Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to special provisions for vehicles used for the carriage of passengers comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat and amending Directive 70/156/EEC'
27. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 129/5 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to special provisions for vehicles used for the carriage of passengers comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat and amending Directive 70/156/EEC’ (98/C 129/02) On 13 November 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 February 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Bagliano. At its 352nd plenary session (meeting of 25 February 1998), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 81 votes in favour and four abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. The proposal amends the framework directive regulating the type-approval of motor vehicles in the EU (Directive 70/156/EEC), in order to include special provisions for the type-approval of buses and coaches (category M2 and 3) (1). EU type-approval makes it possible to sell and use, in all Member States, a vehicle which has been type approved in one Member State. This type-approval currently only applies to cars (category M1), for which all the necessary specific directives (45 of them) have been adopted. For buses and coaches, the directive on technical construction characteristics and fitting-out is still to be adopted. The present proposal for such a directive is based on UN-ECE Regulations R36, R52 and R66 (2) — which have already been adopted in some Member States and in a number of other European and non-European countries — and on the UN-ECE draft regulation on double-decker vehicles. 1. 2. The Commission proposal seeks to set minimum technical prescriptions to protect passenger safety and to facilitate the transport of passengers with reduced mobility. (1) Category M2: Vehicles used for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat, and having a maximum weight not exceeding 5 metric tons; Category M3: Vehicles used for the carriage of passengers, comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat, and having a maximum weight exceeding 5 metric tons. (2) Regulation 36 — large passenger vehicles (more than 22 passengers); Regulation 52 — small-capacity public service vehicles (fewer than 22 passengers); Regulation 66 — strength of superstructure. The prescriptions concern: — subdivision into classes; — definition of a low-floor vehicle; — distribution of passenger and baggage mass on the axles; — minimum surface area available for standing passen- gers and maximum number of passengers accommo- dated; — stability; — protection against fire risks; — exits (service doors, emergency doors, escape hatches and emergency windows): number, location, access and technical specifications; — access steps incorporated in the vehicles; — seating and space for seated passengers; — handrails and handholds for passengers; — the strength of the superstructure; — transport of passengers with reduced mobility and aids for boarding; — double-decker vehicles. 2. Comments 2. 1. Classes of vehicle 2. 1. 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n The classification is based on that used in UN-ECE regulations. It is designed to provide differing prescrip- tions, and hence different fittings, for vehicles which carry both seated and standing passengers (Classes I and II) and those which only carry seated passengers (Class III). A similar course is followed for small vehicles that carry fewer than 22 passengers (Class A with provision for standing passengers, and ClassB only designed for seated passengers). Annex I provides definitions of: — Class I and Class A vehicles, which are designed mainly to carry standing passengers, and are hence for journeys involving frequent stops with short distances between them; C 129/6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 4. 98 — Class II vehicles, which are designed mainly to carry seated passengers, and hence for long journeys with infrequent stops; — Class III and Class B vehicles, which are not designed to carry standing passengers. 2. 1. 2. The technical annexes are based on this sub- division into classes according to the purpose of the vehicle, while still offering an equivalent level of safety. As one of the recitals to the directive states, ‘the principal aim. is to guarantee the safety of passengers’. One safety objective, for instance, is to carry as few standing passengers as possible if a vehicle is used on long journeys. Another important safety consideration is how quickly the vehicle can be evacuated. This dictates that each seated and standing passenger should have a minimum amount of space, depending on the ‘class’ of vehicle. 2. 1. 3. The Committee endorses this approach, as it provides for a reasonable balance between costs and objectives without compromising the achievement of an equivalent safety level. The approach is also in keeping with the UN-ECE regulations, which are constantly developing. 2. 2. Protection against fire risks The prescriptions contained in the proposal (Annex I, point 7. 5) supplement those of the specific directive on burning behaviour (95/28/EC). Strictly speaking, they should therefore be incorporated in this latter directive, as they cover the same ground. A similar step is already being taken regarding obligatory seatbelts on Class II and Class III vehicles, and regarding seat resistance. 2. 3. Steps The proposal (Annex I, point 7. 7. 7. 1) lays down a maximum height of 32 cm for the first step from the ground on Class I, II and A vehicles. However, the Committee points out that for all classes of vehicle which have to negotiate a variety of gradients (even in urban areas), and in particular for Class II vehicles — which are designed for use on long journeys (at a steady speed) — it is not possible to reduce the distance from the ground of the first step to less than a certain limit. 2. 4. Strength of superstructure (Annex IV) The proposal provides for a ‘survival space’ (residual space) for the passenger compartment if the vehicle rolls over. The Committee considers that the residual space should also be extended to the driver’s compartment, and that the problem of the overall safety of the driver should be dealt with in an ad hoc directive forthwith. 2. 5. The Committee would like the directive to specify adequate emergency exits, and not just to go into detail on operational matters such as the number of service doors. 2. 6. Carriage of passengers with reduced mobility aids and boarding 7. 12) (Annex I, point (Annex VII) The proposal gives detailed and comprehensive consider- ation to the problems involved in the carriage of passengers with reduced mobility, including wheelchair users. The Committee fully supports this, and is pleased that the Commission intends to undertake additional studies with a view to constantly improving vehicle access for persons with reduced mobility. The Committee requests that the directive should cover the Commission’s com- mitment to continue examining the issue of accessibility, in close cooperation with disability organizations. However, the Committee thinks that the problem must be tackled realistically if effective results are to be achieved within a reasonable time-frame. To this end, and in accordance with the subsidiarity principle and with differing local and national circumstances, the Member States could undertake to establish a minimum quota of buses equipped with boarding aids for passen- gers with reduced mobility. The Committee notes that one of the recitals to the directive states that ‘appropriate technical solutions’ have to be evaluated at a later stage for non-Class I vehicles, ‘if necessary, on the basis of a report by the Commission’. 2. 7. Article 3 — Basic type-approval, and type- approval consistent with derogations The maximum height of the first step from the ground should therefore be aligned with the prescriptions of UN-ECE Regulations R36 and R52, which stipulate a height of 36 cm for Class I and Class A vehicles, and 40 cm for Class II, Class III and Class B vehicles. The proposal provides for a two-tier system of type- approval: a basic type-approval, and a type-approval tied to derogations (Article 3), specified in certain ‘bis’ paragraphs of Annexes I and VIII. The ‘bis’ type-approval — for which some fundamental prescrip- tions also differ from the basic type approval — is 27. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 129/7 designed to provide EU type-approval for vehicles with special characteristics, as found in some Member States. The other Member States do, however, have the option of refusing such type-approval. The Committee under- stands the reasons which have prompted the proposed two-tier system of type-approval. It agrees that the two-tier system should be given temporary status under Article 3(3), which states that a review may be conducted in the year 2003. 2. 8. Article 4(1) 2. 8. 1. Article 4(1) refers to Class I vehicles, which are ‘designed to provide scheduled urban and interurban services’ and which must: a) meet the technical prescriptions set out in parts B and C of Annex I; b) be equipped with at least one of the boarding aids for reduced mobility passengers specified in Annex VII. 2. 8. 1. 1. Whilst it is right that the technical prescrip- tions should apply to Class I vehicles designed for urban services, it seems inconsistent with the categorization in classes to also speak of Class I vehicles designed for interurban services. The safety prescriptions for Class I vehicles are not (see point 2. 1. 1). long journeys suitable for The use of Class I vehicles for scheduled interurban services is thus unacceptable on safety grounds, because of the higher number of standing passengers and the reduced space for seated passengers. Article 4(1) should therefore be amended, at the very least by deleting the words ‘and interurban’. 2. 8. 1. 2. Turning to the obligation to equip all Class I vehicles with boarding aids for reduced mobility passengers, the Committee refers back to its comments in point 2. 6 above. Brussels, 25 February 1998. In the interests of consistency, the prescriptions con- tained in points 7. 12 and 7. 13 of Annex I should be transferred to Annex VII (technical boarding aids) and should therefore not be obligatory for all vehicles. 2. 9. Article 7 — Advisory committee on adaptation to technical progress The Committee has already called on other occasions for retention of the decision-making powers of the committee on adaptation to technical progress (CATP), in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 of the framework Directive 70/156/EEC. Whilst the Committee understands the need to speed up the procedure for adapting the directive to technical progress, it cannot endorse the provisions of Article 7, which give the CATP a purely advisory role. 3. Conclusions The Committee supports the aims of the directive, in terms of both improving passenger safety and facilitating access for people with reduced mobility. The Committee therefore asks that: — in the interests of consistency with the entire rationale of the annexes, which is based on the subdivision into classes, account should be taken of the (critical) comments made in points 2. 2 to 2. 9 above; — more particularly, in the interests of consistency with the mention, in the preamble to the proposal, of the need for a flexible and concrete approach, account should also be taken of the (constructive) comment made in point 2. 6 above. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS