natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The European, Japanese and Korean car manufacturers appreciate this danger and have already negotiated with the Commission and given a commitment not to fit rigid bull bars as frontal protection on new vehicles as of 2002.
The European, Japanese and Korean car manufacturers appreciate this danger and have already negotiated with the Commission and given a commitment not to fit rigid bull bars as frontal protection on new vehicles as of 2002.
The main thrust of that commitment, however, was that the car manufacturers would try to 'soften up' car fronts in two stages (stage 1 - 2005, stage 2 - 2010) to make them less dangerous in the event of a collision with pedestrians.
The main thrust of that commitment, however, was that the car manufacturers would try to 'soften up' car fronts in two stages (stage 1 - 2005, stage 2 - 2010) to make them less dangerous in the event of a collision with pedestrians.
Parliament and the Council, however, considered that a voluntary commitment was not an adequate instrument in this case and embodied these provisions (with certain amendments) in a directive.
Parliament and the Council, however, considered that a voluntary commitment was not an adequate instrument in this case and embodied these provisions (with certain amendments) in a directive.
Both Parliament
Both Parliament
Council conclusions (Internal Market) 26 November 2001. and the Council
Council conclusions (Internal Market) 26 November 2001. and the Council
Resolution of 13 June 2002. consider that in this case likewise (a ban on bull bars) legislation is primarily the way to go to fill a major loophole in the voluntary commitment as it covers only bull bars supplied as original equipment on the vehicle and not those which can be bought as separate accessories (the aftermarket).
Resolution of 13 June 2002. consider that in this case likewise (a ban on bull bars) legislation is primarily the way to go to fill a major loophole in the voluntary commitment as it covers only bull bars supplied as original equipment on the vehicle and not those which can be bought as separate accessories (the aftermarket).
Since many bull bars are procured on the aftermarket, there would be dangerous and non-dangerous bull bars on the market, which would also discriminate against the auto industry, which is bound by the commitment, as opposed to suppliers of bull bars as optional accessories, who are not.
Since many bull bars are procured on the aftermarket, there would be dangerous and non-dangerous bull bars on the market, which would also discriminate against the auto industry, which is bound by the commitment, as opposed to suppliers of bull bars as optional accessories, who are not.
Moreover, the term 'soft' bull bar is extremely vague and unclearly defined in the voluntary commitment.
Moreover, the term 'soft' bull bar is extremely vague and unclearly defined in the voluntary commitment.
Your rapporteur believes that more stringent standards are required to make bull bars acceptable in terms of road safety and even have a positive impact in that respect.
Your rapporteur believes that more stringent standards are required to make bull bars acceptable in terms of road safety and even have a positive impact in that respect.
The procedure using a directive therefore creates legal certainty both for the auto trade and manufacturers of accessories.
The procedure using a directive therefore creates legal certainty both for the auto trade and manufacturers of accessories.
Arguments for and against bull bars
Arguments for and against bull bars
Bull bars can provide protection in collisions with animals at low speeds.
Bull bars can provide protection in collisions with animals at low speeds.
It can be important in the outback not to be stranded as a result of damage caused by such a collision but there are hardly any areas in Europe where this reason can be used to justify fitting bull bars.
It can be important in the outback not to be stranded as a result of damage caused by such a collision but there are hardly any areas in Europe where this reason can be used to justify fitting bull bars.
On the other hand, there is a greater risk that vulnerable road-users, such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, suffer more serious injuries with hard bull bars than otherwise would have been the case.
On the other hand, there is a greater risk that vulnerable road-users, such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, suffer more serious injuries with hard bull bars than otherwise would have been the case.
Bull bars disrupt the effective operation of devices designed to lessen the impact of a crash for motorists, such as airbags, collapsible steering columns etc. and which can be fatal for them.
Bull bars disrupt the effective operation of devices designed to lessen the impact of a crash for motorists, such as airbags, collapsible steering columns etc. and which can be fatal for them.
There can also be negative technical consequences, which fall outside the terms of reference of this report.
There can also be negative technical consequences, which fall outside the terms of reference of this report.
There are, however, positive aspects to bull bars which, in some cases, can also contribute to better road safety.
There are, however, positive aspects to bull bars which, in some cases, can also contribute to better road safety.
This has been shown by several reports on bull bars, in Australia for example, where certain types of foam plastic have a positive effect.
This has been shown by several reports on bull bars, in Australia for example, where certain types of foam plastic have a positive effect.
However, the most important research for Europe has been carried out by the TRL (Transport Research Laboratory - an institution which does a great deal of work on behalf of the government) in England.
However, the most important research for Europe has been carried out by the TRL (Transport Research Laboratory - an institution which does a great deal of work on behalf of the government) in England.
The TRL has published a report
The TRL has published a report
TRL Report 460 - "Assessment and test procedures for bull bars". which shows great differences between various types of bull bar depending on the material they are made of, the fitting and the shape.
TRL Report 460 - "Assessment and test procedures for bull bars". which shows great differences between various types of bull bar depending on the material they are made of, the fitting and the shape.
One of the conclusions in the report is that there are "smart bars", bull bars which are flexible and even protect pedestrians who collide with vehicles fitted with this type of bar.
One of the conclusions in the report is that there are "smart bars", bull bars which are flexible and even protect pedestrians who collide with vehicles fitted with this type of bar.
The report also shows that it is possible for bull bars to meet the standards proposed by the Commission.
The report also shows that it is possible for bull bars to meet the standards proposed by the Commission.
This report by the TRL is the basis for the Commission's proposal.
This report by the TRL is the basis for the Commission's proposal.
In brief, the Commission's proposals are as follows:
In brief, the Commission's proposals are as follows:
Content of the Commission's proposal
Content of the Commission's proposal
This proposal lays down requirements to be complied with by frontal protection systems either as originally fitted to a vehicle or sold on the market as a separate accessory.
This proposal lays down requirements to be complied with by frontal protection systems either as originally fitted to a vehicle or sold on the market as a separate accessory.
The requirements are specified in Annex I, point 3 and consist of 4 tests.
The requirements are specified in Annex I, point 3 and consist of 4 tests.
In article 3 it lays down a timetable for the phasing out of old-style "rigid" bull bars and the phasing in of "non-rigid" bull bars in the sense of this directive.
In article 3 it lays down a timetable for the phasing out of old-style "rigid" bull bars and the phasing in of "non-rigid" bull bars in the sense of this directive.
The scope of the directive has been limited to M1 (up to 8 persons) and N1 (goods up to 3,5 tonnes) in article 2, par.
The scope of the directive has been limited to M1 (up to 8 persons) and N1 (goods up to 3,5 tonnes) in article 2, par.
The rapporteur's comments
V. The rapporteur's comments
This legislative measure proposed by the European Commission has to be seen within the wider framework of the Commission's action programme aimed at promoting road safety.
This legislative measure proposed by the European Commission has to be seen within the wider framework of the Commission's action programme aimed at promoting road safety.
With the legislation in place on the pedestrian protection by which car fronts will become more resilient so that they absorb a big part of the energy in case of collision with a pedestrian, it would be untolerable to undermine all the efforts car producers have put in making car fronts comply with legislation by allowing rigid bull bars to be mounted on a car
With the legislation in place on the pedestrian protection by which car fronts will become more resilient so that they absorb a big part of the energy in case of collision with a pedestrian, it would be untolerable to undermine all the efforts car producers have put in making car fronts comply with legislation by allowing rigid bull bars to be mounted on a car
After long discussions about the feasibility by bull bar producers of complying with the four tests as proposed by the Commission ,this proved to be to be somewhat too ambitious because as things are standing now ,it seems unlikely that industry can comply with the proposed rules.
After long discussions about the feasibility by bull bar producers of complying with the four tests as proposed by the Commission ,this proved to be to be somewhat too ambitious because as things are standing now ,it seems unlikely that industry can comply with the proposed rules.
Moreover,we are here in a rapidly evolving field where too far reaching legislation can become obsolete after some years .
Moreover,we are here in a rapidly evolving field where too far reaching legislation can become obsolete after some years .
Hence the need for flexibility ,so that new research results can be taken into account .This is what the rapporteur and and the shadow rapporteurs have tried to achieve in their negotiations and which is reflected in the compromise -amendments adopted: to start with we will have slightly more realistic test requirements compared to those orginally proposed and we ask the Commission to determine in more detail the test requirements, a second task for the Commission is to review after some years (am 13) the technical provisions of this Directive and to consider the possible necessity of the inclusion of other tests , taking into account the results of research and development due to become available in the coming years.
Hence the need for flexibility ,so that new research results can be taken into account .This is what the rapporteur and and the shadow rapporteurs have tried to achieve in their negotiations and which is reflected in the compromise -amendments adopted: to start with we will have slightly more realistic test requirements compared to those orginally proposed and we ask the Commission to determine in more detail the test requirements, a second task for the Commission is to review after some years (am 13) the technical provisions of this Directive and to consider the possible necessity of the inclusion of other tests , taking into account the results of research and development due to become available in the coming years.
Finally the industry will have a clear set of rules putting gradually an end to the uncomfortable situation in which there are two categories of frontal protection systems : one covered by the European automobile industry's voluntary agreement imposing only vaguely defined non-rigid frontal protection systems on newly sold cars and the other category of after market accessories not regulated by any rule or legislation.
Finally the industry will have a clear set of rules putting gradually an end to the uncomfortable situation in which there are two categories of frontal protection systems : one covered by the European automobile industry's voluntary agreement imposing only vaguely defined non-rigid frontal protection systems on newly sold cars and the other category of after market accessories not regulated by any rule or legislation.
The rapporteur would like to eliminate a widespread misunderstanding which is to expect from this directive that it removes all the old rigid bull bars from the market.
The rapporteur would like to eliminate a widespread misunderstanding which is to expect from this directive that it removes all the old rigid bull bars from the market.
It is obvious that with the type-approval procedure this is impossible.
It is obvious that with the type-approval procedure this is impossible.
Type appoval roughly means that from a fixed date only the frontal protection types complying with the new standards will be allowed to be marketed.The bull bars having come on the market before that date fall under the Member States responsability.
Type appoval roughly means that from a fixed date only the frontal protection types complying with the new standards will be allowed to be marketed.The bull bars having come on the market before that date fall under the Member States responsability.
Because of the strong majority with which this report has been adopted and in order to make this directive to enter into force as early as possible, the rapporteur and the representatives of all the political groups intend to ask the Council to try to conclude this legislative procedure in the simplest possible way which is an agreement between the Parliament and Council in first reading.
Because of the strong majority with which this report has been adopted and in order to make this directive to enter into force as early as possible, the rapporteur and the representatives of all the political groups intend to ask the Council to try to conclude this legislative procedure in the simplest possible way which is an agreement between the Parliament and Council in first reading.
k návrhu směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady o použití systémů čelní ochrany na motorových vozidlech a o změně směrnice Rady 70/156/EHS
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
Konstrukční vylepšení vozidel s cílem snížit pravděpodobnost úrazů zranitelných účastníků silničního provozu při silničních nehodách již byla předmětem významné politické iniciativy, jejímž výsledkem byla rámcová směrnice 2003/102/ES ze dne 17. listopadu 2003.
Vehicle construction improvements to reduce the potential for collision injuries to vulnerable road users has already been the subject of a major political initiative, resulting in the Framework Directive 2003/102/EC of 17 November 2003.
V posledním volebním období vydaly Výbor pro právní záležitosti a Výbor pro vnitřní trh stanoviska k předchozímu textu, neboť představuje významný prvek politiky vnitřního trhu.
In the last legislature, the Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee provided opinions on the previous text, as they constitute important elements of internal market policy.
V souvislosti s bezpečností chodců však ještě zbývá jedna „nevyřešená záležitost“.
There remains one other piece of "unfinished business" relating to pedestrian protection.
Týká se vnějších ochranných prvků oddělených od hlavní konstrukce vozidla, které jsou nabízeny buď jako prvek montovaný již výrobcem nebo jako samostatně prodejné příslušenství.
This concerns external protection devices, separate from the main structure of the vehicle, offered either as a factory-fitted item or an after-market accessory.
Tato zařízení, známá spíše jako ochranné rámy (tzv. „bull bars“), mohou v mnoha případech znamenat pro chodce riziko kvůli své nepoddajné konstrukci a agresivnímu tvaru.
More commonly known as "bull bars", these devices can, in many cases, be a significant hazard to pedestrians because of their unyielding construction and aggressive design.
Na základě dobrovolné dohody o zlepšení bezpečnosti zranitelných účastníků silničního provozu již všichni významní výrobci automobilů, kteří vyrábějí a prodávají automobily v EU, přestali v lednu 2002 pevné ochranné rámy montovat.
Under the voluntary agreement on improved safety for vulnerable road users, all the major car manufacturers producing and marketing vehicles across the EU have already discontinued the fitting of rigid "bull bar" devices from January 2002.
Je však třeba zabývat se možnými bezpečnostními riziky systémů čelní ochrany, které jejich výrobci montují na vozidla, ale také nabízí na trhu doplňků poté, co bylo vozidlo dodáno zákazníkovi.
There is a need, however, to address the potential safety dangers of frontal protection devices that are fitted to a vehicle by original equipment manufacturers, as well as in the after-market, after the vehicle has been supplied to a customer.
Cílem je dosáhnout toho, aby systém čelní ochrany nezvýšil riziko pro chodce ve srovnání s ochranou, kterou nabízí stejné vozidlo bez takového systému.
The aim should be to ensure that the addition of a frontal protection system to a vehicle does not result in an increased risk to pedestrians, over and above the protection offered by the base vehicle not so equipped.
Toho lze dosáhnout tak, že vozidlo vybavené takovým zařízením bude muset splňovat stejné standardy zkoušek jako vozidlo se základním vybavením.
This would be achieved by requiring the vehicle equipped with the device to meet the same test standards as the base vehicle.
Návrh Komise, přestože jeho záměr je vítán, je zbytečně složitý.
The Commission's proposal, while welcome in its intent, is unnecessarily complex.
Navrhuje pro vozidla vybavená ochranným zařízením jiné zkušební podmínky, než které jsou již stanoveny ve směrnici 2003/102/ES pro vozidla v základní podobě.
It proposes different test conditions for a vehicle fitted with a protection device from those already specified, under Directive 2003/102/EC, for the base vehicle.
Z hlediska navrhovatele je zcela nelogické stanovovat odlišné zkušební požadavky pro čelní část vozu, ať je či není vybavena ochranným zařízením.
In your draftsman's view, it is quite illogical to specify different test requirements for a vehicle front end, whether it is fitted with a protection device or not.
Navrhovatel předkládá pozměňovací návrhy, které představují lepší legislativní praxi a jsou v souladu s požadavky vnitřního trhu na společné standardy schvalování typů.
He has proposed amendments that represent better legislative practice and comply with internal market requirements for common type-approval standards.
Navrhovatel dále navrhuje, aby se příslušná ustanovení směrnice 2003/102/ES pro vozidla o hmotnosti pod 2,5 tuny vztahovala na systémy čelní ochrany pro vozidla o hmotnosti přesahující 3,5 tuny.
Your draftsman further proposes that the relevant provisions of Directive 2003/102/EC specified for vehicles of under 2.5 tonnes should also apply to frontal protection systems fitted to vehicles of over 3.5 tonnes.
Návrh Komise dále nezohledňuje skutečnost, že jsou vyráběna a prodávána pružná zařízení čelní ochrany absorbující energii.
In addition, the Commission's proposal fails to take account of the production and marketing of resilient energy-absorbing frontal protection devices.
Navrhované standardy jsou natolik přísné, že tato zařízení by byla stažena z trhu.
The standards proposed are so severe that these devices would be removed from the market.
Podle názoru navrhovatele to není z pohledu zranitelných účastníků silničního provozu žádoucí.
In the draftsman's view, this is not desirable from the perspective of vulnerable road users.
Takováto zařízení namontovaná zejména na vozidla z hmotnostní kategorie nad 2,5 tuny mohou omezit agresivní povahu těchto vozidel při srážkách v nízkých rychlostech.
Such devices, fitted to existing vehicles particularly in the over 2.5 tonne category, can reduce their aggressive nature in low-speed collisions.
Navrhovatel proto navrhuje, aby směrnice obsahovala nový technický postup pro schvalování těchto rámů tlumících nárazy.
Your draftsman therefore proposes that the directive adopt a new technical procedure for approving these impact-absorbing bars.
Navrhovatel dále zdůrazňuje, že bez doprovodných opatření bude mít tato směrnice velmi omezený dopad na oběti z řad zranitelných účastníků silničního provozu.
Your draftsman further points out that, without flanking measures, this directive will have a very limited impact on vulnerable road user casualties.
Navrhuje, aby členské státy zajistily, že od určitého data nebude vozidlům vybaveným zařízením čelní ochrany, jež nesplňují ustanovení této směrnice, v rámci každoročních zkoušek bezpečnosti vozidel vydáno osvědčení o způsobilosti k silničnímu provozu.
He suggests that, in annual vehicle safety testing, Member States should ensure that, from an appropriate future date, vehicles equipped with external protection devices not complying with the provisions of this directive should be refused a road worthiness certificate.
Pokud by čelní část zkoušeného vozidla nebyla po odejmutí problematického ochranného rámu považována za bezpečnou, musel by být rám nahrazen schváleným zařízením.
If the test vehicle were deemed to have an unsafe front structure after the offending bull bar had been removed, then an approved device would have to be substituted.
Takovéto opatření by brzy odstranilo z užívání současné nebezpečné pevné ochranné rámy a bylo by skutečným přínosem ke snížení počtu obětí.
Such a policy would quickly remove the existing population of dangerous, rigid bull bars from use and achieve real benefits in casualty reduction.
Výbor pro vnitřní trh a ochranu spotřebitelů vyzývá Výbor pro dopravu a cestovní ruch jako příslušný výbor, aby do své zprávy začlenil tyto pozměňovací návrhy:
The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
(3) Je nutné stanovit požadavky pro zkoušky, výrobu a montáž, kterým musí vyhovovat všechny čelní ochranné systémy, jež jsou dodávány jako součást původního vybavení připevněná k vozidlům nebo nabízeny na trhu jako samostatný technický celek.
(3) It is necessary to establish the test, construction and installation requirements to be complied with by any frontal protection system either supplied as original equipment fitted to a vehicle or placed on the market as a separate technical unit.
Článek 2 bod 2
ARTICLE 2, POINT 2
(2) „samostatný technický celek“ znamená jakékoli zařízení definované v článku 2 směrnice 70/156/EHS a určené k montáži a použití na jednom nebo více z daných typů motorových vozidel třídy M1 nebo N1 (do 3,5 tuny).
(2) “separate technical unit” means any device as defined in Article 2 of Directive 70/156/EEC and intended for installation and use on one or more given types of motor vehicle of class M1 or N1 (up to 3.5 tonnes).
2. vzdálenosti mezi systémem čelní ochrany a karoserií vozidla .
2. the space between the frontal protection system and the vehicle body.
Pozměňovací návrh
and Annex II, Member States may not:
S účinnosti ode dne 1. července 2005, s ohledem na typ vozidla vybavený připevněným systémem čelní ochrany nebo systémem čelní ochrany dodávaným jako samostatný technický celek, který nesplňuje požadavky stanovené v příloze I a příloze II, členské státy odmítnou udělit schválení typu EC a národní schválení typu.
With effect from 1 July 2005 , in respect of a type of vehicle fitted with a frontal protection system, or a type of frontal protection system supplied as a separate technical unit, which does not comply with the requirements laid down in Annex I and Annex II, Member States shall refuse to grant EC type-approval or national type-approval.