Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2007)560 - Protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2007)560 - Protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2007)560  |
| date | 03-10-2007 |
110
The objective of the proposal is to strengthen Community requirements aimed at improving the safety of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in case of injuries resulting from a collision with a motor vehicle.
These requirements are presently governed by Directive 2003/102/EC([1]). As a result of the requirements of Article 5 of that Directive a review was undertaken as to the feasibility of certain requirements under the second phase of the Directive and the possible use of active safety systems. The review resulted in the conclusion that these requirements are not feasible.
The Commission therefore proposes a new Regulation which will form the basis for a combination of feasible requirements with active safety systems. This approach has the advantage that the Regulation is directly applicable throughout the EU, does not require transposition into national law and provides enterprises and approval authorities with a single set of rules.
In addition, Directive 2005/66/EC, of 26 October 2005, relating to the use of frontal protection systems provides for control on the use of such systems and the provision of levels of protection to vulnerable road users in the event of collision with vehicles making use of them. The Commission now proposes to combine the requirements of this Directive with those of the Directive 2003/102/EC relating to pedestrian protection.
120
On 21 December 2000, the Commission adopted a communication discussing the possibility of using a voluntary industry commitment to improve the safety of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users as a result of collision with a motor vehicle. In that Communication the Commission agreed to undertake discussions with the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) with a view to reach such a commitment and to engage in parallel discussions with the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) and the Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association (KAMA).
In a communication([2]) adopted on 11 July 2001, the Commission presented the commitment undertaken by ACEA on pedestrian protection to the Council and the European Parliament. The commitment included a series of tests aimed at improving the construction of the frontal structures of motor vehicles, as well as a number of additional active and passive safety measures also conducive to enhanced pedestrian protection. Those measures concerned: the equipping of all motor vehicles with Antilock Brake Systems - ABS - as well as Daytime Running Lights - DRL -, the future introduction of advanced active safety new technology systems and a voluntary ban on the sale of rigid bull bars. Since then, the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) and the Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association (KAMA) have undertaken commitments similar to the one undertaken by ACEA, with the result that 99% of the existing manufacturers are covered by identical commitments.
In the July 2001 Communication, the Commission announced that it would decide whether to accept the industry commitment by means of a recommendation or to propose legislation in the field of pedestrian protection after having consulted the European Parliament and the Council.
Both the European Parliament and the Council welcomed the main elements of the industry commitment as regards the measures for improving the design of car fronts.
The European Parliament, in its resolution of 13 June 2002, asked for a 'framework' directive laying down the application dates, the goals to be achieved and the method to monitor their application. As a result, the Commission agreed to propose framework legislation, based on the relevant content of the commitments.
This proposal for legislation was presented for co-decision and the result was Directive 2003/102/EC relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.
Subsequent to this the Commission, in line with the wishes of the Council and the European Parliament, proposed measures for the control of frontal protection systems. This was published as Directive 2005/66/EC. It is now thought to be suitable that this Directive should be closely aligned with any proposal to amend the pedestrian protection Directive by including the necessary provisions in the proposed regulation.
130
The present Directive is 2003/102/EC relating to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. Under Article 5 of this Directive the study completed on feasibility issues for the implementation of the second phase requirements has shown these requirements to be not feasible. The present proposal builds on the previous requirements by providing amendments to ensure feasibility.
Directive 2005/66/EC relating to the use of frontal protection systems provides for the control of these systems either as original equipment or in the aftermarket. The proposal combines these requirements with those providing pedestrian protection and thus provides consistency in provision of protection for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.
141
The proposal is fully in line with the objectives of reducing the number of fatalities on the road, as outlined in the Commission white paper on European Transport Policy.
141
141
211
All consultations held were concerned solely with the provision of amended specifications for the second phase of the pedestrian protection Directive, as the inclusion of the requirements for frontal protection systems are considered to remain as they presently are.
A consultation meeting was held with representatives of the European, Japanese and Korean automotive manufacturers. This meeting discussed the requirements of the second phase of the existing Directive and what would be considered necessary to ensure feasible solutions which could be complied with.
An open consultation was conducted over the Internet in June and July 2005. The Commission received 17 responses of which the results are available on ec.europa.eu/comm/enterprise/automotive
212
In general, the results of the consultation showed that the present proposal can be accepted by virtually all parties as being both feasible and ensuring the intended level of safety for vulnerable road users.
The responses from the internet consultation were concerned with issues which have been taken account of in the proposal or which will be incorporated into implementing legislation.
A fuller account of the responses is provided in the impact assessment that accompanies this proposal.
213
141
221
Analysis of vehicle construction as well as vehicle accident and injury statistics.
222
Analysis of injury records from accident databases and simulation of results for different scenarios with respect to speed and area of impact between vehicle and vulnerable road user.
223
The Transport Research Laboratory in the UK (TRL).
Summary of advice received and used
The TRL report indicated the need to revise certain requirements existing under the present Directive to ensure the feasibility of the requirements and recommended the use of an active safety system as a requirement in the legislation to ensure an improved level of safety provided to the vulnerable road user.
226
The TRL report, which includes an extended examination of the evaluation of the benefits of Brake Assist, is available on the website at:
ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive
230
Options which were not considered in the impact assessment are the following:
Legislation by Member States
The existing Directive is part of the whole vehicle type-approval system which has established, at EU level, full harmonisation of legislation for vehicle construction. This type-approval system has been in existence since 1970 to ensure the proper working of the internal market for the automotive industry whilst ensuring safety and quality in vehicle construction.
If the Directive was to be repealed, Member States would be free to enact their own legislation in this area. The result would be disharmony in the operation of the internal market and the free circulation of vehicles would no longer be guaranteed.
Thus it is not proposed that the legislation should be removed.
Use of a voluntary agreement
It must be remembered that the Directive came about as a result of direct requests for legislation from Parliament and Council following the examination of a consultative document presented by the Commission concerning a previous voluntary agreement on the subject of pedestrian protection. As a result of these requests the main body of the voluntary agreement was incorporated into the existing Directive. In addition, and also requested by the legislators, the subject of a voluntary ban on bull-bars was also incorporated into a directive([3]).
A new voluntary agreement on the subject was, therefore, not considered appropriate.
The following options are considered in the assessment:
Continue with the existing Directive
A possible approach would have been that no action should be taken to change the specifications for phase II and a possible time delay be proposed for the implementation dates. However, the Commission cannot ignore the fact that requirements of phase II of the existing Directive have been found to be not feasible and it is considered that time will not necessarily make them so. The Commission is, therefore, constrained to take the necessary and suitable form of action to amend the requirements and to provide the necessary certainty with respect to the issue of feasibility([4])
The option of continuing with the existing Directive was therefore rejected. The existing Directive, however, serves as a basis of reference for comparison of the benefits of other options.
Accept an Industry Proposal
The industry, following examination of the feasibility issues, proposed that the use of the phase I requirements should continue in place of the phase II requirements and that the use of Brake Assist should be required. This option was examined and finally rejected as it was the opinion of the Commission that more stringency could be applied in some of the passive requirements. The potential results of using this option are, however, referenced as a point of comparison with the final option.
Provide amendments to the passive safety requirements only.
A proposal to only amend the existing requirements and make them more technically feasible would ensure an improvement of vehicle fronts in a feasible manner. However, it is recognised that, as a result, the expected safety value would be reduced and this is not in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 of the existing Directive. Thus, as this option would not 'afford at least the same level of protection as the existing provisions' it was not considered further.
Provide amendments to the existing Directive for phase II requirements and provide a combination using an active safety measure to ensure the levels of safety afforded
It has been stated and accepted that the existing requirements are not feasible and must be changed. The TRL report examined and evaluated the use of Brake Assist in combination with a change to the existing passive requirements. Under Article 5 of the existing Directive the Commission is now required to submit a proposal which will 'afford at least the same level of protection as the existing provisions'. The results from the report indicate that the proposed combination of amended passive measures and the use of new active measures would together be capable of providing a significantly improved level of safety to the vulnerable road user over and above the existing requirements.
This is thus the option pursued in the proposal.
141
Contents
- Legal elements of the proposal
- Budgetary implication
- Grounds for and objectives of the proposal
- General context
- Existing provisions in the area of the proposal
- Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union
- 2. Consultation of interested parties and impact assessment
- Consultation of interested parties
- Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents
- Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account
- Collection and use of expertise
- Scientific/expertise domains concerned
- Methodology used
- Main organisations/experts consulted
- 2249
- Means used to make the expert advice publicly available
- Impact assessment
- Summary of the proposed action
- Legal basis
- Subsidiarity principle
- Proportionality principle
- Choice of instruments
- 5. Additional information
- Simulation, pilot phase and transitory period
- Simplification
- Repeal of existing legislation
- Review/revision/sunset clause
- European Economic Area
305
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users before and in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle and amending the Framework Directive on the type-approval of motor vehicles.
310
Article 95 of the Treaty
320
The subsidiarity principle applies insofar as the proposal does not fall under the exclusive competence of the Community.
The objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States because the proposed Regulation will be a part of the EU type-approval system for vehicles.
Community action will better achieve the objectives of the proposal because it will avoid barriers to trade between Member States which would otherwise arise. The present use and application of the EU type-approval system for vehicles demonstrates the acceptance and worth of such a system in the European context. It provides clear requirements for the construction of vehicles to enhance their level of safety in a uniform and agreed manner.
The proposal therefore complies with the subsidiarity principle.
141
The proposal complies with the proportionality principle because it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives of providing safety for vulnerable road users.
331
The TRL report displayed a cost benefit analysis which demonstrates that the proposal provides considerable benefits for society as a whole.
141
Proposed instrument: regulation.
342
Other means would not be adequate for the following reason:
The use of a regulation is considered to be appropriate in providing the required assurance for early compliance whilst not requiring the transposition into Member States’ legislation.
141
The proposal has no implications for the Community budget.
141
141
There are several transitory periods in the proposal in order to allow sufficient lead times for manufacturers in the design and production processes of vehicles.
510
The proposal provides for simplification of administrative procedures for national authorities and for the Commission.
513
As a result of the use of a Regulation there will be no need for transposition into national legislation.
520
The adoption of the proposal will lead to the repeal of Directives 2003/102/EC and 2005/66/EC.
141
The proposal includes review clauses to ensure a continuance of safety levels in the future.
560
The proposed act concerns an EEA matter and should therefore extend to the European Economic Area.