Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-02-Speech-3-313"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030702.11.3-313"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, not always does the Commission make use of its opportunities to comply with the demands of the overwhelming majority in the European Parliament to such an extent as it has done with this framework directive. For this I wish to express my gratitude to the Commission, but also to the rapporteur, Mr Vermeer, for his report, which helps to clarify the substance of the matter.
If we who sit in this Parliament want people to carry on believing in us and trusting us, then we should stand by the demands we made with reference to the commitment made by the European, Japanese and Korean motor industries and not make new ones over and above them. Now that we have the framework directive that we demanded at that time, we have the legal certainty that we called for, and we will continue to have an influence on any further significant development, while, at the same time giving the motor industry the time and technical resources that it needs to get things done. We are, moreover, allowing it some leeway when it comes to researching innovative measures of active and passive safety that can be even more effective and efficient. At the end of the day, this is about protecting people and not just reducing the consequences of accidents, but preventing them, and this is not just about using certain technologies and procedures – expensive and developed with the best of intentions though these may be. We will thereby be being particularly responsive to the public interest.
Right up to the last moment, there was dispute about whether the EEVC’s four test procedures should be prescribed by law as the sole solution. There is no doubt that, even by today’s standards, these tests appear to be the most effective and the most cost-efficient, as well as to be the only ones available, but this is where criticism has to start. It would seem that a development has been missed out on, as these tests concern themselves more with the protection of vehicles’ occupants than with that of road users put at risk by the vehicles. Even consumers have a one-sided awareness of these things. They are increasing willing to pay for their safety as vehicle users, but demonstrably less willing to spend more on protecting pedestrians and the users of bicycles, wheelchairs and skateboards. This has to be the starting-point for a rethink, and one might well be sparked off, and accompanied, by a European campaign.
We in this House must neither stand in the way of the EEVC tests being further developed on the basis of practice, nor fundamentally reject the development of alternative procedures that offer at least as much protection. For example, in other, very sensitive, areas such as air and space travel, methods of virtual simulation came in a long time ago. Why, in future, should not such testing methods, and others like them – for we are talking about the post-2010 period – not bring even more safety? Let us, by an overwhelming majority, secure the speedy implementation of the directive and thereby save human lives!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples