Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-13-Speech-4-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020613.1.4-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the current number of fatalities which public roads claim annually calls for measures to be adopted. Measures that relate to both vehicles and to road user behaviour. Everyone has his or her own responsibility to take. In my opinion, the Community should not be able to shirk its responsibility too easily. It has the task of protecting its people from the risks of public life, including the roads.
At the moment, the Community is prescribing requirements for the design of cars, which is good, in my view. This power must not be relinquished. This is why voluntary agreements with industry have to be treated with great care. Industry is only secondary, and never able to adopt the role of legislator, simply because it always wants a compromise of criteria without any of the sharp edges.
The agreement with the automobile industry which we are discussing here is partly illustrating why that is. Let me start by saying that the agreement offers more certainties than are currently laid down formally. That is to say, provided that all parties provide their cooperation to the letter and spirit of the agreement. This does depend on the basic premise that is opted for: either an existing situation or a desirable one. I would opt for the latter, namely the need for considerable improvement.
In this light, there are a few observations to be made about the agreement. One point that deserves attention is the existence of two different test methods. One is related to industry and one is independent. It goes without saying that the first one will not be as far-reaching as the second one, or at least not be as critical. There is also a clear difference in the set-up of the test. The EEVC goes considerably further and can ultimately guarantee a higher level of protection than the NCAP. The timeframe plays an important role too. Industry suggests that technical adjustments to models require more time. This is also reflected in the voluntary agreement on the basis of which requirements for all new cars only start to apply after a very long time. Practice has shown, however, that adjustments can be implemented remarkably faster, not in years but even in weeks, as long as the right incentives are in place.
As far as the specific content of this resolution is concerned, there is only one conclusion possible, in my view. We believe that Community legislation is the only way in which the criteria for the safety tests can be established. Accordingly, we warmly welcome the proposed legislative instrument, namely a framework directive. As for its content, the four EEVC tests will need to occupy centre stage, because they prescribe higher requirements and, in so doing, offer a higher level of protection for weaker participants. On the basis of information available to us, it is very feasible for the automobile industry to meet these standards. There does not seem to be a problem there either. The inclusion of alternative test methods is, in our view, superfluous. It is claimed that this would be necessary in order to be able to incorporate progress in the test methods. However, the EEVC tests too are updated regularly.
Finally, the plea for the ban on bullbars both during and after production receives our support. In short, with the exception of a few minor changes, we can endorse this resolution."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples