The European Commission has recently adopted a Communication entitled Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020. The European Commission has reiterated its target of halving the overall number of road deaths in the EU by 2020. It has set a similar target ten years ago which has not been met.
In its road safety action programme 2011-2020, the Commission proposes different initiatives ranging from, improved safety measures for trucks and cars, building safer roads, developing intelligent vehicles, strengthening licensing and training and better enforcement. In order achieve these objectives the Commission proposes different actions at EU and national level. However, unsurprisingly, several measures the Commission is planning to adopt are likely to entail a breach of the principle of subsidiarity.
The Commission wants to improve education and training for road users. Believing that the present approach on driver training remains too fragmented, the Commission wants to develop a common education and training road safety strategy. The Commission has in mind strengthening the quality of the licensing and training system, particularly by broadening the EU Driving Licence Directive.
The Commission is planning to introduce harmonised minimum requirements for persons involved in learning, including accompanying persons and instructors, such as establishing minimum age, experience and conditions.
The Commission is also planning to introduce probation periods after the driving test as well as eco-driving into theoretical and practical tests for safer, clean driving. The UK has already introduced “eco-driving” in the written but not in the practical tests.
Another Commission’s objective is to increase enforcement of road rules. The Commission has not reached a European enforcement strategy during the previous programme, but this time the Commission is determinate in making progress on cross-border enforcement. The Commission is expecting to propose the establishment of a cross-border exchange of information in the field of road safety. It will be, therefore, a priority for the European Commission the adoption of legally binding measures on the cross border exchange of information in the field of road safety.
It is important to recall that, in 2008, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive facilitating enforcement in the field of road safety, based on the “transport policy” provisions. Whereas the European Parliament has supported the Commission’s choice of legal basis, Member States are divided on this issue. Although the EU transport ministers have agreed on the aims of the Commission proposal several Member States are not convinced as to the appropriateness of the legal basis chosen by the Commission for its proposal as they believe that there is no Community competence on the basis of which the proposed Directive could be adopted. Several Member States, including the UK, have not agreed with the legal basis chosen by the Commission as they believe that several aspects of the proposal fall under the third pillar. Consequently, they believe that such proposal should be adopted by the justice and home affairs council, unanimously, and under the consultation procedure. The EU member states transport ministers have not reached yet any agreement on the proposal legal basis.
However, in the meantime, the Lisbon Treaty, entered into force, consequently, whether it is based on the transport policy or in the “police cooperation” the proposal would be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure and QMV in the Council. This proposal is a priority for the EU Belgium presidency which is planning to change the legal basis from ‘transport' to the ‘police co-operation' chapter. If that is the case, the UK could opt out.
The draft Directive would set up a system aimed to help Member States to recover financial penalties for road traffic offences that are committed by non-resident offenders, if enforcement does not take place while they are in the country where the offence occurred. The draft proposal covers offences such as speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol, not using a seat belt, and failing to stop at a red light.
The UK does not have a higher proportion of non-resident traffic from neighbouring countries as other Member States and the proposal would entail undue burdens on enforcement authorities.
The Commission has proposed the creation of an EU electronic data exchange network with the aim of identifying the holder of a vehicle in order to allow the authorities in a Member State, where an offence has been committed, to send out a notification to the holder of the vehicle involved in the offence. If an offence is committed in a Member State with a vehicle which is registered in another Member State, and the case is not sanctioned in the State of offence, the national competent authority of the Member State where the offence took place shall send the vehicle registration number as well as information concerning the offence to the competent authority in the other Member States or if it is possible to identify to the State of residence. The competent authority of the Member States of residence (vehicle registration) would be required to transmit immediately the to the competent authority in the State of offence the information required such as model of the vehicle, the name, address, date and place of birth of the holder of the registration certificate. Having received this information the authority in the State of offence which is in charge of pursuing the offences covered by this Directive shall send an offence notification to the holder. The exchanges will be carried out by the national authorities in charge of the vehicle registration documents. According to the Commission data will not be stored in any new EU database nevertheless there are fears that such proposal could be a “Trojan horse” for a wide EU databases of offender drivers.
According to the former Government draft impact assessment it is estimated that set-up costs for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and UK police forces would be around £4.50 million and around £5.70 million for the annual enforcement cost for pursuing non-resident offenders for offences in the UK arising directly from the proposed Directive. Annual costs have been estimated around £40,000 for the DVLA in providing information to other Member States where UK-registered vehicles are detected committing offences in other Member States.
It is important to recall that according to the action plan on the Stockholm programme, the Commission is planning to present a Legislative proposal on mutual recognition of financial penalties, including those related to road traffic offences, in 2011. Furthermore, in order to ensure compliance with EU policies in general and, more specifically, improving road safety the Commission believes that it should be possible to implement certain fines, which can be criminal or administrative, between Member States.
The Commission will also develop a common road safety enforcement strategy, including the possibility of introducing in-vehicle systems providing real-time information on prevailing speed limits, particularly fitting speed limiters in light commercial vehicles. The Commission will also consider introducing legislative measures to require mandatory use of alcohol interlock devices for specific professional cases, such as school buses.
Moreover, the Commission is likely to propose further “actions in the area of harmonisation and progressive strengthening of EU legislation on roadworthiness tests and on technical roadside inspections.”
In fact, the Commission “ultimate objective” is to have in place mutual recognition of vehicle inspections between Member States. Consequently, checks carried out in one Member State would have to be recognised in another.
In order to improve safety measures for vehicles, several of the so called "active safety" measures will come into force between 2011-2020 such as: mandatory electronic stability control (for cars, buses and trucks), mandatory lane departure warning systems (for trucks and buses), mandatory automatic emergency braking systems (for trucks and buses), mandatory seat belt reminders (cars and trucks), Mandatory speed limiters for light commercial vehicles/vans (already in place for trucks).
In fact, the Commission is planning to use modern technology to increase road safety. Within the framework of the Intelligent Transport Systems Directive, the Commission will propose new technical specifications, with the view that data and information can be easily exchanged between vehicles, between vehicles and infrastructure and between infrastructures. The so called "co-operative systems", where vehicles exchange data and interact with the infrastructure and other vehicles provide drivers with real time information on speed limits, on traffic flows, congestion.
The Commission is also considering extending the implementation of advanced driver assistance systems such as lane departure warning, anti collision warning and pedestrian recognition systems by retrofitting them to existing commercial and private vehicles.
The Commission will also develop a global strategy of action concerning road injuries aiming at reducing the number of injuries, in the next decade. It is first time, that the Commission will set such a target. However, first it has to establish common definitions of serious and minor injuries so it can define targets and then establishing a common EU wide injuries target. The European Commission also wants to establish an EU wide data collection and analysis on injuries. It will also examine the possibility of developing and installing event data recorders (‘black boxes’), on professional vehicles, in order to improve technical investigations and analysis of accidents.
Another objective of the Commission's action plan is to protect vulnerable road users including, powered-two-wheelers (PTWs), pedestrians, cyclists, elderly people and people with disabilities. As regards powered-two-wheelers, the Commission will introduce a number of vehicle safety measures such as mandatory fitting of advanced brake systems, automatic headlamp and updated anti-tampering measures. Moreover, the Commission will consider the possibility of equipping motorcycles with an airbag and/or including the airbag in the protective clothing, as well as to extend EU legislation on road worthiness testing/inspections to motorbikes. As regards elderly people and people with disabilities, the Commission is likely to develop medical criteria for the assessment of fitness-to-drive.
We will have to wait for the Commission concrete proposals nevertheless, it is very likely they will interfere with member states responsibilities.
Safety action plan must be followed for all the work and in all area. Safety on the construction site is the responsibility of the contractor and the contractor supervisors. This is done mainly to reduce in the number of accidents occurring at various workplaces.
Bill, thank you for your report on the RSAP. As a motorcyclist I have serious concerns that the proposals are based on zealousness and target focused, rather than scientific evidence. In the case of ABS, the motorcycle industry has made a strong case against mandatory ABS, simply because there are different and equally good systems out there and any compulsion would stifle innovation. In the case of mandatory AHO (Automatic Headlights On), there is a strong case that this will not reduce collisions, in fact a comparison of countries that already have mandatory AHO for motorcycles and those that do not, demonstrate that there is no evidence of a reduction of casualties due to AHO. With regards to anti-tampering measures, once again, the Commission has not been able to demonstrate any correlation between tampering and crashes, when we asked DG Enterprise in response to the Framework Regulation consultation, they admitted that they had no evidence and would eventually need to carry out a study.
What we have asked for over the years is relevant, cost effective initial rider training, which we had hoped would come with the 3DLD, however some of the Member States are opting for more testing which will not give novice riders the knowledge that they need to ride safely on our roads. e.g. Northern Ireland http://www.righttoride.co.uk/?page_id=964
Finally, with regards to EU Roadworthiness testing, the UK already has a very effective system of MOT and my concern is that interference from Brussels will be detrimental rather than helpful and ultimately drive up costs.
It is very essential to have a good road safety plan because the number of vehicles have increased tremendously and there is a need for caution and care.
this document helps a lot in my research,thank you,God bless