Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-07-Speech-4-092"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020207.6.4-092"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
For a long time, we used to aspire to ever faster road vehicles for the transport of both freight and passengers. Speed restriction was seen as a temporary and unwanted hitch in technology waiting to be perfected. Each deliberate attempt to return to any form of speed restriction was considered an infringement of the driver’s individual freedom or a barrier to favourable profit margins for hauliers. The rising death toll on the roads is forcing us to have second thoughts. Despite this, the prescribing of devices for an ever larger proportion of road transport is only part of the solution. If appliances are made compulsory but if the legal speed limit is not sufficiently restricted, then this looks more like a disguised form of subsidy for companies that can tap into a new market in this way. This is comparable to the covenant with the car industry, which produces headlights that are activated automatically when the car is switched on, whereupon the driver needs to switch them off again in order to meet national statutory provisions or safety requirements. Unfortunately, the rapporteur confines the proposal to company cars, extends transitional periods and, in part, increases the maximum speed of category N2 motorised vehicles to 110 km. Speed limitation devices only make sense if they are designed to make compliance with such a serious statutory speed restriction enforceable, and this is, sadly, still not the case."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples