European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific and

Technical Research

&267
(IIHFWVRI:LGH6LQJOH7\UHVDQG'XDO
7\UHV

Final Report of the Action

European Commission
Directorate General Transport

/HJDOQRWLFH
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on
behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which
might be made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily
reflect the views of the European Commission.

A great deal of additional information on COST Transport is available on the World Wide
Web. It can be accessed through the CORDIS server at the following address:
http://www.cordis.lu/cost-transport/home.html
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1999.
ISBN xx-xxx-xxxx-x
European Communities 1999
3ULQWHGLQ%HOJLXP

Table of Contents

7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV
Chapter 1. Introduction..........................................................................................................5
Chapter 2. ..............................................................................................................................6
Chapter 3. ..............................................................................................................................7
Chapter 4. ..............................................................................................................................9
Chapter 5. ............................................................................................................................10
Chapter 6. ............................................................................................................................11
Chapter 7. ............................................................................................................................14
Chapter 8. RELEVANCE TO CURRENT LEGISLATION AND STANDARDISATION15
8.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................15
8.2. A brief over view of Technical Standards. ...............................................................15
8.3. Legislation. ...............................................................................................................16
8.4. History of vehicle standards. ....................................................................................16
8.5. The link between the UNECE and the EU Organisations. .......................................18
8.6. Procedure for introducing an EU Directive or amending certain existing Directives.19
8.7. European Whole Vehicle Type Approval (EWVTA) System..................................21
8.7.1. Amending a Directive within the European Whole Vehicle Type Approval
(EWVTA) System. ......................................................................................................22
8.7.2. Compliance with a Directive within the European Whole Vehicle Type
Approval (EWVTA) system. .......................................................................................22
8.8. EU Directive 96/53/EC on the maximum authorised dimensions in national and
international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic. ........23
8.9. Directive 97/27/EC type approval of masses and dimensions for certain motor
vehicles and their trailers.................................................................................................24
8.10. Directive 92/23/EEC and UNECE Regulation 54 on tyres construction. ..............24
8.11. Directive 98/34/EC preventing member states from introducing technical
rules/standards that would create a barrier to trade. ........................................................25
8.11.1. Technical Standards.........................................................................................25
8.11.2. Technical Rules. ..............................................................................................26
8.11.3. Relationship between the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the
EU................................................................................................................................27
8.12. The difference between UNECE Regulations, EU Regulations and EU Directives.27
8.13. Legislation affecting vehicles travelling on an international journey.....................28
8.14. Introducing COST 334 recommendations through fiscal incentives......................28
8.15. Introducing a SUHPLXP WUXFN specification that incorporates the best raod
friendly/environmentall and road safety features through best practice. .........................29
3
version 6 Feruary 2002

Chapter 2
8.16. EU Directive 92/81/EEC, European vignette scheme............................................30
8.17. Linking the findings of COST 334 to domestic vehicle weight limits...................30
8.8. Linking the to findings of COST 334 to international vehicle weight limits...........31
8.19. Summary ................................................................................................................32
8.20. Conclusions ............................................................................................................32
8.21. Recommendations ..................................................................................................33
8.21.1. At the European Level.....................................................................................33
8.21.2. At the National level. ......................................................................................33
8.22. References ..............................................................................................................34

Chapter 1

&KDSWHU ,QWURGXFWLRQ

Chapter 2

&KDSWHU 

Chapter 3

&KDSWHU 

Chapter 4

&KDSWHU 

Chapter 8

&KDSWHU 

10

Chapter 6

&KDSWHU 

11

Chapter 7

13

Chapter 8

&KDSWHU 

14

&KDSWHU 5(/(9$1&(72&855(17/(*,6/$7,21
$1'67$1'$5',6$7,21
 ,1752'8&7,21
The preceding chapters have shown that road pavement wear is dependant on a number of
vehicle related factors. These include the weight of the vehicle, tyre dimensions and their
arrangement on a vehicle. By incorporating the findings of this COST action into either
existing standards or creating new technical standards or legislation it should be possible
to reduce road pavement wear by improving vehicle designs. The objective therefore of
this chapter is to identify the technical standards and legislation that are most relevant for
this purpose.
As there are several types of technical standard and legislation it is necessary to consider
how these impact on a vehicles design and use. At the manufacturing level technical
standards, legislation and best practice can all be used to promote changes in vehicle and
tyre technology. Similarly introducing legislation that affects the use of a vehicle can
also influence vehicle and tyre technology. This chapter however does not consider
changing standards or introducing legislation aimed at road pavement design or
construction standards.
Chapter Four showed that road pavement wear has more than one meaning. Pavement
wear has therefore been categorised into the following distress modes1: primary rutting,
secondary rutting and fatigue. Taking one aspect of a vehicle and comparing its affect on
each of the distress modes showed that the wear was not the same for each mode.
Consequently, standards or legislation may need to reflect this if one type of road
pavement wear is giving a particular cause for concern.
Introducing legislation at both an international level and domestic (national) level is
discussed. Alternatives such as using fiscal measures and best practice are also
considered. By examining these various options and explaining the mechanism behind the
legislative process, it is possible to identify and recommend the most effective way of
implementing the findings of this COST action.
 $%5,()29(59,(:2)7(&+1,&$/67$1'$5'6
A technical standard can relate to practically any item that is manufactured. In its simplest
form this may be a linear measurement of a single component. At the other extreme it can
be a highly sophisticated performance specification for a complete system.
Many countries have developed their own technical standard setting organisations. These
are in addition to the well-recognised international organisations such as the European
Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the International Standards Organisation (ISO),
European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO) and Tire and Rim Association
(T&RA).

Primary rutting is the permanent deformation of the bituminous layers. Secondary rutting is the permanent
deformation of the granular layers below the asphalt layers or subgrade. Fatigue is cracking in
bituminous or cement bound layers. For full descriptions see Chapter 4.

version 6 February 2002

Chapter 8
Whilst national standards still exist in the motor vehicle sector, the global nature of motor
vehicle sales means that they are normally agreed at a European or international level. An
exception to this is the United States of America, which due to its geographical location
and size of its truck-manufacturing base still retains its own standards. But even the USA
has for many years played an active part in discussions in the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE) forum.
Many of the technical standards relevant to motor vehicle manufacture are now contained
in United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulations and
European Union (EU) Directives and Regulations. The main difference between a
conventional technical standard and an EU Directive or Regulation is that the latter two
will normally contain both a technical standard and a date where it becomes legally
binding upon a country to accept vehicles built to that standard.
For example, Member States of the EU must ensure that their domestic legislation
recognises vehicles that meet a technical standard contained within an EU directive. This
also applies to signatories of UNECE Regulations. However, in both cases they are
normally free to decide on whether or not to mandate these requirements for their own
national fleet of vehicles. On the other hand, EU Regulations will be transposed directly
into a Member States national legislation and are binding on their national fleet of
vehicles.
 /(*,6/$7,21
Legislation is defined as the process of law making. Implementing the findings of this
COST action could be introduced either through international or national legislation. The
limit of any international agreement is of course dependent on the number of countries
that are signed up to an agreement. But in totality it is likely to be more effective than
national legislation, as it will apply to a larger number of vehicles. National legislation
can only, by definition, apply to vehicles within a single country and would not extend
beyond a countrys border.
For the purposes of this chapter the discussion is restricted mainly to the European
Economic Area and in particular the fifteen Member States that currently make up the EU.
Before looking at the two different types of legislation in closer detail, it is worth
examining the history behind the current system of international agreements and how they
have emerged.
 +,6725<2)9(+,&/(67$1'$5'6
In the past most European countries have developed approval systems that require a
vehicle to be inspected prior to first registration. The exception to this was the UK, which
until the late 1970s for cars and mid 1980s for trucks2 placed the legal responsibility on
the vehicle user to ensure that a vehicle meets certain standards through LQ XVH
legislation. Whilst there is merit to both systems the former is better placed to ensure that
vehicles meet all the relevant legislation when first entering service.
However, as the number of vehicles being manufactured increased, so it became
impracticable to inspect each and every vehicle before it entered service. It was therefore
2

Heavy vehicle used for carrying goods. Includes rigid vehicles and articulated vehicles.

16

necessary to adopt an alternative method of inspection. Most vehicles are manufactured

on a production line and are based on similar W\SHV orPRGHOVTherefore, provided the
type or model is approved, and the production process is to a consistently high standard, it
should not be unnecessary to inspect each and every vehicle that comes off the production
line because they should all be built to the same standard.
This system is known as 7\SH$SSURYDO. To ensure that vehicles are produced to the
correct standard, the manufacturing process itself is also approved and regular quality
control checks on vehicles and the production line is required. Conformity of production
is the term used to describe this process.
By the 1950s the global trade of vehicles increased to the extent that the need for
internationally agreed standards and technical legislation were necessary. This resulted in
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) setting up a legal
framework of mutual recognition of technical standards known as the  *HQHYD
$JUHHPHQW.
Within the UNECE the main Working Party (WP29) that deals with motor vehicle
standards and agrees new and amending regulations meets three times a year in March,
June and November. There are also *URXSGH5DSSRUWHXUV that each meet twice a year
to discuss standards. Once agreement is reached within a group the text is forwarded to
WP29. There are six groups dealing with: brakes and running gear (GRRF), noise (GRB),
pollution and energy (GRPE), passive safety (GRSP), lighting (GRE) and general safety
(GRSG).
The 1958 Geneva Agreement began with three counties France, Italy and Germany. Today
this totals thirty eight Contracting Parties which includes most European countries, some
former East European States, Japan, Australia and the European Union. Any one of these
countries can choose to become signatories to an ECE Regulation, however, a minimum
number is required to approve a new regulation. Other signatories must accept
components or vehicles that are built to it. Signatory to a UNECE regulation also allows a
countrys approval authority to issue an approval to a specific regulation. As a means of
identification component approvals such as brakes and tyres will display an E marking.
In 1970 the European Economic Community (EEC) agreed a framework Directive
70/156/EEC3 with a view to removing all technical barriers to trade for vehicles within the
EEC. (Following the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 the EEC became the European Union.)
Removing technical barriers means allowing the free movement and free entry into service
of vehicles complying with certain directives (standards). It prevents individual Member
States from introducing technical standards that would otherwise stop vehicles entering
into service and causing a barrier to trade.
The Framework Directive sets out the principle of European Whole Vehicle Type
Approval (EWVTA) and contains, annexed to this directive, a list of individual directives
(technical standards) on various vehicle components and systems. (A similar identification
system to that of the UNECE is used but using a small e.) The aim is that when a
vehicle meets all the relevant standards contained in these directives it can then enter
service in any Member State without the need for any further examination.

Council Directive 70/156/EEC (as amended) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers. Official Journal (OJ) L42/.1 23-2-70

version 6 February 2002

Chapter 8
There are currently in excess of fifty directives annexed to the Framework Directive but
those that are directly relevant to this COST action are limited to just a few. These
include Directive 92/23/EEC4, as amended, on tyre construction and Directive 97/27/EC5,
which relates to the maximum masses and dimensions of trucks and trailers. However,
there are other directives such as on vehicle noise where the results of this COST action
can also be used.
In parallel to developing an approval system for new vehicles, the Commission has put in
place harmonised LQ XVH standard for trucks. The aim of this is to remove any
competitive advantage obtained purely from having different maximum vehicle capacities,
be this weight or dimensions.
The first attempt to harmonise vehicle masses and dimensions was in 1985 with Directive
85/3/EEC6, where agreement was reached on the maximum weight and dimensions for
different types of trucks on an international journey. There have been several further
attempts to extend harmonisation over the years. The last directive to be agreed on this
was Directive 96/53/EC7, which was a consolidation of amending directives to 85/3/EEC.
It also extended harmonisation of vehicle dimensions by applying it to national vehicles as
well as those on international journeys. However, the stumbling block was still being able
to harmonise maximum national gross vehicle weight limits.
After several years of discussions the UNECE agreement was heavily revised in 1995.
The voting rules were changed and the EU was allowed to become a Contracting Party
under regional economic integration. The EU acceded to the agreement in 1998. In
1998 the UNECE Global Agreement was established and the EU acceded to this in 2000.
This Global Agreement should in time remove technical barriers to trade between the
main trading countries and promote safety and environmental standards world-wide.
 7+(/,1.%(7:((17+(81(&($1'7+((825*$1,6$7,216
The ECE is part of the United Nations, therefore, as well as the European countries that
make up the Contracting Parties, there are other countries that either are Contracting
Parties or contribute to developing new UNECE Regulations. These include countries
such as Australia, South Africa and Canada, together with global vehicle manufacturing
countries such as Japan and the United States of America - which have a strong interest in
the European market and setting global standards. Alongside these countries there are
also representatives from vehicle manufacturers, consumer groups and other standard
setting organisations who contribute to these discussions.

Council Directive 92/23/EEC relating to tyres for the motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting.
O.J. L129/95. 15-5-92

Directive 97/27/EC relating to the masses and dimensions of certain categories of motor vehicles and
trailers and amending Directive 70/156/EEC. O.J. L233/1. 25-8-97

6Council

Directive 85/3/EEC on the weights, dimensions and certain other technical characteristics of certain
road vehicles. O.J. L2/14 3-1-85

Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the
maximum authorized dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorized
weights in international traffic. O.J. L235/59 17.9.96

18

The UNECE has already developed over a hundred technical standards in the automotive
field. These range from individual components such as seat belts, vehicle speed limiters,
external protection and tyres, to complete systems such as those on lighting and vehicle
braking. The UNECE and the EU have run in parallel for many years, therefore, a vast
number of the technical standards that have been developed are identical to one another.
In many cases it is the same national experts that participate in the meetings of both
organisations.
New standards are continually being introduced, while existing standards are improved to
recognise new innovations and evolving technology. Consequently EU directives and
UNECE regulations have frequently been updated through the work of these organisations
ZRUNLQJJURXSV in Brussels andJURXSVRIUDSSRUWHXUV in Geneva. It is not unusual
for a regulation to be amended in Geneva only for the equivalent directive to be updated in
Brussels and vice versa.
In fact, the connection between the UNECE and the EU has become much closer in recent
years with the 5HYLVHG*HQHYD$JUHHPHQW in 1995. This culminated in a formal
accord between these two organisations, whereby the EU became a Contracting Party
under the term regional economic integration of organisations in 1998. A specific
institutional framework now exists between the UNECE and the EU. Different
procedures apply to existing and new UNECE regulations. 
The aim of these closer links is to achieve a common trade policy (in accordance with
Article 133 of the EU Treaty) and thus remove existing and avoid the creation of new
technical barriers to trade in the motor vehicle sector between the Contracting Parties.
The involvement by the Community will ensure consistency between the activities of the
EU and UNECE and will thus permit easier access to third-country markets.
The vast majority of UNECE Regulations have been recognised by the EU. Because of
the accord between these two organisations, amendments to existing or new standards are
also debated and negotiated by the different groups of rapporteurs under the UNECE
banner. This provides greater consistency and enables greater progress to be made on
developing regulations.
The 1998 Global Agreement, with the EU accession in 2000, takes harmonisation of
standards a step further by creating a framework that establishes global technical
regulations.
 352&('85()25,1752'8&,1*$1(8',5(&7,9(25$0(1',1*&(57$,1
(;,67,1*(8',5(&7,9(6
The European Commission is the main body responsible for introducing a new directive or
proposing an amendment to an existing directive. It does so on the basis of what it
considers is best for the Union and its citizens in general rather than on behalf of
individual countries.
There are many reasons why a proposal is brought forward to amend or introduce a new
directive. It can be as a result of new research, technological improvements, or pressure
from a number of sources including individual Member States, the European Parliament or
interest groups.
Before the Commission issues draft legislation, it normally carries out preliminary
soundings and discussions with representatives of governments, industry, the trade unions,

version 6 February 2002

Chapter 8
special interest groups and, where necessary, technical experts. It tries to take account of
these often-competing interests when it prepares its proposals.
Subsidiarity is enshrined in the Treaty of the European Union. The Commission therefore
takes this into account in its proposals - initiating legislation only in areas where the
European Union is better placed than individual Member States to take effective action. In
general for motor vehicles it is accepted that the Commission has competence in setting
technical standards, so subsidiarity does not normally apply.
Once a Commission proposal has been submitted to the Council of Ministers and the
European Parliament, all three institutions work together to produce a satisfactory outcome
on the dossier. In agreement with the Commission, the Council can amend a proposal by a
qualified majority but if the Commission does not agree, the change requires unanimity.
The European Parliament shares the power of Co-decision (Article 189c of the Treaty)
with the Council in most areas and has to be consulted in others. When revising its
proposals the Commission is required to take the Parliaments amendments into
consideration.
The European Parliament, post Maastricht, also has power to insist that the Commission
bring forward a proposal if it feels that the Community should act on a particular subject.
But to date this has only been used in a very limited number of cases.
Generally speaking directives on a new theme or topic in the motor vehicle sector are
subject to the Co-decision procedure. Briefly, the process is as follows: the European
Commission submits a proposal jointly to the European Council (made up of
representatives from each Member State) and the European Parliament (the elected
chamber).
The Parliament gives an opinion at its ILUVWUHDGLQJ If there are any amendments put
forward by the Parliament, these are considered by the Commission who may revise its
proposal. In parallel with the Parliaments consideration the European Council, through
its Working Group (These are made up of experts/officials from each Member State.) will
also be considering the proposal until such time as a &RPPRQSRVLWLRQ(agreement upon
a text) can be reached. This can either be by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) or by
Unanimity according to the legal base.
Qualified majority voting is now the norm in the motor vehicle sector. This means that
each Member State has an allocated number of votes the maximum being ten for the
larger states such as France, Germany and UK. A majority in favour is needed to pass a
proposal.
The parliament then submits a further judgement through a VHFRQGRSLQLRQ either:

q
q
q

approving the common position which will lead to its adoption,

indicating its intention to reject. This leads to a PLQLFRQFLOLDWLRQ where the
Council explains its position to parliament, or
proposes amendments by an absolute majority, i.e. 314 votes, the Commission
will then give its opinion.

The Council within three months can accept the parliaments amendments (acting
unanimously on any that the Commission has rejected, by QMV on those it supports)
amend the common position accordingly and adopt the measure. Alternatively the

20

Council can reject all or some of the amendments, in which case the parliament will meet
in a &RQFLOLDWLRQ&RPPLWWHHto agree a compromise.
Much preparatory work takes place informally prior to the Conciliation Committee
meeting. If a joint text is agreed upon, the Council and the Parliament in plenary WKLUG
UHDGLQJ must then agree it. If a joint text cannot be agreed upon the Council must act
within six weeks otherwise the proposal is adopted. The Council can confirm its common
position by QMV (possibly including some of the parliaments amendments) whereupon
the parliament has six weeks to approve or reject the common position at third reading.
In recent years there has been a greater emphasis in adopting proposals using QMV. This
is because of the very long time it has taken to secure agreement on some topics requiring
unanimity voting in the past. There are however certain directives or regulations, for
example on defence issues or fiscal measures, where unanimity voting is still required to
secure an agreement.
The process of agreeing a directive has many stages and is a lengthy process even with the
commitment from all parties concerned to reach an agreement. If straightforward,
eighteen months would be a realistic minimum time to complete the process. However, in
reality it can take considerably longer, especially with the added complication of the
European Presidency changing every six months, in January and June each year.
Many topics are under discussion at any one time in the European Council and
Commission Working Groups. Each new presidency must decide on which dossiers are to
be debated during the forthcoming six months. This is a balance between taking forward
existing dossiers and introducing new ones based upon the priorities of a new presidency,
which may be different to its predecessor. At Council Working Group meetings there is
usually some additional disruption caused by a change in Chairperson.
The same procedure for adopting a new directive can apply to certain amending directives,
but these tend to relate to areas that are politically sensitive or where they would have a
significant social or competitive impact. Details of the procedure needed will be specified
in the Treaty Base and contained within the Articles of a directive.
One such directive is Council Directive 96/53/EC, which relates to the maximum
authorised weights and dimensions of trucks and that of Council Directive 92/23/EEC on
tyres. This directive is discussed in greater detail later on in this chapter. Similarly the
same procedure will also apply if the scope of an existing directive needs to be changed.
For example, where the original directive applies only to cars but is to be extended to also
include trucks or buses.
 (8523($1:+2/(9(+,&/(7<3($33529$/(:97$6<67(0
The concept of European Whole Vehicle Type Approval (EWVTA) is to allow vehicle
manufacturers to gain an approval for a complete vehicle, rather than just individual
vehicle components. This can be optional or mandatory and enables a vehicle to enter
service in any Member State without any further inspections or checks. The aim is that
EWVTA will eventually apply to all road going vehicles ranging from motor cycles and
cars, to large passenger carrying vehicles, trucks and trailers.
In 1993 EWVTA became optional for cars. It became mandatory for new car types in
1996 and for all new cars in 1998. For motorcycles EWVTA became optional in 1998
and mandatory for new motorcycle types in 1999. However, for trucks this concept is still

version 6 February 2002

Chapter 8
a little way off. In part the reason is that EWVTA is based upon a vehicle manufacturer
declaring that the finished vehicle meets all the specified directives. For a single-stage
build, e.g. cars or motorcycles, this does not pose any great difficulty as the manufacturer
is in full control of the production process from start to finish. But in many cases trucks
are built in two stages with different body builders completing the manufacturing process.
Therefore, as truck manufactures normally have only a limited influence over the final
product and cannot easily ascertain that all the legal requirements have been met, they are
reluctant to accept responsibility for all aspects of the finished product. Nevertheless the
Commission plans to make further progress on EWVTA for trucks. A proposal is
currently on the table and no doubt the concerns over the two-stage build can be
overcome.
 $PHQGLQJD'LUHFWLYHZLWKLQWKH(XURSHDQ:KROH9HKLFOH7\SH$SSURYDO
(:97$6\VWHP
The procedure for amending a directive within the EWVTA system is generally less
rigorous than that of creating a new directive under the Co-decision procedure, which was
discussed earlier. Nevertheless, technical arguments must still be resolved and in some
cases political issues can have a significant impact, in the same way as a new directive.
Therefore, even with a simplified procedure it can still be a lengthy process if Member
States and industry cannot reach an agreement.
The initial procedure is the same in that the Commission will bring forward a proposal, but
it will then normally go directly to a Motor Vehicle working group (MVWG). This group,
chaired by a Commission official, consists of representatives and experts from each
Member State, as well as industry experts and other interested parties such as pressure
groups. Because the subjects tend to be less politically sensitive, progress is less likely to
be disrupted due to changing European presidencies, but there still needs to be a
commitment to see a dossier through to completion.
Once agreement is reached within a working group, the dossier is then put to another
committee known as CATP (Committee of Adaptation for Technical Progress). This
committee consists only of officials and experts from each Member State, and has the
function to vote on a proposal from the Commission. The vote takes place using QMV. It
will be published in the 2IILFLDO-RXUQDO2-RIWKH(XURSHDQ8QLRQ. If however an
agreement cannot be reached on a proposal or it is felt that further work is needed, the
dossier can be put back to the working group or discussed further at the next meeting. If a
vote on a proposal proves inconclusive then the original Commission proposal will be put
to the European Council for resolution. Further discussions will take place within the
Council to try and reach agreement or the proposal falls.
 &RPSOLDQFHZLWKD'LUHFWLYHZLWKLQWKH(XURSHDQ:KROH9HKLFOH7\SH
$SSURYDO(:97$V\VWHP
Once an EU directive is published in the OIILFLDO-RXUQDORIWKH(XURSHDQ8QLRQ, and
the coming into force date is past, it is legally binding on Member States. They are
GLUHFWHG to recognise the directive in their national legislation. The Commission must
be given details of this legislation; otherwise it risks legal infraction proceedings being
taken out for non-compliance with the directive.

22

Once a directive is recognised Member States must allow vehicles or components built to
this EU directive to be put into service or sold. Where Member States already have
legislation in this area a national standard can still be retained. However, Member States
must also accept, as being an equivalent to its own standard, vehicles or components that
are built to the directive.
Once there is a technical standard in the form of an EU directive, it is also possible for a
Member State to introduce a national requirement for domestic vehicles to meet this
directive. Depending on the type of component, a decision would need to be taken on
whether to apply it to:
only new vehicle types,
all new vehicles being put into service or
retrospectively to all vehicles.
In each case this would be a decision for the national administration and would involve
their internal consultation process. Economic costs as well as political arguments and
possibly road safety factors must all be considered. Invariably the amount of lead-time
needed by manufacturers to bring in these changes would also be an issue depending on
how the directive is to be applied.
 (8',5(&7,9((&217+(0$;,080$87+25,6('',0(16,216,1
1$7,21$/$1',17(51$7,21$/75$)),&$1'7+(0$;,080$87+25,6('
:(,*+76,1,17(51$7,21$/75$)),&

It has been the goal of the European Commission to standardise truck dimensions and
weights throughout the EU for many years. The first agreement was back in 1985 with
Directive 85/3/EEC. This put into place maximum limits on the dimensions and gross
weights of trucks when on an international journey within the EU, or EEC as it was know
then. Several amending directives have been adopted in the intervening years, culminating
in a consolidation in 1996 with Directive 96/53/EC.
Directive 96/53/EC also brought harmonisation a step nearer with an agreement to extend
the dimensional limits applied to vehicles on an international journey to those operating at
a national level. Normally, each Member State would still be free to maintain different
national limits but have to accept vehicles built to a directive. This directive, unlike other
directives associated with the framework directive, actually mandates maximum permitted
vehicle dimensions within each Member State
However, agreeing on a maximum domestic weight limit that is acceptable to all Member
States still remains illusive. National weight limits have evolved over many years due to
various factors; these include political influences, infrastructure restrictions and
competition to name just a few. The desire to maintain these limits, and the wide variation
that exists between countries, means it is very difficult, if not impossible, to come to a
consensus on a single weight limit.
The maximum authorised weight limits within Directive 96/53/EC are based upon the type
of vehicle and the number of axles it has. For example, a two axle rigid vehicle is
permitted to have a maximum gross weight limit of 18 tonnes, while an articulated vehicle
with five axles can operate at 40 tonnes. This directive also contains limits for individual
axles and groups of axles.

version 6 February 2002

Chapter 8
In an attempt to reduce road wear associated with some of these weight limits, certain
additional technical requirements were added in amendments to Directive 85/3/EEC in
1992 through Directive 92/7/EEC. For example, a truck with three axles is permitted to
have a maximum gross weight of 26 tonnes if the drive axle is fitted with twin tyres, and
either road friendly suspension or no axle is used above 9.5 tonnes; otherwise it is limited
to 25 tonnes. Similarly, the maximum permitted weight of a tandem axle is 19 tonnes if
the drive axle has twin tyres, and either road friendly suspension or no axle is used above
9.5 tonnes; otherwise it is limited to 18 tonnes. The technical specification for road
friendly suspension (defined as air suspension or equivalent) is contained within one of the
Annexes of this directive.
Clearly the link between maximum axle weights and certain additional measures that are
aimed to reduce road damage has already been established within this directive. It would
be possible to amend this directive to incorporate the findings of this COST action and
link these to either a maximum axle weight or a vehicle gross weight when a vehicle is on
an international journey.
 ',5(&7,9((&7<3($33529$/2)0$66(6$1'',0(16,216)25&(57$,1
027259(+,&/(6$1'7+(,575$,/(56
Directive 97/27/EC also relates to the masses and dimensions of trucks and buses. It forms
one of the individual directives annexed to the framework Directive 70/156/EEC on
European Whole Vehicle Type Approval (EWVTA). It refers to Directive 96/53/EC on
masses and dimensions, thus allowing vehicles to receive Type Approval to the
dimensional aspects and the maximum weight limits for international journeys in this
directive. Since there is no EU wide maximum national gross vehicle weight limit, the
weights declared for this directive will be those relevant to a particular Member State.
With regard to vehicle dimensions there are specific references to width, length and
manoeuvrability of vehicles. This directive also contains, amongst other things, the
methodology for determining vehicle manoeuvrability and a technical specification for
road friendly suspension.
The link between this directive and Directive 96/53/EC has already been established. So
any reference to the findings of this COST action in Directive 96/53/EC should also read
across to this directive for the purposes of Type Approval. Furthermore, introducing the
findings of this COST action into this directive could also permit Member States to link
domestic axle or gross vehicle weight limits to these finding in their own national
legislation.
 ',5(&7,9(((&$1'81(&(5(*8/$7,21217<5(6&216758&7,21
Directive 92/23/EEC on tyres and their fitting to the wheels encompasses both car and
truck tyres. UNECE Regulation 548 relates to truck tyres while Regulation 309 applies to

UNECE Regulation 54 Uniform provisions concerning the approval of pneumatic tyres for commercial
vehicles and their trailers.

UNECE Regulation 30 Uniform provisions concerning the approval of pneumatic tyres for motor vehicles
and their trailers.

24

car tyres. The EU Directive, as does the UNECE Regulations, include dimensional and
performance requirements for tyres.
Tyre categories include those for normal use and those for special use, such as off road or
restricted speed. The type of tyre construction for example radial or bias belted, tube type
or tubeless and marking requirements are also defined. In reality most tyres receive an
UNECE approval and display an E marking rather than an EU e marking due to the
global nature of the tyre business.
The dimensional details contained in the directive include section width, outer diameter,
and overall width and rim width. There are also tyre size designations that relate to rim
size to ensure correct fitting. For cars the directive contains a short-term performance test
of load against speed while for trucks there is a more arduous test longer performance test.
Discussions on amending Directive 92/23/EEC, which started in 1998 are coming to a
conclusion in Brussels. The purpose of the amendment is to reduce the noise caused from
road traffic by limiting the noise generated by contact between the tyres and the road
surface, while not diminishing road safety.
There are various factors that influence tyre design and in many cases the improvements in
one-area need to balanced with the disadvantages in another area. For example reducing
rolling resistance to lower fuel consumption, may have and adverse effect on tyre to road
adhesion. Similarly, having wider tyres may promote reduced road pavement wear but
could cause more noise.
The findings of this COST action relate closely to the substance of Directive 92/23/EEC
and UNECE Regulation 54 on tyre construction. It would therefore be appropriate to
incorporate the findings of this COST action in both these standards. This would ensure
that the findings would apply to all new vehicles being sold and also to existing vehicles
when fitted with replacement tyres. Furthermore, this would ensure the widest possible
exposure within EU Member States and could also have an impact worldwide due to the
global nature of tyre manufacture and sales.
 ',5(&7,9((&35(9(17,1*0(0%(567$7(6)520,1752'8&,1*
7(&+1,&$/58/(667$1'$5'67+$7:28/'&5($7($%$55,(57275$'(
7HFKQLFDO6WDQGDUGV
National standards bodies must notify the Commission, the European standards bodies and
the other national standards bodies of any new subjects for which they have decided to
prepare or amend a standard. The European standardisation body is the European
Committee for Standardisation (CEN).
In practice, the information procedure for standards began on 1 January 1985. Since the
adoption of Directive 94/10/EC amending Directive 83/189/EEC10, the obligation to notify
has applied exclusively to new standards. It no longer applies to other updates to the
national standardisation programmes, namely drafts for public scrutiny or the adoption of
national standards.

10

Council Directive 83/189/EEC Laying down the procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations. O.J. L109/8 26-4-83.

version 6 February 2002

Chapter 8
The national standards bodies, which are members of CEN (including bodies from the
EFTA countries), send the necessary information to the Central Secretariats of CEN. The
information gathered is sent periodically to the Commission and to all members of CEN,
who are responsible for distributing it to the sectors concerned in order to sound out their
reactions. The information is also examined by the relevant authorities within CEN
(Central Secretariats, Technical Boards, etc.) and by Commission departments.
7HFKQLFDO5XOHV
Since 1984, Directive 83/189/EEC has obliged all Member States of the European Union
to notify the Commission and the other Member States of all draft technical rules relating
to products before they are adopted in national law. The purpose is to prevent the creation
of new barriers to trade within the internal market of the EU.
The procedure has been amended a number of times, mainly to extend its scope to include
all products, both agricultural and industrial, and a wide variety of rules. The procedure
for the notification of technical rules was consolidated by Directive 98/34/EC, and
repealed earlier directives. The consolidated Directive entered into force on 10 August
1998 but was soon amended by Directive 98/48/EC, which extended the procedure to
information society services from 5 August 1999.
When a Member State notifies the Commission, it may then not adopt the technical rule
for three months from the date of notification. This standstill period allows the
Commission and other Member States to examine the draft proposal and to react
appropriately. The outcome of this consultation procedure between the notifying Member
State, the other Member States and the Commission determines the outcome of the draft
technical rule. These are as follows:

q
q
q

26

If there is no reaction from other Member States and/or the Commission, the
notifying Member State can adopt the draft rule as soon as the three-month
standstill period has passed.
If another Member State and/or the Commission makes comments on the proposal
the notifying Member State must take such comments into account as far as
possible when subsequently preparing the technical rule.
Where a Member State and/or the Commission considers that the draft rule might
create a barrier to trade, it may deliver a detailed opinion. The Member State must
then postpone the introduction of the measure for six months from the date of
notification. They must inform the Commission of the action it proposes to take
in response to the detailed opinion.
Where the draft rule relates to an area where the Commission intends to propose
or adopt legislation, or where it is covered by a proposal at the Council, the
notifying Member State must postpone the adoption of the technical rule for
twelve months from the date of notification. This standstill period is extended to
eighteen months if the Council adopts a common position during that twelvemonth period. Such extended standstill periods automatically lapse if the
Commission withdraws its proposal or decides not to make a proposal, or when it
is adopted.

5HODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQWKH(XURSHDQ)UHH7UDGH$VVRFLDWLRQ()7$DQGWKH

(8
The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is comprised of four small but prosperous
European nations: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. With the exception of
Switzerland, these are members of the European Economic Area (EEA). In concluding the
EEA agreement with the European Union (EU) the participating EFTA States ensured
their active participation in the EU internal market while Switzerland has chosen to
develop its relations with the EU bilaterally. The procedure between EFTA countries and
the EU is the same as Directive 98/34/EC.
In order to avoid any barriers to trade between EU Member States and EFTA an agreement
between these two organisations on a procedure for the exchange of information in the
field of technical regulations first appeared in November 1990 (Council Decision
90/518/EEC). Whilst initially for two years, information procedures are now well
established.
The number of notifications received by the Commission under this system has declined
accordingly since Austria, Finland and Sweden acceded to the EU. This means that there
is now only regular contact between EU Member States and Iceland, Liechtenstein, and
Norway. Although Switzerland is not formally included a voluntary system of notification
exists.
There is a three-month standstill period, during which the notifying State cannot adopt the
text, starting on the date of receipt of the draft regulation by the EFTA Surveillance
Authority (for notifications from EFTA Member States) or the Commission (for
notifications from Community Member States). The EFTA Surveillance Authority and the
Community may make comments on the draft technical regulations notified under this
procedure.
The Commission draws up comments on behalf of the Community, in consultation with
the Member States, and communicates them to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, which
forwards them to its Member States. However, the Agreement contains no provisions
regarding the extension of the standstill period. The only way to extend the procedure is to
continue to discuss the comments made by all parties or to call ad-hoc additional meetings
to discuss specific cases.
 7+(',))(5(1&(%(7:((181(&(5(*8/$7,216(85(*8/$7,216$1'(8
',5(&7,9(6
It is important not to confuse an EU Regulation with an UNECE Regulation. Similarly an
EU Regulation is generally different to that of an EU Directive.
An EU Regulation is normally transposed directly into each Member States legislation
without any changes to the text and would normally be a mandatory requirement. This
means that Member States must accept vehicles built to this standard and ensure vehicles
comply with the technical requirements contained within the Regulation. An example of
such a regulation in the motor vehicle sector is that on tachographs.
With an EU directive, Member States are GLUHFWHG to put into place domestic legislation
that will allow vehicles or components built to a technical standard to be put into service
or registered. The government within each Member State is normally free to decide on
whether to introduce a national requirement for vehicles within its country to meet a
directive. There are, however, certain exceptions such as Directive 96/53/EC. If a
version 6 February 2002

Chapter 8
Member State already has legislation requiring the same type of component or vehicle of
meet a national standard this can still be retained. However, it must also accept - as being
an equivalent to its own standard - vehicles or components that are built to the standard of
an EU Directive.
UNECE Regulations act in the same manner as EU Directives. Since the revised 1958
Geneva Agreement the EU has become a Contracting Party. The EU casts all fifteen votes
of the Member States. Co-ordination is done under Article 133 of he Treaty prior to a
Geneva meeting. When agreement on a new UNECE regulation is reached each EU
Member State will become a signatory. Each Member State will need to recognise the
regulation in its national legislation but will be free to decide on whether to introduce it as
a national requirement for vehicles within its country.
 /(*,6/$7,21$))(&7,1*9(+,&/(675$9(//,1*21$1,17(51$7,21$/
-2851(<
The content and impact of Directive 96/53/EC on vehicles on international traffic has
already been discussed. There are, however, two other agreements that are relevant and
should be mentioned briefly. These are the 1926 Paris Agreement and the 1949 Geneva
Agreement.
Whilst largely overtaken by national legislation requiring vehicles to meet more stringent
legislation, both these agreements still ensure that a vehicle on an international journey
must meet certain basic minimum safety standards. There is other legislation that has an
affect on vehicles travelling on an international journey such as Directive 96/96/EC on the
roadworthiness testing of motor vehicles and trailers and more specialist operations such
as vehicles carrying dangerous goods or perishable foods.
 ,1752'8&,1*&2675(&200(1'$7,2167+528*+),6&$/,1&(17,9(6
At the national level, most if not all, Member States tax their trucks in one form or
another. It is therefore possible to promote changes in vehicle design by linking the cost
of vehicle tax to certain features on a vehicle.
For example, in the UK vehicle taxation takes two forms. Firstly, each vehicle is required
to pay tax on an annual basis for using the road network. The amount varies according to
a number of vehicle features including its type, number of axles and maximum gross
weight. The second element is a duty on the fuel used and is therefore related to the
annual mileage. The net result should be that the collective sum of the annual taxation
and fuel duty should equate to the impact of a typical vehicle on the infrastructure and
environment.
It has been generally accepted that road wear is dependent on the axle load to the 4th
power. Based upon this principle, and with estimated laden axle loads it is possible to
determine a relative value for road pavement wear of a complete vehicle. By changing the
vehicle configuration - by adding or removing an axle, raising or lowering the maximum
axle weight - it is possible to recalculate the relative wear rate of this vehicle. If the
taxation rate is based upon these figures it is possible to promote the use of more road
friendly vehicles by having higher rates of taxation for vehicles that are more road
damaging.
Similarly, measures linked to vehicle taxation have been used to reduce particulate
emissions. Having a lower rate of taxation for vehicles fitted with particulate traps has
28

encouraged the fitting of these devices to vehicles, therefore reducing particluate

emissions.
By offering tax incentives it is also possible to influence the specifications on new
vehicles and thus advance changes in vehicle designs. For example, by offering a lower
rate of taxation to vehicles fitted with more environmentally friendly EURO III engines,
before they are mandated, it has been possible to bring about change in the market earlier
and thus improve the environment.
The same philosophy can be applied to changing vehicle design and reducing road
pavement wear by linking taxation to the findings of COST 334.
 ,1752'8&,1*$35(0,80758&.63(&,),&$7,217+$7,1&25325$7(67+(
%(675$2')5,(1'/<(19,5210(17$//$1'52$'6$)(7<)($785(67+528*+
%(6735$&7,&(
A voluntary system whereby manufacturers raise the safety level above the minimum
required to meet Type Approval has already been successfully used to encourage vehicle
manufactures to produce safer cars. This is known as the European New Car Assessment
Program (Euro NCAP). A league table ranking is given to car models based upon
occupant and pedestrian survival in a series of crash tests. These tests include front and
side impact tests, based upon existing directives but are more onerous with higher speeds,
and a new pedestrian impact test that simulates a frontal car collision with a pedestrian.
The effect has been to introduce safer cars more quickly than if the normal process of
renegotiating changes to minimum safety legislation had been used. It is possible to
speculate what the reasons are but no car manufacturer wishes to be credited with being
bottom of a performance table connected to safety. Secondly it has avoided the lengthy
process of agreeing amendments to legislation, with the long lead times necessary for their
introduction.
One particular benefit for car manufactures in recent years has been that safety has become
a saleable commodity. They have been quick to take advantage of this fact, particularly in
advertising campaigns for selling new models that have performed well in tests. Renault
has been particularly proactive in this area. There is no reason why similar principles
cannot be used as a basis for defining trucks, although the appeal will be to a different
sector of the market.
It is possible to judge trucks against many different characteristics but arguably they fall
into three broad categories: occupant safety, other road user safety and the impact on the
infrastructure/environmental.
Occupant safety features could include:

q
q

the fitting of seatbelts, airbags, etc. and

primary safety (collision avoidance) features such as ABS braking systems, extra
mirrors, etc.

Other road user safety features could include:

q
q

the number of secondary safety (external protective) items including front, side
and rear underrun devices, etc. and
primary safety (collision avoidance) features such as ABS braking systems, extra
mirrors, etc.
version 6 February 2002

Chapter 8
Infrastructure/Environmental impact could include:

q
q

the damage caused to road pavements - as discussed in this COST action, and
the damage caused to the environment as a whole - emissions, noise, and water
spray generated by tyres.

Arguably the safety conscious employer would look to features that improve occupant
protection. While companies with a high public profile, such as food chain suppliers,
would look at the environmentally impact of their vehicles and ways to reduce its impact
and improve their image. Combining all these features adds up to a SUHPLXP WUXFN
specification.
With the ever increasing public awareness of environmental and safety issues, and with an
industry wishing to promote a better image such a scheme could be taken forward on
voluntary basis without the need for legislation. Linked to the environmental aspects
could be the findings of COST 334.
 (8',5(&7,9(((&(8523($19,*1(77(6&+(0(
The elimination of distortions of competition between transport undertakings in Member
States calls for both the harmonisation of levy systems and the establishment of fair
mechanisms for charging infrastructure cost to hauliers. This is the basis of the vignette
scheme.
A degree of harmonisation of levy systems has already been achieved through the
adoption of EU Directive 92/81/EEC. Included within the scheme is the recognition of
road-friendly and less polluting vehicles and the belief that the use of these vehicles
should be encouraged through differentiation of taxes or charges. This is provided that
such differentiation does not interfere with the functioning of the internal market.
The vignette scheme already recognises the concept of a road friendly vehicle and
therefore the findings of COST 334 should be considered in future revisions of this
scheme.
 /,1.,1*7+(),1',1*62)&26772'20(67,&9(+,&/(:(,*+7/,0,76
As previously discussed EU legislation on the maximum axle and gross weight of trucks
does not apply to domestic vehicles. Therefore, it is still possible for individual Member
States to set their own domestic weight limits. However, if these are lower than those
contained in Directive 96/53/EC, for example 40 tonnes on five axles, vehicles on
international journeys from another Member State can still operate at the higher
permissible weight contained in this directive.
Similarly, if a Member State has domestic weight limits are above those contained in
Directive 96/53/EC, vehicles from other Member States can also operate at these higher
weights. But they need to meet any additional technical requirements that are part of that
countrys national legislation. For example, these requirements could be for another axle
or road friendly suspension provided they are standards already recognised within
another EU Directive. This avoids any concern that a barrier to trade is being set up.
It is possible to link specific technical aspects of a vehicle, such as those affecting road
pavement wear to national vehicle weight limits. How much flexibility will of course
depend on the difference in maximum permissible vehicle weight limits between

30

countries, and these vary from country to country across Europe. There are also important
economic arguments that need to be considered carefully before any decision is taken
nationally. Introducing a new technical requirement is unlikely to be without cost to the
vehicle manufacturer or the haulier, therefore, the benefit in reduced road pavement wear
must be weighed against the increased economic or operating costs.
The ending of Cabotage (a system that restricted the use of foreign operated vehicles) has
meant that vehicles are free to operate within another Member State, (within that states
national weight limits) without needing a permit. If there is a large amount of cross
boarder activity, any additional measures introduced for the national fleet must not be so
unfavourable as to distort the market in favour of vehicles from other countries. One
method to combat this is to offset any proposal with either a reduction in vehicle tax or an
increase in the maximum axle or gross vehicle weight for national vehicles. This would
have the effect of helping to create a level playing field.
As discussed earlier any introduction of a technical standard or rule would need to be
notified to the European Commission. This is to ensure that it was not creating a trade
barrier to other Member States.
A three-month standstill would automatically be
invoked. But as the issue of national weight limits is still a matter for Member States this
should only be a formality, provided vehicles can still operate in accordance with
Directive 96/53/EC.
Until such time that agreement is reached on an EU wide domestic weight limit this
method of linking technical requirements to national weight limits can be used. At a
national level this could be an effective method of reducing road pavement wear.
An individual Member State could link this COST actions findings to national
requirements through a number of options. These include:

q
q
q

an increase in the maximum permitted axle or vehicle gross weight,

require all existing vehicles to meet the findings without any increase in permitted
weight, (This would normally be phased in over a number of years.) or
require all new vehicles entering into service to meet the findings of COST 334.
(This would also normally be phased in over a number of years but less time than
that of all existing vehicles.)

 /,1.,1*7+(72),1',1*62)&26772,17(51$7,21$/9(+,&/(:(,*+7
/,0,76
As previously discussed Directive 96/53/EC imposes maximum weight limits on vehicles
used on an international journey. This directive therefore impacts on virtually all vehicles
on those journeys. The exception is those vehicles that travel between countries that have
maximum weight limits, either axle or vehicle, above those in this directive.
Similarly, until a single national limit is agreed which would be an amendment to
Directive 96/53/EC this directive has the most significance to truck manufactures in
terms of an EU wide impact on vehicle weights.
Implementing the findings of this COST action by amending this directive would ensure
that not only those vehicles that undertake an international journey are covered but it

version 6 February 2002

Chapter 8
would also send a message to vehicle manufacturers that trucks should be designed to be
road friendly.
 6800$5<
The preceding chapters have identified that there are several vehicle-related factors that
affect road pavement damage. For many years technical standards have been widely used
in the automobile industry. More recently, fiscal or other incentives have also been used
to encourage change. This chapter has shown that the findings of this COST action can be
employed to revise certain vehicle technical standards or influence fiscal charges.
Implementing the findings of COST 334 should bring about improvements in vehicle
design that will reduce road pavement wear.
Changes to standards will involve both technical discussions as well as political debate.
However, the effectiveness of revising standards alone has to be questioned, as without
the force of legislation or other incentives, tyre manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers and
hauliers may be very resistant to the change of their vehicle designs and make them more
environmentally road friendly.
Standards, in particular when they are linked to legislation can be used to reduce road
pavement wear in two ways, at the vehicle design phase and when the vehicle is in use.
Both methods have their merits and both should be pursued through the force of
legislation.
It is possible to make changes to legislation at either the European or national level. But to
achieve the maximum impact measures at the European level would be the best option.
However, revising legislation at the European level can be lengthy - with current
procedures being prolonged and involving extensive negotiations. This is where national
legislation may be advantageous in bringing in changes quickly.
If some Member States need to prevent deterioration to certain pavement structures, it
can also be argued that there may be a greater priority at a national level to seek change
early. It may therefore be more effective to address particular problems at a national level
- if discussions at an international level become protracted.
Clearly international co-operation - as shown with the participants in this COST action can have the greatest benefit overall and that is why the work of changing legislation
should, in the first instance, be taken forward at an international level at the earliest
opportunity.
 &21&/86,216
The following conclusions can be drawn:

q
q
q

32

There is no current technical standard or piece of legislation that accurately reflects the
findings of this COST action.
Introducing or amending a technical standard to incorporate the findings of this COST
action, without the force of legislation, is likely to have a limited impact in preventing
or reducing pavement road damage.
Introducing legislation at the European level that is binding on all Member States both
nationally and internationally would be the most effective way of preventing or
reducing pavement road damage throughout the EU.

q
q
q
q
q
q

Introducing legislation at the European level that is binding on vehicles only used on
an international journey would be the next most effective way of preventing or
reducing pavement road damage throughout the EU.
Any European Whole Vehicle Type Approval Scheme should incorporate the findings
of this COST action and this would allow national action ahead of EWVTA.
The most effective method of reducing road pavement wear through out the EU is by
amending legislation at the European level, but it will take considerably longer than
introducing changes nationally.
It is possible to implement the findings of COST 334 relatively quickly by changing
national legislation.
It is possible to use fiscal incentives, at a national level to implement the findings of
this COST action.
Using the findings of COST 334 it is possible to develop the concept of a SUHPLXP
WUXFNincorporating the best infrastructure, environmental and safety features.

 5(&200(1'$7,216
To achieve the maximum benefit from the work of COST 334 a number of steps can be
taken in the following order of priority:
$WWKH(XURSHDQ/HYHO
q The UNECE tyre construction Regulation 54 and the EU tyre construction
Directive 92/23/EEC should be amended to include the findings of this COST
334 action.

q
q
q

Directive 96/53/EC relating to the maximum authorised dimensions and weight

of vehicles on an international journey should be amended to include a link
between the findings of COST 334 and the maximum gross and axle weights of
trucks and buses.
Directive 97/27/EC relating to truck Whole Vehicle Approval should be amended
to recognise the findings of COST 334 in the same way that it already
acknowledges a specification for road friendly suspension.
Any future European Vignette system should include the findings of this COST
action.
The findings of COST 334 should be used to develop a  SUHPLXP WUXFN
incorporating the best infrastructure, environmental and safety features.

$WWKH1DWLRQDOOHYHO
q To encourage road friendlier vehicle designs Member States should consider
linking the findings of COST 334 to national maximum vehicle weight limits.

q
q

To encourage improved vehicle designs Member States should consider ways of

introducing or linking fiscal measures to the findings of COST 334.
The findings of COST 334 should be used to develop a SUHPLXP WUXFN
incorporating the best infrastructure, environmental and safety features.

version 6 February 2002

Chapter 8

 5()(5(1&(6
Council Directive 70/156/EEC (as amended) on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers. Official
Journal (OJ) L42/.1 23-2-70
Council Directive 92/23/EEC relating to tyres for the motor vehicles and their trailers and
to their fitting. O.J. L129/95. 15-5-92
Directive 97/27/EC relating to the masses and dimensions of certain categories of motor
vehicles and trailers and amending Directive 70/156/EEC. O.J. L233/1. 25-8-97
Council Directive 85/3/EEC on the weights, dimensions and certain other technical
characteristics of certain road vehicles. O.J. L2/14 3-1-85
Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the
Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and
the maximum authorised weights in international traffic. O.J. L235/59 17.9.96
UNECE Regulation 54 Uniform provisions concerning the approval of pneumatic tyres for
commercial vehicles and their trailers.
UNECE Regulation 30 Uniform provisions concerning the approval of pneumatic tyres for
motor vehicles and their trailers.
Council Directive 83/189/EEC Laying down the procedure for the provision of
information in the field of technical standards and regulations. O.J. L109/8 26-4-83.
European Union. Various text extracts have been included from the EU Europa web site.

34