Driving down the death-toll by 2010

Two MEPs discuss road safety.

Malcolm Harbour

There is much talk in EU circles of the need for an ‘integrated approach’ to policymaking - the need to engage a wide range of policymakers in a truly ‘joined up’ approach. All too often, the promised integration remains an unfulfilled promise, with each policy actor following their own priorities. The achievement of real improvements in European road safety, with the ambitious task of halving road casualties by 2010, is a project that has been fully endorsed at prime ministerial level. It is a project that can only be achieved by an integrated approach, since it involves actions at every level, from village council right up to the European Commission. But it is a project that needs much more active political leadership if it is to achieve its full potential.

Achieving the safety targets requires policy action for the vehicle, the road and the driver. Vehicle regulation is by far the most advanced. We now have a single legal framework for car, truck and bus safety standards - the safety standards for buses were finally adopted as a pan-EU requirement in 2007. Alongside the technical rules, the Euro NCAP programme has provided consumers with independent safety performance ratings based on crash testing. The star rating has encouraged significant improvements in crash survivability, with better design and more sophisticated airbag and seatbelt systems.

The major development thrust is now moving to ‘active’ safety systems. Anti-lock braking systems will be enhanced by ‘brake assist’. Electronic stability control will prevent skids in extreme manoeuvres and will be fitted to all new cars. More sophisticated systems, using radar sensors, provide warnings of potential collisions and activate emergency measures. Night-time safety is enhanced by new headlamps and night-vision systems.

Given the progress that vehicle engineers are making, how about their highway equivalents? The European Road Assessment Programme (Eurorap), an independent rating system for highway safety, gives us some answers. Newer highways, especially motorways and dual carriageways, have the lowest casualty rates. The most dangerous are main highways with unprotected roadside hazards, sharp bends and dangerous junctions. Clearly, local and regional authorities do not have unlimited budgets and there is a huge programme to obviate the dangerous highway features. Nevertheless, it is fair to ask whether authorities have taken on board the lessons of Eurorap. Improvements would surely be faster if local decision-makers were more aware of the potential for highway improvements and there was political pressure to make them.

What of the human element, the competence and skill of the driver? Accident statistics tell us that driver errors are responsible for the majority of accidents. The rules for driver training, the standards for driving tests, the age at which driving is permitted, the rules about health checks for older drivers - all of these will remain the competence of EU member states. Excessive alcohol and speed are crucial causes of accidents and there are different rules and penalties. There remain significant political objections to common, tighter standards. At least tougher cross-border enforcement of motorists who offend in different countries looks likely to happen soon.

It is clear that resolute action on roads and drivers will be needed if that 2010 target is to be met. The burden cannot be carried by car technology alone. France has already shown that a determined political programme and strong enforcement of existing rules can achieve steep casualty reductions. National and European politicians now need to grasp the 2010 safety goal and give real political leadership. The European Parliament could organise a road safety summit and provide a forum for political commitments to be made. The summit could also start talking about global road safety. We may find the European road death toll alarming, but in some developing countries it is ten or 20 times higher. Perhaps our development aid policies should start to address this growing and unacceptable loss of life.

• UK Conservative (EPP-ED) MEP Malcolm Harbour is a member of the Parliament’s internal market and consumer protection committee.

Helmuth Markov

It is too early to say whether or not we will actually succeed in reducing by 50% the number of road deaths in the European Union by 2010. But much has been done in recent years to meet this target, at least regarding EU legislation. There are three main controllable components that account for better or worse road safety: safety of vehicles, drivers’ behaviour and road infrastructure. Accordingly, policymakers focus on these three pillars. For example, there is already European harmonisation of rules concerning the use of rear-view mirrors, driving and resting times of professional drivers, the European driving licence, measures for the protection of children carried in cars and lorries and the protection of pedestrians and cyclists by special car design.

As regards road infrastructure safety, European legislation is currently limited to the tunnel directive (2004/54/EC) which aims to reduce accident risks by means of preventative measures and, if an accident occurs, to minimise the loss of life. The positive results can already be seen, but they remain far from satisfactory.

Since growth in the internal market means more transport of goods and passengers, and higher levels of cross-border road traffic, greater efforts should be taken to improve harmonisation of rules within the EU.

Infrastructure safety can be increased by regular safety audits, by road design that is adapted to weather and geological conditions (material of road bed, inclination of curves), by better traffic signalling, especially around construction sites and modern crash barriers that also protect motorcyclists.

I would also say that the planning of good quality - and safe - parking areas should be well considered when new roads are being designed. This is because truck drivers must be provided with appropriate rest facilities in order to comply with their resting time obligations. In turn, this is important because tired and overworked drivers are a serious risk factor in road traffic.

Even though some member states already apply good standards in road construction and modernisation, a common strategy is needed for all EU countries. This would also support new member states that still lack sufficient national regulation in this field.

In addition to the current rules for car safety, technical improvements could still be made, for example by the application of automatic engine-stop systems or all-round distance meters. Immobiliser systems that do not allow cars to start in the event of alcohol respiration can be used. Improved underride protection devices should become compulsory for big trucks - to make it harder for cars to become crushed underneath the body of the trucks during collisions.

Of course, what is necessary is a fundamentally changed basic approach to transport policy: transports of goods should in general be reduced by the development of regional economic activity where goods are closer to their final consumer. Or it should at least be shifted from roads to rail and ship. I would wish the same for passenger transport. But this would require political decisions that allow for lower consumer prices, universal accessibility and better quality instead of closing down regional railroad networks and cutbacks in public investment. So far there is not much political ambition for such a change of thinking, neither on the EU nor on the national level.

Each policy tool has the potential to help to reduce the number of fatalities in road traffic. The current proposal for a directive on road infrastructure safety is one important part of the European road safety action programme. Although it is obvious that different administrative levels are responsible for the implementation and application of such rules, a common and binding framework is indispensable. To feel safe wherever they drive in Europe is a right of EU citizens and others who travel through Europe.

In many consultations with different stakeholders, I have been assured that these views have broad support in society. It is my great hope that my colleagues in the European Parliament’s transport committee share this approach and will not reject the overall idea again.

• German MEP Helmuth Markov is a member for the European United Left/Nordic Green Left group (GUE/NGL) of the Parliament’s committee on transport and tourism.

Two MEPs discuss road safety.