natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Alates 1. jaanuarist 2006 kehtivad direktiivi 70/156/EMÜ artikli 7 lõike 2 kohaldamisel käesoleva direktiivi I ja II lisa eraldi seadmestikuna turustatavaid esikaitsesüsteeme puudutavad nõuded.
With effect from 1 January 2006 , the requirements under Annex I and Annex II of this Directive, in relation to frontal protection systems made available as separate technical units, shall apply for the purposes of Article 7(2) of Directive 70/156/EEC.
Alates [kaheksateist kuud pärast käesoleva direktiivi avaldamist] kehtivad direktiivi 70/156/EMÜ artikli 7 lõike 2 kohaldamisel käesoleva direktiivi I ja II lisa eraldi seadmestikuna turustatavaid esikaitsesüsteeme puudutavad nõuded.
With effect from [eighteen months after publication of this Directive], the requirements under Annex I and Annex II of this Directive, in relation to frontal protection systems made available as separate technical units, shall apply for the purposes of Article 7(2) of Directive 70/156/EEC.
Muudatusettepanek 12
(Amendment 12
ARTIKLI 4 LÕIGE 1
ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPH 1
Käesoleva direktiivi I lisa 3. jaos kindlaks määratud katsetamist puudutavate sätete üksikasjalikud tehnilised nõuded võtab vastu Euroopa Komisjon, keda abistab direktiivi 70/156/EMÜ artikli 13 lõike 1 alusel loodud komisjon, vastavalt nimetatud direktiivi artikli 13 lõikes 3 viidatud korrale.
Detailed technical requirements for the test provisions laid down in section 3 of Annex 1 to this Directive shall be adopted by the Commission, assisted by the Committee established by Article 13(1) of Directive 70/156/EEC, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 13(3) of that Directive.
Käesoleva direktiivi I lisa 3. jaos kindlaks määratud sätete üksikasjalikud tehnilised nõuded sõiduki lisavarustusena müügiks ette nähtud elastsete esikaitsesüsteemide stendil katsetamiseks vastavalt direktiivis 2003/102/EÜ sätestatud asjakohaste katsete standardile võtab vastu Euroopa Komisjon, keda abistab direktiivi 70/156/EMÜ artikli 13 lõike 1 alusel loodud komisjon, vastavalt nimetatud direktiivi artikli 13 lõikes 3 viidatud korrale.
Detailed technical requirements for the provisions laid down in section 3 of Annex 1 to this Directive for the rig testing of resilient frontal protection systems intended for sale as vehicle accessories to the standard of the relevant tests laid down in Directive 2003/102/EC shall be adopted by the Commission, assisted by the Committee established by Article 13(1) of Directive 70/156/EEC, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 13(3) of that Directive.
As far as concerns resilient energy-absorbing frontal protection systems intended for sale on the aftermarket, the Commission should adopt a revised proposal at the end of the first reading so as to add to Annex 1 provisions for rig testing designed to afford a standard of pedestrian protection equivalent to that provided by Directive 2003/102/EC.
As far as concerns resilient energy-absorbing frontal protection systems intended for sale on the aftermarket, the Commission should adopt a revised proposal at the end of the first reading so as to add to Annex 1 provisions for rig testing designed to afford a standard of pedestrian protection equivalent to that provided by Directive 2003/102/EC.
Artikkel 4 a
ARTICLE 4 A (new)
Selle ülevaatamise alusel koostab Euroopa Komisjon raporti Euroopa Parlamendile ja nõukogule.
The results of this review will be the subject of a report from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council.
Kui ülevaatamise tulemusena leitakse, et käesoleva direktiivi tehnilisi sätteid tuleb kohandada, võib kohandamise läbi viia vastavalt direktiivi 70/156/EMÜ artiklis 13 toodud menetlusele.
If, as a result of this review, it is considered appropriate to adapt the technical provisions of this Directive, such adaptation may be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13 of Directive 70/156/EEC.
ARTIKLI 6 LÕIGE 1
ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH1
Hiljemalt 30. juuniks 2004 võtavad liikmesriigid vastu ja avaldavad käesoleva direktiivi järgimiseks vajalikud õigusnormid.
Member States shall adopt and publish, by 30 June 2004 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.
Kõnealuste normide teksti ning käesoleva direktiivi ja kõnealuste normide vahelise vastavustabeli edastavad nad viivitamata Euroopa Komisjonile.
They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.
Hiljemalt [kuus kuud pärast käesoleva direktiivi avaldamist] võtavad liikmesriigid vastu ja avaldavad käesoleva direktiivi järgimiseks vajalikud õigusnormid.
