Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-08-Speech-3-135"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031008.12.3-135"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, having seen a wide variety of serious accidents in tunnels in the European Union’s road network, discussion of how to guarantee a high standard of safety throws up, yet again, the crucial question as to the extent to which the European Union should lay down detailed and specific technical rules, or, to put it another way, how much leeway there has to be for various ways of adapting to change. Mr Rack’s compromise is the right one, and for finding it he deserves our gratitude.
I do, nevertheless, have five comments to make. Firstly, and quite apart from all the flexibility involved in allocating tunnels to safety categories, it would have been desirable to lay down standardised indicators for assessing the safety of tunnels, which it might then have been sensible to use to analyse all the tunnels in the European Union, rather than only those forming part of the trans-European networks; this would have brought with it even greater added value in terms of improving safety. Such indicators would also make it possible to carry out a risk analysis or an evaluation of dangerous situations and accidents on the basis of common benchmarks. I therefore find it regrettable that the text no longer contains the Commission’s proposal on the standardised application of harmonised norms to working methods in conformity assessment bodies.
Secondly, there is the closely-connected question of whether it is right that the tunnel management should, as an organisation with its own functions, also be able to be the body that investigates accidents. I do not think it should, as one cannot exclude the possibility of conflicts of interest, which would be detrimental to the maintenance of safety.
Thirdly, I fully support the new ruling that, where tunnels impinge upon the territory of two Member States, joint investigating bodies are to be set up to exercise the necessary functions.
Fourthly, it appears to me that, quite apart from the measures for which this report provides to impose minimum requirements for the safety of tunnels, there is a whole range of other actions that could help improve safety, and do so more simply and probably at less cost. In this I include what Mr Swoboda has already said about additional rules for tunnel users’ speed, the distance between their vehicles, the giving of particular signals, markings, and so on.
My fifth point is that all the technical measures that have been proposed can have little effect when a driver is over-tired. Modern technology notwithstanding, what is ultimately crucial in road transport, as in so many other areas of society, is the human factor. I would therefore like to call upon the Council – even though it is not represented here – to deliver a final position on the Regulation on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples