIONAL LEVEL 
__B 29.05.1996 01.09.1996 
D 22.12.1992 01.04.1993 
DK 09.12.1992 31.12.1992 
E 08.02.1993 16.02.1993 
_ ; — . ; , _ _ — : 
F 27.12.1991 01.01.1992 
GR 15.02.1993 Date of publication 
^ 17.03.1993 
I 10.09.1993 
IRL 20.12.1991 01.01.1993 
L 16.12.1992 01.01.1993 
NL 14.02.1992 01.04.1992 
——-— " ' ' • r~ 
P 22.09.1994 01.10.1994 
UK 01.02.1993 02.02.1993 
17.08.1993 01.10.1993 N. Ireland 
A 01.1994 
FIN 28.06.1994 01.07.1994 
S 21.06.1993 
15 
ANNEX n 
Community legislation on the fitting of safety belts to vehicles 
VEHICLE 
CATEGORY 
Ml* 
M2* <; 3.5 t 
M2* >3.5t SEATS 
CONCERNED + 
TYPE OF BELT 
front: 3-point belts 
rear: 2-point belts 
rear: 3-point belts on 
the outer seats 
rear: 2-point belts on 
the inner seat 
front: 3-point belts 
rear: 2-point belts 
3-point belts in all 
seating positions 
exposed seats: 2-
point belts 
in all seating 
positions: 
. either 3-point belts 
. or 2-point belts 
(and energy 
absorbing seats. DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION 
OPTIONAL 
28.6.1977 + 18 
months = Jan. 1979 
(Dir. 77/541/EEC) 
July 1981 
(Dir. 81/576/EEC) 
July 1981 
(Dir. 81/576/EEC) 
1.01.1997 
(Dir. 96/36/EC**) 
1.05.1991 
(Dir. 90/628/EEC) 
1.01.1997 
(Dir. 96/36/EC**) 
(Dir.96/37/EC***) MANDATORY 
1.10.1983 for new 
models 
1.10.1990 for all 
new cars 
(Dir. 82/319/EEC) 
1.07.1992 for new 
models 
1.07.1997 for all 
new cars 
(Dir. 90/628/EEC) 
1.07.1992 for new 
models 
1.07.1997 for all 
new minibuses 
(Dir. 90/628/EEC) 
1.10.1999 for new 
models 
1.10.2001 for all 
new minibuses 
(Dir. 96/36/EC**) 
1.07.1992 for new 
models 
1.07.1997 for all 
new coaches 
(Dir. 90/628/EEC) 
1.10.1997 for new 
models 
1.10.1999 for all 
new coaches 
(Dir. 96/36/EC**) 
16 
M3* 
NI* 
N2* 
N3* Exposed seats: 2-
point belts 
in all seating 
positions: 
2-point belts 
(and energy 
absorbing seats). 
front: 3-point belts 
front: 3-point belts 1.05.1991 
(Dir. 90/628/EEC) 
1.01.1997 
(Dir. 96/36//EC**) 
(Dir. 96/37/EC***) 
July 1981 
(Dir. 81/576/EEC) 
July 1991 
(Dir. 90/628/EEC) 1.07.1992 for new 
models 
1.07.1997 for all 
new coaches 
(Dir. 90/628/EEC) 
1.10.1997 for new 
models 
1.10.1999 for all 
new coaches 
(Dir. 96/36/EC**) 
1.10.1983 for new 
models 
1.10.1990 for all 
new vans 
(Dir. 82/319/EEC) 
1.07.1992 for new 
models 
1.07.1997 for all 
new lorries 
(Dir. 90/628/EEC) 
*M1 = Vehicles for the carriage of passengers including 8 seats + that of the driver 
M2 = Vehicles for the carriage of passengers including more than 9 seats and having 
a maximum weight not exceeding 5 t 
M3 = Vehicles for the carriage of passengers including more than 9 seats and a 
maximum weight exceeding 5 t 
Nl = Vehicles for the carriage of goods having a maximum weight not exceeding 
3.5 t 
N2 = Vehicles for the carriage of goods having a maximum weight exceeding 3.5 t 
but not exceeding 12 t 
N3 = Vehicles for the carriage of goods having a maximum weight exceeding 12 t. 
** Commission Directive 96/36/EC, of 17 June 1996, adapting to technical 
progress Council Directive 77/541/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to safety belts and restraint systems of motor vehicles, 
(not yet published in the Official Journal). 
*** Commission Directive 96/37/EC, of 17 June 1996, adapting to technical 
progress Council Directive 74/408/EEC relating to the interior fittings of motor 
vehicles (strength of seats of their anchorages), 
(not yet published in the Official Journal). 
17 
ANNEX m 
Use of child restraint system? on rear seats 
Application of Article 4 of the Directive Annex HI - page 1 
1. ADolication of 
Article 4.1 (children 
from 3 to 12 years) 
- safety belt permitted 
instead of a restraint 
system 
2. Anolication of 
Article 4.2(< 3 
years) 
- obligation to 
transport children of 
less than 3 years 
old in an approved 
restraint system 
- obligation to use a 
restraint system 
only if it is 
available on board 
the vehicle 
3. Exemptions from 
the obligation to use 
a restraint svstem: 
- number of 
transported persons 
higher than the 
effective seating 
capacity in the back 
of the vehicle (e.g. 
large families) A 
X(2) 
X 
X B 
X 
X 
X D 
X 
X DK 
X(8) 
X 
X(9) E 
X 
X F 
X 
X 
X FIN 
X 
X 
X GR. 
X IRL 
X(l) 
X(3) 
X I 
X 
X(7) 
X L 
X(2) 
X 
X NL 
X(2) 
X 
. P 
X 
X 
• s 
X(14) 
X 
X UK | 
X 
X 
Annex III - page 2 
- transport of children 
in the back of taxis 
or of hire vehicles 
- transport of children 
in other vehicles for 
the public transport 
of persons 
- child of less than 
one year transported 
in baby carrier 
retained by straps 
- handicapped child 
with a belt for the 
disabled 
- medical exemption A 
X 
X 
X 
X B D 
X(12) 
X 
X DK 
X 
X(10) 
X(10) E F 
X 
X 
X FIN GR. IRL I 
X(4) L 
X(5) NL 
X(ll) P 
X 
X 
X s 
X(13) UK 
X(6) 
X 
X 
X 
(1) Child from 4 to 12 years 
(2) For a 3 point belt, the use of the under-abdominal element is only permitted on rear seats 
(3) Child of less than 4 years old 
(4) If accompanied by a passenger of more than 16 years old and in a town or travelling between a town and its station, airport or port 
(5) Subject to a ministerial exemption 
(6) Exemption concerning children of less than 14 years, but only in taxis with internal separation (between driver and passenger) 
(7) If a restraint system is not available in the rear of the vehicle, the child must be accompanied by a passenger older than 16 years 
(8) Children between 3 and 7 years old can use safety belts or an approved restraint system 
(9) However, children of less than 3 years have priority for use of the seats fitted with safety belts 
(10) If proved by a doctor's certificate 
(11) Exemption delivered by the Ministry of Transport 
(12) For a transitional period 
(13) When doctor's certificate is issued before travel. 
(14) A child of less than 7 years should use a special restraint system instead of or together with safety belt. 
ANNEX IV 
Exemptions to the wearing of seat belts (in vehicles equipped with belts) 
Application of article 6 of the Directive Annex TV - page 1 
«• 1. Owine to snecial 
physical conditions 
- pregnant women* 
- persons whose size is 
unsuited to the wearing 
of the belt 
- Handicapped persons 
with a belt for the 
disabled 
1. Owing to special 
circumstances 
- when reversing 
- when parking 
- vehicles taking part in 
official corteges or 
processions under police 
supervision 
- when the vehicle is 
moving slowly A 
X 
X 
X 
X B 
X(3) 
X D 
X 
X 
X 
X(18) 
X DK 
X(2) 
X(2) 
X(2) 
X 
X 
X(ll) E 
X(2) 
X 
X 
X F 
X FIN 
X(2) GR. 
X(2) 
X IRL 
X 
X 
X I 
X(2) L 
X(l) 
X NL 
X(13) 
X(14) P S 
X(19) 
X 
X UK 
X 
X 
X 
Annex IV - page 2 
^ 
X - number of passengers 
higher than the number 
of belts installed 
3. In order to allow certain 
activities 
- in the event of frequent 
stops (door-to-door 
deliveries, mail, etc) 
taxi driver at work 
hire vehicle driver at 
work 
driving school teachers 
driving test inspectors 
inspector of the vehicle 
inspection 
testing vehicles after 
repair A 
X 
X B 
X(4) 
X 
X D 
X 
X 
X 
X DK 
X(12) 
X 
X 
X E 
X(6) 
X(6) 
X(6) 
X(6) F 
X 
X(6) 
X FIN 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X GR. 
X 
X 
X IRL 
X 
X 
X 
X I 
X(8) 
X(8) 
X L 
X 
X 
X NL 
X(15) 
X(16) 
X 
• P 
X 
X s 
X 
X 
X 
X UK 
X 
X 
X 
X(7) 
X 
Annex IV - page 3 
(i) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 
(6) 
(7) 
(8) 
(9) 
(10 
(11. 
(12 
(13 
(14 
(15. 
(16 
(17 
(18 
(19 4. in order to ensure the 
smooth operation of the 
activities connected with 
public service, emergen­
cy or security forces 
- police forces 
- ambulances 
- fire vehicles 
- other emergency vehicles 
(gas, electricity 
services,...) 
- transport of prisoners 
- legally recognized 
security services A 
X 
X 
X B 
X(5) 
X(5) 
X(5) 
X(5) D DK 
X 
X E 
X(6) 
X(6) 
X(6) F 
X(9) 
X(9) 
X(9) FIN 
X 
X GR. IRL 
X I 
X(9) 
X(9) 
X(9) 
X(10) L 
X NL 
X(17) 
X(17) P 
X 
X 
X 
X s 
X 
X 
X UK 
X 
X 
X 
The underabdominal element of the 3 point safety belt has, nevertheless, to be used 
If medical reason verified by a doctor's certificate 
Driver only 
Possible for children less than 12 years old on the rear seats 
Only for vehicles equipped with a special signaling when justified by the nature of their work 
In urban area only 
Only if there is a danger for the examinor 
Only for work in town 
Only for emergency services 
Only during essort duties 
Only when the vehicle is used commercially and is driving slowly (with frequent stops not exceeding 500 m) 
Children of less than 3 years old have priority for the seats fitted with safety belts when they must use a restraint system 
Exemption may be delivered by the Ministry of Transport when the underabdominal element of the 3 point belt cannot be used 
Exemption delivered by the Ministry of Transport 
Nevertheless the available safety belts must be used 
In certain cases, the Ministry of Transport may deliver exemptions for operators making frequent delivery or pick-up 
Only in case of need 
On parkingspaces only; 
A child of less than 7 years should use a special restraint system instead of or together with safety belt. 
ANNEX V 
Seating position of children in cars 
** 
UO Obligation to 
transport children in 
the rear of a vehicle 
Age limits 
Exemptions 
- when the vehicle 
does not have any 
rear seats 
- when all the rear 
seats are already 
occupied by 
children 
- when the rear seats 
are temporarily 
unusable (broken 
etc) 
- if a specially 
designed restraint 
system to be placed 
in front is used 
- when the child is 
taller than 1.5 m A 
No 
(2) 
->12 
years(8) 
X(8) 
X(8) 
X(8) 
X(8) B 
Yes 
(1) 
->12 
years 
X 
X 
X 
X D 
No (2) DK 
No (2) E 
Yes 
(6) 
->12 
years F 
Yes 
->10 
years 
X 
X 
X 
X FIN 
No 
(2) G 
R. 
No 
(2) IRL 
Yes 
(3) 
->17 
years I 
No 
(2) L 
Yes 
(4) 
->12 
years 
X(5) 
X NL 
No (7) 
• P 
Yes 
->12 
years 
X 
X S 
No 
(2) UK 
No 
(2) 
(1) permitted however in the front seat if a restraint system (<3 years) or the safety belt (3 to 12 years) is used 
(2) but obligatory use in the front seat of a suitable restraint system appropriate to the size and weight of the child 
(3) permitted however in the front seat if a restraint system ( < 4 years) or the safety belt ( > 4 years) is used 
(4) when rear seats are available 
(5) ban on using a rear-facing restraint system in seats fitted with air bags 
(6) permitted on the front seat if a special security seat for children is used or any other system adapted to their length and weight and duly type approval 
(7) but for children of less than 12 years, obligatory use, in the front, of restraint system if height < 1,50 m or safety belt if height > 1,50 m 
(8) when no restraint system is available for the front, then, other than in exceptional cases, children must be transported in the rear 

ISSN 1024-4492 
KOM(96) 244 lopullinen 
ASIAKIRJAT 
FI 07 06 
Luettelonumero : CB-CO-96-253-FI-C 
ISBN92-78-04590-X 
Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisten julkaisujen toimisto 
L-2985 Luxemburg 
2W