Communication from the Commission concerning Commission recommendation of 21 October 2003 on enforcement in the field of road safety (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: road safety, transport regulations

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/5

Communication from the Commission concerning Commission recommendation of 21 October
2003 on enforcement in the field of road safety

(2004/C 93/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

A. INTRODUCTION

the European Union.

1. Every year, more than 40 000 people are killed on the
roads of
In the White Paper on
European transport policy for 2010: time to decide (1),
the Commission has set as its over-all objective in terms
of road safety that this number of fatalities needs to be
halved by 2010.

2. The Commission has recently adopted a European Road
Safety Action Programme (2),
containing operational
measures aimed at achieving this objective. This action
programme
the
behaviour of road users, vehicle safety and improvement
of road infrastructure; the measures in these three areas are
supplementary to one another.

identifies

actions:

three

areas

of

3. Whereas measures on enforcement aimed at improving
road users behaviour as proposed in this Recommendation
are most appropriate to achieve a rapid reduction of road
deaths and injuries, measures that contribute to a safer
infrastructure (namely roads and tunnels) and measures
in the field of vehicle technology can bring about
term.
improvements
Relevant in the latter area is the Commission's Communi-
cation on Information and Communications Technologies
for Safe and Intelligent Vehicles (3).

in road safety

in the

longer

4. Where road users behaviour is concerned, it appears from
available data (4) that the main causes of fatal accidents are
speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol (hereafter
referred to as drink-driving) and non-use of a seat belt.

5. Speeding drivers cause about one third of the fatal and
serious accidents in the European Union, and limiting
excessive speed would reduce the number of deaths each

(1) COM(2001) 370 of 12.9.2001.
(2) COM(2003) 311 of 2.6.2003.
(3) COM(2003) 542 final of 15.9.03.
(4) E.g. research projects GADGET (2000) and ESCAPE (2003); report
‘Police enforcement strategies to reduce traffic casualties in Europe’
(May 1999), European Transport Safety Council (hereafter ETSC);
SUNflower: a comparative research of the development of road
safety in Sweden, United Kingdom and the Netherlands (2002).

year by 11 000 and the number of people injured by
180 000 (5).

6. Drunk drivers cause about 10 000 deaths annually in the

EU (6).

7. Although seat belt wearing is mandatory through an EU
Directive (7), in 1996 (8) 10 000 car occupants died in an
accident because they were not wearing their seat belt.

8. Even if these numbers of deaths (11 000, 10 000 and
10 000) cannot just be added up (often, more than one
of these causes play a role in one single fatal accident),
cutting back these three main causes of deaths on the
roads would still achieve more than half
the 50 %
reduction in fatalities that has been set as the general
objective of road safety policy.

B. SITUATION IN THE MEMBER STATES

9. Whereas the rules on wearing a seat belt are harmonised,
efforts to harmonise the rules on drink-driving (9) have not
been successful. In the field of commercial road transport,
EU legislation exists on the application and use of speed
limitation devices, limiting the maximum speed of certain
categories of buses and trucks (10), but efforts to harmonise
rules on maximum speed for buses and trucks on all types
of public roads have failed (11).

(5) ETSC report ‘Reducing traffic injuries resulting from excess and
Jan.1995, saying that an average speed
inappropriate speed’,
in a reduction of over
reduction of 5 km/h should result
11 000 fatal casualties annually in the EU (based on IRTAD,
1994).

(6) Commission Recommendation of 17.1.2001 (OJ C 48/2),

paragraph 1.2.2.

(7) Council Directive 91/671/EEC on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States relating to compulsory use of safety belts in
vehicles of less than 3,5 tonnes (OJ L 373, p. 26).

(8) ETSC report on police enforcement, May 1999.
(9) COM(88) 707 final.
(10) Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed
limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the
Community (OJ L 244 of 30.9.93, p. 34), amended by Directive
2002/85/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L
327 of 4.12.02, p. 8).

(11) COM (88) 706 final.

C 93/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

10. However, when looking at the performance of the different
Member States in terms of road safety and comparing this
with the different national rules, harmonisation of rules
does not appear to be the panacea for reducing death
rates. The three main causes of fatal accidents, speeding,
drink-driving and non use of
involve
infringements of existing rules. Countries that succeed
better in reducing the number of deaths apparently do
rules, which results in
more to enforce the relevant
the infringements concerned, and
better prevention of
consequently in fewer fatal accidents (1). This can be illus-
trated by the following examples.

seat belts, all

11. National rules are different with respect to speeding and
drink-driving. With respect to the latter (maximum % of
blood alcohol level), the biggest difference in rules exists
between Sweden (0,02 %) and the UK (0,08 %). But
looking at the performance of these two Member States
in number of deaths per million inhabitants over the year
2000 (60 for the UK and 65 for Sweden), it appears that
they were nevertheless the two best-performing countries,
whereas the corresponding figures for Greece and Portugal,
where the maximum is 0,05 %, were 196 and 187
respectively.

12. Looking at the maximum speed, the differences in rules do
not correspond to the difference in performance either:
e.g., on secondary roads, Luxembourg, with a relatively
low speed limit of 90 km/h, had 155 deaths per million
inhabitants, whereas Germany, with a speed limit of
100 km/h, had 91 deaths.

13. Finally, with respect to seat belt use, where the rule in all
Member States is the same, namely that seat belt use is
mandatory under EU law, this appears by no means to be
sufficient for avoiding deaths caused by the non-use of seat
belts (see 7 above) and moreover it is known that the
application rate is much higher in some Member States
than in others.

14. The big differences in performance in the field of road
safety, illustrated by the fact that the risk to be killed on

(1) This is confirmed by a report from the European Transport Safety
Council (ETSC) of September 1999:
‘Police enforcement strategies
to reduce road casualties in Europe: case study contributions’. Based
on the analysis of a large body of information, it concludes that
effective police enforcement could lead to a 50 % reduction on road
injury crashes. Speeding, drink/driving and non-use of seat belts are
the main focus of this report.

the road in some Member States is more than three times
higher
than in other Member States, constitutes an
impediment to the free circulation of goods and to the
free movement of persons and services in the European
Union. The enforcement measures recommended here are
capable of drastically decreasing these differences.

15. Because of

reduction of

road
the expected maximal
in the
fatalities to be gained from better enforcement
field of the three traffic violations mentioned above, this
Recommendation deals with these and not with other
issues, such as use of mobile phones, helmet wearing, tail-
gating and other forms of unsafe behaviour. While rules
on these other subjects should continue to be enforced,
particular emphasis should nevertheless be put on the
three main causes of
road fatalities. The cost-benefit
analysis carried out on the basis of proposals similar to
this Recommendation assesses that they result in a total
annual reduction of 14 071 fatalities and 679 258 injuries
in the EU, and in a net benefit of 37,15 billion Euro or
0,44 % of GNP (2). It has to be kept in mind, however, that
these numbers result from the assumption that there is no
overlap between the savings to be achieved in the three
fields concerned. In reality, however, there will be a certain
overlap between these fields, because drivers in individual
crashes may exhibit two or all three of the behaviours that
the measures are aimed at preventing, but it is not possible
to know the extent of such an overlap and the resulting
reduction in the number (3).

it

to this

16. With respect to driving under the influence of drugs or
is
medicines (hereafter referred to as drugs-driving),
known that this is increasingly problematic in terms of
road safety. However, with respect
subject
proposals cannot yet be as concrete and targeted at
improved enforcement as for the three fields that are at
the centre of this Recommendation, because of the many
uncertainties that exist with respect to drugs and driving,
such as problems of definition, a lack of limit values and
effective detection devices. The Recommendation
of
in the standard form set out in the
therefore contains,
annex, a number of questions which should provide the
Commission with information on the legal and factual
situation on drugs-driving
States.
Depending on the results of this information gathering,
more concrete measures may be proposed later.

in the Member

(2) ‘Cost-benefit

analysis of

road safety improvements’ by ICF
Consulting with Imperial College Centre for Transport Studies,
London UK, 12 June 2003 (hereafter
ICF study): namely a
reduction in fatalities by 5 840 for speeding, 4 343 for seat belts
(based on an assumption of 100 % use) and 3 888 for drink driving,
p. v.

(3) With a view to this, and under some very general assumptions, the
study works out as worst case scenario that GNP savings would
only be 0,40 % (p. vi).

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/7

C. A COHERENT ENFORCEMENT PACKAGE

FOR THE

EUROPEAN UNION

17. Harmonisation of enforcement already exists in the field of
commercial road transport, even if the current rules need
to be strengthened. Council Directive 88/599/EEC (1) on
standard checking procedures for the implementation of
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonization of
certain social
legislation relating to road transport and
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in
road transport, Council Directive 95/50/EC (2) on uniform
procedures for checks of the transport of dangerous goods
by road and Directive 2000/30/EC (3) of
the European
Parliament and of the Council on the technical roadside
inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles
circulating in the Community, deal with different aspects
of enforcement of commercial road transport. Directive
88/599/EEC in particular,
three
enforcement instruments, appears not to be sufficiently
effective in practice. With a view to improving this
situation, the Commission has, at the same time as this
Recommendation,
and
Council a proposal for a directive to make the rules on
in the field of commercial
checks and enforcement
transport more effective.

also submitted to Parliament

the oldest of

the

the

to form a

18. This proposal with respect to commercial road transport
and
enforcement
current Recommendation for
measures in the field of general road safety together are
coherent package dealing with
meant
enforcement and aiming at considerably reducing the
death rate on European roads (the so-called Enforcement
Package). The measures contained in the current Recom-
mendation apply to both the private and the commercial
transport sector. Though there may be differences in the
extent to which the three issues — speeding, drink-driving
and non use of seat belts — are relevant for the private car
sector on the one hand and the commercial vehicle sector
on the other, the best results will no doubt be achieved by
encompassing all vehicles. Whilst speeding is committed
by both private cars and commercial vehicles — the latter
especially on secondary and urban roads where the speed
limit
is lower than the maximum speed that can be
reached by vehicles with a speed limitation device —
drink-driving is a bigger problem in the private car
sector than in the commercial transport sector, with the
opposite being true
seat belts.
Moreover, the effects of speeding and drink-driving tend
to be more serious when committed by commercial
vehicles because of their bigger mass and the resulting
impact in the event of an accident.

the non-use of

for

(1) OJ L 325 of 29.11.88, p. 55.
(2) OJ L 249 of 17.10.95, p. 35.
(3) OJ L 203 of 10.8.2000, p. 1.

19. The future enlargement of the European Union means an
additional challenge in terms of road safety. In general, the
situation in the accession countries is worse than in the
current EU. The number of fatalities does not seem very
high, but this is deceptive, since it does not take into
account the number of cars and the level of the traffic,
which are considerably lower than in the EU. Thus, it will
be
the measures proposed in the
Enforcement Package will also apply in the new EU
Member States.

important

that

20. The measures proposed in this Recommendation are based
on the results of different research projects, studies and
reports (4). A recent comparative research of the devel-
opment of road safety in the three best performing EU
countries, namely Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands
(the
‘SUN’-countries), dealing with drink-driving and
seatbelts, among other things, has come to the following
finding: ‘The EU target of 50 % reduction of road fatalities
in 2010 compared to 2000, means that the fatality rates
have to be halved to 6,8 (per billion vehicle kilometres) or
to 5,5 (per 100 000 inhabitants), which is just below the
level of the SUN-countries in 2000. Thus, it seems that an
EU-wide application of the road safety measures taken in
the SUN-countries might almost achieve the EU-target for
2010.’ The following table contains relevant data of the
SUN-countries,
other
EU average
countries (5):

some

and

the

Table 10.1

Fatality rates for SUN- and EU-countries, USA,

Australia and Japan

(source OECD-IRTAD database and estimates for the EU from
ETSC, 2002)

Fatality rate 2000

Per billion vehicle
kilometres

Per 100 000
inhabitants

Sweden

Great Britain

Netherlands

EU all 15 countries

USA

Australia

Japan

8,4

7,3

8,5

13,6

9,5

10,1

13,4

6,7

5,9

6,8

11,0

15,2

9,5

8,2

(4) E.g. GADGET research project, namely Chapter 4,5 on Legal
measures and enforcement (final report 2000); ESCAPE research
project
Police
(2003), VERA research project (Video Enforcement
Enforcement)
for Road Authorities),
concluded January 2000; SUNflower
project (2002), different ETSC studies and reports.

(Enhanced Safety Coming

from Appropriate

(5) SUNflower report, p. 117.

C 93/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

21. The differences in road safety performance between EU
countries may partially be explained by differences in
geography, climate, demography,
infrastructure, culture
and temperament. However,
such differences do not
the application of best practice in the three
prevent
areas concerned in all EU Member States. The results of
an impact assessment study carried out in this context
show that the relevant best practices can effectively be
applied in all Member States in such a way that
the
benefits clearly surpass the costs. The benefit-cost ratio
of applying existing best enforcement practice to the
whole of the EU is, for speeding between 5 and 6.8:1,
for drink-driving between 3.8 and 8:1 and for seat belt
use between 10 and 13:1. The differences in ratios reflect
among other things whether the up-front costs of intro-
ducing the new measures and the lag between incurring
the costs and realising the benefits are taken into account
or not (1).

the European Union;

22. Measures are therefore proposed in this Recommendation
which seek to apply best practice in each of the fields
concerned throughout
these best
practice measures are either distilled from one or more
Member States or based on results of scientific research.
To obtain the necessary information, best practices in the
three fields concerned have been scrutinised, not only in
the SUN-countries but also in other countries that may
have reached good results in any of
for
instance Finland, which has an even better record with
respect to drink-driving, and where one in three drivers
are tested every year (2). In order to get an overall picture
of the enforcement practices being applied in all Member
States in the three fields that are the subject of this Recom-
mendation, the Commission has carried out a study to
collect relevant factual information about rules, sanctions
and enforcement practice in the Member States. The
information is derived from the answers given by the
national authorities concerned to an extensive ques-
tionnaire (3).

these fields,

23. The

are meant

proposed measures

as minimum
requirements: Member States can choose to prescribe
far as possible
measures which go yet
improvements
concerned,
are
measures are described in the SUNflower report which
would result
saving
in terms of
in estimated gains
percentages of fatalities between 2000 and 2010:

further. As
SUN-countries

in the

— For speed enforcement: Sweden 17 %, UK 10 %, NL

10 %

— For enforcement of belt and child restraint use: Sweden

2 %, UK 4 %, NL 8 %

— For enforcement of drink-driving: Sweden 3 %, UK 4 %,

NL 5 % (4).

24. Thus, substantial savings can be obtained even in the best-

performing countries.

Some of the main general findings on European traffic
enforcement from the ESCAPE project are:

— There is wide-spread support for enforcement among

the public

— Enforcement based on deterrence is cost effective

— Automated methods are effective; current solutions are
outdated; the adoption of automated methods is slow
are
in most European countries
reluctant to use them

and authorities

— Enforcement needs commitment and dedication; inno-
vation is needed above all
in persuading decision
makers of the need for effective implementation of
enforcement strategies

— Needs surveys reveal that more technological help is
needed and more simplified methods must be found
for catching and dealing with treating violators

— There

are major
enforcement in Europe (5).

differences

in

efficiency

of

25. All these findings are relevant, in one way or another, for
the proposals put forward in this Recommendation.

26. Future

activities,

research activities

could also support

these
6th
enforcement
Framework Programme for Research and Development
(e.g.
‘Sustainable Surface Transport’ — Enforcement of
traffic rules and drivers' aptitude to drive).

especially within

the

(1) ICF study, pp. 22/23, 28/29 and 34/35 respectively.
(2) ETSC review on police enforcement strategies to reduce traffic

casualties in Europe, May 1999, p. 9.

(3) Study carried out by Clifford Chance (May 2003).

(4) SUNflower report, pp. 137/138.
(5) ESCAPE, final report, pp. 19/20.