hab`ne mail bekommen. vom peti sekretariat.
mit einer stellungsnahme der eu kommission. zunächst, bis in einigen wochen die deutsche fassung vorliegt, auf englisch.
The Commission's observations
In 2008, 5 520 powered two-wheel vehicle riders died in road accidents in Europe. In addition the number of serious injuries is estimated to be 5.5 to 13 times higher than the number of fatalities. The number of slight injuries among riders involved in road accidents might be between 66 000 – 155 000 riders in the European Union per year. One of the most cost effective safety measures in type approval legislation which the Commission has identified and assessed in a comprehensive impact assessment is mandatory fitting of advanced brake systems on motorcycles.
There is only one advanced brake technology available that can deal with detrimental wheel lock during panic braking and this is the antilock brake system technology. Anti-lock brake systems prevent rider down-fall during a panic stop providing a fair chance to the rider to prevent an accident. It also helps to reduce the braking distance even on changing road conditions and increases rider's confidence while using the brake system to its full extent.
The pros and cons of compulsory fitting of advanced brake systems were analysed in the impact assessment, which was based on scientific literature and the latest accident data and (post) accident analysis results. Environmental, economic and societal aspects were taken into account in the analysis as well as efficiency, effectiveness and coherence with other related legislation. The average benefit, not only to consumers, but to society was estimated to be three times higher than its cost and approximately 6000 lives are expected to be saved in a period of ten years after introduction of the measure, besides benefitting from mitigation of the harmful impacts of road accidents. As with the application of any technology there are advantages and disadvantages in its use. In the case of antilock brake systems the advantages outweight by far the disadvantages. The Commission is therefore convinced that the proposed measure is definetly in the interest of consumers and to the benefit of all EU citizens.
Concerning the choice of the legal instrument, using a Regulation instead of recasting the currently applicable Framework Directive is in line with better regulation principles and with the recommendations of the CARS 21 report that sets out the strategy for a competitive automotive regulatory system in the Union for the 21st century. It is therefore deemed appropriate to repeal all separate Directives without reducing the level of protection. The requirements set out in those Directives should be carried over to the proposed Regulation or its delegated acts and should be replaced, where appropriate, with references to the corresponding regulations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The Commission is committed to realise this simplification and has therefore proposed a Regulation to replace the Framework Directive.
After consultation of stakeholders for nearly 7 years and after careful reflection by the Commission services during this long period of time taking stakeholder's feedback into account, the Commission has concluded that the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity were met before adopting the proposal in October 2010. The proposal is in the hands of the Council and the European Parliament since then and both, under Article 294 TFEU are scrutinising it in all its details and will take the final decision.
HYPERLINK "http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010SC1152:en:NOT" http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010SC1152:en:NOT
OJ L 124/1, 09.05.2002, p. 1
soweit das kommissionsschreiben.
ich dachte, die übersetzung warte ich nicht ab, ich bedanke mich lieber gleich:
sehr geehrte damen und herren,
vielen dank für die übersendung der stellungsnahme der kommission.
ich habe den texte verstanden, gleichwohl lässt er mich etwas ratlos zurück -
wie soll ich ihn bewerten, was ist er im zuge der prüfung der petition?
ist er die antwort an sie, den petitionsauschuss, auf deren grundlage die weitere prüfung der petition stattfinden wird oder ist er lediglich eine erste kurze antwort der kommission an mich und die mitpetenten?