Skip to main content

Transport ministers hold back progress on lorry safety

EU member states have dealt a blow to plans to allow lorry makers to sell safer vehicles. Transport ministers meeting today agreed that European Commission proposals to enable, not require, manufacturers to make changes to lorry cabs that improve visibility and reduce the impact of crashes on other vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists should be subject to an eight-year delay. The position of transport ministers is at odds with the European Parliament, which said in April that safer cab designs should be pe
June 6, 2014 Read time: 2 mins
EU member states have dealt a blow to plans to allow lorry makers to sell safer vehicles. Transport ministers meeting today agreed that 1690 European Commission proposals to enable, not require, manufacturers to make changes to lorry cabs that improve visibility and reduce the impact of crashes on other vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists should be subject to an eight-year delay.

The position of transport ministers is at odds with the European Parliament, which said in April that safer cab designs should be permitted with no delay.

Antonio Avenoso, Executive Director of the 3535 European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) said: “Putting the brakes on vehicle safety innovation is just a bad idea. In the past, we have seen technologies such as better pedestrian protection and anti-lock braking systems be put on vehicles long before they were made legal requirements. The public wants to see safer lorries available as soon as possible, so we hope MEPs will fight to get rid of this delay when negotiations begin on a final deal."

According to ETSC data, around 4300 people died in collisions involving lorries in 2011. Because of their size and weight, crashes can be catastrophic with a much higher risk of death or serious injury.

A study carried out for the European Commission estimates that as many as 500 lives could be saved every year if the cabs were made safer.

A final deal on the proposals now needs to be agreed by representatives of the European Parliament, Commission and member states.

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Road pricing is inevitable – because the ‘user pays’ principle is fair
    June 14, 2018
    We pay for roads through our taxes: the poor pay proportionately more, and effectively subsidise the rich. It would be fairer to accept the ‘user pays’ principle, says Dr John Walker. Road pricing is already used worldwide to combat congestion and pollution, to compensate for falling revenues from fuel duty (‘gas tax’), to provide an alternative (and fairer) means of charging motorists than the 80-year old fuel tax and to improve the efficiency of and expand transport infrastructure. However, it could and s
  • Managing congestion, better information changes perceptions
    January 31, 2012
    Kapsch's Dietrich Leihs talks about the true fundamentals of urban pricing. In some Italian and German towns and cities, the solution to congestion is an outright ban on certain types of vehicles. As far as Dietrich Leihs is concerned, any attempt to sweeten the pill that is congestion charging is only ever going to be a partial success at best.
  • ITS America: V2X needs adequate spectrum
    March 1, 2022
    Laura Chace explains why ITS America is back in court to fight for connected vehicle technologies – and outlines efforts to lay the foundation for moving V2X forward with whatever spectrum is available
  • IBTTA responds to sustainable transportation funding report
    December 4, 2014
    The International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA has responded to a new report released by the Eno Center for Transportation. How We Pay for Transportation: The Life and Death of the Highway Trust Fund looks at the current political, economic and legal forces behind the US Highway Trust Fund, including an examination of other countries and their lessons on providing long term sustainable funding for transportation. Patrick D. Jones, IBTTA executive director and CEO, said: “We salute the