The committee in question is the EU Parliament's committee on transport (and tourism) - known as 'TRAN'. As with all Parliamentary committees, it has the responsibility of acting as the liaison between the EU Parliament and the Commission on all matters within its brief. Sometimes even to act as a brake on Commission proposals.
In September, in her role as rapporteur, 'TRAN' chairperson Karima Delli, a French Green/European Free Alliance MEP for the Greater Paris area, presented the EU Commission with a draft of her committee's report on their scrutiny of the EU Commission's plans to update and revise the existing (2013) Driving Licence Directive (DLD).
That report contained recommendations for amendments to the DLD revision proposals that the Commission currently has before it for the present L-category (moped, light motorcycle and quadricycle) licencing regulations.
The original DLD was itself based on up to a decade's worth of work and analysis, scrutiny, research, proposals and counter proposals in order to bring a consensus framework to the statue book.
'flesh in this game'
Such things take a long time. They have to. Better to get them right than to implement regulations that compromise citizens' lifestyle choices, safety and the economy on which their lives are dependent. It is perfectly right and proper that there should be a process of review and, if deemed necessary, that there should be a process of refinement of such regulations if circumstances or operational experience suggest it would be advantageous to EU citizens and markets to do so.
The proposals to revise and update the existing 2013 DLD that the EU has before it come after exactly just such a long period of work and analysis, consultation and consideration. Transport policy needs regular analysis - it is one of the most fluid and fastest changing of all policy areas, and much has indeed changed since the existing regulations were finally arrived at.
These proposed EU policy revisions have already been the subject of detailed scrutiny and, though I am no longer an expert in the detail of EU regulatory procedure (there has been much evolution in such matters since my involvement in such processes in the 1990s), one assumes that the scrutiny of the Parliament's oversight committees would be one of the necessary but final stages.
The Commission's proposals for DLD revisions have been arrived at by consensus, including agreement on their effects by our own industry - the primary commercial sector with 'flesh in this game'.
The clear position of ACEM, the Brussels based international motorcycle industry trade association, is that it regards the present proposed DLD revisions as satisfactory. On behalf of the motorcycle industry in Europe, ACEM has long advocated for an "effective" revision of the existing (2013) DLD and says it supports the present EU Commission package of proposals - proposals into which it and many other transport and road-use experts have had considerable input.
"The revision of the Driving Licence Directive (DLD) will have significant implications for mobility, road safety, sustainability and the economy across the EU. ACEM supports the European Commission’s proposal for the revision of the Driving Licence Directive.
"This proposal considers the specificities of the L-category vehicle sector and respects the diverse realities of the sector, allowing Member States (MS) to select the most appropriate licencing system to their national contexts".
So, here's the 'kicker'. The counter proposals that emerged from 'TRAN' in September demolish large parts of the existing DLD revisions planned by the Commission and consulted on by ACEM and other 'stake holders' - and not in a good way.
The primary concern is that the draft 'TRAN' report appears to come from a by-gone-age when a juvenile Commission still thought its job was to implement a uniform policy environment in the pursuit of European homogeneity.
"ACEM has concerns about the Parliament rapporteur’s draft report, which would apply a one-size- fits-all approach to complex and different environments. ACEM urges the co-legislators to align to the EC proposal regarding, 1 - Maintaining age requirements; 2 - Preserving the flexibility of MS in regulating access to the different L-category vehicles and 3 - Refraining from the concept of setting speed limits in traffic for different licence categories".
Altogether the draft recommendations from 'TRAN' amend or add at least 14 of the EU's recommended 2013 DLD updates - some of which militate against the priority that the EU gives to derogation - the concept that drives member states' rights in many policy areas to vary regulations in line with their specific needs, some of which militate against the priority that the EU is now obliged to place on protecting and promoting PTWs as a socially positive transport solution in the widest sense, and as an important contributor to the European economy; and some of which are just plain foolish and potentially downright dangerous.
To summarise ACEM's position in response to the draft 'TRAN' report, in terms of the changes to age requirements proposed by 'TRAN', ACEM "urges MEPs to reject the age adjustments proposed by the rapporteur, maintaining age requirements in line with the EC proposal".
Regarding the impacts that the 'TRAN' proposals would have on PTW access, ACEM "urges MEPs to maintain the Commission proposal’s approach to L-category vehicles, preserving Member States’ options (category A motorcycles and equivalences)".
Finally, and maybe most inappropriately, is the suggestion by 'TRAN' that in a mixed-use traffic environment, different categories of road-going vehicle licence holders should be governed by different speed limits. Wahnsinn!
In addressing the dangers of seeking to regulate differing public highway speed limits for different licence categories, ACEM states that "the draft rapporteur report includes proposals to limit the speed in traffic of multiple licence categories for L-category vehicles and category B for cars.
"This will lead to differences in speed between multiple vehicle classes in traffic, resulting in more overtaking manoeuvres, which, specifically for powered two-wheelers, being part of VRUs (Vulnerable Road Users), is expected to negatively impact safety".
We are talking about people's lives here - their safety, their lifestyle options, their livelihoods and, especially as it affects young consumers, potentially their access to education and the impact on outcomes that mobility poverty can have.
Surely the only responsible way forward here is for the EU Parliament to respect expert opinion.
