Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Information and Communications Technologies for safe and intelligent vehicles’ (COM(2003) 542 final)
Date: 2004-03-31
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, information technology, intelligent transport system, road safety, road transport, safety device

C 112/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Information and Communications
Technologies for safe and intelligent vehicles’

(COM(2003) 542 final)

(2004/C 112/08)

On 14 October 2003 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communi-
cation.

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 2 March 2004. The rapporteur was
Mr Ranocchiari.

At its 407th plenary session (meeting of 31 March 2004), the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion unanimously.

1. Background

1.1 Demand for transport has been growing steadily in
Europe for many years. The increase has been particularly great
in the case of road transport, for both passengers and goods.

processors, communications technologies, sensors and actua-
increasingly sophisticated active safety systems can be
tors,
devised. Although these cannot eliminate accidents completely,
they can reduce their number and lessen their impact.

This increase is already resulting in traffic congestion,
1.2
environmental damage and, above all, accidents that cause
fatalities, injuries and material damage. These problems could
worsen in the near future.

1.7
These considerations led the Commission to set up an
eSafety working group in 2002, bringing together around forty
experts from the motor vehicle sector and other interested
parties. The group was mandated to propose a strategy for
speeding up research, development, deployment and use of
ICT-based intelligent safety systems for improving road safety.

1.3
The motor industry is working constantly to improve
the active and passive safety of its products. Vehicles are now
four times safer than in 1970 and the number of deaths in the
EU-15 has fallen by 50 % since then, while traffic volumes have
tripled.

1.4 Despite this, the societal cost of road transport is still
too high. The 1,300,000 accidents per year in Europe cause
40,000 fatalities and 1,700,000 injuries, at an estimated cost of
EUR 160 billion, or 2 % of the Union's GDP. At a personal
level, even one fatality is too high a price to pay.

1.5 Mindful of the seriousness of the problem, the Commis-
sion has launched a number of major road safety initiatives,
including the adoption of the European road safety action
programme.

Even before the programme was drawn up, information
1.6
and communications technologies (ICT) – already widely used
in vehicles – were identified as important
instruments for
improving road safety. With the development of more powerful

1.8
In November 2002 the working group published its final
report containing 28 recommendations addressed to the
Commission, the Member States, road traffic and safety authori-
ties, the motor industry, service providers, consumer associa-
tions, insurance companies and other stakeholders. The recom-
mendations are designed to improve safety by means of inte-
grated systems which use advanced ICT for providing new,
intelligent solutions that address the involvement of and inter-
action between driver, vehicle and road environment.

1.9
The working group's report was subsequently discussed
and endorsed at the second meeting of the high-level group on
eSafety, which set up an eSafety Forum (1) and called on the
Commission to put forward policy proposals.

1.10
The communication that has now been referred to the
Committee forms the Commission's response to the wishes of
the high-level groups on eSafety and road safety, which have
also been echoed by the Member States.

(1) The Forum is chaired by the Commission's DG INFSO and brings
together all stakeholders (around 150 members in all). It currently
has seven working groups, headed by the motor industry.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/31

2. Summary of the Commission's proposals

2.4 Removing societal and business obstacles

The communication refers to and endorses the final
the eSafety working group and proposes eleven

2.1
report of
actions falling into three main categories:

— The Commission will assess the socio-economic benefits
intelligent safety

obtainable through the introduction of
systems.

2.1.1

development of intelligent vehicle safety systems

2.1.2

adaptation of regulatory and standardisation provisions

2.1.3

removing the societal and business obstacles.

— The Commission will promote and fund a study to devise a
the new

assessment of

risk/benefit

methodology for
systems.

— The Commission will promote the drafting of Industry and
Public Sector Road Maps for the development and deploy-
ment of the new systems.

2.2 Promoting intelligent vehicle safety systems

2.5 Other actions

— The Commission will continue to chair and support the
eSafety Forum, which provides a joint platform for all road
safety stakeholders.

— The Commission will take steps to promote further research
and technological development, not least by helping to
finance some leading-edge projects.

— As regards interaction between driver and machine, the
Commission will assess the effects of the introduction of
nomadic devices (1)
in vehicles and, at a later stage, the
workload which the introduction of new vehicle control
and information systems creates for the driver.

