Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - on the Implementation of Council Directive 92/6/EEC OF 10 february 1992 on the Installation and use of speed Limitation Devices for Certain Categories of Motor Vehicles in the Community
Date: 2001-06-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: commercial vehicle, motor vehicle, road transport, speed control, vehicle parts












EUR-Lex - 52001DC0318 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



52001DC0318

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - On the Implementation of Council Directive 92/6/EEC OF 10 february 1992 on the Installation and use of speed Limitation Devices for Certain Categories of Motor Vehicles in the Community  /* COM/2001/0318 final Volume I */  









REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL - ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/6/EEC OF 10 FEBRUARY 1992 ON THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES FOR CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN THE COMMUNITY1. INTRODUCTION1.1. REASON FOR THE REPORTCouncil Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community [1] was adopted on 10 February 1992. This Directive laid down rules requiring speed limitation devices for category M3 vehicles having a maximum weight exceeding 10 metric tonnes and for category N3 vehicles, categories M3 and N3 [2] as defined in Annex II to Directive 70/156/EEC [3]. In the preamble to Directive 92/6/EEC it was stated that, as a first step, requirements should be introduced in the case only of the heaviest categories of motor vehicles which are most involved in international transport. Thereafter, depending on technical possibilities and experiences in Member States, these requirements could be extended to lighter categories of motor vehicles.[1]  OJ L 057, 2.3.1992, p. 27.[2]  The definition of the categories as well as some practical definitions (passenger car, bus, van, light truck and lorry) is given in the Annex.[3]  Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ No L 42, 23. 2. 1970, p. 1) as amended.On this basis the Commission has drawn up this report on the implementation of Council Directive 92/6/EEC.This report also deals with some provisions of Council Directive 96/96/EC [4] related to roadworthiness tests of speed limitation devices for motor vehicles as well as of Council Directive 92/24/EEC [5] related to the type approval of speed limitation devices.[4]  Council Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ L 046, 17.2.1997, p. 1).[5]  Council Directive 92/24/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to speed limitation devices or similar speed limitation on-board systems of certain categories of motor vehicles (OJ L 129, 14.5.1992, p. 154).1.2. LEGAL SITUATIONThe justifications for the introduction of speed limitation devices were safety and environment, with four basic arguments.Firstly, heavy goods vehicles and buses need to have large engines in order to provide them with sufficient power to ascend hilly roads when loaded. Clearly the consequence of this is that when the same vehicles operate on flat or descending roads or when empty their power output capability may not only be greater than that needed to operate safely but, if unrestricted, may even pose an excessive risk for vehicle performance in, for example, braking or tyre performance.Secondly, lower speed results in less road accidents and fewer casualties on roads.Thirdly, lower speed means lower fuel consumption and less vehicle emissions.Fourthly, driving at lower speed causes less wear and tear of the engine, brakes and tyres and thus indirectly further improves road safety and environmental performance of a vehicle because of its better technical condition.For these reasons the mandatory use of speed limitation devices was foreseen, as a first step, for category M3 vehicles (buses) having a maximum weight exceeding 10 metric tonnes and for category N3 vehicles (lorries). The initial limitation to these categories was made partly on the basis that such vehicles had the most powerful engines which when compared with the vehicle's other performance characteristics was the cause of some concern and partly because some Member States had already introduced requirements for the installation of speed limitation devices to vehicles of these categories.As a result of the Directive the mandatory installation and use of speed limitation devices throughout the EU was introduced in three phases:* from 1 January 1994 for new vehicles,* from 1 January 1995 for vehicles registered between 1 January 1988 and 1 January 1994, performing international journeys, and* from 1 January 1996 for all vehicles registered on or after 1 January 1988.Article 2 of the Directive requires the installation of speed limitation devices with a maximum set speed of 100 km/h for category M3 vehicles and Article 3 requires the installation for category N3 vehicles of speed limitation devices set in such a way that maximum speed of 90 km/h cannot be exceeded.Derogations were laid down in Article 6 of the Directive, where it was stated that the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 do not apply for motor vehicles used by armed forces, civil defence, fire and other emergency services and forces responsible for maintaining public order or for motor vehicles which:- by their construction, cannot drive faster than the limits provided for in Articles 2 and 3,- are used for scientific tests on roads,- are used only for public services in urban areas.The technical requirements for type approval of speed limitation devices were laid down in Council Directive 92/24/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to speed limitation devices or similar speed limitation on-board systems of certain categories of motor vehicles.2. EFFECTS OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICESSome studies have been made on the effects of the use of speed limitation devices on vehicles in comparison with vehicles not fitted with them.The studies differ slightly in their conclusions but the following overall positive effects are noted: lower fuel consumption (from 3 to 11 %), lower maintenance costs (tyres, brakes, engine), increased road safety (fewer casualties), more relaxed driving and lower insurance premiums as a consequence of less accidents. As negative effects the following are noted: decreased road safety when performing an overtaking manoeuvre as overtaking another vehicle takes relatively longer, and increased delivery times as the journey takes longer to make.Whilst not indicated in these studies, it is clear that a further positive effect is that vehicle emissions (CO2 and NOx) are reduced when speed is reduced, because these are directly proportionally linked to fuel consumption.An indirect effect is that the long overtaking manoeuvres of vehicles fitted with speed limitation devices have the effect of reducing the average speed of other road users.To summarise, it is clear that the known effects of speed limitation devices are generally very positive for drivers, for companies, for society and for the environment. The negative aspects are small and avoidable: if all the speed limitation devices were set accurately to the same speed, there would be less need for overtaking, and as the use of speed limitation devices is accepted, the timetables given to the drivers are more realistic in comparison with the old practice of giving unrealistic timetables which, to be met, required speeding.3. THE CURRENT SITUATION: FUNCTIONING OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES AND PROBLEMS3.1 DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES AND THEIR PROPERTIESSpeed limitation devices are divided in two major groups, electromechanical and electronic. Their main working principle is the same: if the actual speed is beginning to exceed the set speed, the fuel injection pump is effected resulting in the speed being lowered. The systems may include a cruise control allowing the speed to be set to any limit up to the legally required maximum set speed of the speed limitation device.The electromechanical system is normally used when retrofitting speed limitation devices to vehicles already in use. They use a signal either from the tachograph or from the speedometer. Because of the retrospective nature of the installation, electromechanical systems are more prone to tampering e.g. by disconnecting the cables or changing the set speed. Therefore this risk is overcome by requiring that all parts of the system be sealed, making it easier to detect signs of tampering.The electronic system is integrated into the on-board electronics of the vehicle itself. It is installed and tuned when the vehicle is built in the factory. As it is not as easily accessible, the risk of tampering is much less.3.2 PERIODIC VERIFICATION OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICESIn Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community, Articles 2 and 3 require the installation of speed limitation devices with a certain set speed and Article 5 requires that this shall be done by workshops or bodies approved by the Member States.As with any device, a speed limitation device can break down. Under such circumstances the onus is on the driver or the company to get the device repaired, as there are currently no requirements for periodic checking of the functioning of the speed limitation device, but only on the correct installation.In Annex II to Council Directive 96/96/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers, item 7.10 requires the compulsorily testing only as follows:"- where possible, check whether speed limiter is fitted as required by Directive 92/6/EEC- check validity of speed limiter plate- where practical, check that the seals of the speed limiter and, where appropriate, any other means of protecting the connections against fraudulent manipulation are intact."3.3 STUDIES ON THE FUNCTIONING OF SPEED LIMITATION DEVICESTwo studies are known to have been conducted concerning the functioning of speed limitation devices in vehicles in use.In a study in the UK, where 156 vehicles were tested, the speed limitation device worked correctly only in one third of the vehicles. In 25 % of the vehicles the speed limitation device was not operating and in 35 % of the vehicles the calibration was incorrect. In the rest either no speed limitation device was installed or the data plate was incorrect.In a study in Germany, where 5281 vehicles were tested, the set speed was too high in 12,8 % of the vehicles, the speed limitation device was missing or non-operational in 4,6 % and the data plate was missing in 5,1 %. In total the speed limitation device was not functioning correctly on 20,7 % of the vehicles.Both of the studies concluded that testing the operational functioning of the speed limitation device might be done quickly and in an inexpensive way.3.4 POSSIBILITIES FOR FUNCTIONAL VERIFICATION OF THE SPEED LIMITATION DEVICESAs a consequence, taking into account the studies in Germany and in the United Kingdom and the fact that the correct functioning of a speed limitation device is a vital issue both for traffic safety and the environment as well as ensuring fair competition between operators, the operational functioning of speed limitation devices should be tested periodically. The studies show that it is possible to perform this quickly and in an inexpensive way.This periodic verification could be done even more simply for the vehicles that are fitted with the new recording equipment (digital tachograph) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 of 24 September 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and Directive 88/599/EEC concerning the application of Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 [6]. New vehicles are supposed to be fitted with such equipment from the year 2003.