EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52012DC0258
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community
/* COM/2012/0258 final */
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community /* COM/2012/0258 final */
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive
2007/38/EC on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in
the Community TABLE OF CONTENTS 1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................... 4 2........... Blind spots as a factor in road
accidents.......................................................................... 5 3........... EU legislation on the field of
vision................................................................................... 5 3.1........ The 2003 directive on
type-approval............................................................................... 6 3.2........ The Retrofitting Directive................................................................................................ 7 4........... Transposing the Retrofitting
Directive.............................................................................. 7 5........... Implementing the Retrofitting
Directive............................................................................. 8 6........... The effects of retrofitting
blind spot mirrors...................................................................... 9 6.1........ Methodology for assessing the
results achieved by blind spot mirrors............................... 9 6.2........ Findings of the study..................................................................................................... 10 6.3........ How to improve the situation......................................................................................... 11 6.3.1..... Action to improve vehicles............................................................................................ 11 6.3.2..... Action targeting road users............................................................................................ 12 6.3.3..... Action to improve infrastructure.................................................................................... 12 7........... The way forward.......................................................................................................... 12 8........... Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 13 9........... Annex.......................................................................................................................... 15 1. Introduction A significant number of road accidents involve
larger vehicles when their drivers are not aware of the presence of other road
users very close to them. These accidents are often related to a change
of direction at crossings, junctions or roundabouts when the drivers fail to
see other road users that are placed in a ‘blind spot’. Blind spots are areas
around a vehicle that cannot be seen by the driver, either by looking directly
through the windows or indirectly using the mirrors or other devices. Particularly important for road safety are
blind spots in heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), i.e. vehicles designed for
transporting goods and having a maximum mass[1]
of more than 3.5 tonnes. Blind spots are significant factors in accidents
involving HGVs and vulnerable road users such as motorcyclists, cyclists and
pedestrians. Improvements in technology and a better
understanding of the causes of accidents have led the EU to adopt legislation
aimed at reducing by means of appropriate devices the number and size of blind
spots and consequently the number of accidents and fatalities. Directive
2003/97/EC[2]
requires all new vehicles put into circulation in the EU as of 27 January 2007
to be equipped with blind spot mirrors. In the light of a study carried out in 2004[3], the Commission decided that it
would also be cost-effective to retrofit existing HGVs with mirrors of the kind
required for new vehicles. The Commission’s proposal was adopted by the
European Parliament and the Council as Directive 2007/38/EC[4] on the retrofitting of mirrors
to heavy goods vehicles, which will be referred to in this report as the
‘Retrofitting Directive’. This report has been drawn up in accordance
with Article 5 of the Retrofitting Directive, which requires the Commission to: ·
report on the implementation of the Directive; ·
consider whether revision of the existing
legislation is necessary. 2. Blind spots as a
factor in road accidents Accident research[5] has shown that blind spots
increase the risk of accidents, particularly those involving HGVs and small
road users such as motorcycle and moped riders, cyclists or pedestrians, and
that mirrors or other devices that enhance the field of vision and reduce or
eliminate blind spots can be effective in preventing a significant proportion
of these accidents. This is particularly true when an HGV is
carrying out what is known as a ‘critical manoeuvre’ — for example, when it is
turning right (or left in countries where vehicles drive on the left) and a
motorcycle, moped or bicycle is next to the HVG on its passenger side. This
manoeuvre may also be dangerous for pedestrians, but to a lesser extent. Other critical manoeuvres carried out by an HGV
involve changing lanes when a motorcycle, moped or bicycle is alongside it, and
setting off when a vulnerable road user, especially a pedestrian, is in front
of the HGV. Accidents involving HGVs and cyclists are more
common in urban areas, while those involving motorcycles happen mostly in
non-urban areas. The great variety of traffic patterns across
the EU makes it difficult to quantify the number of accidents or fatalities
that can be attributed to blind spots. Moreover, accident databases generally
do not include information that would make it possible to establish a causal
link between an accident and a blind spot. Consequently, the number of
accidents where an HGV’s blind spot has played a decisive role can only be
assessed through in-depth investigations. The above-mentioned cost-benefit analysis
assumed that, in 56 % of the accidents involving a cyclist or a motorcycle/moped
rider, the HGV was turning right (or left in a country where vehicles drive on
the left). It was also assumed that 40 % of those accidents could be
prevented by fitting the HGV with mirrors with an enhanced field of vision. On this basis, in 2007 the Commission estimated
that approximately 400 fatalities per year could be attributed to blind spots[6]. 3. EU legislation on the
field of vision EU legislation
on the ‘type-approval of systems for indirect vision’ dates back to 1971. The
first piece of legislation was Directive 71/127/EEC[7] on the rear-view mirrors of
motor vehicles. This directive was amended by a number of subsequent directives
that added more advanced mirrors and required them to be fitted to a wider
range of vehicles. 3.1. The
2003 directive on type-approval A
significant change in the legal framework was made by Directive 2003/97/EC.
This repealed Directive 71/127/EEC and laid down common mandatory requirements
for mirrors, and for the first time allowed other systems for indirect vision. In the new Directive, the mirrors are
classified into six categories, according to their field of vision. Some of
them are commonly referred to as ‘blind spot mirrors’ because they were
designed to reduce or eliminate blind spots. They can be briefly described as
follows. (a)
Wide-angle exterior mirrors, named ‘class IV’
mirrors. These cover an area on both sides of the vehicle which starts closer
to the driver’s position and is much wider to the side than the area covered by
the normal (‘class II’) rear mirror. (b)
Close-proximity exterior mirrors, named ‘class
V’ mirrors. These cover an area immediately adjacent to the vehicle cab on the
passenger’s side. (c)
Front mirrors, named ‘class VI’ mirrors. These
cover the area in front of the vehicle which cannot be seen from the driving
position. The new requirements for class IV (wide-angle)
and class V (close-proximity) mirrors laid down in the 2003 Directive significantly
increased the driver’s field of vision compared to the previous Directive. The
ground area covered by the new class IV mirrors increased by 43 % while
the area covered by class V mirrors more than doubled. Class VI mirrors were
included in EU law for the first time. Figure 2 in the Annex to this report sums up
the changes to the field of vision provided by class IV (on the passenger’s
side) and V mirrors, as required by Directive 2003/97/EC. According to that Directive, all new HGVs with
a maximum mass of more than 7.5 tonnes had to be fitted with class IV, V and VI
mirrors by 26 January 2007. HGVs with a maximum mass of less than 7.5 tonnes
had to be fitted with class IV and V mirrors but were exempted from the
obligation to install class VI mirrors. The General Safety Regulation[8] repeals Directive 2003/97/EC as
from 1 November 2014 and replaces it by Regulation No 46 adopted under the
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). This does not bring any
changes relative to the requirements of Directive 2003/97/EC concerning mirrors
but results in these requirements being applied to vehicles registered in
countries outside the EU. 3.2. The
Retrofitting Directive The Commission considered that it would take a
long time — at least 16 years — to bring all HGVs in Europe into line with the
requirements of Directive 2003/97/EC, given the need to completely renew the
HGV fleet. The Commission also estimated that
approximately 400 fatalities every year were caused by HGV blind spots. It
therefore proposed to make it compulsory to retrofit blind spot mirrors to
existing vehicles as a cost-effective measure to reduce accidents and
fatalities. The Commission’s proposal was adopted as the Retrofitting Directive
(Directive 2007/38/EC). The Retrofitting Directive applies to vehicles
designed to carry goods and having a maximum mass of between 3.5 and 12 tonnes
(category N2) and those having a maximum mass of more than 12 tonnes
(category N3), which were registered as from 1 January 2000. In
accordance with Article 3 of the Directive, these vehicles had to be fitted
with class IV and V mirrors by 31 March 2009 at the latest. Article 2(2) of the Retrofitting Directive
exempted HGVs weighing less than 7.5 tonnes on which it was not possible to fit
class V mirrors. It also exempted HGVs to which national rules already applied
before the Directive became part of national law. Special allowance was also
made for vehicles already fitted with mirrors that covered a field of vision
only slightly smaller than what was required under the Directive. In cases where it was impossible to fit mirrors
complying with the new requirements, Article 3(3) of the Directive allowed the
use of alternative technical solutions, including supplementary mirrors or
other devices such as monitor and camera systems. Member States where such
alternatives were used had to send the Commission their list of acceptable
technical solutions. 4. Transposing the Retrofitting
Directive The deadline for transposing the Directive into
national law was 6 August 2008, allowing the vehicles concerned to be
retrofitted with blind spot mirrors by 31 March 2009. The Commission took legal
action (‘infringement procedures’) against some Member States for failing to
notify it accordingly. Full transposition was finally achieved by June 2009.
The transposition dates are shown in Table 1 below. Generally, the transposition of this Directive
into national legislation was unproblematic and — except in some cases — was
done on time. In one Member State (Denmark), transposition took place well
ahead of the deadline, since corresponding national rules were already in place
when the Directive was adopted. Table 1. Dates on which Member States transposed Directive 2007/38/EC || Belgium || 21/02/2008 || Luxemburg || 28/05/2009 Bulgaria || 14/11/2008 || Hungary || 14/08/2008 Czech Republic || 27/10/2008 || Malta || 14/12/2007 Denmark || 1/10/2004 || Netherlands || 28/08/2008 Germany || 29/09/2007 || Austria || 11/10/2007 Estonia || 18/12/2007 || Poland || 12/06/2009 Ireland || 8/08/2008 || Portugal || 17/11/2008 Greece || 25/08/2008 || Romania || 15/08/2008 Spain || 11/06/2008 || Slovenia || 17/12/2007 France || 30/04/2008 || Slovakia || 1/04/2008 Italy || 31/03/2008 || Finland || 17/12/2007 Cyprus || 22/05/2009 || Sweden || 2/06/2008 Latvia || 29/10/2008 || United Kingdom || 31/03/2009 Lithuania || 26/07/2008 || || 5. Implementing
the Retrofitting Directive The Commission asked Member States to report on
the implementation of the Retrofitting Directive by filling in a questionnaire.
Only thirteen Member States responded[9]
to this request. Before the transposition date, the Netherlands and Denmark had already adopted national rules requiring vehicles covered by the
Directive to be fitted with mirrors that provided the enhanced field of vision.
These rules applied to vehicles registered before 1 January 2000 or type N2
vehicles weighing less than 7.5 tonnes. Only five Member States said that they
permitted alternative technical solutions as provided for in Article 3(3) of
the Directive. In accordance with Article 3(4), the Netherlands notified the
Commission of an alternative technical solution it had adopted. The Commission
then published this information on the road safety website[10], as required by the Directive. On 18 December 2007, the Technical Adaptation
Committee set up under the Roadworthiness Directive[11] discussed the implementation
of the specific provisions of Article 4(2) of the Retrofitting Directive. They came to the conclusion that the
Roadworthiness Directive did not need to be amended, since it already required
annual tests for the vehicles covered by the Retrofitting Directive, and these
compulsory tests included rear-view mirrors and their field of vision. Member
States were free to adopt their own rules on the testing procedures. The
Commission made some recommendations on how to carry out these tests. From the answers to the questionnaire there
appear to have been no major problems in implementing the Retrofitting
Directive. However, most Member States had no detailed information on how many
vehicles failed their roadworthiness test because they failed to comply with
the retrofitting requirements. Technical inspection records show whether a
vehicle had mirror problems, but they do not specify whether the mirrors failed
to comply with the Retrofitting Directive or had other types of defect. 6. The effects of
retrofitting blind spot mirrors In 2011 the Commission carried out a study on
blind spot accidents as required by Article 5 of the Retrofitting Directive.
The purpose of the study was to update the 2004 cost-benefit analysis and to
compare the situation before and after the Directive was implemented. The study
included a review of how Member States had implemented the Directive (presented
in sections 4 and 5 above) and an assessment of the effectiveness of
retrofitting blind spot mirrors in terms of the number of fatalities avoided. 6.1. Methodology
for assessing the results achieved by blind spot mirrors The study used the same methodology as the 2004
cost-benefit analysis. In essence, this involved calculating the expected trend
in fatalities if blind spot mirrors were or were not retrofitted. In the 2011 study these calculations were
updated and the result was then compared with the actual number of fatalities
according to the official statistics recorded in the CARE database. The methodology can be briefly described as
follows. (1)
To calculate the number of fatalities if blind
spot mirrors were not retrofitted, it was assumed that: (a)
the overall number of road fatalities would
continue to decline at the same yearly rate as observed in previous years; (b)
fatalities resulting from accidents involving
vulnerable road users and HGVs would continue to represent the same proportion
of total fatalities. (2)
To calculate the number of fatalities if blind
spot mirrors were retrofitted: (a)
only accidents involving motorcycles, mopeds and
bicycles were considered, and only those where the HGV was turning right (or
left in countries where vehicles drive on the left); (b)
in accidents involving an HGV turning right (or
left in some countries) and a bicycle, moped or motorcycle, the proportion of
fatal accidents was taken to be 56 %; (c)
it was assumed that 40 % of such fatalities
could be prevented by fitting the new blind spot mirrors; (d)
the number of fatalities that would be avoided
by fitting the new blind-spot mirrors was considered to be proportional to the
number of HGVs to be retrofitted. These calculations were updated using actual
accident data to 2005 and the results were compared with the actual figures. 6.2. Findings
of the study It was estimated that in 2009 there were
approximately 3.7 million vehicles to be retrofitted as a result of the
Directive. Updating the calculations performed when the
Directive was adopted showed that the total number of fatal accidents involving
an HGV and vulnerable road users would have been expected to decrease by 21.5 %
between 2005 and 2009 as a result of the Retrofitting Directive. In reality the
actual number of fatalities in this type of accident decreased by 27.5 %
over this period. The trend in the actual number of fatal
accidents involving HGVs and vulnerable road users is shown in Annex 1. The
comparison suggests that the retrofitting has been effective. As shown in
Figure 1 below, the total number of vulnerable road user fatalities actually
recorded is lower than what was estimated to be the result of the Retrofitting
Directive. However, the extent to which this positive
trend can be attributed to the Retrofitting Directive remains uncertain. For
one thing, the number of pedal cyclist fatalities had already fallen sharply in
2006, before the Retrofitting Directive was implemented. Figure
1 It should also be noted that the available data
cover a very short period after the implementation of the Retrofitting
Directive. The date after which the vehicles concerned would fail a
roadworthiness test if they did not comply with the Directive was 31 March
2009. When the implementation study was carried out, however, the CARE database
contained no data more recent than the end of 2009. So it is possible that the
full effect of the Directive will not be seen until a longer time series of
data is available. The CARE database contains information on the
circumstances of accidents but not on the contributing factors. It is thus
impossible to precisely identify those accidents in which blind spots may have
been a contributing factor. This was also a constraint on the original 2004
study on the cost-effectiveness of retrofitting blind spot mirrors to existing
vehicles. To overcome this difficulty, the share of accidents attributable to
blind spots and the effectiveness of the mirrors in preventing them were both
taken from in-depth research studies carried out by some Member States, as
explained above. To sum up, there is a downward trend in the
number of fatal accidents involving vulnerable road users and HGVs, but it is
not clear how much of this progress can be attributed to the Retrofitting
Directive, or if even better results could be achieved by imposing additional
technical requirements. 6.3. How to
improve the situation Despite the reduction in the number of fatal
accidents involving vulnerable road users and HGVs, there is still room for
improvement. However, there is no single or simple solution that can bring
about a substantial reduction in the number of accidents and fatalities. Action
should be taken to improve both the vehicles and the behaviour of road users. 6.3.1. Action
to improve vehicles Where the vehicle is concerned, technical
improvements could help to further reduce blind spot accidents. These
improvements fall into two categories. (1)
Reducing or eliminating blind spots The simplest solutions consist in fitting
additional mirrors or Fresnel lenses. The latter allow the HGV driver to see a
vulnerable road user who is immediately next to the vehicle on the driver’s
side. Monitor and camera systems could either
complement or replace some mirrors. They show one or more images of the
vehicle’s sides displayed on a monitor inside the cab. The driver’s direct vision, i.e. without using
technical aids, can be improved by better designing both the cab windows and
the position of the driver. A balance has to be struck between the vision
requirement and other constraints. (2)
Warning the driver of a potential danger HGVs can be fitted with devices that warn the
driver about the presence of vulnerable road users. For example, ultrasound sensors
that detect vulnerable road users when they are in close proximity to the
vehicle and alert the driver by means of audible or visual signals. These
systems can also warn the vulnerable road user of a potentially dangerous
manoeuvre by the HGV. The cost-effectiveness of these technical
devices has not yet been thoroughly assessed and the available studies are not
conclusive. In particular, it is not clear that the benefits would increase in
proportion to the number of technical devices fitted. All of them (with the
exception of better windows) impose on the driver an additional workload which
may adversely affect his ability to use them efficiently. It must also be borne
in mind that warning systems do not exempt the driver from the responsibility
of using all the means available, including mirrors, to check for the presence
of vulnerable road users. 6.3.2. Action
targeting road users There is room for improvement in the behaviour
of both HGV drivers and vulnerable road users. Professional and licence training,
particularly for HGV drivers, should do more to stress the dangers of blind
spots and to teach the necessary skills for dealing with them. Vulnerable road
users also need to be aware that, because of blind spots, the driver of an HGV
cannot always see them. This is particularly important for cyclists. Training
schemes and targeted awareness-raising campaigns are an effective way to
address vulnerable road users. 6.3.3. Action
to improve infrastructure Roadside mirrors and other external devices can
be installed at intersections to help drivers detect the presence of vulnerable
road users. Traffic management measures, such as traffic
segregation or speed reduction, may also help reduce blind spot accidents,
particularly those involving cyclists and pedestrians in urban areas. 7. The
way forward The Commission departments concerned will
continue to monitor accident data in order to see whether the number of
accidents involving HGVs and vulnerable road users continues to fall, as it did
until 2009. Further in-depth accident investigation is needed to update our
knowledge of the extent to which blind spots lead to fatal collisions between
vulnerable road users and HGVs. Moreover, the contribution of blind spots to
road injuries still needs to be better assessed. Measures to ensure proper
reporting of blind spot accidents will be a part of the EU’s strategy to
counter road traffic injuries. Technology, already available or being
developed, could help to further reduce accidents involving vulnerable road
users and HGVs. It includes camera and monitoring devices and detection and
warning systems. The Commission believes that further research is needed to
assess their potential and cost-effectiveness. They are still at an early stage
of development, and we must beware of overloading HGV drivers with extra
devices that may distract them. Discussions are under way at the UN-ECE on
improvement of HGVs’ field of vision. In particular UN-ECE is developing
technical requirements for the type-approval of monitor and camera systems.
Once these requirements are established, only type-approved systems will be
allowed on HGVs registered in the EU[12].
The replacement of mirrors by monitor and camera systems is amongst the
possibilities being discussed for future improvements in the field of vision. Revision of the current EU legislation will
only be appropriate once further evidence becomes available that justifies
fitting additional devices to vehicles on a mandatory basis. Meanwhile, there are various other ways of
potentially preventing blind-spot accidents — not by adding technical equipment
to vehicles but rather by improving road infrastructure and the behaviour of
road users. As part of the CARS 21[13] process, the Commission will
discuss with Member States and stakeholders what further action ought to be
taken to deal with blind spots. The Commission has launched a public
consultation on amending the Directive on the weights and dimensions of HGVs
with the aim of improving, amongst other aspects, their design in terms of road
safety. The revision of this Directive will provide an opportunity for looking
at possible improvements to the driver’s direct field of vision, as explained
above. A grant from the Commission helps to finance
the BIKE PAL[14]
project, which includes demonstrations of the HGV driver’s field of vision in
order to raise awareness among cyclists. The Commission also helps to finance
the Safecycle[15]
project, which will identify information and communication technologies that
can improve the safety of cyclists. 8. Conclusions The Directive on the retrofitting of blind spot
mirrors has been successfully implemented by EU Member States. No major
technical difficulties were encountered, though some countries were late in
transposing the Directive into their national legislation. The number of vulnerable road users killed in a
collision with an HGV fell substantially from 2001 till the end of 2009. The
assessment carried out by Commission staff suggests that blind spot mirrors
have contributed to this trend, especially where cyclists are concerned:
research shows that cyclists are particularly vulnerable to accidents caused by
blind spots. However, on the basis of the available data it
is not possible to establish the proportion of HGV accidents in which blind
spots were a contributing factor. This can only be estimated from in-depth
studies which have a very limited coverage and are based on data collected
before the Retrofitting Directive was implemented. Consequently, it is not
possible to distinguish between the effect of retrofitting blind spot mirrors
to existing vehicles and the effect of fitting such mirrors to new vehicles.
Moreover, it is not possible to separate the effect of blind spot mirrors from
the general downward trend in the number of fatal road accidents. Despite the very positive reduction in the
number of vulnerable road users killed in road accidents, there are still more
than 1 200 such deaths each year resulting from accidents involving an
HGV. Efforts to prevent these accidents must be pursued and the Commission is
committed to working on this issue as one of its priorities for the period
2011-2020[16]. The Commission will follow closely any
technological developments aimed at preventing blind spot accidents which may
be incorporated into new vehicles in the future, once they prove their
cost-effectiveness. The Commission will continue to promote better
training and awareness, both for HGV drivers and for vulnerable road users, along
with actions aimed at improving infrastructure so that vulnerable road users
and HGVs can safely share it. 9. Annex Table 2. Trend in the number of fatalities in accidents involving HGVs and vulnerable road users in 19 Member States * Year || Type of vulnerable road user || Motorcycle || Moped || Bicycle || Pedestrian || Total || 2001 || 318 || 170 || 427 || 972 || 1 887 || 2002 || 308 || 148 || 424 || 961 || 1 841 || 2003 || 315 || 150 || 395 || 918 || 1 778 || 2004 || 298 || 140 || 410 || 913 || 1 761 || 2005 || 298 || 135 || 401 || 835 || 1 669 || 2006 || 308 || 130 || 337 || 773 || 1 548 || 2007 || 289 || 102 || 353 || 837 || 1 581 || 2008 || 301 || 110 || 288 || 738 || 1 437 || 2009 || 249 || 83 || 250 || 628 || 1 210 || * Data extracted from the CARE database for 19 Member States: EU 15 plus CZ, SI, PL and RO || Figure 2 [1] Technically permissible maximum laden mass. [2] Directive 2003/97/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 10 November 2003 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the type-approval of devices for indirect vision and
of vehicles equipped with these devices, amending Directive 70/156/EEC and
repealing Directive 71/127/EEC, OJ L 25, 29.1.2004, p. 1–45. [3] Cost-benefit
analysis of blind spot mirrors: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/projects/mirrors.pdf. [4] Directive 2007/38/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods
vehicles registered in the Community, OJ L 184, 14.7.2007, p. 25–28. [5] Truck
accident causation study (ETAC 2007): http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/publications/etac_exec_summary.pdf. [6] Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the Community.
Full impact assessment. SEC(2006) 1238. [7] Council Directive 71/127/EEC of 1 March 1971 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the rear-view
mirrors of motor vehicles, OJ L 68, 22.3.1971, p. 1–17. [8] Regulation (EC) No 661/2009 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning type-approval
requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and
systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor, OJ L 200,
31.7.2009, p. 1–24. [9] Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Finland. [10] http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/vehicles/blind_spot_mirrors_en.htm. [11] Council Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests
for motor vehicles and their trailers OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1–19. [12] This obligation will apply as from 26 July 2013. Series
of Amendments 03 to UNECE Regulation No 46 (Add.45/Rev.4) in adoption process. [13] ‘Competitive Regulatory System for the 21st century’. [14] http://www.etsc.eu/documents/ETSC_BIKE_PAL.pdf. [15] http://www.safecycle.eu/. [16] COM(2010) 389 final, Towards a European Road Safety
Area: policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020.