Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-06-Speech-3-317"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020206.13.3-317"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, this proposal for a directive seeks to extend speed restrictions, which already apply to some commercial vehicles, to other categories of passenger and goods vehicles, i.e. to lighter commercial vehicles than those to which the restrictions already apply. In other words, to category Μ2 and Μ3 passenger vehicles and category Ν2 goods vehicles. The European Commission's proposal makes provision for speed limitation devices to restrict passenger vehicles to 100 kph and goods vehicles to 90 kph. And basically, I agree with the European Commission's proposal.
A study carried out in Holland and brought to our attention by the European Commission demonstrates that it stands to reap profits in the order of EUR 40 million a year and benefits to society in the order of EUR 89 million a year from the transport sector alone. If we extrapolate these figures, we stand to gain something in the order of EUR 3 billion. But I do not want to dwell on this study because others may dispute it. I should like to dwell for a moment on common sense. And common sense tells us that, if we restrict speeds, we stand to gain, first from road safety, because there will be fewer accidents; secondly, we stand to gain in the environmental protection sector and, thirdly, we shall ensure there is fair competition between companies because we shall have the same limit everywhere, throughout Europe; at the same time, companies will not be able to force their drivers to drive very fast, putting human lives at risk for the sake of their profit margins.
That is why the amendments which I have proposed do not differ in any great respect from the text of the European Commission's proposal. I should like to comment on two amendments accepted in committee. The first concerns the exemption, which we propose should be 5 years from when the directive enters into force for category Μ2 and Ν2 vehicles weighing between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes. What we are proposing here is that the directive should apply five years after it enters into force and, secondly, that the European Commission should submit a study eighteen months after the directive enters into force on so-called intelligent speed adaptation systems so that we can see if we can use these systems to differentiate speeds depending on the circumstances and, of course, if we can have even lower speeds in urban areas.
The European People's Party has tabled an amendment for category Ν2, which includes vans, calling for the speed limit to be raised from 90 to 110 kph, because they are a different type of vehicle; they are lighter vehicles and I think that we can be more flexible here. Some fellow members voted against this and explained their reasons. They have ideological, political reasons and they do not think that the European Commission, or rather the European Union, should intervene here. I should like to thank them, I understand their reasons and, even though I disagree with them, I respect their position. But I should like to ask them, given that there are some amendments which make the European Commission's proposal more flexible and bring it closer to their own position, to examine these amendments constructively and, if they can, to vote for them, because it is my prediction that, their position notwithstanding, this directive will, at some point, become European law."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples