Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-13-Speech-4-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020613.1.4-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, I would first like to thank the rapporteur for the work that she has done, despite all the pressure that we have all been under.
There is a common denominator: we all agree that the number of accidents, injuries and deaths on European roads is absolutely unacceptable; and we also agree that we need to find viable methods of considerably reducing this number of victims.
This report talks mainly about the most vulnerable road users; I would therefore have liked motorcyclists to have been explicitly mentioned as well as pedestrians and cyclists, since they are just as vulnerable.
Vehicles need to be designed and built to be safer both for their occupants and for those around them, such as pedestrians. The problem is finding a legal, quick, effective and transparent way of doing it. Front designs that are capable of absorbing the impact of a pedestrian who is hit are vital in quantifying how much harm accidents would cause if they happened.
We should not, however, forget that we need to take care of other aspects, such as promoting safer driving, maximum dissemination of road safety information and, essentially, as has rightly been said, designing and building road infrastructures that are safer for all users.
The black spots on European roads are also black spots for this group of most vulnerable users. Metal barriers, inappropriate vertical signs and kerbs are among the causes behind an enormous number of victims.
From the start of the debate our Group has rejected the so-called “voluntary agreements” with the automobile industry proposed by the Commission in order to improve the protection of the most vulnerable groups, as it is a system that could leave the way open for other extra-legislative agreements associated with transport and the environment, which concerns us given the lack of an interinstitutional agreement in that respect. This would not happen with a legislative process, because, although it would take longer, it would maintain stricter parliamentary control. It is true, ladies and gentlemen, that a voluntary agreement with industry would enable us to start sooner. But it is also true that, according to all the data, it would save fewer lives.
We have tabled a series of amendments rejecting this voluntary agreement. Amendment No 4 refers to the need for consumer and user organisations to continue to express their opinions, whatever the form of regulation; Amendment No 6 expresses our concern regarding the requirement to use Daytime Running Lights across the Union, as their current use by the most vulnerable users, motorcyclists and cyclists, would lose its value. In any case, we ask that this should not be obligatory until the matter has been studied in detail, or that Member States who ban Daytime Running Lights should be allowed to have positive discrimination for cyclists and motorcyclists.
Mr President, we have tabled a series of amendments in this respect and we ask for them to be looked at or at least to be voted on. By accepting the Commission’s proposal, Parliament is explicitly accepting a loss of power over this important aspect, which concerns the safety and the lives of hundreds of European citizens, and we will be losing independence, judgment, transparency and control."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples