Road Safety News
 

EU agrees revised cross-border road safety enforcement rules

Tuesday 16th December 2014

The European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) and the European Traffic Police Network (TISPOL) have warmly welcomed an informal political agreement reached last week on revised rules to enable cross-border enforcement of traffic offences such as speeding fines.

A European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in May said that the existing rules, which only came into force in November last year, had been adopted on an incorrect legal basis. That decision led the European Commission to publish a revised legal proposal in July, but the ECJ said the new rules had to be agreed within one year of its decision.

Antonio Avenoso, executive director of the ETSC, said: “Foreign-registered drivers have been able to dodge speeding fines and other road safety enforcement measures for far too long in Europe.

“We’re delighted that the EU managed to do a deal on the revised rules in less than five months. This new system will now apply across all 28 EU member states and will help keep our roads safer.”

Ruth Purdie, general secretary of TISPOL, added: “It has always been unfair and unsatisfactory that as many as one in five drivers has been able to escape prosecution for offences such as speeding, because they or their vehicles are from another country.

“Europe-wide adoption of this new proposal will lead to more effective enforcement, which encourages drivers to comply with safety rules and leads to a rapid reduction in deaths and injuries.”

The agreement still needs to be formally approved by the European Parliament and by Member States.

 

Comments

Comment on this story
Report a reader comment

What's your view - comment on this story:

I confirm that I have read and accept the moderation policy and house rules relating to comments posted on this website.
Your comment:
Your name and location:
Your email:

Aside from the debate on enforcement, what this does is limit the use of foreign registered vehicles by people largely resident in the UK to avoid both fines and having the relevant tax, insurance and MOT equivalents both here and in the country of origin.
Mark, Caerphilly

Agree (1) | Disagree (2)
-1

The issue, Rod, is claims of improvements to road safety, especially on this website, need to be supported (or supportable) by evidence and argument. I have corresponded with ETSC (including Antonio Avenoso) on this and related topics and found a defensive attitude and no evidence to support their routine claims of improving road safety through various enforcement regimes.
Eric Bridgstock, Independnent Road Safety Researcher, St Albans

Agree (10) | Disagree (12)
-2

Aren't these comments rather "off topic".

The key aspect of the article is the issue of cross-border enforcement rather than "automated enforcement".

You may or may not like the method of enforcement in different countries, or even this country, but this surely is something that one must accept if wishing to drive in a host country. In the same way that we expect drivers resident outside of UK to abide by our traffic laws then it is incumbent on UK citizens to equally abide by laws in other EU countries.

And one sure way to reduce compliance is to accept non-enforcement. This agreement seems to address this.
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (11) | Disagree (6)
+5

Nick
Have you asked Ruth Purdie to share the evidence that "Europe-wide adoption of this new proposal will lead to more effective enforcement, which encourages drivers to comply with safety rules and leads to a rapid reduction in deaths and injuries"? I suggest that should have been done before publishing the story.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Researcher, St Albans

Agree (7) | Disagree (6)
+1

Yes Nick.
As I'm sure you are aware, none of the official reports on the effects of automated enforcement (speed cameras) have managed to completely separate the effects of the speed cameras from those of selection bias (RTM). This means that the authorities have not reported the effects of automated enforcement with sufficient accuracy. I wasn't the first to notice this but I was the first to propose a method that could solve the problem and the first to apply the method to real data. By splitting enforcement site-data into 4 time periods, it is possible to both measure RTM and also produce results that do not include any of the RTM effect, thereby isolating the effects of automated enforcement.

To date, there are only 2 reports world-wide in which the final results do not include any of the RTM effect and which therefore are the most accurate available. Both found increases in deaths and serious injuries following automated enforcement:
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/08_mobile.htm
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/09_fixed.htm

The overall conclusion from my research is that the true effects of automated enforcement devices will only be recognized following their deployment within scientific trials. I believe that safety engineering should always be based on the best quality evidence.
Dave Finney, Slough

Agree (6) | Disagree (9)
-3

Dave - you say:
"The best evidence available suggests that automated enforcement which "encourages drivers to comply with safety rules" has led to an increase in deaths and serious injuries."

Are you able to share that evidence with us?
Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety News

Agree (14) | Disagree (3)
+11

The best evidence available suggests that automated enforcement which "encourages drivers to comply with safety rules" has led to an increase in deaths and serious injuries. As I understand it, this agreement allows citizens personal details to be accessed by foreign governments without a requirement to demonstrate a legitimate reason, and for fines to be levied or extradition to be enforced without a demonstrated standard of evidence. All without effective safe-guards or oversight.
Dave Finney, Slough

Agree (8) | Disagree (10)
-2

Compliance with the rules "leads to a rapid reduction in deaths and injuries.” Really? How rapid?
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon

Agree (8) | Disagree (4)
+4