Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to special provisions for vehicles used for the carriage of passengers comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat and amending Directive 70/156/EEC'
Date: 1998-02-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU law, carriage of passengers, motor vehicle, national law, safety device

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/5

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament
and Council Directive relating to special provisions for vehicles used for the carriage of
passengers comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat and amending
Directive 70/156/EEC’

(98/C 129/02)

On 13 November 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 February 1998. The rapporteur
was Mr Bagliano.

At its 352nd plenary session (meeting of 25 February 1998), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion with 81 votes in favour and four abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The proposal amends the framework directive
regulating the type-approval of motor vehicles in the EU
(Directive 70/156/EEC),
in order to include special
provisions for the type-approval of buses and coaches
(category M2 and 3) (1).

EU type-approval makes it possible to sell and use, in
all Member States, a vehicle which has been type
approved in one Member State. This type-approval
currently only applies to cars (category M1), for which
all the necessary specific directives (45 of them) have
been adopted.

For buses and coaches, the directive on technical
construction characteristics and fitting-out is still to be
adopted.

The present proposal for such a directive is based on
UN-ECE Regulations R36, R52 and R66 (2) — which
have already been adopted in some Member States and
in a number of other European and non-European
countries — and on the UN-ECE draft regulation on
double-decker vehicles.

1.2.
The Commission proposal seeks to set minimum
technical prescriptions to protect passenger safety and
to facilitate the transport of passengers with reduced
mobility.

(1) Category M2: Vehicles used for the carriage of passengers,
comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s
seat, and having a maximum weight not exceeding 5 metric
tons; Category M3: Vehicles used for the carriage of
passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition
to the driver’s seat, and having a maximum weight
exceeding 5 metric tons.

(2) Regulation 36 — large passenger vehicles (more than 22
passengers); Regulation 52 — small-capacity public service
vehicles (fewer than 22 passengers); Regulation 66 —
strength of superstructure.

The prescriptions concern:
— subdivision into classes;
— definition of a low-floor vehicle;
— distribution of passenger and baggage mass on the

axles;

— minimum surface area available for standing passen-
gers and maximum number of passengers accommo-
dated;
— stability;
— protection against fire risks;
— exits (service doors, emergency doors, escape hatches
and emergency windows): number, location, access
and technical specifications;

— access steps incorporated in the vehicles;
— seating and space for seated passengers;
— handrails and handholds for passengers;
— the strength of the superstructure;
— transport of passengers with reduced mobility and

aids for boarding;
— double-decker vehicles.

2. Comments

2.1. Classes of vehicle

2.1.1.

I n t r o d u c t i o n

The classification is based on that used in UN-ECE
regulations. It is designed to provide differing prescrip-
tions, and hence different fittings, for vehicles which
carry both seated and standing passengers (Classes I and
II) and those which only carry seated passengers (Class
III). A similar course is followed for small vehicles that
carry fewer than 22 passengers (Class A with provision
for standing passengers, and ClassB only designed for
seated passengers).

Annex I provides definitions of:
— Class I and Class A vehicles, which are designed
mainly to carry standing passengers, and are hence
for journeys involving frequent stops with short
distances between them;

C 129/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.4.98

— Class II vehicles, which are designed mainly to carry
seated passengers, and hence for long journeys with
infrequent stops;

— Class III and Class B vehicles, which are not designed

to carry standing passengers.

2.1.2.
The technical annexes are based on this sub-
division into classes according to the purpose of the
vehicle, while still offering an equivalent level of safety.
As one of the recitals to the directive states, ‘the principal
aim ... is to guarantee the safety of passengers’.

One safety objective, for instance, is to carry as few
standing passengers as possible if a vehicle is used on
long journeys. Another important safety consideration
is how quickly the vehicle can be evacuated. This dictates
that each seated and standing passenger should have a
minimum amount of space, depending on the ‘class’ of
vehicle.

2.1.3.
The Committee endorses this approach, as it
provides for a reasonable balance between costs and
objectives without compromising the achievement of an
equivalent safety level. The approach is also in keeping
with the UN-ECE regulations, which are constantly
developing.

2.2. Protection against fire risks

The prescriptions contained in the proposal (Annex I,
point 7.5) supplement those of the specific directive on
burning behaviour (95/28/EC). Strictly speaking, they
should therefore be incorporated in this latter directive,
as they cover the same ground. A similar step is already
being taken regarding obligatory seatbelts on Class II
and Class III vehicles, and regarding seat resistance.

2.3. Steps

The proposal (Annex I, point 7.7.7.1) lays down a
maximum height of 32 cm for the first step from the
ground on Class I, II and A vehicles.

However, the Committee points out that for all classes
of vehicle which have to negotiate a variety of gradients
(even in urban areas), and in particular for Class II
vehicles — which are designed for use on long journeys
(at a steady speed) — it is not possible to reduce the
distance from the ground of the first step to less than a
certain limit.

2.4. Strength of superstructure (Annex IV)

The proposal provides for a ‘survival space’ (residual
space) for the passenger compartment if the vehicle rolls
over.

The Committee considers that the residual space should
also be extended to the driver’s compartment, and that
the problem of the overall safety of the driver should be
dealt with in an ad hoc directive forthwith.

2.5.
The Committee would like the directive to specify
adequate emergency exits, and not just to go into detail
on operational matters such as the number of service
doors.

2.6. Carriage of passengers with reduced mobility
aids

and boarding

7.12)

(Annex I, point
(Annex VII)

The proposal gives detailed and comprehensive consider-
ation to the problems involved in the carriage of
passengers with reduced mobility, including wheelchair
users.

The Committee fully supports this, and is pleased that
the Commission intends to undertake additional studies
with a view to constantly improving vehicle access for
persons with reduced mobility. The Committee requests
that the directive should cover the Commission’s com-
mitment to continue examining the issue of accessibility,
in close cooperation with disability organizations.

However, the Committee thinks that the problem must
be tackled realistically if effective results are to be
achieved within a reasonable time-frame. To this end,
and in accordance with the subsidiarity principle and
with differing local and national circumstances, the
Member States could undertake to establish a minimum
quota of buses equipped with boarding aids for passen-
gers with reduced mobility.

The Committee notes that one of the recitals to the
directive states that ‘appropriate technical solutions’
have to be evaluated at a later stage for non-Class I
vehicles, ‘if necessary, on the basis of a report by the
Commission’.

2.7. Article 3 — Basic type-approval, and type-

approval consistent with derogations

The maximum height of the first step from the ground
should therefore be aligned with the prescriptions of
UN-ECE Regulations R36 and R52, which stipulate a
height of 36 cm for Class I and Class A vehicles, and
40 cm for Class II, Class III and Class B vehicles.

The proposal provides for a two-tier system of type-
approval: a basic type-approval, and a type-approval
tied to derogations (Article 3), specified in certain
‘bis’ paragraphs of Annexes I and VIII. The ‘bis’
type-approval — for which some fundamental prescrip-
tions also differ from the basic type approval — is

27.4.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 129/7

designed to provide EU type-approval for vehicles with
special characteristics, as found in some Member States.
The other Member States do, however, have the option
of refusing such type-approval. The Committee under-
stands the reasons which have prompted the proposed
two-tier system of type-approval. It agrees that the
two-tier system should be given temporary status under
Article 3(3), which states that a review may be conducted
in the year 2003.

2.8. Article 4(1)

2.8.1.
Article 4(1) refers to Class I vehicles, which are
‘designed to provide scheduled urban and interurban
services’ and which must:

a) meet the technical prescriptions set out in parts B

and C of Annex I;

b) be equipped with at least one of the boarding
aids for reduced mobility passengers specified in
Annex VII.

2.8.1.1. Whilst it is right that the technical prescrip-
tions should apply to Class I vehicles designed for urban
services, it seems inconsistent with the categorization in
classes to also speak of Class I vehicles designed for
interurban services. The safety prescriptions for Class I
vehicles are not
(see
point 2.1.1).

long journeys

suitable for

The use of Class I vehicles for scheduled interurban
services is thus unacceptable on safety grounds, because
of the higher number of standing passengers and the
reduced space for seated passengers. Article 4(1) should
therefore be amended, at the very least by deleting the
words ‘and interurban’.

2.8.1.2.
Turning to the obligation to equip all Class
I vehicles with boarding aids for reduced mobility
passengers, the Committee refers back to its comments
in point 2.6 above.

Brussels, 25 February 1998.

In the interests of consistency, the prescriptions con-
tained in points 7.12 and 7.13 of Annex I should be
transferred to Annex VII (technical boarding aids) and
should therefore not be obligatory for all vehicles.

2.9. Article 7 — Advisory committee on adaptation to

technical progress

The Committee has already called on other occasions
for retention of the decision-making powers of the
committee on adaptation to technical progress (CATP),
in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 of the framework
Directive 70/156/EEC.

Whilst the Committee understands the need to speed up
the procedure for adapting the directive to technical
progress, it cannot endorse the provisions of Article 7,
which give the CATP a purely advisory role.

3. Conclusions

The Committee supports the aims of the directive, in
terms of both improving passenger safety and facilitating
access for people with reduced mobility. The Committee
therefore asks that:

— in the interests of consistency with the entire rationale
of the annexes, which is based on the subdivision
into classes, account should be taken of the (critical)
comments made in points 2.2 to 2.9 above;

— more particularly, in the interests of consistency
with the mention, in the preamble to the proposal,
of the need for a flexible and concrete approach,
account should also be taken of the (constructive)
comment made in point 2.6 above.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS