Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-02-Speech-1-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001002.9.1-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, this is a highly technical subject, aspects of which affect the daily life of European citizens, not to mention the single market itself.
In the current situation, the legal limits for the maximum authorised length of passenger vehicles are very different in the EU Member States. In 7 countries, the limit is 12 metres, in one country it is 13.7 metres, in two other countries it is 14.5 metres and in 5 others, it is 15 metres. This legal limit has not explicitly been harmonised at a European level since it was not included in Directive 96/53. Up to now, only 12-metre buses can circulate freely in the whole EU territory. On a request from the Council of Ministers, the Commission has worked on a proposal to include passenger vehicles in Directive 96/53, not only in order to harmonise the length of rigid buses but also to create a clearer situation regarding removable attachments on buses and trailers. This work resulted in the present proposal. I should point out that, even in countries in which 15-metre buses are officially allowed, in practice they are refused entry or are sent back at the border. In this sense, we can say that this proposal is an attempt to resolve the problem by introducing single market rules for the whole of the European Union.
Obviously, the length of buses is dictated by commercial considerations. A 15-metre bus can take about 67 passengers, i.e. 16 more than a 12-metre bus. Obviously, competitive considerations push some operators in the direction of longer buses. In cases where full-loaded buses can circulate, it is preferable, for environmental reasons, to use longer buses. Finally, this proposal creates a clearer situation as to the removable attachments on buses, mostly ski boxes, which have to be included in the total authorised length.
I personally agree with the compulsory three axles on buses longer than 12 metres, which are likely to exceed the maximum permissible weight per axle. Three axles give better circulating conditions and cause less wear on roads. Other proposed measures, like considering the maximum length of a bus and trailer as the same as a truck and trailer, are also satisfactory. The total of all of these is a maximum of 18.75 metres. It should be noted that, from 1 January 2000, the maximum width of buses was increased from 2.50m to 2.55m. Adaptations of the maximum length of rigid buses will very probably bring about a demand for a similar change in legislation for rigid trucks designed to transport goods, although there may be not an overwhelming demand for such vehicles.
Key criteria to ensure manoeuvrability of buses are the turning circle and the outswing. These criteria are set out in Directive 97/27/EC relating to the masses and dimensions of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers. Although this directive allows derogation by the Member States, it is important to stick, at the European level, to these criteria, which should apply also to the longer rigid buses as proposed in this directive. The reason is that buses – both inner-city buses and coaches – often have to operate in narrow streets in city centres during the rush hours, when many other vehicles, motorbikes, bikes, and pedestrians are on the road. If there are problems for 15-metre buses to circulate in some places, such as historic town centres, narrow streets etc., local or national authorities should indicate the restrictions, which have to be observed; I think this is a satisfactory arrangement.
I should like to refer to three amendments adopted in committee. The first makes provision for a transitional period during which the use within national territory of buses which are currently permitted but do not comply with the new requirements of the directive will be allowed. If this period were to end on 31 December 2009, it would be very short, given that it would severely limit the service life of buses longer than 12 metres which are already licensed. The effect would be to impose unacceptable financial burdens on businesses which had registered or introduced vehicles in good faith before the entry into force of the new directive.
The second amendment states that it ought to be made clear that these provisions apply to rigid buses, not articulated buses. Increasing the maximum authorised length of buses with two axles is intended to make it possible to use removable attachments such as ski boxes on 12-metre buses. This increase will also challenge bus manufacturers to use alternative materials and designs to reduce the weight of the vehicle, so that buses which are longer than 12 metres but well under 15 metres can also be manufactured and registered as two-axle vehicles.
The third amendment concerns removable attachments, such as ski boxes, and cornering. It sets different requirements from the directive because it considers that application of the proposal submitted by the working group for transport to amend the Directive 96/53 with regard to the measuring method and the limit values for outswing would result in the maximum length of buses being limited to 14.6 metres. This is contrary to the length of buses with at least three axles set in Article 1 of the directive. Buses would be 40 centimetres shorter.
As far as the proposed amendments are concerned, I cannot agree with Amendment No 4 by the Liberals because, as I said to the Commission, it is not in keeping with the spirit of the directive. As far as Amendment No 6 proposed by the Socialists is concerned, I can consent to this straight away. As regards the other two amendments proposed by the Socialists, Amendments Nos 5 and 7, calling for derogations of up to two years, I consider the transitional period to be excessive. I would appreciate clarification from the Socialists and from the Commission before taking a stance, but a two-year transitional period seems excessive to me. I might perhaps be able to discuss a shorter period of time if, of course, the Commission agrees."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples