Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - Strasbourg

9. Priorities in road safety

  President. – The next item is the report (A5-0381/2000) by Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament resolution on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Priorities in EU Road Safety – Progress Report and Ranking of Actions.

  Hedkvist Petersen (PSE) , rapporteur. – (SV) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking all my fellow Members in Parliament and in the Committee for the support they have given me in my work on this report.

Safety on our roads is something which concerns us all, whether we ourselves are road-users or whether someone in our family or a friend has been killed or injured. Transportation by road is the most common and the fastest growing means of travelling and of transporting articles and goods, but also the most dangerous. Each year, over 42,000 people are killed on our European roads. This means more than 800 people a week and over 115 people this very day. Road traffic accidents are the most common cause of death of children and young persons – indeed, of all persons under the age of 45 – in the EU today. Millions of people are also seriously injured each year, and many will end up handicapped for life. This is a matter of great human suffering and of heavy social costs.

We would never tolerate such mortality figures in aviation or on the railways, where our approach to safety is totally different. So, if we are to minimise the number of fatalities on the roads, we must adopt the same philosophy with regard to roads, since this also involves a complicated man-machine system which must incorporate tolerance of human error.

The objective in the long-term should be that no-one should be killed or seriously injured. To attain this objective, we must take a comprehensive view in which the ultimate responsibility lies with those who design the roads and the surrounding infrastructure. It is the responsibility of road-users to follow the rules and laws which have been laid down.

The Commission’s communication contains a list of priorities for measures for the remaining period of the Programme. I agree with the Commission concerning the significance of several of these measures such as the aid to EuroNCAP, information campaigns, legislation on speed governors for light trucks, and – especially – legislation on safer car fronts.

In my report, I went on to concentrate on the forthcoming period of the Programme, which would have to cover a longer period – let us say, the period 2002-2010 – to enable a more long-term strategy to be adopted. But if the Commission is really serious about its ambitions to reduce the number of fatalities, we will first of all have to give higher priority to the whole question of road safety, because this matter requires powerful measures

First of all, a credible strategy for combating death on the roads must, over the next decade, include concrete numerical targets for reducing the number of fatalities. The Committee proposes those targets which were already established by Parliament three years ago. But objectives at EU level are not sufficiently concrete for the Member States where, as we all know, a large part of the work is done. Each Member State must therefore devise its own roadsafety programmes (which not all Member States have at present), including strategies for attaining the national targets. These can of course differ between the various countries, depending on tradition and culture. However, after that, the Commission should follow up how the Member States comply with their strategies and should take part in the exchange of experiences and best practice.

We also need European legislation in certain important areas. Alcohol kills approximately 9 000 people on the roads each year. Furthermore, the trend indicates that more and more young people are driving with alcohol in their blood. An estimated 1 000 lives could be saved by introducing a directive with a maximum blood alcohol limit of 0.5 mg/ml. Unfortunately, the Commission has withdrawn its former proposal for a directive – one which was supported by Parliament in 1997 and which the Committee supports even now. According to the Commission, drink-driving is a question that falls under the principle of subsidiarity. But how can that be? Surely it cannot be any less dangerous to drive with alcohol in the blood in Great Britain, Italy, Ireland and Luxembourg, where an 0.8 mg/ml limit applies, than it is in the rest of Europe. We have powers in the EU when it comes to issues concerning road traffic safety. In my opinion, we should use these powers precisely in those areas where they have a real effect, and they do have a real effect where alcohol and driving are concerned. I expect the Council and the Swedish Presidency to take the initiative in this matter.

I cannot understand how we can possibly gain credibility as European politicians if we, on the one hand, say that traffic safety is important but, on the other hand, are not prepared to take important decisions. I understand that the Commission has today issued a recommendation for a limit of 0.5 mg/ml, but I must say that it is remarkable that it should be issued today, just when Parliament is about to discuss the issue and before Parliament has voted. The Commission should have waited for Parliament to have held its discussion.

In addition to this matter, and the matter of safer car fronts, the report contains a number of other important proposals for traffic safety measures. I raise issues such as dipped headlights in the daytime, driving education and telematic systems.

To conclude, one question which I consider to be of the utmost importance but which, unfortunately, was not passed by the Committee is that of the need for better working conditions for professional drivers.

