OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Directive laying down maximum authorized weights and dimensions for road vehicles over 3.5 tonnes circulating within the Community
Date: 1994-06-01
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: harmonisation of standards, motor vehicle, technical regulations, weights and measures













EUR-Lex - 51994AC0755 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51994AC0755

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Directive laying down maximum authorized weights and dimensions for road vehicles over 3.5 tonnes circulating within the Community  


Official Journal C 295 , 22/10/1994 P. 0072 





Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive laying down maximum authorized weights and dimensions for road vehicles over 3.5 tonnes circulating within the Community (1) (94/C 295/14)On 7 February 1994 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 75 of the Treaty establishing the European 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 11 May 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr Moreland.At its 316th Plenary Session (meeting of 1 June 1994) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion with a large majority, 2 votes against and 4 abstentions.1.  The Commission proposal 1.1. The Commission`s proposal is designed to consolidate the much revised text 85/3/EEC on vehicle weights and dimensions, to extend its provisions to national transport, and to increase the maximum authorized weight for certain six axle vehicles and combinations to 44 tonnes (from a weight limit of 40 tonnes for five and six axle articulated lorries and drawbar trailer combinations in international haulage and 44 tonnes for articulated vehicles carrying 40 ft containers in combined transport). These vehicles must have 'road-friendly suspensions`.1.2. Further the Commission proposes an increase in the maximum permitted width on non-refrigerated vehicles to 2.55 m (2.6 m for refrigerated) from 2.5 m.1.3. At present there is a spread of over 30 % between Member States in maximum permissible weights for the largest articulated lorries. The Commission believes such a situation undermines the 'single market`. However, the Commission considers other technical characteristics dealing with axle weights and maximum weights of single vehicles can be decided on a national basis.2.  General comments 2.1. In 1985 the Community agreed that Member States should apply or move towards 40 tonnes on five axles as the lowest level of maximum vehicle weight for international haulage. However, there clearly remains a wide variety in the national laws on vehicle weights particularly as regards the maximum gross vehicle weight. This situation reflects differences between Member States as regards:- geography;- the relative importance of road haulage;- the role and importance of the railways and waterways in carrying freight;- concerns about the impact of vehicles on the environment;- infrastructure, particularly as regards the structure of bridges.Consequently the Committee believes that any agreement on maximum authorized weights and dimensions will be difficult to achieve in the immediate future. Further it believes that the compromise produced by the Commission will not satisfy the different interests involved - let alone the Member States. For example it will be considered as laying down too low limits by road haulage interests and too high by environmental interests.2.2. The Committee strongly supports the establishment of a border-free internal market but it does not believe the absence of further agreement on maximum lorry weights and dimensions, and their extension to national transport will be a significant obstacle to trade. Further it does not believe that it will have much relevance to laying down a level playing field as regards cabotage (cabotage represents only 0.2 % of total road transport volume).2.3. The Committee notes the Commission`s claim that 'since the maximum weight will be increased in seven of the Member States, this will result in fewer road journeys being required to transport the same amount of goods`. However it wonders how significant this will be and whether or not it will also lead to further switches from transport of freight by rail and waterways and operate to the disadvantage of combined transport. In any event many cargoes are constrained by volume before being constrained by weight`.2.4. The Committee realizes that the proposal has advantages. For example, it would be easier to enforce compliance with the law on weights and dimensions if all Member States had the same maximum limits. (Although this does not absolve Member States from checks at weight-bridges regardless of any change of the law).2.5. Nevertheless, these advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages for most (if not all) Member States and many 'interest` groups. Consequently, although it welcomes the consolidation of existing legislation, updated to take into account technical advances, it cannot see any purpose in pursuing the extension of the provisions to national transport. It does not believe that the internal market advantages are significant enough to justify proceeding with the proposal. The Committee therefore believes that any further work on the Directive be limited to consolidation of existing legislation and that the remainder of the proposal should not be proceeded with, especially as regards the maximum authorized weights.2.6. The Commission should examine the issue in the context of the existing economic, social and environmental situation giving particular attention to effects on distortions of competition in road transport including cabotage with a view to producing a step-by-step programme for harmonization.3.  Specific comments The following specific comments are made only if the Council proceeds with examination of the proposal.3.1.  Preamble: 2nd indent 'Whereas differences`As stated in the 'General comments`, more evidence is needed to substantiate this point. Indeed if there is substance in the point it is likely to be to the detriment of those Member States with low maximum weights. Yet these Member States are clearly reluctant to raise those maximum gross vehicle weights.3.2.  Article 4.4The phrase 'do not affect significantly international competition` is vague. The Commission should be more precise in its wording for clarification and, possibly, give a list of examples in an annex.3.3.  Article 10The date 1 January 1995 is unrealistic particularly as the Directive will have to be translated into national law.3.4.  Annex 13.4.1. 1.2b: As with gross vehicle weight there will be different views which may be difficult to reconcile.3.4.2. 1.3: 'Height` is largely determined by the height of bridges. Some Member States have no height limit. Community legislation seems unnecessary and this could be left to national law.3.4.3. No reference is made to 'spacing` between axles which has an impact on bridge damage.3.4.4. 2.2.1 should be reworded: 'each driving axle other than the steering axles is fitted with twin tyres`.3.4.5. 2.3.3. In order to adapt the mass limits for such vehicles to those similar prescribed for three-axle motor vehicles, a declassed version to 31 tonnes should be provided.`4.  Further considerations 4.1. The Committee understands that certain neighbouring countries of the Community and countries likely to become new entrants such as Sweden and Finland have expressed strongly the view that the Commission`s proposals would be detrimental to their economic interests. Account should be taken of these views.4.2. The Commission should ensure there is compatibility between the work on weights and dimensions and on type approval.4.3. The Commission and the Member States should improve enforcement techniques and procedures.4.4. The Committee regrets that there is no 'fiche d`impact` attached to this proposal.Done at Brussels, 1 June 1994.The Chairmanof the Economic and Social CommitteeSusanne TIEMANN(1) OJ No C 38, 8. 2. 1994, p. 3.