Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community"
Date: 2001-11-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: motor vehicle, safety device, transport policy, vehicle parts

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/47

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use
of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community’

(2002/C 48/09)

On 11 July 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71
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 6 November 2001. The
rapporteur was Mr Colombo.

At its 386th plenary session of 28 and 29 November 2001 (meeting of 28 November) the Committee
adopted the following opinion by 113 votes to four, with two abstentions.

1. Gist of the Commission proposal

Speed limitation devices — extension of scope

Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of
speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles
in the Community (1) requires speed limitation devices to be
used for category M3 (2) vehicles having a maximum weight
exceeding 10 metric tonnes and for category N3 vehicles.

(Proposed Directive COM(2001) 318 final of 14.6.2001)

Categories

Max speed

Timescales

Current
situation

M3

N3

100 km/h New

1/1/94

Registered 1/1/88–1/1/94 1/1/95 (1)

90 km/h Reg. since 1/1/88

1/1/94

Proposal

M2/M3

100 km/h New

1/1/04
Registered 1/1/01–1/1/04 1/1/05

N2/N3

90 km/h Reg. since 1/1/2001

1/1/06 (2)

1.1.
The proposed amendment to Directive 92/6/EEC also
aims to introduce speed limitation devices for vehicles of
category M2 having a maximum weight of less than 5 tonnes
(buses and coaches) and category N2 (lorries with a maximum
weight in excess of 3,5 tonnes).

(1) International transport
(2) Domestic transport only

2. General comments

The following table provides a clear outline of the

1.2.
current situation and of the Commission’s proposal:

(1) OJ L 57, 2.3.1992, p. 27.
(2) Categories M and N consist of the following vehicles:

M = Carriage
of passengers

N = Carriage
of goods

M1 = 8+1 seats
M2 = > 8 + 1 max weight < T 5
M3 = > 8 + 1 max weight > T 5
N1 = max weight ˜ T 3,5
N2 = max weight > T 3,5 ˜ T 12
N3 = max weight > T 12

2.1.
The Committee is glad that the Commission proposal
is moving in the direction of higher safety standards in
transport, and thus improved safety for users. The reduction
in exhaust fumes which will result from the speed limit
being applied to these types of vehicle is also welcome from
the point of view of environmental protection policy, which
the Committee has consistently championed. The proposal
also responds to the need to standardise practice in crucial
sectors of the EU economy such as the carriage of passengers
and goods. In principle the Committee therefore welcomes
— subject to the amendments requested in point 3 — the
indeed it did in a previous
Commission proposal, as
opinion (3) on the proposal which eventually became
Directive 92/6/EEC.

The direct economic impact would not appear to
2.2.
constitute a financial burden for transport companies and
users of the vehicles in question. The average cost of retrofitting
a speed limiter is approx. EUR 500. This does not apply to

(3) ESC Opinion, OJ C 40, 17.2.1991.

C 48/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

new vehicles as an electronic system in factory-fitted. There
are, however, real concerns that it could lead indirectly to
increased costs for society, as described in greater detail in the
Specific Comments below.

An extremely important feature of the proposal is that
2.3.
it would also be mandatory in Eastern European countries —
and in the applicant countries in particular — with no
derogation possible. Any other legislative approach would
have repercussions for all the issues mentioned above, and
would also lead to further serious distortions of competition.

Indeed, it is not difficult to imagine a massive shift
2.3.1.
towards vehicles registered outside the European Union, in
order to promote the use of transport carried out at higher
speeds yet in complete safety, in accordance with Community
regulations on active and passive road safety.

3. Specific comments

3.1.
According to the Commission proposal, speed limiters
should be set to the same speed for vehicles with a maximum
weight of T4 and T 40/44. The Committee has reservations
about this.

b) With regard to transport policy, it should be remembered
that the vehicles in question are designed and used
for distribution,
linking warehouses and retail outlets,
transport of perishable goods and for rapid supply of
large markets (e.g. fish, fruit and vegetables). Furthermore,
none of these services can be supplied by any other
means of transport.

In addition e-commerce — which is literally transforming
certain economic sectors — requires rapid, flexible trans-
port solutions, otherwise it will lose its attraction and the
system will crash unless more vehicles are used.

It is sufficiently clear then, that it is unwarranted to treat
a small vehicle in the same way as a large one; it would
lead to endless tailbacks and encourage risky driving (2).
Overtaking in particular would presumably take place in
the parts of the road network with the steepest inclines,
where heavier vehicles slow down even further owing to
passive resistance. This would cause even more tailbacks
— particularly since the road network is mixed-use
(cars, coaches, lorries) — and hence traffic congestion,
generating pollution from exhaust fumes.

3.3.
In the final analysis, this would all lead to a considerable
increase in costs for society, and consequently for the economy
as a whole.

3.2.
This position appears untenable, both from a purely
technical point of view, and when seen against the broader
picture of transport policy.

3.4.
Similar comments apply to the carriage of passengers
(Cat. M). Consider for example the shuttle buses which are
used by airports, and large hotels, or to transport executives,
etc.

a) With regard to the technical aspect, an identical speed
limit would put vehicles of different weight on the same
footing, whereas they are treated separately by other
Community regulations, owing to their different technical
specifications. The Committee notes, for example, that
Directive 98/12 (1) on the standardisation of vehicle
braking devices stipulates a test speed of 100 km/h with
a braking distance of 112 metres for N2 (T 12) vehicles.
Road tests carried out by the manufacturers, including in
the pre-standardisation phase, with vehicles weighing less
than T 7,5 put braking distances well below 112 metres
at 110 km/h. A T 4,5 vehicle travelling at 110 km/h
requires approx. 92 metres braking distance. It should be
noted that vehicles of such low maximum weight are
fitted with appropriate propulsion devices, braking sys-
tems and kinematic chains which are regulated for much
higher speeds than those under discussion.

3.5.
The Committee therefore proposes that the Com-
mission re-examine the proposal, providing for devices to be
set to a higher speed for the light vehicle categories (M2 and
N2).

3.5.1.
It should be noted that the T 7,5 threshold, which is
already used for speed restriction purposes in many Member
States (UK/D/F/B), is also the reference tonnage for the use of
through Austria, as well as for the
ecopoints to transit

(1) OJ L 81, 18.3.1998, p. 27.

(2) The Commission also recognises this is a possible risk (c.f.

COM(2001) 318 final, Volume I, p. 4.)

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/49

proposed Directive on harmonised driving bans at week-
ends/public holidays (1).

(1) COM(2000) 759 final — OJ C 120 E, 24.4.2001.

3.6.
Clearly it will also be necessary to amend Directive
92/24 in order to permit EC standardisation of speed limiters.
The Commission intends to submit a proposal to this effect as
soon as possible.

Brussels, 28 November 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on
State aid to the coal industry’

(2002/C 48/10)

On 19 September 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 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 6 November 2001. The
rapporteur was Mr Gafo Ferna´ndez.

At its 386th plenary session of 28 and 29 November 2001 (meeting of 28 November), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 107 votes to one with eight abstentions.

1.

Introduction

2. Comments

1.1.
This is the first time the ESC has been consulted on
this subject, which traditionally fell to the ECSC Consultative
Committee. The expiry of the ECSC Treaty in July 2002
requires both Community bodies to be consulted on this
matter. The ESC therefore wishes to base itself on the opinion
of the ECSC Consultative Committee, which is naturally more
experienced in this area, while making comments to ensure
that the present opinion is in keeping with earlier ESC opinions
on energy policy and individual sources of energy.

This would also allow foundations to be laid for
1.2.
harnessing the rich experience of
the ECSC Consultative
Committee for the purposes of the ESC’s future work. Con-
sideration of how to do this is at an advanced stage in both
committees, and a formal proposal will subsequently be made
to the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council
of Ministers.

The Committee welcomes the draft regulation, which
2.1.
sets out to extend until 2010 the conditions under which,
subject to mandatory authorisation by the European Com-
mission, any state aid which the Member States may grant to
their coal industries will remain compatible with the common
market.

The ESC believes that, as clearly illustrated by current
2.2.
events, security of energy supply is a long-term concern which
must be taken into due and proportionate account when
formulating other policies such as free movement of goods, or
competition.

The ESC supports the existence of

2.3.
three separate
categories of aid to the coal industry, covering (i) exceptional
aid arising from ‘inherited liabilities’
(ii) aid to safeguard
resources and (iii) aid for the ordered reduction of activity.