Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 74/408/EEC relating to motor vehicles with regard to the seats, their anchorages and head restraints" (COM(2003) 361 final — 2003/0128 (COD))
Date: 2003-12-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, approximation of laws, motor vehicle, safety device, technical regulations, vehicle parts

C 80/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.3.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 74/408/EEC relating to
motor vehicles with regard to the seats, their anchorages and head restraints’

(COM(2003) 361 final — 2003/0128 (COD))

(2004/C 80/02)

On 3 July 2003 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 November 2003. The rapporteur was
Mr Ranocchiari.

At its 404th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 2003), the European Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 102 votes to one, with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The proposal under examination is part of the general
regulatory framework concerning type-approval of vehicles
and associated devices.

1.2.
The installation of seats, their anchorages and head
restraints is a technical aspect of particular importance which
must be governed at Community level.

The simultaneous presentation of three proposals for
1.3.
a directive (1)
total
is founded on the basic principle of
harmonisation, by means of a single set of Community rules
and a single approval procedure, followed by simultaneous
entry into force throughout the Union.

The need for these type-approval rules arises from the
1.4.
installation and use of safety belts in a broader range of
vehicles.

The compulsory use of safety belts has so far been
1.5.
limited to passenger cars (Category M1) and to the front seats
only of lighter goods vehicles i.e. maximum weight below
3,5 tonnes (N1). Heavier goods vehicles (N2 and N3), on the
other hand, were excluded, together with minibuses and buses
(M2 and M3).

1.6.
Only recently has compulsory use of safety belts been
extended to all categories of motor vehicles for the carriage of
goods and of passengers (2).

1.7.
Since to date there has been no real Community type-
approval for vehicles other than passenger cars, the Member
States have been able to decide whether or not to apply at
national level the three directives in force, which the present
proposals set out to amend.

The provisions concerning heavier vehicles require not
1.8.
only installing 2- or 3-point safety belts, but also entail fixing
them to the seats instead of the body structure of the vehicle
as is the case with passenger cars. For this reason, compliance
must be ensured with all three directives together.

2. Comments by the Committee

The EESC welcomes the legislative approach which

2.1.
seeks total harmonisation, in line with Treaty Article 95.

2.2.
The measures set out in the proposal under examin-
ation respond to the need to ensure passenger safety, and are
quite rightly included in the European Road Safety Action
Programme (3).

The directive which the proposal wishes to amend
2.3.
already contains all the necessary technical and administrative
rules for type-approval of vehicles of categories other than M1.

2.4.
The real innovation is the ban on placing side-facing
seats in new vehicle types (from 1 July 2004) and new vehicles
of all categories (M1, M2, and M3 class III or B), with the
exception of city buses (from 1 January 2006).

(1) COM(2003) 361 final, the subject of the present opinion,

is
accompanied by COM(2003) 362 final on anchorages for safety
belts and COM(2003) 363 final on safety belts and restraint
systems.

(2) Directive 2003/20/EC of 8.4.2003, in OJ L 115, 9.5.2003.

(3) Communication from the Commission COM(2003) 311 final,
2.6.2003, on which the EESC is currently drawing up an opinion.

30.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/7

It was decided to introduce this prohibition following
2.5.
research carried out by external experts, which concluded that
‘longitudinal seating should not be permitted in those classes
of vehicles where standees are not allowed’ (1).

2.6.
The rules quite properly provide for a number of
exemptions from the prohibition (motor caravans where
seating is for use when stationary, ambulances, etc.). Some
criticism however persists, focusing on two aspects:

— the disappearance of ‘cosy corners’ from luxury coaches;

— excessively tight deadlines for implementation of the

rules.

Safety is a universal value which must be promoted by
2.7.
those concerned. No effort should be spared, either
all
economically or technically, in achieving this objective. This
does not however appear to be fully reflected in the provisions
of the directive, which in practice ban the comfort- or class-
based solutions which are needed, for example, for long-
distance international coaches.

2.8. While convinced of the need for maximum compliance
with safety criteria, the Committee harbours some doubts
regarding the real value of such a ban, and regrets that
statistical data have not been provided on the number of
accidents involving coaches equipped with this type of seating
and on the ensuing consequences for passengers.

(1) Results of
(July 2001).

research conducted by Cranfield Impact Centre

Brussels, 10 December 2003.

The Committee also believes that the decision to
2.9.
impose a prohibition arises from the basic approach used in
the research, focusing exclusively on the best type of safety
belt to be fitted to this type of seat, as well as on the
unavailability of an immediate technical or manufacturing
solution. In fact, research is currently under way in several
Member States aimed at ensuring that side-facing seats enjoy
the same levels of safety as for forward-facing seats.

2.10.
force be delayed,
industry in the event
technical solutions are not identified.

The Committee would prefer the ban’s entry into
leaving a sufficient time margin for the
in the meantime, satisfactory

that,

2.11. More specifically, the Committee calls for the penulti-
mate paragraph of point 3 of the explanatory memorandum
of the proposal to be corrected, since Directive 91/671/
EEC has already been amended by Directive 2003/20/EC of
8.4.2003, referred to in the introduction to the present
opinion.

3. Conclusions

3.1.
Apart from the above-mentioned doubts concerning
side-facing seats and the deadline for implementing the ban,
the Committee fully supports the proposal’s aim of introducing
ever-higher levels of safety, even where the planned measures
may involve higher costs, as could for example be the case
with coaches. The objective of saving human lives should be
pursued with the most effective means, always resulting from
targeted research, especially if progress is to be made in
the European Road Safety Action
achieving the aim of
Programme of halving the number of road accident victims in
the European Union by 2010.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH