WRITTEN QUESTION E-2598/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Introduction of legislation requiring drivers of motor vehicles to drive with their headlights switched on during daylight hours and the implications for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians in densely-populated areas.
Date: 2001-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, motor car, pedestrian, road safety, signalling device, two-wheeled vehicle

C 81 E/194

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

However, the contract in question must comply with the rules of the EC Treaty with regard to freedom to
provide services and freedom of establishment and also with the general principles of non-discrimination,
equality of treatment, proportionality and transparency. With regard to adhering to the principle of
transparency in particular, the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ruled that the obligation
of transparency incumbent on awarding authorities consists in ensuring that every potential bidder receives
a suitable level of information which enables the market for services to be open to competition and the
impartiality of the award procedures to be checked (see in particular the Judgment of 7 December 2000,
Case-324/98, Telaustria, § 61-62).

2. Moreover, the Commission has opened inquiries into contracts of a similar nature to the above-
mentioned contract concluded by Inail and Inps with Telecom Italia in order to ascertain the rules applied
in the award of these contracts and check that the procedures followed by these organisations to select the
contractor complied with Community law. Should the above-mentioned checks reveal that the procedures
followed by Inpdap, Inail and Inps may not have been compatible with Community rules and principles, in
particular the principle of transparency, this may result in the Commission applying the infringement
procedure provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2002/C 81 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2598/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Introduction of legislation requiring drivers of motor vehicles to drive with their headlights
switched on during daylight hours and the implications for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians in
densely-populated areas

1.
Is the Commission aware that, in 1993, the Netherlands Parliament decided that drivers of motor
vehicles must not drive with their headlights switched on during daylight hours, a decision designed not
only to save energy but also to take account of the safety of the many cyclists in the Netherlands who,
according to the association which protects their interests, were seriously at a risk if motorists were able to
see each other better than the cyclists with whom they had to share the roads?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that, although arguments in favour of motorists being required to
drive with their headlights switched on during daylight hours, as has been the case in Finland and Sweden
since the 1970s, lead to the conclusion that safety is indeed improved in thinly-populated areas with few
vehicles on long monotonous roads and in areas where the sun is low over the horizon, driving with
headlights switched on may deflect attention from cyclists and pedestrians in cities or towns such as are
frequently found in the Netherlands?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that, in the summer of 2001, it concluded an agreement of principle
with the European Automobile Manufacturers(cid:146) Association (EAMA) whereby, from 2002 onwards, all new
vehicles must be equipped with lighting systems whereby the headlights are automatically switched on
when the driver starts the engine, so that the headlights are switched on automatically when the vehicle is
driven during daylight hours?

4.
To what extent are the proven positive results of the requirement that headlights must be switched
on when vehicles are driven during daylight hours influenced by the fact that no comparison has been
drawn with the previous situation but rather with notional data based on a presumed negative
development in the future?

5. What possibilities will exist from 2002 onwards for individual Member States (cid:129) if they so wish (cid:129) to
prohibit the use of headlights when motorists are driving during daylight hours?

6. What possibilities will exist from 2002 onwards for individual motorists (cid:129) in compliance with the
decisions of their national legislator (cid:129) to switch off their lights when driving during daylight hours?

If the agreements concluded by the Commission to date do not make provision for the possibilities
7.
set out in Questions 5 and 6, what steps does it intend to take to ensure that Member States are not
prevented from seeking to achieve, in the circumstances obtaining in their countries, the highest possible
level of safety for as many road-users as possible?

Source: De Volkskrant (a Dutch newspaper) published on 8 September 2001.

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/195

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2001)

The Commission is aware that the mandatory use of daytime running lights (DRL) was considered by the
Dutch Parliament in 1993. However, it is understood that even though the Parliament rejected a proposal
to make the use of headlamps during daylight hours mandatory, they did not take the step of prohibiting
their use, and permitted the Ministry to run a road safety campaign to encourage the voluntary use of
DRL.

The Commission has carefully considered the various reports concerning the benefits of DRL, and is of the
opinion that the use of daytime running lights should provide a reduction in accidents, without putting
any particular group of road users at any greater risk. The fact that motor vehicles will be more readily
seen will mean that other road users will identify them earlier allowing more time to make judgements
about their actions, whilst also enabling them to spend more time looking for other hazards. Furthermore,
there is not thought to be a significant difference in the effectiveness of DRL between rural and urban
roads. The most significant variables would appear to be the latitude and the season, as both of these vary
the proportion of the hours of daytime/dusk/darkness.

The Commission can confirm that on 11 July 2001, it received a commitment on pedestrian protection
made by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), corresponding to the mandate
given by the Commission in its Communication of 21 December 2000 (1). However, the Parliament and
the Council have been asked for their opinion on the commitment and the Commission will not endorse
the commitment until it has heard and considered their views. A decision will be given by the end of
2001.

The main measure proposed in the commitment involves making the front of cars less likely to injure
pedestrians in the event of them being struck. Other measures also contained in the commitment should
contribute to a reduction in the number of accidents and include the installation of daytime running lights
(DRL) from 2002 on the new motor vehicles to which the commitment applies.

The acceptance of DRL as a positive measure in the commitment is based on a number of international
studies showing a reduction in road accidents since the introduction of DRL.

According to the commitment, DRL can be achieved with specific lamps, or with dipped beam headlamps
or front fog lamps operating with nominal or reduced light intensity. The lamps will be switched on
automatically when the engine is started but could also be deactivated by the driver.

The Commission is aware of the discussions in Member States about DRL. As this is a voluntary
commitment, the situation will remain that individual Member States, on the basis of their national traffic
legislation, may prohibit the use of DRL if they choose to do so. Vehicle manufacturers will have to take
account of this fact when modifying their vehicles for DRL. However, it should be noted that the use of
DRL is already mandatory in three Member States, and permitted in most others.

(1) COM(2000) 389 final.

(2002/C 81 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2600/01

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(20 September 2001)

Subject: Turnover tax on occupational medical services

Under the Austrian law on turnover tax (§6, paragraph 1, point 19 UstG 1994), doctors (natural persons)
are covered by the exemption from turnover tax referred to in §6, while this provision does not apply to
limited liability companies licensed by the profession.

Is this unequal treatment of natural persons and companies under the law on turnover tax compatible with
EU law?