13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/24

1.1

The EESC welcomes the Commission's commitment to strive for ever safer road traffic and fully supports its proposal, which is worthy of a place among the initiatives undertaken to this end.

1.2

The EESC congratulates the Commission on carrying out a cost-benefit analysis and a thorough impact assessment before issuing the proposal: this enabled it to make the proposal realistic, taking all aspects of the issue into due consideration and giving the necessary priority to the protection of the most vulnerable road users.

1.3

However, the EESC feels that the proposal as it is currently worded contains a number of problematic elements which should be pointed out, and suggests some additions and clarifications which should make it easier to implement correctly in terms of timeframes, certification and monitoring of implementation.

1.4

The EESC calls upon the Commission to take into due consideration its suggestions regarding the need for genuinely uniform treatment to avoid distortions of competition between Member States, and regarding the importance of giving Member States more recommendations on certification systems which are easy for the national authorities governing the sector to use.

1.5

The EESC strongly recommends to the Council and the European Parliament that the proposal be implemented as quickly as possible so as to cover most of the vehicle fleet and to ensure that as many human lives as expected are saved.

2.1

Road safety has always been an absolute priority for the Community institutions. There is no doubt that the publication of the White Paper on transport policy (1), one of whose objectives was to halve the number of road accident victims by 2010, was a milestone in its renewed commitment to this cause.

2.2

Successive initiatives, such as the Road safety action programme (2), the eSafety initiative and many others, piloted an integrated approach to the issue, involving industry, public authorities and road users' associations, thereby overcoming the constraints which — partly in the name of the subsidiarity principle — had been placed on the introduction of binding, practical measures at European level.

2.3

Much progress has been made: for example, in the past 30 years, while road traffic has trebled, the number of road accident victims has halved. However, this statistic should on no account be allowed to ease our consciences as Europe is still paying too high a price for the relentless increase in mobility, with around 40 000 deaths per year and the bleak prospect that the challenge laid down by the 2001 White Paper may be lost.

2.4

The EESC recognises that decisive progress in the area of road safety can only be achieved if improvements are made in all three of its ‘pillars’, i.e. the automotive industry, infrastructure and user behaviour. However, it supports any initiative which, although targeting only one of the pillars, can contribute towards achieving the ambitious 2001 goal.

2.5

It was with this in mind that the EESC endorsed (3) the adoption of Directive 2003/97/EC (4), which proposed a European-level harmonised approach to road safety to reduce the risks arising from heavy goods vehicle drivers having incomplete vision to the side.

2.6

Indeed, the aim of Directive 2003/97/EC was to remove the risk of accident arising from the fact that heavy goods vehicles have a blind spot on the passenger side, requiring a set of more effective mirrors to be fitted as of 2006/2007.

2.7

Many road accidents occur precisely because the blind spot around their vehicle prevents large-vehicle drivers from detecting other road users in their immediate vicinity.

2.8

In particular, the risk arises at crossings or roundabouts when, as he changes direction, the driver has to cope with a blind spot on the passenger side which prevents him seeing the road users nearest to the vehicle, such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, who are also the most vulnerable road users.

2.9

An estimated 400 people die in this type of accident each year, and that is sufficient reason why the EESC, like other parties, unreservedly supported the adoption of Directive 2003/97/EC repealing and replacing the first directive on the type-approval of systems for indirect vision (71/127/EEC) and subsequent amendments. The repealed directive laid down provisions on the construction and fitting of rear-view mirrors but national measures on the subject remained untouched. Only with Directive 2003/97/EC did a specific set of mirrors or other systems for indirect vision become mandatory throughout Europe.

2.10

As regards types of heavy duty vehicles, Directive 2003/97/EC concerns N2 goods vehicles over 7.5 t and N3  (5) goods vehicles: however, it was amended by Directive 2005/27/EC (6), which, under certain conditions, requires Class IV and Class V mirrors (7) to be fitted on vehicles weighing 3.5 t instead of the previous 7.5 t.

2.11

Directive 2003/97/EC applies to vehicle type-approvals (new types) with effect from 26 January 2006 and to new vehicle registrations (new vehicles) with effect from 26 January 2007. This means that vehicles already in circulation, i.e. most of the fleet, will not be subject to the provisions.

2.12

There are well over five million heavy duty vehicles (=> 3.5 t) in the European Union. Given the life of these vehicles (as long as 16 years) and the slow turnover of the fleet (300 000 registrations each year) with 2007 as the start of the process, it would be 2023 before the entire fleet were equipped with the new mirrors.

2.13

The current Commission proposal seeks to find ways of making the fleet already in circulation safe as well, as quickly as possible.

3.1

The proposal is to be a temporary measure. In essence, the Commission calls for the provisions of Directive 2003/97/EC to be extended to N2 and N3 vehicles already in circulation in respect of the new Class IV and V mirrors (field of vision on the passenger side), with the following exceptions:

3.2

Member States have to implement the directive, and therefore ensure that the new mirrors are fitted, within 12 months of its entry into force, with a number of possible derogations:

3.3

Lastly, vehicles which it is technically impossible to fit with the requisite mirrors may be equipped with other devices for indirect vision (video cameras or other electronic devices), provided that such devices cover at least 99 % of the field of vision as specified above. In these cases, the vehicles must be individually approved by the competent authorities of the Member States.

3.4

Member States are free to extend the scope of the directive to vehicles over 10 years old.

4.1

It should be pointed out that the proposal only makes sense if it is implemented quickly enough to have a significant impact on the fleet in circulation. Indeed, according to the Commission's estimates, the phasing-in of the new mirrors on vehicles will enable a further 1 200 human lives to be saved.

4.2

However, in the impact assessment accompanying the proposal (9), the Commission itself acknowledges that immediate, rigorous implementation of the new requirements would create numerous technical problems, with adverse economic and other effects on operators in the sector and consequent potential market distortions.

4.3

The Commission states that, for over half of the fleet in circulation, the mirrors can be replaced easily and affordably, i.e. at a cost of about EUR 150 (10). Where the rest of the fleet is concerned, solutions range from a slight downsizing of field-of-vision requirements (> 99 %) to highly complex solutions for older vehicles, some of which would require structural modifications in the cabin, the success of which is uncertain, at a cost of thousands of euro.

4.4

Given these variables, in difficult or (where some vehicle models/versions are concerned) apparently insoluble cases, the Commission calls on national inspection authorities ‘to be flexible and accept exceptional solutions at reasonable costs’ (11).

4.5

While the EESC understands the reasons for this vagueness, caused by the many technical issues to be addressed, it feels that the proposal as currently worded is liable to give rise to substantial differences in interpretation, with adverse effects on the European freight transport market.

4.6

The EESC is concerned about two aspects in particular: the risk of disparities in the treatment of operators in the road transport sector, leading to distortion of competition, and the lack of a simple, reliable, uniform certification and monitoring system for the new provisions.

4.6.1

With regard to the first point, it seems inappropriate to require new mirrors to provide 99 % coverage while, at the same time, allowing Member States which have already legislated on the subject a limit of 95 %. The EESC feels that it would be fairer, as well as simpler for monitoring purposes, to lay down a single percentage applying to the whole of the EU.

4.6.2

Remaining on the subject of uniform treatment, the fact that Member States are given the option to decide to delay implementation of the new measures where older vehicles are concerned (12) could cause distortions of competition between vehicles traded internationally. The EESC therefore recommends that the timeframe for implementing the new measures be the same in all the Member States.

4.6.2.1

In this regard, given the large number of vehicles and the complex nature of certification, the EESC believes that an adjustment period of two years from the transposition of the directive is necessary but that that will suffice. On this point, the general approach adopted by the recent Transport Council (13) seems to tally with the solution suggested here. On the other hand, the same Council appeared to be planning to apply the directive to vehicles registered as of 1 January 2000 rather than 1998, thereby excluding about 15 % of the fleet in circulation.

4.6.3

The EESC feels the second point raised is even more worrying — certification and monitoring in respect of the new requirements. It is doubtful whether verification and certification of the field of vision can be carried out effectively on every vehicle as part of a periodic inspection. Determining the field of vision is actually a very demanding operation involving a set of parameters and different, complex recordings.

4.6.3.1

Normally, a type approval mark, as in the case of the above-mentioned Directive 2003/97/EC, relates to the certification of an assembly (mirror, mount, cabin, seat, height of the mirror from the ground) which is not determined by the mirror alone but also by the vehicle model on which it is fitted. These tests are carried out on a prototype, whose approval implies and guarantees the approval of the entire subsequent production series. Thus, the mirrors are type-approved as a single set of components, with a type-approval mark affixed on the body of the mirror which does not have to be replaced when the reflective glass is replaced. This raises a problem for vehicles already in circulation which have been type-approved on the basis of the previous Directive, 71/127/EEC: were the reflective glass alone to be replaced, such vehicles would bear a type-approval mark referring to a repealed directive.

4.6.3.2

Therefore, if no conformity guarantee (mark, certificate etc.) were provided for, there would be a danger that all vehicles would have to be inspected and undergo the tests laid down in Directive 2003/97/EC. In effect, the field of vision of each individual vehicle would have to be re-type-approved, as in cases where electronic devices are used to achieve the field of vision required. It is easy to imagine the impact of this on the workload of the certification and monitoring authorities, given that millions of vehicles would be involved.

4.6.3.3

The solution recommended by the Commission and the Council makes conformity certification part of the annual road worthiness tests required by Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 for vehicles weighing over 3.5 t.

4.6.3.4

These tests are limited, where mirrors are concerned, to recording that they have been safely fitted at the requisite points and that the assemblies are complete. It is therefore unlikely that it will be possible to certify on the basis of these tests that the overall field of vision required, as described above, has been achieved.

4.6.3.5

The EESC's preferred solution, which would be more practical to implement and yield more reliable results, is for the company fitting the new mirrors to issue a declaration of conformity. This document, signed by the company representative, would contain all the vehicle's specifications, including those relating to replaced mirrors or reflective glass. The declaration would be kept in the vehicle and would be valid for the purposes of both the annual inspection and roadside checks. Moreover, as the document would consist almost exclusively of numerical codes, it would raise no particular problems of translation into the EU languages.

5.1

The report introducing the proposal states that Directive 2003/97/EC was amended by Commission Directive 2005/27/EC to extend the general requirement for fitting Class IV and Class V mirrors down to N2 vehicles weighing 3.5 t instead of the previous 7.5 t.

5.1.1

However, this wording is misleading as the provision could be seen as applying to all N2 vehicles under 7.5 t. In actual fact, Directive 2005/27/EC lays down this requirement only for N2 vehicles which have a cabin similar to that of an N3 vehicle, where a Class V mirror can be fitted two metres from the ground. Only in this case can the fitting of the two new mirrors be required.

5.1.2

The EESC therefore suggests, in the interests of clarity, that Article 2(b) of the proposal be revised to include a specific exemption for N2 vehicles weighing 7.5 t or less to which it is not possible to fit a Class V mirror, in line with the provisions of Directive 2005/27.

5.2

Recital 8 provides for an exemption for ‘vehicles whose remaining lifespan is short’, clearly referring to vehicles which have been in use for a considerable number of years and therefore have a limited remaining lifespan. Given that the average fleet lifespan varies between Member States, the Commission needs to make this concept clearer and quantify it.

5.3

Many vehicles already in circulation have been fitted with an optional (Class IV) wide-angle mirror on the driver's side. The requirement now endorsed for a new wide-angle mirror on the passenger side means that the first mirror will have to be replaced too as the driver, who already has to cope with several mirrors, could have problems using two wide-angle mirrors with different curvatures to assess distances.