Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions promoting road safety in the EU - the programme for 1997-2001'
Date: 1997-12-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Union, action programme, information system, road safety, statistics

C 73/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

3.6.
The Committee notes that, subsequent to the
drawing-up of the draft directive and indeed only two
weeks prior to the adoption of this opinion, the Assembly
of the IMO adopted on 27 November 1997 a further

Resolution on the implementation of the ISM Code.
The Committee expects that the Commission will take
the terms of this resolution into account in furthering
the implementation of the directive.

Brussels, 10 December 1997.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions promoting road safety in the EU — the programme for 1997-2001’

(98/C 73/19)

On 16 April 1997 the European Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the
above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 November 1997. The rapporteur
was Mr Ghigonis.

At its 350th plenary session of 10 and 11 December 1997 (meeting of 10 December 1997) the
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 79 votes to one, with five
abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The Commission launched a first action pro-
gramme on road safety (1) in 1993. Significant progress
has been achieved, due in large part to the role of the
Commission and the European Parliament as road safety
champions. Nevertheless, the situation remains far from
satisfactory, as illustrated by the 45 000 people killed
and 1,6 million injured each year.

1.2.
In its present communication the Commission
therefore proposes an additional strategy to accelerate
improvement in road safety. This three-pronged strat-
egy, based on the principle that the high cost of accidents
(roughly ECU 1 million per fatality) should be fully
taken into account in the safety policies of Member
States, comprises the following elements:

— gathering and dissemination of information and best
practice, notably through the setting-up of an EU
road safety information system;

— accident avoidance measures; for example curbing
of alcohol and drug/medicine use by drivers, and the
application of telematics;

— tools to reduce the consequences of accidents when
they occur,
including the development of safety
rating programmes and submission of proposals for
various technical measures.

The key elements of the 1997-2001 programme

1.3.
are:

— a Commission recommendation to fully take into
account the very high costs of road accidents in a
more widespread application of cost-benefit assess-
ments for road safety measures;

— an integrated EU information system including
information on accident statistics, exposure data,
implementation of road safety measures, research,
best practice and the application of existing legis-
lation;

(1) Communication from the Commission for a first action

programme on road safety (COM(93) 246 final).

— measures to combat fatigue and the use of alcohol,

medicines and drugs while driving;

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/67

— application of technology and telematics to ensure

safer driving;

— coordination and support of safety rating systems in
order to provide scientifically correct information to
consumers on the safety aspects of vehicles.

1.4.
Lastly, the Commission will arrange for the
resources required to implement the programme to be
made available through the usual procedures and will
monitor the road safety situation in the EU as well as
report on the progress of the programme in due course.

of which is to allow the Member States to take the most
appropriate measures on the basis of a more thorough
knowledge of past experience and the results of detailed
statistical analysis. They will then have a better under-
standing of the role played by different factors in road
safety. It also takes the view that Community action
should embrace the adoption of coordinated standards,
controls and penalties in areas such as vehicle roadwor-
thiness, granting and withdrawal of driving licences,
and professional drivers’ driving time and rest stops,
with the aim of encouraging road safety and harmonizing
the conditions of competition. Increased harmonization
of road signs is also needed and should be included.

2. General comments

2.1. Overall objective

2.1.1.
The Committee fully supports the initiatives
designed to promote road safety, and welcomes the
Commission communication and the conclusions of the
Transport Council meeting of 17 and 18 June 1997.

2.1.2.
The decline in accidents achieved in recent
years is encouraging and maintaining this trend should
be a priority. In the Committee’s opinion, therefore, the
European Union’s priorities should be the coordination
of initiatives, a better understanding of the problems and
how to solve them, and fostering greater commitment on
the part of both politicians and road-users.

2.2. Subsidiarity

Article 75 of the Maastricht Treaty explicitly
2.2.1.
includes road safety in the transport policy objectives,
thus confirming and reinforcing Community responsi-
bility in this area. The Committee would nonetheless
note that the subsidiarity principle should be brought to
bear in the promotion of road safety, and not merely on
formal grounds, as a matter of principle. There are in
fact considerable climatological and cultural differences
within the EU, and even basic factors such as road-user
education, infrastructure and levels of vehicle ownership
vary.

At the same time, however, there is a constantly growing
international dimension to road safety,
fuelled by
tourism, the movement of goods and Community
technical standards.

This internationalization of road safety means that the
principle of subsidiarity must be employed in order to
achieve specific results, not just to pay lip-service to
lofty principles.

With this in mind, the Committee recommends that the
Member States accept in word and in deed Community
responsibility in this field, insofar as justified by the
legal framework created by the Maastricht Treaty.

2.3. General criticisms

2.3.1.
The Committee would, however, point out
that the promotion of road safety must take into
account the economic needs and budgetary restrictions
of Member States. This means that certain measures are
politically easier to take, even if others might be more
effective. We must be careful that this does not lead to
infrastructure not being improved, road-users — learner
drivers, for instance — not being properly trained, or
measures that are too strict or not strict enough. In
addition,
it is important that measures designed to
improve road safety do not distort competition in any
way.

As part of this, and given the full range of interests
involved, the Committee would endorse an action plan
providing clear and quantifiable advantages at EU level
and supported by the grass-roots players — political
decision-makers, administrations and scientific insti-
tutions as well as the private sector.

As far as the main causes of accidents are concerned,
the Committee takes the view that more attention
should be paid to high and inappropriate speeds and
drink-driving. Drivers over the alcohol limit are respon-
sible for at least 20 % of serious and fatal injuries in the
EU. The Committee thus urges that the Council adopt
the draft directive on blood alcohol levels without delay,
and that this should be merely the first stage in reducing
such levels.

For these reasons, the Committee supports the
2.2.2.
approach proposed by the Commission, the main feature

The Committee asks the Commission to consider, at the
earliest opportunity, the use of numerical targets for the
reduction of fatalities in the European Union against

C 73/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

which the progress of improved road safety can be
judged.

2.3.2.
The Committee would also like to point out
that certain aspects have been either totally omitted
from the communication or dealt with only briefly.
Given the importance of the human factor, it believes
that great efforts should be made to encourage people
to behave in a safe manner. The issue of safe driving is
often not sufficiently addressed either in initial driver
training or in the criteria for issuing driving licenses.
Checks, campaigns and financial penalties are other key
elements in influencing driver behaviour.

More emphasis should be placed on finding out who is
it would be
responsible for accidents. In addition,
valuable to carry out road safety assessments before
investments in infrastructure are made. These would
give maintenance programmes direction and structure.

2.3.3.
Finally, the Committee is disappointed that the
many interesting proposals in the communication are
only contained in the annexes, and that priorities or the
trade-off between costs and benefits are not specified.

2.3.4.
The Committee believes that the estimated cost
of ECU 1 million for each person killed on the roads
should give greater impetus to strengthening the priority
given to road safety at political level. It should encourage
decision-makers to choose effective measures. However,
care must be taken to ensure that the figure is not
misused to replace the most costly measures, such as
certain costly changes to infrastructure, by less expensive
measures. Road safety depends on complex relationships
between vehicle quality, infrastructure and behaviour.
There is a risk that politically expedient choices could
be made which would eventually be to the detriment of
an all-round advanced system.

3. Specific comments

3.1. The CARE programme and its use (point 2.2 of

the communication)

3.1.1.
The CARE database should facilitate a much
greater understanding of the causes of accidents and in
this way provide a basis for legislative and related
non-legislative measures. Even if budgetary constraints
prevent detailed and systematic analysis of the data by
a Community institution, the various national adminis-
trations and scientific, occupational and commercial
institutions in the EU must have access to it in order to
set priorities for action and decide on future legislation.

3.1.2.
The procedure for registering and monitoring
data on accidents should be designed in such a way that
checks can be made to see that the expected advantages

have been secured when a new piece of legislation affects
the arrangements. Without retrospective action of this
kind, the foundations of the legislative programme will
not be as strong as desired and it will not be possible to
ensure that the political will to improve the situation
has been duly harnessed.

3.2. Harmonization (point 3.1 of the communication)

3.2.1.
The Committee believes that it is vital that
legislative measures adopted by the EU are implemented
and upheld uniformly. Lack of harmonization in this
area could create or worsen distortions of competition,
especially in road transport.

3.3. Quantified objective (point 3.2 of the communi-

cation)

The Committee is disappointed that, lacking
3.3.1.
the means to achieve it, the Commission is unable to fix
a quantitative objective for accident reduction. The
Committee is in favour of such objectives at a national
level, and also — as soon as possible — at European
level, as this would necessitate a greater effort to reduce
road accidents.

3.4. Cost/Benefit (point 3.3 of the communication)

Subject

3.4.1.
to the observation contained in
point 3.5.1 below, the Committee supports the use of
the cost/benefit formula for decision-making and in
deciding the priority to be given to various road safety
measures. It supports the Commission’s approach, based
on economic costs and losses, as long as this is not used
to justify cancelling initiatives which would improve
road safety but do not fulfil the condition of ECU
1 million for each life saved.

3.5. Safety performance (point 3.5 of the communi-
cation)

3.5.1.
The Committee welcomes and endorses the
Commission’s positive attitude to the role of cham-
pioning safe vehicle construction and test programmes
carried out by private organizations (EuroNCAP — new
vehicle assessment programmes) to gauge the safety
performance of vehicles. The results of such tests could
be an effective tool to promote the marketing of safer
vehicles: the industry has in fact responded in a very
encouraging manner
to the commercial pressures
brought about by systems which inform consumers
about vehicle safety. Progress is made very much earlier
in this way than through legislative channels.

3.5.2.
The Committee notes — as does the Com-
mission — that there is a problem where differences
arise between (a) statutory testing and the test methods
of private organizations and (b) the test methods of the
various private organizations themselves.

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/69

3.5.3.
In this connection, the Committee welcomes
the Commission’s intention to encourage statutory tests
and those carried out by consumers’ organizations to be
brought more into line, without however calling for the
Commission’s endeavours to restrict the competence and
responsibility of the private organizations concerned.

3.5.4. Nevertheless, the Commission should not hesi-
tate to bring forward legislative proposals. Two areas
for consideration are front underrun protection for
heavy goods vehicles and daytime running lights on
motorcycles and cars.

3.6. The 1997-2001 programme

3.6.1. A n n e x I I I ,

f i e l d 1

While the Committee welcomes the objective of a
cost/benefit analysis of road safety measures, it considers
unrealistic the idea of making a like-for-like comparison
between, for example, education in primary schools and
an obstacle detection system. It also notes that results
of comparisons can vary greatly between countries, and
so would recommend that the terms of reference of these
studies in the FM5s be sufficiently clear.

Brussels, 10 December 1997.

3.6.2. A n n e x I I I ,
f i e l d 1
Although the Committee welcomes the wide range of
the measures set out in the communication, it would
have preferred priorities to be clearly set out. While
recognizing that using the CARE database will enable
these priorities to be defined more accurately, it would
wish to draw attention to the results of research and
studies that are currently available. The Committee
would especially stress the importance of direct action
to influence road users in order to boost the impact of
improvements to infrastructures and vehicle safety,
particularly in the shape of more stringent checks on
driving behaviour and vehicle inspections, backed by a
policy to raise awareness. Publicity is in fact the only
tool available if legislative measures are difficult to
institute or monitor, such as for instance in the area of
tiredness affecting non-professional drivers.
e x t e r n a l
3.6.3. T h e

d i m e n s i o n

a n d

f u n d i n g

The Committee supports the notion of an external
dimension, mainly to ensure that users of Community
infrastructure coming from third countries do not pose
a significant risk.
The Committee points out the importance of having a
Community budget on a par with the expectations
created by the communication. It invites the Council
and the European Parliament to increase the relevant
budget lines in order to avoid the possibility that new
expenditure allocated to collecting and analysing data
could mean less money is available in 1998 and 1999 for
education and the dissemination of information.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS