Seatbelt plan faces challenge

Date: 11/01/1996

By Michael Mann

SAFETY groups fear that German-led pressure could scupper plans to make three-point seatbelts compulsory in minibuses throughout the EU.

The issue will come to a head at a meeting of experts from member states, car safety lobbies and industry in Brussels on 30-31 January, following the failure to reach agreement in mid-November and the cancellation of a session scheduled for shortly before Christmas.

Lobbyists who attended November's meeting of the Committee for Adaptation to Technical Progress (CATP) believe there is little resistance to plans to make lap belts compulsory in larger coaches.

But a significant group of member states have lent support to a “compromise” proposed by Bonn which would make only lap belts compulsory in the majority of minibus seats, and not three-point belts as proposed by the Commission.

This has angered safety campaigners from the consumers' organisation BEUC and the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC), who point to research suggesting that these are insufficient to prevent serious injury in the event of high-speed frontal impacts.

Worse still, there is a strong body of evidence that they increase the risk of severe abdominal and back injuries, and head injuries to children.

Despite the findings of a study carried out by the UK's Cranfield Impact Centre on behalf of the European Commission, Germany, France, Italy and Spain appear to have bowed to pressure from their car manufacturers, apparently concerned about the extra expense the Commission's proposal would entail. They were supported by Luxembourg.

Lobbyists point out that virtually all new minibuses sold in the UK already carry three-point belts and that there is therefore little to prevent the introduction of the highest possible standards in the shortest possible time frame.

But German officials are vehement that they will not be dictated to by lobbying from the UK, where a series of tragedies has led to strong pressure for the toughest standards.

“We are not prepared to accept a dictatorship from the UK, with one country dictating what will happen in the rest of Europe. On the continent, we have far better buses with larger distances between seats and strengthened seats for which two-point belts are quite sufficient,” said one official in Bonn.

His remarks appeared to ignore the fact that the UK's firm support for the Commission proposal was echoed by six other member states at the November meeting.

Germany will continue to insist that manufacturers and operators are given the option of whether or not to fit three-point belts, on grounds of both comfort and cost, said the official.

He admitted that it was less expensive to fit two-point belts, but said the UK also cut costs by packing more rows of seating into each minibus.

With this month's meeting set to be decisive, Commission officials insist that they will defend their proposal “robustly”, but may be prepared to offer manufacturers the compromise of an extra year to make the necessary changes.

If the Commission is unable to generate enough support in the CATP, officials insist they will not hesitate to refer the matter to transport ministers.

This would then force those countries opposed to greater safety standards to declare their hand publicly, with the potential public relations problems this would present.

But safety lobbies remain concerned that the Commission may still be forced to cave in to German pressure.

The 30-31 January meeting will also attempt to reach agreement on a suitable form of labelling to warn drivers of the potential danger of passenger-side airbags.

Evidence in the US, which is generally a few years ahead of the EU in terms of car safety measures, shows a growing trend for children in rear-facing child restraints to suffer fatal injuries when airbags inflate during accidents.

BEUC and ETSC are concerned that the current proposals under consideration could prove too lax, and would not take sufficient notice of the International Standards Organisation (ISO) recommendation which states that the best form of warning is its own pictogram, plus an explanatory text.

ETSC points to a recent ISO survey which concluded that “pictogram-only warning labels were understood by only one-third of respondents”.

Although the Commission appears prepared to amend its proposal, there is widespread concern that the final version may give manufacturers a choice of label, including one sponsored by ACEA (the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association).

This is supported by France, but judged as “inadequate and misleading” by the ISO.