Standard European Regulations?

4th May 1962, Page 127

4th May 1962

Page 127

Page 129

Page 127, 4th May 1962 — Standard European Regulations?

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

An Attempt to Clarify "A Confusing and Rapidly Changing Situation"

N the morning of Wednesday, March 28, 1962, the )

European. Parliamentary Assembly, meeting in Stras bourg, gave its unanimous approval—after a long bate—to the resolution proposed by M. DrouotElermine asking the European Economic Community mmission to take action on behalf of the Community to ndardize road-transport rules, and to be more effective d speedy than other bodies, such as the European Conence of Transport Ministers, had been in past years. thus a start was officially agreed upon down the long road yards rationalization of European weight and dimension rulations—and what a road this is going to be The tables oroduced overleaf give some idea of the wide variation ween the individual regulations applicable in 19 of the ncipal European countries, together with proposals made 1960 by the European Conference of Transport Ministers C.T.M.) and intended to be in operation by the beginning 1966, and the suggestions put forward last year by the tional Road Transport Federation.

['hese tables have been compiled only after a certain amount difficulty for, great exporters as British commercial-vehicle nufacturers are, there seems to be a considerable lack of ormation in the industry on the vehicle-construction regulaas applicable on the Continent—either that, or manufacers are reluctant to disclose the extent of their knowledge. ks a result, it has been necessary to turn to the Continent information, and the tables' (and footnotes) are based on prmation supplied by the Inland Transport Committee of Economic Commission for Europe-4 section of I.J.N.O., I by the Dutch and Swedish vehicle manufacturers, Van orne's Automobielfabriek, NV,, Eindhoven, and A.B. nia-Vabis, SodertAlje. Thus the figures are proffered as ng the clearest and most accurate picture of a confusing I rapidly changing situation that has so far been made ilable in Great Britain.

Constant State of 'ltis

kie word of warning, though: vehicle-construction legislation ms to be in a constant state of flux in Europe at present, so

[hers intending to run services to and from Continental ntries would do well to check that the information repro:ed on these pages is still current. In this respect the R,H.A.

I T.R.T.A. are only too willing to give advice, not only on se types of regulation, but also concerning the many other 'alls which lie waiting across the Channel.

le first firm standardization proposals, intended to he ?lied over certain specified routes, were approved at the 1949 ited Nations convention on road and inland transport, corn nly referred to as the "Geneva Convention." Certain ntries are still adhering to these tenets, including Albania,

garia, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, the h Republic, the Netherlands, Poland, Rumania and the ;.S.R. It is significant to note that two of these countries— y and the Netherlands—are in the E.E.C. (the Common rket)..

he Geneva Convention proposed a maximum axle weight 1.0 metric tons and a maximum bogie loading of 14.5 metric 3, a bogie being defined as having centres of between 1 2 M. (the dimensions of the "medium bogie" referred to the table overleaf dealing with weight limitations). No iS vehicle weight limits were specified, these being related rehicle length. • o far as dimensions were concerned, a maximum width 8 ft. 2.5 in. was specified, with an overall length of ft. 10 in. for two-axled rigids and 36 ft. 10 in. for rigids with three or more axles. Articulated vehicles were restricted to a length of 46 ft., whilst the dimension -for a combination consisting of a lorry and one trailer was 59 ft. 1 in., this being increased by 12 ft. 11 in, for a second trailer.

In September, 1950, the Economic Commission for Europe (E.C.E.) drew up a series of regulations based largely on the 1949 Geneva figures and intended to standardize vehicle weights and lengths but these proposals came to nothing.

Ten years passed before the problem was seriously tackled again, when the European Conference of Transport Ministers was held in The Hague (October, 1960). Of the 17 countries represented, only three—Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland —voted against the E.C.I.M.'s proposals, Britain remaining aloof and abstaining. Those countries approving were Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, West Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and Yugoslavia, and the main proposals are in our two tables.

No Common Market Rules

The picture started to brighten, therefore, and many people thought that these regulations were, in fact, Common Market regulations, ignoring the fact that Italy and the Netherlands had not agreed to accept the proposed figures. They still have not, and, indeed, the European Parliamentary Assembly were informed during their March 28 meeting that Italy and the Netherlands were still the only E.E.C. (i.e. Common Market) countries not prepared to accept the 1960 Hague agreement.

The March 28 meeting of the E.P.A. was primarily concerned with the Drouot-L'Hermine Report, which stressed the importance of the standardization of road traffic regulations throughout the EEC. with respect to a number of factors, including the reduction of road accidents and the encouraging of trade expansion between the member countries.

The Report showed that, up until mid-March, no official measures had been taken at Community level to harmonize weights and dimensions of road vehicles and that, after the partial failure of the work done by the E.C.T.M., the E.E.C. Commission and some member countries had on several occasions stressed the need for a Community agreement.

That the results of efforts at standardization which had been obtained since 1945 were "rather meagre" was pointed out in the Report, and the question was posed whether it would not be advisable to use the legal and institutional' framework of the E.E.C. to secure decisive powers in respect of a European road-traffic code; standard regulations for the weights and dimensions of road vehicles; common rulings concerning lighting, engine silencing, safety belts and so forth; and general aspects of road safety. The Report said that the work already done by the E.C.T.M. provided a good basis for a standard road code, but that a working party should be set up by the E.E.C. Commission to make practical proposals for the standardization of vehicle weights and dimensions, taking into account problems connected with the accession of the U.K.

So the picture so far as unification is concerned is very little clearer now than it was at the end of the war. The picture so far as individual regulations throughout the length and breadth of Europe are concerned is a hopeless muddle, as can be seen from our tables, and how a set of standard regulations can be drawn up to meet with the approval of the major European countries remains to be seen. Certainly it will have to be highly imaginative and flexible.

Just look at the extremes: axle weight limits ranging from 2 tons (Norway) to I3 tons (Belgium, France and Luxembourg): the limits for four-wheelers varying from 8.5 tons (Sweden) to 19 tons (Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Spain): articulated-vehicle limits, ranging up to 35 tons (France, Luxembourg and Turkey).

The position with regard to overall lengths is little better, rigid-vehicle limits ranging between 24.9 ft. in the U.S.S.R. and 39.4 ft. in Belgium, with articulatedoutfit lengths of from 35 ft. in the United Kingdom to 49.2 ft. in West Germany and combination lengths of from 45.9 ft. in Portugal and Spain to 72.1 ft. in Austria: Belgium and Turkey.

Which way will the Common Market go? To look for comprehensive regulations covering the whole of Europe is sheer optimism: after all the U.S.A. is generally regarded as one country, yet there are 51 different sets of regulations there. This is mainly because of road and bridge limitations, and these weak spots will provide the stumbling block to unification.

Regulations governing long-distance haulage over main roads are feasible, and it would not be surprising to see such regulations looking rather like the present West German figures which are not, after all, so very different from the proposed E.C.T.M. rulings (or, for that matter, those applicable in the U.S.S.R.)).

The United Kingdom can afford to be "selfishly awkward" at the moment, but our joining the E.E.C. and the construction of a bridge over or a tunnel under the English Channel will end our isolation. Our ratings will have to be raised, even if this means building the sort of roads we should have had years ago. When ouir weight and dimension regulations are brought into line with the rest of Europe operators will have to get accustomed to the idea of considerably heavier vehicles (so not all the extra permitted weight will be payload), whilst it is reasonably certain that a minimum power to weight ratio willbe enforced also-probably higher than the existing German ratio of 6 b.h.p. per ton gross and possibly even as high as 10. Some interesting new vehicles should be evolved. .

Standard European Regulations?

Page 127

Page 129

Tags