Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-17-Speech-2-454"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080617.42.2-454"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I do not think that Mr Ferrari has been the worst in this connection. As a matter of fact, my experience has been one of very constructive cooperation with someone who did not give the impression of being under the thumb of the automobile industry. We should of course have preferred to see a report that went even further in its endeavours to protect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users against cars, and the ideal scenario would have been to get many more drivers using public transport or bicycles. Nevertheless, since this goal lies so far in the future, we are pleased to have done something about car equipment. As many have mentioned, it is to be welcomed in this respect that the legislation is now to cover heavier vehicles, so that stricter requirements on car equipment will counter the trend towards ever larger cars.
I should also like to commend the rapporteur on pressing for BAS – Break Assist systems – to be made standard in cars without delay, to help drivers stop in time. It is also to be welcomed that requirements on the design of car front ends have been imposed, so that any collision with a vulnerable living human being does as little harm as possible to the unlucky person. However, we need to go down to 40 km/h for this to make sense. The requirements on this should have been even stricter, as should the time limit. After all, there are already products on the market that offer significantly better protection for pedestrians without jeopardising the safety of drivers or passengers.
It is not the rapporteur’s fault that this has been progressing so slowly. There is much to indicate that there has been another case of lobbying by the German automobile industry, in particular, which these days is at the most reactionary end of the scale compared with the rest of European industry. It is depressing if this is the reason why we have again ended up with a proposal that falls short of our wishes, by which I mean the wish for fewer deaths and injuries on the roads. Why are we simply taking the automobile industry’s word for it – and we have just heard this again – that the technology is not yet sufficiently advanced? It is! I very much hope that my fellow Members will now at least vote in favour of Amendment 25."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples