COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users, amending Regulation (EU) 2018/… and repealing Regulations (EC) No 78/2009, (EC) No 79/2009 and (EC) No 661/2009
Date: 2018-05-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: European standard, approval, environmental standard, motor vehicle, pneumatic tyre, road safety, safety device, safety standard, technical standard, transport accident

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 17.5.2018  SWD(2018) 191 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general safety and the protection of vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users, amending Regulation (EU) 2018/… and repealing Regulations (EC) No 78/2009, (EC) No 79/2009 and (EC) No 661/2009 {COM(2018) 286 final} - {SEC(2018) 270 final} - {SWD(2018) 190 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact assessment on the Revision of the General Safety Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 and Pedestrian Safety 
Regulation (EC) No 78/2009 

NOTE:  Please  be  aware  that  the  total  length  of  the  executive  summary  sheet  should  not  exceed 
two pages (at 1500 char/page) 

A. Need for action 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? Maximum 11 lines 
Road  safety  is  addressed  in  the  EU  through  an  integrated  approach  (e.g.  enforcement,  driver  training, 
infrastructure  and  vehicle  safety).  Since  2001,  road  casualties  have  been  significantly  reduced.  Recently, 
stagnation has been observed. Some Member States even report an increase for several consecutive years. It is 
expected that without new initiatives on road safety in general, the safety-effects of the current approach can no 
longer off-set the increasing traffic volumes. With still over 26 000 annual fatalities and nearly 250 000 seriously 
injured,  new  actions  in  this  domain  have  to  be  considered.  In  terms  of  road  users,  there  is  a  need  to  better 
protect those that are more vulnerable, i.e. pedestrians, cyclists and those of small stature and the elderly. Other 
matters of attention relate to e.g. SUV crash tests exemptions and anticipated electrification of the vehicle fleet 
and its safety risks. In general, these objectives may be achieved by improvements in several policy areas (e.g. 
infrastructure,  training)  and  for  this  specific  initiative  by  improving  vehicle  safety  features,  provided  that  the 
approach is consistent for all relevant vehicle categories. 

What is this initiative expected to achieve? Maximum 8 lines 
General objective: Either completely avoid accidents and thus lower their overall number or to lower the severity 
of un-avoided accidents, so that in each case there are less fatalities and severe injuries. 
Specific objective 1: To do so in accidents between vehicles or between vehicles and other obstacles. 
Specific objective 2: To do so in accidents between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level? Maximum 7 lines  
When actions to address road safety problems were to be taken individually by Member States at national level 
by imposing specific non-harmonised and additional vehicle safety performance requirements, there would be a 
particular  risk  of  creating  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  motor  vehicles  in  the  Union,  negatively  affecting 
citizens  as  well  as  economic  operators.  Furthermore,  action  at  EU  level  allows  for  more  effective  integrated 
approach with other EU road safety policies in the context of the Third Mobility Package. 

B. Solutions 

What  legislative  and  non-legislative  policy  options  have  been  considered?  Is  there  a  preferred 
choice or not? Why? Maximum 14 lines  
Three legislative options, cumulative in nature, have been considered whereas  a self-regulatory  approach has 
been discarded at an early stage. Non-legislative policy options have not been considered. The options are: 
1) Generalisation of mature and widely available safety features 
2) Introducing widely available and less commonly available safety features as standard equipment 
3) Introduction of a full set of safety features boosting innovation 
All policy options consider various vehicle safety legislation items, each covering a specific safety issue, where 
option 1 addressed the least and option 3 the most safety areas and issues. Broadly speaking, the first option 
covers  effective  measures  and  technologies  that  are  already  widely  available  on  a  range  of  mainstream  cars. 
The  second  option  adds  a  specific  focus  on  potential  technologies  that  require  vehicle  manufacturers  to  go 
slightly beyond what is presently available on the market on non-entry level vehicles. The preferred choice for all 
categories is option 3. This option is expected to prevent the highest number of fatalities and severe injuries for 
vehicle occupants, pedestrians and cyclists, at an overall acceptable cost. It also ensures a consistent and non-
discriminatory approach towards all vehicle categories. 

Who supports which option? Maximum 7 lines  
The  vehicle  manufacturing  industry  is  clearly  supportive  of  option  1  as  it  has  the  least  implications  for  new 
vehicle  models  while  still  showing  an  acceptable  safety  benefits  for  especially  light  duty  vehicles.  They  could 
also support option 2, save for a few measures for which they question the effectiveness. Option 3 is supported 
by  the  European  Parliament,  Member  States,  Safety  Advocacy  groups,  supplier  industry  and  appears  to  be 

1 

 
 
 
supported by the general public as well. 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines                                       
Over the evaluation period (2021 – 2037) the preferred option 3 is expected to have the following effects over 
the scenario where no legislative action is taken in terms of strengthening vehicle safety requirements: 
Fatalities prevented: 24 794 covering vehicle occupants (in frontal, side or rear impacts) reduction by 16.0% and 
pedestrians and cyclists (hit with front-side, side or rear-side of a vehicle) reduction by 14.4%.  
Severe injuries prevented: 140 740 
Present value benefit: € 72.8 billion 
The impact of the preferred option on vehicle users, pedestrians, cyclists, equipment manufacturers and Member 
State is in all cases rated as strongly positive. 
Comparison  of  the  impacts  shows  significantly  increased  vehicle  occupant  safety  as  well  as  pedestrian  and 
cyclist  protection.  The  supplier  industry  benefits  from  increased  safety  system  and  component  sales  and 
encouraged  innovative  technologies  and  R&D  activities.  Consumers  may  benefit  from  reduced  insurance 
premiums. Member States may see a reduction in need for emergency services and reduced traffic congestion.  

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Maximum 12 lines                                       
Over the evaluation period (2021 – 2037) the preferred option 3 is expected to have the following effect: 
Present value cost: € 57.4 billion 
The impact of the preferred option on vehicle manufacturers is rated as strongly negative, due to the costs and 
efforts that are necessary on the manufacturers’ side to upgrade vehicle safety performance. 
The initial cost increase, lowering over time, for the vehicle manufacturer is estimated at € 516 per passenger 
car, € 521 per van and light commercial vehicle, € 970 per bus and € 1013 per truck. Historical data shows that it 
is  not  likely  that  this  cost  will  be  entirely  passed  on  to  the  end  consumer.  However,  vehicle  users  may  face 
higher cost of repairs. 

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? Maximum 8 lines 
No major impacts are expected on SMEs, although some may benefit from increased demand if they are part of 
the supplier industry value chain. SMEs purchasing vehicles could face higher purchase prices, although this is 
not expected (see above). SMEs using light commercial vehicles for transportation of crew, tools, packages, etc. 
will benefit from an equal level of required vehicle safety performance. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? Maximum 4 lines 
It is not expected that there will be significant impact on national budgets and administrations. 

Will there be other significant impacts? Max 6 lines  
No.  Although  the  initiative  is  also  expected  to  have  some  environmental  impact,  it  is  not  expected  that  this  is 
significant. 

D. Follow up 

When will the policy be reviewed? Maximum 4 lines  
In order to make the new Regulation future proof, it has been deemed more appropriate to address any review 
of these vehicle safety rules in a more dynamic fashion, namely linked to the overall technical progress and 
occurrences of new safety needs. In this context, the international regulatory developments through UNECE as 
well as the frequent need for the adaptation of those rules tend to prompt this reviewing process automatically. 

2