Member States shall adopt and publish, by [six months after publication of this Directive] at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.
Liikmesriigid kohaldavad neid norme alates 1. juulist 2004 .
They shall apply those provisions from 1 July 2004 .
Liikmesriigid kohaldavad neid norme alates [kuus kuud pärast käesoleva direktiivi avaldamist] .
They shall apply those provisions from [six months after publication of this Directive].
Kui liikmesriigid nimetatud normid vastu võtavad, lisavad nad nende ametliku avaldamise korral normidesse või nende juurde viite käesolevale direktiivile.
When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication.
Viitamise viisi sätestavad liikmesriigid.
Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.
I LISA PUNKT 3.1.
ANNEX I, SECTION 3.1.
Tuleb teha järgmised katsed.
The following tests are required to be carried out.
Heakskiidu saamiseks peavad esikaitsesüsteemid läbima järgmised katsed:
In order to be approved, frontal protection systems must pass the following tests:
Tests are not only to be carried out but test criteria must also be complied with.
Tests are not only to be carried out but test criteria must also be complied with.
I LISA PUNKT 3.1.1.
ANNEX I, SECTION 3.1.1.
Jalamudeli sääreosa kokkupõrge esikaitsesüsteemi "kaitserauaga".
Lower Legform to Frontal Protection System "Bumper".
Kokkupõrge toimub kiirusel 40 km/h.
This test is carried out at an impact speed of 40 km/h.
Suurim põlveliigendi paindenurk ei tohi ületada 15,0° , põlveliigendi murdepinna suurim nihe ei tohi ületada 6,0 mm ning sääreluu ülaosale mõjuv kiirendus ei tohi ületada 150 g .
The maximum dynamic knee bending angle shall not exceed 15.0° , the maximum dynamic knee shearing displacement shall not exceed 6.0 mm, and the acceleration measured at the upper end of the tibia shall not exceed 150 g.
Suurim põlveliigendi paindenurk ei tohi ületada 21,0° , põlveliigendi murdepinna suurim nihe ei tohi ületada 6,0 mm ning sääreluu ülaosale mõjuv kiirendus ei tohi ületada 200 g .
The maximum dynamic knee bending angle shall not exceed ° 21.0° , the maximum dynamic knee shearing displacement shall not exceed 6.0 mm, and the acceleration measured at the upper end of the tibia shall not exceed 200 g .
Täpsustatud tingimustel võib antud katse asendada jalamudeli reieosa ja esikaitsesüsteemi "kaitseraua" kokkupõrke katsega.
This test may be substituted by the Upper Legform to Frontal Protection System "Bumper" test under specified conditions.
Täpsustatud tingimustel tuleb antud katse asendada punktis 3.1.2. kirjeldatud jalamudeli reieosa ja esikaitsesüsteemi "kaitseraua" kokkupõrke katsega.
Under specified conditions this test must be replaced by the Upper Legform to Frontal Protection System "Bumper" test specified in paragraph 3.1.2 .
I LISA PUNKT 3.1.2.
ANNEX I, SECTION 3.1.2.
Jalamudeli reieosa kokkupõrge esikaitsesüsteemi "kaitserauaga".
Upper Legform to Frontal Protection System "Bumper".
Löögijõudude hetkesumma aja suhtes katse löökkeha üla- ja alaosale ei tohi ületada 5,0 kN ning paindemoment katse löökkehal ei tohi ületada 300 Nm .
The instantaneous sum of the impact forces with respect to time, to the top and the bottom of the impactor, shall not exceed 5.0 kN and the bending moment on the impactor shall not exceed 300 Nm .
Jalamudeli reieosa kokkupõrge esikaitsesüsteemi "kaitserauaga".
Upper Legform to Frontal Protection System"Bumper".
Löögijõudude hetkesumma aja suhtes katse löökkeha üla- ja alaosale ei tohi ületada 7,5 kN ning paindemoment katse löökkehal ei tohi ületada 510 Nm .
The instantaneous sum of the impact forces with respect to time, to the top and the bottom of the impactor, shall not exceed 7.5 kN and the bending moment on the impactor shall not exceed 510 Nm .
Jalamudeli reieosa ja esikaitsesüsteemi "kaitseraua" kokkupõrke katse viiakse läbi juhul, kui esikaitsesüsteemi alumise "kaitseraua" kõrgus katseasendis on üle 500 mm.
The Upper Legform to Frontal Protection System "Bumper" test shall be carried out if the Frontal Protection System Lower "Bumper" Height at the test position is more than 500 mm.
Täpsustatud tingimustel võib antud katse asendada punktis 3.1.1. kirjeldatud jalamudeli sääreosa ja esikaitsesüsteemi "kaitseraua" kokkupõrke katse.
Under specified conditions thistest can replace the Lower Legform to Frontal Protection System "Bumper" test specified in paragraph 3.1.1
I LISA PUNKT 3.1.3.
ANNEX I, SECTION 3.1.3.
Jalamudeli reieosa kokkupõrge esikaitsesüsteemiga .
Upper Legform to Frontal Protection System.
Jalamudeli reieosa kokkupõrge esikaitsesüsteemi esiservaga .
Upper Legform to Frontal Protection System Leading Edge .
Mõlemad tulemused registreeritakse üksnes järelevalve eesmärgil.
Both results shall be recorded for monitoring purposes only.
I LISA PUNKT 3.1.4.
ANNEX I, SECTION 3.1.4.
Lapse ja/või täiskasvanu peamudeli kokkupõrge esikaitsesüsteemiga.
Child and/or Adult headform to Frontal Protection System.
Lapse/väikese täiskasvanu peamudeli kokkupõrge esikaitsesüsteemiga.
Child /Small Adult Headform to Frontal Protection System.
Kokkupõrge toimub kiirusel 35 km/h, kasutades 3,5 kg raskust lapse/väikese täiskasvanu peamudelikatse löökkeha.
The test is carried out at an impact speed of 35 km/h using a 3.5 kg headform test impactor for the child/small adult .
Peamudeli koormuskriteerium (HPC), mis arvutatakse kiirendusmõõturi ajaregistreeringute resultandist vastavalt punktile 1.13., ei tohi ühelgi juhul ületada väärtust 1000.
The Headform Performance Criterion (HPC), calculated from the resultant of the accelerometer time histories, in accordance with paragraph 1.13, shall not exceed 1000 in all cases.
II LISA PUNKT 3.2.1.
ANNEX II, SECTION 3.2.1
1 Saksamaa
1 for Germany
2 Prantsusmaa
2 for France
3 Itaalia
3 for Italy
4 Madalmaad
4 for the Netherlands
5 Rootsi
5 for Sweden
6 Belgia
6 for Belgium
9 Hispaania
9 for Spain
11 Ühendkuningriik
11 for United Kingdom
12 Austria
12 for Austria
13 Luksemburg
13 for Luxembourg
17 Soome
17 for Finland
18 Taani
18 for Denmark
21 Portugal
21 for Portugal
23 Kreeka
23 for Greece
IRL Iirimaa
IRL for Ireland
nn Küpros
nn for Cyprus
nn Tšehhi Vabariik
nn for The Czech Republic
nn Eesti
nn for Estonia
nn Ungari
nn for Hungary
nn Läti
nn for Latvia
nn Leedu
nn for Lithuania
nn Poola
nn for Poland
nn Slovakkia
nn for The Slovak Republic
nn Sloveenia
nn for Slovenia
Technical adjustment of the proposal.
Technical adjustment of the proposal.
The other articles and annexes are related to administrative provisions (like type-approval documents for vehicles and bull bars as separate technical units) publication, transposition and entry into force of the directive.
The other articles and annexes are related to administrative provisions (like type-approval documents for vehicles and bull bars as separate technical units) publication, transposition and entry into force of the directive.
V. The rapporteur's comments
V. The rapporteur's comments
SISETURU- JA TARBIJAKAITSEKOMISJONI ARVAMUS
OPINION of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection
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.
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.
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.
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.
There remains one other piece of "unfinished business" relating to pedestrian protection.
There remains one other piece of "unfinished business" relating to pedestrian protection.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This would be achieved by requiring the vehicle equipped with the device to meet the same test standards as the base vehicle.
This would be achieved by requiring the vehicle equipped with the device to meet the same test standards as the base vehicle.
The Commission's proposal, while welcome in its intent, is unnecessarily complex.
The Commission's proposal, while welcome in its intent, is unnecessarily complex.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He has proposed amendments that represent better legislative practice and comply with internal market requirements for common type-approval standards.
He has proposed amendments that represent better legislative practice and comply with internal market requirements for common type-approval standards.
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.
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.
In addition, the Commission's proposal fails to take account of the production and marketing of resilient energy-absorbing frontal protection devices.
In addition, the Commission's proposal fails to take account of the production and marketing of resilient energy-absorbing frontal protection devices.
The standards proposed are so severe that these devices would be removed from the market.
The standards proposed are so severe that these devices would be removed from the market.
In the draftsman's view, this is not desirable from the perspective of vulnerable road users.
In the draftsman's view, this is not desirable from the perspective of vulnerable road users.
Such devices, fitted to existing vehicles particularly in the over 2.5 tonne category, can reduce their aggressive nature in low-speed collisions.
Such devices, fitted to existing vehicles particularly in the over 2.5 tonne category, can reduce their aggressive nature in low-speed collisions.
Your draftsman therefore proposes that the directive adopt a new technical procedure for approving these impact-absorbing bars.
Your draftsman therefore proposes that the directive adopt a new technical procedure for approving these impact-absorbing bars.
Your draftsman further points out that, without flanking measures, this directive will have a very limited impact on vulnerable road user casualties.
Your draftsman further points out that, without flanking measures, this directive will have a very limited impact on vulnerable road user casualties.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Such a policy would quickly remove the existing population of dangerous, rigid bull bars from use and achieve real benefits in casualty reduction.
Such a policy would quickly remove the existing population of dangerous, rigid bull bars from use and achieve real benefits in casualty reduction.
Siseturu- ja tarbijakaitsekomisjon palub vastutaval transpordi- ja turismikomisjonil lisada oma raportisse järgmised muudatusettepanekud:
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) Tuleb kehtestada katse-, konstruktsiooni- ja paigaldusnõuded, millele peavad vastama kõik nii originaalvarustusena sõidukile paigaldatud kui eraldi seadmestikuna turule viidud esikaitsesüsteemid tagamaks, et esikaitsesüsteemi paigaldamine sõidukile ei suurendaks ohtu jalakäijatele .
(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 to ensure that the addition of a frontal protection system to a vehicle does not result in increased risk to pedestrians .
ARTIKLI 2 PUNKT 2
ARTICLE 2, POINT 2
2) “eraldi seadmestik” tähendab igasugust direktiivi 70/156/EMÜ artiklis 2 määratletud seadet, mis on ette nähtud ühe või mitme M 1 - või N 1 -kategooria (kuni 3,5 tonni) mootorsõiduki konkreetsele tüübile paigaldamiseks ja neil kasutamiseks.
(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).
ARTIKLI 3 LÕIKE 1 SISSEJUHATAV OSA
ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
ARTIKLI 3 LÕIKE 2 SISSEJUHATAV OSA
ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 2, INTRODUCTORY PART
Alates 1. juulist 2005 keelduvad liikmesriigid EÜ tüübikinnituse või siseriikliku tüübikinnituse andmisest sõidukitüübile, mis on varustatud esikaitsesüsteemiga, või eraldi seadmestikuna turustatava esikaitsesüsteemi tüübile, mis ei vasta I ja II lisas sätestatud nõuetele.
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.
Alates 1. juulist 2006 keelduvad liikmesriigid EÜ tüübikinnituse või siseriikliku tüübikinnituse andmisest sõidukitüübile, mis on varustatud esikaitsesüsteemiga, või eraldi seadmestikuna turustatava esikaitsesüsteemi tüübile, mis ei vasta I ja II lisas sätestatud nõuetele.
With effect from 1 July 2006 , 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.
Fully to align the Directive on Frontal Protection Systems with the Pedestrian Protection Directive (2003/102/EC of 17 November 2003) according to the fundamental principle which constitutes the basis for the Directive: “to ensure that the fitting of a frontal protection system on a car will offer at least the same level of protection as provided by the base vehicle”.
Fully to align the Directive on Frontal Protection Systems with the Pedestrian Protection Directive (2003/102/EC of 17 November 2003) according to the fundamental principle which constitutes the basis for the Directive: “to ensure that the fitting of a frontal protection system on a car will offer at least the same level of protection as provided by the base vehicle”.
Moreover, the dates proposed by the Commission need to be realistic.
Moreover, the dates proposed by the Commission need to be realistic.
The proposed changes would postpone the dates by one year.
The proposed changes would postpone the dates by one year.
Detailed technical requirements for test provisions are unnecessary as Annex 1 will refer to the Pedestrian Protection Directive (2003/102/EC of 17 November 2003) according to the fundamental principle which constitutes the basis for the Directive: “to ensure that the fitting of a frontal protection system on a car will offer at least the same level of protection as provided by the base vehicle”.
Detailed technical requirements for test provisions are unnecessary as Annex 1 will refer to the Pedestrian Protection Directive (2003/102/EC of 17 November 2003) according to the fundamental principle which constitutes the basis for the Directive: “to ensure that the fitting of a frontal protection system on a car will offer at least the same level of protection as provided by the base vehicle”.
ARTIKLI 6 LÕIKE 1 ESIMENE LÕIK
ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1