Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the use of frontal protection systems on motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC’ (COM(2003) 586 final – 2003/0226 (COD))
Date: 2004-03-31
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EC conformity marking, motor vehicle, pedestrian, road safety, safety device, safety standard

C 112/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council relating to the use of frontal protection systems on motor
vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC’

(COM(2003) 586 final – 2003/0226 (COD))

(2004/C 112/05)

On 22 October 2003, the Council decided to consult the European 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 10 March 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Ranoc-
chiari.

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

1.

Introduction

collisions at this speed, i.e. in heavy urban traffic, where almost
half of accidents occur.

1.1
In order to achieve the objective of enhanced road
safety, which is a priority for the Community institutions and
national authorities alike, measures will have to be introduced
progressively in all areas of car manufacturing that can reduce
the number of accidents and their effects.

1.2
The proposal rightly focuses on protecting the weakest
and most vulnerable road users in the case of a collision with a
motor vehicle. As stated in the European Road Safety Action
Programme, presented recently by the Commission, ‘safer car
fronts for pedestrians and cyclists are a priority for EU action.’

The proposal

JAMA and KAMA respectively) not

to amend Directive 70/156/EEC (2),
1.3.2
which provides the basis for type-approval of vehicles and their
trailers in so far as it regulates and harmonises procedures,
springs from the commitment made in 2001 by the European,
Japanese and Korean car manufacturing associations
(the
to install rigid
ACEA,
(usually steel) bull bars as original equipment on new vehicles
or to sell them as an after market item through their commer-
cial networks. It should be remembered, however, that they
were originally designed to improve vehicle safety for profes-
sional users (farmers, forestry workers, etc.) in ‘hostile’ areas
and/or where animals are present.

1.3
Road accident statistics indicate that a significant propor-
tion of casualties involve pedestrians and cyclists who are
injured as a result of contact with a moving vehicle, notably
with the frontal structures of passenger cars. The most recent
data from CARE (1) provide the following figures for deaths
relating to the most vulnerable categories: pedestrians 4,571;
cyclists 1,444. Unfortunately, no details of the circumstances of
the collision are provided.

1.3.1
It should be remembered that there are two types of
injury in this type of collision: those from the ‘primary’ impact
of the pedestrian or cyclist with the front of the vehicle, and
those from the ‘secondary’ impact with the road surface onto
which the pedestrian is often hurled. In any case, it should be
noted that it there is no hope of protecting pedestrians if the
primary impact occurs at a speed of over 40 km/h.
It is,
injury in primary
however, possible to reduce levels of

The proposal has also become necessary for

1.4
reasons:

three

— to harmonise construction provisions, and consequently
type-approval provisions, both for finished vehicles with a
frontal protection system (or rigid bull bars), and for the
system itself as a ‘separate technical unit’;

— to act on the call made by the Council on 26 November
2001 for a ban on the use of rigid bull bars on all new M1
and N1 type vehicles;

— to respond to the European Parliament request of 13 June
2002 for the Commission to propose legislation to ban the
including as after market
marketing of rigid bull bars,
items.

(1) Community database on road accidents: collates and processes

Member State data on road accidents.

(2) OJ L 42 of 23.2.1970

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/19

The proposal aims

1.5
to establish the technical and
construction provisions for frontal protection systems (bull
bars) on M1 and N1 type vehicles, i.e. passenger cars and light
vans not exceeding a total permissible mass of 3.5 tonnes, and
as such is one of the special directives provided for under the
type-approval procedure established by Directive 70/156/EEC.

1.6
The proposal also ties in with Directive 2003/102/EC of
17 November 2003 (1) relating to the protection of pedestrians
and other vulnerable road users in the event of a collision with
a motor vehicle. The proposal has become particularly neces-
sary since the latter directive does not contain any specific
provisions on frontal protection systems (bull bars).

1.7
The Committee has already commented on the above
directive in its opinion of 16 July 2003 (2), where it endorsed
and supported the Commission's work in the area of pedestrian
protection, but pointed out that this should be part of the
bigger Community drive to promote road safety, with the
accent on the need for a comprehensive prevention policy.

type-approval specifications, compliance with which defines –
in practice – safe frontal protection system, i.e. non-rigid.

the current wording of

2.2.2 On the other hand,
the
proposal creates unexpected and probably unsolvable complica-
tions for manufacturers, by requiring bull bars to pass different
tests from those required for the basic vehicle in the initial
implementation phase of Directive 2003/102/EC.

2.3 One should not forget all the work carried out thus far
in the field of pedestrian safety. This work, starting with the
agreement with car-maker associations and followed by the
above Directive 2003/102/EC, has made it possible to identify
some of the mainstays of state-of- the-art technology in this
area and, logically, the proposal should build on these.

1.8 Moreover, the Committee has recently commented on
other legislative proposals on road safety (e.g. on restraint
systems and safety belts, and on extending the requirement to
fit speed limitation devices to almost all vehicles) (3), and on the
European Road Safety Action Programme.
It reiterated the
importance of developing in parallel the three crucial elements
for safety: vehicles, infrastructure and user-behaviour.

2.3.1 Directive 2003/102/EC (Annex I, p1) establishes the
‘frontal surface’
(including frontal protection systems) crash
tests for vehicle type-approval. However, under the present
proposal the Commission anticipates the adoption of certain
technical provisions (Art. 4) specific to bull bar crash tests.
These do not correspond to the provisions for the initial phase
of the above directive, which was adopted only recently. The
Committee fails to see the need for this review:

2. General comments

2.1
The Committee welcomes this new initiative from the
Commission, which will help to round off the regulatory frame-
work designed to improve road safety, thereby filling a gap in
the legislation.

2.2 Whilst the Committee accepts that the initiative is neces-
sary, it feels obliged to express some considerable reservation
with regard to the approach adopted by the Commission in
drawing up the proposed directive.

Given the accepted dangers posed by rigid frontal
2.2.1
protection systems, and the subsequent agreement by car
manufacturers not to produce or market them, the Commission
has opted for a technical, type-approval solution, insofar as it
does not define rigid and non-rigid, but lays down technical/

— in terms of pedestrian safety, bull bars should be considered
on a par with other frontal devices (bumpers, bonnet,
lights, etc.);

— tests must be carried out with bull bars fitted to the vehicle
or model thereof in order to ensure that each bull bar has
in fact been fitted to the vehicle for which it is being tested
(either as an integral part or fitted later,
following the
fitting instructions). This is because the safety of a frontal
protection system depends on the way it is fitted to the
vehicle and on the space between the system and the body-
work;

— hence the need to use the crash tests currently in force,
which apply to the whole frontal area of the vehicle. Other-
wise one would have to conclude that the Commission is
not following up on a recently approved directive.

(1) OJ L 321 of 6.12.2003
(2) Rapporteur: Mr Levaux, OJ C 234 of 30.9.2003
(3) OJ C 80 of 30.3.2004

The Committee therefore believes that the provisions of
aligned with those of Directive

2.4
the proposal must be
2003/102/EC, as detailed below.

C 112/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2.5
Failing this, it would appear reasonable to surmise that
bull bar manufacturers will be forced out of business, as they
are unable to set up immediately the technical units needed to
pass the stringent tests required under the present proposal.

3. Specific comments

In the light of the above comments, the Committee calls on the
Commission:

3.1
to monitor the Member States so that checks are always
carried out to ensure that the frontal protection system is
mounted on the vehicle for which it was granted type-approval,
in order to avoid any possible sources of danger.

3.2
to reconsider Article 3 of the proposal – The Committee
calls for the date (1 July 2005) to be changed to 1 October
2005. As pointed out above, the proposal should be closely
aligned with Directive 2003/102/EC.

that differ

3.3
to reconsider Article 4(1) and Annex I, part 3 of the
proposal (test provisions) – the Committee would point out
that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to establish detailed
from those
timescales
technical provisions or
provided for in the initial implementation phase of Directive
2003/102/EC. Since it is not the frontal protection system itself
that must be tested, but the front of the vehicle (incorporating
such a system or some other device), it would be inappropriate
to have different test arrangements. For example, under the
proposal an ‘upper legform’ test is mandatory for vehicle type-
approval, whereas
of Directive
the
2003/102/EC, this type of test is only carried out for moni-
toring and data collection purposes.

provisions

under

4. Conclusions

4.1
amended as

The Committee hopes

the proposed directive,
suggested by the Committee above, will be

that

adopted as soon as possible. The suggestions are intended to
refocus the directive on making possible improvements to
vehicle
something which has
already been provided for and approved with the recent Direc-
tive on the protection of pedestrians.

frontal protection systems,

4.2
The Committee is concerned that – failing the adoption
of the suggested changes – the result could be a ‘prohibitionary’
type of legislation, with bull bars no longer being produced
and perhaps the emergence of a market that is difficult to
control.

4.3 More generally, the Committee hopes that the Commis-
sion will adopt a strategy that clearly defines regulatory priori-
ties and avoids any inconsistency in the declared objectives. In
this context, the Committee would point out that the various
options should always be selected on the basis of a full-scale
impact assessment of the new regulations,
in order to take
proper account, alongside other factors, of the cost to manufac-
turers, and consequently of the international competitiveness of
European industry.

4.4
The Committee would also highlight the need to over-
haul the complex legal framework relating to motor vehicles.
For passenger car type-approval alone, there are currently 170
directives taking up some 3,500 pages of the Official Journal.

4.5
The Committee would also stress the need for the tech-
nical aspects of all safety solutions to be assessed thoroughly,
by means of broad consultation involving the industry and all
stakeholders, in order to identify the most advanced, reliable,
effective and cost-efficient solutions.

Finally,

the Committee,

in accordance with the
4.6
comments made in point 1.8 above and with a view to
improving road safety, calls for ever greater focus to be placed
on education and awareness campaigns for pedestrians and
cyclists.

Brussels, 31 March 2004.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH