WRITTEN QUESTION P-1648/03 by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission. The Segway Human Transporter.
Date: 2003-05-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, electric vehicle, private means of transport, town traffic, traffic regulations

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/205

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

The Union-model, parking card for disabled car users, has been progressively introduced throughout the
Union following the Council Recommendation 98/376/EC of 4 June 1998 on a parking card for people
with disabilities (1).

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Recommendation confirmed that Member States
themselves would continue to be responsible for the conditions for granting parking cards. Article 1 of the
Council Recommendation stipulates in fact, that Member States should introduce a parking card in
accordance with their respective national provisions, on the basis of the standardised Community model
described in the annex of the Council Recommendation.

The Recommendation makes clear that the Member States themselves are responsible for issuing the cards
and these authorities are best placed to make clear to users how they should be displayed.

When in use, the card is normally to be displayed at the front of the vehicle in such a way that only the
front of the card is clearly visible for checking purposes.

The new card only requires holders to fill in individual details on the reverse side and not on the front.
This meets the concerns of some who feared that displaying their names publicly might threaten their
personal safety.

(1) OJ L 167, 12.6.1998.

(2004/C 11 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1648/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(12 May 2003)

Subject: The Segway Human Transporter

The Segway Human Transporter was recently launched in Europe. It is an electric-powered scooter with
two wheels on a single axis on which people may travel along the pavement in an upright position. There
was great media interest in this new mode of transport in Belgium, while in the United States, too, the
manufacturers succeeded in creating extensive media hype by means of a well-orchestrated media
campaign. However,
it now appears that the Segway HT has been responsible for a large number of
accidents in the United States. The City of San Francisco has already banned the vehicle, while Oakland,
Santa Cruz and Sacramento are also considering the imposition of a similar ban.

What is the Commission’s opinion of the Segway HT?

In the Commission’s view, where should this vehicle be driven, on the pavement or on the cycle track?

Is the Commission thinking of conducting an inquiry into the Segway HT? If so, is it thinking of imposing
a ban on it?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

The Community Directives on type-approval of motor vehicles, including Council Directive 92/61/EEC of
30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles (1) and Directive 2002/
24/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-approval of two or
three-wheel motor vehicles (2), apply to vehicles intended to travel on the road, and to the components or
separate technical units of such vehicles. As stated by the manufacturer, the Segway Human Transporter is
equipped with two wheels and operated by battery power and is intended primarily for use on sidewalks
and other pedestrian areas such as interiors of buildings, parks and other public areas, but not intended to
travel on the road. It is therefore not within the scope of the above-mentioned Community Directives nor
within the scope of any other Community Directive for the type-approval of motor vehicles.

C 11 E/206

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

In any case, at this stage the Commission does not intend to propose regulatory measures which, in the
case of a mode of transport which can be used only over very short distances, would more properly be a
matter for local and national authorities.

(1) OJ L 225, 10.8.1992.
(2) OJ L 124, 9.5.2002.

(2004/C 11 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1649/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: The Kapittelduinen (dunes)

When notifying (new) areas to be covered by the Habitats Directive, the Netherlands Government failed to
classify the Kapittelduinen as an area covered by the Habitats Directive. In its report entitled ‘Classification
of the Kapittelduinen as an area to be covered by the Habitats Directive’, the South-Holland Countryside
Foundation urged the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries to regard the line of
dunes running the length of the Dutch coastline as one single area forming part of the National Ecological
Network. Virtually all the other dunes are covered in this way. This exception is bewildering.

Does the European Commission agree with me that the Kapittelduinen should be included in the new list
of areas to be covered by the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2003)

According to Article 4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1)
(the ‘Habitats Directive’) the Member States propose to the
Commission a list of sites to be included on a list of sites of Community importance. The national lists are
established on the basis of criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive and of relevant scientific
information. As far as natural habitat types are concerned, the criteria for selecting sites at the national
level include the degree of representativity, the area and the degree of conservation of natural habitat types
that are present on a site, as well as the value of the site for the conservation of these habitat types. While
applying and interpreting the criteria, the Member States have a certain degree of discretion, allowing them
for example, to select only the most representative sites for a given natural habitat type.

On 19 May 2003, the Netherlands transmitted to the Commission a new list of proposed sites of
Community importance. This list includes several thousands of hectares of coastal dunes, including inter
alia the main habitat types that are also present in the ‘Kapittelduinen’. Furthermore, in June 2002, at the
second bio-geographic seminar for the Atlantic Region in Den Haag, it was concluded that the Netherlands
had proposed a sufficient number of sites (in area and geographic distribution) for the three major habitat
types which cover altogether 90 % of the area of the ‘Kapittelduinen’, namely the ‘fixed coastal dunes’, the
‘shifting dunes’ and the ‘dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides’.

The Commission is therefore of the opinion that there is no further obligation for the Netherlands to
include the ‘Kappittelduinen’
in the list of proposed Sites of Community Importance according to the
Habitats Directive.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.