Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-17-Speech-4-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020117.5.4-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"During the initial discussion concerning the authorisation of long, rigid buses on 3 October 2002, I pointed out that these are suitable for sparsely-populated areas where the roads are wide and dead straight. In low-traffic urban areas and on narrow, winding country roads, they can pose risks for passing cyclists and pedestrians alike. Moreover, without a compulsory second rear axle, they can destroy roads on soft soil, such as in the peaty areas in the Netherlands. It is therefore certainly justifiable for a number of EU Member States only to authorise buses up to 12 metres long. If these countries are forced to authorise buses of 15 metres, they will need to install additional prohibition signs throughout the country. Although such buses might then have access to the country, they would still be unable to reach many locations in practice. Naturally, such buses are cheaper to produce and run, and use up less fuel per passenger. In the final analysis, the issue seems mainly to revolve around saving costs at the expense of safety. At the time, this was for me a reason to reject the proposals in the main, and this is still the case today. The Council proposal to authorise until 2020, instead of 2009, buses which fail to meet the requirements of the directive does not meet with my approval either."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples