European Parliament today votes in many good measures to encourage cycling; and some batty ones.
Earlier today BikeBiz.com reported on the welcome recommendation from the European Parliament that EU member states ought to adhere to the Koch Report and seriously consider more 30kph zones in residential areas.
As always, the devil is in the detail and there are other elements in PE456.969 European Parliament resolution of 27 September 2011 on European road safety 2011-2020 (2010/2235(INI), some of them welcome, others unwelcome.
Oddly, the call for "minimum requirements in respect of lights and reflective devices which must be met by bicycle manufacturers" is already met by the EU's existing CEN standards for bicycles.
More 'safe routes to school' are welcome, as are anything that can lower motor vehicle speeds, but some of the other recommendations are not so welcome.
The EU's recommendations are just that: they won't be binding in law. In the case of helmets and hi-vis vests, the UK's Highway Code already recommends this. However, such a 'recommendation' from the European Parliament could, potentially, make it on the statute books.
Article continues belowAdvertisement
++++++++
50. Calls for a Europe-wide ban on the manufacture, import and distribution of systems that warn drivers of traffic checks (e.g. radar warning and laser jamming devices, or navigation systems that automatically signal traffic checks);
58. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is focusing its attention on the most vulnerable user groups (two-wheel vehicle users, pedestrians, etc.), where accident figures are still too high; calls on the Member States, the Commission and the industry to bear these kinds of users in mind when designing road infrastructure and equipment, so that roads built are safe for all users; calls, in the context of road planning and maintenance, for greater consideration to be given to infrastructure measures to protect cyclists and pedestrians, e.g. traffic separation measures, the expansion of cycle path networks and barrier-free access arrangements and crossings for pedestrians;
76. Calls on the Commission to present within two years a report on the safety aspects of electromobility, including ‘e-bikes’ and ‘pedelecs’;
99. Invites the Commission, the Member States and local authorities to promote ‘safe routes to school’ schemes in order to increase the safety of children; indicates that, in addition to the introduction of speed limits and the establishment of a school traffic police, the suitability of vehicles used as school buses and the professional skills of drivers must also be assured;
100. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support cycling and walking as mode of transport in their own right and an integral part of all transport systems;
101. Calls on the Member States:
− to make the carrying of warning jackets for all vehicle occupants compulsory and
− to encourage cyclists, especially at night outside built-up areas, to use crash helmets and wear warning jackets or comparable clothing as a means of improving their visibility;
102. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal laying down minimum requirements in respect of lights and reflective devices which must be met by bicycle manufacturers.
++++++
Hat-tip to Robert Davis and Todd Edelman.















Add a new comment
You need to be logged in to post comments. If you do not have an account then please register.
Comments
1 comment
I disagree that all is well in the area of cycle lighting. True: CEN standards do already contain performance requirements for reflectors and lights - if the latter are fitted on a newly manufactured bike (which they often are not). What those CEN standards require is that reflectors and lights conform to whatever approval applies in the country where the bicycle is sold. Reflectors are pretty much standardised internationally, so no problem there, but each different European country has its own different way of approving bike lights. This makes it almost impossible for a bicycle manufacturer to sell the same bike, with lights on it, throughout Europe. This is bad for cycling safety, since cyclists are much more likely to have functioning lights in countries where it is nevertheless the custom for bicycles to be sold complete with lights. But this only happens in countries with such a huge cycling market that it's worthwhile making bikes specifically for that country, i.e. Germany, and Germany insists on dynamo lights. If smaller countries wish to encourage the sale of bikes with lights already on them, they must either copy the German dynamo regulation (e.g. Austria, Switzerland etc.), or, if they wish to allow also battery lighting, they must set such a low standard (e.g. France and Denmark) that almost any light will pass! In Britain we have the worst of all situations: a high-level lighting standard which prevents us from recognising any other EU countries' approval regimes as giving an "equivalent level of safety" (apart from German StVO in the case of dynamos, but the equivalence of even that is moot) and a cycling market that is too small for it to be worth anyone's while to make lamps that meet all the detailed requirements of UK approval. So not only is it very difficult for a bike manufacturer to find "approved" lights (that he can spec as original equipment), but also for the cyclist, who also needs at least one approved light at the front and also the rear to ride legally at night. Result: it's hard to buy a bike with lights on in Britain and most British cyclists are riding illegally at night, even those with excellent lights front and rear, since their lights will be legal only as additional lights. (But no shop will tell them this, since it detracts from the product.) What is needed is a CEN standard for cycle lighting to go with the CEN standards for bikes - and an EU directive to remove the petty-fogging differences between different countries' approval regimes. Only then will become commercially interesting for manufacturers of high quality battery lights to seek approval for their products.
Chris Juden Sep 28th 2011 at 11:47AM
0 0