[6]  OJ L 274, 9.10.1998, p. 1.This equipment will record the actual speed of the vehicle for every second of the last 24 hours of movement, but it will also store data concerning speeding. Data will be stored whenever the speed of the vehicle exceeds the limit laid down in speed limitation device legislation by more than 1 km/h, i.e. 90 km/h for category N3 vehicles and 105 km/h for category M3 vehicles with a mass over 10 tonnes. For each instance of speeding the digital tachograph records the date and time of the start and finish of the speeding incident, maximum speed as well as the average speed during the incident and driver identification. The number of similar incidents is recorded for each calendar day.The most serious incidents, i.e. with the highest average speed, are stored for each of the 10 last days of occurrence and the for the five most serious events over the last 365 days, as well as for the first incident after the last calibration of the recording equipment. This means that simply by looking at the stored data on speeding incidents it is clear whether the speed limitation device is functioning correctly.Furthermore, when Council Regulation (EC) 2135/98 was adopted, the Council and the Commission made a joint declaration that the digital recording equipment provides a means for checking the speed limitation device fitted in the vehicle.Therefore the periodic verification could be done during the roadworthiness testing of the vehicle either by testing the speed limitation device itself or checking the data records in the memory of the digital recording equipment. Thus, the Commission has the intention to bring forward a proposal to amend point 7.10 of Annex II to Directive 96/96/EC as follows:"- check whether speed limiter is fitted as required by Directive 92/6/EEC- check validity of speed limiter plate- check that the seals of the speed limiter and, where appropriate, any other means of protecting the connections against fraudulent manipulation are intact- check that the set speed of the speed limitation device is such that the limits according to Article 2 and Article 3 of Directive 92/6/EEC are not exceeded or if the vehicle is fitted with recording equipment according to Annex 1 b to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and Directive 88/599/EEC concerning the application of Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 [7], check in the overspeeding event data record of the recording equipment, whether the limits according to Article 2 and Article 3 of Directive 92/6/EEC have been exceeded."[7]  OJ L 274, 9.10.1998, p. 1.3.5 COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBER STATESThe Commission asked the Member States to share the experience gained by their Authorities as well as by all companies and organisations involved in the subject. An answer was received only from Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom.The Danish authorities noted the positive effects that speed limitation devices have had on road safety and environmental protection. As high speed is related to the extent of damage to persons and property in the case of an accident, it was proposed that the set speed could be even lower than today in order to further improve road safety. It was also stated that because of competition between companies, tampering with the device occurs. The Danish authorities felt that this could be dealt with in three ways. First of all the speed limitation device should be installed in such a way as to make tampering difficult. Secondly, the speed limitation device should be verified periodically. Thirdly, the penalties for tampering should be high, e.g. the risk of losing one's driving licence or the haulier's licence when fraud occurs.The Spanish authorities sent statistics of some 80 000 checks carried out, which revealed around 6 % of the vehicles were infringing the Directive. Of the infringements over a half (54 %) concerned incorrect functioning of the device, nearly one fifth (17 %) were of excessive speed. Other major causes of infringement included the non-fitment of the device (6 %), the tampering with the device (6 %) as well as the lack of type approval (4 %).The reply from the Luxembourg authorities focussed on one point of application of the Directive. It is required that for heavy goods vehicles (N3) the speed limitation device should be installed in such a way that a maximum speed of 90 km/h cannot be exceeded, but the text also indicates the figure of 85 km/h as a maximum set speed "bearing in mind the technical tolerance which is allowed, at the present state of technology", which has led to proceedings in some Member States against drivers whose native Member State allows a higher set speed for more sophisticated equipment.The United Kingdom authorities stated that although some problems exist with tampering of the speed limitation device and thus more enforcement is needed, the overall results of the use of speed limitation device are positive, especially in lowering the average speed of buses and their accident and casualty rates.These contributions from the four Member States support the general idea that although the present system has had a very positive effect both on road safety and environmental protection, some problems of use still exist. Consequently, more enforcement is needed, at least in the form of a periodic verification of the speed limitation device.3.6 OTHER PROBLEM AREASThe following additional problems were identified after years of experience.A first problem is that vehicles registered before 1 January 1988 are not required to have speed limitation devices installed. Taking into account that these vehicles are in a worse technical condition than modern vehicles, consideration was at the time given to extending the scope of Directive 92/6/EEC to include all vehicles concerned regardless of the date of first registration. However as this would have caused political difficulties and the number of vehicles was limited it was decided already in 1991 to accept this distortion. The number of such vehicles is very limited and diminishing all the time.A second problem is that vehicles registered outside the EEA are exempted from the mandatory fitting of speed limitation devices. There is no other easy solution to this other than to seek to require the use of speed limitation devices on vehicles as an obligation in future transport agreements with non-EEA countries.4. COST-EFFECTIVENESS4.1 STUDY ON THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE TO INCLUDE CATEGORY N1 AND N2 VEHICLES (ALL GOODS VEHICLES)As Directive 92/6/EEC required speed limitation devices as a first step only for the heaviest categories of motor vehicles, the question of the effects of introducing speed limitation devices to lighter categories of vehicles has been studied.In a study in the Netherlands it was concluded that speed limitation devices for lighter vehicles would have a positive effect both for the transport sector and for society. These calculations were done separately.4.1.1. Cost-effectiveness for the transport sectorFor the transport sector, the following effects were taken into account:- reduced fuel costs,- reduced tyre wear,- reduced insurance premiums due to fewer accidents,- installation costs of speed limitation devices and- cost of the extra journey times, assuming that speed limits on roads were previously adhered to.Factors such as reduced wear to the engine and gearbox, longer vehicle life and reduced speeding fines were not taken into account.If the speed limitation device was to be set in a way that the speed of 90 km/h could not be exceeded as is the current case for heavy goods vehicles, the resulting benefit would be EUR 26 per van (a category N1 vehicle) and EUR 450 per light truck (a category N2 vehicle), totalling 40 million euro in the Netherlands.4.1.2 Cost-effectiveness for societyAt the macro-economic level, the following effects were taken into account:- reduced CO2 and NOx emissions,- reduced noise nuisance,- reduced fuel costs,- reduced tyre wear,- benefits from fewer and less severe accidents,- cost of speed limitation device installation.Among the factors not taken into account were the following:- reduced wear e.g. to the engine and gearbox,- longer vehicle life and- fewer speed checks, but more vehicle checks for compliance with speed limitation device regulations- equalised competition.According to the calculation, if the speed limitation device was to be installed in a way that the speed of 90 km/h could not be exceeded, the resulting benefit would be EUR 89 per van and EUR 410 per light truck, totalling 89 million euro in the Netherlands.From the facts that the benefit per van is much lower that per light truck and that vans are used mostly in urban distribution, where a speed limitation device does not have any effect, one can conclude that an extension of the scope of the Directive to include vehicles of category N1 is not justified.4.1.3 Cost-effectiveness for the European UnionTaking into account that the national traffic in the Netherlands forms only some 3 % of all the road traffic in the EU and extrapolating the results accordingly, it can be estimated that the total benefits of introducing speed limitation devices with a maximum speed of 90 km/h to light trucks (Category N2) in the EU would be around 3 billion euro.Furthermore, concerning equalised competition, it should be noted that by having no speed limitation devices in category N2 vehicles, in combination with less stringent driving licence qualifications (driving licence subcategory C1 is sufficient for driving goods vehicles of up to 7,5 tonnes) companies using smaller trucks compete unfairly with bigger lorries. And yet bigger lorries are cleaner and safer: one fully laden vehicle of 38 tonnes produces less emissions, less road wear and less congestion and consequently is better for the environment than the equivalent load being transported by 5 vehicles of 7,5 tonnes. On the other hand, vehicles of category N1 are more comparable with passenger cars (category B driving licence is sufficient for driving goods vehicles unto 3,5 tonnes, i.e. category N1) and their use is mainly restricted to local distribution or personal non-commercial use.4.2 EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE TO INCLUDE ALL CATEGORY M2 AND M3 VEHICLES (ALL BUSES)Further benefits would be gained by installing speed limitation devices to all buses, i.e. extending the scope to cover all M2 and M3 vehicles used for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat. In this case the set speed should be the same as that already existing for category M3 having a maximum weight exceeding 10 tonnes, i.e. 100 km/h.4.3 EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE TO INCLUDE CATEGORY M1 (PASSENGER CARS) AND N1 (VANS) VEHICLESIt is obvious that buses and lorries are not the only vehicles responsible for emissions and traffic accidents - indeed, they are not even the chief cause. A similar argumentation concerning the relation of speed with road safety and environmental aspects is valid also for vans and passenger cars. However, it must be recognised that the limitation of the maximum speed of cars would be a highly controversial and political issue. Further political discussion is needed before the possible introduction of some sort of speed management systems also in category M1 and N1 vehicles, i.e. passenger cars and vans. In some non-European countries an audible alarm activating when the car is going faster than the maximum speed limit has been used successfully. The ongoing work with intelligent speed management using intelligent speed adaptation (ISA), with the aims of having solutions to speed-related problems may lay the ground for future possibilities. ISA-systems are explained in the next chapter as well as their possible use for other vehicle categories.4.4 SPEED MANAGEMENT USING INTELLIGENT SPEED ADAPTATION (ISA) FOR OTHER CATEGORIES OF MOTOR VEHICLESIntelligent speed adaptation (ISA) is a way of resolving speed-related problems in different ways. ISA permits the adaptation of the speed of the vehicle to the maximum authorised speed of a given road. ISA requires a frequent exchange of information between the infrastructure and the vehicle. Different forms of ISA systems can be envisaged. The system may be purely informative, giving the driver a signal when the speed limit is exceeded. It may be actively supporting, requiring action from the driver to exceed the speed limit. This could mean, for example, that the accelerator pedal is locked when the vehicle reaches the maximum speed and greater effort is needed to depress it and exceed the speed limit. The system could be designed to forbid vehicles exceeding the speed limit or it may store the violations in the system, which would be used for legal proceedings against the driver. The latter may be used in specific transportation, e.g. school taxis. All the other systems could be used in combination with the speed limitation device for all other vehicle categories.5. CONCLUSIONS AND ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN5.1 CONCLUSIONSIt has been proven that speed limitation devices are a good tool both in improving traffic safety and in promoting less polluted environment. Further positive effect may be obtained by enlarging the scope of Directive 92/6/EEC to cover new categories of vehicles and by amending Directive 96/96/EC to include the periodic functional verification of the speed limitation device.5.2 ACTIONS TO BE TAKENOn basis of this report the following actions can be summarised. The actions to be taken are in line with the Road Safety Communication [8], the Council Resolution of 26 June 2000 on the improvement of road safety [9] and the Resolution of 18 January 2001 of the European Parliament on the Road Safety Communication [10].[8]  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, COM(2000) 125 final of 17.3.2000, not yet published.[9]  OJ C 218, 31.7.2000, p.1.[10]  OJ C [...], [...], p. [...].5.2.1 Amendment of Directive 92/6/EEC to extend the scope to include light trucks and all busesTaking into account the positive effects to road safety and environment, the equal opportunities to all operators as well as the estimated financial benefits, the Commission has made a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 1992 on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community, which is presented hereafter. In this proposal Directive 92/6/EEC is changed in such a way that it includes all category N2 vehicles with a maximum speed of 90 km/h and all category M2 and M3 vehicles with a maximum set speed of 100 km/h, starting with new vehicles and including all vehicles of these categories, registered after 1.1.2001, after a transitory period. The current exceptions given in Article 6 will be applied.5.2.2 Amendment of Directive 92/24/EEC in order to be in line with the amended Directive 92/6/EECDirective 92/24/EEC should be amended to include in the text the provisions for type approval of speed limitation devices for all category N2, N3, M2 and M3 vehicles.5.2.3 Amendment of Directive 96/96/EC to include functional checking of speed limitation devicesIn order to ensure the proper functioning of the speed limitation device and taking into account that a functional verification of a speed limitation device may be done in a quick and inexpensive way, the Commission plans to adopt a Commission Directive amending Directive 96/96/EC in order to include a functional verification of the speed limitation device during the periodic roadworthiness tests.ANNEXA. DEFINITIONS OF VEHICLE CATEGORIESVehicle categories are defined according to the following international classification: [11][11]  As laid down in Council Directive No 92/53/EEC of 18 June 1992 amending Directive 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ L 225, 10.8.1992, p. 1).1. Category M: Motor vehicles with at least four wheels used for the carriage of passengers.Category M1: Vehicles used for the carriage of passengers and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat.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 mass not exceeding 5 tonnes.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 mass exceeding 5 tonnes.2. Category N: Motor vehicles with at least four wheels used for the carriage of goods.Category N1: Vehicles used for the carriage of goods and having a maximum mass not exceeding 3,5 tonnes.Category N2: Vehicles used for the carriage of goods and having a maximum mass exceeding 3,5 tonnes but not exceeding 12 tonnes.Category N3: Vehicles used for the carriage of goods and having a maximum mass exceeding 12 tonnes.B. PRACTICAL DEFINITIONSThe following definitions are used in this report:Passenger car, car: Category M1 motor vehicle.Bus: Category M2 or M3 motor vehicle.Van: Category N1 motor vehicle.Light truck: Category N2 motor vehicle.Heavy goods vehicle, lorry: Category N3 motor vehicle.