Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users COM(2007) 560 final — 2007/0201 (COD)
Date: 2008-04-22
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common transport policy, pedestrian, road safety, transport accident, two-wheeled vehicle

19.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/9

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road
users’

COM(2007) 560 final — 2007/0201 (COD)

(2008/C 211/02)

On 23 October 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of pedestrians and other
vulnerable road users.

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 3 April 2008. The rapporteur was Mr Ranocchiari.

At its 444th plenary session, held on 22-23 April 2008 (meeting of 22 April), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 155 votes, nem con with three abstentions.

1. Summary and conclusions

1.1
Every year, more than 44 000 people are killed and a
further 1,7 million injured in road accidents in the 27 Member
States. Of these, more than 8 000 of those killed and 300 000
of those injured belong to the most vulnerable category of road
users — pedestrians and cyclists (1).

1.2
A framework directive was adopted in 2003 in order to
ensure better protection for vulnerable users. It entailed a thor-
ough review of the construction of the front part of vehicles, to
be implemented in two phases: the first was applied to vehicles
type-approved from 1 October 2005, while the second was to
take effect in September 2010, following a feasibility assessment
to be carried out before the end of 2004.

1.3
As confirmed in studies from numerous independent
experts, the second phase has proved not to be feasible, at least
under the conditions laid down: the Commission is therefore
now proposing to revise it, including new alternative measures
which will however guarantee, or even improve upon, the level
of safety contained in the provisions of the existing directive.

1.4 More specifically, the study carried out by the expert
engaged by the Commission (2) suggested a number of solu-
tions, which have been taken up in the present proposal,
combining active and passive safety measures, in line with the
recommendations put forward by CARS 21 (3) and with the
proposal for a global technical regulation (GTR) for the protec-
tion of pedestrians drawn up by the United Nations' Economic
Commission for Europe, Geneva (UN-ECE).

(1) Source: CARE (Community Road Accident data base): a database that
collects and compiles data provided by the Member States on road acci-
dents.

(2) Transport Research Limited UK.
(3) COM(2007) 22 final of 7 February 2007, A Competitive Automotive

Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century.

The EESC also considers that

1.5
the proposal does not
hinder free competition between manufacturers, in that it does
not restrict the market offer of vehicle models, but seeks to
channel demand towards models with higher safety require-
ments.

In the light of the above, the EESC unreservedly supports
1.6
the Commission's proposal. However,
it regrets the almost
three-year delay in reviewing the measures that have proved not
to be feasible and in drafting new ones, although the delay is
probably due in part to the appearance of data and technical
solutions that were not available when the current directive was
adopted.

1.7
The EESC calls for the delay — which is all the more
serious since it concerns the lives and health of Europe's citizens
— to be made up through the rapid and full approval of the
proposal by the European Parliament and the Council, enabling
the second phase to commence within the planned timescale.

1.8 While welcoming the increased efficacy of the technical
measures adopted for vehicles, the EESC calls on the European
institutions and the Member States to press ahead more decisi-
vely with initiatives regarding the other two aspects contributing
to road safety: firstly, enhanced infrastructure quality and safety
and secondly, training and awareness of all road users. This call
must equally be addressed to regional and local authorities, who
are increasingly shouldering decisive responsibilities in this
sector.

2. Introduction

2.1
the
Every year, some 8 000 pedestrians and cyclists,
most vulnerable road users, are killed and 300 000 injured in
road accidents in the 27 Member States.

C 211/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.8.2008

As

far back as 2001,

2.2
the Commission obtained a
commitment on the part of vehicle manufacturers to develop
new means of enhancing the protection of pedestrians and
cyclists, both actively (before a collision occurs) and passively (at
the time of collision).

passive safety parameters,
together with new active safety
elements that have been developed by the industry in the mean-
time, which can meet and even exceed the requirements of
Article 5, being ‘at least equivalent in terms of actual effective-
ness’.

The range of measures suggested at that time by manu-
2.3
facturers included the equipping of all vehicles with antilock
brake systems (ABS), a voluntary ban on the sale of rigid bull
bars, the fitting of daytime running lights (DRL) — a measure
subsequently withdrawn following opposition from some
Member States — and lastly, the future introduction of advanced
active safety new technology, which was still at the research
stage.

Furthermore, the tests now suggested are equal to those
2.9
contained in the global technical regulation for the protection of
pedestrians drawn up by the UN Economic Commission for
Europe (UN-ECE). The ensuing possible harmonisation of
European legislation with legislation outside Europe would also
clearly boost
the European vehicle
industry.

the competitiveness of

2.4
The Council and the European Parliament welcomed the
industry's commitment, at the same time calling for this field to
be governed, not by a voluntary agreement or a recommenda-
tion, but by fully-fledged legislation on the protection of pedes-
trians in the form of a specific directive.

This gave rise to ‘framework’ Directive 2003/102/EC (4)
2.5
relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable
road users, followed by Directive 2005/66/EC (5) relating to the
use of frontal protection systems on motor vehicles (elimination
of rigid bumpers).

2.6
The framework directive on protecting pedestrians is
based on tests and threshold values suggested by the European
Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee, and entails implementation
in two phases, both focusing on passive safety. The first phase,
which introduced changes in construction and lighter bonnets
and bumpers for M1 and N1 (6) vehicles weighing not more than
2 500 kg, came into force for vehicles that were type-approved
from 1 October 2005. The second phase, laying down stricter
tests and threshold values, is to apply to vehicles that are type-
approved from 1 September 2010.

Serious doubts concerning the feasibility of

2.7
the tests
planned for the second phase were already expressed when the
proposal was discussed at the European Parliament: in the final
version of the text, the directive stipulated that the Commission
should carry out a feasibility assessment of the second phase by
1 July 2004. Specifically, the assessment was to identify ‘alterna-
tive measures — either passive or a combination of active and
passive measures — which are at least equivalent in terms of
actual effectiveness’ (7).

2.8
A series of studies carried out by independent experts,
including those engaged by the Commission, showed that it was
technically impossible to fulfil the second-phase requirements
within the deadline set and using the tests stipulated by the
lays down revised
EEVC.

In consequence, the new proposal

(4) OJ L 321 of 6.12.2003 p. 15.
(5) OJ L 309 of 25.11.2005 p. 37.
(6) M1 = vehicles for eight passengers + driver, maximum mass not

N1 = commercial vehicles deriving from M1, maximum mass not

exceeding 3 500 kg.

exceeding 3 500 kg.

(7) Article 5 of Directive 2003/102/EC on the protection of pedestrians.

3. The European Commission's proposal

3.1
The new proposal, which is now for a regulation rather
than a directive, sets out first and foremost to combine the
provisions of the directive on frontal protection systems with
those of the earlier directive on the protection of pedestrians,
which will be amended as necessary in order to ensure that they
can be applied. Consequently,
the proposed regulation is
adopted, both of these directives will be repealed.

if

The tests that vehicles will have to pass in order to be

3.2
type-approved under the proposed regulation concern:

the bonnet and collision of

3.2.1
collision of child or small adult headform with the
forward part of the bonnet; collision of adult headform with the
rear part of
lower and upper
legforms with the bumper, with partially revised parameters
regarding phase II under the present directive. For the purposes
of monitoring rather than type-approval, and with a view to
future technological developments, collision tests for the pelvis
with the bonnet leading edge and adult headform with the
windscreen are also stipulated.

3.2.2
Regarding frontal protection systems (former Directive
2005/66/EC), collision of legform and child or small adult head-
form with the system are confirmed as type-approval
tests.
Further tests are proposed for monitoring purposes, together
with binding provisions on the construction and installation of
these systems.

3.3
Passive safety measures are supplemented by the installa-
tion of an active safety system in order to ensure the level of
safety laid down in the two previous directives. These are the
brake assist system (BAS), which helps a driver attempting to
brake rapidly in an emergency but not applying sufficient pres-
sure. In combination with ABS it ensures maximum braking
pressure and optimises the rate of deceleration, significantly
reducing the impact velocity with pedestrians.

19.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/11

3.4
Lastly, in view of the increasing number of heavier vehi-
cles (especially SUVs) using the roads, it is now recommended
that, following a transitional period, the provisions apply not
only to M1 and N1 vehicles weighing up to 2 500 kg, as under
the existing legislation, but also heavier ones weighing up to
3 500 kg, which is the upper limit
for the two categories
concerned.

4.7
The EESC hopes that the new provisions will also be
rapidly applied to heavier vehicles, including SUVs, present in
increasing numbers in urban traffic. To this end, the transitory
period mentioned in the proposal should be fixed immediately.

4. The EESC's comments on the Commission's proposal

4.1
Firstly, the EESC welcomes the Commission's decision to
merge the two preceding directives in the proposed regulation.
This option clarifies and simplifies the relevant legislation, as the
EESC previously suggested in its opinion on the proposal for a
directive on the use of frontal protection systems (8).

4.2
Similarly, the EESC also endorses the choice of a regu-
lation as the legal instrument, as this ensures specific implemen-
tation methods and deadlines in all the Member States — a
particularly important aspect for such highly technical legisla-
tion.

4.3
On the other hand, the EESC regrets that it has proved
impossible to implement the tests put forward by the EEVC for
phase II, as their feasibility was not tested within the stipulated
deadline (1 July 2004), leading to a delay of more than three
years.

4.4
The EESC, however, wishes to express its appreciation of
the solution proposed following a lengthy but fruitful process,
in which the recommendations put forward by CARS 21 on an
integrated approach have been taken on board. This also
enables European legislation to be brought
into line with
non-European laws. It is particularly satisfying that all this has
been underpinned by a rigorous impact assessment, the first to
have been examined and approved by the Impact Assessment
Board recently set up by the European Commission.

The chosen solution, by implementing active safety
4.5
measures as well, will — according to the forecasts from the
Commission and its experts — cut the number of deaths and
serious injuries by 80 % and 44 % respectively compared to the
that would have been achieved with the original
results
phase II (9) (that has turned out to be unachievable), thereby
helping to save more than 1 100 lives and reducing the number
of people injured by 46 000. Moreover, the new measures entail
very low costs and will therefore have a negligible impact on
vehicle prices.

4.6
In the light of the above, the EESC strongly recommends
that the Commission's proposal should be rapidly and fully
approved by the European Parliament and the Council, with no
further delay, which would inevitably cause further slippage due
to the vehicle industry's lead times (10).

(8) Opinion OJ C 118 of 30.4.2004.
(9) SEC(2007) 1244: impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a

regulation.

Lastly,

4.8
it should be remembered that these protective
measures do not, of course, apply to older vehicles which now
constitute one of the greatest dangers for vulnerable users. It is
also worth pointing out that although ABS — now combined
with BAS to great effect — has been widely introduced on a
voluntary basis since 2004, will only become compulsory with
the new legislation.

4.9
The EESC would lastly point out that in the type of colli-
sion in question, injuries fall into two categories: those caused
by the primary impact between the pedestrian or cyclist and the
front part of the vehicle, and those caused by the secondary
impact with the road surface onto which pedestrians are often
thrown. It should in any case be pointed out that it is unrealistic
to expect to protect pedestrians if the primary impact occurs at
speeds above 40 kph.

The purpose of the above comments is to emphasise
4.10
once again that a solution to this problem, as in the case of
many other road user safety issues, depends on an integrated
approach that must include — in addition to technical improve-
ments to vehicles — another two key aspects: road user beha-
viour and infrastructure. These are both aspects on which the
European institutions and the Member States will need to
shoulder decisive responsibilities.

4.11
The EESC considers that the European Commission has
done, and continues to do, much in this regard, with proposals
for legislative and policy initiatives, funds channelled through
European framework research programmes, the programme for
subsidising road safety and, last but not least, the launch of the
European road safety charter.

In contrast,

4.12
the other institutions and the Member
States, although addressing the problem, do not always give
sufficient support to the Commission's initiatives. The Commis-
sion's proposal, intended to raise road infrastructure safety stan-
dards (11), is a recent example of this. The proposal, considered
by the EESC to be necessary in order to reduce the number of
road casualties, has been judged by the European Parliament to
in the name of the
be over-prescriptive and as a result has,
subsidiarity principle, been emptied of
its most vigorous,
binding provisions. In this case too, unless changes are made
during the plenary vote — which is unlikely — the Parliament
will have handed over all decisions to the Member States.

(10) The time needed to implement any new requirement involving struc-

tural changes to vehicles.

(11) COM(2006) 569 final.

C 211/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.8.2008

4.13
Concerning the first aspect mentioned above, i.e. road
user behaviour, accidents are frequently caused by driver care-
lessness, but just as often pedestrians and cyclists act impru-
dently, in contravention of the basic rules of the road and some-
times of common sense. Education and information in this area
should be provided from primary school onward by means of
regular publicity campaigns aimed at encouraging proper beha-
viour by all users. It is equally important to introduce severe
penalties for dangerous behaviour by all road users.

4.14
The other essential aspect of road safety concerns infra-
structure, first and foremost in cities, where 80 % of pedestrian
and cyclist deaths occur. Physical separation of road users wher-

ever possible represents the most effective way of preventing
contact between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. From this
point of view, work to build protected pedestrian crossings,
footbridges, cycle lanes, proper lighting and surfaces, and clear
signage, which should as far as possible be the same in the
different Member States, would help to reduce the number of
accidents, as well as creating a less hostile urban environment
for people with disabilities.

4.15
Initiatives of this kind increase safety and improve the
quality of life in cities, and should therefore be recalled in all
Commission proposals including those, such as the present one,
that refer only to the technical aspects of motor vehicles.

Brussels, 22 April 2008.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with
respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and
maintenance information’

COM(2007) 851 final — 2007/0295 (COD)

(2008/C 211/03)

On 30 January 2008 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles and
engines with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance
information.

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 3 April 2008. The rapporteur was Mr Ranocchiari.

At its 444th plenary session, held on 22 and 23 April 2008 (meeting of 22 April), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 142 votes nem. con., with 3 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

for application of environmental requirements and industry lead
times.

The rise in demand for mobility,

1.1
the proportion of
private vehicles and the problems created by traffic congestion
above all — but not only — in urban areas have helped to
make road transport an area of human activity where particular
attention is being paid to environmental impact assessment. The
Commission's proposal to reduce the emission of atmospheric
pollutants from heavy duty vehicles can also be seen in this
context.

1.3
The EESC shares the Commission's view that the regu-
lation under consideration constitutes a step towards gradual
global harmonisation of emission levels.

1.2
The EESC supports the proposal, which it considers
appropriate both in terms of its effectiveness and of time frames

1.4
The EESC considers the choice of a regulation as the
legal instrument to be reasonable and particularly appropriate,
as this ensures deadlines and specific implementation methods
in all the Member States — a particularly important aspect for
such highly technical legislation.