Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-27-Speech-4-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060427.2.4-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, what are we discussing today? We are discussing an emergency call system that is self-activating in the event of an accident or can be activated manually; we are also discussing studies according to which enormous numbers of people survive accidents if such a system is built in and if the necessary infrastructure – in the shape of such things as emergency call centres and standardised numbers – is in place in the Member States. I have to tell the House, quite honestly and frankly, that I regard these figures as grossly exaggerated.
When we debate road safety, there are certain Members of this House with an interest in this issue – and I will name Mr Vatanen specifically – who evidently think that the only things that matter are those things that have to do with costs and the installation of electronic gadgetry. Amendments aimed at bringing in measures that would really address the causes of accidents and have real potential for getting people to improve the way they drive, by, for example, abstaining from alcohol or adapting their speed to the driving conditions, get thrown out altogether by the Committee on Transport and Tourism.
It is clear, then, that safety is no longer thought of except in terms of technology, and I do not think that that goes far enough, for, while it does indeed matter to me that the time it takes the emergency services to reach an accident should be reduced, my concern is primarily with the avoidance of accidents in the first place, and if that is what we are about, then it is much more efficient to do something about the problem of people who drive under the influence of alcohol or about getting people to drive at appropriate speeds – both of which are factors in most accidents – than to do no more than compel the fitting of electronic safety systems.
Reference has been made to the amount that these systems cost. The cost of their installation is currently estimated at between EUR 150 and EUR 300, with the ‘possible’ hope of its ‘possibly’ becoming cheaper.
Does the House really believe that fitting these things will be made any cheaper by being made compulsory by insurers or by the Member States? The fact is that, if they are, there is absolutely no motivation for industry to produce them any more cheaply. I find it quite incomprehensible that the costs of this are of no interest to those of you who are at the same time vociferously critical of the much lower costs involved in the single European driving licence and who have campaigned against it in certain Member States.
There is also the issue of the private sphere and of the increasing monitoring of every area of our lives. While I do believe that such measures are of use in some limited areas, I think it is wrong to talk the whole thing up as a great opportunity to save the lives of what are alleged to be half the victims of all accidents. I do not regard these studies as credible. If one, at one and the same time, rules out all the other measures that prevent accidents without cutting rescue times, then I cannot regard the Transport Committee’s accident avoidance strategy – which relies exclusively on high-cost measures – as a credible one."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples