Transport Ministers presented the European Council ‘General Approach’ (sort of final position) on the Commission’s proposal on changes to the Road Infrastructure Safety Management (RISM) directive yesterday. The Directive currently sets out how member states design, audit, and inspect TEN-T cross border road infrastructure, though many also apply these requirements on other roads.

The directive currently focusses almost exclusively on how to deal with motor vehicle traffic and does not really take into account cyclist or pedestrian safety. As a result, many TEN-T road (re)construction projects across EU have negatively affected cycling by creating new barriers or safety hazards for active mobility. ECF had identified many instances[1] where cyclist interacts with TEN-T infrastructure and could be improved if they were specifically included in the requirements of the legislation. If the scope of the Directive were to be extended this would also more fully include cyclists and pedestrians, though here it would be even more crucial to have a better focus on their safety.

Yesterday on the 3^rd December transport ministers agreed text stating that “Member States shall ensure that the needs of vulnerable road users are taken into account in the implementation of the procedures”. This is great news as has promoted Cyclist infrastructure safety from an indicative annex to inclusion in the actual legislation, meaning it will be mandatory that cyclist and pedestrian needs will have to be included in preparation, auditing and inspecting infrastructure. However what is not included is that there is no “How” or “What” as to what makes good cyclist/pedestrian infrastructure!

We would have liked that there is some guidance on cycling infrastructure that could be prepared by the European Commission on minimum quality guidelines to assist Member States that are not traditionally strong on cycling to design and maintain cycling infrastructure; and this is a weakness in the ministers text.

Another weakness is with regards to the extension of the scope. The Commission had proposed to increase the scope of the directive to include all ‘primary roads’ in the EU, as well as TEN-T, motorways, and EU funded roads, this would also cover more infrastructure that would interact with cyclists and pedestrians. But transport ministers want each individual Member State to choose which of its roads are subject to the rules, leaving the possibility that some would propose the bare minimum, or only roads that already meet high safety standards.

Along with other organisations ETSC (European Transport Safety Council), ERF (European Road Federation), ETF (European Transport Workers Federation), and Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) we called for this extension of the scope[2] in September earlier this year.

Ministers also take a step back from the European Commission proposal in dealing with Network-wide Road Assessment, unnecessarily watering down the common framework for data collection by multiple “ifs”. For example:

• The Council proposes to collect data about “Traffic volume, if possible divided into different road user groups”. But why the need for ‘if possible’? Is it so difficult to distinguish a car from a bicycle from a pedestrian? Or is this a way for getting out of this responsibility! We hope not.
• Under the bullet point “Design for vulnerable road users”, the Council include a question “Are there segregated routes for pedestrians and cyclists along and across the road (IF these road users have the right to use the road)?” But if pedestrians and cyclist do not have the right to use the road, it is even more important to provide alternative routes (either as segregated cycle paths or on lower class local roads). It is also important to provide sufficient density of safe and comfortable crossings across such kind of road. If pedestrians and cyclists do not have an alternative to using or crossing the road they do not have the right to use (e.g. motorway or expressway), it is a clear safety hazard, that should be noted in the assessment.

It is really surprising that the Council seems to be opposed to taking action not only on road safety for pedestrians and cyclists, but also to basic data collection, that could form a basis for a more evidence-based policy.

In the European Parliament on the other hand lead Rapporteur in the TRAN committee MEP Aiuto brought out a very good proposal[3] which expanded the scope of the directive and also called for cycling/pedestrian quality guidelines, and many MEPs have added amendments[4] (up for vote in January) on possible further improvements. Some of these improvements would also be a great improvement on the Council text so far. Of course there are some pretty terrible amendments as well! We will nearer the time get back to you on information on how you can reach your MEP to support them in voting for some good amendments.

Hopefully we can get a good Parliamentary final report that willl be able to engage the Council to push them to improve their assessment of the possibilities of this important piece of road safety legislation.

We will get back to you on how you could contact MEPs nearer the vote (in January) to gently nudge them towards safer European infrastructure safety requirements!