WRITTEN QUESTION E-3546/03 by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Using intelligent speed adaptation in road vehicles.
Date: 2003-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: action programme, information technology, road safety, safety device

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/581

In view of the outcome, there would appear to be good reason to question both the political advisability of
the survey and the manner in which it was conducted, given that Mr Prodi himself has criticised both the
way in which it was drawn up and the fact that respondents were presented with a non-exhaustive list of
countries from which to choose. One is also entitled to doubt the effectiveness and general usefulness of
Eurobarometer surveys given that if a survey’s findings do not serve any useful purpose, even if only to
foster discussion and enquiry, it is nothing more than a waste of public money.

Given the above, would the Commission say:

1. Why the survey was commissioned?

2. Whether it intends to make constructive use of the findings by exploring the reasons for the fears they
reflect and attempting to counter any tendencies which, if taken to the extreme, can give rise to anti-
Semitic attitudes?

3. How much the invitation to tender both for this survey and for Eurobarometer surveys in general cost

the Union?

4. Whether, as Mr Prodi claims, technical mistakes were made in drafting the questionnaire, and how any

such mistakes could have escaped the Commission’s notice and supervision?

5. How it is possible for the President of the Commission to be unaware of and thus surprised by the

findings of a survey instigated by the Commission itself?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to Written Question No P-
3334/03 by Ms Muscardini (1).

to that answer,

As a supplement
it
commissioned the survey in question and that the questionnaire was drawn up jointly by the Press and
Communication DG and its contractor, TNS Sofres. It is aware of the limits to the question concerning
countries that are a threat to world peace. Nevertheless, it considers that the replies obtained are indicative
of worrying prejudices.

the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that

(1) See page 263.

(2004/C 78 E/0615)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3546/03

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Using intelligent speed adaptation in road vehicles

Every year, 40 000 people are killed and 1 700 000 injured on Europe’s roads. In order to improve road
safety in Europe, the European Commission proposes greater use of information and communication
technologies. Innovations in terms of the burgeoning technical possibilities in this area are still, however,
largely focused on drivers and passengers.

Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) is not among the Commission’s proposals. ISA prevents drivers from
driving faster than the permitted maximum speed. According to a study by the European Transport Safety
Council, this technology guarantees better protection not only for vehicle occupants but also for vulnerable
road users, namely pedestrians and cyclists.

Does the Commission intend to promote and endorse ISA at European level? If not, what measures is the
Commission taking to improve the safety of vulnerable road users?

C 78 E/582

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

In its Road Safety Action Programme (1), the Commission announced its intention to examine national
trials of Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) devices and to assess their acceptability to the public. In this
context, the Commission is giving its support to the development of ISA devices, particularly through the
ongoing Prosper and Speed Alert projects. These projects are aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of ISA
devices, the cost of introducing them, the industrial implications of creating an infrastructure to support
these devices, various marketing strategies and their acceptability.

As regards vulnerable road users, most of the actions announced in the European Road Safety Action
Programme will significantly increase their protection. Certain actions are designed specifically to protect
vulnerable road users, such as promoting road safety training from school age, encouraging the use of
crash helmets by all two-wheel motor vehicle users, continuing to improve cars in order to reduce the
severity of accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists, and improving the safety of motorcycles and their
users.

Certain measures are being considered regarding the use of information and communications technologies
for the protection of vulnerable road users, some of which also form part of European research projects.
These measures, which could help prevent accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists, currently remain
longer term solutions.

The Commission is therefore supporting research projects on ISA devices, while also assessing other kinds
of measures for the protection of vulnerable road users.

(1) Communication from the Commission on the European Road Safety Action Programme. Halving the number of

road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility [COM(2003) 311 final].

(2004/C 78 E/0616)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3547/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Scot-free permanent oil slick along the Portuguese coast

Anyone who visits Portuguese beaches at any point in the year (cid:1) particularly those of mainland Portugal,
but also those of the Azores Autonomous Region (cid:1) is regularly confronted with the depressing sight of oil
slicks from oil tankers cleaning out their tanks as they pass through the Portuguese economic exclusion
zone.

The Diário de Notícias of 19 November, quoting the Portuguese authorities responsible for coastguard
activities,
‘every month fifteen vessels clean out their dirty oil or oil-derivatives tanks along the (…)
Portuguese coast’.

The same publication states that
circumstances which it sets out, and of which I would highlight the following:

this crime goes completely unpunished,

for reasons and under

1.

2.

3.

It is ‘extremely difficult to prove that the liquid poured into the ocean is the same as the same as that
contained in the tanks’.

‘Even the port authorities where the ships tie up after washing out their tanks do not always provide
witnesses’.

‘Should the ship owners win the case,
amounting to tens of thousands of euros’.

the Portuguese Government could be faced with fines

In conclusion, the Navy Chief of Staff spokesman claims that ‘the sea is free, and is regulated by
international maritime law. Even if we drew up our own legislation to protect our coasts, this would have
no effects’, and even claims that ‘we can only take steps if their objective is to prevent a catastrophe’.