Procedure : 2007/0201(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A6-0081/2008

Texts tabled :

A6-0081/2008

Debates :

PV 17/06/2008 - 15
CRE 17/06/2008 - 15

Votes :

PV 18/06/2008 - 6.4
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P6_TA(2008)0297

REPORT     ***I
PDF 184kWORD 278k
31.3.2008
PE 398.336v02-00 A6-0081/2008

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users

(COM(2007)0560 – C6‑0331/2007 – 2007/0201(COD))

Committee on Transport and Tourism

Rapporteur: Francesco Ferrari

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users

(COM(2007)0560 – C6‑0331/2007 – 2007/0201(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0560),

–   having regard to Articles 251(2) and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6‑0331/2007),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6‑0081/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4) Directive 2003/102/EC has been shown to be not feasible in the requirements for the second phase of implementation. In this respect Article 5 of that Directive requested the Commission to make necessary proposals which would overcome problems of feasibility with these requirements and possibly make use of active safety systems, whilst ensuring there was no degradation in the safety levels provided to the vulnerable road user.

(4) Directive 2003/102/EC has been shown to be not feasible in the requirements for the second phase of implementation. In this respect Article 5 of that Directive requested the Commission to make necessary proposals which would overcome problems of feasibility with these requirements and possibly make use of active safety systems, whilst ensuring there was no degradation in the safety levels provided to the vulnerable road user. However, new technologies have been developed in the case of passive measures which could help meet the Phase II requirements. Such technologies must be taken into account.

Justification

There are at present viable technologies capable of meeting the requirements laid down in the second phase of implementation of Directive 2003/102/EC; they would help to reduce the number of fatal accidents and would lessen the gravity of injuries sustained by pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5) A study commissioned by the Commission shows that the requirements for pedestrian protection can be significantly improved by use of a combination of passive and active measures which afford a higher level of protection than the previously existing provisions. In particular, the active safety system ‘Brake Assist’ has been identified which, in combination with changes to passive safety requirements, will significantly increase the level of protection provided. It is therefore appropriate to provide for the obligatory installation of Brake Assist systems in new motor vehicles.

(5) A study commissioned by the Commission shows that the requirements for pedestrian protection can be significantly improved by use of a combination of passive and active measures which afford a higher level of protection than the previously existing provisions. In particular, the active safety system ‘Brake Assist’ has been identified which, in combination with changes to passive safety requirements, will significantly increase the level of protection provided. Providing for the obligatory installation of Brake Assist systems in new motor vehicles is therefore appropriate. This should however not replace high-level passive safety systems, but rather complement them.

Justification

In order to ensure a high level of safety in all circumstances, the compulsory installation of active brake assistance systems for all new vehicles as of 2009 envisaged in the Commission proposal should not replace high-level passive safety systems, but rather complement them.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) Vehicles equipped with collision avoidance systems should not be required to fulfil certain requirements laid down in this Regulation to the extent that they will be able to avoid collisions with pedestrians rather than merely mitigating the effects of such collisions.

(6) Vehicles equipped with collision avoidance systems may not be required to fulfil certain requirements laid down in this Regulation to the extent that they will be able to avoid collisions with pedestrians rather than merely mitigating the effects of such collisions. After assessing that the use of such technology can effectively avoid collisions with pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, the Commission may present proposals amending this Regulation to allow for the use of such systems.

Justification

Linked to AMs on Article 11 and Recital 10.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) With the increasing number of heavier vehicles being used on urban roads, it is appropriate that provisions on pedestrian protection apply not only to vehicles of maximum mass not exceeding 2500kg , but also, after a certain transitional period, to vehicles of categories M1 and N1 exceeding that limit.

(7) With the increasing number of heavier vehicles being used on urban roads, it is appropriate that provisions on pedestrian protection apply not only to vehicles of maximum mass not exceeding 2500kg , but also, after a limited transitional period, to vehicles of categories M1 and N1 exceeding that limit.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 8 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(8a) The Commission shall intensify its efforts to reduce speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol and to increase the use of lighter motor vehicles by campaigning and proposing stricter legislation, in order to make this Regulation more effective.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) In particular, power should be conferred on the Commission to adopt technical provisions for the application of the test requirements, performance requirements for collision avoidance systems, and implementing measures based on results of monitoring. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation by the addition of new non-essential elements, they should be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.

(10) In particular, the Commission should be empowered to adopt technical provisions for the application of the test requirements and implementing measures based on the results of monitoring. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation by supplementing it with new non-essential elements, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.

Justification

Linked to AMs on Article 11 and Recital 6. Performance requirements for collision avoidance systems should not be dealt by comitology procedure.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Sections 2 and 3 of Annex I shall not apply to vehicles of category N1 where the driver position ‘R-point’ is either forward of the front axle or longitudinally rearwards of the front axle transverse centreline by less than 1000 mm.

2. Sections 2 and 3 of Annex I shall not apply to:

 

(a) vehicles of category N1,

 

(b) vehicles of category M1 derived from N1 and of maximum mass exceeding 2500 kg,

 

where the driver position ‘R-point’ is either forward of the front axle or longitudinally rearwards of the front axle transverse centreline by less than 1050 +/- 50 mm.

Justification

A distance of 1000 mm has been inserted in the GTR (Global Technical Regulation) text in Geneva and this figure is transposed into the Commission proposal. This may cause similar flat fronted vehicles to be treated differently, leading to market distortion. Flat-front M1 vehicles above 2.5 tonnes may be the same vehicles as comparable N1 vehicles and thus should be treated similarly. Reducing the distance between the R-point and the front axle will reduce the space in the cab and hence the comfort of the driver, therefore a tolerance has been provided.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – point 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(6 a) 'vehicles of category M1 derived from N1' means those vehicles of M1 category and of maximum mass exceeding 2500 kg which, forward of the A-pillars, have the same general structure and shape as a pre-existing N1 category vehicle;

Justification

Linked to AM on Article 2, Para 2. Change in Article 2, 2 makes it necessary to define 'vehicles of category M1 derived from N1'.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. With effect from [DATE thirty-three months following entry into force of this Regulation], in the case of new vehicles of category M1, or N1 derived from M1, and of maximum mass not exceeding 2500 kg, which do not comply with the technical provisions set out in Section 4 of Annex I, national authorities shall, on grounds related to pedestrian protection, consider the certificates of conformity to be no longer valid for the purposes of Article [26] of Directive[…/…/EC], and shall prohibit the registration, sale and entry into service of such vehicles.

2. With effect from ...*, national authorities shall, on grounds related to pedestrian protection, consider the certificates of conformity to be no longer valid for the purposes of Article 26 of Directive 2007/46/EC, and shall prohibit the registration, sale and entry into service of the following new vehicles:

 

(a) vehicles of category M1,

 

(b) vehicles of category N1 derived from M1, and of maximum mass not exceeding 2500 kg, which do not comply with the technical provisions set out in Section 4 of Annex I.

 

* 24 months following entry into force of this Regulation.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

With effect from [DATE fifty-six months following entry into force of this Regulation], national authorities shall refuse, on grounds relating to pedestrian protection, to grant EC type-approval or national type-approval, in respect of any of the following new vehicle types:

With effect from ...*, national authorities shall refuse, on grounds relating to pedestrian protection, to grant EC type-approval or national type-approval, in respect of any of the following new vehicle types:

 

* 48 months following entry into force of this Regulation.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. With effect from [DATE sixty months following entry into force of this Regulation], in the case of new vehicles of category M1, or N1 derived from M1, and of maximum mass not exceeding 2500kg, which do not comply with the technical provisions set out in Sections 2 and 4 or Sections 3 and 4 of Annex I , national authorities shall, on grounds related to pedestrian protection, consider the certificates of conformity to be no longer valid for the purposes of Article [26] of Directive[…/…/EC], and shall prohibit the registration, sale and entry into service of such vehicles.

4. With effect from ...*, in the case of new vehicles of category M1, or N1 derived from M1, and of maximum mass not exceeding 2 500kg, which do not comply with the technical provisions set out in Section 2 or Section 3 of Annex I , national authorities shall, on grounds related to pedestrian protection, consider the certificates of conformity to be no longer valid for the purposes of Article 26 of Directive 2007/46/EC, and shall prohibit the registration, sale and entry into service of such vehicles.

 

* 31 December 2012.

Justification

Directive 2003/102 foresees from 31 December 2012 as deadline for new vehicles which do not meet the passive safety requirements of Phase I (as defined in section 3.1 of Annex I of the directive). The requirements of Section 2 of Annex I of this proposed regulation are identical. The same deadline should be maintained. BAS timetables (section 4 of Annex I) are dealt in Article 9, Paragraph 1, 2 and 6.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. With effect from [DATE seventy-eight months following entry into force of this Regulation], in the case of a new vehicle type which does not comply with the technical provisions set out in Sections 3 and 4 of Annex I, national authorities shall refuse, on grounds relating to pedestrian protection, to grant EC type-approval or national type-approval.

5. With effect from ...*, in the case of a new vehicle type which does not comply with the technical provisions set out in Section 3 of Annex I, national authorities shall refuse, on grounds relating to pedestrian protection, to grant EC type-approval or national type-approval.

 

* 72 months following entry into force of this Regulation.

Justification

Reduction of lead-time for new types of vehicles of category M1 above 2,5 t and N1 is connected with the proposed reduction of new vehicles of the same category. 5 years between the two deadlines is advisable.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point (a)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) categories M1 or N1 which do not comply with the technical provisions set out in Section 4 of Annex I;

(a) category N1 which do not comply with the technical provisions set out in Section 4 of Annex I;

Justification

All new M1vehicles are already covered in Article 9, Paragraph 2.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 6 – point (b)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) category M1, or N1 derived from M1, and of maximum mass not exceeding 2500kg, which do not comply with the technical provisions set out in Sections 2 or 3 of Annex I.

deleted

Justification

The deadline for this category of vehicles is already defined in Article 9, paragraph 4.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 7 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

With effect from [DATE one hundred and sixteen months following entry into force of this Regulation], national authorities shall, on grounds related to pedestrian protection, consider the certificates of conformity to be no longer valid for the purposes of Article [26] of Directive[…/…/EC], and shall prohibit the registration, sale and entry into service of either of the following new vehicles:

With effect from ...*, national authorities shall, on grounds related to pedestrian protection, consider the certificates of conformity to be no longer valid for the purposes of Article 26 of Directive 2007/46/EC, and shall prohibit the registration, sale and entry into service of new vehicles of all category M1 vehicles and category N1 vehicles derived from M1 and of maximum mass not exceeding 2500kg, which do not comply with the technical provisions set out in Section 3 of Annex I.

 

* 108 months following entry into force of this Regulation.

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 7 – point (a)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) categories M1 or N1 which do not comply with the technical provisions set out in Section 4 of Annex I;

deleted

Justification

Timetable for installation of BAS (Section 4 of Annex I) for new vehicles are dealt in Article 9, Paragraph 2 and 6.

Amendment  17

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 7 – point (b)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) category M1, or N1 derived from M1, and of maximum mass not exceeding 2500kg, which does not comply with the technical provisions set out in Section 3 of Annex I

deleted

Justification

Linked to AM on Article 9, Para 7, introduction.

Amendment  18

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. With effect from [DATE one hundred and thirty-eight months following entry into force of this Regulation], in the case of new vehicles which do not comply with the technical provisions set out in Sections 3 and 4 of Annex I, national authorities shall, on grounds related to pedestrian protection, consider the certificates of conformity to be no longer valid for the purposes of Article [26] of Directive […/…/EC], and shall prohibit the registration, sale and entry into service of such vehicles.

8. With effect from ...*, in the case of new vehicles which do not comply with the technical provisions set out in Section 3 of Annex I, national authorities shall, on grounds related to pedestrian protection, consider the certificates of conformity to be no longer valid for the purposes of Article 26 of Directive 2007/46/EC, and shall prohibit the registration, sale and entry into service of such vehicles.

 

* 126 months following entry into force of this Regulation.

Amendment  19

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Vehicles equipped with collision avoidance systems shall not have to fulfil the test requirements laid down in Sections 2 and 3 of Annex I in order to be granted an EC type-approval or a national type-approval for a type of a vehicle with regard to pedestrian protection, or to be sold, registered or to enter into service.

1. Upon assessment by the Commission vehicles equipped with collision avoidance systems may not have to fulfil the test requirements laid down in Sections 2 and 3 of Annex I in order to be granted an EC type-approval or a national type-approval for a type of a vehicle with regard to pedestrian protection, or to be sold, registered or to enter into service.

Justification

At the moment there are no collision avoidance systems on the market which are effectively able to identify in time pedestrians or other vulnerable road users. It will take several years for this active safety measure to possibly replace the passive safety requirements (car design). Once the Commission will assess this and, if considered appropriate, may propose legislative amendments to this regulation.

Amendment  20

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

The Commission may adopt implementing measures laying down performance requirements necessary for the application of paragraph 1.

2. The Commission shall propose to the European Parliament and the Council any implementing measures necessary for the application of paragraph 1.

Justification

At the moment there are no collision avoidance systems on the market which are effectively able to correctly identify pedestrians or other vulnerable road users under all necessary conditions. It may take several years for this active safety measure to mature sufficiently that it will provide the required levels of safety. Once the Commission has assessed the use of such technologies, it may propose legislative amendments to this regulation.

Amendment  21

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Those measures, designed to amend non-essential elements of this Regulation, inter alia, by supplementing it shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 40(2) of Directive […/…/EC].

deleted

Justification

Those measures won´t amend non-essential elements, but could essentially modify the regulation. Once the Commission has assessed the use of such technologies, it will be required to propose legislative amendments to this regulation through co-decision and not via comitology.

Amendment  22

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The Commission will monitor the use of Brake Assist and other technologies which may provide improved protection to vulnerable road users and, by [date, five years following entry into force of this Regulation], at the latest, will review the functioning of this Regulation regarding the effective penetration and use of the technology and its further development and submit a report to the European Parliament and Council, accompanied by proposals on the subject as appropriate.

3. The Commission, acting on the basis of relevant information communicated by the approval authorities and interested parties as well as on the basis of independent studies, shall monitor the technical developments of enhanced passive safety requirements, Brake Assist and other active safety technologies which may provide improved protection to vulnerable road users.

 

By ...*, at the latest, the Commission shall review the feasibility and use of any such enhanced passive safety requirements. It shall review the functioning of this Regulation with regard to the use and effectiveness of Brake Assist and other active safety technologies.

 

The Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, accompanied by proposals on the subject as appropriate.

 

* Five years following entry into force of this Regulation.

Justification

Not only the developments on active safety technologies should be monitored, but also the possibility for increased passive safety requirements (car design) should be analysed. The feasability study showed that improvements for better passive safety are possible at least in the near future. Improved active technologies such as active brake or collision avoidance systems should not replace efforts of the car industry to increase in the passive safety standards of their cars.

Amendment  23

Proposal for a regulation

Annex I – section 5.1.1.1.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5.1.1.1. The test is performed at an impact speed of 40 km/h. The maximum dynamic knee bending angle shall not exceed 26,0°, the maximum dynamic knee shearing displacement shall not exceed 7,5 mm, and the acceleration measured at the upper end of the tibia shall not exceed 250 g.

5.1.1.1. The test is performed at an impact speed of 40 km/h. The maximum dynamic knee bending angle shall not exceed 24,0°, the maximum dynamic knee shearing displacement shall not exceed 7,5 mm, and the acceleration measured at the upper end of the tibia shall not exceed 215 g.

Justification

The requirements for Frontal protection systems (FPS) should be identical with the ones on vehicles as indicated in Annex I, section 2 and 3 (new phase II). Directive 2005/156 on the use of frontal protection systems is replaced by this regulation (see Article 10). The use of FPS will also in the future be possible, but only, if they fulfil the same technical provisions as the vehicles without FPS. No further negative impact on the pedestrian should result from the FPS.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Background

Every year in the twenty-five member states it is estimated that, presently, as many as 8,000 vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists are killed and 300,000 injured(1). Measures to reduce these figures are recognised as necessary when considered in parallel with the increasing encouragement to make use of public transport, walking and cycling as alternatives to use of the car. (2)

Directive 2003/102/EC was intended 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. Under the terms of this Directive, certain vehicles are required to pass a number of performance tests in two phases: phase I (which is based on recommendations from the Joint Research Centre) started in October 2005 and phase II (which is based on European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee recommendations) will start in 2010. Within five years from the start of phase II, all new vehicles within the scope of the Directive will have to comply with the test requirements.

But the potential for feasibility problems in the technical realisation of the Phase II requirements were recognized and therefore, Article 5(1) of the Directive foresees that a feasibility assessment had to be carried out by 1 July 2004 concerning the technical test provisions required under phase II and, in particular, other measures, or combination of measures, which potentially may have at least equal protective effects to those adopted in 2003. If, as a result of the feasibility assessment, it is considered necessary to adapt the requirements as regards the safety performance, Article 5(2) of the Directive requires that the Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council to amend the Directive accordingly, under the condition that the amendments afford at least the same level of protection as the existing provisions.

The results of this study indicates that the requirements of the phase II would not be completely technically feasible for all vehicles and vehicle types as presently constituted. As a possible complementary measure which could be used, in recognition that the Directive specifically allowed a combination of active and passive measures, the report considered the use of Brake Assist systems.

The Commission proposal

Based on the outcome of the study, the Commission proposes the following:

-          New regulation(3), instead of the revision of the directive, replacing and merging the directive 2003/102/EC and directive 2005/66/EC on frontal protection systems(4);

-          Transfer of the Phase I requirements and timetable from directive 2003/102/EC, lower (feasible) Phase II requirements and new timetable and the introduction of the active brake system in order to meet at least the same level of protection as in the directive 2003/102/EC.

-          Widening of the scope in comparison to directive 2003/102/EC as also M1 and N1 over 2.5 t are considered

Your rapporteur's views on his amendments

Your rapporteur shares the view of the Commission that measures to reduce fatalities and injuries of pedestrian and other vulnerable road users are necessary. The amendments he proposes therefore are aimed to strengthen the regulation where possible.

Timetable

The Commission proposes in Article 9 a timetable for the implementation of the regulation which is based on the lead-times normally necessary for the automotive industry to adapt to the new legislation . Your rapporteur proposes a more ambitious timetable based on the following arguments:

a) The Phase I requirements (see Annex I, section 2 of the proposal)

The timetable of these requirements are already defined in the directive 2003/102/EC. The new regulation should only incorporate the timetable already in force. For new type of vehicles the timetable foresees 2005 as starting point, for new vehicles the starting point is 31 December 2012. But following the Commission proposal the soonest possible date for application of the Phase I requirements for new M1 and N1 vehicles below 2.5 t is 2014 (60 months, starting from end of 2008). Therefore your rapporteur proposes to re-install 31 December 2012 as deadline.

b) BAS (see Annex I, section 4 of the proposal)

Your rapporteur estimates that 33 months lead-time for the implementation of BAS for M1 and N1 is too long. To insert BAS into vehicles is quite unproblematic for vehicles which have already ABS and almost all M1 vehicles and N1 vehicles below 2.5 t have ABS. The reduction of lead-time for the active safety measure represents a statistical measurable benefit in terms of reduction of fatalities and heavy injuries.

c) The new Phase II requirements (see Annex I, section 3 of the proposal)

As mentioned before, the timetable proposed by the Commission is under normal circumstances adequate for implementation of new legislative requirements. But here we speak about requirements and timetables that are already the binding law in directive 2003/102/EC. The Commission, following the outcome of the feasibility study, propose to lower sensibly the original Phase II requirements foreseen in the law. Should in addition to this concession also the timetable be postponed? Your rapporteur estimates that the new Phase II requirements are quite similar to the current phase I, and that the automotive industry is able to respect the new phase II requirements from an earlier starting point and proposes therefore a timetable close to the timetable established in the directive 2003/102/EC.

Anti-collision system

So far there is no efficient anti-collision system for pedestrians on the market. Your rapporteur understands and appreciates, that the Commission by way of proposing Article 11 encourages the industry to develop such a system, even if he estimates that many pedestrian accidents cannot be avoided. With his amendments he wants to assure that once such a system is developed, the co-legislators have the possibility to analyse and judge the effective potential of this active safety measure and that there will be no automatic trade-off between passive safety requirements and anti-collision systems.

Frontal protection system

The directive 2005/66/EC on FPS will be replaced by this regulation. The safety requirements for FPS should be on the same level as the safety requirements for vehicles without FPS installed. Therefore the new Phase II requirements should be imposed also on FPS.

Monitoring

Your rapporteur considers that it is important to be continuously attentive towards technical possibilities also for increased passive safety standards and to monitor properly the possibilities for increased safety requirements.

(1)

Figures based on 2004 studies.

(2)

The Commission White Paper of 2001 sets a target to reduce the overall road toll by 50% by the year 2010 and recognises the role that improved safety measures in vehicles can provide, in particular by encouraging the use of active safety systems.

(3)

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.

(4)

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.


PROCEDURE

Title

Protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users

References

COM(2007)0560 – C6-0331/2007 – 2007/0201(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

3.10.2007

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

TRAN

11.10.2007

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

       Date announced in plenary

ITRE

11.10.2007

IMCO

11.10.2007

 

 

Not delivering opinions

       Date of decision

ITRE

22.11.2007

IMCO

21.11.2007

 

 

Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed

Francesco Ferrari

9.10.2007

 

 

Discussed in committee

23.1.2008

25.3.2008

 

 

Date adopted

26.3.2008

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

36

0

0

Members present for the final vote

Gabriele Albertini, Michael Cramer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Arūnas Degutis, Christine De Veyrac, Saïd El Khadraoui, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Francesco Ferrari, Brigitte Fouré, Mathieu Grosch, Georg Jarzembowski, Stanisław Jałowiecki, Timothy Kirkhope, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jaromír Kohlíček, Sepp Kusstatscher, Jörg Leichtfried, Eva Lichtenberger, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Erik Meijer, Seán Ó Neachtain, Willi Piecyk, Reinhard Rack, Luca Romagnoli, Gilles Savary, Brian Simpson, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Yannick Vaugrenard, Roberts Zīle

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Elisabeth Jeggle, Anne E. Jensen, Maria Eleni Koppa

Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

Donato Tommaso Veraldi

Legal notice - Privacy policy