— The Commission will propose an integrated strategy for
pan-European emergency services (e-Call), building on the
provisions of the E-112 legislation (2).

— The Commission will assess progress on the provision of
real-time traffic and travel information (RTTI) in Europe.

2.3 Adaptation of regulatory and standardisation provisions

— The Commission will propose measures to authorise and
regulate the use of the 24 GHz spectrum for ultra wide
band (UWB) short-range radar (SRR).

— The Commission will review existing EC vehicle type-
approval legislation and devise measures for facilitating and
regulating the use of the new systems.

— The Commission will ask standardisation organisations
(ISO, CEN and ETSI)
to draw up a standardisation
programme for the new systems, encompassing standard
software and hardware architecture, communication proto-
cols and driver-machine interfaces.

(1) Devices which drivers carry with them and can interact with the
vehicle, such as mobile phones or PDAs (a type of electronic
notepad), and which can be used as a remote control for some
vehicle functions.

(2) Directive 2002/21/EC establishing a common regulatory framework
for electronic communications networks and services (OJ L 108 of
24.4.2002).

— The Commission will promote and fund a study to devise a
methodology for assessing the potential impact of the intro-
duction of combined intelligent vehicle safety systems invol-
ving sensor fusion (3).

— The Commission will promote and fund a study of assess-
for vehicles equipped with the new

ment procedures
systems.

— The industry will define, produce, maintain and certify a
European digital map database with road safety attributes.

3. General comments

The Commission's communication makes a clear and
3.1
exemplary commitment to the development and adoption of
intelligent road safety systems, at a time when traditional
passive safety systems may have reached their limits.

3.2
The general guidelines are clearly set out in the commu-
nication. The priorities are less clear (with the exception of e-
Call, which is rightly highlighted). Above all, no timeframe is
given for the action plan; at present there is only a work sche-
dule for 2004. The Committee hopes that the drafting of the
roadmap – one of the anticipated results of the eSafety Forum
– will prove crucial for establishing the plan's priorities and
timeframe.

It

that

is important

3.3
the motor industry, which has
already been involved in the working group and the eSafety
Forum, should continue to provide technical guidance for the
development of these initiatives, in particular by contributing
to the drafting of the roadmap.

(3) This is a technique for integrating data supplied by sensors that use
several different technologies, so as to overcome the inherent limits
of each one. For example, a dual technology (radar + infrared) anti-
theft sensor is only activated when both components register an
intrusion, thereby eliminating false alarms caused by the intrinsic
limits of one of the two technologies.

C 112/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

3.4
The motor industry will undoubtedly need guidelines for
the market introduction of intelligent safety systems. However,
each company must have the possibility of offering their own
distinctive innovative solutions, with appropriate timeframes,
without overlooking the vital need for the new systems to be
interoperable and reliable.

3.5
In order to ensure that the new intelligent safety systems
are deployed to best effect, steps will have to be taken to
‘educate’ users. To this end, it would be helpful for representa-
tives of driving schools to take part in the eSafety Forum.
Special attention should be paid to professional carriers, who
could ‘pilot’ the introduction of the new systems and who will
in any case represent a large number of users.

3.6
From a purely technical viewpoint, some safety systems
such as ESP (an electronic system to improve the vehicle's stabi-
lity in critical situations) could already be adopted on a large
scale fairly rapidly. Other systems which are inherently more
complex and more complicated to use will require careful
analysis with a view to optimising the driver's workload (i.e.
providing the best possible compromise between fatigue and
risk of distraction).

3.7
The communication deals sensibly with the question of
the shared responsibility of the various parties (Commission,
Member States, road and safety authorities, the motor industry,
service and system suppliers). However, responsibilities need to
be defined and regulated in detail to cater for the eventuality of
safety devices failing to operate satisfactorily. As the systems
and functions are completely new, there is much work to be
done. Nonetheless, as regards the question of responsibilities, it
must be acknowledged that the Commission has already funded
three research projects: Response, Response 2 and Prevent.

3.8
The Committee also notes that the communication puts
a strong emphasis on the need for safer vehicles. The need to
improve road infrastructure (newer and safer roads; elimination
of traffic congestion) must on no account be overlooked. More-
the new vehicle safety systems will require
over, many of
telecommunications
(e.g.
special
networks able to receive, decode and handle automatic emer-
gency calls). The Commission should focus attention on these
aspects and their impact.

infrastructure

‘intelligent’

3.9
In the context of intelligent infrastructure, the Communi-
ty's Galileo programme is undoubtedly crucial, providing as it
will a series of navigation and positioning services that will
facilitate the development of a wide range of innovative eSafety
applications.

3.10
The adoption of intelligent safety systems is likely to
significantly increase vehicle purchase and running costs. Addi-
tional safety systems are possible when the consumer is willing
to pay for them. The consumer must be shown that the extra
cost is offset by a reduction in the risk of accidents and in their
consequences. For this reason too, the Commission's plan for
the eSafety Forum to collate and analyse data on the causes of
road accidents is vitally important. More particularly, the CARE
system (1) will have to be reorganised in order to include acci-
dent causes and an analysis thereof, supplemented where
possible by data from motor manufacturers.

illustration of

the problem of

3.11 A practical
increased
costs is already provided by the e-Call service. Many car firms
have offered the e-Call system as an optional
feature, but
demand for it has been low because few drivers want to pay
for a service that they hope they will never need to use. The e-
Call system, selected by the Commission as one of its priority
actions, could act as a litmus test for the whole programme.
Widespread adoption of the system is vital in order to reduce
its running costs and thus the prices paid by users, exploiting
economies of scale and competition between the different
suppliers and avoiding monopoly positions.

3.12
Costs could also be pushed up by the need for work-
shops to be equipped with special apparatus for diagnosis,
repair and inspections. However, it should be noted that this
could also have a positive impact, as it will extend the skills of
motor mechanics and could create new job opportunities.

3.13 One means of alleviating the problem could be to offer
incentives in the form of tax rebates and/or reductions in insur-
ance premiums. At all events, a consultation process involving
all the various parties will be essential.

3.14 However it is very difficult, if not illusory, to imagine
that private interests or sense of responsibility (whether on the
part of manufacturers or users) will suffice to secure the gener-
alised adoption of intelligent safety systems. As an alternative
or adjunct to voluntary adoption, the case should be considered
for introducing a legal obligation in the form of binding rules.
These would make the phasing-in of intelligent safety systems
mandatory within a given timeframe.

(1) Community Road Accident Database: gathers and processes data on

road accidents supplied by the Member States.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/33

In any event, the costs of safety functions will impact
3.15
on the client and the taxpayer.
is therefore particularly
It
important that the costs/benefits calculations should be objec-
tive and reliable.

4. Summary and conclusions

4.1
The communication is a policy document which does
not yet contain specific or binding measures. The Commission
may draw up and put forward such measures in due course, so
the Committee feels it is worth highlighting some points which
it thinks should be borne in mind during the further develop-
ment of the programme.

4.2
The communication makes a clear and exemplary
commitment to the development and adoption of intelligent
road safety systems.
should therefore
welcome it, not least because it also stresses that road safety is
the shared responsibility of all the various stakeholders.

Interested parties

4.3 However, the intentions voiced in it should be imple-
mented according to an action plan which should be defined
forthwith. Greater emphasis must also be placed on the need to
work on road infrastructure (newer and safer roads; elimination
of traffic congestion) and new ‘intelligent’ infrastructure.

Brussels, 31 March 2004.

4.4
Responsibilities need to be defined and regulated
precisely to cater for the eventuality of safety devices failing to
operate satisfactorily.

4.5
Each company must have the possibility of offering their
own distinctive innovative solutions, with appropriate time-
frames.

The adoption of intelligent safety systems is likely to
4.6
significantly increase vehicle purchasing and running costs.
These increased costs could have a major impact on ranges at
the lower end of the market, making it more difficult for the
less well-off to afford them. The early adoption of awareness-
In the
raising measures and incentives will be crucial here.
medium term and for certain safety systems, consideration
could be given to the introduction of a legal obligation.

4.7
Lastly, the Member States will play a key role in the
success of the programme. The dialogue which has already
been launched with the Commission, the industry and other
stakeholders must continue, with involvement of the individual
states throughout the whole process from the outset, on the
basis of
and
the programme
economic input
would not be able to succeed.

clear policy guidelines. Without

from the Member States,

technical

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH