Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-03-Speech-2-084"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001003.3.2-084"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Two buses or one articulated bus are more expensive than one long, rigid bus. I have seen these buses in the Finnish town of Tampere. The roads there are wide and as straight as an arrow. The buses can pose a risk to cyclists and pedestrians in low-traffic urban areas and on windy country roads. Moreover, without a compulsory second rear axle, they can destroy roads on soft soil, such as the Dutch peat polders. It is therefore entirely justifiable that a number of EU Member States only permit buses up to 12 metres. If these countries are forced to allow 15-metre buses, they will need to install extra road signs everywhere around the country. These buses may have access to that country, but in practice, they will be unable to reach many places. According to those in favour, such buses are not only cheaper and internationally deployable, they are also more environmentally-friendly because they use less fuel per passenger. This is why my group did not oppose the proposal initially within the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. It now transpires that these proposals are mainly a cost-saving exercise, at the expense of safety. That is the main reason why I intend to reject the proposals."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples