COMMISSION REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 91/671/EEC OF 16 DECEMBER 1991 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO COMPULSORY USE OF SAFETY BELTS IN VEHICLES OF LESS THAN 3.5 TONNES
Date: 1996-07-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, child, motor car, road safety, safety device

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.07.1996 
COM(96) 244  final 

COMMISSION REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
DIRECTIVE 91/671/EEC OF 16 DECEMBER 1991 ON THE 
APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING 
TO COMPULSORY USE OF SAFETY BELTS IN VEHICLES OF LESS THAN 
3.5 TONNES 

LIST OF CONTENTS 

I. 

Introduction 

II. 

Background 

III.  Analysis  of the implementation of Directive  91/671/EEC by the Member  States 

111.1  The exemptions  covered  by Article  4 

111.2  The  exemptions  covered  by Article 5 

111.3  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. 

2. 

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. 

Thus, in a Resolution of 13 March  1984,! 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. 

OJC  104,  16.4.1984, p. 38. 
OJC68,  24.3.1986,  p. 35. 
OJC  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 
it  is  possible  to  state  that 
texts  forwarded  by  the  Member  States, 
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. 

ffl. 

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 
incorporating 
permissible  weight  of  more 
specially-designed  standee spaces), and Nl* vehicles (apaitirom  the rear seats), 

tonnes  and 

than  3.5 

those 

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) 
(b) 
(c) 

the use  of  restraint  systems  for  children  (Article 4); 
for  medical  reasons  (Article 5); 
in order  to meet  specific  situations  and needs  (Article  6). 

These  three  types  of departure  are  analysed  below. 

III.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 meltable.  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. 

III.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. 
2. 
3. 

4. 

exemptions  owing to specific  physical  conditions; 
exemptions  owing to specific  circumstances; 
exemptions 
efficiently; 
exemptions  intended to ensure the proper performance  of police,  security 
or  emergency  service  activities. 

intended  to  enable  certain  activities  to  be  performed 

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  be  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. 

Commission Directive 96/36/EC, of 17 June  1996, adaptingto 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). 

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 

TRANSPOSED 

DATE  OF  ENTRY 
INTO  FORCE  AT 
NATIONAL  LEVEL 

01.09.1996 

01.04.1993 

31.12.1992 

16.02.1993 

01.01.1992 

Date of  publication 

17.03.1993 

01.01.1993 

01.01.1993 

01.04.1992 

01.10.1994 
02.02.1993 
01.10.1993 N.  Ireland 

01.1994 

01.07.1994 

- 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

F 

GR 

I 

IRL 

L 

NL 

P 
UK 

A 

FIN 

S 

29.05.1996 

22.12.1992 

09.12.1992 

08.02.1993 

27.12.1991 

15.02.1993 

10.09.1993 

20.12.1991 

16.12.1992 

14.02.1992 

22.09.1994 
01.02.1993 
17.08.1993 

28.06.1994 

21.06.1993 

15 

ANNEX II 

Community  legislation on the fitting  of  safety  belts to  vehicles 

VEHICLE 
CATEGORY 

Ml* 

SEATS 

CONCERNED  + 

TYPE  OF BELT 

front:  3-point  belts 
rear:  2-point  belts 

DATE  OF  IMPLEMENTATION 

OPTIONAL 

MANDATORY 

28.6.1977  +  18 
months  =  Jan.  1979 
(Dir.  77/541/EEC) 

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**) 

rear:  3-point  belts on 
the outer  seats 
rear:  2-point  belts on 
the  inner  seat 

July  1981 
(Dir.  81/576/EEC) 

M2*  ^  3.5  t 

front:  3-point  belts 
rear:  2-point  belts 

July  1981 
(Dir.  81/576/EEC) 

3-point  belts  in all 
seating  positions 

1.01.1997 
(Dir.  96/36/EC**) 

M2*  > 3 . 5t 

exposed  seats: 2-
point  belts 

1.05.1991 
(Dir.  90/628/EEC) 

in all  seating 
positions: 
.  either  3-point  belts 
.  or  2-point  belts 

(and  energy 
absorbing  seats. 

1.01.1997 
(Dir.  96/36/EC**) 

(Dir.96/37/EC***) 

16 

M3* 

Exposed  seats:  2-
point  belts 

1.05.1991 
(Dir.  90/628/EEC) 

in all  seating 
positions: 
2-point  belts 
(and  energy 
absorbing  seats). 

NI* 

front:  3-point  belts 

1.01.1997 
(Dir.  96/36//EC**) 

(Dir.  96/37/EC***) 

July  1981 
(Dir.  81/576/EEC) 

N2* 
N3* 

front:  3-point  belts 

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 

1.  Application  of 

Article  4.1 ("children 
from 3 to  12 years) 

-  safety  belt  permitted 
instead  of  a  restraint 
system 

2.  Application  of 
Article  4.2(<3 
years) 

ANNEX III 
Use  of child restraint  systems  on rear seats 
Application of Article 4 of the Directive 

Annex III - page 1 

A 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

F 

FIN 

GR. 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

P 

s 

UK 

X(2) 

X 

X(8) 

X 

X 

X 

X ( l) 

X 

X(2) 

X(2) 

X 

X(14) 

X 

' 

X(7) 

X 

-  obligation  to 

X 

X 

X 

X 

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) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X(3) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X<9) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

- 

- 

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 

DK 

E 

X(12) 

X 

F 

X 

X 

FIN 

GR. 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

X(4) 

X 

X(10) 

Annex  III  - page  2 

s 

UK 

X(6) 

P 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X(10) 

X 

X(5) 

X(ll) 

X 

X(13) 

X 

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 

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 

(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) 
(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) 
(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 IV - page 1 

A 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

F 

FIN 

GR. 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

P 

S 

UK 

X(2) 

X(2) 

X(2) 

X(2) 

X(2) 

X 

X(3) 

X 

X(2) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X ( l) 

X(13) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X(2) 

X 

X(14) 

X(19) 

X 

X 

X 

X(18) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

-

X 

X(ll) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

I 

; 

1.  Owing  to special 

physical  conditions 

-  pregnant  women 

-  persons  whose  size  is 

unsuited  to the  wearing 
of  the belt 

-  Handicapped  persons 
with  a belt  for  the 
disabled 

2.  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 

D 

X 

X 

X 

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) 

A 

X 

B 

X(4) 

X 

- 

taxi  driver  at  work 

X 

X 

-  hire  vehicle  driver  at 

work 

-  driving  school  teachers 

driving  test  inspectors 

inspector  of  the  vehicle 
inspection 

testing  vehicles  after 
repair 

^ X 

DK 

E 

X(12) 

F 

X 

FIN 

GR. 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

P 

X 

X(15) 

UK 

s 

X 

Annex  IV  - page 2 

X 

X(6) 

X(6) 

X 

X 

X 

X(16) 

X 

X 

X(6) 

X 

X 

X 

X(6) 

X(6) 

X 

X 

X(8) 

X(8) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X(7) 

X 

X 

A 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

F 

FIN 

GR. 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

P 

s 

UK 

Annex  IV - page 3 

X 

X 

X 

X(5) 

X(5) 

X(5) 

X(5) 

X 

X(6) 

X(9) 

X 

X 

X(6) 

X(9) 

X(6) 

X(9) 

X 

X 

X 

X(17) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X(17) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X(9) 

X(9) 

X(9) 

4 

X(10) 

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 

In urban area only 

If medical  reason  verified  by a doctor's  certificate 

Possible  for children  less  than  12 years old on the rear seats 

(1)  The underabdominal  element  of  the 3 point safety  belt has,  nevertheless,  to be used 
(2) 
(3)  Driver only 
(4) 
(5)  Only for vehicles  equipped  with a special  signaling  when justified  by the nature of their work 
(6) 
(7)  Only  if there  is a danger  for the examinor 
(8)  Only  for work  in town 
(9)  Only for emergency  services 
(10)  Only during essort  duties 
(11)  Only when the vehicle  is used commercially  and is driving slowly  (with frequent  stops not exceeding  500 m) 
(12)  Children  of  less  than 3 years old have priority  for the seats fitted with safety  belts when they  must use a restraint  system 
(13)  Exemption  may  be delivered  by the Ministry of Transport when the underabdominal  element  of the 3 point belt cannot be used 
(14)  Exemption delivered  by  the Ministry of Transport 
(15)  Nevertheless  the available  safety  belts must be used 
(16) 
(17)  Only in case  of need 
(18)  On parkingspaces  only; 
(19)  A child of  less  than 7 years  should use a special  restraint  system  instead of or together with safety  belt. 

In certain  cases,  the  Ministry of  Transport may deliver exemptions  for operators  making  frequent  delivery  or pick-up 

%> 

^ 

ANNEX  V 
Seating  position  of children  in cars 

A 

B 

D 

DK 

E 

F 

FIN 

No 
(2) 

Yes 
(1) 

No (2) 

No (2) 

Yes 

Yes 
(6) 

No 
(2) 

G 
R. 

No 
(2) 

Yes 
(3) 

No 
(2) 

IRL 

I 

L 

NL 

P 

s 

UK 

No 
(2) 

No 
(2) 

->12 
years(8) 

->12 
years 

->12 
years 

->10 
years 

->17 
years 

' 

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) 

X(8) 

X 

X(8) 

X 

X 

-  if  a specially 

X(8) 

X 

designed  restraint 
system  to be placed 
in front  is used 

-  when  the child  is 
taller  than  1.5  m 

X(8) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Yes 
(4) 

->12 
years 

No (7) 

Yes 

->12 
years 

X 

X(5) 

X 

; 

X 

(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 0254-1475 

COM(96) 244  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

07  06 

Catalogue number  : CB-CO-96-253-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-04585-3 

Office for Officiai  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

2y