Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-06-Speech-3-322"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020206.13.3-322"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Hatzidakis, for his fantastic work on this directive, a report which fully supports the Commission’s proposal and which incorporates numerous amendments which improve the text of the proposal without changing its objective.
I would once again like to congratulate the rapporteur and all the Members who have spoken in this debate. I hope that, through the application of this directive, road safety will improve, which is the intention, since the figure of 42 000 deaths per year is completely unacceptable to all of us.
The purpose of the proposal is to extend the scope of the obligatory installation and use of speed limiters to vehicles in lighter categories than those currently affected by these limitations. This measure represents the realisation of the priorities formulated in March 2000, within the framework of the Commission communication on road safety, which also received the explicit support of this Parliament.
The proposal will contribute to an increase in road safety, the protection of the environment and the maintenance of conditions of equal and fair competition between all operators within the European Union.
I would like to make some comments on the report we are dealing with here. There are several amendments which we can support: Amendments Nos 4, 6 and 7 can be accepted in their entirety; Nos 5 and 10 are acceptable in principle, although the dates need to be altered, and the same is the case with Amendment No 6, which I referred to previously.
The Commission would prefer the following timetable: two years for new vehicles, three years for international transport and four for national transport. I believe that this answers some of Mr Jarzembowski’s questions on the effects on small and medium-sized businesses, which are the most frequent users of this type of vehicle. There is an adaptation period and, if we bear in mind the rotation of this type of vehicle, the time of the entry into force of the directive, etc., we see that it is not so out of place.
With regard to Amendment No 9, the Commission could accept a study in the context of road safety towards 2010, as long as it does not involve a separate report. In any event, the time limit of 18 months is excessively short to carry out such a study. We need two years as a minimum. In this regard, I would like to stress the great importance the Commission attaches to intelligent speed restriction systems and great attention will be paid to the study of this issue.
The concepts behind Amendments Nos 8 and 11 are unacceptable to the Commission. The acceptance of greater maximum speeds for a limited period of time not only raises technical problems for which there is no solution, at least at the moment, but would also hinder the implementation of the measure. The Commission believes that, for the moment, there is no advantage in applying this directive to M1 and N1 vehicles.
Furthermore, the Commission cannot accept Amendment No 12, which Mr Jarzembowski advocated, amongst others, because the triple objective of the directive – road safety, environmental protection and competition under equal conditions – cannot be achieved unless all vehicles are bound by the same speed limit.
Finally, we will carefully study Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3, which refer to the textual differences between linguistic versions, in relation to the definition of vehicles."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples