|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
25 Oct 2001 : Column: 384W
differences there are between the technical test requirements proposed by Working Group 17 of the EEVC (European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee) and those proposed by the European motor industry for (a) impact speed for a child's head, (b) mass of a child's head, (c) maximum tibia acceleration and (d) maximum knee bend angle; and what ways the different proposals can be expected to produce different test results for pedestrians hit by a car. 
|WG17 proposal||Negotiated agreement|
|Phase 1||Phase 2|
|(a) Child's head impact speed (km/h)||40||35||40|
|(b) Child's head mass (kg)||2.5||3.5||2.5|
|(c) Max tibia acceleration (g)||150||200||150|
|(d) Minimum knee bend angle (deg)||15||21||15|
In comparison with the first phase of a negotiated agreement, the WG17 proposal offers greater protection against head injuries and reduced likelihood of leg injuries, a particular aspect being reduced knee injuries.
Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the draft timetable for the stages for implementing the proposals of Working Group 17 of EEVC. 
Mr. Jamieson: The Commission are expected to make a decision on whether to accept the Industry proposal for a negotiated agreement in December this year. If this option is taken, pedestrian protection measures will start to be introduced in 2005, and the Working Group 17 proposals (or equivalent) will be fully implemented by 2015.
If the negotiated agreement route is not taken, the Commission may decide to propose a Directive. Such a Directive would need to be discussed through the European Council and Parliament through the Co-decision Procedure, and the implementation dates would depend on the timing and outcome of these discussions.
Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the change in number and intensity of pedestrian accidents if all cars in the (a) United Kingdom, and (b) EU had fronts that met the requirements of Working Group 17 of EEVC. 
Mr. Jamieson: The number of pedestrian accidents would not be affected by implementation of the Working Group 17 (WG17) proposals. However, past research by TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) estimated that measures similar to those recommended by WG17 would reduce the total number of pedestrian deaths by 8 per cent. and serious injuries by 21 per cent. This was applicable to both the UK and the EU. Other studies suggest a wider range of possible benefits.
Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the points made in response to consultations on the alternative ways to reduce the consequences of car crashes to pedestrians. 
25 Oct 2001 : Column: 385W
Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will decide between the safety proposals put forward by Working Group 17 of EEVC and the alternative proposals. 
Mr. Jamieson: We are currently considering the responses we have received to our consultation on the Commission's proposal for a negotiated agreement with manufactures, and hope to have reached a conclusion by mid-November.
Mr. Kidney: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the research and development programmes that the Government have funded for the design and production of safer car fronts since 1979. 
Mr. Jamieson: The bulk of the UK research into safer car fronts has been carried out under TRL contracts S220C/VF and S222C/VF (pedestrian protection test procedures and design) which cover the period between 1992 and 2002.
Further work in this general area is being undertaken in three new projects under the Government's foresight programme. These include the SHORSEN and APVRU projects which look at advanced pedestrian detection systems, and PEDSALI, which examines the use of advanced materials for pedestrian-friendly bumpers.
Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ensure that the forthcoming consultation on regional air services and air services in the south east of England and the subsequent White Paper include proposals on guaranteed access for air services from designated UK regional cities to Heathrow or Gatwick, for a minimum of three return services per day with the slots ring fenced by public service obligation status where appropriate; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Spellar: The forthcoming consultation documents on regional air services and air services in the south-east of England will address the issue of regional connections to London. We are currently reviewing Government policy on air links from UK regions to London in response to recent representations about the importance of Inverness-Gatwick and Belfast International-London Heathrow services. The hon. Friend's suggestions will be taken into account.
Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) whether his Department will appeal against the European Court ruling on night flights at Heathrow; and if he will make a statement; 
25 Oct 2001 : Column: 386W
(3) what economic research contingent the Government have commissioned into the need for night flights into London and other UK airports; 
(4) what discussions he has had with trade unions representing airline and airport employees following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on night flights; and if he will make a statement; 
(5) if the European Court ruling on night noise at Heathrow will influence the timing of his Department's decision on the application to impose a designation for night noise purposes on East Midlands Airport; whether this will affect the policy for night operations at other UK airports which are not designated for noise purposes; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Spellar: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) on 15 October 2001, Official Report, column 875W, and the remarks by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) during the debate about night flights on 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 47WH. We are studying the judgment carefully before deciding what action, if any, may be necessary. The judgment cannot become final for at least three months from its date of publication on 2 October, and there will be no immediate changes to the present situation at Heathrow or elsewhere. It is not the right time to hold meetings with any interested parties, but this may be possible at a later stage.
Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make representations to the Irish Government and the EU Transport Commissioner to ensure that any state aid paid to Aer Lingus is not used to subsidise air services from Dublin and that Aer Lingus should reinstate the services between Belfast and New York as part of its operating programme. 
Mr. Spellar: In its recent Communication on the repercussions of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air transport industry, presented to the EU Transport Council on 16 October, the European Commission set out guidelines on emergency aid measures. The Government are confident that the Commission will examine rigorously whether any proposed assistance offered by a member state to an airline is compatible with the EC treaty and with these guidelines.
25 Oct 2001 : Column: 387W
carriageway between Chippenham and Junction 17 of the M5; and how many of them were caused by vehicles crossing the central reservation. 
Mr. Jamieson: Information is available only for accidents involving personal injury. In the year 2000, there were two such accidents on the A350 dual carriageway between Chippenham and Junction 17 of the M4. Both of these accidents involved at least one vehicle crossing the central reservation.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|