Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-17-Speech-3-285"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010117.9.3-285"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her outstanding report on a subject which touches the daily lives of every citizen, wherever he or she happens to be in Europe, namely our own safety on the roads and that of our children. I would like to address three particular points.
Firstly, I would advocate drawing up European legislation with regard to a European pedestrian test and the four associated crash tests. After 22 years of EU subsidised research, it is clear beyond all doubt that these tests are of value and that hundreds of lives can be spared every year as a result. This is absolutely paramount for many pedestrians and cyclists, particularly in a densely populated country such as the Netherlands, but also elsewhere of course.
Of course it is very nice of Commissioner Liikanen to allow the car industry more time to make their own arrangements, the bottom-up approach, again giving them time until June, but now in 2001, but it is all taking too long for my liking. Managing also means making choices, and the time is ripe for this.
A second point I would like to raise relates to alcohol limits in the blood. Some members of my group will support the rapporteur’s proposal to produce an EU regulation setting an alcohol limit of 0.5 per cent. We do not wish to extend this limit but we do think that harmonisation of this limit will enhance people’s legal certainty in a Union where many citizens cross the internal borders daily, and where the mobility of employees is precisely what we want to promote. I am not in favour of setting lower limits for certain categories of young road-users though. The signal we send out must be clear. Either a standard is safe or it is not. And 0.5% is a socially responsible, easily measurable and enforceable quantity to my mind.
Now, Commissioner, I would just like to unburden myself of the fact that I think it is extremely discourteous towards Parliament that the Commissioner evidently already decided, in advance of this evening’s debate – in which, when all is said and done, people are calling for a
on the alcohol limit – that a
to the Member States will suffice. This will encourage a non-committal attitude and will certainly do nothing to increase transparency from the citizens’ perspective.
My final point relates to the long-term ‘Vision Zero’ objective. I have a problem with this. An objective must be realistic and achievable, that is what motivates and stimulates. Naturally we can reduce the number of victims, but it would be wishful thinking to believe we could eliminate road accidents altogether."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"recommendation"1
"regulation"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples