Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-312"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.11.3-312"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for a thorough piece of work, a reanalysis of a proposal that Mrs Hedkvist Petersen handled so capably some months ago and in which I was also involved.
The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, with Mrs Hedkvist Petersen's report and also with Mr Vermeer, has given a lot of support to the approach the Commission has taken. We did not feel it was necessary to table any substantive amendments to the framework directive because we felt that it covered the strategy that Parliament had laid down. Mr Vermeer has made some worthwhile improvements, but without in any way altering the substance of it. That is important and I agree with his analysis that we should not support the other amendments. I am delighted that the Commission is accepting those so we can move ahead as quickly as possible.
I would like to make one or two comments on our two proposed amendments, one of which the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism was kind enough to accept, and also some broader points about the whole proposal. First of all the recital that we proposed focuses very much on the importance of active safety measures, working with passive safety measures, in delivering the overall safety improvements that we want.
There have been enormous improvements in the technology over the past few months since we first looked at this. I declare an interest in this in that I am an automotive engineer and I have driven some of the cars with that technology. It is important to emphasise the practical nature of this. If we have technologies that will reduce collision speeds by sensing impending impacts, or even alter the direction of the impact, it will make a very substantial improvement.
There are some people in this House who seem to think that the requirements are somehow a pushover. I just want to conclude by relating a recent experience when I went to the Young Designers Exhibition at Coventry University to see what young designers were looking at in car designs for the future. It will interest colleagues from this committee to know that many of those young designers were designing pedestrian-friendly cars but, in order to meet the EEVC Stage II tests, the only way they could meet those requirements was by putting the engine at the back of the car so as to leave enough crush space at the front.
Anybody who thinks that these Stage II tests are a pushover, or are easily attainable with current technology, needs to take a serious look at what is going on in the industry and not sit in this House drawing up unrealistic amendments."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples