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: Priorities in EU road safety — progress report and ranking of actions"
Date: 2000-10-19
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: accident prevention, consumer information, database, public awareness campaign, road safety, transport accident

C 14/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

6.7.
Prevention policy should include: technical and legal
measures to enable vessels sailing in EU waters to be identified
and tracked; sanctions of a deterrent nature in the event of
deliberate pollution (degassing); and the exclusion from the
EEZ of sub-standard vessels.

6.8.
An ambitious maritime safety policy — for which the
current proposals represent merely a start — should rehabili-
tate the maritime transport environment and ensure that safety
benefits not only maritime-industry professionals but also
shipbuilders and equipment-manufacturers in terms of the

work and skilled jobs it creates. Working conditions and terms
of employment on board vessels should be such that vessels
can operate with maximum safety. There should also be
sufficient qualified inspectors to carry out onboard inspections
of vessel structures, safety equipment, modern navigation
instruments and crew conditions.

The adoption of tougher rules clearly requires a real
6.9.
political commitment on the part of Member States and the
earmarking of appropriate funding, so as to ensure that these
rules are properly implemented as soon as possible.

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

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: Priorities in EU road safety — progress report and ranking of actions’

(2001/C 14/05)

On 20 March 2000 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 28 September 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Ghigonis.

At its 376th plenary session on 19 October 2000 the Committee adopted the following opinion
unanimously.

1.

Introduction

In this new Communication on road safety,

1.1.
the
Commission assesses the progress made since the Communi-
cation of April 1997 (1). It points out that the decline in the
number of road accident victims is levelling off and proposes,
with a view to further promotion of road safety:

— six short and medium-term priorities for action:

— continue to work with and develop the European
New Car Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP):

— campaigns and legislation on seat belts and child

restraints;

— recommendation to the Member

States on

maximum blood/alcohol levels in traffic;

(1) Promoting road safety in the EU, COM(1997) 131 final; ESC

— legislation on speed limiters for light commercial

opinion — OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 66.

vehicles;

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/31

— develop guidelines for management of ‘Black Spots’
(places with a concentration of accidents) and the
design of ‘forgiving’ roadsides (i.e. less likely to cause
injury in the event of an accident);

commitment and an active approach on the part of all the
European and national institutions concerned are needed in
order to ensure that such progress will be achieved on a
permanent basis.

— legislation on car fronts which would be safer for

pedestrians and cyclists.

— five fields of further research to establish whether possible
measures satisfy the cost-effectiveness requirement:

2.2. The proposed approach

— medical standards for driving licences;

— testing for driving licences;

— daytime running lights;

— effect of medicines on driver behaviour;

— post-accident care.

— three priority supporting measures:

The Committee is pleased that

2.2.1.
the initiatives
announced by the Commission respect the framework laid
down in the previous Communication for the 1997-2001
Programme and meet
the requirements identified by the
Committee in its opinion of 10 December 1997(1) for the
setting of priorities and for cost/benefit evaluation:

— the

combination of

and non-legislative
legislative
measures, selected on grounds of effectiveness and the
cost-effectiveness ratio;

— objective, easy-to-apply criteria for prioritising possible

measures;

— the CARE accident statistics database;

— an integrated information system;

— respect for the subsidiarity principle in a field where
national and regional peculiarities can seriously influence
the effectiveness of a measure;

— research into vehicle standards and telematics.

1.2.
Finally, the Commission recommends that Member
States, regional and local authorities establish a practice of
calculating the costs and effects of road safety measures, that
they increase investment in such measures and that they
develop mechanisms which will enable the benefits of such
measures to be felt more directly by those taking the decisions
and bearing the costs of their implementation.

2. General comments

2.1. General aim

2.1.1.
The Committee endorses the objectives of Com-
munity policy on road safety and welcomes this new initiative
on the part of the Commission.

2.1.2.
The Committee shares the Commission’s view that
the overall slowdown in the reduction of the number of road
accident victims justifies new measures. In the absence of other
quantitative targets, the minimum essential requirement is a
constant trend in reducing the number of road accident
victims. The Committee regrets that there does not appear to
be an analysis of the causes of this slowdown, which would
have made it possible to find appropriate solutions. A true

— an effort, nonetheless, to achieve the highest possible
level of harmonisation,
in the interests of European
citizens travelling between countries and of professional
road users.

2.3. General criticisms and suggestions

2.3.1.
In view of the point made in the Communication that
applying best practice throughout the EU would significantly
reduce the number of accidents and victims, the Committee
regrets that a specific initiative to promote best practice has
not been proposed. The Committee calls on the European
Commission to confirm its commitment to actively promoting
the spread of best practice.

The Committee notes that the CARE database, set up
2.3.2.
is not yet being used to the full. The analyses
in 1993,
mentioned in point 2.4 of the Communication show how
useful such a database can be. However, the use made of it so
far has been very limited. If all those concerned with road
safety (authorities, industry, scientists, road users etc.) could
have access to it, CARE would be a much more powerful
instrument for road safety than it is at present.

(1) Promoting road safety in the EU, COM(1997) 131 final; ESC

opinion — OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 66.

C 14/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

2.3.3.
The Committee takes the view that the lack of
precise, relevant data constitutes in general terms a major
obstacle to the development of advanced road safety policies.
Improvements are possible and must be implemented with full
respect for all the factors which, taken together, make it
possible to develop such policies:

uniform maximum blood alcohol
levels to be adopted,
although it does not underestimate the difficulties involved in
reaching agreement on this. It reiterates the proposal it made
in its earlier opinion (1) for the adoption of a directive setting
the maximum blood alcohol
level at 0,5 mg/ml; this rate
would not of course affect stricter measures taken by some
Member States.

— data collection

— data processing

— data analysis

— information on the policy pursued.

2.3.4.
The Committee points out that the behaviour of road
users depends to a large extent on knowledge and attitudes
acquired at a very early age. Education in road safety, especially
at primary school,
is a basic prerequisite for success, and
Community standards could be drawn up for this.

3.

Specific comments on the initiatives proposed

3.1. Priorities for action

3.1.1.
The Committee endorses the Commission approach,
which involves incorporating non-legislative measures more
in a coherent road safety policy.

3.1.2.
Indeed, the information derived from the EuroNCAP
Programme is more useful than a legislative approach in
the safest vehicles, and the
promoting the marketing of
campaigns, like the information for road users, influence the
human factor which is decisive for road safety.

3.1.3.
The Committee also endorses the initiatives to pro-
mote improvement of infrastructure with a view to road safety
(‘Black Spots’, ‘forgiving’ roadsides). Accident prevention and
impact reduction in the event of accident should be included
in these types of infrastructure improvement based on road
safety. The Committee takes the view that
infrastructure
managers, just like vehicle manufacturers through the Euro-
NCAP Programme, could be guided in this direction through
the publication of comparative data on the safety of road
infrastructure.

3.1.5.
The Committee endorses the initiatives for legislative
measures on the use of seat belts and child restraints. Given
that this type of measure should not systematically exclude
categories of vehicle or transport categories, the Committee
recommends that, for example, in the case of public transport,
taxis and commercial vehicles, legal provisions should take
account of the operational and commercial aspects.

3.1.6.
The Committee supports in principle extending the
fitting of speed limiters to other commercial vehicles. However,
it would point out that in the long term variable speed limits,
depending for example on weather conditions and traffic
intensity, are preferable to fixed limits. Technical progress
would make possible the introduction of such systems for all
categories of road vehicle in the near future. Current speed
limiters are not capable of operating in such a system.
Extension of the use of compulsory speed limiters should
therefore be gradual, and special attention should be given to
possible untoward effects, such as increased use of vehicles
with a gross weight just below the limit,
involving more
vehicle-kilometres, higher levels of emissions and higher road
safety risks.

3.2. Further research

The Committee welcomes the subjects proposed for further
research. The effects of medicines and drugs on drivers’
behaviour,
in particular, should be studied as a matter of
priority. Despite the usefulness of certain practical measures
(warnings, comparative data), the constantly growing use of
such substances leads the Committee to recommend binding
measures to penalise people driving while under the influence
of medicines and drugs. Such measures mean that information
must be provided as of now about their effects for all parties
concerned (pharmaceutical companies, doctors, chemists,
users).

The Committee attaches great importance to con-
3.1.4.
tinuing the measures taken to combat drink-driving. It regrets
the Commission’s claim that it is apparently impossible for

(1) ESC Opinion 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, OJ C 73,
9.3.1998.

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/33

3.3. Supporting measures

In the Committee’s view, the rapid development of
3.3.1.
the CARE database is a key factor for any prioritisation and
any road safety policy based on the cost-efficiency principle.
That is why the Committee mentioned it above in the section
General criticisms and suggestions.

on construction and maintenance of road infrastructure should
be more geared to road safety; telematics would be very useful
for improving respect for the rules of the road and for
communicating to road users any information likely to
encourage safety-orientated behaviour.

4. Conclusion

3.3.2.
The Committee endorses the two other supporting
measures — an integrated information system and research
into vehicle standards and telematics. However, it feels that
this research should also cover road infrastructure. Standards

In general,
the Committee supports any action likely to
improve road safety. In particular, it is pleased that the Council
of Transport Ministers adopted a resolution on 26 June 2000
on strengthening road safety, which indeed accords with the
measures advocated in this opinion.

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committtee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 on the
harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil
aviation’

(2001/C 14/06)

On 27 April 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article
80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 September 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr von Schwerin.

At its 376th plenary session of 19 October 2000 (meeting of 19 October) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 94 votes, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

2. Gist of the Commission proposal

1.1.
The Commission proposal for a regulation is intended
to harmonise technical requirements and administrative pro-
cedures in the field of civil aviation. The idea is that, in future,
JAR-OPS 1 (Joint Aviation Requirements for the operation of
aircraft engaged in commercial air transportation) — issued by
the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) and already incorporated
(with minor
by Member States into national
amendments) take the form of a regulation published by the
Commission.

law — will

The Commission’s explanatory memorandum to the

2.1.
proposal makes the following points:

2.1.1. When drawing up the second liberalisation package
in 1989,
the Council and the Commission agreed that
Community air transport policy also had to address the har-
monisation of the regulatory framework applicable to civil
aviation in order both to maintain a high level of safety and to
ensure fair competition in the internal market.