The European Parliament has always been a force for the promotion of improved road safety, and we have to continue in this direction. It is a matter of the life and health of numerous people – but, above all, those of the young citizens of Europe.

  Vatanen (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, 40,000 fatalities on Europe’s roads is 40,000 too many. This Chamber reacts with sensitivity to all the events taking place around the world, but we do not give sufficient attention to the Grim Reaper at work on the roads of Europe. Without in any way underrating the significance of mad cow disease I am nevertheless asking for a sense of proportion. Thousands more of our fellow creatures die in traffic accidents than from BSE. This should be a cause for panic.

I would like to thank the Commission for its outstanding analysis of the situation. EU cooperation is needed more than ever, as there are dramatic differences in the levels of road safety within our Community. Four times as many people die in road accidents in Portugal than in Britain. However, there is plenty more scope for improvement in every country. The traffic environment must be made to become as safe as possible, but drivers are always responsible for their own safety and that of others on the road. A car in a garage is completely harmless, but when it is being used wrongly it is like a deadly weapon. Traffic regulations are not cookery book recipes that everyone can adapt to their own taste. The time for individuality on our roads is past: we need just as strict compliance with the regulations on the roads as we do with air travel.

I will mention three important ways of reducing the number of road fatalities. Firstly, there is compliance with speed restrictions. I often drive in the Mediterranean countries, and, believe it or not, close to within the speed restriction, and I am constantly being overtaken. And it is no wonder, because only very rarely do I see any speed controls in operation. The accident statistics for these areas speak plainly. This laxness is paid for in human life and the tears of those left behind. Around two out of every three drivers in Europe go over the speed limit in built-up areas and half break the speed limit on the open road. If mad cows should be removed from pasture land, mad speed merchants should be removed from the roads. An effective, if not very popular, remedy is automatic speed controls and heavy penalties. Certainly in my country, Finland, the EUR 100 000 fines paid by some amount to just routine fare collections.

Secondly, in vino veritas: there is truth in wine. It is also true that alcohol plays a part in no less than 9 000 cases of death a year. I think it is important that Member States switch to an alcohol limit of 0.5 per mil, which can also be monitored. If Member States lack the courage to do this, the matter must be dealt with through decision-making at European level. People sometimes have to be protected from their own governments. In repeated cases of drunken driving, or when the driver is well over the limit, there should be a long ban and the car should be confiscated by the state.

The third point has to do with taxation. High taxes on cars lead to old and unsafe cars on the road. My country is a sad example of this. Finland is the Cuba of Europe when it comes to the age of cars. Cars that fulfil stringent safety standards should also benefit from lower taxation. In general, taxation should focus on a car’s use and not its purchase price. Ladies and gentlemen, I wish you a safe trip. Remember to fasten your safety belt in the back too.

  Watts (PSE). – Mr President, first of all I thank the rapporteur for her splendid work on behalf of us all and also thank Mr Vatanen for his contribution, speaking on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. I fully endorse many of the points he made, not least in respect of blood-alcohol limits. In fact there are only two points that I wish to make this evening. They relate to safer car fronts and the very important issue of blood alcohol.

On safer car fronts, I think it is worth pointing out how clearly the rapporteur has made the case for the Commissioner to come forward with a directive. In fact this Commissioner pledged to this House in January last year, a year ago, that we would have a directive on safer car fronts. A year on there is no directive. What we have in February is a hearing. More talk. No action. Meanwhile, two thousand people in the last year have needlessly, unnecessarily lost their lives because the Commission would rather talk than act. I hope tonight and tomorrow the Commission listens to the vote of this House and decides to proceed with its commitment to have a directive on safer car fronts. No more talk, please. Let us see some action.

And, indeed, the same is true for blood alcohol. We have had talk on this issue, year in, year out. We all know that ten thousand people a year in Europe are killed in drink-related crashes. We must tackle that particular problem. But I find it highly ironic, and I am sure the timing is not coincidental, that on the very day that we are debating blood alcohol, drink driving, road safety, the day before this Parliament is to vote on drink driving, the Commissioner has already made her mind up. She has issued a recommendation on drink driving. It would have been nice, would it not, for the Commissioner to have at least listened to the debate, learned what the outcome of the vote was tomorrow, before she decided to pre-empt the parliamentary procedures and issue this recommendation. We know a recommendation, alas, is simply not worth the paper it is written on. Member States need and support clear guidance. We believe it is time for the Commissioner to get tough on drunk drivers and drink driving, to come forward with a directive to reduce the limit to 50 mg.

In the United Kingdom, which has traditionally had a good record, we have sadly seen over the Christmas period a rise in the numbers of people drinking and driving. In my own region, in some parts of my region, 17% of drivers tested were above the UK legal limit of 80 mg. It is quite clear that we need action. Indeed the British government is asking for a solution at European level, in a European context. So all I make is a very simple request to the Commissioner tonight to listen to the debate and to heed the vote tomorrow.

  Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her outstanding report on a subject which touches the daily lives of every citizen, wherever he or she happens to be in Europe, namely our own safety on the roads and that of our children. I would like to address three particular points.

Firstly, I would advocate drawing up European legislation with regard to a European pedestrian test and the four associated crash tests. After 22 years of EU subsidised research, it is clear beyond all doubt that these tests are of value and that hundreds of lives can be spared every year as a result. This is absolutely paramount for many pedestrians and cyclists, particularly in a densely populated country such as the Netherlands, but also elsewhere of course.

Of course it is very nice of Commissioner Liikanen to allow the car industry more time to make their own arrangements, the bottom-up approach, again giving them time until June, but now in 2001, but it is all taking too long for my liking. Managing also means making choices, and the time is ripe for this.

A second point I would like to raise relates to alcohol limits in the blood. Some members of my group will support the rapporteur’s proposal to produce an EU regulation setting an alcohol limit of 0.5 per cent. We do not wish to extend this limit but we do think that harmonisation of this limit will enhance people’s legal certainty in a Union where many citizens cross the internal borders daily, and where the mobility of employees is precisely what we want to promote. I am not in favour of setting lower limits for certain categories of young road-users though. The signal we send out must be clear. Either a standard is safe or it is not. And 0.5% is a socially responsible, easily measurable and enforceable quantity to my mind.

Now, Commissioner, I would just like to unburden myself of the fact that I think it is extremely discourteous towards Parliament that the Commissioner evidently already decided, in advance of this evening’s debate – in which, when all is said and done, people are calling for a regulation on the alcohol limit – that a recommendation to the Member States will suffice. This will encourage a non-committal attitude and will certainly do nothing to increase transparency from the citizens’ perspective.

My final point relates to the long-term ‘Vision Zero’ objective. I have a problem with this. An objective must be realistic and achievable, that is what motivates and stimulates. Naturally we can reduce the number of victims, but it would be wishful thinking to believe we could eliminate road accidents altogether.

  Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, firstly I would like to express my thanks for the magnificent work done by Mrs Hedkvist Petersen. There are many reasons for the accidents and the extremely high number of victims on European roads. The causes are many and varied, and the report has been able to mention and summarise the most important ones. Furthermore, the Commission communication on priorities in road safety contains six points detailing the aspects on which we can have the greatest impact in order to achieve better results.

I am going to focus on the aspects which refer to the management of the black spots on the roads and the reduction of the effects of impacts on road infrastructures. A high number of accident victims are users of two-wheeled vehicles, motorcyclists and cyclists, for which roads are also intended. For cultural and climatic reasons, there are an extraordinary number of these accidents in certain Member States. Serious studies have concluded that the majority of serious accidents or deaths amongst these groups result from impacts with crash barriers, that is to say, against roadside protective barriers or against vertical road signs, both of which are designed and created for four-wheeled vehicles.

The majority of these accidents happen at the black spots which some Member States are indicating and identifying. My amendment of the legislative proposal on the design and placing of these soft protective barriers at these black spots is not therefore gratuitous. We must not be satisfied with a mere recommendation to the Member States or leave this simply to be dealt with through subsidiarity, which would greatly affect its implementation.

We must now be bold. Let us legislate, let us seek a greater degree of harmonisation, let us promote measures for the rational and safe use of roads by pedestrians and cyclists, and let us seek formulas to reduce heavy traffic, at least in populated areas; let us harmonise the speed limits by means of an ambitious legal framework, as the Commission recommended in 1986, thereby removing the Member States’ inertia. Let us be vigilant of the environmental impact of traffic, such as noise and environmental pollution. I would also like to reiterate the importance of legislating on the maximum permitted levels of alcohol.

Finally, I would like to thank the Commissioner for being so very open to our proposals.

  Markov (GUE/NGL) . – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the appalling figure of 42,000 deaths a year on the roads of the European Union, the estimated 1.7 million injuries, are a constant reminder that we must give top priority to the issue of road safety. These figures do not only represent immense personal suffering, they also mean enormous economic losses and costs. These are estimated at EUR 100 billion, accounting for some 2% of the gross domestic product of all the European Member States. That is more than all the European Union Member States put together spend on culture.

I want to give warm thanks to the rapporteur and I especially welcome the fact that she has concentrated on three priority areas: accident prevention, injury prevention and post-impact care and rehabilitation. In my view that makes it clear that road safety cannot be improved to the required level by individual, selective measures but only by a whole raft of measures, which include road user education, speed limits, alcohol limits, better road infrastructure, traffic control systems, improved vehicle safety standards, stricter checks on observance of road traffic rules and also constant assessment of vehicles on the roads.

That is why I find it extremely regrettable that the amendment on harmonising the re-registration of cars that have been involved in accidents in the European Union was not adopted, although independent reports clearly demonstrate that there is a substantial link between vehicles that have been in an accident once and their renewed involvement in accidents with an ensuing higher death toll.

I just want to address the previous speaker for a moment. You know I tabled an amendment concerned in particular with the question of motorcyclists and safety barriers, and I would be glad if you and your group could endorse it tomorrow, since I myself am a motorcyclist and am therefore obviously very familiar with this problem.

  Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, I can only support the Commission in not presenting a Community regulation on blood alcohol content. My colleagues are holding a sham debate, a totally sham debate. The socialists and our group decided jointly a year ago, when the proposals from the previous period were taken up again, that we do not want Community legislation here. The point we make is this: we want checks. That is the crucial question, not what the law says. It is crucial to have on-the-spot checks. Here I can only reply to my UK colleague: if your police carried out checks over Christmas, it would take these people off the roads and prevent the accidents.

So I can only repeat that the crucial factor is to check the blood alcohol level rather than to issue a Community regulation. That is why we will reject the first part of Amendment No 4. If it is nevertheless carried, my group will reject Mrs Petersen's entire resolution, because it is hypocritical to call for Community legislation when there is no need whatsoever for it. Talk to your countries. Most countries agree with the common view of this House that 0.5 parts per thousand is quite adequate, as the Commission rightly said. That is what we recommended to all these countries. The people you should talk to, Mr Watts, are those who do not apply that.

So it is not a question of a sham debate or of what the law says; the police must carry out-on-the spot checks and pick out all the drunken drivers. That will give us the greatest road safety.

Secondly, we will not accept Amendment No 6 either, with which the Greens are once again trying to start another sham debate, namely on a general speed limit of 120 km/h. We already have speed limits on most European roads. In my country we have speed limits on 95% of all roads. Where do the accidents happen? On the 95% of roads, because there are not enough speed checks there either. So, fewer laws and more checks will do more for road safety.

  Mastorakis (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a known fact that, if death from radioactive weapons is due to human insensitivity, then deaths from road traffic accidents are due mainly to human stupidity. And it not only behoves an organised state not to be stupid in its own acts and omissions; it must also protect its citizens from the consequences of their own stupidity.

It is as part of this endeavour that the excellent report by our fellow member, Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, on the Commission communication on the priorities in road safety defines the way forward. Action is needed on three fronts: first, by taking legislative, regulatory action, secondly, by promoting new technologies in vehicles and in the road infrastructure and, thirdly, by taking administrative action and running an information campaign.

Of course, if we take care to ensure that any measures taken receive widespread support, then they will be even more effective and if, at the same time, we draw on the experiences of the Member States in these areas, then we shall be sure to strike a happy medium. For example, everyone could agree to a drastic reduction in alcohol levels for certain categories of drivers, such as those carrying dangerous loads. In addition, modern technology can and should be used in order to put the measures decided into practice and to control the application of current provisions. And, of course, we should mobilise local society and regional bodies and ensure that they are more closely involved in road safety issues by addressing the people directly. At the same time, the information campaign must, of course, continue to run, using cleverer ways of getting through to the public, especially young people.

Likewise, it might be worth examining the possibility of rewarding the safest vehicles through the road tax system and demanding minimum safety specifications depending on the type of road, so that road design and construction can be integrated into programmes subsidised by the European Union. Finally, we call on the Commission not to "race" through cases such as today's. That is what road safety needs.

  Costa, Paolo (ELDR). – (IT) Mr President, the frequency of road accidents is so tragic and so underestimated as to justify the adoption of all possible initiatives as soon as possible at all levels of government and on all aspects of the matter, including human behaviour, the infrastructure and vehicles. The only selection criteria we need – although I fear this will be difficult, given the nature of the debate thus far – is to identify the operations which would be most effective precisely because they are simple to implement.

I believe that the areas of human behaviour and infrastructures are those in which we can expect the quickest results: for example, the results of making it mandatory to wear a helmet and seat belts were remarkable in Italy. Motorcyclist deaths have fallen by 45% across all the age groups since it was made mandatory to wear a helmet last year. I am aware that measures such as making it compulsory to wear seat belts and helmets can be difficult to enforce, to implement, and that if they are not implemented then they are meaningless, merely words on paper. However, this does not mean that we should disregard the drink-driving issue, and I would therefore not be against slightly higher common blood alcohol limits, even though Italy might lose out slightly.

  Cauquil (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, we shall be voting in favour of the report on priorities in EU road safety, as it includes a number of practical measures which may reduce, at least slightly, the number of deaths in road accidents. It is deplorable that road accidents represent the most common cause of death amongst children and adults under 45 years. However, although most of the measures are positive, they target motorists alone, thus absolving car manufacturers as well as the government, and society in general, of any responsibility.

What is the point of measures, binding or otherwise, to encourage motorists to keep their speed down, when car manufacturers not only produce cars that greatly exceed speed limits but even make this a selling point? What is the point of calling upon motorists to be careful and to reduce the time they spend at the wheel, when, in the quest for profit, the road haulage industry and large retail and industrial companies force lorry drivers to drive until they are extremely tired? What is the point of lamenting the fact that road traffic accounts for 95% of accidents involving all forms of transport – there is hence no possible comparison with trains or aircraft – if every government’s policy is to encourage road transport, openly or implicitly, over all other types of transport, for both the public and freight. Even in Europe’s richest countries, public transport is underdeveloped and many people use their cars not through choice but out of necessity, due to a lack of adequate public transport.

In the race for profit and zero stock, large companies are forced to see road transport as part of their production line and this transforms some motorways into a long, almost endless chain of lorries. Even on the limited question of truck-on-train technology, what happens in actual practice is the opposite of the official line. On a more general note, a sensible approach to transport would require a sensible approach to manufacturing, an approach, in other words, that does not place profit above all else. This, however, is a far cry from the laughable measures proposed by the Commission and by this report.

(Applause)

  Hatzidakis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, I checked the statistics while preparing this short intervention and I was shocked to discover that, statistically at least, more than 55 people have been killed on the roads of the European Union since we convened this morning. The European Union loses 4 people an hour. Road traffic accidents are the most common cause of death among children and young people. Every year, we lose a university or large school full of young people no less, because 15,000 young people die on our roads every year. Add to that the fact that I personally have the unhappy privilege of coming from the Member State with the second highest number of fatal accidents in Europe. And what is more, Greece is the only country in Europe in which, unfortunately, there has been no downward trend over the last ten years. Entire families are being sacrificed on the asphalt alter.

Road safety can, and must, be a top priority both for the whole of Europe and for each individual country, which is why I shall support the proposal made by Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, whom I should like to congratulate on her report, that we need strategic planning for road safety and we need to set a series of strict but realistic numerical targets. This will attract citizens' attention and provide an effective focal point. We, ladies and gentlemen, have a huge responsibility both here and in Brussels. It is, for example, unfortunate that no legislative proposal has been submitted on the compulsory adoption of the four types of test designed to make car fronts safer for pedestrians, a research programme which, it should be noted, the European Union has been funding for the past 22 years.

In addition, further support for the European programme to evaluate novice drivers, support for strategies to promote the use of seat belts, the development of telematics systems, the mandatory fitting of daytime running lights to motorbikes and cars and other proposals in the report could benefit road safety and public health enormously at relatively little cost.

  Fava (PSE). – (IT) Mrs De Palacio, I am sure that you are familiar with part of your communication which highlights a disturbing disparity between the different Member States in the quality and safety of roads and number of victims claimed. Unfortunately, this disparity closely mirrors the difference in the quality and speed of economic growth of the Member States of the European Union: the safest country is Sweden and the least safe countries are Greece and Portugal. What does this mean? I will attempt to answer this question as positively as possible: it means we cannot invest in safety without investing in Community action.

I feel that Parliament, with a few legitimate exceptions, is calling for greater courage from the Commission, and I would therefore like to thank the honourable Member for her report, which makes the Commission's communication totally clear and more effective. More courage – to get straight to the point – means two things: firstly an undertaking to specify limits and rules in our prevention policy, or – without wishing to offend Mr Jarzembowski – any control will be useless. If we are going to control the speed at which people drive, it does make quite a difference whether the limit we set is 100 or 200 kilometres per hour.

The same applies to drinking. We feel that the Commission should present a directive setting the maximum blood alcohol limit at 0.5 parts per thousand for all the Member States. I say this as a citizen of a country which has established a higher limit precisely in order to forestall any accusation of self-interest in our argument. The principle of subsidiarity is all very well – although I feel that it would be grossly inappropriate to take away the licences of all drunk drivers – but the problem is working out at what point a driver is to be considered drunk according to our highway code.

Commissioner, I feel that employing this sort of courage is the simplest and most effective, but also the only way of achieving the ambitious objective we have set ourselves of reducing the number of victims claimed by the roads of the European Union by 40% over the next few years.

  Stenmarck (PPE-DE). – (SV) Mr President, let me thank the rapporteur for the great commitment she has shown in this matter.

Last year, nearly 43,000 people were killed on the road networks of the EU. One of the main reasons for this was the use of alcohol. There is no getting away from this fact. Six years in the European Parliament have given me great respect for the fact that we have tremendously differing views on many issues, but we should all agree that alcohol and driving never go together. Despite this, people are killed every day on the road networks of the EU because of this precise combination.

We can also entertain very different opinions as to whether we should have common rules within the EU or whether each country should solve this problem on its own. Allow me to point out two things for those who are in two minds about this issue.

My first point is that no EU country would find it acceptable if another Member State tolerated a situation in which a train driver, an airline pilot flying an aeroplane with 300 passengers on board or a sea captain responsible for the safety of 1000 people or were to drink alcohol before he or she assumed responsibility for his or her passengers. Why is it, then, that we do not impose the same requirement on those who drive on our roads?

The other point I want to make is that 95% of fatal traffic accidents actually take place on the roads. All I want is that we should take the problem of these 95% as seriously as we do the problem of the 5% of accidents which occur in connection with the other types of transport. That is precisely why I consider the report to be an ideal basis for our future work on this issue, which is also why I am going to vote in favour of it tomorrow.

  Schierhuber (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, safety on Europe's roads is a vital matter and the figures speak for themselves: 42 000 deaths a year and 1.7 million people injured. Something has to be done about this. We must seek to make our roads safer. There is very great suffering among those who lose a family member as a result of a car accident. Our society is becoming increasingly mobile, and I am in favour of it. But that is precisely why it is our duty to tackle the risks. Here, we as politicians must assume our responsibility towards society at European, as also at national and regional level, and call for better and more adequate road traffic measures.

The analysis of road accidents is decisive. The way to compile accident statistics therefore includes recording, processing and interpreting accident data. A systematic examination of what happens on the roads can provide important data to help ensure greater safety and prevent accidents. The construction method of transport modes, as also road design and people themselves, are weak points. We must identify and seek where possible to remedy them. I see this as a most important aspect. And here I think road user education is essential.

We must raise people's awareness of the dangers and risks involved in road use, as the precondition for their acceptance of measures. Even children, a specially high-risk group of road users, must be taught through play how to behave on the roads. Young people must be informed of the risks they and other road users face once they have obtained their driving licence.

One point is especially close to my heart: measures against drink driving but also against the use of medicines and drugs when driving. Many measures have already been taken to combat drink driving, including many awareness-raising measures. Yet people often do not realise that taking drugs and medicines can cloud their minds and affect their driving just as much.

The EU road safety programme aims to define the main priorities clearly. Above all, we need to take a systematic approach to these problems. It is vital to call for cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.

  Koch (PPE-DE) . – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, road accidents are the most frequent cause of death and serious injury among children and young people, in fact generally among EU citizens under the age of 45. We must no longer accept this as a stroke of fate but must do something about it. The condition, however, is that we stop believing that road safety depends primarily on how well road users behave or remain in control of themselves.

Apart from setting out a clear obligation, Articles 41 and 94 of the EC Treaty also provide us with the legal basis which some Members of this House doubt for a great number of effective measures to improve road user safety. It is up to us finally to attach adequate political priority to this issue. In fact, there is perhaps hardly any policy area in which the common responsibility of the EU, the Member States, regional and local authorities and the appropriate organisations is recognised so clearly. Subsidiarity is, therefore, particularly applicable here.

That is precisely why we should not underestimate the added value of EU measures versus Member State efforts. Calculations of the economic costs of traffic accidents show that they are considerably higher than the costs of preventing traffic accidents. So that justifies the call for increased financial resources even in times of economic austerity. But beware, let us make no mistake. It is not always the case that the more money we put in, the higher the level of safety we can achieve.

This can be demonstrated by information campaigns on best practice in the EU states and binding measures to reduce the causes of accidents, such as alcohol, drug-taking and the use of medicines, as also a directive on expanding safety tests which will make the car industry take a more creative approach and promoting the European New Car Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP). I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Hedkvist Petersen, on her excellent report and urge you to endorse it.

  Hedkvist Petersen (PSE). – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, it is interesting to listen to this discussion and it will be interesting to continue working on the issue of road traffic safety in Parliament after this discussion and after our decision tomorrow. I am told that the majority of the political groups consider a regulation at European level on alcoholic content to be preferable, since this is an exclusive competence which we can utilise by virtue of the Treaty. I agree with Mr Stenmarck when he says – and this is made plain by the previous discussion – that we should never accept safety levels that are lower than those which it is possible to bring about. However, this is something we do accept when it comes to roads but which, of course, we do not where aviation is concerned. In my opinion, it is important to have such a regulation at European level where alcohol is concerned.

Mr Jarzembowski presented some interesting views but, unlike Mr Jarzembowski, I think that we should utilise the opportunity of issuing a directive as well as introducing police controls and other alternatives. We need to utilise all opportunities, and that is what we shall do. We have not said no to a directive before. Now, we have the chance of taking a political initiative, so let us do so.

Turning now, Mr Bautista, to the issue of black spots, which was raised by the Greens, I believe that it is important for us to keep an eye on what happens. It would be interesting to see a report on the situation out there in the Union. I am well aware of the fact that this is an important issue for cyclists and motorcyclists.

Finally, there is the matter of education and the situation of children. Just as Mrs Schierhuber said, we need to have road safety education. We must utilise this opportunity, together with all the other measures at national, local, regional, and European level. We must make vigorous joint efforts to this end.

  De Palacio, Commission. – (ES) Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mrs Hedkvist Petersen wholeheartedly on the very thorough motion for a resolution which she has prepared on road safety. This demonstrates the European Parliament’s interest – which we have seen today in your speeches – in creating an ambitious policy for combating the scourge of traffic accidents. I would also like to express my gratitude to all of you who have spoken, who have given voice to your opinions and who have enriched this debate.

In response to the European Parliament’s request, I would remind you that last March the Commission presented a communication on road safety which listed a series of concrete measures to be implemented over the next few years, specifically the last two years of implementation of the second action programme on road safety.

I would like to stress that, in general, I am in complete agreement with the contents of the report and also with what the resolution itself says, both with regard to the action programme under way, whose implementation will soon be completed, and with regard to the future road safety programme which the Commission intends to present in the next few months.

I also wish the European Union to have an effective and lasting policy for reducing the number of accidents, which is currently completely unacceptable. In the first stage we will have to implement the final priority measures established within the framework of the road safety programme, which is currently under way and, in particular, propose that the obligation to install speed-limiting devices be applicable to a greater number of lorries, specifically by lowering the tonnage above which such a measure is required. Furthermore, we will have to promote the exchange of information on black spots and the techniques for reducing them and, in general, to increase the safety of road infrastructures and adopt measures to improve the car fronts in the event of collision with vulnerable users of the road network. These road improvements must include a different design for current crash barriers, which are enormously unfriendly to cyclists and motorcyclists.

The second stage must include the adoption of a more systematic approach with regard to the future action programme, for which we must establish quantifiable objectives on a European scale, which will be drawn up with the cooperation of the Member States, in order to achieve greater efficiency and complementarity between the measures adopted in Brussels and those established on a national level. Because it is clear that the establishment of specific objectives – as we have seen in those countries which have adopted them – provides a stimulus and has the effect of a psychological incentive on the authorities, which leads to them exercising better control and therefore to a reduction in accidents.

Nevertheless, I do not intend today to deal with the aspects on which we agree – you know these from the communication – but I would like to expand a little more on the reasons for the two points of disagreement. The first is drink-driving. Ladies and gentlemen, you are absolutely right. Yesterday or the day before, the written procedure on the recommendation for 0.5 to be the maximum limit for alcohol in the blood was finally adopted by the Commission. The date is purely coincidental. It was in the communication in March. You must not believe that there has been any manoeuvring by anyone. I thought that this was at a more advanced stage. I am sorry. Please do not imagine that the date has been in any way chosen to coincide with this debate. But I would like to explain why no proposal for a directive is being presented. This is not being done for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, I must say that the United Kingdom, one of the countries where the alcohol limit is greater than the 0.5 which we recommend –as Mr Watts mentioned a moment ago – is the country with the second lowest number of accidents in the European Union after Sweden. If Great Britain had a limit of 0.2 instead of 0.8 it would probably be the country with the lowest number rather than the second lowest and would have far fewer accidents. I do not know. What I mean to point out is that it is a fact, an objective fact, that Great Britain, with a limit of 0.8, is the country with the second lowest number of accidents in the Union.

I am not recommending 0.8 but 0.5. It is not enough to recommend or to lay down that an alcohol limit be respected if the national authorities then fail to adequately control the reality of that alcohol content in drivers’ blood. I would like to say to you that if some Member States do not currently control the alcohol content in blood, I doubt that we will have better results just because we have reduced it to 0.5. What we need is better control on the part of the authorities.

Secondly, there are customs, habits and reasons why I feel that this is the classic type of issue which should be left to subsidiarity, and that is why we are only recommending the level of 0.5. I know that you have a different opinion – I have seen it – and, of course, the truth is that, furthermore, there has not so far been a sufficient majority in the Council to move forward with an initiative of this type. If, suddenly, all the Member States agree, it will be very easy for them, amongst other things, to implement a level of 0.5 in their countries. Do not tell me that the United Kingdom wants a European directive to resolve a problem in Great Britain because I would not believe it. Then let them implement 0.5 in the United Kingdom. Why do we have to force them to do so? If the United Kingdom wants to do it and we already have a recommendation, let them comply with it.

With regard to car fronts, I clearly heard Mr Watts’s criticism that the Commission prefers to speak and not to act. I cannot accept that criticism. The Commission wishes to act in the most effective way and, sometimes, delaying an initiative for a few months can, in reality, be a much quicker way to ensure that it is implemented. And we have given the automobile industries six months to reach an agreement. They do not have until 2002, Mr Watts, but until June 2001. In this respect, I would like to tell you that this initiative is not only my responsibility but it is also the responsibility of the Commissioner for Industry, Mr Liikanen, and that is what we agreed.

In saying this I wish to point out that we have by no means rejected the idea of creating a regulation in relation to front sections of cars which are more respectful when it comes to accidents involving people – unprotected bodies – but that we simply wish to be even more effective by gaining the support of the automobile sector.

With regard to the future action programme for 2002-2010, we are a priori open to all the ideas included in the motion for a resolution. I am even prepared to reconsider the issue of the level of 0.5. I am not going to maintain rigid positions on this issue. I do not believe that that is the main problem. The problem of control is much more important. In any event, I am counting on your cooperation, your help and your support, and I congratulate the rapporteur once again.

  Watts (PSE). – Mr President, my name was mentioned. It is important for the record to clarify the situation in the UK relating to the UK Government's view on blood alcohol. I am sure that the DG on Transport and Energy has a copy of the UK's road safety strategy that was published in March 2000. It makes it very clear that the new government in the United Kingdom is committed to a solution within a European context. I believe you would now find a much more positive response to a proposal for a directive than perhaps was the case with the previous administration.

  Jarzembowski (PPE-DE). – Mr President, on a point of order. If I have understood my colleague correctly, then it is enough to have a recommendation that the UK Government will lower the blood-alcohol level.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.