Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-06-Speech-3-320"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020206.13.3-320"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am quite sure that we all accept the premise that an inappropriate speed by any vehicle can cause accidents. But more often than not accidents are attibutable to the manner in which the vehicle is being driven, or the carelessness of drivers failing to be vigilant, especially in bad weather for example. Accidents are also caused by drivers crawling along at a snail's pace on motorways and in some cases they could be avoided by having a minimum as well as a maximum speed limit. There has to be recognition that there is a world of difference between motorway and urban driving.
Whilst clearly agreeing with the Commission and my colleagues, including Mr Hatzidakis, that we must do all we can to improve road safety across the European Union, I cannot agree that the way forward would be the introduction of this directive, which advocated a one-speed-fits-all approach.
It is recognised that the United Kingdom has the best safety record in the EU. It is equally true to say that it was one of the first countries to fit speed limiters on coaches, for obvious reasons. In addition, this directive is also meant to improve the environment and congestion and again I would refute that claim. To extend this directive to those categories of vehicles included in the proposal, and to impose the upper speed limits as outlined, would be a mistake. It is bad enough struggling along motorways when two heavy goods lorries are running parallel because one decides to overtake on a hill and clearly cannot accelerate. If this directive comes into play I believe that congestion and environmental pollution will increase.
Finally, the right way forward would be to seriously consider advances in technology, for example the proposed voluntary agreement on pedestrian protection. In addition, there is also the possibility of ISA and I would support a study by the Commission along those lines. Nevertheless, ultimately, it should be left to the discretion of the Member State to decide what would or would not be appropriate. With the exception of a couple of amendments, my delegation will be unable to support this report."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples