Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions promoting road safety in the EU - the programme for 1997-2001'
C 73/66 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 3. 6. The Committee notes that, subsequent to the drawing-up of the draft directive and indeed only two weeks prior to the adoption of this opinion, the Assembly of the IMO adopted on 27 November 1997 a further Resolution on the implementation of the ISM Code. The Committee expects that the Commission will take the terms of this resolution into account in furthering the implementation of the directive. Brussels, 10 December 1997. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions promoting road safety in the EU — the programme for 1997-2001’ (98/C 73/19) On 16 April 1997 the European Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication. The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 November 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Ghigonis. At its 350th plenary session of 10 and 11 December 1997 (meeting of 10 December 1997) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 79 votes to one, with five abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. The Commission launched a first action pro- gramme on road safety (1) in 1993. Significant progress has been achieved, due in large part to the role of the Commission and the European Parliament as road safety champions. Nevertheless, the situation remains far from satisfactory, as illustrated by the 45 000 people killed and 1,6 million injured each year. 1. 2. In its present communication the Commission therefore proposes an additional strategy to accelerate improvement in road safety. This three-pronged strat- egy, based on the principle that the high cost of accidents (roughly ECU 1 million per fatality) should be fully taken into account in the safety policies of Member States, comprises the following elements: — gathering and dissemination of information and best practice, notably through the setting-up of an EU road safety information system; — accident avoidance measures; for example curbing of alcohol and drug/medicine use by drivers, and the application of telematics; — tools to reduce the consequences of accidents when they occur, including the development of safety rating programmes and submission of proposals for various technical measures. The key elements of the 1997-2001 programme 1. 3. are: — a Commission recommendation to fully take into account the very high costs of road accidents in a more widespread application of cost-benefit assess- ments for road safety measures; — an integrated EU information system including information on accident statistics, exposure data, implementation of road safety measures, research, best practice and the application of existing legis- lation; (1) Communication from the Commission for a first action programme on road safety (COM(93) 246 final). — measures to combat fatigue and the use of alcohol, medicines and drugs while driving; 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/67 — application of technology and telematics to ensure safer driving; — coordination and support of safety rating systems in order to provide scientifically correct information to consumers on the safety aspects of vehicles. 1. 4. Lastly, the Commission will arrange for the resources required to implement the programme to be made available through the usual procedures and will monitor the road safety situation in the EU as well as report on the progress of the programme in due course. of which is to allow the Member States to take the most appropriate measures on the basis of a more thorough knowledge of past experience and the results of detailed statistical analysis. They will then have a better under- standing of the role played by different factors in road safety. It also takes the view that Community action should embrace the adoption of coordinated standards, controls and penalties in areas such as vehicle roadwor- thiness, granting and withdrawal of driving licences, and professional drivers’ driving time and rest stops, with the aim of encouraging road safety and harmonizing the conditions of competition. Increased harmonization of road signs is also needed and should be included. 2. General comments 2. 1. Overall objective 2. 1. 1. The Committee fully supports the initiatives designed to promote road safety, and welcomes the Commission communication and the conclusions of the Transport Council meeting of 17 and 18 June 1997. 2. 1. 2. The decline in accidents achieved in recent years is encouraging and maintaining this trend should be a priority. In the Committee’s opinion, therefore, the European Union’s priorities should be the coordination of initiatives, a better understanding of the problems and how to solve them, and fostering greater commitment on the part of both politicians and road-users. 2. 2. Subsidiarity Article 75 of the Maastricht Treaty explicitly 2. 2. 1. includes road safety in the transport policy objectives, thus confirming and reinforcing Community responsi- bility in this area. The Committee would nonetheless note that the subsidiarity principle should be brought to bear in the promotion of road safety, and not merely on formal grounds, as a matter of principle. There are in fact considerable climatological and cultural differences within the EU, and even basic factors such as road-user education, infrastructure and levels of vehicle ownership vary. At the same time, however, there is a constantly growing international dimension to road safety, fuelled by tourism, the movement of goods and Community technical standards. This internationalization of road safety means that the principle of subsidiarity must be employed in order to achieve specific results, not just to pay lip-service to lofty principles. With this in mind, the Committee recommends that the Member States accept in word and in deed Community responsibility in this field, insofar as justified by the legal framework created by the Maastricht Treaty. 2. 3. General criticisms 2. 3. 1. The Committee would, however, point out that the promotion of road safety must take into account the economic needs and budgetary restrictions of Member States. This means that certain measures are politically easier to take, even if others might be more effective. We must be careful that this does not lead to infrastructure not being improved, road-users — learner drivers, for instance — not being properly trained, or measures that are too strict or not strict enough. In addition, it is important that measures designed to improve road safety do not distort competition in any way. As part of this, and given the full range of interests involved, the Committee would endorse an action plan providing clear and quantifiable advantages at EU level and supported by the grass-roots players — political decision-makers, administrations and scientific insti- tutions as well as the private sector. As far as the main causes of accidents are concerned, the Committee takes the view that more attention should be paid to high and inappropriate speeds and drink-driving. Drivers over the alcohol limit are respon- sible for at least 20 % of serious and fatal injuries in the EU. The Committee thus urges that the Council adopt the draft directive on blood alcohol levels without delay, and that this should be merely the first stage in reducing such levels. For these reasons, the Committee supports the 2. 2. 2. approach proposed by the Commission, the main feature The Committee asks the Commission to consider, at the earliest opportunity, the use of numerical targets for the reduction of fatalities in the European Union against C 73/68 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 9. 3. 98 which the progress of improved road safety can be judged. 2. 3. 2. The Committee would also like to point out that certain aspects have been either totally omitted from the communication or dealt with only briefly. Given the importance of the human factor, it believes that great efforts should be made to encourage people to behave in a safe manner. The issue of safe driving is often not sufficiently addressed either in initial driver training or in the criteria for issuing driving licenses. Checks, campaigns and financial penalties are other key elements in influencing driver behaviour. More emphasis should be placed on finding out who is it would be responsible for accidents. In addition, valuable to carry out road safety assessments before investments in infrastructure are made. These would give maintenance programmes direction and structure. 2. 3. 3. Finally, the Committee is disappointed that the many interesting proposals in the communication are only contained in the annexes, and that priorities or the trade-off between costs and benefits are not specified. 2. 3. 4. The Committee believes that the estimated cost of ECU 1 million for each person killed on the roads should give greater impetus to strengthening the priority given to road safety at political level. It should encourage decision-makers to choose effective measures. However, care must be taken to ensure that the figure is not misused to replace the most costly measures, such as certain costly changes to infrastructure, by less expensive measures. Road safety depends on complex relationships between vehicle quality, infrastructure and behaviour. There is a risk that politically expedient choices could be made which would eventually be to the detriment of an all-round advanced system. 3. Specific comments 3. 1. The CARE programme and its use (point 2. 2 of the communication) 3. 1. 1. The CARE database should facilitate a much greater understanding of the causes of accidents and in this way provide a basis for legislative and related non-legislative measures. Even if budgetary constraints prevent detailed and systematic analysis of the data by a Community institution, the various national adminis- trations and scientific, occupational and commercial institutions in the EU must have access to it in order to set priorities for action and decide on future legislation. 3. 1. 2. The procedure for registering and monitoring data on accidents should be designed in such a way that checks can be made to see that the expected advantages have been secured when a new piece of legislation affects the arrangements. Without retrospective action of this kind, the foundations of the legislative programme will not be as strong as desired and it will not be possible to ensure that the political will to improve the situation has been duly harnessed. 3. 2. Harmonization (point 3. 1 of the communication) 3. 2. 1. The Committee believes that it is vital that legislative measures adopted by the EU are implemented and upheld uniformly. Lack of harmonization in this area could create or worsen distortions of competition, especially in road transport. 3. 3. Quantified objective (point 3. 2 of the communi- cation) The Committee is disappointed that, lacking 3. 3. 1. the means to achieve it, the Commission is unable to fix a quantitative objective for accident reduction. The Committee is in favour of such objectives at a national level, and also — as soon as possible — at European level, as this would necessitate a greater effort to reduce road accidents. 3. 4. Cost/Benefit (point 3. 3 of the communication) Subject 3. 4. 1. to the observation contained in point 3. 5. 1 below, the Committee supports the use of the cost/benefit formula for decision-making and in deciding the priority to be given to various road safety measures. It supports the Commission’s approach, based on economic costs and losses, as long as this is not used to justify cancelling initiatives which would improve road safety but do not fulfil the condition of ECU 1 million for each life saved. 3. 5. Safety performance (point 3. 5 of the communi- cation) 3. 5. 1. The Committee welcomes and endorses the Commission’s positive attitude to the role of cham- pioning safe vehicle construction and test programmes carried out by private organizations (EuroNCAP — new vehicle assessment programmes) to gauge the safety performance of vehicles. The results of such tests could be an effective tool to promote the marketing of safer vehicles: the industry has in fact responded in a very encouraging manner to the commercial pressures brought about by systems which inform consumers about vehicle safety. Progress is made very much earlier in this way than through legislative channels. 3. 5. 2. The Committee notes — as does the Com- mission — that there is a problem where differences arise between (a) statutory testing and the test methods of private organizations and (b) the test methods of the various private organizations themselves. 9. 3. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 73/69 3. 5. 3. In this connection, the Committee welcomes the Commission’s intention to encourage statutory tests and those carried out by consumers’ organizations to be brought more into line, without however calling for the Commission’s endeavours to restrict the competence and responsibility of the private organizations concerned. 3. 5. 4. Nevertheless, the Commission should not hesi- tate to bring forward legislative proposals. Two areas for consideration are front underrun protection for heavy goods vehicles and daytime running lights on motorcycles and cars. 3. 6. The 1997-2001 programme 3. 6. 1. A n n e x I I I , f i e l d 1 While the Committee welcomes the objective of a cost/benefit analysis of road safety measures, it considers unrealistic the idea of making a like-for-like comparison between, for example, education in primary schools and an obstacle detection system. It also notes that results of comparisons can vary greatly between countries, and so would recommend that the terms of reference of these studies in the FM5s be sufficiently clear. Brussels, 10 December 1997. 3. 6. 2. A n n e x I I I , f i e l d 1 Although the Committee welcomes the wide range of the measures set out in the communication, it would have preferred priorities to be clearly set out. While recognizing that using the CARE database will enable these priorities to be defined more accurately, it would wish to draw attention to the results of research and studies that are currently available. The Committee would especially stress the importance of direct action to influence road users in order to boost the impact of improvements to infrastructures and vehicle safety, particularly in the shape of more stringent checks on driving behaviour and vehicle inspections, backed by a policy to raise awareness. Publicity is in fact the only tool available if legislative measures are difficult to institute or monitor, such as for instance in the area of tiredness affecting non-professional drivers. e x t e r n a l 3. 6. 3. T h e d i m e n s i o n a n d f u n d i n g The Committee supports the notion of an external dimension, mainly to ensure that users of Community infrastructure coming from third countries do not pose a significant risk. The Committee points out the importance of having a Community budget on a par with the expectations created by the communication. It invites the Council and the European Parliament to increase the relevant budget lines in order to avoid the possibility that new expenditure allocated to collecting and analysing data could mean less money is available in 1998 and 1999 for education and the dissemination of information. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS